Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Monastir, Sardinia

2024-09-02T20:55:07Z

L2212:

{{Infobox Italian comune
| name = Monastir
| official_name = Comune di Monastir
| native_name = Muristeni
| image_skyline = Pietro e Paolo Monastir.jpg
| imagesize =
| image_alt =
| image_caption =
| image_shield =
| shield_alt =
| image_map =
| map_alt =
| map_caption =
| pushpin_map = Italy Sardinia
| coordinates = {{coord|39|23|N|9|3|E|type:city(4,532)_region:IT|display=inline,title}}
| coordinates_footnotes =
| region = [[Sardinia]]
| province = [[Province of South Sardinia|South Sardinia]]
| frazioni =
| mayor_party =
| mayor =
| area_footnotes =
| area_total_km2 = 31.8
| population_footnotes =
| population_total = 4532
| population_as_of = Dec. 2004
| pop_density_footnotes =
| population_demonym = Monastiresi
| elevation_footnotes =
| elevation_m =
|istat=| saint =
| day =
| postal_code = 09023
| area_code = 070
| website =
| footnotes =
}}
'''Monastir''' ({{lang-sc|Muristeni}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-12-27 |title=Impari.eu |url=https://www.impari.eu/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211227014439/https://www.impari.eu/ |access-date=2024-09-02 |website=web.archive.org}}</ref>) is a ''[[comune]]'' (municipality) in the [[Province of South Sardinia]] in the [[Italy|Italian]] region of [[Sardinia]], located about {{convert|20|km|mi}} northwest of [[Cagliari]]. As of 2011 census, it had a population of 4,505 inhabitants and an area of {{convert|31.8|km2|mi2}}.<ref name="istat">All demographics and other statistics: Italian statistical institute [[National Institute of Statistics (Italy)|Istat]].</ref>

Monastir borders the following municipalities: [[Nuraminis]], [[San Sperate]], [[Serdiana]], [[Sestu]], [[Ussana]], [[Villasor]].

== Demographic evolution ==
<timeline>
Colors=
id:lightgrey value:gray(0.9)
id:darkgrey value:gray(0.8)
id:sfondo value:rgb(1,1,1)
id:barra value:rgb(0.6,0.7,0.8)

ImageSize = width:455 height:303
PlotArea = left:50 bottom:50 top:30 right:30
DateFormat = x.y
Period = from:0 till:5000
TimeAxis = orientation:vertical
AlignBars = justify
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:darkgrey increment:1000 start:0
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightgrey increment:200 start:0
BackgroundColors = canvas:sfondo

BarData=
bar:1861 text:1861
bar:1871 text:1871
bar:1881 text:1881
bar:1901 text:1901
bar:1911 text:1911
bar:1921 text:1921
bar:1931 text:1931
bar:1936 text:1936
bar:1951 text:1951
bar:1961 text:1961
bar:1971 text:1971
bar:1981 text:1981
bar:1991 text:1991
bar:2001 text:2001

PlotData=
color:barra width:20 align:left

bar:1861 from: 0 till:1360
bar:1871 from: 0 till:1273
bar:1881 from: 0 till:1274
bar:1901 from: 0 till:1293
bar:1911 from: 0 till:1557
bar:1921 from: 0 till:1773
bar:1931 from: 0 till:2010
bar:1936 from: 0 till:2016
bar:1951 from: 0 till:2592
bar:1961 from: 0 till:3029
bar:1971 from: 0 till:3345
bar:1981 from: 0 till:4149
bar:1991 from: 0 till:4539
bar:2001 from: 0 till:4496

PlotData=

bar:1861 at:1360 fontsize:XS text: 1360 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1871 at:1273 fontsize:XS text: 1273 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1881 at:1274 fontsize:XS text: 1274 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1901 at:1293 fontsize:XS text: 1293 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1911 at:1557 fontsize:XS text: 1557 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1921 at:1773 fontsize:XS text: 1773 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1931 at:2010 fontsize:XS text: 2010 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1936 at:2016 fontsize:XS text: 2016 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1951 at:2592 fontsize:XS text: 2592 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1961 at:3029 fontsize:XS text: 3029 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1971 at:3345 fontsize:XS text: 3345 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1981 at:4149 fontsize:XS text: 4149 shift:(-8,5)
bar:1991 at:4539 fontsize:XS text: 4539 shift:(-8,5)
bar:2001 at:4496 fontsize:XS text: 4496 shift:(-8,5)

TextData=
fontsize:S pos:(20,20)
text:Data from ISTAT

</timeline>

==References==
{{commons category|Monastir (Italy)}}
<references/>

{{clear}}
{{Province of South Sardinia}}

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Cities and towns in Sardinia]]

{{Sardinia-geo-stub}}

Capoterra

2024-08-09T17:58:52Z

L2212:

{{Infobox Italian comune
| name = Capoterra
| official_name = Comune di Capoterra
| native_name = {{native name|sc|Cabuderra}}
| image_skyline = Capoterra 1.JPG
| imagesize =
| image_alt =
| image_caption = Panorama of Capoterra
| image_shield = Capoterra-Stemma.png
| shield_alt =
| shield_size = px
| image_map =
| map_alt =
| map_caption =
| pushpin_map=Italy Sardinia
| pushpin_label_position =
| pushpin_map_alt =
| coordinates = {{coord|39|10|28|N|8|58|16|E|display=inline}}
| coordinates_footnotes =
| region = [[Sardinia]]
| metropolitan_city = [[Metropolitan City of Cagliari|Cagliari]] (CA)
| frazioni = [[Poggio dei Pini]], La Maddalena, Frutti d'Oro, San Leone, Torre degli Ulivi, Su Spantu, Rio San Girolamo, Rio Santa Lucia, Sa Perda Su Gattu, Su Spantu
| mayor_party =
| mayor = Beniamino Garau
| area_footnotes =
| area_total_km2 = 68.49
| population_total = 23175
| population_as_of = 1 January 2024
| population_footnotes =
| population_demonym = Capoterrese(i)
| elevation_footnotes =
| elevation_m = 54
| saint = Sant'Efisio
| day = 15 January
| postal_code = 09012
| area_code = 070
| website = {{official website|http://www.comune.capoterra.ca.it/}}
| footnotes =
}}
'''Capoterra''' ({{IPA|it|kapoˈtɛrra|lang}}: {{lang-sc|Cabuderra}} {{IPA|sc|kaβuˈðɛra|}}; from [[Latin]] {{lang|la|Caput Terrae}}, "head of the Earth") is a [[town]] and {{lang|it|[[comune]]}} (municipality) in the [[Metropolitan City of Cagliari]], [[Sardinia]], [[Italy]]. At 2011 national census it had 24,017 inhabitants and is part of the [[Cagliari metropolitan area]].

It is located on the western arm of the [[Golfo degli Angeli]], about {{convert|15|km|mi|0}} from [[Cagliari]]. Economy is mostly based on services, although the tourism sector has grown notably in the past decades.

==History==
Extending at the foot of ''Mount Arcosu'' and bathed by the [[Cagliari]] pond - known as ''Santa Gilla'' - Capoterra is a centre of about 23,000 inhabitants on the south-western outskirts of the capital of Sardinia. In its vast territory, inhabited since '''pre-Nuragic times''', nature and history intertwine. On the Arcosu there are enchanting and remarkable landscapes, almost four thousand hectares of forest, with a 'heart' of holm oaks and cork oaks, surrounded by Mediterranean scrub, where Sardinian deer and fallow deer roam undisturbed. The park is irrigated by streams and waterfalls. Within the 1300 hectares of the Cagliari lagoon, one of Europe's most important avifauna oases, is the Capoterra pond, where flamingos and black-winged stilts can be observed. Nearby, at ''Cuccuru Ibba'', there are traces dating back to the '''Neolithic period''': a lithic workshop and circular huts. In various localities, there are ruins from the '''Nuragic period''', necropolis and towers, in particular the ''Monti Arrubiu nuraghe''. A settlement at ''su Loi'' and a necropolis at Sant'Antonio date back to the '''Punic period''' (5th-4th century B.C.). From history to astrophysics: in the hills near the hamlet of [[Poggio dei Pini]] stands the '''astronomical observatory''' frequented by international teams of scientists.

==Origins of the name==
The name of the town derives from the Latin ''Caput terrae'': in Roman times, the urban centre (perhaps an oppidum) developed near the lagoon. In the '''Judicial period''', it was a villa of the ''curatorate of Nora'' and, from 1120, of the ''giudicato of Cagliari''. After passing to the '''Pisan seigniory''' and later the '''Aragonese conquest''', the town was destroyed and uninhabited for three centuries. Until the mid-seventeenth century when '''Baron Girolamo Torrelas''' decided to repopulate it, granting families from other parts of Sardinia plots of land and 'good conditions' to escape pendencies with the minor justice system.

Within the town, the parish '''church of Sant'Efisio''', the town's patron saint, whose original nucleus was not by chance called Villa sant'Efisio, stands out for its history and tradition. Identity and legend materialise in the Romanesque '''church of santa Barbara de Montes''', erected on the eastern slopes of the Capoterra mountains. Fifty metres from the church, Basilian monks built a chapel, where it is said that the martyr Barbara was beheaded during the Christian persecution. The head, falling off, is said to have originated a spring, still active today, ''sa Scabizzada'' (the beheaded). The area around it became the summer residence of Cagliari families in the 20th century.

==Twin towns==
*{{flagicon|ITA}} [[Peschiera del Garda]], Italy

==See also==
*[[Cagliari metropolitan area]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*{{commons category-inline|Capoterra}}

[[File:Capoterra - Torre di Su Loi (05).JPG|thumb|left|18th century coast defence tower of Su Loi]]

{{Province of Cagliari}}

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Populated coastal places in Italy]]

Oristano

2024-08-09T17:57:35Z

L2212:

{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2017}}
{{Infobox Italian comune
|name = Oristano
|official_name = Comune di Oristano
|native_name = {{native name|sc|Aristanis}}
|image_skyline = Eleanor_statue_Oristano.jpg
|imagesize =
|image_alt =
|image_flag=Flag of Oristano.svg
|image_caption = Oristano: Statue of [[Eleanor of Arborea]], holding the [[Carta de Logu]] in her hand, with the sundial on the wall of the City Hall in the backdrop.
|image_shield = Oristano-Stemma.svg
|shield_alt =
|image_map =
|map_alt =
|map_caption =
|pushpin_map = Italy Sardinia
|coordinates = {{coord|39|54|N|08|35|E|display=inline}}
|coordinates_footnotes =
|region = [[Sardinia]]
|province = [[Province of Oristano|Oristano]] (OR)
|frazioni = Donigala, Massama, Marina di Torre Grande, Nuraxinieddu, Silì, Torre Grande
|mayor_party =
|mayor = [[Andrea Lutzu]]
|area_footnotes =
|area_total_km2 = 84.57
|population_footnotes =
|population_total = 31671
|population_as_of = 31 December 2017
|pop_density_footnotes =
|population_demonym = Oristanesi Aristanesus
|elevation_footnotes =
|elevation_m = 10
|istat=|saint = [[St. Archelaus]]
|day = February 13
|postal_code = 09170
|area_code = 0783
|website = {{official website|http://www.comune.oristano.it}}
|footnotes =
}}

'''Oristano''' ({{IPA|it|oriˈstaːno|lang|It-Oristano.ogg}}; {{lang-sc|Aristanis}} {{IPA-sc|aɾi.sta:nis|}}, local pronounciation: {{IPA-sc|aɾi.stã:izi|}})) is an Italian city and {{lang|it|[[comune]]}} (municipality), the capital of the [[Province of Oristano]] in the central-western part of the island of [[Sardinia]]. It is located on the northern part of the [[Campidano]] plain. It was established as the provincial capital on 16 July 1974. {{as of|2017|12}}, the city had 31,671 inhabitants.<ref name="istat">All demographics and other statistics: [[National Institute of Statistics (Italy)]] (Istat).</ref>

The economy of Oristano is based mainly on services, agriculture, tourism and small industries.

==History==
[[File:Torre di Mariano II - panoramio.jpg|thumb|left|Port'a Ponti Door Tower in Piazza Roma]]
Oristano was previously known by the Byzantines as '''''Aristanis''''' (in [[Byzantine Greek]]: Αριστάνις), and founded close to the ancient [[Phoenicia]]n settlement of ''Othoca'' (now [[Santa Giusta]]). It acquired importance in 1070, when, as a result of the frequent [[Saracen]] attacks, Archbishop Torcotorio made it the seat of the bishopric, which was previously in the nearby coastal town of [[Tharros]]. It also became the capital of the "[[Sardinian medieval kingdoms|Judicate]]" (equivalent to a Kingdom) [[Judicate of Arborea|of Arborea]]. Consequently, fortifications were designed, but the building thereof went on until judge [[Mariano II d'Arborea|Mariano II]] rose to power.

In medieval times Oristano vied for power over the whole island of Sardinia, and therefore waged wars against the other Sardinian kingdoms which culminated in the attempt to conquer the whole island during the reign (1347–75) of [[Mariano IV of Arborea|Mariano IV]] and that of his son [[Hugh III of Arborea|Hugh III]] (1376–1383) and his daughter [[Eleanor of Arborea|Eleanor]] (1383–1404). The Judicate of Arborea held out to be the last Sardinian kingdom to cease to exist in 1420, about 10 years after the [[battle of Sanluri]]. It was transformed in [[Marquisate of Oristano|Marchesato]] by the Aragonese and conquered, following a revolt by the last [[marquess]] [[Leonardo Alagon]], by the Catalan troops of the [[Kingdom of Aragon]], in 1478 after the battle of [[Macomer]].

Thereafter, Oristano's history was that of the island of [[Sardinia]], characterised by the Aragonese-Spanish (until 1708) and Piedmontese (from 1720) dominations, and then the [[unification of Italy]].
In April 1921, David Cova, [[Emilio Lussu]], Camillo Bellieni and other Sardinian veterans of [[World War I]] founded in the city the [[Sardinian Action Party]].

==Main sights==
[[File:Duomo di oristano, esterno 01.jpg|thumb|left|[[Oristano Cathedral]]]]
[[File:Chiesa di San Francesco Oristano.jpg|thumb|left|Church of St. Francis]]
[[File:Chiesa del Carmine Oristano.jpg|thumb|Church of Carmine]]
* The Tower of St. Christophoros, otherwise known as Tower of Mariano II, was built in 1290, is {{convert|19|m|ft}} tall and the most striking remaining evidence of the old walls built at the time of the Judicate, as it was one of the main gates thereof.
* ''Torrione'' ("Big Tower") of Portixedda.
* St. Mary's Cathedral (1130) was rebuilt during the reign of Mariano II after being destroyed in a siege. Of the original structure of Mariano, only parts of the apse and base of the [[campanile]] are left, as well as the Gothic Chapel of the Rimedio, which houses some medieval sculptures. Parts of a more ancient Byzantine edifice can be seen in the court. To the 17th century renovation belongs the Chapel of the Archivietto ("Chapel of the Small Archive"). The current Baroque style is largely from the 19th-century restoration. It has been supposed that the cathedral was used for the burials of the Judges and their families, but the subsequent dominations have deleted all traces of them. In the interior is a wooden statue of the ''Annunziata'', attributed to [[Nino Pisano]].
* The Church of St. Francis of Assisi was built around 1200 and is currently in neo-classical style. Therewithin is the Christ of Nicodemus, a wooden sculpture believed to be the work of Valencian masters, dating back to the 14th century.
* The Franciscan church of ''Santa Chiara'' (consecrated in 1428) is an edifice in French-Gothic style with a single nave and a square apse.
* The Church and cloister of the ''Carmine'' is one of the best examples of Baroque-Roccoco architecture in Oristano.
* The Church of Saint Sebastian is the only medieval extramural church, i.e. it is located outside the walls.
* The Church of Saint Dominic (San Domenico) was built in 1634 at the initiative of friar Pietro Flores and financially supported by local nobleman Baldassarre Dedoni. Citizens also made donations in exchange for {{convert|2|m2|ft2}} of floor space for a tomb therewithin. The building is a rectangularly-shaped chamber with two chapels formed in its right side wall: one of them is dedicated to Saint Vincent and the other one to the name of Jesus. Most notably, it has a wood retable that served as the main altar and includes several niches dedicated to Saint Dominic and other Saints. Upon the suppression of religious orders in 1832 the Dominicans, who had been in charge until then, bequeathed the church to the archconfraternity of the Saint Name of Jesus. It was thereafter refurbished several times, deconsecrated and currently serves as an Auditorium for congresses and concerts.
* In the village of Massama is the small pre-Romanesque church called Oratory of the Souls, showing influences from the [[Visigothic art]] of the 8th century.

==Government==
{{See also|List of mayors of Oristano}}

==Culture==
===Sa Sartiglia and other events===
[[File:Sartiglia.jpg|thumb|left|Sartiglia]]
[[File:Costume di Oristano.jpg|thumb|Costumes of Oristano]]
''Sa Sartiglia'', otherwise known at its inception as ''Sartilla'', is an equestrian tournament held in Oristano for the past 500 years on Carnival Sunday and Mardi Gras. The tournament on Sunday is organized by the corporation (''gremio'') of farmers, whereas that on Mardi Gras is organised by the gremio of carpenters. It has arguably an ancient Castillan origin. Researchers M. Falchi and M. Zucca found a manuscript dating the first tournament to 1543, whereas Pau, a late local historian, believed it originated in Oristano before the Spaniards set foot on the island. In fact, in a letter written to an English friar in the 14th century, St. Catherine of Siena stated that the Judge of Arborea could provide two galleys and one thousand horsemen to fight in a crusade for ten years. While being far from conclusive evidence that the tournament had already been, or was about to be held, this letter is certainly a testament to the importance of horse-breeding in Oristano and its surrounding countryside at the time.

The name "Sartiglia" comes from ''Sortija'' which, in turn, evolved from the Latin word ''Sorticola'', the diminutive form of ''Sors'' which does not only mean fate and fortune, but also "ring".

The ring is a tin star provided with a hole at its centre, hanging from a ribbon strung above horseman's height across the street near the cathedral, at which masked horsemen aim with their swords on steeds galloping at breath-taking speed, after being announced by trumpets and drums and having gathered pace down a route, covered with sand, snaking across the town centre. The number of stars caught on each day is a sign of the wealth that the harvest and carpentry work will bring to the corporations.

At the end of ''Sa Sartiglia'', elsewhere within the old walls, another sand covered route will be trodden by horses ridden by those same masked horsemen and women showing their stunning prowess, while engaging in all sorts of acrobatics on two and three galloping steeds at a time. This is called ''La Pariglia'', and ends at sunset.
[[File:Sartiglia su componidori.jpg|thumb|left|Su Componidori]]
The leader of both trials is called ''Su Componidori'', meaning "the one who marshals". He is chosen by the members of the Corporations, who do not disclose his name until Candlemas, when ''Su Majorale'' announces it directly to the appointee and a careful selection of the horses as well as adequate practice can start. He is neither a man, nor a woman but androgynous, much akin to the land and, at the end of the tournament, blesses bystanders and the town with the "little doll of May" (''Sa Pippia 'e maiu''), a bunch of flowers swaddled in a ribbon, believed to pre-date the tournament itself, followed by the other horsemen at a canter first, and then alone, riding with his back on his galloping steed's, face up gazing at the Heavens.

==Transport==
Oristano can be reached by train from Sardinia's ports of [[Olbia]] and [[Porto Torres]], and the island's main cities [[Cagliari]] and [[Sassari]]. From Oristano all villages of the province can be reached by buses departing the bus station close to centrally-located Piazza G.Manno. Moreover, a private concern provides a twice-daily bus service to and from [[Cagliari Elmas Airport]]. The journey takes approximately 2 hours.

Oristano is served by the [[Oristano-Fenosu Airport|Fenosu Airport]], {{convert|3|km|0|abbr=on}} from the city, and by a cargo sea port. The airport is no longer operating.

== Geography ==

=== Climate ===
Oristano has a [[Mediterranean climate#Hot-summer mediterranean climate|subtropical mediterranean climate]] with hot summers and mild winters. As manifests a mediterranean climate, precipitation patterns are highly seasonally defined, with the vast majority falling during winter. Summers are still retaining warmth and humidity during night in spite of the dry weather.

{{Weather box
|location = Oristano, Sardinia
|metric first = yes
|single line = yes
|Jan high C = 13.2
|Feb high C = 13.2
|Mar high C = 14.7
|Apr high C = 16.7
|May high C = 20.8
|Jun high C = 24.5
|Jul high C = 27.8
|Aug high C = 28.8
|Sep high C = 26.0
|Oct high C = 21.9
|Nov high C = 17.3
|Dec high C = 14.4
|year high C = 19.9
|Jan mean C =
|Feb mean C =
|Mar mean C =
|Apr mean C =
|May mean C =
|Jun mean C =
|Jul mean C =
|Aug mean C =
|Sep mean C =
|Oct mean C =
|Nov mean C =
|Dec mean C =
|year mean C =
|Jan low C = 7.6
|Feb low C = 7.5
|Mar low C = 8.6
|Apr low C = 10.3
|May low C = 13.7
|Jun low C = 17.3
|Jul low C = 20.1
|Aug low C = 21.1
|Sep low C = 18.7
|Oct low C = 15.3
|Nov low C = 11.3
|Dec low C = 8.8
|year low C = 13.4
|rain colour = green
|Jan rain mm = 50.0
|Feb rain mm = 60.5
|Mar rain mm = 44.4
|Apr rain mm = 51.4
|May rain mm = 32.8
|Jun rain mm = 16.7
|Jul rain mm = 4.4
|Aug rain mm = 7.3
|Sep rain mm = 34.2
|Oct rain mm = 69.7
|Nov rain mm = 92.5
|Dec rain mm = 65.0
|Jan rain days = 8
|Feb rain days = 8
|Mar rain days = 7
|Apr rain days = 8
|May rain days = 5
|Jun rain days = 2
|Jul rain days = 1
|Aug rain days = 1
|Sep rain days = 4
|Oct rain days = 8
|Nov rain days = 10
|Dec rain days = 9
|unit rain days = 1 mm
|Jan sun =
|Feb sun =
|Mar sun =
|Apr sun =
|May sun =
|Jun sun =
|Jul sun =
|Aug sun =
|Sep sun =
|Oct sun =
|Nov sun =
|Dec sun =
|source 1 = <ref>Weather Service of the Italian Air Force [http://www.meteoam.it/ " Servizio Meteorologico dell' Aeronautica Militare"]</ref>
|date=2013}}

==Twin towns – sister cities==
{{See also|List of twin towns and sister cities in Italy}}
Oristano is [[Twin towns and sister cities|twinned]] with:
* {{flagicon|ESP}} [[Ciutadella de Menorca]], Spain, since 1991
* {{flagicon|USA}} [[Garden City, Kansas]], United States

==See also==
{{portal|Italy}}
* [[Arborea]]
* [[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oristano]]

==References==
;Bibliography
*{{cite book|title=Sartiglia, La grande Giostra equestre di Oristano|publisher=Soter|location=Sassari|year=1994}}
*{{cite book|title=''Oristano, La Sartiglia''|publisher=[[L'Unione Sarda]]|location=Cagliari|year=1992}}
;Notes
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==External links==

{{commons category-inline|Oristano}}
*{{in lang|it}} [http://www.comune.oristano.it Oristano official website]

{{Province of Oristano}}
{{Historical competitions of Italy}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Oristano| ]]
[[Category:Cities and towns in Sardinia]]

Villasimius

2024-08-09T17:55:50Z

L2212:

{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2024}}
{{Infobox Italian comune
| name = Villasimius
| official_name = Comune di Villasimius
| native_name = {{native name|sc|Crabonaxa}}
| image_skyline = Villasimius 5 bordercropped.jpg
| imagesize =
| image_alt =
| image_caption =
| image_shield = villasimius-Stemma.png
| shield_alt =
| image_map =
| map_alt =
| map_caption =
| pushpin_map = Italy Sardinia
| coordinates = {{coord|39|08|N|09|31|E|type:city(3,093)_region:IT|display=inline}}
| coordinates_footnotes =
| region = [[Sardinia]]
| province = [[Province of South Sardinia|South Sardinia]]
| frazioni =
| mayor_party =
| mayor = Gianluca Dessì
| area_footnotes =
| area_total_km2 = 58.2
| population_total = 3710
| population_as_of = 30 November 2017
| population_footnotes =<ref name="Istat">{{cite web|title=Istat official population estimates|url=http://demo.istat.it/bilmens2017gen/query.php?lingua=ita&Rip=S1&Reg=R03&Pro=P111&Com=105&submit=Tavol|access-date=25 April 2018}}</ref>
| pop_density_footnotes =
| population_demonym = Villasimiesi
| elevation_footnotes =
| elevation_m = 41
| saint = [[Raphael (archangel)|Saint Raphael]]
| day = 24 October
| postal_code = 09049
| area_code = 070
| website = {{official website|http://www.comune.villasimius.ca.it/}}
| footnotes =
}}
'''Villasimius''' ({{IPA|it|villasiˈmiːus|lang}}; {{lang-sc|Crabonaxa}} {{IPA|sc|kɾaβɔˈnaʒa|}}), is a {{lang|it|[[comune]]}} (municipality) in the [[Province of South Sardinia]] in the Italian region of [[Sardinia]], located about {{convert|35|km|mi}} east of [[Cagliari]].

==History==
Due to its strategically important site, Villasimius' territory was inhabited since prehistoric times, as testified by [[nuraghe]] (19th–6th centuries BC), Phoenician-[[Carthage|Carthaginian]] (7th–2nd centuries BC) and [[Ancient Rome|Roman]] (3rd century BC – 6th century AD) remains.

During the [[giudicati]] (Sardinian kingdoms), Aragonese and Spanish reigns, the territory suffered numerous pirate raids and became increasingly depopulated. The village name was, at least from the 13th century, '''Carbonara'''; this was repopulated from the early 19th century when it was under the [[Kingdom of Sardinia]]-Piedmont, becoming a comune in 1838. Villasimius' economy was traditionally based on agriculture and shepherding and, from 1875 to the extraction of [[granite]]. Its tourism industry began in the late 1960s and is now Villasimius' main economic activity.

In 1998 the [[Capo Carbonara]] National Marine Park was created. It encompasses all the waters surrounding the headlands in the eastern Gulf of Cagliari, from Villasimius' western border with [[Solanas]], to its northern border with [[Castiadas]].

==Main sights==
===Beaches===
The area's most important beaches [http://www.villasimius-costarei.com] are Cala Burroni, Cala Caterina, Campus, Piscadeddus, Porto Giunco, Porto Sa Ruxi, Punta Molentis, Simius, Spiaggia del Riso, Timi Ama.
[[File:Villasimius.jpg|thumb|center|Villasimius beach]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.comune.villasimius.ca.it Official website]
*[http://www.villasimiusweb.com Museo Archeologico, Ufficio Turistico e Servizi Culturali a Villasimius]

{{commons category|position=left|Villasimius}}
{{clear}}
{{Province of South Sardinia}}

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Cities and towns in Sardinia]]

{{Sardinia-geo-stub}}

Siniscola

2024-08-09T17:54:28Z

L2212:

{{Infobox Italian comune
| name = Siniscola
| official_name = Comune di Siniscola
| native_name = {{native name|sc|Thiniscòle}}
| image_skyline = Panorama_di_Siniscola.jpg
| imagesize =
| image_alt =
| image_caption = view of Siniscola
| image_shield = Siniscola-Stemma.svg
| shield_alt =
| image_map =
| map_alt =
| map_caption =
| pushpin_map = Italy Sardinia
| pushpin_label_position = left
| coordinates = {{coord|40|35|N|9|42|E|type:city(11,130)_region:IT|display=inline,title}}
| coordinates_footnotes =
| region = [[Sardinia]]
| province = [[Province of Nuoro|Nuoro]] (NU)
| frazioni = Berchida, Capo Comino, La Caletta, Santa Lucia, Iscra e Voes
| mayor_party =
| mayor = Gian Luigi Farris
| area_footnotes =
| area_total_km2 = 199.9
| population_footnotes = <ref name="istat">All demographics and other statistics: Italian statistical institute [[National Institute of Statistics (Italy)|Istat]].</ref>
| population_total = 11420
| population_as_of = 31 August 2013
| pop_density_footnotes =
| population_demonym = Siniscolesi
| elevation_footnotes =
| elevation_m = 40
| saint = St. John the Baptist
| day = June 24
| postal_code = 08029
| area_code = 0784
| website = {{official website|http://www.comune.siniscola.nu.it/index.asp}}
| footnotes =
}}
'''Siniscola''' ({{IPA|it|siniˈskɔːla|lang}}; {{lang-sc|Thiniscòle}} {{IPA|sc|θiniˈskɔlɛ|}}) is a {{lang|it|[[comune]]}} (municipality) in the [[province of Nuoro]] in the [[Italy|Italian]] region [[Sardinia]], located about {{convert|160|km|mi}} northeast of [[Cagliari]] and about {{convert|45|km|mi}} northeast of [[Nuoro]].
Siniscola borders the following municipalities: [[Irgoli]], [[Lodè]], [[Lula, Italy|Lula]], [[Onifai]], [[Orosei]], [[Posada, Sardinia|Posada]], [[Torpè]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{commons category|position=left|Siniscola}}
{{clear}}
{{Province of Nuoro}}

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Cities and towns in Sardinia]]

{{Sardinia-geo-stub}}

Quartu Sant'Elena

2024-08-09T17:54:05Z

L2212:

{{Infobox Italian comune
| name = Quartu Sant'Elena
| official_name = Comune di Quartu Sant'Elena
| native_name = {{native name|sc|Cuartu Sant'Aleni}}
| image_skyline = Quartu sant'elena, parrocchiale di sant'elena, esterno 01.jpg
| imagesize =
| image_alt =
| image_caption = Saint Helena Basilica
| image_shield = Quartu Sant’Elena-Stemma.svg
| shield_alt =
| shield_size =
| image_map =
| map_alt =
| map_caption =
| pushpin_map = Italy Sardinia
| coordinates = {{coord|39|14|N|09|11|E|display=inline}}
| coordinates_footnotes =
| region = [[Sardinia]]
| metropolitan_city = [[Metropolitan City of Cagliari|Cagliari]] (CA)
| frazioni = Flumini di Quartu
| mayor_party =
| mayor = Graziano Milia
| area_total_km2 = 96.28
| population_footnotes = <ref>Population data from [[National Institute of Statistics (Italy)|Istat]]</ref>
| population_total = 69,255
| population_as_of = 30 September 2012
| pop_density_footnotes =
| population_demonym = Quartesi
| elevation_footnotes =
| elevation_m = 6
|istat=| saint = [[Helena (Empress)|St. Helena]]
| day = 14 September
| postal_code = 09045, 09046
| area_code = 070
| website = {{official website|http://www.comune.quartusantelena.ca.it/}}
| footnotes =
}}
'''Quartu Sant'Elena''' ({{IPA|it|ˈkwartu sanˈtɛːlena|lang}}; {{lang-sc|Cuartu Sant'Aleni}} {{IPA|sc|ˈkwaɾtu zantaˈlɛni|}}), located four miles East from [[Cagliari]] on the ancient Roman road, is a city and ''[[comune]]'' in the [[Metropolitan City of Cagliari]], [[Sardinia]], [[Italy]]. It is the third biggest city of Sardinia with a population of 71,216 {{As of|2015|lc=y}}.

== History==
The city's name comes from its distance to Cagliari (''Quartum miles'', [[Latin language|Latin]] for “four miles”), and from the passage there of [[Helena, mother of Constantine I|St. Helena]], mother of emperor [[Cosntantine the Great|Constantine]].

The first traces of human presence in Quartu are from the Prenuragic, [[Nuragic]] and Phoenician period, as attested by findings in Cepola, Geremeas, Is Mortorius and Separassiu localities. Roman findings were found near Sant’Andrea villa, a graveyard at S. Martino and a few tombs at Simbirizzi.

In the 11th century AD Sardinia was divided into four [[Giudicati]]: Quartu, which included fourteen villas, belonged to the [[Giudicato of Cagliari]].
In 1066 Quartu was given to Cagliari's archbishop and then went back to Judge [[Torchitorio II of Cagliari]]. During the [[King of Aragon|Aragonese]] rule, Quartu suffered from famines, plague, malaria and continuous raids from [[Saracen]] pirates, following the general path of decay of the whole of Sardinia.

In 1793 the soldiers of a French fleet landed on the coast of Quartu, with the intention of conquering the whole island; the people of the city, led by Antonio Pisanu, assailed the French and repelled them after a bloody battle.

The feudalism started by the Aragonese, led since 1436 by Giovanni de Sena, viscount of Sanluri and baron of Quatru Saint'Elena, ended in 1836 under the baron Pes di Villamarina. In 1956 Quartu Sant’Elena was upgraded to the status of “city” by the [[President of Italy]] [[Giovanni Gronchi]].

== Main sights==
There are five churches situated in the city. The most important are the churches of ''Sant'Elena Imperatrice'' (dating before 1589, but now in [[Neoclassical architecture|neoclassical]] style and recently proclaimed "[[Basilica]]"), ''Santa Maria Cepola'' (before 1089) and ''Sant'Agata''.

There is also ''Sa dom’e farra'', a large peasant house of the 17th century with various rooms, objects and tools used by the peasant society.

There are numerous ''[[nuraghi]]'' in the vicinity.

== Geography ==
Quartu has a long, shallow coastline. It also looks onto the pond of Molentargius, where flamingos and Sultan roosters nest.

=== Climate ===

{{Weather box
|metric first= yes
|single line= yes
|collapsed =
|location= Quartu Sant'Elena
|width= 100

|Jan high C= 14
|Feb high C= 15
|Mar high C= 17
|Apr high C= 19
|May high C= 24
|Jun high C= 28
|Jul high C= 31
|Aug high C= 32
|Sep high C= 28
|Oct high C= 24
|Nov high C= 19
|Dec high C= 15
|year high C=

|Jan low C= 6
|Feb low C= 6
|Mar low C= 8
|Apr low C= 9
|May low C= 13
|Jun low C= 17
|Jul low C= 20
|Aug low C= 20
|Sep low C= 18
|Oct low C= 15
|Nov low C= 10
|Dec low C= 7
|year low C=

|source 1=[http://weather.sg.msn.com/monthly_averages.aspx?wealocations=wc:ITXX0063&q=Quartu+Sant%E2%80%99Elena%2c+ITA+forecast:averagesm weather.sg.msn.com]{{dead link|date=July 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
}}

== Economy ==
The economy is based on the tertiary industry.
Quartu also produces excellent wines, bread and cakes.
Although the city is not extremely big, there are many shopping opportunities: [[Carrefour]], [[E. Leclerc]]-Conad, Iper Pan.

== Festivities ==
[[File:Costume di quartu sant' elena.jpg|thumb|Traditional dresses]]
[[File:Quartu Torre Cala Regina.jpg|thumb|left|18th-century defence tower along the coast of Cala Regina]]
The most important religious festivity is dedicated to Saint Helena and is celebrated on 14 September.

==Sport==
Quartu Sant'Elena has a 16,500-capacity football stadium, the [[Stadio Is Arenas]]. In the 2012–13 season, it hosted [[Serie A]] club [[Cagliari Calcio]], whose [[Stadio Sant'Elia]] was closed that year.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.repubblica.it/sport/calcio/serie-a/cagliari/2012/05/21/news/rivoluzione_in_arrivo_is_arenas-35653028/ |title=Sant'Elia addio, 'Is Arenas' è realtà Ficcadenti in bilico, chi in panchina? |newspaper=Repubblica Sport |author=Aresu, Francesco |access-date= May 26, 2016}}</ref>
Quartu Sant'Elena has also a 500-capacity Marina, Marina di Capitana, with a sailing school, Scuola Italia in Vela.

==See also==
*[[Metropolitan City of Cagliari|Cagliari metropolitan area]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
{{commons category|Quartu Sant'Elena}}
* [http://www.comune.quartusantelena.ca.it/ Official website]

{{Province of Cagliari}}

{{authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Quartu Sant'elena}}
[[Category:Cities and towns in Sardinia]]

Michel Contini

2024-08-09T17:51:53Z

L2212:

{{Infobox person
| name = Michel Contini
| other_names = {{ubl
|Micheli Còntini
|Michele Contini}}
| birth_date = {{birth year and age|1937}}
| birth_place = [[Cagliari]], Sardinia, Italy
| alma_mater = [[University of Grenoble]]
| occupation = {{hlist|linguist|researcher|academic}}
| employer = *[[French National Centre for Scientific Research]] 
*[[Stendhal University]]
*{{lang|it|[[Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato]]|i=no}}
*[[UNESCO]]
| notable_works = *{{lang|fr|Étude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du sarde}} (1987) 
*{{lang|fr|Atlas Linguistique Roman|i=no}} (ALIR)
*{{lang|la|[[Atlas Linguarum Europae]]|i=no}} (ALE)
}}
'''Michel Contini''' ({{IPA|fr|miʃɛl kɔ̃tini|lang}}; {{lang-sc|Micheli Còntini}} {{IPA|sc|miˈkɛli ˈɣontini|}}; {{lang-it|Michele Contini}} {{IPA|it|miˈkɛːle ˈkɔntini|}}; born 1937<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Atzori|first=Patrizia|date=2000|title=Michel Contini e la lingua sarda - Studio di geografia fonetica e di fonetica strumentale del sardo|url=https://www.tesionline.it/tesi/lingue-e-letterature-straniere/michel-contini-e-la-lingua-sarda---studio-di-geografia-fonetica-e-di-fonetica-strumentale-del-sardo/27066|journal=|language=it|publisher=[[University of Sassari]]|access-date=2021-11-06}}</ref>) is a [[Sardinian people|Sardinian]]-born naturalized [[French people|French]] [[linguist]], researcher and academic.

== Biography ==
Born in [[Cagliari]], [[Sardinia]], he completed elementary school in [[Oristano]], middle school in Cagliari, and obtained a scientific high school diploma in [[Sassari]].<ref>{{Cite news|date=2006-02-17|title=Il sardo in cattedra all'Università di Grenoble|language=it|work=Il Messaggero Sardo|url=https://www.regione.sardegna.it/messaggero/2006_febbraio_17.pdf|access-date=2021-11-09}}</ref>

In 1958 he began living in [[Grenoble]], France, where he graduated in Languages in 1964, obtaining the [[French citizenship]] in 1965.

After graduating, he began to publish his first studies about the [[Sardinian language]], during his doctorate. The first one, published for the [[Doctorat de troisième cycle|3rd-cycle Doctorate]], was a phonetic and phonological study of the dialect of [[Nughedu San Nicolò]], and he later made many other ones during his three years of work (1967-1970) as a researcher at the [[French National Centre for Scientific Research|CNRS]], studying [[Sardinian language|Sardinian]], [[French language|French]] and [[Italian language|Italian]].

Regarding Sardinian, his studies have come to analyze the variants of 214 Sardinian languages, and thanks to this work he obtained the [[State doctorate|State Doctorate]] ([[Strasbourg]], 1983) with his thesis {{lang|fr|Étude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du sarde}} (Study of phonetic geography and instrumental phonetics of Sardinian), published in 1987 by the publisher {{lang|it|Edizioni dell'Orso|i=no}}.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=Etude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du Sarde : atlas et album phonétique|date=1987|publisher=Edizioni dell'Orso|isbn=978-88-7694-015-6|location=Alessandria|language=fr|oclc=493271003}}</ref>

Later, he became full professor of [[Geolinguistics]] and [[Phonetics]] and Director of the Center for Dialectology at the [[Stendhal University]] of [[Grenoble]], and became director of the European Project for the Romance Linguistic Atlas of the [[Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato|State Mint and Polygraphic Institute]] of [[Rome]], a collaborative project of 85 universities and 31 researchers from all over the [[Romance languages|Romance]]-speaking countries.

In 2006 he was part of the commission for the creation of the {{lang|sc|[[Limba Sarda Comuna]]|i=no}}, together with Giulio Angioni, Roberto Bolognesi, Manlio Brigaglia, Diego Corràine, Giovanni Lupinu, Anna Oppo, Giulio Paulis, Maria Teresa Pinna Catte and Mario Puddu, and since then he has always declared himself in favor of its use, considering the use of a single orthography tas something necessary to save the language from extinction.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|date=2014-06-25|title=Micheli Còntini: "Sa Lsc no est una limba fata a taulinu"|url=https://www.vitobiolchini.it/2014/06/25/micheli-contini-sa-lsc-no-est-una-limba-fata-a-taulinu/|access-date=2021-11-06|website=vitobiolchini|language=sc}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Contini|first=Michel|date=2007-06-05|title=Lingua comune, scelta necessaria|language=it|work=[[La Nuova Sardegna]]|url=https://www.lanuovasardegna.it/regione/2007/06/05/news/lingua-comune-scelta-necessaria-1.3297129|access-date=2021-11-06}}</ref> In 2011 he started working at the ALiMuS, Multimedia Linguistic Atlas of Sardinia, a work that was stopped in 2014.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Giuseppe Pepe Coròngiu|date=2015-06-15|title=S'Atlante de sas variantes linguìsticas? Finas cussu imboladu dae su guvernu regionale|language=sc|work=Limba Sarda 2.0|url=https://salimbasarda.net/satlante-de-sas-variantes-linguisticas-finas-cussu-imboladu-dae-su-guvernu-regionale/|access-date=2021-11-06}}</ref>

Following his retirement, he continued to work on the {{lang|fr|Atlas Linguistique Roman}} (ALIR) and the {{lang|la|[[Atlas Linguarum Europae]]|i=no}} (ALE).<ref name=":0" />

== Publications ==
This is a partial list of Michel Contini's publications during the years. It does not include most of them.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Contini, Michel (1937-....) |url=https://www.idref.fr/029193699 |access-date=2022-10-13 |website=IdRef - Identifiants et Référentiels pour l'ESR}}</ref>

* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|date=1971|title=Description phonétique et phonologique du parler logoudorien de Nughedu S. Nicolò (Sardaigne)|language=fr|publisher=Université de Grenoble - Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines|oclc=490343855}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=Apporto della moderna fonetica sperimentale alla dialettologia: ricerche sul sardo|date=1970|language=it|oclc=963185837}}
* {{Cite book|last1=Contini|first1=Michel|title=Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology: Volume 3: Language and Philology in Romance|last2=Tuttle|first2=Edward F.|date=1982|publisher=De Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-175006-4|editor-last=Rebecca Posner|location=Berlin|chapter=Sardinian|oclc=853269137}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=Étude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du Sarde : atlas et album phonétique|date=1987|publisher=Edizioni dell'Orso|isbn=978-88-7694-015-6|location=Alessandria|language=fr|oclc=493271003}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Contini|first=Michel|date=2010|title=Les phonosymbolismes : continuité d'une motivation primaire ?|journal=L'Ordre des mots en français|language=fr|volume=59|issue=2|pages=77–103|doi=10.3917/tl.059.0077|issn=0082-6049|doi-access=free}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=Parlare e scrivere il sardo: la lingua della Sardegna raccontata ai ragazzi|date=1993|publisher=Editrice democratica sarda|location=Tàtari|language=it|oclc=32346631}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Contini|first=Michel|date=2000|title=Un sarde unitaire? la parole est aux isophones...|url=https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3007|journal=Јужнословенски филолог|language=en|volume=56|issue=1–2|pages=529–542|oclc=1132586280|access-date=2021-11-06}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K1svAAAAYAAJ|title=La géolinguistique en Amérique latine|date=2002|publisher=Université Stendhal-Grenoble 3, Centre de Dialectologie|location=Grenoble|isbn=9782951642508|language=fr|oclc=948386071}}
* {{Cite book|last1=Contini|first1=Michel|title=Atlas linguistique Roman: ALiR|last2=Tuaillon|first2=Gaston|last3=Université Stendhal (Grenoble)|date=1996|publisher=Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello stato : Libreria dello stato|location=Roma|language=fr|oclc=926810042}}
* {{Cite journal|last1=Contini|first1=Michel|last2=Lai|first2=Jean-Pierre|last3=Romano|first3=Antonio|date=2002|title=La Géolinguistique À Grenoble : De l'AliR À AMPER|url=https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_2002_num_80_3_4647|journal=Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire|language=fr|volume=80|issue=3|pages=931–941|doi=10.3406/rbph.2002.4647|access-date=2021-11-06}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Contini|first=Michel|date=2006|title=Une frontiere oubliee en domaine sarde?|journal=Quaderni di Semantica|language=fr|issue=1|pages=183|issn=0393-1226}}
* {{Cite journal|last1=Contini|first1=Michel|last2=Lai|first2=Jean-Pierre|last3=Romano|first3=Antonio|date=2005|title=L'intonation des Variétés Dialectales de l'Espace Roman|journal=Communication and Cognition. Studies in Language|language=fr|volume=9|pages=69–80}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Contini|first=Michel|date=2009|title=La Sardaigne: situation linguistique. Rapports internes et externes, hier et aujourd'hui|journal=Conférence Internationale les langues et les cultures en contact. Autrefois et aujourd'hui|language=fr|publisher=Akademia Polonijna|pages=43–63}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=La géolinguistique romane: de Gilliéron aux atlas multimédia|date=2012|publisher=EDUFBA|pages=453–480|language=fr}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Contini|first=Michel|date=2014|title=Le Catalan dans les parlers sardes|journal=Estudis Romànics|language=fr|volume=36|pages=405–421|oclc=1248982211}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=La motivazione semantica nelle carte linguistiche|date=2014|language=it|oclc=989956860}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=La géographie linguistique au Brésil|date=2015|isbn=978-2-84310-317-9|language=fr|oclc=1041332702}}
* {{Cite book|last=Contini|first=Michel|title=Paroddi varghji : mélanges offerts à Marie-Josée Dalbera-Stefanaggi|date=2015|publisher=Edizioni dell'Orso|isbn=978-88-6274-597-0|editor-last=Stella Medori|location=Alessandria|pages=75–90|language=fr|chapter=Normaliser le sarde : une chance de survie|oclc=926100579}}

== References ==
<references />
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Contini, Michel}}
[[Category:Linguists from Italy]]
[[Category:People from Sardinia]]
[[Category:Linguists from France]]
[[Category:1937 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]

Sardinian people

2024-03-20T22:19:41Z

L2212: Undid revision 1213202215 by 62.19.159.250 (talk)

{{short description|Romance ethnic group native to Sardinia}}
{{other uses|Sardinian (disambiguation)|Sard (disambiguation)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2015}}
{{infobox ethnic group
| group = Sardinians / Sards
| native_name = {{native name|sc|Sardos / Sardus}} {{native name|it|Sardi}} 
| image = File:Costumes of Sardinia 1880s 01.jpg
| caption = Sardinian people and their traditional regional attires in 1880s
| popplace = {{flag|Sardinia}} 1,661,521 (Inhabitants of Sardinia inclusive of all ethnicities)
| pop1 = 2.250.000 (outside Sardinia)<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.infosardinya.it/wp2/pages/emigrazione-sarda-storie-di-vite-nel-mondo/ |title=EMIGRAZIONE SARDA, STORIE DI VITE NEL MONDO | InfoSardinya - sardegna info eventi advertising communication itinerari promotion guide |date=5 July 2019}}</ref>
| ref1 = <ref>[http://www.demo.istat.it/bilmens2014gen/ Statistiche demografiche ISTAT]</ref>
| langs = [[Italian language|Italian]]<ref>Introduced in the late 18th century and then spread as a result of a [[language shift]]; Italian is usually spoken either in the standard variety with a Sardinian accent or more commonly in a [[Regional Italian#Sardinia|regional variety]].</ref> • [[Sardinian language|Sardinian]]<ref>Including [[Sassarese language|Sassarese]] and [[Gallurese language|Gallurese]], linguistically transitioning to [[Corsican language#Southern Corsican|Southern Corsican]] and often colloquially considered to be northern Sardinian varieties.</ref>
| rels = [[Roman Catholicism]]<ref>''Sardinia'', Lonely Planet, Damien Simonis</ref>
| native_name_lang =
| related = [[Spaniards]], [[Italians]], [[Corsicans]]
}}

The '''Sardinians''',<ref name="Sardinia {{!}} Encyclopedia.com">{{cite web |title=Sardinia {{!}} Encyclopedia.com |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/spain-portugal-italy-greece-and-balkans/italian-political-geography/sardinia |access-date=2022-03-16 |website=www.encyclopedia.com}}</ref> or '''Sards'''<ref>{{cite web |title=SARD {{!}} Meaning & Definition for UK English {{!}} Lexico.com |url=https://www.lexico.com/definition/sard |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227164421/https://www.lexico.com/definition/sard |url-status=dead |archive-date=27 February 2021 |access-date=2022-03-16 |website=Lexico Dictionaries {{!}} English |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Kubly" /> ({{lang-sc|Sardos}} or {{Lang|sc|Sardus}}; [[Italian language|Italian]] and [[Sassarese language|Sassarese]]: ''Sardi''; [[Gallurese dialect|Gallurese]]: ''Saldi''), are a [[Romance language]]-speaking<ref name="Minahan" /> [[ethnic group]] native to [[Sardinia]],<ref>«Sardi: indigeni, qui in Sardinia nati sunt.» ("Sardinians: the indigenous people who are born on the island of Sardinia.") Robert Estienne, 1583, ''Dictionarium, seu Latinae linguae Thesaurus, Robert Estienne'', Q-Z, v.III</ref><ref>«From the strictly anthropological point of view, namely, an ethnic group distinguished by language, characteristics and culture.» {{cite book|title=Ethnic culture, language and poetry in Sardinia, part one. Scripta Mediterranea. Bulletin of the Society for Mediterranean Studies|year=1980|page=46}}</ref><ref>«Sardinians form an ethnic minority since they show a strong awareness of being an indigenous group with a language and culture of their own.» {{cite book|title=Aspects of multilingualism in European language history|author=Kurt Braunmüller, Gisella Ferraresi|page=238|year=2003|publisher=University of Hamburg. John Benjamins Publishing Company|place=Amsterdam/Philadelphia}}</ref><ref>Danver, Steven L. ''Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues'', 2012, pp.370-371</ref><ref>Lang, Peter; Petricioli, Marta. ''L’Europe Méditerranéenne'', pp.201-254</ref><ref name="Masti" /> from which the western [[Mediterranean Sea|Mediterranean]] island and [[Regions of Italy#Autonomous regions with special statute|autonomous region]] of Italy derives its name.<ref name="Sardinia {{!}} Encyclopedia.com"/><ref>[[Jeffrey Cole|Cole, Jeffrey]]. ''Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia'', pp.321-325</ref>

==Etymology==
[[File:SardusPaterBabai.jpg|thumb|left|180px|Depiction of the ''Sardus Pater Babai'' in a [[Roman coin]] (59 B.C.)]]
Not much can be gathered from the classical literature about the origins of the Sardinian people.<ref><<Sull'origine del popolo sardo le fonti classiche non riescono a darci che poche e scarse notizie, la cui interpretazione non è affatto facile.>> Sanna, Natale (1986). ''Il cammino dei Sardi: storia, economia, letteratura ed arte di Sardegna'', I, Ed.Sardegna, Cagliari, p.19</ref> The [[ethnonym]] "S(a)rd" may belong to the [[Pre-Indo-European languages|Pre-Indo-European]] (or [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]]<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/7/2/131|title=Unveiling the Enigmatic Origins of Sardinian Toponyms|access-date=11 February 2024}}</ref>) linguistic substratum, and whilst they might have derived from the [[Iberian language|Iberian]]s,<ref name="EtyDictionary" /><ref name="Treccani2011" /> the accounts of the old authors differ greatly in this respect. The oldest written attestation of the ethnonym is on the [[Nora stone]], where the word ''Šrdn'' (''Shardan''<ref>I.E.S. Edwards, C.J. Gadd, N.G.L. Hammond, E.Sollberger (edited by). 1970. ''The Cambridge Ancient History'', Volume II, Part 2, Cambridge University Press, p.369</ref>) bears witness to its original existence by the time the [[Phoenicians|Phoenician]] merchants first arrived on Sardinian shores.<ref name="EtyDictionary" />
According to ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'', one of [[Plato]]'s dialogues, Sardinia and its people as well, the "Sardonioi" or "Sardianoi" (''Σαρδονιοί'' or ''Σαρδιανοί''), might have been named after "Sardò"<ref name="EtyDictionary" /> (''Σαρδώ''), a legendary [[Lydians|Lydian]] woman from [[Sardis]] (''Σάρδεις''), in the region of western [[Anatolia]] (now [[Turkey]]).<ref>''Platonis dialogi, scholia in Timaeum'' (edit. C. F. Hermann, Lipsia 1877), 25 B, pag. 368</ref><ref>Pittau, Massimo (1981). ''La Lingua dei Sardi Nuragici e degli Etruschi'', Sassari, p. 57</ref><ref>Sanna, Emanuele (2009). ''Nella preistoria le origini dei sardi'', CUEC, Cagliari, p.76</ref>
Some other authors, like [[Pausanias (geographer)|Pausanias]] and [[Sallust]], reported instead that the Sardinians traced their descent back to a mythical ancestor, a [[Ancient Libya|Libyan]] son of [[Hercules]] or ''Makeris''<ref>"Sardus, ut inquit Pausanias, filius fuit Maceridis, qui apud Aegyptios et Libyes, Libyes Hercules dicebatur, et Delphos aliquando petiit." [[Giovanni Francesco Fara|Fara, Francesco Giovanni]] (1580). ''De Rebus Sardois'', ''Libri quatuor'', 1835 - 1580, Turin, p.106</ref> (related either to the [[Berber languages|Berber]] verb ''Imɣur'' "to grow",<ref>[[Edward Lipiński (orientalist)|Lipiński, Edward]] (1995). ''Dieux et déesses de l'univers phénicien et punique'', Peeters Publishers, p. 368</ref> to the specific [[Kabyle language|Kabyle]] word ''Maqqur'' "He is the greatest", or also associated with the figure of [[Melqart]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.attiliomastino.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=251:liscrizione-latina-del-restauro-del-tempio-del-sardus-pater-ad-antas-e-la-problematica-istituzionale&catid=41:archivio&Itemid=64#_ftn121|title=L'iscrizione latina del restauro del tempio del Sardus Pater ad Antas e la problematica istituzionale|author=Attilio Mastino|year=2015}}</ref>) revered as a deity going by ''[[Sardus Pater|Sardus Pater Babai]]''<ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula|Casula, Francesco Cèsare]] (2017). ''La storia di Sardegna, I, Evo Antico Sardo : Dalla Sardegna Medio-Nuragica (100 a.C. c.) alla Sardegna Bizantina (900 d.C. c.)'', p.92</ref><ref>Bartoloni, Piero (2009). ''I Fenici e i Cartaginesi in Sardegna'', C. Delfino, Sassari, p.130</ref> ("Sardinian Father" or "Father of the Sardinians"), who gave the island its name.<ref>Sallust, ''Historiae'', II, fr.4</ref><ref>Pausanias, Ελλάδοσ περιήγησισ, X, 17</ref><ref>[[Silius Italicus]], ''Punica'', XII, 360</ref><ref>[[Gaius Julius Solinus]], ''Collectanea rerum memorabilium'', IV, 1</ref><ref>[[Isidore of Seville]], XIV, ''[[Etymologiae]]'', ''Thapsumque iacentem'', 39</ref><ref name="Serra" /> It has also been claimed that the ancient [[Nuragic civilization|Nuragic]] Sards were associated with the [[Sherden]] (''šrdn'' in [[Egyptian language|Egyptian]]), one of the [[Sea Peoples]].<ref name="Rouge" /><ref name="Chabas" /><ref>"I monumenti dell'Egitto che hanno di già sparsa tanta luce sulla storia dell'antico oriente, sarebbero quelli i quali, secondo un'opinione recentemente emessa da più di un dotto, farebbero anche il più antico ricordo dei Sardi." Pais, Ettore (1881). ''Sardegna prima del dominio romano: studio storico archeologico'', Coi tipi del Salviucci, Roma, p.261</ref><ref name="Serra" /><ref name="UgaGio" /><ref name="Treccani2011" /><ref>[http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/sardi_res-c8fc02e8-8bb6-11dc-8e9d-0016357eee51_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/ Sardi in ''Enciclopedia Italiana'' (1936), Giacomo Devoto, Treccani]</ref><ref>[http://www.sardiniapost.it/culture/nuovo-studio-dellarcheologo-ugas-e-certo-i-nuragici-erano-gli-shardana/ Nuovo studio dell’archeologo Ugas: “È certo, i nuragici erano gli Shardana”]</ref><ref>[http://www.sardiniapoint.it/5085.html ''Shardana, sardi nuragici: erano lo stesso popolo?'', Interview with Giovanni Ugas (in Italian)]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sardiniapost.it/culture/la-certezza-degli-accademici-egiziani-gli-shardana-erano-i-nuragici-sardi/|title=La certezza degli accademici egiziani: "Gli shardana erano i nuragici sardi"|date=25 January 2019|publisher=SardiniaPost}}</ref> The ethnonym was then [[Romanization|romanised]], with regard for the singular masculine and feminine form, as ''sardus'' and ''sarda''.

==History==
{{See also|History of Sardinia}}

===Prehistory===
{{See also|Pre-Nuragic Sardinia}}
[[File:Neolitico, cultura di ozieri, frammento di vaso con figurette umane, 3500-2700 ac ca. 02.JPG|thumb|Fragment of pottery with human figures, [[Ozieri culture]]]]

Sardinia was first settled by ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' from [[continental Europe]] during the [[Upper Paleolithic]] and the [[Mesolithic]]. During the [[Neolithic]] period, [[Early European Farmers|early European farmers]] settled in Sardinia.<ref name="Marcus2" /> According to modern [[archaeogenetic]] investigations, the Neolithic Sardinians showed a greater affinity with the [[Cardium pottery|Cardial]] populations of [[Iberia]] and [[Southern France]],<ref name="Marcus" /> furthermore [[Human mtDNA|mitochondrial haplogroup]]s of the ancient Mesolithic inhabitants would survive in today's Sardinians.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.uniss.it/uniss-comunica/unisspress/il-dna-dei-sardi-svela-lorigine-genetica-di-un-popolo-antichissimo|title=IL DNA DEI SARDI SVELA L'ORIGINE GENETICA DI UN POPOLO ANTICHISSIMO|language = Italian|access-date=24 August 2023}}</ref>
[[File:Sassari - Complesso prenuragico di Monte d'Accoddi (04).JPG|thumb|left|250px|Megalithic altar of [[Monte d'Accoddi]], erected by the Pre-Nuragic Sardinians from the Ozieri and [[Abealzu-Filigosa culture]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sardegnaturismo.it/en/explore/tempio-altare-di-monte-daccoddi|title=Tempio-Altare di monte d'Accoddi|date=4 July 2017|publisher=SardegnaTurismo}}</ref>]]
In the Late [[Eneolithic]]-Early [[Bronze Age]] the "[[Beaker folk]]" from [[Southern France]], [[Northern Spain|Northeastern Spain]] and then from [[Central Europe]]<ref>Manlio Brigaglia – Storia della Sardegna, pg. 48-49-50</ref> settled on the island, bringing new metallurgical techniques and ceramic styles and probably some kind of [[Indoeuropean languages|Indo-European]] speech.<ref>Giovanni Ugas – L'alba dei Nuraghi, pg.22-23-24</ref> An early modest [[gene flow]] of the [[Western Steppe Herders]] has been dated to about this period (~2600 BCE).<ref name=Chintalapati>Manjusha Chintalapati, Nick Patterson, Priya Moorjani (2022) The spatiotemporal patterns of major human admixture events during the European Holocene eLife 11:e77625 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.77625</ref>

[[File:I popoli della Sardegna Romana.png|150px|thumbnail|Composition of the Nuragic tribes described by the Romans.<ref>{{cite book|author=Attilio Mastino|year=2005|title=Storia della Sardegna antica|publisher=Edizioni Il Maestrale|page=307|isbn=88-86109-98-9}}</ref>]]

====Nuragic civilization====
{{See also|Nuragic civilization|Paleo-Sardinian language}}
The Nuragic civilization arose in the Middle Bronze Age, during the Late [[Bonnanaro culture]], which showed connections with the previous Beaker culture and the [[Polada culture]] of [[northern Italy]]. Although the Sardinians were considered to have acquired a sense of national identity,<ref>Lilliu, Giovanni; Alberto Moravetti (edited by). ''Cultura & culture : storia e problemi della Sardegna negli scritti giornalistici di Giovanni Lilliu'', v.1, 1995, Delfino, Sassari, p.18-19</ref> at that time, the grand tribal identities of the Nuragic Sardinians were said to be three (roughly from the South to the North): the ''Iolei/[[Ilienses]]'', inhabiting the area from the southernmost plains to the mountainous zone of eastern Sardinia (later part of what would be called by the Romans ''Barbaria'');<ref>[http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/iliensi_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/ Motzo, Bacchisio Raimondo (1933). ''Iliensi'' in ''Enciclopedia Italiana'', cited in ''Treccani'']</ref><ref>[http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/iliensi/ ''Iliensi'', Enciclopedia on line Treccani]</ref> the ''[[Balares]]'', living in the North-West corner;<ref>[http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/balari_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/ Motzo, Bacchisio Raimondo (1933). ''Balari'' in ''Enciclopedia Italiana'', cited in ''Treccani'']</ref> and finally the ''[[Corsi people|Corsi]]'' stationed in today's [[Gallura]] and the island to which they gave the name, [[Corsica]].<ref>Giovanni Ugas – L'alba dei Nuraghi, p. 241</ref> Nuragic Sardinians have been connected by some scholars to the [[Sherden]], a tribe of the so-called [[Sea Peoples]], whose presence is registered several times in [[ancient Egypt]]ian records.<ref>[http://www.sardiniapoint.it/5085.html SardiniaPoint.it – Interview with Giovanni Ugas, archaeologist and professor of the University of Cagliari] {{in lang|it}}</ref>

The language (or languages) spoken in Sardinia during the Bronze Age is unknown, since there are no written records of such period. According to [[Eduardo Blasco Ferrer]], the [[Paleo-Sardinian language|Proto-Sardinian language]] was akin to [[Proto-Basque language|Proto-Basque]] and the [[Iberian language|ancient Iberian]], while others believe it was related to [[Etruscan language|Etruscan]]. Other scholars theorize that there were actually various linguistic areas (two or more) in Nuragic Sardinia, possibly [[Pre–Indo-European languages|Pre–Indo-Europeans]] and [[Indo-European languages|Indo-Europeans]].<ref>Giovanni Ugas - L'Alba dei Nuraghi pg.241,254 - Cagliari, 2005</ref>

===Antiquity===
{{See also|Corsica and Sardinia}}

[[File:Limes Sardegna Punica.png|150px|thumbnail|right|In yellow the territories occupied by [[Carthage]] with the red dots being their most notable settlements.]]
In the 8th century BC, the [[Phoenicians]] founded cities and ports along the southern and western coast, such as [[Cagliari|''Karalis'']], [[Bithia, Italy|''Bithia'']], [[Sulci|''Sulki'']] and ''[[Tharros]]'';<ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula|Casula, Francesco Cèsare]] (2017). ''La storia di Sardegna, I, Evo Antico Sardo : Dalla Sardegna Medio-Nuragica (100 a.C. c.) alla Sardegna Bizantina (900 d.C. c.)'', p.110, 137-151</ref> starting from the same areas, where the relations between the indigenous Sardinians and the Phoenician settlers had been so far peaceful,<ref>E. Matisoo-Smith et al., {{cite journal|title=Ancient mitogenomes of Phoenicians from Sardinia and Lebanon: A story of settlement, integration, and female mobility|journal = PLOS ONE|volume = 13|issue = 1|pages = e0190169|pmc = 5761892|year = 2018|last1 = Matisoo-Smith|first1 = E.|last2 = Gosling|first2 = A. L.|last3 = Platt|first3 = D.|last4 = Kardailsky|first4 = O.|last5 = Prost|first5 = S.|last6 = Cameron-Christie|first6 = S.|last7 = Collins|first7 = C. J.|last8 = Boocock|first8 = J.|last9 = Kurumilian|first9 = Y.|last10 = Guirguis|first10 = M.|last11 = Pla Orquín|first11 = R.|last12 = Khalil|first12 = W.|last13 = Genz|first13 = H.|last14 = Abou Diwan|first14 = G.|last15 = Nassar|first15 = J.|last16 = Zalloua|first16 = P.|pmid = 29320542|doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0190169|bibcode = 2018PLoSO..1390169M|doi-access = free}}</ref> the [[Ancient Carthage|Carthaginians]] proceeded to annex the Southern and Western part of Sardinia in the late 6th century BC. Well into the 1st century B.C., the native Sardinians were said to have preserved many cultural affinities with the ancient [[Punics|Punic]]-[[Berber people|Berber]] populations from [[North Africa]].<ref>[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11691083.pdf Manlio Brigaglia, Attilio Mastino, Gian Giacomo Ortu (edited by). ''Storia della Sardegna, dalle Origini al Settecento''], p. 41</ref>

After the [[First Punic War]], the whole island was conquered by the [[Ancient Rome|Romans]] in the 3rd century BC. Sardinia and Corsica were then made into a [[Corsica and Sardinia|single province]];<ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula|Casula, Francesco Cèsare]] (2017). ''La storia di Sardegna, I, Evo Antico Sardo : Dalla Sardegna Medio-Nuragica (100 a.C. c.) alla Sardegna Bizantina (900 d.C. c.)'', p.184</ref> however, it took the Romans more than another 150 years to manage to subdue the more belligerent Nuragic tribes of the interior,<ref>Emmanuel Anati (ed. by). ''I sardi : la Sardegna dal paleolitico all'eta romana'', Editrice Mediterranea, Cagliari, p.21</ref> and after 184 years since the Sardinians fell under Roman sway, [[Cicero]] noted how there was still not on the island a single community which had had friendly intercourse with the Roman people.<ref>[44] ''Neque ego, cum de vitiis gentis loquor, neminem excipio; sed a me est de universo genere dicendum, in quo fortasse aliqui suis moribus et humanitate stirpis ipsius et gentis vitia vicerunt. Magnam quidem esse partem sine fide, sine societate et coniunctione nominis nostri res ipsa declarat. Quae est enim praeter Sardiniam provincia quae nullam habeat amicam populo Romano ac liberam civitatem?'' . [http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/scauro.shtml Cicero, Pro Scauro]</ref><ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula|Casula, Francesco Cèsare]] (2017). ''La storia di Sardegna, I, Evo Antico Sardo : Dalla Sardegna Medio-Nuragica (100 a.C. c.) alla Sardegna Bizantina (900 d.C. c.)'', p.186</ref><ref name="Masti" /> Even from the former Sardo-Carthaginian settlements, with which the Sardinian mountaineers had formed an alliance in a common struggle against the Romans,<ref>«..Nello stesso tempo i Sardi rimasti indipendenti sulle montagne smisero il loro iniziale atteggiamento ostile nei confronti dei Cartaginesi, dei quali divennero federati, come dimostra il fatto che essi non si sollevarono contro i Punici nel momento in cui Scipione prese Olbia (259 a.C.), ma anzi fecero causa comune con quelli. Ne sono indizio le numerose menzioni di trionfi romani su Cartaginesi e Sardi.» {{cite book|author=Gennaro Pesce|title=La vita quotidiana durante il periodo punico, in La società in Sardegna nei secoli|page=52}}</ref> indigenous attempts emerged aimed at resisting cultural and political assimilation: inscriptions in [[Bithia, Italy|Bithia]] dating to the period of [[Marcus Aurelius]] were found, and they still followed the old Punic script at a time when even in North Africa the script was neo-Punic;<ref name="noel" /> Punic-style magistrates, the ''[[sufet]]es,'' wielded local control in Nora and Tharros through the end of the first century B.C., although two ''sufetes'' existed in Bithia as late as the mid-second century CE.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Roppa |first1=Andrea |author-link1=Connectivity, Trade and Punic persistence: Insularity and Identity in Late Punic to Roman Republican Sardinia (3rd–1st century BC) |editor1-last=Kouremenos |editor1-first=Anna |title=Insularity and identity in the Roman Mediterranean |date=2018 |publisher=Oxbow Books |pages=144–164}}</ref> Overall, Sardinia was quite disliked by the Romans and, as isolated as it was kept, [[Romanization]] proceeded at a relatively slow pace.<ref name="noel" />
[[File:Sardegna Barbaria.png|thumbnail|150px|The ''Barbaria'' (in blue) and the Roman-controlled regions of Sardinia (in yellow) with the red dots being their most prominent settlements.]]
During the Roman rule, there was a considerable immigration flow from the Italian peninsula into the island; ancient sources mention several populations of [[Italic peoples|Italic]] origin settling down in Sardinia, like the ''Patulcenses Campani'' (from [[Campania]]), the ''[[Falisci]]'' (from southern [[Etruria]]), the ''Buduntini'' (from [[Apulia]]) and the ''Siculenses'' (from [[Sicily]]); [[Roman colonies]] were also established in [[Porto Torres]] (''Turris Libisonis'') and ''[[Usellus|Uselis]]''.<ref>A. Mastino, ''Storia della Sardegna antica'', p.173</ref> The Italic immigrants were confronted with a difficult coexistence with the natives,<ref>[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11691083.pdf Manlio Brigaglia, Attilio Mastino, Gian Giacomo Ortu (edited by). ''Storia della Sardegna, dalle Origini al Settecento''], p. 42</ref> who were reluctant to assimilate to the language and customs of the colonists; many aspects of the ancient Sardo-Punic culture are documented to have persisted well into Imperial times, and the mostly mountainous innerlands came to earn the name of ''[[Barbagia|Barbaria]]'' ("Land of the Barbarians", similar in origin to the word ''[[Barbary]]'') as a testament of the fiercely independent spirit of the tribes who dwelled therein (in fact, they would continue to practice their indigenous prehistoric religion up until the age of [[Pope Gregory I]]).<ref>[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11691083.pdf Manlio Brigaglia, Attilio Mastino, Gian Giacomo Ortu (edited by). ''Storia della Sardegna, dalle Origini al Settecento''], pp. 41, 43-45</ref>
{{blockquote|Therefore, at the beginning of the imperial age, the Sardinian population appears remarkably composite: the coexistence between the natives and the Italic immigrants was not easy; the integration turned out to be slow, different from region to region and, in the inland areas, firmly closed to confrontation with the Romans, only superficial and not irreversible..|
Attilio Mastino, Storia della Sardegna antica p.173}}
Nevertheless, Sardinia would eventually undergo cultural Romanization, the modern [[Sardinian language]] being one of the most evident cultural developments thereof.<ref>Contini & Tuttle, 1982: 171; Blasco Ferrer, 1989: 14.</ref><ref>Story of Language, Mario Pei, 1949</ref><ref>Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge University Press</ref> [[Strabo]] gave a brief summary about the Mountaineer tribes,<ref>[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11691083.pdf Manlio Brigaglia, Attilio Mastino, Gian Giacomo Ortu (edited by). ''Storia della Sardegna, dalle Origini al Settecento''], p. 44</ref> living in what would be called ''civitates Barbariae'', ''[[Geographica]]'' V ch.2:<blockquote>There are four nations of mountaineers, the Parati, Sossinati, Balari, and the Aconites. These people dwell in caverns. Although they have some arable land, they neglect its cultivation, preferring rather to plunder what they find cultivated by others, whether on the island or on the continent, where they make descents, especially upon the Pisatæ. The prefects sent [into Sardinia] sometimes resist them, but at other times leave them alone, since it would cost too dear to maintain an army always on foot in an unhealthy place.</blockquote>
Like any other subjects of the Empire, Sardinians too would be granted [[Roman citizenship]] in 212 AD with the [[Constitutio Antoniniana]] by [[Caracalla]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Storia della Sardegna antica|author=Attilio Mastino|page=546|publisher=Edizioni Il Maestrale|isbn=88-86109-98-9|year=2005}}</ref>

===Middle Ages===
After the fall of the [[Western Roman Empire]], Sardinia was ruled in rapid succession by the [[Vandals]],<ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula|Casula, Francesco Cèsare]] (2017). ''La storia di Sardegna, I, Evo Antico Sardo : Dalla Sardegna Medio-Nuragica (100 a.C. c.) alla Sardegna Bizantina (900 d.C. c.)'', pp. 255-269</ref> the [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantines]], the [[Ostrogoths]]<ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula]] – La Storia di Sardegna, pg.141</ref> and again by the Byzantines, when the island was, once again in its history, joined to North Africa as part of the [[Exarchate of Africa]].

During the [[Middle Ages]], the "Sardinian Nation" (''Nació Sarda'' or ''Sardesca'', as reported from the native and Aragonese dispatches<ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula|Casula, Francesco Cèsare]] (1982). ''Profilo storico della Sardegna catalano-aragonese'', Edizioni della Torre, Cagliari, pp.8-10; Casula, Francesco Cèsare (1985). ''La Sardenya catalano-aragonesa : perfil historic'', Dalmau, Barcelona, p.14</ref>) was juridically divided into [[Giudicati|four independent Kingdoms]] (known individually in [[Sardinian language|Sardinian]] as ''Judicadu'', ''Giudicau'' or simply ''Logu'', that is "place";<ref>Cèsare, Francesco Cèsare (1985). ''La Sardenya catalano-aragonesa : perfil historic'', Dalmau, Barcelona, p.19</ref> in {{lang-it|Giudicato}});<ref>[[Francesco Cesare Casula|Casula, Francesco Cèsare]] (1990). ''La Sardegna aragonese'', 6.2 ''La nazione sarda'', Sassari, Chiarella</ref> all of them, with the exception of [[Judicate of Arborea|Arborea]], fell under the influence of the Italian [[maritime republics]] of [[Republic of Genoa|Genoa]] and [[Republic of Pisa|Pisa]], as well as some noble families from the two cities, like the [[Doria (family)|Doria]]s and the [[Della Gherardesca]]s, plus the [[Malaspina family]]. The Dorias founded the cities of [[Alghero]] and ''Castelgenovese'' (today [[Castelsardo]]), while the Pisans founded ''Castel di Castro'' (today [[Cagliari]]) and ''Terranova'' (today [[Olbia]]); the famous [[count]] [[Ugolino della Gherardesca]], quoted by [[Dante Alighieri]] in his ''[[Divine Comedy]]'', favored the birth of the mining town of ''Villa di Chiesa'' (today [[Iglesias, Sardinia|Iglesias]]), which became an Italian [[medieval commune]] along with [[Sassari]] and Castel di Castro. These new cities attracted migrants from the Italian peninsula, Corsica and several regions of Sardinia.<ref>Mauro Maxia, I corsi in Sardegna, 2006, Edizioni della Torre, ISBN 8873434126</ref><ref>Marco Tangheroni, La città dell'argento. Iglesias dalle origini alla fine del Medioevo, Napoli 1985, Liguori editore, ISBN 9788820713669</ref>
[[File:Braun hogenberg Cagliari 1572.jpg|thumb|left|View of Cagliari (''Calaris'') from the "''[[Civitates orbis terrarum]]''" (1572)]]
Following the [[Crown of Aragon|Aragonese]] [[Aragonese conquest of Sardinia|conquest of the Sardinian territories under Pisan rule]], which took place between 1323 and 1326, and then the [[Sardinian–Aragonese war|long conflict]] between the Aragonese Kingdom and the [[Judicate of Arborea]] (1353–1420), the newborn [[Kingdom of Sardinia]] became one of the Associate States of the [[Crown of Aragon]]. The Aragonese repopulated the cities of Castel di Castro and Alghero with [[Spaniards]], mainly [[Catalan people|Catalans]].<ref>Manlio Brigaglia – Storia della Sardegna, pg.158</ref><ref>[http://www.refworld.org/docid/49749d0028.html Minority Rights Group International – Sardinians]</ref> A [[Algherese|local dialect]] of Catalan is still spoken by a minority of people in the city of Alghero.

===Modern and contemporary history===
In the 16th and 17th centuries, the main Sardinian cities of Cagliari (the capital of the Kingdom), Alghero and Sassari appear well placed in the trade routes of the time. The cosmopolitan composition of its people provides evidence of it: the population was not only indigenous, but also hailing from Spain, Liguria, France and the island of [[Corsica]] in particular.<ref>Stranieri nella Cagliari del XVI e XVII secolo da "Los Otros: genti, culture e religioni diverse nella Sardegna spagnola”, Cagliari, 23 aprile 2004.</ref><ref>Antonio Budruni, Da vila a ciutat: aspetti di vita sociale in Alghero, nei secoli XVI e XVII</ref><ref name="Max" /> Especially in Sassari and across the strip of territory that goes from [[Anglona]] to [[Gallura]], the [[Corsicans]] became the majority of the population at least since the 15th century.<ref name="Max" /> This migration from the neighboring island, which is likely to have led to the birth of the [[Tuscan dialect|Tuscan]]-sounding [[Sassarese language|Sassarese]] and [[Gallurese dialect]]s,<ref name="Max" /> went on continuously until the 19th century.

The Spanish era ended in 1713, when Sardinia was ceded to the Austrian [[House of Habsburg]], followed with another cession in 1718 to the [[Dukes of Savoy]], who assumed the title of "Kings of Sardinia" and ruled the island from [[Turin]], in [[Piedmont]]. During this period, [[Italianization]] policies were implemented, so as to assimilate the islanders to the then Savoyard mainland (''stati di terraferma'').<ref>Cardia, Amos (2006). '' S'italianu in Sardìnnia candu, cumenti e poita d'ant impostu: 1720-1848; poderi e lìngua in Sardìnnia in edadi spanniola '', Iskra, Ghilarza, p. 92</ref> In 1738, the [[Liguria]]n colonists escaped from [[Tabarka]] ([[Tunisia]]) were invited by [[Charles Emmanuel III]] to settle on the little islands of [[San Pietro Island|San Pietro]] and [[Sant'Antioco]] (at [[Carloforte]] and [[Calasetta]]), in the south-west area of Sardinia, bringing with them a [[Ligurian language (Romance language)|Ligurian dialect]] called "Tabarchino", still widely spoken there.<ref>''Dizionario geografico storico-statistico-commerciale degli Stati di S. M. il Re di Sardegna: 3, Volumes 1-28'', Presso G. Maspero librajo, 1836, year 1738</ref> Then, the Piedmontese [[Kingdom of Sardinia]] annexed the whole Italian peninsula and [[Sicily]] in 1861 after the [[Risorgimento]], becoming the [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Kingdom of Italy]].

[[File:Mineraria montevecchio.jpg|thumb|right|Montevecchio mine]]

{{See also|History of mining in Sardinia}}
Since 1850, with the reorganization of the Sardinian mines, there had been a considerable migration flow from the Italian peninsula towards the Sardinian mining areas of [[Sulcis]]-[[Iglesiente]]; these Mainland miners came mostly from [[Lombardy]], Piedmont, [[Tuscany]] and [[Romagna]].<ref>Stefano Musso, Tra fabbrica e società: mondi operai nell'Italia del Novecento, Volume 33, p.316</ref><ref>[http://notedarchivio.myblog.it/archive/2009/01/23/quando-i-bergamaschi-occuparono-le-case.html Quando i bergamaschi occuparono le case] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121112124531/http://notedarchivio.myblog.it/archive/2009/01/23/quando-i-bergamaschi-occuparono-le-case.html |date=12 November 2012 }}</ref> According to an 1882 census realised by the French engineer Leon Goüine, 10,000 miners worked in the south-western Sardinian mines, one third of whom being from the Italian mainland;<ref>[http://www.sardegnaminiere.it/il_progresso_sociale.htm Il progresso sociale della Sardegna e lo sfruttamento industriale delle miniere – Sardegnaminiere.it]</ref> most of them settled in Iglesias and ''[[Frazione|frazioni]]'' .

At the end of the 19th century, communities of fishermen from [[Sicily]], [[Torre del Greco]] (Campania) and [[Ponza]] (Lazio) migrated on the east coasts of the island, in the towns of [[Arbatax]]/[[Tortolì]], [[Siniscola]] and [[La Maddalena]].

In 1931, only 3.2% of the island's population was estimated to be native of the Mainland.<ref name="treccani1936" /> A central government policy would change this situation in the following years,<ref name="treccani1936" /> which saw an immigration flow from the Italian peninsula: the [[Kingdom of Italy#Fascist regime (1922–1943)|Fascist regime]] resettled to Sardinia a considerable number of miners and peasants from a wide variety of regions like [[Veneto]], [[Marche]], [[Abruzzo]] and [[Sicily]], who were encouraged to populate the new mining town of [[Carbonia, Sardinia|Carbonia]], or agrarian villages like ''Mussolinia di Sardegna'' ("Sardinia's Mussolinia", now [[Arborea]]) and [[Fertilia]]; after [[World War II]], [[Istrian Italians|Italian refugees]] from the [[Istrian–Dalmatian exodus]] were relocated in the [[Nurra]] region, along the north-western coastline. As a result of the city's originally diverse composition, Carbonia developed a variety of Italian with some Sardinian influences from the neighbouring areas, while the other mainland ''coloni'' ("colonists") establishing minor centres kept their dialects of [[Istriot language|Istriot]], [[Venetian Language|Venetian]] and [[Friulan language|Friulan]], which are still spoken by the elderly.<ref>[http://www2.regione.veneto.it/videoinf/periodic/precedenti/99/1/celebrazioni.htm Veneti nel Mondo (Venetians in the World) – Anno III – numero 1 – Gennaio 1999] {{in lang|it}}</ref> In the same period, a few [[Italian Tunisian]] families settled in the sparsely populated area of [[Castiadas]], east of Cagliari.<ref>[http://lanuovasardegna.gelocal.it/regione/2011/04/23/news/e-al-ritorno-conquistarono-le-terre-abbandonate-1.3420885 E al ritorno conquistarono le terre abbandonate – La Nuova Sardegna]</ref>

Following the [[Italian economic miracle]], a historic migratory movement from the inland to the coastal and urban areas of [[Cagliari]], Sassari-Alghero-[[Porto Torres]] and [[Olbia]], where today most Sardinians live, took place.

==Demographics==
{{Main|Sardinia#Demographics}}

With a population density of 69/km2,<ref name="eupedia" /> slightly more than a third of the national average, Sardinia is the fourth least populated region in Italy. The population distribution was anomalous compared to that of other Italian regions lying on the sea. In fact, contrary to the general trend, from the late Middle Ages until the 20th century urban settlement has not taken place primarily along the coast but towards the centre of the island. Historical reasons for this include the repeated [[Moors|Moorish]] raids which made the coast unsafe, the abandonment of hundrends of settlements following the [[Sardinian–Aragonese war]] and the swampy nature of the coastal plains that were reclaimed only in the 20th century. Similarly to the Celtic clans, the Sardinians have in fact tended to retreat into the less accessible interior to keep their own independence and way of life.<ref>«Sardinians have always had a tendency to retreat into the mountainous interior of their island trying to continue their free and independent way of life, similar to that of the Gaelic clans. A Sardinian proverb says “''furat chie benit dae su mare''” or “the thieves always come from the sea”.» {{cite book|author=Georgina Ashworth|title=World Minorities|volume=2|page=110|year=1977|publisher=Quartermaine House}}</ref> The situation has been recently reversed with the expansion of the [[industrialization]] and seaside tourism; today all Sardinia's major urban centres are located near the coast, while the island's interior is very sparsely populated.

It is the region of Italy with the lowest [[total fertility rate]]<ref>[[Istituto Nazionale di Statistica|ISTAT]] [http://demo.istat.it/altridati/indicatori/2005/Tab_4.pdf Numero medio di figli per donna per regione 2002–2005]</ref><ref>[http://lanuovasardegna.gelocal.it/regione/2016/04/17/news/solo-1-1-figli-per-madre-la-sardegna-ultima-in-italia-1.13317171 Solo 1,1 figli per madre, la Sardegna ultima in Italia - La Nuova Sardegna]</ref> (1.087 births per woman), and the region with the second-lowest [[birth rate]].<ref>[[Istituto Nazionale di Statistica|ISTAT]] [http://demo.istat.it/altridati/indicatori/2005/Tab_1.pdf Tassi generici di natalità, mortalità e nuzialità per regione 2002–2005]</ref> However, the population in Sardinia has increased in recent years because of immigration, mainly proceeding from continental Italy and Sicily, but also from [[Eastern Europe]] (esp. [[Romania]]), [[Africa]] and [[Asia]].

As of 2013, there were 42,159 foreign (that is, any people who have not applied for Italian citizenship) national residents, forming 2.5% of the total population.<ref name = Istat >[http://demo.istat.it/str2013/index.html Rapporto Istat – La popolazione straniera residente in Italia al 31º dicembre 2013]</ref>

===Life expectancy and longevity===

[[File:3 blue zones venn diagram.svg|thumb|Diagram of longevity clues in the main [[Blue Zones]]]]

Average [[life expectancy]] is slightly over 82 years (85 for women and 79.7 for men<ref>[https://www.istat.it/it/files//2016/02/Indicatori-demografici_2015.pdf ISTAT - Indicatori demografici anno 2015, p.6]</ref>).

Sardinia is the first discovered [[Blue Zone]], a demographic and/or geographic area of the world where people live measurably longer lives.<ref>[http://www.bluezones.com/expedition/sardinia/ Sardinia, Italy – Blue Zones]</ref> Sardinians share with the [[Ryukyuan people|Ryukyuans]] from [[Okinawa]]<ref>[http://www.bluezones.com/2014/03/okinawa-exploration-backgrounds/ Okinawa Exploration Backgrounds – Blue Zones]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/unsolvedmysteries/story/0,,1155661,00.html Does Sardinia hold the secret of long life - mystery, The Guardian]</ref> (Japan) the highest rate of [[centenarians]] in the world (22 centenarians/100,000 inhabitants). The key factors of such a high concentration of centenarians are identified in the genetics of the Sardinians,<ref name="Cucca" /><ref>[http://www.bluezones.com/2014/03/sardinia-exploration-backgrounds/ Sardinia Exploration Backgrounds – Blue Zones]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Polidori MC, Mariani E, Baggio G |title=Different antioxidant profiles in Italian centenarians: the Sardinian peculiarity |journal=Eur J Clin Nutr |volume=61 |issue=7 |pages=922–4 |date=Jul 2007 |pmid=17228351 |doi=10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602596 |display-authors=etal|doi-access=free }}</ref> lifestyle such as diet and nutrition, and the social structure.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/20/secret-long-happy-life-mountain-villages-sardinia?CMP=fb_gu Susan Pinker: why face-to-face contact matters in our digital age – The Guardian]</ref>

===Demographic indicators===
* [[Birth Rate]]: 8.3 (per 1,000 inhabitants – 2005) <ref name="demo.istat.it">[[National Institute of Statistics (Italy)|ISTAT]] [http://demo.istat.it/altridati/indicatori/2005/Tab_1.pdf Tassi generici di natalità, mortalità e nuzialità per regione 2002–2005]</ref>
* [[Fertility Rate]]: 1.07 (births per woman – 2005) <ref>[[National Institute of Statistics (Italy)|ISTAT]] [http://demo.istat.it/altridati/indicatori/2005/Tab_4.pdf Numero medio di figli per donna per regione 2002–2005]</ref>
* [[Mortality rate]]: 8.7 (per 1,000 inhabitants – 2005) <ref name="demo.istat.it"/>
* [[Infant mortality rate]] males: 4.6 (per 1,000 births- 2000) <ref name="Speranza di vita e mortalità">[[Ministero della Salute]] [http://www.ministerosalute.it/imgs/C_17_bacheca_32_listaelencodocumenti_elenco1_listadocumenti_documento0_listafile_file0_linkfile.pdf Speranza di vita e mortalità] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091020143908/http://www.ministerosalute.it/imgs/C_17_bacheca_32_listaelencodocumenti_elenco1_listadocumenti_documento0_listafile_file0_linkfile.pdf |date=20 October 2009 }}</ref>
* [[Infant mortality rate]] females: 3.0 (per 1,000 births – 2000) <ref name="Speranza di vita e mortalità"/>
* [[Marriage rate]]: 2.9 (per 1,000 inhabitants – 2014) <ref>[https://seosardinia.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/matrimoni-il-processo-di-secolarizzazione-in-sardegna Matrimoni, Il processo di secolarizzazione in Sardegna - Sardinian Socio-Economic Observatory]</ref>
* [[Suicide rate]] males: 20.4 (per 100,000 inhabitants)<ref name="suic1" /><ref name="suic2" /><ref name="suic3" />
* [[Suicide rate]] females: 4.5 (per 100,000 inhabitants)<ref name="suic1">[http://www.ansa.it/sardegna/notizie/2017/09/21/isola-prima-in-italia-per-suicidi_edbed0b4-a52f-446b-85f7-9f0e445ead73.html ''Isola prima in Italia per suicidi'', Ansa.it]</ref><ref name="suic2">[https://www.sardegnadies.it/sardegna-il-paradiso-dei-suicidi/ Sardegna, il paradiso dei suicidi, Sardegna Dìes]</ref><ref name="suic3">[https://www.lanuovasardegna.it/regione/2018/09/08/news/l-isola-prima-in-italia-nella-classifica-dei-suicidi-1.17230480/amp/ La Sardegna prima in Italia nella classifica dei suicidi, La Nuova Sardegna]</ref>
*Total [[literacy rate]]: 98.2%<ref name="edscuola.it">[http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/statistiche/analfabetismo_01.pdf Analfabetismo Italia – Censimento 2001]</ref><ref name="sardegnastatistiche.it">[http://www.sardegnastatistiche.it/index.php?xsl=672&s=12&v=9&c=5042&subnodo=337&refp=0&id=251&tt=4&anno=5 Sardegna Statistiche: Analfabeti]</ref>
*[[Literacy rate]] under 65 years old: 99.5%<ref name="edscuola.it"/><ref name="sardegnastatistiche.it"/>

===Historical population===
{{Historical populations
|type =
|footnote = Source: [[Istituto Nazionale di Statistica|ISTAT]] 2011, – D.Angioni-S.Loi-G.Puggioni, La popolazione dei comuni sardi dal 1688 al 1991, CUEC, Cagliari, 1997 – F. Corridore, Storia documentata della popolazione di Sardegna, Carlo Clausen, Torino, 1902
|1485 |157578
|1603 |266676
|1678 |299356
|1688 |229532
|1698 |259157
|1728 |311902
|1751 |360805
|1771 |360785
|1776 |422647
|1781 |431897
|1821 |461931
|1824 |469831
|1838 |525485
|1844 |544253
|1848 |554717
|1857 |573243
|1861 |609000
|1871 |636000
|1881 |680000
|1901 |796000
|1911 |868000
|1921 |885000
|1931 |984000
|1936 |1034000
|1951 |1276000
|1961 |1419000
|1971 |1474000
|1981 |1594000
|1991 |1648000
|2001 |1632000
|2011 |1639362
}}

<timeline>
Colors=
id:lightgrey value:gray(0.9)
id:darkgrey value:gray(0.7)
id:sfondo value:rgb(1,1,1)
id:barra value:rgb(0.6,0.7,0.8)

ImageSize = width:455 height:373
PlotArea = left:50 bottom:50 top:30 right:30
DateFormat = x.y
Period = from:0 till:1700
TimeAxis = orientation:vertical
AlignBars = justify
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:darkgrey increment:100 start:0
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightgrey increment:100 start:0
BackgroundColors = canvas:sfondo

BarData=
bar:1861 text:1861
bar:1871 text:1871
bar:1881 text:1881
bar:1901 text:1901
bar:1911 text:1911
bar:1921 text:1921
bar:1931 text:1931
bar:1936 text:1936
bar:1951 text:1951
bar:1961 text:1961
bar:1971 text:1971
bar:1981 text:1981
bar:1991 text:1991
bar:2001 text:2001
bar:2008 text:2008

PlotData=
color:barra width:20 align:left

bar:1861 from:0 till: 609.000
bar:1871 from:0 till: 636.000
bar:1881 from:0 till: 680.000
bar:1901 from:0 till: 796.000
bar:1911 from:0 till: 868.000
bar:1921 from:0 till: 885.000
bar:1931 from:0 till: 984.000
bar:1936 from:0 till: 1034.000
bar:1951 from:0 till: 1276.000
bar:1961 from:0 till: 1419.000
bar:1971 from:0 till: 1474.000
bar:1981 from:0 till: 1594.000
bar:1991 from:0 till: 1648.000
bar:2001 from:0 till: 1632.000
bar:2008 from:0 till: 1673.000
TextData=
fontsize:S pos:(20,20)
text:Fonte istat – Elaborazione grafica di Wikipedia
</timeline>

===Division by gender and age===

<timeline>
Colors=
id:lightgrey value:gray(0.9)
id:darkgrey value:gray(0.7)
id:sfondo value:rgb(1,1,1)
id:barra value:rgb(0.6,0.7,0.8)
id:barra2 value:rgb(0.8,0.6,0.7)

ImageSize = width:405 height:500
PlotArea = left:50 bottom:50 top:30 right:30
DateFormat = x.y
Period = from:-80 till:80
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
AlignBars = late
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:darkgrey increment:20 start:-80
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightgrey increment:10 start:-80
BackgroundColors = canvas:sfondo

BarData=
bar:100 text:100+
bar:959 text:95–99
bar:904 text:90–94
bar:859 text:85–89
bar:804 text:80–84
bar:759 text:75–79
bar:704 text:70–74
bar:659 text:65–69
bar:604 text:60–64
bar:559 text:55–59
bar:504 text:50–54
bar:459 text:45–49
bar:404 text:40–44
bar:359 text:35–39
bar:304 text:30–34
bar:259 text:25–29
bar:204 text:20–24
bar:159 text:15–19
bar:104 text:10–14
bar:59 text:5–9
bar:04 text:0–4

PlotData=
color:barra2 width:12 align:left

bar:100 from:0 till: 0.168
bar:959 from:0 till: 1.471
bar:904 from:0 till: 6.007
bar:859 from:0 till: 11.460
bar:804 from:0 till: 24.951
bar:759 from:0 till: 33.738
bar:704 from:0 till: 40.397
bar:659 from:0 till: 44.093
bar:604 from:0 till: 48.919
bar:559 from:0 till: 52.534
bar:504 from:0 till: 56.636
bar:459 from:0 till: 60.279
bar:404 from:0 till: 66.558
bar:359 from:0 till: 67.588
bar:304 from:0 till: 66.668
bar:259 from:0 till: 60.175
bar:204 from:0 till: 50.627
bar:159 from:0 till: 43.784
bar:104 from:0 till: 39.019
bar:59 from:0 till: 32.965
bar:04 from:0 till: 32.407

color:barra width:12 align:left

bar:100 from:0 till: -0.069
bar:959 from:0 till: -0.680
bar:904 from:0 till: -3.069
bar:859 from:0 till: -6.015
bar:804 from:0 till: -15.159
bar:759 from:0 till: -24.059
bar:704 from:0 till: -32.837
bar:659 from:0 till: -38.642
bar:604 from:0 till: -44.946
bar:559 from:0 till: -51.726
bar:504 from:0 till: -56.135
bar:459 from:0 till: -59.627
bar:404 from:0 till: -65.613
bar:359 from:0 till: -68.125
bar:304 from:0 till: -68.727
bar:259 from:0 till: -62.627
bar:204 from:0 till: -53.570
bar:159 from:0 till: -46.228
bar:104 from:0 till: -41.205
bar:59 from:0 till: -35.979
bar:04 from:0 till: -34.494

TextData=
fontsize:S pos:(20,20)
text:Fonte ISTAT 2005 – Elaborazione grafica di Wikipedia
</timeline>

===Total population by age===
<timeline>
Colors=
id:lightgrey value:gray(0.9)
id:darkgrey value:gray(0.7)
id:sfondo value:rgb(1,1,1)
id:barra value:rgb(0.6,0.7,0.8)

ImageSize = width:415 height:500
PlotArea = left:50 bottom:50 top:30 right:30
DateFormat = x.y
Period = from:0 till:150
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
AlignBars = late
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:darkgrey increment:10 start:0
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightgrey increment:10 start:0
BackgroundColors = canvas:sfondo

BarData=
bar:100 text:100+
bar:959 text:95–99
bar:904 text:90–94
bar:859 text:85–89
bar:804 text:80–84
bar:759 text:75–79
bar:704 text:70–74
bar:659 text:65–69
bar:604 text:60–64
bar:559 text:55–59
bar:504 text:50–54
bar:459 text:45–49
bar:404 text:40–44
bar:359 text:35–39
bar:304 text:30–34
bar:259 text:25–29
bar:204 text:20–24
bar:159 text:15–19
bar:104 text:10–14
bar:59 text:5–9
bar:04 text:0–4

PlotData=
color:barra width:12 align:left

bar:100 from:0 till: 0.237
bar:959 from:0 till: 2.151
bar:904 from:0 till: 9.076
bar:859 from:0 till: 17.475
bar:804 from:0 till: 40.141
bar:759 from:0 till: 57.797
bar:704 from:0 till: 73.234
bar:659 from:0 till: 82.735
bar:604 from:0 till: 93.865
bar:559 from:0 till: 104.260
bar:504 from:0 till: 112.771
bar:459 from:0 till: 119.906
bar:404 from:0 till: 132.171
bar:359 from:0 till: 135.713
bar:304 from:0 till: 135.395
bar:259 from:0 till: 122.847
bar:204 from:0 till: 104.197
bar:159 from:0 till: 90.012
bar:104 from:0 till: 80.224
bar:59 from:0 till: 68.944
bar:04 from:0 till: 66.901

TextData=
fontsize:S pos:(20,20)
text:Fonte ISTAT 2005 – Elaborazione grafica di Wikipedia
</timeline>

===Geographical distribution===
Most Sardinians are native to the island but a sizable number of people have settled outside Sardinia: it had been estimated that, between 1955 and 1971, 308,000 Sardinians emigrated to the Italian mainland.<ref>[http://www.asei.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42:lemigrazione-della-sardegna&catid=65:articoli&Itemid=250 Giuseppe Sanna – L'emigrazione della Sardegna (Emigration of Sardinia)] {{in lang|it}}</ref> Sizable Sardinian communities are located in [[Piedmont]], Liguria, [[Lombardy]], Tuscany and [[Lazio|Latium]].

Sardinians and their descendants are also numerous in Germany, France, [[Belgium]], Switzerland and the USA (part of the [[Italian-American]] community). Almost all the Sardinians migrating to the [[Americas]] settled down in the [[South America|Southern part]] of the continent, especially in [[Argentina]] (between 1900 and 1913 about 12,000 Sardinians lived in [[Buenos Aires]] and neighbourhoods)<ref>[http://www.scuolebolotana.it/CD%20AMBASSADORES/emigraz_sarda_900.htm L'emigrazione sarda tra la fine dell' 800 e i primi del 900]</ref> and [[Uruguay]] (in [[Montevideo]] in the 1870s lived 12,500 Sardinians). Between 1876 and 1903, 92% of the Sardinians that moved towards the Americas settled in [[Brazil]].<ref name="lipari.istat.it">http://lipari.istat.it/digibib/Annuari/TO00176482Annuario_statistico_emigrazione_italiana_1876_1925.pdf Commissariato generale dell'emigrazione (a cura di), Annuario statistico della emigrazione italiana dal 1876 al 1925</ref> Between 1876 and 1925 34,190 Sardinians migrated to Africa, in particular towards the then French [[Algeria]] and [[Tunisia]].<ref name="lipari.istat.it"/> Small communities with Sardinians ancestors, about 5000 people, are also found in [[Brazil]] (mostly in the cities of [[Belo Horizonte]], Rio de Janeiro and [[São Paulo]]),<ref>[http://www.regione.sardegna.it/messaggero/2005_aprile_17.pdf Il messagero sardo – Una piccola ma attiva colonia di sardi vive nello stato di Bahia] {{in lang|it}}</ref> the UK, and Australia.

The Region of Sardinia keeps a register of overseas Sardinians who have managed to set up, in the Italian mainland and the rest of the world, a number of cultural associations: these are meant to provide the people of Sardinian descent, or those with an interest on Sardinian culture, an opportunity to enjoy a wide range of activities. As of 2012, there are 145 clubs registered on it.<ref>http://www.sardegnamigranti.it/documenti/25_410_20121011104934.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref>

{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible"
| Sardinians residing in European countries 2008<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.museonazionaleemigrazione.it/regioni.php?id=15|title=Museo Nazionale Emigrazione Italiana – 25-03-2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150323082514/http://www.museonazionaleemigrazione.it/regioni.php?id=15|archive-date=23 March 2015}}</ref>
|-
| Germany || 27,184
|-
| France || 23,110
|-
| Belgium || 12,126
|-
| Switzerland || 7,274
|-
| Netherlands || 6,040
|-
| ''Others''|| 17,763
|-
| '''Total''' || 93,497
|}

Unlike the rest of Italian emigration, where migrants were mainly males, between 1953 and 1974 an equal number of females and males emigrated from Sardinia to the Italian mainland.

===Surnames and given names===
{{Main article|Sardinian surnames}}
[[File:Ploaghe, camposanto, lapidi in logudorese, 02.JPG|350px|thumb|right|Historic cemetery of [[Ploaghe]]. In the tombstone to the left, dating back to the second half of the 19th century and written in Sardinian, some historical Sardinian given names are used (''Antoni'', ''Johanna Teresa'', ''Franciscu''). Such given names are however absent in the neighbouring tombstones written in Italian, which testifies to the ongoing process of [[language shift]].]]
Fewer than a hundred Sardinian surnames are needed to group together as much as a third of the whole Sardinian population.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cognomix.it/cognomi-sardi.php|title=Cognomi sardi - Cognomi Diffusi in Sardegna|website=Cognomix}}</ref> The most common Sardinian surnames, like ''Sanna'' (fang<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2018/11/17/news/il-primo-sanna-aveva-i-canini-affilati-come-zanne-1.17473682|title=''Le origini dei cognomi sardi, il primo Sanna aveva i canini affilati come zanne'', Mauro Maxia|date=18 November 2018}}</ref>), ''Piras'' (pears<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2018/12/08/news/piras-secondo-in-sardegna-le-origini-in-villaggi-dell-ozierese-e-del-sulcis-1.17544541|title= ''Cognomi sardi. Piras, secondo nell'isola: le origini in villaggi dell'Ozierese e del Sulcis'', Mauro Maxia|date= 9 December 2018}}</ref>), ''Pinna'' (feather, pen<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2018/12/15/news/cinquemila-famiglie-pinna-tutto-inizio-con-la-piuma-e-la-penna-di-uno-scrivano-1.17567613|title= ''I segreti dei cognomi. Cinquemila famiglie Pinna: tutto iniziò con la piuma e la penna di uno scrivano'', Mauro Maxia|date= 16 December 2018}}</ref>) and ''Melis'' (honey<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2018/12/29/news/melis-dolce-come-il-miele-la-prima-apparizione-risale-al-1200-nel-regno-di-arborea-1.17606214|title=''Il cognome: Melis, dolce come il miele. La prima apparizione risale al 1200 nel Regno di Arborea'', Mauro Maxia|date=30 December 2018}}</ref>),<ref>[http://lanuovasardegna.gelocal.it/regione/2016/03/22/news/i-sanna-battono-i-piras-e-loro-il-cognome-piu-diffuso-in-sardegna-ecco-la-classifica-1.13172814 I Sanna battono i Piras: è loro il cognome più diffuso in Sardegna. Ecco la classifica - La Nuova Sardegna]</ref><ref>[https://seosardinia.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/cognomi-i-20-piu-diffusi-in-sardegna/ Cognomi | I più diffusi in Sardegna per territorio - Sardinian Socio-Economic Observatory]</ref> derive from the [[Sardinian language]] and developed among the [[Sardinian medieval kingdoms|Judicates]] in the [[Middle Ages]] as a result of being registered in documents like the [[condaghe]]s for administrative purposes; most of them derive either from Sardinian place names<ref name="Manconi2">Manconi, Lorenzo (1987). ''Dizionario dei cognomi sardi'', Edizioni della Torre, p.15</ref> (e.g. ''Fonnesu'' "from [[Fonni]]",<ref name="MaxMa">[http://maxia-mail.doomby.com/medias/files/rion-maxia-cognomi-sardi-medioevali.pdf ''Rivista italiana di onomastica'', Mauro Maxia, ''Cognomi sardi medioevali formati da toponimi'']</ref> ''Busincu'' "from [[Bosa]]" etc.), from animal names<ref name="Manconi2" /> (e.g. ''Porcu'' "pig", ''Piga'' "[[magpie]]",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2019/04/13/news/all-origine-di-piga-c-e-la-gazza-non-la-lentiggine-1.17800560|title=All'origine di Piga c'è la gazza non la lentiggine|date=14 April 2019|publisher=La Nuova Sardegna}}</ref> ''Cadeddu'' "puppy" etc.) or from a person's occupation, nickname<ref>Manconi, Lorenzo (1987). ''Dizionario dei cognomi sardi'', Edizioni della Torre, p.16</ref> (e.g. ''Pittau'' "Sebastian"<ref name="Pittau">Pittau, Massimo, 2014. ''I cognomi della Sardegna: Significato e origine di 8.000 cognomi indigeni e forestieri'', Ipazia Books</ref>), distinctive trait (e.g. ''Mannu'' "big"), and filiation (last names ending in -''eddu'' which could stand for "son of", e.g. ''Corbeddu'' "son/daughter of Corbu"<ref name="Pittau" />); a number of them have undergone [[Italianization]] over the most recent centuries (e.g. ''Pintori'', ''Scano'', ''Zanfarino'', ''Spano'', etc.).<ref name="Manconi">Manconi, Lorenzo (1987). ''Dizionario dei cognomi sardi'', Edizioni della Torre, p.12</ref> Some local surnames also derive from terms of the [[Paleo-Sardinian language|Paleo-Sardinian]] substrate.<ref name="MaxMa" /> The largest percentage of last names originating from outside the island is from [[Southern Corsica]]<ref>[http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/regione/2017/08/26/news/le-origini-dei-cognomi-sardi-dai-colori-agli-animali-1.15775631 ''Le origini dei cognomi sardi, dai colori agli animali'', La Nuova Sardegna]</ref><ref>Maxia, Mauro (2002). ''Dizionario dei cognomi sardo-corsi. Frequenze, fonti, etimologia'', Condaghes, {{ISBN|978-88-7356-005-0}}</ref> (like ''Cossu'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2019/01/19/news/cossu-breve-antico-e-con-un-infinita-di-complicazioni-1.17672464|title=Cognomi sardi, Cossu: breve, antico e con un'infinità di complicazioni|date=20 January 2019|publisher=La Nuova Sardegna}}</ref> ''Cossiga'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2019/03/16/news/cossiga-e-glorioso-e-raro-ma-l-accento-andrebbe-sulla-o-1.17786159|title=I segreti dei cognomi sardi: Cossiga è glorioso e raro. Ma l'accento andrebbe sulla o|date=17 March 2019|publisher=La Nuova Sardegna}}</ref> ''Alivesi'' and ''Achenza'', originally from the towns of [[Olivese]] and [[Quenza]] respectively<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2018/10/27/news/achenza-viaggio-dalla-corsica-al-nord-sardegna-1.17399287|title=I segreti dei cognomi sardi: Achenza, viaggio dalla Corsica al Nord Sardegna|date=27 October 2018|publisher=La Nuova Sardegna}}</ref>), followed by [[Italy|Italian]] (especially [[Piedmont]]ese but also [[Campania]]n, [[Sicily|Sicilian]] and [[Liguria]]n, originating from the days of the [[House of Savoy|Savoyard]] rule and the assimilation policy:<ref>Manconi, Lorenzo (1987). ''Dizionario dei cognomi sardi'', Edizioni della Torre, p.13</ref><ref>Bonamore, Daniele (2004). ''Lingue minoritarie, lingue nazionali, lingue ufficiali nella Legge 482/1999'', Franco Angeli, Milano, pp.62-63</ref> some of them have been "Sardinianized", like ''Accardu'', ''Calzinu'', ''Gambinu'', ''Raggiu'', etc.<ref name="Manconi" />) and [[Spain|Spanish]] (especially [[Catalonia|Catalan]]) surnames.

{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible"
| Most common surnames
|-
| 1|| Sanna
|-
| 2 || Piras
|-
| 3 || Pinna
|-
| 4 || Serra
|-
| 5 || Melis
|-
| 6 || Carta
|-
| 7 || Manca
|-
| 8 || Meloni
|-
| 9 || Mura
|-
| 10 || Lai
|-
| 11 || Murgia
|-
| 12 || Porcu
|-
| 13 || Cossu
|-
| 14 || Usai
|-
| 15 || Loi
|-
| 16 || Marras
|-
| 17 || Floris
|-
| 18 || Deiana
|-
| 19 ||Cocco
|-
| 20 ||Fadda
|}

The [[:it:Prenomi sardi|Sardinian personal names]] (like ''Baínzu'' or ''Gavine'' "Gavin", ''Bachis'' "Bachisius", ''Bobore'' "Salvator", ''Iroxi'' "George", ''Chìrigu'' "Cyricus", ''Gonare'' "Gonarius", ''Elianora'' "Eleanor", ''Boele'' "Raphael", ''Sidore'' "Isidore", ''Billía'' "William", ''Tiadora'' "Theodora", ''Itria'', etc.) are historically attested and were common among the islanders up until the contemporary era, when they switched in full measure to the Italian names.

=== Self-identification ===
Population surveys have been carried out, on repeated occasions, to provide information about the Sardinians' identity, as well as their conciliation with the institutional layers of political governance. The most detailed survey, conducted by the [[University of Cagliari]] and [[University of Edinburgh|Edinburgh]], made use of a [[Luis Moreno Fernández|Moreno]] Question which gave the following results: (1) just Sardinian, 26%; (2) more Sardinian than Italian, 37%; (3) equally Sardinian and Italian, 31%; (4) more Italian than Sardinian, 5%; (5) only Italian and not Sardinian, 1%.<ref>[http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/scot.2014.0039 The Scottish referendum: the view from Italy and Sardinia, Ilenia Ruggiu, Scottish Affairs 23.3 (2014): 407–414]</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Gianmario Demuro |author2=Ilenia Ruggiu |author3=Francesco Mola |title=Identità e Autonomia in Sardegna e Scozia|year=2013|publisher=Maggioli Editore|isbn=978-8838782435|pages=26–28}}</ref><ref>[http://www.unionesarda.it/articolo/cronaca/2015/09/30/sardi_i_pi_identitari-68-437201.html L'esempio della Catalogna, i sardi sono più «identitari»] - [[L'Unione Sarda]]; [http://www.fondazionesardinia.eu/ita/?p=10875 Sardi, i più «identitari»], di Giuseppe Meloni; L’Unione Sarda, Fondazione Sardinia, 30.09.2015</ref> A 2017 poll by the Ixè Institute reported that 51% of the Sardinians questioned identified themselves as Sardinian (as opposed to an Italian average of 15% who identified by their region of origin) rather than Italian (19%), European (11%), and/or citizen of the world (19%).<ref>''La Sardegna: lo stato delle cose fra “percepito” e ossatura reale'', Istituto Ixè, Fondazione di Sardegna; Vissuto - identità, table n.44</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/regione/2017/12/07/news/l-isola-ha-paura-del-futuro-fiducia-solo-sul-turismo-1.16213029 | title=L'Isola ha paura del futuro Fiducia solo sul turismo - Regione| date=2017-12-07}}</ref>

==Culture==

===Languages===
{{Main|Sardinian language|Sassarese language|Gallurese language|Italianization#Sardinia|l4=Italianization}}
[[File:Sardinia Language Map.png|thumb|right|220px|Geographic distribution of the traditional Sardinian languages and dialects]]
Italian (''italiano'') was first introduced to Sardinia by the [[House of Savoy]] in July 1760<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: A Unitary Account of a Self-Organizing Structure |last=Bolognesi |first=Roberto |date=1998 |publisher=Holland Academic Graphics |language=en}}</ref><ref>Cardia, Amos (2006). ''S'italianu in Sardìnnia candu, cumenti e poita d'ant impostu: 1720-1848; poderi e lìngua in Sardìnnia in edadi spanniola'', Iskra, Ghilarza, pp. 88, 91</ref><ref>''Settecento sardo e cultura europea: Lumi, società, istituzioni nella crisi dell'Antico Regime''; Antonello Mattone, Piero Sanna; FrancoAngeli Storia; pp.18</ref><ref>Salvi, Sergio (1974). ''Le lingue tagliate'', Rizzoli, pg.181</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://salimbasarda.net/istoria/sitalianu-in-sardigna-impostu-a-obligu-de-lege-cun-boginu/|title=Limba Sarda 2.0S'italianu in Sardigna? Impostu a òbligu de lege cun Boginu – Limba Sarda 2.0|work=Limba Sarda 2.0 |access-date=28 November 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.meilogunotizie.net/focus/storia/161/la-limba-proibita-nella-sardegna-del-700 |title=La limba proibita nella Sardegna del '700 da Ritorneremo, una storia tramandata oralmente |access-date=28 November 2015}}</ref> and is the most commonly spoken language nowadays, albeit in a [[Regional Italian#Sardinia|regional variety]], as a result of policies fostering [[language shift]] and [[cultural assimilation|assimilation]] that facilitated [[Italianization]].<ref>«come conseguenza dell’italianizzazione dell’isola – a partire dalla seconda metà del XVIII secolo ma con un’accelerazione dal secondo dopoguerra – si sono verificati i casi in cui, per un lungo periodo e in alcune fasce della popolazione, si è interrotta la trasmissione transgenerazionale delle varietà locali. [...] Potremmo aggiungere che in condizioni socioeconomiche di svantaggio l’atteggiamento linguistico dei parlanti si è posto in maniera negativa nei confronti della propria lingua, la quale veniva associata ad un’immagine negativa e di ostacolo per la promozione sociale. [...] Un gran numero di parlanti, per marcare la distanza dal gruppo sociale di appartenenza, ha piano piano abbandonato la propria lingua per servirsi della lingua dominante e identificarsi in un gruppo sociale differente e più prestigioso.» Gargiulo, Marco (2013). ''La politica e la storia linguistica della Sardegna raccontata dai parlanti'', in ''Lingue e diritti. Lingua come fattore di integrazione politica e sociale, Minoranze storiche e nuove minoranze'', Atti a cura di Paolo Caretti e Andrea Cardone, Accademia della Crusca, Firenze, pp. 132-133</ref><ref name="Georgina">{{cite book|author=Georgina Ashworth|title=World Minorities|volume=2|page=110|year=1977|publisher=Quartermaine House}}</ref>

On the other hand, [[Sardinian language|Sardinian]] (''sardu'')<ref>''Sardu'', in Ditzionàriu in línia de sa limba e de sa cultura sarda, Regione Autonoma de Sardigna</ref> has been the native language of the indigenous Sards<ref>Floris, Giovanni (1998). ''L'uomo in Sardegna : aspetti di antropobiologia ed ecologia umana'', Sestu, Zonza, ''Distribuzione delle frequenze fenotipiche del sistema AB0 in diversi gruppi linguistici'', p.206</ref><ref>Danver, Steven. ''Native peoples of the world - An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures, and Contemporary Issues''</ref><ref>Eduardo Blasco Ferrer, ed. 2010. ''Paleosardo: Le radici linguistiche della Sardegna neolitica'' (Paleosardo: The Linguistic Roots of Neolithic Sardinian). De Gruyter Mouton</ref> ever since [[Latin language|Latin]] supplanted the [[Pre-Indo-European languages|Pre-Indo-European]] [[Paleo-Sardinian language|Paleo-Sardinian]], a language supposedly related to [[Basque language|Basque]] with some [[Berber languages|Berber]] influence<ref name="Georgina" /> and of which remnants can be still be found in vocabulary and local [[toponyms]].<ref>Mele, Antonio. ''Termini prelatini della lingua sarda tuttora vivi nell'uso''. Edizioni Ilienses, Olzai</ref> The historical loss of the islanders' political autonomy has kept the language at a stage of dialectal fragmentation, reflecting the coexistence of the various other languages (namely [[Catalan language|Catalan]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]], and finally Italian) imposing themselves in a position of political and thereby social prestige.<ref>Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Adam Ledgeway (edited by). ''The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages'': Volume II, Contexts, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.167</ref> Because of a movement, described by some authors as a "linguistic and cultural revival" that gained traction in the postwar period,<ref>Giannetta Murru Corriga (edited by), 1977. ''Etnia, lingua, cultura : un dibattito aperto in Sardegna'', EDES, ''Tradizione, identità e cultura sarde nella scuola'', Giovanni Lilliu, pp.128-131</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/lingue_%28Il-Libro-dell%27Anno%29/|title=''Lingue'' in ''Il Libro dell'Anno''|author=Raffaele Simone|year=2009|publisher=Treccani}}</ref> the Sardinians' cultural heritage was recognized in 1997 and 1999, which makes them the largest [[Languages of Italy#Recognition by the Italian state|ethnolinguistic minority group]] in Italy, with around a million Sardinians still able to speak the language to some degree.<ref>''<<Nel 1948 la Sardegna diventa, anche per le sue peculiarità linguistiche, Regione Autonoma a statuto speciale. Tuttavia a livello politico, ufficiale, non cambia molto per la minoranza linguistica sarda, che, con circa 1,2 milioni di parlanti, è la più numerosa tra tutte le comunità alloglotte esistenti sul territorio italiano...>>''. De Concini, Wolftraud (2003). ''Gli altri d'Italia : minoranze linguistiche allo specchio'', Pergine Valsugana : Comune, p.196.</ref><ref>Bonamore, Daniele (2004). ''Lingue minoritarie, lingue nazionali, lingue ufficiali nella Legge 482/1999'', Franco Angeli, Milano, pp.96-98</ref><ref>[http://www.minoranze-linguistiche-scuola.it/sardo/ Lingue di minoranza e scuola: Sardo]</ref><ref>[http://www.sardegnacultura.it/j/v/258?s=24039&v=2&c=2803&t=7 Legislazione sulle altre minoranze linguistiche, Sardegna Cultura]</ref> However, because of a rigid model of Italian education system that has strongly promoted Italian to the detriment of Sardinian,<ref>[https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/180542 ''Manuale di linguistica sarda'' (Manual of Sardinian linguistics)], 2017, Ed. by Eduardo Blasco Ferrer, Peter Koch, Daniela Marzo. Manuals of Romance Linguistics, De Gruyter Mouton, pp.208</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Minahan |first=James |title=One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NwvoM-ZFoAgC |date=2000 |publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]] |page=591 |isbn=0313309841 |quote=The legalization of the Sard language ends a ban on the language that has been in effect since Italian unification.}}</ref> the language has been in decline over the past century,<ref>Cited in Lilliu, Giovanni; Alberto Moravetti (edited by). ''Cultura & culture : storia e problemi della Sardegna negli scritti giornalistici di Giovanni Lilliu'', v.2, 1995, Delfino, Sassari, p.445</ref> since the people effectively retaining Sardinian have gradually become a minority in their own island<ref>{{cite book|title=Identity and Hybridism in Sardinia and Sicily, in Petricioli, Marta (edited by). L'Europe Méditerranéenne|author=Daniele Petrosino|page=232|place=Bruxelles|year=2008|publisher=Peter Lang}}</ref> (in fact, most Sardinians are linguistically [[Italianization|Italianized]] nowadays, and it has been estimated that only 10-13 percent of the young native population have some active and passive competence in the language<ref name="thirteen">La Nuova Sardegna, 04/11/10, Per salvare i segni dell'identità – di Paolo Coretti</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=La politica linguistica per la lingua sarda, in Maccani, Lucia; Viola, Marco. Il valore delle minoranze. La leva ordinamentale per la promozione delle comunità di lingua minoritaria|last=Corongiu |first=Giuseppe |year=2010|publisher=Provincia Autonoma di Trento|place=Trento|page=122}}</ref>). Therefore, Sardinian is facing challenges analogous to other [[endangered language|definitely endangered]] [[minority language]]s across Europe,<ref>''Sardinia'', Lonely Planet, Damien Simonis, pg. 44</ref> and its two main [[Logudorese Sardinian|Logudorese]] and [[Campidanese Sardinian|Campidanese]] varieties, as defined by their standard orthographies, have been designated as such by [[UNESCO]].<ref>[http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/ UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger]</ref>

The other languages spoken in Sardinia, all also endangered but with much fewer speakers than Sardinian in absolute numbers, developed after the arrival of certain communities from outside the island, namely [[Corsicans]], [[Catalans]] and [[Italians]] from [[Genoa]] and [[Pisa]], settling in specific regions of Sardinia over the recent centuries;<ref>«The evolution of Gallurese is often explained by the existence of Corsican settlements in Gallura in the 15th and 16th centuries. As regards Sassarese, opinions diverge: Wagner (1950) argues that it developed through the immigration of Italian settlers into deserted Sassari in the aftermath of the plague in the 16th and 17th centuries, while Sanna (1975) regards it as a kind of 'Verkehrsprache' that developed through the contacts with Pisa and Genoa from the 12th century onwards. Doubts as to the Sardinian character of the two northern dialects are based on several systematic differences that distinguish Sassarese and Galurese from Logudorese and Campidanese and suggest that they belong to the group of Italo-Romance dialects.» {{cite book|title=Bilingualism and Linguistic Conflict in Romance|author=Rebecca Posner, John N. Green|page=286|year=1993|publisher=De Gruyter Mouton}}</ref><ref>Floris, Giovanni (1998). ''L'uomo in Sardegna : aspetti di antropobiologia ed ecologia umana'', Sestu, Zonza, ''Distribuzione delle frequenze fenotipiche del sistema AB0 in diversi gruppi linguistici'', p.207</ref> because of these dynamics, Sardinia's society has been characterized by situational [[plurilingualism]] since the late Middle Ages.<ref><<[Sardinians] speak a peculiar language, Sardinian, and use it to write both in poetry and prose, especially in Logudoro where it has been kept purer, and more elegant and rich. And, since many Spaniards, both Aragonese and Catalan, and Italians immigrated to Sardinia, and keep doing so in order to trade, Spanish, Catalan and Italian are also spoken; so, a single people is able to hold a conversation in all these languages. However, those from Cagliari and Alghero usually speak their masters' language, Catalan, whilst the other people retain the genuine language of the Sardinians.>> Original text: <<[Sardi] Loquuntur lingua propria sardoa, tum ritmice, tum soluta oratione, praesertim in Capite Logudorii, ubi purior copiosior, et splendidior est. Et quia Hispani plures Aragonenses et Cathalani et Itali migrarunt in eam, et commerciorum caussa quotidie adventant, loquuntur etiam lingua hispanica et cathalana et italica; hisque omnibus linguis concionatur in uno eodemque populo. Caralitani tamen et Algharenses utuntur suorum maiorum lingua cathalana; alii vero genuinam retinent Sardorum linguam.>> [[Giovanni Francesco Fara|Fara, Francesco Giovanni]] (1580). ''De Rebus Sardois, De natura et moribus Sardorum'' ("On the Sardinian things, On the Nature and Customs of the Sardinians"), 1835 - 1580, Turin, p. 51</ref> These languages include [[Sassarese language|Sassarese]] (''sassaresu'') and [[Gallurese]] (''gadduresu''), which are of remote Corso-Tuscan origin but often socially associated with Sardinian,<ref>[https://www.ethnologue.com/language/sdc Sassarese Sardinian, Ethnologue]</ref><ref>[https://www.ethnologue.com/language/sdn Gallurese Sardinian, Ethnologue]</ref> [[Algherese Catalan]] (''alguerés''), and [[Ligurian (Romance language)|Ligurian Tabarchino]] (''tabarchin'').
[[File:Flag of Sardinia, Italy.svg|250px|thumb|left|The Sardinian [[ethnic flag|people's flag]], the Four Moors]]

===Flag===
{{Main|Flag of Sardinia}}
The so-called [[Sardinian flag|flag of the Four Moors]] is the historical and official flag of Sardinia. The flag is composed of the [[St George's Cross]] and four [[Maure|Moor]]'s heads wearing a white bandana in each quarter. Its origins are basically shrouded in mystery, but it is presumed it originated in [[Aragon]] to symbolize the defeat of the [[Moors|Moorish]] invaders in the [[battle of Alcoraz]].<ref>B. Fois, ''The crest of the four Moors, brief history of the Sardinian emblem'', Carlo Delfino, Sassari 1990</ref>

===Sardinia's Day===
{{Main|Sa die de sa Sardigna}}
''[[Sa die de sa Sardigna]]'' ("Sardinia's Day" in English) is a holiday celebrated each 28 April to commemorate the [[Giovanni Maria Angioy#Anti-Feudal revolts|revolt]] occurring from 1794 to 1796 against the feudal privileges, and the execution or expulsion of the [[House of Savoy|Savoyard]] officials (including the then Piedmontese [[List of viceroys of Sardinia|viceroy]], Carlo Balbiano) from Sardinia on 28 April 1794. The revolt was spurred by the King's refusal to grant the island the autonomy the locals demanded in exchange for [[French expedition to Sardinia|defeating the French]].<ref>Onnis, Omar (2015). ''La Sardegna e i sardi nel tempo'', Arkadia, Cagliari, pp.150-151</ref><ref>Alberto Loni e Giuliano Carta. Sa die de sa Sardigna - Storia di una giornata gloriosa. Sassari, Isola editrice, 2003.</ref><ref>Massimo Pistis, Rivoluzionari in sottana. Ales sotto il vescovado di mons. Michele Aymerich, Roma, Albatros Il Filo, 2009.</ref><ref>Adriano Bomboi, L'indipendentismo sardo. Le ragioni, la storia, i protagonisti, Cagliari, Condaghes, 2014.</ref> The holiday has been formally recognised by the Sardinian Council since 14 September 1993.<ref>[http://www.sardegnacultura.it/j/v/258?s=23536&v=2&c=2772&t=1 Sa die de sa Sardigna, Sardegna Cultura]</ref> Some public events are annually held to commemorate the episode, while the schools are closed.

===Religion===
[[File:Scalinata N.S. di Bonaria - Cagliari.jpg|right|Basilica of Our Lady of Bonaria in Cagliari|thumb]]
The vast majority of the Sardinians are baptized as [[Roman Catholic]], however [[church attendance]] is one of the lowest in Italy (21.9%).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dati.istat.it/index.aspx?lang=en&SubSessionId=2da4a73f-72e4-46b4-a3dc-1b66e6c78dc7&themetreeid=-200|title=Religious observances, Aspects of daily life, Regions and type of municipality|work=ISTAT|date=20 March 2016|access-date=20 March 2016}}</ref>
[[Shrine of Our Lady of Bonaria|Our Lady of Bonaria]] is the Patroness Saint of Sardinia.

===Traditional clothes===
{{See also|Folk costume}}
[[File:Launeddas Player.jpg|right|thumb|150px|A Sardinian man in traditional dress playing the ''[[launeddas]]'', an ancient [[woodwind instrument]].]]
Colourful and of various and original forms, the Sardinian traditional clothes are an ancient symbol of belonging to specific collective identities, as well as one of the most genuine ethnic expressions of the Mediterranean folklore.<ref>Arata, Giulio Ulisse (1983). ''Arte sarda'', C. Delfino, Sassari, p.11</ref> Although the basic model is homogeneous and common throughout the island, each town or village has its own traditional clothing which differentiates it from the others. The Sardinians' traditional garments, as well as their jewellery,<ref>Arata, Giulio Ulisse (1983). ''Arte sarda'', C. Delfino, Sassari, p.27</ref> have been defined as an object of study in [[ethnography]] since the late 19th century,<ref>Mario Atzori (ed. by), 2000, ''Gli ornamenti preziosi dei sardi'', Sassari, C. Delfino, p.31</ref> at a time in which they first started to be slowly displaced in favour of the "Continental fashion" in the various contexts of everyday life, and their primary function has since switched to become a marker of ethnic identity.<ref>''Costumi: storia, linguaggio e prospettive del vestire in Sardegna'' (2003). Ilisso, Nuoro, p.53</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lanuovasardegna.it/tempo-libero/2020/02/04/news/i-maestri-dell-arte-sarda-filippo-figari-la-civilta-di-un-popolo-barbaro-1.38425248|title=I maestri dell'arte sarda, Filippo Figari: la civiltà di un popolo barbaro|date=4 February 2020}} Cfr. AA.VV., ''I maestri dell'arte sarda'', 10 vv., La Nuova Sardegna, 2020</ref>

In the past, the clothes diversified themselves even within the communities, performing a specific function of communication as it made it immediately clear the marital status and the role of each member in the social area. Until the mid-20th century the traditional costume represented the everyday clothing in most of Sardinia, but even today in various parts of the island it is possible to meet elderly people dressed in costume. Herbert Kubly, writing for [[The Atlantic]] in 1955, said that «for Sardinians, traditional costumes are daily dress and not a holiday or touristic get-up. In the arid brown autumn landscape the population blossoms like flowers on the desert».<ref name="Kubly" />

The materials used for their packaging are among the most varied, ranging from the typical Sardinian woollen fabric (''orbace'') to silk and from [[linen]] to leather. The various components of the feminine apparel are: the headgear (''mucadore''), the shirt (''camisa''), the bodice (''palas'', ''cossu''), the jacket (''coritu'', ''gipone''), the skirt (''unnedda'', ''sauciu''), the apron (''farda'', ''antalena'', ''defentale''). Those of the male are: the headdress (''[[:it:Berrita|berrita]]''), the shirt (''bentone'' or ''camisa''), the jacket (''gipone''), the trousers (''cartzones'' or ''bragas''), the skirt (''ragas'' or ''bragotis''), the overcoat (''gabbanu'' and ''colletu''), and finally the piece of clothing most associated with the Sardinians, the ''mastruca'', a sheep or goatskin leather jacket without sleeves: "''Sardi pelliti''" and "''mastrucati latrones''"<ref>''Costumi: storia, linguaggio e prospettive del vestire in Sardegna'' (2003). Ilisso, Nuoro, p.20</ref> "[Sardinian] thieves with rough wool cloaks" were names by which [[Cicero]] and other authors mentioned the Sardinians.<ref>"Olim Sardi vestiebantur caprarum pellibus, veterum Graecorum more, ut inquit Alexander Sardus lib. 1, cap. 9 de Moribus Gentium. Nam et Hercules, a quo originem duxerunt, pelle etiam vestiebatur. Illis tamen utebantur hyeme, pilis introrsum conversis; aestate vero, aversis, ut inquit Nymphodorus, quem refert Volaterramus, eamque tunicam sardonicam vocat Caelius, lib. 16, cap. 1 o, et Sardorum mastrucam appellat Cicero et Divus Hieronymus lib. Adversus Luciferianos. Unde Sardi Mastrucati sunt dicti a Cicerone, et Pelidi a Sabellico, post Livium lib. 23 et 29, qui, alibi refert, anno ante Christum 3757, fuisse a Sardis Romano exercitui data duodecim millia tunicarum, et mille et ducentae togae." [[Giovanni Francesco Fara|Fara, Francesco Giovanni]] (1580). ''De Rebus Sardois'', ''Libri quatuor'', 1835 - 1580, Turin, p.51</ref>

===Cuisine===
[[File:Pane carasau.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The ''[[pane carasau]]'', a type of traditional flatbread eaten in Sardinia since the ancient times.]]
{{Main|Sardinian cuisine}}

===Music===
{{Main|Sardinian music}}

==Genetics==
{{Main|Genetic history of Sardinia|Genetic history of Europe}}

[[File:PCA of Italians and European and Mediterranean populations.png|thumb|right|250px|Plot of the principal components of the European and Mediterranean populations across [[Continental Europe]], [[North Africa]] and the [[Middle East]].]]
Sardinians, while being part of the European [[gene pool]], are well-known outliers in the European genetic landscape<ref>{{cite journal| pmc=5400395 | pmid=28177087 | doi=10.1093/molbev/msx082 | volume=34 | issue=5 | title=Mitogenome Diversity in Sardinians: A Genetic Window onto an Island's Past | journal=Mol Biol Evol | pages=1230–1239 | last1 = Olivieri | first1 = A | last2 = Sidore | first2 = C | last3 = Achilli | first3 = A | last4 = Angius | first4 = A | last5 = Posth | first5 = C | last6 = Furtwängler | first6 = A | last7 = Brandini | first7 = S | last8 = Capodiferro | first8 = MR | last9 = Gandini | first9 = F | last10 = Zoledziewska | first10 = M | last11 = Pitzalis | first11 = M | last12 = Maschio | first12 = A | last13 = Busonero | first13 = F | last14 = Lai | first14 = L | last15 = Skeates | first15 = R | last16 = Gradoli | first16 = MG | last17 = Beckett | first17 = J | last18 = Marongiu | first18 = M | last19 = Mazzarello | first19 = V | last20 = Marongiu | first20 = P | last21 = Rubino | first21 = S | last22 = Rito | first22 = T | last23 = Macaulay | first23 = V | last24 = Semino | first24 = O | last25 = Pala | first25 = M | last26 = Abecasis | first26 = GR | last27 = Schlessinger | first27 = D | last28 = Conde-Sousa | first28 = E | last29 = Soares | first29 = P | last30 = Richards | first30 = MB | last31 = Cucca | first31 = F | last32 = Torroni | first32 = A | year=2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lanuovasardegna.it/regione/2017/02/14/news/il-dna-dei-sardi-e-unico-in-europa-e-lo-stesso-dei-loro-avi-nuragici-1.14879041|title=Il dna dei sardi è unico in Europa, è lo stesso dei loro avi nuragici|author=Gabriella Grimaldi|date=14 February 2017|publisher=La Nuova Sardegna}}</ref> (together with the [[Basque people|Basques]], the [[Chuvash people|Chuvash]], the [[Sami people|Sami]], the [[Finns]] and the [[Icelanders]]<ref>Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza - ''The History and Geography of Human Genes'', 1994, Princeton University Press, pp.272</ref>). Studies analyzing the DNA of both ancient and modern individuals from the island confirm that the current population is mainly (50% or more<ref name="Marcus2" />) derived from the prehistoric settlers (mostly [[Early European Farmer|Early Neolithic Farmers]] and to a lesser degree [[Western Hunter-Gatherers]] with few Bronze Age individuals showing evidences of [[Western Steppe Herder]] ancestry<ref name=Chintalapati />), plus some contribution of the historical colonizers, with the highest [[Neolithic]] and [[Mesolithic]] ancestry being found in the mountainous region of [[Ogliastra]].<ref name="Cucca" /><ref>Marcus et al.,''Population history from the Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia: An ancient DNA perspective'', 2019</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200224131137.htm|title=Ancient DNA from Sardinia reveals 6,000 years of genetic history, Science Daily|year=2020}}</ref><ref name="Marcus" /><ref name="The spread of steppe and Iranian-re" /><ref name="ReferenceA" />

Several studies have been carried out on the genetics of the Sardinian population to investigate some pathologies to which the Sardinians seem to be predisposed in a unique way, likely linked due to [[founder effect]]s and [[genetic drift]] of this island population,<ref name="CuccaFrancesco">[http://www.sardegnaricerche.it/index.php?xsl=370&s=37041&v=2&c=3280&nc=1&sc=&archivio=2&qr=1&qp=3&vd= ''Genetica, malattie e caratteri dei sardi'', Francesco Cucca - Sardegna Ricerche]</ref><ref>[https://www.sardiniapost.it/senza-categoria/i-dialoghi-della-scienza-di-sardegna-ricerche-caratteristiche-genetiche-uniche/ I dialoghi della scienza di Sardegna Ricerche: "I sardi hanno caratteristiche genetiche uniche"]</ref><ref>[https://bolognamedicina.it/en/session/the-sardinians-dna-a-key-to-explaining-human-illness/ The sardinians' dna, a key to explain human illness]</ref> like [[diabetes mellitus type 1]],<ref>[https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/endocrine-and-metabolic-disorders/diabetes-mellitus-and-disorders-of-carbohydrate-metabolism/diabetes-mellitus-dm Diabetes Mellitus (DM) - Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders - MSD Manual]</ref> [[beta thalassemia]] and [[favism]],<ref>Floris, Giovanni (1998). ''L'uomo in Sardegna : aspetti di antropobiologia ed ecologia umana'', Sestu, Zonza, ''Sull'evoluzione dei Sardi dalla Preistoria ad oggi'', p.13</ref> [[multiple sclerosis]]<ref>{{cite journal| pmid=8719044 | doi=10.1159/000109884 | volume=15 | issue=1 | title=Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Northwestern Sardinia: further evidence for higher frequency in Sardinians compared to other Italians | year=1996 | journal=Neuroepidemiology | pages=10–9 | last1 = Rosati | first1 = G | last2 = Aiello | first2 = I | last3 = Pirastru | first3 = MI | last4 = Mannu | first4 = L | last5 = Sanna | first5 = G | last6 = Sau | first6 = GF | last7 = Sotgiu | first7 = S}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| pmid=12099914 | doi=10.1046/j.1468-1331.2002.00412.x | volume=9 | issue=4 | title=Multiple sclerosis complexity in selected populations: the challenge of Sardinia, insular Italy | year=2002 | journal=Eur J Neurol | pages=329–41 | last1 = Sotgiu | first1 = S | last2 = Pugliatti | first2 = M | last3 = Sanna | first3 = A | last4 = Sotgiu | first4 = A | last5 = Castiglia | first5 = P | last6 = Solinas | first6 = G | last7 = Dolei | first7 = A | last8 = Serra | first8 = C | last9 = Bonetti | first9 = B | last10 = Rosati | first10 = G| s2cid=38498032 }}</ref> and [[coeliac disease]]. Some other genetic peculiarities have been noted, like the high frequency of rare uniparental haplotypes,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Olivieri | first1 = A. | last2 = Sidore | first2 = C. | last3 = Achilli | first3 = A. | last4 = Angius | first4 = A. | last5 = Posth | first5 = C. | last6 = Furtwängler | first6 = A. | last7 = Brandini | first7 = S. | last8 = Capodiferro | first8 = M.R. | last9 = Gandini | first9 = F. | last10 = Zoledziewska | first10 = M. | year = 2017 | title = Mitogenome diversity in Sardinians: A genetic window onto an island's past | journal = Mol. Biol. Evol. | volume = 34 | issue = 5| pages = 1230–1239 | doi = 10.1093/molbev/msx082 | pmid = 28177087 | pmc = 5400395 | doi-access = free }}</ref> extensive linkage disequilibrium of autosomal markers, high levels of [[homozygosity]],<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lettre | first1 = G. | last2 = Hirschhorn | first2 = J. N. | year = 2015 | title = Small island, big genetic discoveries | journal = Nat. Genet. | volume = 47 | issue = 11| pages = 1224–1225 | doi = 10.1038/ng.3426 | pmid = 26506900 | s2cid = 5567430 }}</ref> the lowest frequency of RH-negative genes in the Mediterranean, the highest frequency in the world of the ''MNS*M'' gene, the highest frequency of ''HLAB*18'' together with some typical North African alleles, and the highest frequency of the thalassemia variant ''β39''.<ref>{{cite book| last1=Cavalli-Sforza| first1=Luigi| last2=Cavalli-Sforza| first2=Luca| last3=Menozzi| first3=Paolo| last4=Piazza| first4=Alberto|title=The History and Geography of Human Genes|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1994|page=273 ff}}</ref>

==Notable Sardinians==
{{Main|List of Sardinians}}

==Gallery==
<gallery caption="Sardinian traditional clothes and masks" mode="packed" style="font-size:88%; line-height:130%" heights="125">
File:Costume_di_Ovodda.jpg|Children from [[Ovodda]]
File:Fonni - Urthos e Buttudos (06).jpg|Urthos mask of [[Fonni]]
File:Costume di maracalagonis.jpg|Robes from [[Maracalagonis]]
File:Costume di Ollolai.jpg|Woman from [[Ollolai]]
File:Costumi sardi.jpg|Robes from [[Cagliari]]
File:Costume di busachi.jpg|Robes from [[Busachi]]
File:Olbia - Costume tradizionale (02).JPG|Robes from [[Olbia]]
File:Sardinian Woman.jpg|Robe from [[Sennori]]
File:Costume di Oristano.jpg|Robe from Oristano
File:Costume giornaliero di dorgali.jpg|Daily traditional clothe from [[Dorgali]]
File:Costume di quartu sant' elena.jpg|Folk robes from [[Quartu Sant'Elena]]
File:Costume di selargius.jpg|Robes from [[Selargius]]
File:Assemini - Costume tradizionale (06).JPG|Robes from [[Assemini]]
File:Aritzo - Costume tradizionale (08).JPG|Child from [[Aritzo]]
File:Women of sardinia.jpg|Women dressed in traditional Sardinian clothing ([[Quartucciu]])
File:Costume di settimo san pietro.jpg|Robes from [[Settimo San Pietro]]
File:Costume dolianova 1.jpg|Robe from [[Dolianova]]
File:LANUSEI (1).jpg|Men from [[Lanusei]]
File:Costume di Nuragus.jpg|Robe from [[Nuragus]]
File:BULTEI 2.jpg|Robe from [[Bultei]]
File:VILLANOVA MONTELEONE 2.jpg|children from [[Villanova Monteleone]]
File:Cavalieri di Teulada-Sardinia.jpg|Knights from [[Teulada, Sardinia|Teulada]]
File:Costume di Laconi.jpg|Traditional robe from [[Laconi]]
File:Costume di tonara.jpg|Robe from [[Tonara]]
Costume_tradizionale_di_Fonni_(03).jpg|Robes from [[Fonni]]
File:LANUSEI (5).jpg|Man from Lanusei
File:Mamuthone e Issohadore di Mamoiada.jpg|A ''Mamuthone'' and an ''Issohadore'', traditional carnival garments from [[Mamoiada]]
File:Oristano Sa Sartiglia.jpg|Sardinian knights on ''Sa Sartiglia'' day ([[Oristano]]).
File:Traditional costumes of busachi (SARDINIA).jpg|People in traditional dress ([[Busachi]])
File:Costume of orgosolo.jpg|Robe from [[Orgosolo]]
File:Sardinians girl 3.jpg|Robe from Iglesias
File:Orgosolo folk.jpg|Orgosolo dress
File:Sardinians .jpg|Robe from Oliena
File:Sartiglia-712848.jpg|Sartiglia Medieval Festival in Oristano
File:Costume di Florinas.jpg|Robe from Florinas
File:Costume di Cagliari.jpg|People from Cagliari
File:Festa redentore 2009 224.jpg|Sardinian men and children in traditional dress at the ''Sagra del Redentore'' ([[Nuoro]])
File:Festa redentore 2009 091.JPG|Children from [[Ovodda]] in traditional dress
File:Issohadoreandmamuthones.jpg|An ''Issohadore'', typical mask of the Sardinian carnival ([[Mamoiada]])
File:Mamoiada 3.jpg|A ''Mamuthone'', another typical mask of the Sardinian carnival ([[Mamoiada]])
File:Maschera carnevalesca - sardegna.jpg|''Boe and Merdule'' ([[Ottana]])
File:Sartiglia di Oristano.jpg|Mask of Sartiglia
File:Costume di orgosolo.jpg|Sardinians in traditional dress ([[Orgosolo]])
File:Costume di Atzara.jpg|Robe from [[Atzara]]
File:Folk Costume of Sardinia in Oliena 2.jpg|Robe from [[Oliena]]
File:Festa redentore 2009 084.JPG|Robe from [[Orune]]
File:Austis - Costume tradizionale (05).JPG|Man from [[Austis]]
File:Costume di ittiri.jpg|Robe from [[Ittiri]]
File:FONNI (4).jpg|Woman from [[Fonni]]
File:Costume_sassari.jpg|Robe from [[Sassari]]
File:Costume tipico di Cossoine.jpg|Robe from [[Cossoine]]
File:Sardinian girl.jpg|Robe from [[Isili]]
</gallery>

==See also==
{{Commons category|People of Sardinia}}
{{div col|colwidth=25em}}
*[[List of Sardinians]]
*[[Sardinia]]
*[[History of Sardinia]]
*[[Nuragic civilization]]
*[[List of Nuragic tribes]]
*[[Sardinian language]]
*[[Sassarese]]
*[[Gallurese]]
*[[Sardinian surnames]]
*[[Corsican people]]
*[[Italian people]]
*[[Spanish people]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
*{{cite book|title=Historia de la isla de Cerdeña, por el caballero G. de Gregory, traducida al castellano por una sociedad literaria|year=1840|place=Barcelona|publisher=Imprenta de Guardia Nacional}}
*{{cite book|first=Giovanni|last=Lilliu|title=La civiltà dei Sardi dal neolitico all'età dei nuraghi|location=Torino|publisher=Edizioni ERI|year=1967}}
*{{cite book|first=Giannetta|last=Murru Corriga|title=Etnia, lingua, cultura : un dibattito aperto in Sardegna|year=1977|publisher=EDES}}
*{{cite book|author=Georgina Ashworth|title=World Minorities|volume=2|page=109 ff|year=1977|publisher=Quartermaine House}}
*{{cite book|first=Natale|last=Sanna|title=Il cammino dei Sardi: Storia, economia, letteratura ed arte di Sardegna (3 Volumes)|year=1986|publisher=Ed.Sardegna}}
*{{cite book|title=Arabi e sardi nel Medioevo|author=Mohamed Mustafa Bazama|place=Cagliari|publisher=Editrice democratica sarda|year=1988}}
*{{cite book|title=Declino d'una grande e ricca Sardegna|author=Mohamed Mustafa Bazama|place=Cagliari|publisher=Editrice democratica sarda|year=1989}}
*{{cite book|first=Amiram|last=Gonen|title=Diccionario de los pueblos del mundo|year=1996|publisher=Anaya&Mario Muchnik}}
*{{cite book |first=Francesco Cesare |last=Casula |title=La Storia di Sardegna |location=Sassari |author-link=Francesco Cesare Casula |publisher=Carlo Delfino Editore |year=1994}}
*{{cite book|first=Manlio|last= Brigaglia|author2=Giuseppina Fois |author3=Laura Galoppini |author4=Attilio Mastino |author5=Antonello Mattone |author6=Guido Melis |author7=Piero Sanna |author8=Giuseppe Tanda |title=Storia della Sardegna|location=Sassari|publisher=Soter Editore|year=1995}}
*{{cite book|first=Mario|last=Perra|title=ΣΑΡΔΩ, Sardinia, Sardegna (3 Volumes)|location=Oristano|publisher=S'Alvure|year=1997}}
*{{cite book|first=Giovanni|last=Floris|title=L'uomo in Sardegna : aspetti di antropobiologia ed ecologia umana|location=Sestu|publisher=Zonza|year=1998}}
*{{cite book|title=Aspects of multilingualism in European language history|author=Kurt Braunmüller, Gisella Ferraresi|page=238|year=2003|publisher=University of Hamburg. John Benjamins Publishing Company|place=Amsterdam/Philadelphia}}
*{{cite book|author=Giuseppe Contu|year=2005|title=Sardinia in Arabic sources. Annali della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature Straniere dell'Università di Sassari, v.3, pp.287-297. ISSN 1828-5384}}
*{{cite book|first= Giovanni|last= Ugas|title=L'Alba dei Nuraghi|location=Cagliari|publisher= Fabula Editore|year=2006|isbn= 978-88-89661-00-0}}
*{{cite book|first=Emanuele|last=Sanna|title=Nella preistoria le origini dei Sardi|location=Cagliari|publisher=CUEC|year=2009}}
*{{cite book|first= Jeffrey|last= Cole|author-link=Jeffrey Cole|title=Ethnic Groups of Europe: an Encyclopedia|publisher= ABC-CLIO|year= 2011|isbn=978-1-59884-302-6}}
*{{cite book|first=Steven Laurence|last=Danver|title=Native peoples of the world: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures, and Contemporary Issues|publisher=Routledge|year=2012|isbn= 978-0765682222}}.
*{{cite book|first= Ercole|last= Contu|title= I sardi sono diversi|publisher= Carlo Delfino Editore|year= 2014}}
*{{cite book|first= Omar|last= Onnis|title=La Sardegna e i sardi nel tempo|publisher= Arkadia Editore|year= 2015}}
*{{cite book|first=Giovanni|last=Ugas|title=Shardana e Sardegna : i popoli del mare, gli alleati del Nordafrica e la fine dei grandi regni (15.-12. secolo a.C.)|publisher=Edizioni della Torre|year=2017|isbn=978-88-7343-471-9|location=Cagliari|language=it|oclc=970796519}}
*{{cite book |first=Francesco Cesare |last=Casula |title=La Storia di Sardegna (8 Volumes) |location=Sassari |author-link=Francesco Cesare Casula |publisher=La Nuova Sardegna |year=2017}}

==Notes==
{{reflist|30em|refs=

<ref name="Chabas">F. J. Chabas (1872), ''Étude sur l'antiquité historique d'après les sources égyptiennes et les monuments réputés préhistoriques'', impr. de J. Dejussieu (Chalon-sur-Saône), p.191-192, 314</ref>

<ref name="Cucca">[http://www.sardegnasoprattutto.com/archives/7863 Francesco Cucca: “Caratteri immutati da diecimila anni, ecco perché la Sardegna è speciale” (di Elena Dusi) - Sardegna Soprattutto]</ref>

<ref name="EtyDictionary">{{cite web |url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/Sardinia#etymonline_v_22738 |title=Sardinia |publisher=Online Etymology Dictionary}}</ref>

<ref name="eupedia">[https://eupedia.com/italy/sardinia.shtml Sardinia Travel Guide, Eupedia.com]</ref>

<ref name="Kubly">{{cite web|author=Herbert Kubly|year=1955|title=Sardinia|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1955/07/sardinia/642437/|magazine=The Atlantic}}</ref>

<ref name="Marcus">{{cite journal |title=Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia |publisher=Nature |year=2020 |doi=10.1038/s41467-020-14523-6 |last1=Marcus |first1=Joseph H. |last2=Posth |first2=Cosimo |last3=Ringbauer |first3=Harald |last4=Lai |first4=Luca |last5=Skeates |first5=Robin |last6=Sidore |first6=Carlo |last7=Beckett |first7=Jessica |last8=Furtwängler |first8=Anja |last9=Olivieri |first9=Anna |last10=Chiang |first10=Charleston W. K. |last11=Al-Asadi |first11=Hussein |last12=Dey |first12=Kushal |last13=Joseph |first13=Tyler A. |last14=Liu |first14=Chi-Chun |last15=Der Sarkissian |first15=Clio |last16=Radzevičiūtė |first16=Rita |last17=Michel |first17=Megan |last18=Gradoli |first18=Maria Giuseppina |last19=Marongiu |first19=Patrizia |last20=Rubino |first20=Salvatore |last21=Mazzarello |first21=Vittorio |last22=Rovina |first22=Daniela |last23=La Fragola |first23=Alessandra |last24=Serra |first24=Rita Maria |last25=Bandiera |first25=Pasquale |last26=Bianucci |first26=Raffaella |last27=Pompianu |first27=Elisa |last28=Murgia |first28=Clizia |last29=Guirguis |first29=Michele |last30=Orquin |first30=Rosana Pla |journal=Nature Communications |volume=11 |issue=1 |page=939 |pmid=32094358 |pmc=7039977 |bibcode=2020NatCo..11..939M |display-authors=1}}</ref>

<ref name="Marcus2">{{cite journal |last1=Marcus |first1=Joseph H. |last2=Posth |first2=Cosimo |display-authors=1 |date=February 24, 2020 |title=Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia |url= |journal=[[Nature Communications]] |publisher=[[Nature Research]] |volume=11 |issue=939 |page=939 |doi=10.1038/s41467-020-14523-6 |pmc=7039977 |pmid=32094358 |bibcode=2020NatCo..11..939M |ref={{harvid|Marcus et al.|2020}}}}</ref>

<ref name="Masti">{{cite web |author=Attilio Mastino |url=http://eprints.uniss.it/11294/1/Mastino_A_Natione_Sardus_mens_color.pdf |title=Natione Sardus: una mens, unus color, una vox, una natio |publisher=Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Giuridiche e Tradizioni Romane}}</ref>

<ref name="Max">Mauro Maxia, Studi Sardo-Corsi, Dialettologia e storia della lingua fra le due isole</ref>

<ref name="Minahan">{{cite book |last=Minahan |first=James |title=One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NwvoM-ZFoAgC |date=2000 |publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]] |pages=588, 776 |isbn=0313309841 |quote=The Sards are a Romance people. Romance (Latin) nations... Sards}}</ref>

<ref name="noel">{{cite book |author=James Noel Adams |title=Bilingualism and the Latin Language |date=9 January 2003 |page=209 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780521817714 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&q=bitia}}</ref>

<ref name="ReferenceA">[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0215-8#:~:text=The%20population%20of%20the%20Mediterranean,refuge%20for%20early%20Neolithic%20ancestry. Chiang et al., Genomic history of the Sardinian population]</ref>

<ref name="Rouge">E. De Rougè (1867), ''Révue Archéologique, XVI'', p.35 ff.</ref>

<ref name="Serra">Serra, Marcello (1978). ''Enciclopedia della Sardegna : con un saggio introduttivo intitolato Alla scoperta dell'isola'', Pisa, Giardini editori e stampatori, p.29: "Origine e carattere dei Sardi"</ref>

<ref name="The spread of steppe and Iranian-re">{{cite journal |last1=Fernandes |first1=Daniel M. |title=The spread of steppe and Iranian-related Ancestry in the islands of the Western Mediterranean |journal=Nature Ecology and Evolution |date=February 24, 2020 |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=334–345 |doi=10.1038/s41559-020-1102-0 |pmid=32094539 |pmc=7080320|bibcode=2020NatEE...4..334F }}</ref>

<ref name="treccani1936">{{cite web |url=http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/sardegna_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/ |title=Sardegna, in Enciclopedia Italiana |year=1936 |publisher=Treccani |author=Roberto Almagia |display-authors=etal}}</ref>

<ref name="Treccani2011">{{cite web|url=http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/sardi_%28Dizionario-di-Storia%29|title= Sardi in ''Dizionario di Storia'' (2011)|publisher=Treccani}}</ref>

<ref name="UgaGio">Ugas, Giovanni (2017). ''Shardana e Sardegna : i popoli del mare, gli alleati del Nordafrica e la fine dei grandi regni (15.-12. secolo a.C.)'', Edizioni della Torre, Cagliari, pp.398-408</ref>

}}

{{Sardinia}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:People from Sardinia|*]]
[[Category:Romance peoples]]
[[Category:Ethnic groups in Italy]]

Sea Peoples

2024-03-01T16:26:52Z

L2212: /* Sherden */ the name is only one of the many reasons

{{short description|Purported ancient seafaring confederation of invaders}}
{{Other uses|Sea People (disambiguation)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2018}}
[[File:Medinet Habu Ramses III. Tempel Nordostwand Abzeichnung 01.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|This scene from the north wall of [[Medinet Habu (temple)|Medinet Habu]] is often used to illustrate the Egyptian campaign against the Sea Peoples, in what has come to be known as the [[Battle of the Delta]] ({{circa|1175}}{{nbsp}}BC),<ref>{{Cite book |last=Paine |first=Lincoln |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QITaCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 |title=The Sea and Civilization: A Maritime History of the World |date=2015-10-27 |publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group |isbn=978-1-101-97035-5 |page=76 |language=en}}</ref> during the reign of Ramesses III. While accompanying hieroglyphs do not name Egypt's enemies, describing them simply as being from "northern countries", early scholars noted the similarities between the hairstyles and accessories worn by the combatants and other reliefs in which such groups are named.]]
The '''Sea Peoples''' are a hypothesized seafaring [[confederation]] that attacked [[ancient Egypt]] and other regions in the [[Eastern Mediterranean|East Mediterranean]] before and during the [[Late Bronze Age collapse]] (1200–900 BC).<ref name=AK2013>{{harvnb|Killebrew|2013|p=2}}. Quote: "First coined in 1881 by the French Egyptologist G. Maspero (1896), the somewhat misleading term 'Sea Peoples' encompasses the ethnonyms Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Teresh, Eqwesh, Denyen, Sikil / Tjekker, Weshesh, and Peleset (Philistines). [Footnote: The modern term 'Sea Peoples' refers to people that appear in several New Kingdom Egyptian texts as originating from 'islands' (tables 1–2; Adams and Cohen, this volume; see, e.g., Drews 1993, 57 for a summary). The use of quotation marks in association with the term 'Sea Peoples' in our title is intended to draw attention to the problematic nature of this commonly used term. The designation 'of the sea' appears only in relation to the Sherden, Shekelesh and Eqwesh. Subsequently, this term was applied somewhat indiscriminately to several additional ethnonyms, including the Philistines, who are portrayed in their earliest appearance as invaders from the north during the reigns of Merenptah and Ramesses Ill (see, e.g., Sandars 1978; Redford 1992, 243, n. 14; for a recent review of the primary and secondary literature, see {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006}}). Henceforth the term Sea Peoples will appear without quotation marks.]"</ref><ref name=Drews48>{{harvnb|Drews|1995|pp=48–61}}: "The thesis that a great 'migration of the Sea Peoples' occurred ca. 1200 B.C. is supposedly based on Egyptian inscriptions, one from the reign of Merneptah and another from the reign of Ramesses III. Yet in the inscriptions themselves, such a migration nowhere appears. After reviewing what the Egyptian texts have to say about 'the sea peoples', one Egyptologist (Wolfgang Helck) recently remarked that although some things are unclear, 'eins ist aber sicher: Nach den ägyptischen Texten haben wir es nicht mit einer "Völkerwanderung" zu tun' ['One thing is however certain: according to the Egyptian texts we are not dealing with a "migration"'] Thus the migration hypothesis is based not on the inscriptions themselves but on their interpretation".</ref> Following the creation of the concept in the 19th century, the Sea Peoples' incursions became one of the most famous chapters of [[Egyptian history]], given its connection with, in the words of [[Wilhelm Max Müller]], "the most important questions of [[ethnography]] and the primitive history of classic nations".{{sfn|Müller|1888|p=147|ps=: "In Egyptian history, there is hardly any incident of so great an interest as the invasion of Egypt by the Mediterranean peoples, the facts of which are connected with the most important questions of ethnography and the primitive history of classic nations."}}{{sfn|Hall|1922}}

The Sea People included well-attested groups such as the [[Lukka]], as well as others such as the [[Weshesh]] whose origins are unknown. Hypotheses regarding the origin of the various groups are the source of much speculation. Several of them appear to have been [[Aegean civilizations|Aegean]] tribes, while others may have originated in [[Sicily]], [[Sardinia]], [[Cyprus]], and Western [[Anatolia]].

French Egyptologist [[Emmanuel de Rougé]] first used the term {{lang|fr|peuples de la mer}} (literally "peoples of the sea") in 1855 in a description of reliefs on the Second Pylon at [[Medinet Habu (temple)|Medinet Habu]], documenting Year 8 of [[Ramesses III]].{{sfn|Silberman|1998|p=269}}<ref name=deRouge>{{harvnb|de Rougé|1855|p=14}}: [Translation from the French]: "For a long time Kefa has been identified, with [[verisimilitude]], with [[Caphthorim]] of the Bible, to whom Gesenius, along with most interpreters, assigns as a residence the islands of [[Crete]] or Cyprus. The people of Cyprus had certainly to take sides in this war; perhaps they were then the allies of Egypt. In any case, our entry does not detail the names of these people, from the islands of the Mediterranean. Champollion noted that [[Tjeker|T'akkari]] [which he names Fekkaros; see appendix at the following entry] and [[Sherden|Schartana]], were recognizable, in enemy ships, with unique hairstyles. In addition, in the crests of the conquered peoples, the Schartana and the [[Tyrrhenians|Touirasch]] bear the designation of the peoples of the sea. It is therefore likely that they belong to these nations from islands or coasts of the archipelago. The Rabou are still recognizable among the prisoners."</ref> In the late 19th century, [[Gaston Maspero]], de Rougé's successor at the [[Collège de France]], subsequently popularized the term "Sea Peoples" and an associated migration theory.<ref name=Drews1/> Since the early 1990s, his migration theory has been brought into question by a number of scholars; it has been described as a "deeply problematic theory and one that has been largely dismissed".<ref name=AK2013/><ref name=Drews48/><ref name=Silberman/><ref name=Vandersleyen/><ref name="Yoo Zerbini Barron 2018 p. 2">{{cite book | last=Yoo | first=J. | last2=Zerbini | first2=A. | last3=Barron | first3=C. | title=Migration and Migrant Identities in the Near East from Antiquity to the Middle Ages | publisher=Taylor & Francis | year=2018 | isbn=978-1-351-25475-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pT33DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 | access-date=2024-02-24 | page=2|quote=The earliest scholarly thesis to deal with migration in the ancient Near East emerged in the work of Gaston Maspero; his ''Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique'' blamed a vast migration for the ruin of Bronze Age civilisation, attributing its fall to a migrating confederation of 'Sea Peoples' that attacked Egypt and other areas of Asia Minor. Although now widely considered a deeply problematic theory and one that has been largely dismissed, it was not until the early 1990s that it received proper, rigorous questioning in the scholarship of Claude Vandersleyen, Robert Drews and Neil Silberman, amongst others.}}</ref>

==History of the concept==
{{Multiple image|align=right|direction=horizontal|image1=Champollion's description of the peoples named on the Second Pylon at Medinet Habu.png|image2=Champollion's notes of the peoples named on the base of the Fortified East Gate at Medinet Habu.png|width1=300|width2=150|footer=A partial description of the hieroglyphic text at Medinet Habu on the right tower of Second Pylon (''left'') and an illustration of the prisoners depicted at the base of the Fortified East Gate (''right''), were first provided by [[Jean-François Champollion]] following his 1828–29 travels to Egypt and published posthumously.<ref>See also the sketches provided later in Champollion, Monuments: from the left side of the Second Pylon: [https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e2-5e33-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99 Plate CCVIII], and from the base of the right-hand side of the Fortified East Gate [https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e2-5e2e-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99 Plate CCIII].</ref> Although Champollion did not label them, decades later the hieroglyphs labeled 4 to 8 (left) were translated as Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, and the hieroglyphs next to prisoners 3 and 4 (second row, right), translated as Tjeker and Sherden.<ref>Compare with the hieroglyphs provided by {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006|p=36}}.</ref>}}
The concept of the Sea Peoples was first described by [[Emmanuel de Rougé]] in 1855, then [[curator]] of the [[Louvre]], in his work ''Note on Some Hieroglyphic Texts Recently Published by Mr. Greene'',{{sfn|de Rougé|1855}} describing the battles of [[Ramesses III]] described on the Second Pylon at Medinet Habu, and based upon recent photographs of the temple by [[John Beasley Greene]].{{sfn|de Rougé|1855|p=1}}<ref name="Greene1855">{{harvnb|Greene|1855|p=4}}:{{blockquote|[Translation from the French]: The notices and the 17th letter of Champollion provide a complete and faithful summary of the campaigns of Ramses III (his Ramses Ammon), especially that represented on the north wall, containing the famous bas-relief of a naval battle where the enemy ships are driven to shore by the Egyptian fleet, and simultaneously crushed by the army, which the press on the other side.

Champollion recognized that among the enemies of Ramesses, there were a new people, belonging to the white race, and designated as the Tamhou. He copied the first line of the large inscription of the pylon, with a date he specified in the ninth year of the reign, and he noted the importance of this text, which contains several names of people. ...

After receiving this just tribute of praise, the King finally begins his speech to the thirteenth line. It recommends to all his subjects to pay attention to his words, and shows their feelings that must lead them in life; then he boasts of his exploits, he brings glory to his father, the god Ammon, who gave him all the conquests. After a column header which unfortunately suffered a lot, is one of the most important parts of our text, in which the king lists the enemies he has overcome, beginning with the Cheta, the Ati, the Karkamasch the Aratou, the Arasa; then, after a short break: at their camp in the country of Amaour, I destroyed the people and their country as if they had never existed

We see that these different peoples, common enemies of Egypt in their Asian campaigns before those of Ramses III, are gathered in one group. In the next column, we find a second group formed of people considered by Champollion to have played an important role in the campaign with the naval combat ships; it is the Poursata, the Takkara, the Shakarsha, the Taamou, and Ouaschascha. We see that the only missing Sharetana to this list.}}</ref><ref>Greene's documentary photographs are held at the Musee d'Orsay, for example: [http://www.musee-orsay.fr/fr/collections/catalogue-des-oeuvres/notice.html?no_cache=1&nnumid=033426&cHash=e2eb6fc49f Médinet-Habou, Temple funéraire de Ramsès III, muraille du nord (5)]; inventory number: PHO 1986 131 40.</ref> De Rougé noted that "in the crests of the conquered peoples the [[Sherden]] and the Teresh bear the designation of the {{lang|fr|peuples de la mer}}", in a reference to the prisoners depicted at the base of the Fortified East Gate.<ref name=deRouge/> In 1867, de Rougé published his ''Excerpts of a dissertation on the attacks directed against Egypt by the peoples of the Mediterranean in the 14th century BC'', which focused primarily on the battles of [[Ramesses II]] and [[Merneptah]] and which proposed translations for many of the geographic names included in the hieroglyphic inscriptions.{{sfn|de Rougé|1867}}{{sfn|Vandersleyen|1985|p=41 n.10}} De Rougé later became chair of Egyptology at the [[Collège de France]] and was succeeded by [[Gaston Maspero]]. Maspero built upon de Rougé's work and published ''The Struggle of the Nations'',{{sfn|Maspero|1896|p=461–470}} in which he described the theory of the seaborne migrations in detail in 1895–96 for a wider audience,<ref name=Drews1/> at a time when the idea of population migrations would have felt familiar to the general population.{{sfn|Silberman|1998|p=270|ps=: "The English translation of Maspero's résumé of ethnic movement entitled The Struggle of the Nations (Maspero 1896) must surely have evoked meaningful associations at a time when competition for territory and economic advantage among European Powers was at a fever pitch (Hobsbawm 1987)."}}

The migration theory was taken up by other scholars such as [[Eduard Meyer]] and became the generally accepted theory amongst Egyptologists and Orientalists.<ref name=Drews1>{{harvnb|Drews|1992}}{{blockquote|In fact, this migration of the Sea Peoples is not to be found in Egyptian inscriptions, but was launched by Gaston Maspero in 1873 [footnote: In the Revue Critique d'Histoire et de Littérature 1873, pp. 85–86]. Although Maspero's proposal initially seemed unlikely, it gained credibility with the publication of the [[Lemnos stele]]. In 1895, in his popular ''Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique'' [footnote; Vol. II (Paris:1895), translated into English as ''The Struggle of the Nations'' (ed. A. H. Sayce, tr. M. L. McClure, New York: 1896)], Maspero fully elaborated his scenario of "the migration of the Sea Peoples". Adopted by Eduard Meyer for the second edition of his Geschichted es Altertums, the theory won general acceptance among Egyptologists and orientalists.}}</ref> Since the early 1990s, however, it has been brought into question by a number of scholars.<ref name=AK2013/><ref name=Drews48/><ref name=Silberman>{{harvnb|Silberman|1998|p=272}}:{{blockquote|As E. S. Sherratt has pointed out in an enlightening study of the interplay of ideology and literary strata in the formation of the Homeric epics (1990), phases of active narrative or descriptive invention closely correspond to periods of rapid social and political change. Sherratt notes that one of the characteristic manifestations of this process – in which emerging elites seek to legitimate their power – is 'the transformation of an existing oral epic tradition in order to dress it in more recognizably modern garb' (1990: 821). Can we not see in the history of the archaeology of the Sea Peoples a similar process of literary reformulation, in which old components are reinterpreted and reassembled to tell a new tale? Narrative presupposes that both storyteller and audience share a single perspective, and therein may lie the connection between the intellectual and ideological dimensions of archaeology. To generalize beyond specific, highly localized data, archaeologists must utilize familiar conceptual frameworks and it is from the political and social ideologies of every generation that larger speculations about the historical role of the Sea Peoples have always been drawn. As many papers in this conference have suggested, traditional interpretive structures are in the process of reconsideration and renovation. That is why I believe it essential that we reflect on our current Sea Peoples stories – and see if we cannot detect the subtle yet lingering impact upon them of some timeworn Victorian narratives.}}</ref><ref name=Vandersleyen/>

The historical narrative stems primarily from seven [[Ancient Egyptian]] sources{{sfn|Killebrew|2013|pp=2–5}} and although in these inscriptions the designation "of the sea" does not appear in relation to all of these peoples,<ref name=AK2013/><ref name=Vandersleyen>{{harvnb|Vandersleyen|1985|p=53}}:{{blockquote|However, of the nine peoples concerned by these wars, only four were actually defined as coming 'from wꜣd-wr' or 'from pꜣ ym'. Furthermore, these expressions seem to be linked more often to vegetation and sweet water than to seawater, and it seems clear that the term "Sea Peoples" has to be abandoned. Some will object to this, basing themselves on the expression ''iww hryw-ib w3d-wr'', usually translated by 'islands situated in the middle of the sea', where some of the Sea Peoples are said to have come from. Indeed. it is this expression that supported the persistent idea that the 'Sea Peoples' came from the [[Aegean islands]] or at least from an [[East Mediterranean]] island. Now, these terms are misleading, not only because w3d-wr and p3 ym, quite likely, do not designate 'the sea' here, but also because the term in itself does not always mean 'island'; it can also be used to indicate other kinds of territories not necessarily maritime ones. The argument based on these alleged 'sea islands' is thus groundless ... To conclude, the Philistines came neither from Crete nor from the Aegean islands or coasts, but probably from the southern coast of Asia Minor or from Syria.}}</ref> the term "Sea Peoples" is commonly used in modern publications to refer to the following nine peoples, in alphabetical order:{{sfn|Killebrew|2013|p=2a}}<ref>A convenient table of Sea Peoples in hieroglyphics, transliteration and English is given in {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006}}, who developed it from works of Kitchen cited there</ref>

==Primary documentary records==
The [[Medinet Habu]] inscriptions from which the Sea Peoples concept was first described remain the primary source and "the basis of virtually all significant discussions of them".{{sfn|Oren|2000|p=85|ps=: "Thus far, rather meager documentation is available. What I shall do for the remainder of this essay is to focus on what is in fact our primary source on the Sea Peoples, the basis of virtually all significant discussions of them, including many efforts to identify the Sea Peoples with archaeologically known cultures or groups in the Mediterranean and beyond. This source is the corpus of scenes and texts relevant to the Sea Peoples displayed on the walls of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at western Thebes. Although it has been much discussed, this corpus has often led scholars to different and contradictory conclusions, and will always probably be subject to debate because of certain ambiguities inherent in the material."}}

Three separate narratives from Egyptian records refer to more than one of the nine peoples, found in a total of six sources. The seventh and most recent source referring to more than one of the nine peoples is a list (Onomasticon) of 610 entities, rather than a narrative.{{sfn|Killebrew|2013|pp=2–5}} These sources are summarized in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" | Date
! scope="col" | Narrative
! scope="col" | Source(s)
! scope="col" | Peoples named
! scope="col" | Connection to the sea
|-
| c. 1210 BC
| [[Ramesses II]] narrative
| [[Kadesh Inscriptions]]
| [[Karkiya|Karkisha]], Lukka, Sherden
| ''none''
|-
| rowspan="2" | c. 1200 BC
| rowspan="2" | [[Merneptah]] narrative
| [[Great Karnak Inscription]]
| Eqwesh, Lukka, Shekelesh, Sherden, Teresh
| Eqwesh (of the countries of the sea),<ref name=Brea588601>Breasted (1906), Vol III, §588 / p.248 and §601 / p.255: "of the countries of the sea". Breasted wrote in a footnote regarding this designation "It is noticeable that this designation, both here and in the Athribis Stela (1. 13), is inserted only after the Ekwesh. In the Athribis Stela Ekwesh is cut off by a numeral from the preceding, showing that the designation there belongs only to them."</ref> possibly also Sherden and Sheklesh<ref name=Gardiner>{{harvnb|Gardiner|1947|p=196 (Vol. 1)}}, in his commentary on the Onomasticon of Amenope, No. 268, "Srdn", wrote: "The records of Meneptah are much more explicit: the great Karnak inscription described how the Ekwesh, Tursha, Lukki, Sherden and Sheklesh (L.1) had been incited against Egypt by the prince of the Libu (Libyans); in L.52 the Sherden, Sheklesh and Ekwesh are collectively described as <hiero>N35:G1-N25:t*Z2ss</hiero>(var. <hiero>N35:G1-N25:X1*Z4-G1</hiero>)<hiero>-N35:G40-M17-M17-Aa15:D36-N35A-N36:N21</hiero> 'the foreign lands (var. 'foreigners') of the sea{{'"}} Note: Gardiner's reference to the alternative ("var.") writing 'foreigners' referred to [[Gustave Lefebvre]]'s "[http://www.cfeetk.cnrs.fr/index.php?page=document&n=413 Stèle de l'an V de Méneptah] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170206164157/http://www.cfeetk.cnrs.fr/index.php?page=document&n=413 |date=6 February 2017 }}", ASAE 27, 1927, p.23, line 13, describing the Athribis Stele.</ref>
|-
| [[:fr:Athribis#Fouilles archéologiques|Athribis Stele]]
| Eqwesh, Shekelesh, Sherden, Teresh
| Eqwesh (of the countries of the sea)<ref name=Brea588601/><ref name=Gardiner/>
|-
| rowspan="3" | c. 1150 BC
| rowspan="3" | [[Ramesses III]] narrative
| [[Medinet Habu (temple)|Medinet Habu]]
| Denyen, Peleset, Shekelesh, Sherden, Teresh, Tjekker, Weshesh
| Denyen (in their isles), Teresh (of the sea), Sherden (of the sea)<ref name=Brea75>Breasted (1906), Vol IV, §129 / p.75: "of the sea"</ref>
|-
| [[Papyrus Harris I]]
| Denyen, Peleset, Sherden, Tjekker, Weshesh
| Denyen (in their isles), Weshesh (of the sea)<ref name=Brea201>Breasted (1906), Vol IV, §403 / p.201: "in their isles" and "of the sea"</ref>
|-
| Rhetorical [[Stele|Stela]]
| Peleset, Teresh
| ''none''
|-
| c. 1100 BC
| ''List'' (no narrative)
| [[Onomasticon of Amenope]]
| Denyen, Lukka, Peleset, Sherden, Tjekker
| ''none''
|-
|}

===Ramesses II narrative===
[[File:Ancient carving - Shasu spies being beaten by Egyptians.png|thumb|300px|A carved relief from the [[Kadesh inscriptions]] showing [[Shasu]] spies being beaten by Egyptians]]

Possible records of sea peoples generally or in particular date to two campaigns of [[Ramesses II]], a pharaoh of the militant [[Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt|19th Dynasty]]: operations in or near the delta in Year 2 of his reign and the major confrontation with the [[Hittites|Hittite]] Empire and allies at the [[Battle of Kadesh]] in his Year 5. The years of this long-lived pharaoh's reign are not known exactly, but they must have comprised nearly all of the first half of the 13th century BC.<ref>Uncertainty of the dates is not a case of no evidence but of selecting among several possible dates. The articles in Wikipedia on related topics use one set of dates by convention but these and all dates based on them are not the only possible. A summary of the date question is given in Hasel, Ch. 2, p. 151, which is available as a summary at [https://books.google.com/books?id=cwHL6yzrqLgC&dq=%22domination+and+resistance%22 Google Books].</ref>

In his Second Year, an attack of the [[Sherden]], or Shardana, on the [[Nile Delta]] was repulsed and defeated by Ramesses, who captured some of the pirates. The event is recorded on Tanis Stele II.<ref>Find this and other documents quoted in the ''[http://www.libraries.psu.edu/artshumanities/ancientpeoples/shardana.html Shardana] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20080313232056/http://www.libraries.psu.edu/artshumanities/ancientpeoples/shardana.html |date=13 March 2008 }} '' article by Megaera Lorenz at the [[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State]] site. This is an earlier version of her article, which gives a quote from Kitchen not found in the External Links site below. Breasted Volume III, Article 491, p.210, which can be found on Google books, gives quite a different translation of the passage. Unfortunately, large parts of the text are missing and must be restored, but both versions agree on the Sherden and the warships.</ref> An inscription by Ramesses II on the stela from [[Tanis]] which recorded the Sherden raiders' raid and subsequent capture speaks of the continuous threat they posed to Egypt's Mediterranean coasts:

{{blockquote|the unruly Sherden whom no one had ever known how to combat, they came boldly sailing in their warships from the midst of the sea, none being able to withstand them.<ref>[[Kenneth Kitchen]], Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt, Aris & Phillips, 1982. pp.40–41</ref>}}

The Sherden prisoners were subsequently incorporated into the Egyptian army for service on the [[Hittites|Hittite]] frontier by Ramesses and fought as Egyptian soldiers in the Battle of Kadesh. Another stele usually cited in conjunction with this one is the "[[Aswan Stele]]" (there were other stelae at [[Aswan]]), which mentions the king's operations to defeat a number of peoples including those of the "[[papyrus stem (hieroglyph)#Language usage of papyrus stem|Great Green]] (the Egyptian name for the Mediterranean)". It is plausible to assume that the Tanis and Aswan Stelae refer to the same event, in which case they reinforce each other.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}}

The Battle of Kadesh was the outcome of a campaign against the Hittites and their allies in the [[Levant]] in the pharaoh's Year 5. The imminent collision of the Egyptian and Hittite empires became obvious to both, and they both prepared campaigns against the strategic midpoint of Kadesh for the next year. Ramesses divided his Egyptian forces, which were then ambushed piecemeal by the Hittite army and nearly defeated. Ramesses was separated from his forces and had to fight singlehandedly to get back to his troops. He then mustered several counterattacks while waiting for reinforcements. Once the reinforcements from the South and East arrived, the Egyptians managed to drive the Hittites back to Kadesh. While it was a strategic Egyptian victory, neither side managed to attain their operational objectives.<ref>Grimal, pp. 250–253</ref>

At home, Ramesses had his scribes formulate an official description, which has been called "the Bulletin" because it was widely published by inscription. Ten copies survive today on the temples at [[Abydos, Egypt|Abydos]], [[Karnak]], [[Thebes, Egypt|Luxor]] and [[Abu Simbel]], with reliefs depicting the battle. The "[[Poem of Pentaur]]", describing the battle, also survived.<ref>The poem appears in inscriptional form but the scribe, pntAwr.t, was not the author, who remains unknown. The scribe copied the poem onto Papyrus in the time of [[Merneptah]] and copies of that found their way into Papyrus Sallier III currently located in the [[British Museum]]. The details are stated in {{Cite web |url=http://home.comcast.net/~hebsed/spalinger.htm |title=The Battle of Kadesh |access-date=30 March 2007 |archive-date=2 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151002125933/http://home.comcast.net/~hebsed/spalinger.htm |url-status=bot: unknown }} on the site of the American Research Center in Egypt of Northern California. Both the inscription and the poem are published in {{Cite web |url=http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/kadeshaccounts.htm |title=Egyptian Accounts of the Battle of Kadesh |access-date=3 May 2008 |archive-date=31 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331142609/http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/kadeshaccounts.htm |url-status=bot: unknown }} on the ''Pharaonic Egypt'' site.</ref>

The poem relates that the previously captured Sherden were not only working for the Pharaoh but were also formulating a plan of battle for him; i.e. it was their idea to divide Egyptian forces into four columns. There is no evidence of any collaboration with the Hittites or malicious intent on their part, and if Ramesses considered it, he never left any record of that consideration.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}}

The poem lists the peoples who went to Kadesh as allies of the Hittites. Amongst them are some of the sea peoples spoken of in the Egyptian inscriptions previously mentioned, and many of the peoples who would later take part in the great migrations of the 12th century BC (see [[Battle of Kadesh#Hittite allies|Appendix A to the Battle of Kadesh]]).{{citation needed|date=August 2016}}

===Merneptah narrative===
{{Multiple image|align=right|total_width=400|height1=200|height2=200|image1=Athribis stele describing Merneptah's Libyan Campaign.png|image2=Great Karnak inscription (first part) - plate 52 from Mariette Bey.jpg|caption1=[[Athribis]] stele (showing all 19 lines and 14 lines on each face. The reference to "foreigners of the sea" is on line 13 out of 19)|caption2=[[Great Karnak Inscription]] (lines 1-20 out of 79; line 52 includes the reference to "foreign peoples of the sea" (''n3 ḫ3s.wt n<.t> p3 ym''):<ref name=Gardiner/> <hiero>N35:G1-N25:t*Z2ss-N35:G40-M17-M17-Aa15:D36-N35A-N36:N21</hiero>}}
The major event of the reign of the Pharaoh [[Merneptah]] (1213 BC – 1203 BC),<ref>J. von Beckerath, p.190. Like those of Ramses II, these dates are not certain. Von Beckerath's dates, adopted by Wikipedia, are relatively late; for example, Sanders, Ch. 5, p. 105, sets the Battle of Perire at April 15, 1220.</ref> 4th king of the 19th Dynasty, was his [[Battle of Perire|battle at Perire]] in the western delta in the 5th and 6th years of his reign, against a confederacy termed "the Nine Bows". Depredations of this confederacy had been so severe that the region was "forsaken as pasturage for cattle, it was left waste from the time of the ancestors".<ref>The Great Karnak Inscription.</ref>

The pharaoh's action against them is attested in a single narrative found in three sources. The most detailed source describing the battle is the [[Great Karnak Inscription]]; two shorter versions of the same narrative are found in the "Athribis Stele" and the "Cairo Column".<ref>All three inscriptions are stated in ''Breasted'', Vol. 3, "Reign of Meneptah", pp. 238 ff., Articles 569 ff.</ref> The "Cairo column" is a section of a granite column now in the [[Egyptian Museum|Cairo Museum]], which was first published by Maspero in 1881 with just two readable sentences – the first confirming the date of Year 5 and the second stating: "The wretched [chief] of Libya has invaded with ——, being men and women, Shekelesh (S'-k-rw-s) ——".<ref>Breasted, volume 3, §595, page 252</ref>{{sfn|Maspero|1881|p=118}} The "Athribis stela" is a granite stela found in [[Athribis]] and inscribed on both sides, which like the Cairo column, was first published by Maspero two years later in 1883.<ref>Breasted, volume 3, page 253.</ref> The [[Merneptah Stele]] from Thebes describes the reign of peace resulting from the victory but does not include any reference to the Sea Peoples.<ref>''Breasted'', Vol. 3, pg. 256–264.</ref>

The Nine Bows were acting under the leadership of the king of [[Libya]] and an associated near-concurrent revolt in [[Canaan]] involving [[Gaza City|Gaza]], [[Ascalon]], [[Yenoam]] and the [[Israelites]]. Exactly which peoples were consistently in the Nine Bows is not clear, but present at the battle were the Libyans, some neighboring [[Meshwesh]], and possibly a separate revolt in the following year involving peoples from the eastern Mediterranean, including the Kheta (or Hittites), or Syrians, and (in the Israel Stele) for the first time in history, the Israelites. In addition to them, the first lines of the Karnak inscription include some sea peoples,<ref>J. H. Breasted, p. 243, citing Lines 13–15 of the inscription</ref> which must have arrived in the Western Delta or from [[Cyrene, Libya|Cyrene]] by ship:

{{blockquote|[Beginning of the victory that his majesty achieved in the land of Libya] -i, [[Achaeans (Homer)|Ekwesh]], [[Tyrrhenoi|Teresh]], [[Lukka]], [[Shardana|Sherden]], Shekelesh, Northerners coming from all lands.}}

Later in the inscription Merneptah receives news of the attack:

{{blockquote|... the third season, saying: "The wretched, fallen chief of Libya, [[Meryey]], son of Ded, has fallen upon the country of [[Tehenou|Tehenu]] with his bowmen – Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, Teresh, Taking the best of every warrior and every man of war of his country. He has brought his wife and his children – leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of Perire"}}

"His majesty was enraged at their report, like a lion", assembled his court and gave a rousing speech. Later, he dreamed he saw [[Ptah]] handing him a sword and saying, "Take thou (it) and banish thou the fearful heart from thee." When the bowmen went forth, says the inscription, "[[Amun]] was with them as a shield." After six hours, the surviving Nine Bows threw down their weapons, abandoned their baggage and dependants, and ran for their lives. Merneptah states that he defeated the invasion, killing 6,000 soldiers and taking 9,000 prisoners. To be sure of the numbers, among other things, he took the penises of all uncircumcised enemy dead and the hands of all the circumcised, from which history learns that the Ekwesh were [[circumcision|circumcised]], a fact causing some to doubt they were Greek.

===Ramesses III narrative===
{{further|Battle of the Delta|Battle of Djahy|Late Bronze Age collapse}}
{{Multiple image|align=left|direction=vertical|image1=Medinet Habu Ramses III. Tempel Nordostwand 08.jpg|image2=Medinet Habu Ramses III. Tempel Nordostwand Abzeichnung 01.jpg|footer=Medinet Habu northeast outside wall, showing wide view and a close-up sketch of the right-hand side relief. Behind the king (out of scene) is a chariot, above which the text describes a battle in Year 8 as follows: "Now the northern countries, which were in their isles, were quivering in their bodies. They penetrated the channels of the Nile's mouths. Their nostrils have ceased (to function, so that) their desire is [to] breathe the breath. His majesty is gone forth like a whirlwind against them, fighting on the battlefield like a runner. The dread of him and the terror of him have entered in their bodies; (they are) capsized and overwhelmed in their places. Their hearts are taken away; their soul is flown away. Their weapons are scattered in the sea. His arrow pierces him whom he has wished among them, while the fugitive becomes one fallen into the water. His majesty is like an enraged lion, attacking his assailant with his pawns; plundering on his right hand and powerful on his left hand, like Set[h] destroying the serpent 'Evil of Character'. It is Amon-Re who has overthrown for him the lands and has crushed for him every land under his feet; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: Usermare-Meriamon."<ref>Translation by Egerton and Wilson, 1936, plates 37–39, lines 8–23. Also found in Breasted, 1906, volume 4, p. 44, §75</ref>}}
[[Ramesses III]], who reigned for most of the first half of the 12th century BC as the second pharaoh of the 20th Dynasty, confronted a later wave of invasions of the Sea Peoples in his eighth year. The battles were later recorded in two long inscriptions from his [[Medinet Habu]] mortuary temple, which are physically separate and somewhat different from one another.{{sfn|Oren|2000|p=86|ps=: "One consists of a string of large scale scenes, complemented with relatively brief texts, extending in a narrative sequence along part of the north facade of the temple, which it shares with part of a similar narrative treatment of Ramesses III's Year 5 campaign against the Libyans. This latter sequence originates however on the west or rear wall of the temple. The other, physically quite separate composition relating to the Sea Peoples is displayed across the external (eastern) face of the great pylon which separates the first court of the temple from the second. On the pylon's southern wing is a large-scale scene – occupying most of the facade – showing Ramesses III leading three lines of captive Sea Peoples to Amun-Re, lord of Thebes (and of the empire), and his consort Mut. Displayed on the equivalent space of the north wing is a long text, without pictorial embellishment, which is a verbal statement by Ramesses III describing at length his victory over the Sea Peoples, and the extraordinary beneficence of Amun-Re thus displayed, to 'the entire land gathered together'. In fact, this apparent simplicity – two separate and somewhat different compositions relevant to the Sea Peoples-belies the actual complexity of the compositional relationship between the two Sea Peoples compositions on the one hand, and their joint relationship to the entire compositional scheme or 'program' of the entire temple on the other. Any effort to understand the historical significance of the Sea Peoples' records at Medinet Habu must take this compositional dimension into account, as well as the conceptual dimensional, the relationship of the general composition scheme or program to the functions and meanings of the temple, as understood by the Egyptians."}} The Year 8 campaign is the best-recorded Sea Peoples invasion.

The fact that several civilizations collapsed around 1175 BC has led to the suggestion that the Sea Peoples may have been involved at the end of the [[Hittites|Hittite]], [[Mycenaean Greece|Mycenaean]] and [[Mitanni]] kingdoms. The American [[Hittitologist]] [[Gary Beckman]] writes, on page 23 of ''Akkadica 120'' (2000):<ref>Beckman cites the first few lines of the inscription located on the NW panel of the 1st court of the temple. This extensive inscription is stated in full in English in the {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006|pp=43–56}}, which also contains a diagram of the locations of the many inscriptions pertaining to the reign of Ramses III on the walls of the temple at Medinet Habu.</ref>

{{blockquote|A ''[[terminus ante quem]]'' for the destruction of the Hittite empire has been recognized in an inscription carved at Medinet Habu in Egypt in the eighth year of [[Ramesses III]] (1175 BC). This text narrates a contemporary great movement of peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, as a result of which "the lands were removed and scattered to the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from [[Hittites|Hatti]], [[Kizzuwatna|Kode]], [[Carchemish]], [[Arzawa]], [[Alashiya]] on being cut off. [ie: cut down]"}}

Ramesses' comments about the scale of the Sea Peoples' onslaught in the eastern Mediterranean are confirmed by the destruction of the states of [[Hittites|Hatti]], [[Ugarit]], [[Ascalon]] and [[Tel Hazor|Hazor]] around this time. As the Hittitologist [[Trevor Bryce]] observes, "It should be stressed that the invasions were not merely military operations, but involved the movements of large populations, by land and sea, seeking new lands to settle."<ref name=bryce371>Bryce, p.371</ref>

This situation is confirmed by the Medinet Habu temple reliefs of Ramesses III which show that "the [[Peleset]] and [[Tjekker]] warriors who fought in the land battle [against Ramesses III] are accompanied in the reliefs by women and children loaded in ox-carts."<ref name="bryce371" />

{{Multiple image|align=right|direction=vertical|image1=Medinet Habu Ramses III. Tempel Erster Hof 01.jpg|image2= Medinet Habu Ramses III. Tempel Erster Hof (Lepsius) 01.jpg|footer=Medinet Habu Second Pylon, showing wide view and a close-up sketch of the left-hand side relief in which Amon, with Mut behind him, extends a sword to Rameses III who is leading three lines of prisoners. The text before the King includes the following:"Thou puttest great terror of me in the hearts of their chiefs; the fear and dread of me before them; that I may carry off their warriors (phrr), bound in my grasp, to lead them to thy ka, O my august father, – – – – –. Come, to [take] them, being: Peleset (Pw-r'-s'-t), Denyen (D'-y-n-yw-n'), Shekelesh (S'-k-rw-s). Thy strength it was which was before me, overthrowing their seed, – thy might, O lord of gods."<ref>Breasted, 1906, volume 4, p.48, §81</ref> On the right hand side of the Pylon is the "Great Inscription on the Second Pylon", which includes the following text:"The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands, All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms: from [[Hittites|Hatti]], [[Qode]], [[Carchemish]], [[Arzawa]] and [[Cyprus|Alashiya]] on, being cut off [i.e. destroyed] at one time. A camp was set up in [[Amurru kingdom|Amurru]]. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming forward toward [[Egypt]], while the flame was prepared before them. Their [[confederation]] was the [[Peleset]], [[Tjeker]], Shekelesh, [[Denyen]] and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting: 'Our plans will succeed!{{'"}}<ref>Translation by John A. Wilson in Pritchard, J.B. (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edition, Princeton 1969, p. 262. Also found in Breasted, 1906, volume 4, p. 37, §64</ref>}}
The inscriptions of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu record three victorious campaigns against the Sea Peoples that are considered bona fide, in Years 5, 8 and 12, as well as three considered spurious, against the [[Nubia]]ns and [[Libya]]ns in Year 5 and the Libyans with Asiatics in Year 11. During Year 8, some Hittites were operating with the Sea Peoples.<ref>{{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006|pp=43–56}} quotes the inscriptions in English.</ref>

The inner west wall of the second court describes the invasion of Year 5. Only the Peleset and Tjeker are mentioned, but the list is lost in a [[lacuna (manuscripts)|lacuna]]. The attack was two-pronged, one by sea and one by land. That is, the Sea Peoples divided their forces. Ramesses was waiting in the [[Nile]] mouths and trapped the enemy fleet there. The land forces were defeated separately.

The Sea Peoples did not learn any lessons from this defeat, as they repeated their mistake in Year 8 with a similar result. The campaign is recorded more extensively on the inner northwest panel of the first court. It is possible, but not generally believed, that the dates are only those of the inscriptions and both refer to the same campaign.

In Ramesses' Year 8, the [[Nine Bows]] appear as a "conspiracy in their isles". This time, they are revealed unquestionably as Sea Peoples: the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, which are classified as "foreign countries" in the inscription. They camped in [[Amurru kingdom|Amor]] and sent a fleet to the Nile.

The pharaoh was once more waiting for them. He had built a fleet especially for the occasion, hidden it in the mouths of the Nile, and posted coast watchers. The enemy fleet [[Battle of the Delta|was ambushed there]], their ships overturned, and the men dragged up on shore and executed ad hoc.

The land army [[Battle of Djahy|was also routed]] within Egyptian controlled territory. Additional information is given in the relief on the outer side of the east wall. This [[Battle of Djahy|land battle]] occurred in the vicinity of [[Djahy]] against "the northern countries". When it was over, several chiefs were captive: of Hatti, [[Amorites|Amor]] and [[Shasu]] among the "land peoples" and the Tjeker, "Sherden of the sea", "[[Tyrrhenoi|Teresh]] of the sea" and Peleset or [[Philistines]].

The campaign of Year 12 is attested by the [[Südstele]] found on the south side of the temple. It mentions the Tjeker, Peleset, Denyen, Weshesh and Shekelesh.

[[Papyrus Harris I]] of the period, found behind the temple, suggests a wider campaign against the Sea Peoples but does not mention the date. In it, the persona of Ramses III says, "I slew the Denyen (D'-yn-yw-n) in their isles" and "burned" the Tjeker and Peleset, implying a maritime raid of his own. He also captured some Sherden and Weshesh "of the sea" and settled them in Egypt. As he is called the "Ruler of Nine Bows" in the relief of the east side, these events probably happened in Year 8; i.e. the Pharaoh would have used the victorious fleet for some punitive expeditions elsewhere in the Mediterranean.

The Rhetorical Stela to [[Ramesses III]], Chapel C, [[Deir el-Medina]] records a similar narrative.<ref>Bernard Bruyère, Mert Seger à Deir el Médineh, 1929, pages 32–37</ref>

===Onomasticon of Amenope===
The [[Onomasticon of Amenope]], or Amenemipit (amen-em-apt), gives slight credence to the idea that the Ramesside kings settled the Sea Peoples in Canaan. Dated to about 1100 BC (at the end of the 22nd dynasty) this document simply lists names. After six place names, four of which were in Philistia, the scribe lists the Sherden (Line 268), the Tjeker (Line 269) and the Peleset (Line 270), who might be presumed to occupy those cities.<ref>Redford, P. 292. A number of copies or partial copies exist, the best being the Golenischeff Papyrus, or Papyrus Moscow 169, located in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow (refer to [http://www.archaeowiki.org/Onomasticon_of_Amenemope Onomasticon of Amenemipet] at the Archaeowiki site). In it the author is stated to be Amenemope, son of Amenemope.</ref> The [[Story of Wenamun]] on a papyrus of the same cache also places the Tjeker in [[Tel Dor|Dor]] at that time. The fact that the Biblical maritime [[Tribe of Dan]] was initially located between the Philistines and the Tjekker, has prompted some to suggest that they may have originally been Denyen. Sherden seem to have been settled around [[Tel Megiddo|Megiddo]] and in the [[Jordan Valley (Middle East)|Jordan Valley]], and Weshwesh (connected by some with the Biblical tribe of [[Asher]]) may have been settled further north.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}}

==Other documentary records==
===Egyptian single-name sources===
Other Egyptian sources refer to one of the individual groups without reference to any of the other groups.{{sfn|Killebrew|2013|pp=2–5}}

The [[Amarna letters]], around the mid-14th century BC, including four relating to the Sea Peoples:
* [[Amarna letter EA 151|EA 151]] refers to the Denyen, in a passing reference to the death of their king;
* [[Amarna letter EA 38|EA 38]] refers to the Lukka, who are being accused of attacking the Egyptians in conjunction with the [[Alashiya]]ns ([[Cyprus|Cypriotes]]), with the latter having stated that the Lukka were seizing their villages.
* [[Amarna letter EA 81|EA 81]], [[Amarna letter EA 122|EA 122]] and [[Amarna letter EA 123|EA 123]] refer to the Sherden. The letters at one point refer to a Sherden man as an apparent renegade mercenary,<ref>Letter EA 81</ref> and at another point to three Sherden who are slain by an Egyptian overseer.<ref>{{cite web |first=Megaera |last=Lorenz |url=http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_aek11/amarnal.html |title=The Amarna Letters |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070606044223/http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_aek11/amarnal.html |archive-date=6 June 2007 |website=Penn State site |access-date=9 May 2018}}</ref>

[[Padiiset's Statue]] refers to the Peleset, the Cairo Column<ref name=Brea252>Breasted (1906), Vol III, §593 / p.252: "in their isles" and "of the sea"</ref> refers to the Shekelesh, the [[Story of Wenamun]] refers to the Tjekker, and 13 further Egyptian sources refer to the Sherden.<ref>Per Killebrew 2013, pp 2–5, these are: Stele of Padjesef, Tanis Stele, Papyrus Anastasi I, Papyrus Anastasi II, Stele of Setemhebu, Papyrus Amiens, Papyrus Wilbour, Adoption Papyrus, Papyrus Moscow 169, Papyrus BM 10326, Papyrus Turin 2026, Papyrus BM 10375, Donation Stele</ref>

===Byblos===
[[File:National Museum of Beirut – Resheph obelisk.jpg|thumb|The [[Abishemu obelisk]], includes the words "Kwkwn ś: Rwqq" translated as "Kukun, son of Lukka"]]
The earliest [[ethnic group]]<ref>See also {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006}}, particularly his Concluding Remarks on pages 117–121, for a fuller consideration of the meaning of ethnicity.</ref> later considered among the Sea Peoples is believed to be attested in Egyptian [[hieroglyph]]s on the [[Abishemu obelisk]] found in the [[Temple of the Obelisks]] at [[Byblos]] by [[Maurice Dunand]].<ref>[[Maurice Dunand]], Foilles de Byblos, volume 2, p. 878, no. 16980</ref><ref>[[William F. Albright]], "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/1355673 Dunand's New Byblos Volume: A Lycian at the Byblian Court]," BASOR 155, 1959, pp. 31-34</ref> The inscription mentions kwkwn son of rwqq- (or kukun son of luqq), [[transliteration|transliterated]] as [[Caucones|Kukunnis]], son of Lukka, "the [[Lycia]]n".<ref>{{cite journal |first=T. R. |last=Bryce |title=The Lukka Problem – And a Possible Solution |journal=[[Journal of Near Eastern Studies]] |volume=33 |issue=4 |year=1974 |pages=395–404 |jstor=544776 |doi=10.1086/372378|title-link=Lukka |s2cid=161428632 }} The inscription is mentioned as well in {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006|p=31}}.</ref> The date is given variously as 2000 or 1700 BC

===Ugarit===
{{multiple image
| align = right
| caption_align = center
| direction =horizontal
| header=Destructions at Gibala-Tell Tweini
| total_width=450
| image1 = Harbour town Gibala-Tell Tweini and the Sea People destruction layer.jpg
| caption1 = Harbour town Gibala-[[Tell Tweini]] ([[Ugarit kingdom]]) and the [[Sea People]] destruction layer.<ref name="JB"/>
| image2 = Gibala-Tell Tweini. Storage jars found in the Early Iron Age destruction layer.jpg
| caption2 = Gibala-Tell Tweini. Storage jars found in the Early Iron Age destruction layer.<ref name="JB">{{cite journal |last1=Bretschneider |first1=Joachim |last2=Otto |first2=Thierry |title=The Sea Peoples, from Cuneiform Tablets to Carbon Dating |journal=PLOS ONE |date=8 June 2011 |volume=6 |issue=6 |pages=e20232 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0020232 |pmid=21687714 |language=en |issn=1932-6203|pmc=3110627 |bibcode=2011PLoSO...620232K |doi-access=free }}</ref>
| footer=
}}
Some Sea Peoples appear in four of the [[Ugaritic texts]], the last three of which seem to foreshadow the destruction of the city around 1180 BC. The letters are therefore dated to the early 12th century. The last king of Ugarit was [[Ammurapi]] ({{circa}} 1191–1182 BC), who, throughout this correspondence, is quite a young man.
* RS 34.129, the earliest letter, found on the south side of the city, from "the Great King", presumably [[Suppiluliuma II]] of the [[Hittites]], to the prefect of the city. He says that he ordered the king of Ugarit to send him Ibnadushu for questioning, but the king was too immature to respond. He, therefore, wants the prefect to send the man, whom he promises to return. What this language implies about the relationship of the Hittite empire to Ugarit is a matter of interpretation. Ibnadushu had been kidnapped by and had resided among a people of Shikala, probably the Shekelesh, "who lived on ships". The letter is generally interpreted as an interest in military intelligence by the king.<ref>The texts of the letters are transliterated and translated in {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006|pp=43–56}} and also are mentioned and hypotheses are given about them in Sandars, p. 142 following.</ref>
* RS L 1, RS 20.238 and RS 20.18, are a set from the [[Rap'anu Archive]] between a slightly older Ammurapi, now handling his own affairs, and [[Eshuwara]], the grand supervisor of [[Alasiya]]. Evidently, Ammurapi had informed Eshuwara, that an enemy fleet of 20 ships had been spotted at sea. Eshuwara wrote back and inquired about the location of Ammurapi's own forces. Eshuwara also noted that he would like to know where the enemy fleet of 20 ships are now located.<ref>The sequence, only recently completed, appears in {{harvnb|Woudhuizen|2006|pp=43–56}}, along with the news that the famous oven, still reported at many sites and in many books, in which the second letter was hypothetically being baked at the destruction of the city, was not an oven, the city was not destroyed at that time, and a third letter existed.</ref> Unfortunately for both Ugarit and Alasiya, neither kingdom was able to fend off the Sea People's onslaught, and both were ultimately destroyed. A letter by Ammurapi (RS 18.147) to the king of [[Alasiya]]—which was in fact a response to an appeal for assistance by the latter—has been found by archaeologists. In it, Ammurapi describes the desperate plight facing Ugarit.{{efn|Quote: "My father, behold, the enemy's ships came (here); my cities(?) were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots(?) are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka? ... Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us."<ref>Jean Nougaryol et al. (1968) Ugaritica V: 87–90 no. 24</ref>}} Ammurapi, in turn, appealed for aid from the viceroy of [[Carchemish]], which actually survived the Sea People's onslaught; King [[Kuzi-Teshub]] I, who was the son of [[Talmi-Teshub]]—a direct contemporary of the last ruling Hittite king, [[Suppiluliuma II]]—is attested in power there,<ref>Kitchen, pp. 99 & 140</ref> running a mini-empire which stretched from "Southeast Asia Minor, North Syria ... [to] the west bend of the Euphrates"<ref>Kitchen, pp.99–100</ref> from c. 1175 BC to 990 BC. Its viceroy could only offer some words of advice for Ammurapi.{{efn|Quote: "As for what you [Ammurapi] have written to me: "Ships of the enemy have been seen at sea!" Well, you must remain firm. Indeed for your part, where are your troops, your chariots stationed? Are they not stationed near you? No? Behind the enemy, who press upon you? Surround your towns with ramparts. Have your troops and chariots enter there, and await the enemy with great resolution!"<ref>RSL I = Nougayril et al., (1968) 86–86, no.23</ref>}}

== Groups ==
The list of Sea People groups include some which are securely identified and others which are not.

=== Lukka ===
{{main|Lukka}}

The Lukka people are known from numerous other [[Hittite language|Hittite]] and [[Egyptian language|ancient Egyptian]] records. While the Lukka lands were located in the later region of [[Lycia]], Lukka people appear to have been highly mobile. The Lukka were never a unified kingdom, instead having a decentralized political structure. The Lukka people were famously fractious, with Hittite and Egyptian records describing them as raiders, rebels, and pirates.
Lukka people fought against the Hittites as part of the [[Assuwa|Assuwa confederation]], later fought for the Hittites in the [[Battle of Kadesh]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Beckman |first1=Gary|last2=Bryce|first2=Trevor|last3=Cline|first3=Eric|year=2012 |title=The Ahhiyawa Texts|publisher=Brill|page=99|isbn=978-1589832688}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Bryce|first=Trevor|title=The Trojans and their Neighbours|year=2005 |publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-415-34959-8|pages=82, 148-149}}</ref><ref>Bryce 2005, p. 336; Yakubovich 2010, p. 134</ref><ref>Ilya Yakubovich (2010) ''Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language'', Leiden: Brill, p. 134</ref>

=== Karkiya ===
{{main|Karkiya}}

Karkiya was region in western [[Anatolia]] known from references in [[Hittite texts|Hittite]] and [[Ancient Egyptian literature|Egyptian]] records. Karkiya was governed by a council of chiefs rather than a king, and was not a unified political entity. The Karkiyans had relations with the Hittite Empire, but were never part of the empire proper. Relations with the Hittites had ups and downs, and Karkiyan soldiers fought for the Hittites at the [[Battle of Kadesh]], most likely as mercenaries.<ref name = "bryce34">{{cite book|last=Bryce|first=Trevor|title=The Trojans and their Neighbours|year=2005 |publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-415-34959-8|pages=143–144}}</ref><ref name=steadman-bryce24>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Bryce |first=Trevor |year=2011 |editor-last1=Steadman |editor-first1=Sharon | editor-last2=McMahon | editor-first2=Gregory |encyclopedia=The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia |title=The Late Bronze Age in the West and the Aegean |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376142.013.0015|pages=372,374}}</ref> The name has been argued to be related to later terms for [[Caria]], though the linguistic connection is not certain.<ref name=steadman-bryce24 /><ref name = "herda46" >{{cite encyclopedia |title=Greek (and our) Views on the Karians |encyclopedia=Luwian Identities |year=2013 |last=Herda |first=Alexander |editor-last1=Mouton |editor-first1=Alice |editor-last2=Rutherford |editor-first2=Ian |editor-last3=Yakubovich |editor-first3=Ilya |publisher=Brill|isbn=978-90-04-25279-0|pages=433–434}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Against the identification of Karkiša with Carians |encyclopedia= Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age |year=2011 |last=Simon |first=Zsolt |editor-last1=Kopanias |editor-first1=K. |editor-last2=Maner |editor-first2=Ç. |editor-last3= Stampolidis |editor-first3=N.}}</ref>

=== Peleset ===
{{main|Peleset}}
[[File:Bichrome pottery.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Philistine Bichrome pottery]]]]

The Peleset are generally regarded as originating somewhere within the [[Aegean Sea|Aegean]] cultural area.<ref>{{cite book |last=Yasur-Landau |first=Assaf |year=2014 |title=The Philistines and Aegean migration at the end of the Late Bronze Age|publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=1,163|isbn=978-0-521-19162-3}}</ref> Historians generally identify the ''Peleset'' with the later [[Philistines]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Killebrew|first=Ann E.|title=Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E.|location=Atlanta, Georgia|publisher=Society of Biblical Literature|year=2005|isbn=1-58983-097-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VtAmmwapfVAC|page=202}}</ref> Evidence for this identification comes from the later Biblical tradition assosciating the Philistines with [[Caphtor]],<ref>{{harvnb|Maeir|2005|pp=528–536}}</ref> Aegean-style material remains such as [[Philistine Bichrome ware]], as well as genetic evidence suggesting that immigrants from Europe settled in sites such as [[Ashkalon]] at the beginning of the Iron Age. Both genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that any newcomers quickly acculturated and intermarried with local populations.<ref name="pmid31281897">{{cite journal|last1=Feldman|first1=Michal|last2=Master|first2=Daniel M.|last3=Bianco|first3=Raffaela A.|last4=Burri|first4=Marta|last5=Stockhammer|first5=Philipp W.|last6=Mittnik|first6=Alissa|last7=Aja|first7=Adam J.|last8=Jeong|first8=Choongwon|last9=Krause|first9=Johannes|date=3 July 2019|title=Ancient DNA sheds light on the genetic origins of early Iron Age Philistines|journal=Science Advances|volume=5|issue=7|pages=eaax0061|bibcode=2019SciA....5...61F|doi=10.1126/sciadv.aax0061|pmc=6609216|pmid=31281897 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Shekelesh ===
{{main|Shekelesh}}

The Shekelesh appear in the earlier [[Great Karnak Inscription]], where they are described as auxiliary troops of the Libyan ruler [[Meryey]]. In the inscription, the Pharaoh [[Merneptah]] claims that he killed between 200 and 222 of them.<ref name="Sternberg49">{{Cite book|author=Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi |title=Der Kampf der Seevölker gegen Pharao Ramses III. |publisher=Rahden |date=2012 |volume=49}}</ref> They may also appear in Hittite records as the seafaring ''Shikalayu'' ([[Hittite language|Hittite]]: 𒅆𒅗𒆷𒅀𒌋 ''ši-ka-la-ia/u-u''), though this connection is speculative.<ref>Manfred Weippert: ''Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament.'' Göttingen 2010, S. 208, Anmerkung 50.</ref> It has been hypothesized that the Shekelesh have some connection to [[Sicily]], though evidence is sparse, and proposals vary as to whether Sicily was their original homeland, or if they settled there after the Bronze Age.{{cn|date=February 2024}}

=== Sherden ===
{{main|Sherden}}

[[File:Mod. Bronzo nuraghe quadrilobato.gif|thumb|120px|right|Bronze model of a [[nuraghe]]. 10th century BC]]

The Sherden are previously mentioned in the records of [[Ramesses II]], who claimed to have defeated them in his second year (1278 BC) when they attempted to raid Egypt's coast. The pharaoh subsequently incorporated many of them into his personal guard.<ref>{{cite book |author=Grimal, N. |title=A History of Ancient Egypt |pages=250–253}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author-link=Kenneth Kitchen |author=Kitchen, Kenneth |title=Pharaoh Triumphant: The life and times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt |publisher=Aris & Phillips |year=1982 |pages=40–41}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Giacomo |last=Cavillier |year=2008 |title=Gli shardana e l'Egitto ramesside |journal=BAR |issue=1438 |publisher=Archaeopress |location=Oxford, UK}}</ref> They may also appear in the [[Amarna Letters]], with their name rendered in [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] as "še-er-ta-an-nu".<ref>EA 81, EA 122, EA 123 in Moran (1992) pp. 150-151, 201-202{{full citation needed|date=September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Emanuel |first=Jeffrey P. |date=2013 |title=Sherden from the Sea: The arrival, integration, and acculturation of a Sea People |journal=Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=14–27 |doi=10.2458/azu_jaei_v05i1_emanuel |url=https://www.academia.edu/2445831|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite conference |conference=AIA annual meeting |year=2012 |last=Emanuel |first=Jeffrey P. |title=Šrdn of the Sea: A reassessment of the Sherden and their role in Egyptian Society |url=https://www.academia.edu/1716287}}</ref> Based on onomastic similarities, similar weapons, presence in the same places of the Mediterranean and similar relationships with other peoples there, and other analysis of historical and archaeological sources, some archaeologists have proposed to identify the Sherden with the [[Nuragic civilization]] of [[Sardinia]].<ref name="BarKahn2011">{{cite book|author1=S. Bar|author2=D. Kahn|author3=J.J. Shirley|title=Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature: Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UC3KdEzloiYC&pg=PA350|date=9 June 2011|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-90-04-19493-9|pages=350 ff}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite book|last=Ugas|first=Giovanni|title=Shardana e Sardegna : i popoli del mare, gli alleati del Nordafrica e la fine dei Grandi Regni (XV-XII secolo a.C.)|publisher=Edizioni della Torre|year=2016|isbn=9788873434719|location=Cagliari|language=it|oclc=976013893}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Tusa|first=Sebastiano|title=I popoli del Grande Verde : il Mediterraneo al tempo dei faraoni|publisher=Edizioni Storia e Studi Sociali|year=2018|isbn=9788899168308|location=Ragusa|language=it|oclc=1038750254|author-link=Sebastiano Tusa}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{Cite book|last=Zorea|first=Carlos Roberto|url=https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/65302/1/T42277.pdf|title=Sea peoples in Canaan, Cyprus and Iberia (12th to 10th centuries BC)|publisher=[[Complutense University of Madrid]]|year=2021|location=Madrid}}</ref> Potential further evidence for this position comes from 12th century Nuragic pottery found at [[Kokkinokremmos|Pyla Kokkinokremos]], a fortified settlement in Cyprus.<ref>"[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318723190_Revisiting_Late_Bronze_Age_oxhide_ingots_Meanings_questions_and_perspectives Revisiting Late Bronze Age oxhide ingots: Meanings, questions and perspectives]". Serena Sabatini, University of Gothenburg. 2016.</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F_7zBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA80|publisher=Gangemi Editore|first1=Marco|last1=Minoja|first2=Alessandro|last2=Usai|isbn=978-88-492-9958-8|oclc=907638763|language=it|title=Le sculture di Mont'e Prama - Contesto, scavi e materiali|trans-title=Mont'e Prama's sculptures - Context, excavations & materials|date=2014|place=Roma|page=80|access-date=2019-07-19|quote=Si aggiunge ora la individuazione di un vaso a collo con anse a gomito rovescio, nuragico della Sardegna occidentale o nord occidentale, frammetario, restaurato ab antiquo con una duplice placca di piombo dell'iglesiente, presso Pyla-Kokkinokremos, un centro fortificato cipriota nell'entroterra del golfo di Larnaka (Kition), vissuto mezzo secolo fra il 1200 e il 1150 a.C. (Now the identification of a neck vase with inverted elbow handles is added, Nuragic from western or north-western Sardinia, fragmentary, restored from the outside with a double-lead plaque of the Iglesiente, near Pyla-Kokkinokremos, a fortified Cypriot center inland of the Gulf of Larnaka (Kition), lived half a century between 1200 and 1150 BC.)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.academia.edu/36116570|title=PYLA-KOKKINOKREMOS: Short report of the 2017 campaign|first1=Joachim|last1=Bretschneider|first2=Greta|last2=Jans|first3=Thérèse|last3=Claeys|first4=Simon|last4=Jusseret|first5=Athanasia|last5=Kanta|first6=Jan|last6=Driessen|first7=Vanessa|last7=Boschloos|via=www.academia.edu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.academia.edu/31539876|title=Pyla-Kokkinokremos: Short report of the 2016 campaign|first1=Joachim|last1=Bretschneider|first2=Jan|last2=Driessen|first3=Simon|last3=Jusseret|first4=Thérèse|last4=Claeys|first5=Greta|last5=Jans|via=www.academia.edu}}</ref><ref>V. Karageorghis, J. Karageorghis, "L'Isola di Afrodite", ''Archeologia Viva'', 2013, No. 159 pp. 40–53</ref><ref>[http://www.raco.cat/index.php/CuadernosArqueologia/article/viewFile/276368/392932 INTERCONNESSIONI FRA MEDITERRANEO E ATLANTICO NELL'ETÀ DEL BRONZO: IL PUNTO DI VISTA DELLA SARDEGNA] Fulvia Lo Schiavo, ISMA-CNR.</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Karageorghis|first=Vassos|title=On cooking pots, drinking cups, loomweights and ethnicity in bronze age Cyprus and neighbouring regions: an international archaeological symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th-7th, 2010|date=2011|isbn=978-9963-560-93-6|page=90|language=en|chapter=Handmade Burnished Ware in Cyprus and elsewhere in the Mediterranean|publisher=A.G. Leventis Foundation |oclc=769643982}}</ref>

=== Weshesh ===
{{main|Weshesh}}

The ''Weshesh'' are the most sparsely attested among the Sea People. They are only found in documents pertaining to the reign of [[Ramesses III]], and no visual representation of them has ever been identified.<ref name="Noort56">{{cite book |author=Edward Noort |title=Die Seevölker in Palästina |place=Kampen |date=1994 |pages=56–57 |isbn=9789039000120 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=--A8ZfdyK8AC&dq=Ramses+III+%C3%84gypten+Neunbogen&pg=PA56}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Samuel Birch |title=Facsimile of an Egyptian hieratic papyrus of the reign of Rameses III, now in the British Museum, Papyrus Harris no 1 |publisher=British Museum, Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities |place=London |date=1876 |chapter=Plate LXXVI |pages=28, 76 |url=http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/birch1876/0107?sid=1df507da67b3c7af21dbc5a01cbd61f9}}</ref><ref name="Hotabi">Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: ''Der Kampf der Seevölker gegen Pharao Ramses III''. Rahden 2012, S. 50.</ref>

=== Ekwesh and Denyen ===
{{main|Denyen|Ekwesh}}

[[File:Elephant or Hippopotamus Tooth Warrior Head Wearing Boar Tusk Helmets (3404330867).jpg|thumb|right|Warrior wearing a [[boar's tusk helmet]], from a Mycenaean chamber tomb in the [[Acropolis of Athens]], 14th–13th century BC.]]

The ''Ekwesh'' and the ''Denyen'' have been tentatively identified with the ethnonyms {{lang|grc|Ἀχαι(ϝ)οί|Achai(w)oí}} and {{lang|grc|Δαναοί|Danaoí}}, which are attested in the [[Epic Cycle|Homeric epics]].<ref name="Kelder125–126">{{harvnb|Kelder|2010|pp=125–126}}.</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Hyksos]]
* [[Meryey]]
* [[Minoan civilization]]
* [[Tel Dor]]
* [[Thalassocracy]]
* [[Troy]]

== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|30em}}

=== Notes ===
{{notelist|30em}}

=== Sources ===
==== Primary sources: Early publications of the theory ====
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book|first=J. B.|last=Greene|author-link=John Beasley Greene|title=Fouilles exécutées à Thèbes dans l'année 1855: textes hiéroglyphiques et documents inédits|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1Y1CAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA4|year=1855|publisher=Librairie de Firmin Didot Frères|language=fr|trans-title=Excavations at Thebes in the year 1855: hieroglyphic texts and unpublished documents}}
* {{citation|title= Notice de Quelques Textes Hiéroglyphiques Récemment Publiés par M. Greene|author-link= Emmanuel de Rougé|first= Emmanuel|last= de Rougé|publisher= E. Thunot|year= 1855|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=i74-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA14|language=fr|trans-title= Note on Some Hieroglyphic Texts Recently Published by Mr. Greene}}
* {{cite book|postscript=: [http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/brugsch1857bd1 Volume 1], [http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/brugsch1858bd2/0123?sid=797c3fc1be797e44ea628d99a14d3905 Volume 2], [http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/brugsch1860bd3 Volume 3]|author-link=Heinrich Karl Brugsch|first=Heinrich Karl|last=Brugsch|date=1858|language=de|title=Geographische Inschriften altägyptischer Denkmäler|publisher=Leipzig|url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_nVRFAAAAYAAJ|trans-title=Geographical inscriptions of ancient Egyptian monuments}}
* {{cite journal|last=de Rougé|first=Emmanuel|author-link=Emmanuel de Rougé|date=1867|url=https://archive.org/stream/revuearcheologi16pari#page/n102/mode/1up|title=Extraits d'un mémoire sur les attaques dirigées contre l'Egypte par les peuples de la Méditerranée vers le quatorzième siècle avant notre ère|journal=Revue Archéologique|volume=16|pages=81–103|jstor=41734557|postscript=Alternative version at [https://books.google.com/books?id=8LFCAAAAYAAJ Google books]|language=fr|trans-title=Excerpts of a mémoire on the attacks directed against Egypt by the peoples of the Mediterranean in the 14th century BCE}}
* {{cite book|last=Chabas|first=François Joseph|author-link=François Chabas|title=Étude sur l'antiquité historique d'après les sources égyptiennes et les monuments réputés préhistoriques|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=83pSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA299|year=1872|publisher=Maisonneuve|pages=299–|language=fr|trans-title= Study of ancient history according to Egyptian sources and prehistoric monuments}}
* {{cite journal|first=Gaston|last=Maspero|author-link=Gaston Maspero|year=1881|journal= Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde|volume=19|issue=1–4|pages=116–131|issn=2196-713X|doi=10.1524/zaes.1881.19.14.116|title= Notes sur quelques points de Grammaire et d′Histoire|s2cid=192820648|url=https://archive.org/stream/zeitschriftfr19brug#page/116/mode/2up}}
* {{cite journal|journal=Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology|author-link= Wilhelm Max Müller|first= Wilhelm Max |last=Müller|date=1888|title=Notes on the "peoples of the sea" of Merenptah|volume=x|pages=147–154 and 287–289}}
* {{citation|title=Struggle of the Nations: Egypt, Syria and Assyria|first=Gaston|last=Maspero|author-link=Gaston Maspero|year=1896|edition=English|editor-first=Archibald|editor-last=Sayce|editor-link=Archibald Sayce|publisher=Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge|url=https://archive.org/details/struggleofnation00maspuoft|pages=461–470}}
{{refend}}

==== Secondary sources ====
{{Refbegin|60em}}
*{{cite book | first=Jürgen von | last=Beckerath | author-link= Jürgen von Beckerath | year=1997 | title= Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten | location= Mainz}} Mainz.
*Beckman, Gary, "Hittite Chronology", ''Akkadica'', '''119/120''' (2000).
*{{cite book | first=J.H. | last=Breasted | author-link= James Henry Breasted | year= 1906 | title= Ancient Records of Egypt: historical documents from the earliest times to the Persian conquest | url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_LB0NAAAAIAAJ_2 | publisher= The University of Chicago Press | location= Chicago}} Volume II on the 19th Dynasty is available for download from Google Books.
*{{cite book | title=The Kingdom of the Hittites | first=Trevor | last=Bryce | author-link=Trevor R. Bryce | isbn=978-0-19-927908-1 | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=2005}}
*{{cite book | title=The Mycenaean World | url=https://archive.org/details/mycenaeanworld00chad | url-access=registration | first=John | last=Chadwick | author-link=John Chadwick | year=1976 | publisher=Cambridge University Press | location=Cambridge | isbn=978-0-521-21077-5}}
*{{cite book | title= 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed | first=Erich, H.| last=Cline| author-link=Eric H. Cline | year= 2014 | publisher= Princeton University Press| location= Princeton, NJ | isbn=978-0-691-14089-6}}
*{{cite book | author= D'Amato R., Salimbeti A. | year= 2015 | title= The Sea Peoples of the Mediterranean Bronze Age 1450–1100 BC | publisher= Osprey | location= London}}
*{{cite book | last= Dothan|first=Trude & Moshe | year= 1992 | title= People of the Sea: The search for the Philistines | publisher= Scribner | location= New York}}
*{{cite book | author= Dothan, Trude K. | author-link = Trude Dothan | year= 1982 | title= The Philistines and Their Material Culture | publisher= Israel Exploration Society | location= Jerusalem}}
*{{cite book | first=Robert|last= Drews |author-link=Robert Drews | year=1995 | title=The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe of ca. 1200 B.C | publisher=Princeton University Press | location=Princeton, New Jersey | isbn=978-0-691-04811-6}}
*{{citation|title=Herodotus 1.94, the Drought ca. 1200 B.C., and the Origin of the Etruscans|first=Robert|last=Drews |author-link=Robert Drews |journal=Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte|volume=41|issue=1|year=1992|pages=14–39|jstor=4436222}}
*{{cite book | author=Finley, M. I. | author-link=Moses Finley | year=1981 | title=Early Greece:The Bronze and Archaic Ages:New and Revised Edition | publisher=W.W. Norton & Co. | location=New York, London | isbn=978-0-393-01569-0 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/earlygreecebronz0000finl_j9s5 }}
*{{cite book | last= Gardiner|first=Alan H. |author-link = Alan Gardiner | year= 1947 | title= Ancient Egyptian Onomastica | publisher= Oxford University Press | location= London}} 3 vols.
*{{cite book |author=Grant, Michael | author-link=Michael Grant (classicist) | year=1969 | title=The Ancient Mediterranean |url=https://archive.org/details/ancientmediterra0000gran |url-access=registration | publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons | location=New York}}
*{{cite book | author= Grimal, Nicolas | title= A History of Ancient Egypt | year= 1992 | publisher= Blackwell | location= Oxford}}
*{{cite book | first=Michael G. | last=Hasel | author-link= Michael G. Hasel | title= Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, ca. 1300–1185 B.C | year=1998 | publisher= Brill Academic Publishers | isbn= 978-90-04-10041-1}}
*{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=Henry R.|author-link= Henry Hall (Egyptologist) |date=1922|url=http://gallica.bnf.fr/m/ark:/12148/bpt6k5518140t/f316|pages=297–329|journal= Recueil d'Études égyptologiques Dédiées à la Mémoire de Jean-François Champollion|title= The Peoples of the Sea. A chapter of the history of Egyptology}}
*{{citation|title=The Philistines and Other "Sea Peoples" in Text and Archaeology|work=Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and biblical studies|volume=15|first=Ann E.|last=Killebrew|publisher=Society of Biblical Lit|date=2013|isbn=978-1-58983-721-8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gBCl2IQfNioC&pg=PA1}}
*{{cite journal|last=Kelder|first=Jorrit M.|title=The Egyptian Interest in Mycenaean Greece|year=2010|publisher=Jaarbericht "Ex Oriente Lux" (JEOL)|volume=42|pages=125–140|url=https://www.academia.edu/221955}}
*{{cite book | first=K.A. |last=Kitchen| author-link= Kenneth Kitchen | title= On the Reliability of the Old Testament | year= 2003 | publisher= William B. Eerdsman Publishing Co}}
*{{cite book | first= Colleen | last= Manassa | author-link= Colleen Darnell | year= 2003 | title= The Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the Thirteenth Century BC | publisher= Yale Egyptological Seminar | location= New Haven | isbn=978-0-9740025-0-7}}
*{{cite book | author= Mazar, Amihai | author-link=Amihai Mazar | year=1992 | title=Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B.C.E | publisher= Doubleday | isbn=978-0-385-42590-2}}
*{{cite book|last=Nibbi|first=Alessandra|author-link=Alessandra Nibbi|title=The Sea Peoples: A Re-examination of the Egyptian Sources|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h8OfAAAAMAAJ|year=1972|publisher=Church Army Press and Supplies}}
*{{cite book|last=Niesiołowski-Spano|first=Łukasz|author-link=Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spano|title=Goliath's Legacy. Philistines and Hebrews in Biblical Times|url=https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/title_786.ahtml|year=2016|publisher=Harrassowitz Verlag}}
*{{cite book|last1=O'Connor|first1=David B.|author-link1=David O'Connor (Egyptologist)|last2=Cline|first2=Eric H.|author-link2=Eric H. Cline|editor=David B. O'Connor and Stephen Quirke|title=Mysterious Lands|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tVy4Zsmkw9wC&pg=PA107|year=2003|publisher=[[Routledge]]|isbn=978-1-84472-004-0|pages=[https://archive.org/details/mysteriouslands0000unse/page/107 107–138]|chapter=The Mystery of the 'Sea Peoples'|url=https://archive.org/details/mysteriouslands0000unse/page/107}}
*{{cite book|last=Oren|first=Eliezer D.|title=The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eR1BAQAAQBAJ|year=2000|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|isbn=978-1-934536-43-8}}
** Chapter 16: Vagnetti, Lucia (2000), [https://www.academia.edu/1192563/Vagnetti_L._2000._Western_Mediterranean_overview_Peninsular_Italy_Sicily_and_Sardinia_at_the_time_of_the_Sea_peoples Western Mediterranean overview: Peninsular Italy, Sicily and Sardinia at the time of the Sea peoples]
*{{cite book | author=Redford, Donald B. | author-link=Donald B. Redford | year=1992 | title=Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times | publisher=Princeton University Press | location=Princeton, New Jersey | isbn=978-0-691-03606-9 | url=https://archive.org/details/egyptcanaanisrae00redf }}
*{{cite book | author= Sandars, N.K. | author-link1= Nancy Sandars | year= 1987 | title= The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the ancient Mediterranean, Revised Edition | publisher= Thames and Hudson | location= London | isbn= 978-0-500-27387-6 | url= https://archive.org/details/seapeopleswarrio00sand }}
*{{citation|first=Susan|last=Sherratt|title="Sea Peoples" and the economic structure of the late second millennium in the eastern Mediterranean|work=Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Essays in Honor of Trude Dothan|editor-first1=Seymour |editor-last1=Gitin |editor-first2=Amichai |editor-last2=Mazar |editor-first3=Ephraim|editor-last3=Stern|publisher=Israel Exploration Society|year=1998|pages=292–313|url=https://www.academia.edu/2163657}}
*{{citation|first=Neil A.|last=Silberman|author-link= Neil Asher Silberman|title=The Sea Peoples, the Victorians, and Us|work=Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Essays in Honor of Trude Dothan|editor-first1=Seymour |editor-last1=Gitin |editor-first2=Amichai |editor-last2=Mazar |editor-first3=Ephraim|editor-last3=Stern|publisher=Israel Exploration Society|year=1998|pages=268–275|url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=neil_silberman}}
*{{cite book|last=Vandersleyen|first=Claude|editor-first=Edward|editor-last=Lipiński|title=The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilizations : Proceedings of the Conference Held in Brussels from the 3rd to the 5th of December 1984 to Mark the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology Queen Elisabeth of Belgium at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem : in Memory of Prof. Y. Yadin and Prof. Ch. Perelman|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oUY_1LvwnG4C&pg=PA39|date=1985|publisher=Peeters Publishers|isbn=978-90-6831-031-3|pages=39–54|chapter=Le dossier egyptien des Philistins}}
*{{cite book | author = Vermeule, Emily | author-link=Emily Vermeule |year=1964 | title= Greece in the Bronze Age | url = https://archive.org/details/greeceinbronzeag00verm | url-access = registration | publisher= The University of Chicago Press | location= Chicago and London}}
*{{cite book | author= Wood, Michael | author-link=Michael Wood (historian) | year=1987 | title= In Search of the Trojan War | url= https://archive.org/details/insearchoftrojan00wood | url-access= registration | publisher=New American Library | isbn=978-0-452-25960-7}}
*{{cite book | author=Woudhuizen, Frederik Christiaan |year=1992 | title=The Language of the Sea Peoples | location=Amsterdam | publisher=Najade Press | isbn=978-90-73835-02-3}}
* {{cite thesis |type=Ph.D. |last= Woudhuizen |first= Frederik Christiaan |date=2006 |title= The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples |publisher=Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte|hdl= 1765/7686 }}
*{{cite book | author= Zangger, Eberhard | author-link= Eberhard Zangger | title= The Future of the Past: Archaeology in the 21st Century | year= 2001 | publisher= Weidenfeld & Nicolson | place= London | isbn= 978-0-297-64389-0 | url= https://archive.org/details/futureofpastarch0000zang }}
*{{Cite book|title=Shardana e Sardegna : i popoli del mare, gli alleati del Nordafrica e la fine dei Grandi Regni (XV-XII secolo a.C.)|last=Ugas|first=Giovanni|publisher=Edizioni della Torre|year=2016|isbn=9788873434719|location=Cagliari|language=it}}
*{{Cite book|title=I popoli del Grande Verde : il Mediterraneo al tempo dei faraoni|last=Tusa|first=Sebastiano|publisher=Edizioni Storia e Studi Sociali|year=2018|isbn=9788899168308|location=Ragusa|language=it}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{commons category}}
{{Library resources box |by=no |onlinebooks=yes |others=yes |about=yes |label=Sea peoples
|viaf= |lccn= |lcheading= |wikititle= }}
* [[Eric H. Cline|Cline, Eric]]. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4 ''1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed''] [video], recorded lecture, 2016, 1h10'17.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20130615150554/http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Philistine_Kin_Found_in_Early_Israel,_Adam_Zertal,_BAR_28:03,_May/Jun_2002. Philistine Kin Found in Early Israel, Adam Zertal, BAR 28:03, May/Jun 2002.]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20040814180456/http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_aek11/www/index.htm The Sea Peoples and the Philistines]: a course at Penn State
*''[https://web.archive.org/web/20060218011126/http://nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Singer_Egyptians_Canaanites_Philistines.pdf Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Early Israel]'', paper by Itamar Singer at the UCLA Near Eastern Languages & Culture site
*"[http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/199503/who.were.the.sea.people.htm Who Were the Sea People?]", article by Eberhard Zangger in ''Saudi Aramco World'', Volume 46, Number 3, May/June 1995
*[http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020232 PlosOne dating the Sea People destruction of the Levant to 1192–90 BCE]
*"[http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol074ic.html The Battle of the Nile – Circa 1190 B.C.]", article by I Cornelius in ''Military History Journal'', Vol. 7., No. 4 of the South African Military History Society
*"[http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/sea.htm The Greek Age of Bronze]", Archaeological web site related to Greek Bronze Age and Sea Peoples weaponry and warfare

{{Ancient Syria and Mesopotamia}}{{Historiography}}{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Sea Peoples| ]]
[[Category:1850s neologisms]]
[[Category:Ancient Egypt]]
[[Category:Ancient Italian history]]
[[Category:Ancient Levant]]
[[Category:Ancient peoples]]
[[Category:Ancient pirates]]
[[Category:History of the Mediterranean]]
[[Category:Ancient warfare]]
[[Category:Invasions of Egypt]]
[[Category:Iron Age Anatolia]]
[[Category:Iron Age Greece]]
[[Category:Late Bronze Age collapse]]

Talk:Campidanese Sardinian

2024-02-10T19:43:36Z

L2212: /* Link to Incubator test or Sardinian Wikipedia? */ Reply

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Languages}}
{{WikiProject Italy}}
}}
== sro ==

The ISO 639-3 code is sro according http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=sro. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:Fixed. Of course it would have been no problem had you done it yourself. --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 10:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

== external links ==

should have some english language captions. [[User:FoCuSandLeArN|FoCuSandLeArN]] ([[User talk:FoCuSandLeArN|talk]]) 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

== This article should be renamed into "Campidanese Sardinian" ==

I hereby propose that this page acquire the name of [[Campidanese Sardinian]], like the related article on the [[Logudorese Sardinian|Logudorese dialect]].--[[User:Dk1919 Franking|Dk1919]] ([[User talk:Dk1919 Franking|talk]]) 13:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

== Link to [[incubator:Wp/sro|Incubator test]] or [[:sc:|Sardinian Wikipedia]]? ==

In the past years, it looks like there are two parties of users, one pro-
{{incubator|sro}}
and another pro-
{{InterWiki|code=sc}}
What's our opinion on this topic? [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 12:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|AlexRules646|Liggliluff|Dk1919 Franking|Drmccreedy|Jac16888|WikiEditor50|Fences and windows|Error|Arctic Circle System|A455bcd9}}{{ping|Exarchus|Akerbeltz|EndTheory|AquitaneHungerForce|Gilgamesh~enwiki|Fausta Samaritani}} ^^ --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 02:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
::Which standard is Sardinian Wikipedia based on? ~Strawberry of [[User:Arctic Circle System|Arctic Circle System]] ([[User talk:Arctic Circle System|talk]]) 02:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Arctic Circle System|Arctic Circle System]] Given their [[sc:Template:Variant]] they allow articles in [[Limba Sarda Comuna]], '''Campidanese''', [[Logudorese Sardinian|Logudorese]] and [[d:Q25675533|Nuorese]]. [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 07:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
::::I don't think two Sardinian sub-wikis will fly, the super-wiki sc is small enough and while there are noticeable differences between the 3 main dialects, they're no bigger than than those between Gheg and Tosk Albanian (alb and sqi) and we only have one wiki for sq. We'd only end up splitting the meagre Sardinian resources between two even smaller Wikis, my view would be to go as far as merging anything useful in the Incubator into the main Sardinian Wiki. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 09:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
::::PS so it's basically an incubator being populated by a single editor [https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&testwiki=Wp/sro] which is commendable but simply not sustainable. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 13:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::This editor's actions have been a problem for a while, as she refuses to listen to the community's opinion on the matter. Fausta Samaritani does not speak or know Sardinian at all, and she has been operating for months despite being told multiple times (as you can see [[metawiki:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Logudorese_Sardinian|here]], [[metawiki:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Campidanese_Sardinian|here]] or [[:sc:Wikipedia:Tzilleri#Incubator|here]]) that creating different wikis for the Sardinian language is absurd and no one wants it. This is becoming a new Scots Wikipedia situation. Before her arrival the sro wiki consisted of exactly zero articles, despite having been created years ago, and those who write in Campidanese, like @[[User:PNNu|PNNu]], can and have been doing so for years on sc.wiki. Her insistence on pursuing this "battle" stems from her idea of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Logudorese_Sardinian&diff=prev&oldid=23049354 transforming Sardinian into a ''constellation'' of wikis], something that makes no sense, is not related to any Wikipedia policy at all and would just deeply damage the project. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 21:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:L2212|L2212]] OK sir, I [[incubator:I:RFD#Wp/sro|nominated]]. [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 07:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you very much! [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 19:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

;Maju 2023
Su 1.u de làmpadas 2023 Wikipedìa in Lìngua sarda campidanesa ([[incubator:Wp/sro|Incubator test]]) tenit '''941''' ''boxis''. Is ''boxis'' + is ''pàginas de reindiritzamentu'' sunt '''1.107 '''. Is ''boxis cumprias'' (boxis, categorias, template, discussionis, sandboxes, etc. inclùdius) funt '''1.303'''. Is ''templates'' funt '''52'''. Is ''biografias'' funt '''16'''. Is ''edits'', a partiri de Mesi de idas de su 2022, funt '''6.105'''. Is utentis registraus (inclùdius is bots) funt '''25'''. In su maju de su 2023 funt stètius aciuntus '''157.732''' ''bytes''.--[[User:Fausta Samaritani|Fausta Samaritani]] ([[User talk:Fausta Samaritani|talk]]) 07:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:Fausta Samaritani|Fausta Samaritani]], and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome to Wikipedia]]! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately, your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Italian; did you know there is an [[:it:|Italian Wikipedia]]? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts!

:Ciao, @[[User:Fausta Samaritani|Fausta Samaritani]], e [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|benvenuto a Wikipedia]]! Mentre gli sforzi per migliorare Wikipedia sono sempre i benvenuti, i tuoi contributi non sono scritti in inglese che è abbastanza buono per essere utile. Sembra più familiare con l'italiano – sapevi che c'è una [[:it:|Wikipedia italiana]]? Potresti preferire contribuire al posto invece. Comunque, benvenuto e grazie per i tuoi sforzi! [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 04:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

2023-08-23T12:53:42Z

L2212: /* Stonewalling and POV pushing in the Aghlabids article */

{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}
<noinclude>{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1137
|algo = old(3d)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}


== POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments ==

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

* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – Wiped the article of a pro-democracy Vietnamese party, justifying some of the removals because of broken links.
* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – Whitewashed [[Human rights in Vietnam]], removing reliable sources because they disagree with them.
* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – Removed sourced information from [[Human experimentation in North Korea]], citing the source's Wikipedia page to say that it's unreliable.
* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – Deleted unsourced information, but only the portion that documented North Korean atrocities, leaving the rest of the unsourced content there. This followed [[Special:Diff/1166655920|a similar edit]] to that article regarding China and the Soviet Union.
* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – A [[WP:COATRACK]] edit to criticize [[Yeonmi Park]], a North Korean defector, on the article of someone she was once interviewed by.
* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. [[Special:Diff/1166829863|Reverted]] an attempt to restore the content.
* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – Promoted [[Holodomor denial]] on the article of a Holodomor denier and the subsequent [[Talk:Douglas Tottle#Holodomor denial|talk page discussion]].
* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – Deleted sourced information about political executions in Cuba because it was sourced by an offline book and the publisher's webpage didn't verify the information.
* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Deleted information about government oppression of LGBT people in Cuba because the source had no page number.
* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – Deleted sourced information about human rights in communism because they felt that the information wasn't right.

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

:Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on [[David Ivon Jones]] so I'm sorry it ended up like this.
:I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being [[Trevor Carter]] and [[Billy Strachan]]. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.
:Let's have a look at these cases individually.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the [[Việt Tân]] wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by [[Ngo Dinh Diem]]. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for [[Voice of America]], since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider [[Russia today]] a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
:* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for [[The Black Book of Communism|''The Black Book of Communism'']] is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
:* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
:* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated ([[Donald Trump Jr.]] [[Kanye West]], etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in [[The Washington Post|''The Washington Post'']] (see [https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/07/16/yeonmi-park-conservative-defector-stories-questioned/ here]) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
:* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
:* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – I was read [[Ronald Grigor Suny]]'s work ''Red Flag Unfurled'' (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide"''.'' I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor [[Stephen G. Wheatcroft]], and [[R. W. Davies]], don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by [[Anne Applebaum]] at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
:* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – A sentence in the wikipedia page for [[Cuba]] claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
:* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
:* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.
:[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{t|page needed}} is for. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.{{pb}}I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{t|page needed}} or {{t|verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely ''assuming'' it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::<nowiki>This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{</nowiki>[[Template:Page needed|page needed]]<nowiki>}} or {{</nowiki>[[Template:Verify source|verify source]]<nowiki>}} in the future. </nowiki>[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Google Books preview mode often won't display page numbers, though. Ostensibly so that you buy the book. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I doubt you will find that most editors agree with you; even THWoC has cited books without providing the exact location of the text in the book (back later today with sample). It's one thing to delete text that has long been tagged as needing a full citation (as in many years); quite another to simply delete untagged text because no page number was given, as many editors aren't even aware of that requirement. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Not only that, the page number citation policy should arguably be relaxed in the case of eBooks that don't provide page numbers to begin with, but can easily be searched digitally. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 08:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::For ebooks, as in every example I have given here, it is perfectly acceptable to give a chapter name, section heading, or some other means of verifying the text without scrolling through 300 pages. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::What does THWoC mean? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I believe that's an abbreviation for your username. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46|2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46|talk]]) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes that makes more sense than the [[The Real Housewives of Orange County]]. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 14:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at [[WP:RSP]]) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather ''editorial independence'' that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks ''editorial independence'' from the Russian government ''and'' it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{tq|[[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content.}} - just to be clear, the cited text refers to ''South'' Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The ''yeonjwaje'' bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding [[Special:Diff/1169763206]], while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a [[WP:RS]], certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people ''want'' to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Black_Book_of_Communism|here]]. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1151776136 the United States talkpage] back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to [[WP:NOTHERE|be here]] to build a neutral encyclopedia. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Their language was not conducive to collegiality. It was abrasive. There were a million better ways for them to express themselves, such as simply inquiring why the statement was there, but they chose to be aggressive instead. I'm not calling for sanctions on them. Also, they're still being aggressive below. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I don't see any aggression. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You don't see how calling something a "laughable description" is aggressive? Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy, but it is unhelpful and not conducive to the atmosphere we're trying to foster here. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Actually I thought this was a bit agressive/personal attack: "they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia". [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::Please don't deflect. Answer the question as was posed to you. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::I didn't think their comment about the article was agressive, nor do I think it is sanctionable. It was about content not a person. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::Thank you... I also don't think the comment is sanctionable, but I do think it was aggressive as it was a comment on the people contributing to the article. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though, it's just something to keep in mind. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::{{tq|Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy}}. Well this is the issue, isn't it? The trademark of efficient civil POV pushing is that each edit looks innocuous in a vacuum, and it's only when you look at the contributions as a whole that the behaviors described at [[WP:CPUSH]] start to line up. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::You're not wrong; I'm just speaking in regards to my one experience with them. The only reason I'm even commenting here is because I thought I had something of note to mention about them. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You tell me to assume good faith while at the same time you vote to permanently sanction my account because I criticised a wiki page you contributed to. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Where did I '''!vote''' for sanctioning your account? I did not, I left a comment that I felt that people should be aware of when discussing your editing history. I'm ''not'' calling for sanctions on your account.-- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I largely agree with this assessment. I don't see any damning evidence posted above that warrants the editor in question being sanctioned.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 16:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think there's anything that is worthy of sanctions discussed here, but I do think that they should be reminded of [[WP:CIVIL]] and try to express disagreements on article content in a more polite manner, with awareness that the people who frequent the article talk page are likely the same people who wrote the content being criticized. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems more like they hold an anti-Western bias, which is just as bad as a pro-Western bias. The problem is they edit with that bias.
::For instance, they hate the U.S. because it's a "country with a torture camp" yet defend Vietnam, China, North Korea, and The USSR, who are/were all countries with "torture camps." Textbook [[WP:CPOV]], and as [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] states, a long history of it. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That is complete rubbish, I have never once defended torture on wikipedia, ever! [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yet no evidence of "bias" editing was been provided. I don't think this is a forum to attack someone because they don't share one's views.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, they edit with the bias identified by Rockstone and IP2603; I'll be back later today, from real computer, with examples (iPad editing now). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Neither Rockstone nor IP2603 showed any evidence of bias. Rockstone showed a talk page comment which they didn't think was polite. I saw no bias.IP2603 made some quite scandalous assertions with no evidence. Not thinking the US as a bastion of human rights isn't bias.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 15:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

'''In my defence:''' When [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] accuses me of pov-pushing for 'autocratic governments', his evidence is a short select list of edits from the past few months, all of which I've provided reasonable explanations for. However, of my 3,000+ edits on wikipedia, the vast majority of them are actually made on pages I created, a list of [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/userviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&namespace=0&redirects=0&range=latest-20&sort=size&direction=1&view=list&user=The%20History%20Wizard%20of%20Cambridge which you can see here]. Thebiguglyalien depicts me as some lunatic who is obsessed with dictatorships like North Korea and Joseph Stalin. However glancing at the pages I created, which is a far more systematic record of my behaviour then a few cherrypicked edits, reveals that none of the biographies I wrote held any great levels of political power. The most influential and powerful person I ever created a wiki page for was a woman called Jessie Eden who led a tenants union. My specialist area is Marxist and anti-colonial activists in 20th century Britain and my page creation history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien selection of edits provides anecdotes whereas my page creation history provides proof of my systematic behaviour. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*I've had some highly positive interactions with Thebiguglyalien over the last six months or so, the duration of the time I've known them on the project: they've impressed me with a pretty nuanced understanding of policy for someone who has been here five years. I preface my comments in this fashion to emphasize that I came into this thread primed to give their analysis some degree of benefit of the doubt. But in truth, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here--at least not yet--and I suspect that Alien may have seen more of a pattern here than holds for the larger sample size, as THWoC implies in their defense.

:To be certain, Wizard could stand to benefit from, well as the charming American idiom goes "slowing their roll". I won't reiterate the feedback they have already received regarding deleting sources because they were entered without a page number: I view that as a highly problematic habit that needs to stop immediately. If a goodfaith investigation of the source gives them cause to believe the source is invalid, that is one thing, but that level of presumptuousness that a source and any content is supports may be chucked out because of a pro forma flaw that small is incredibly flippant with regard to the contributions of other editors and (much more importantly) not in the best interests of the accuracy of most articles, if we assume most such absent parameters are the consequence technical issues or goodfaith oversights--as I believe most are entitled to be, one or the other. However, while this is an instance of a case of issues with Wizard's approach, I think it also illustrates that said issues come from personal editorial idiosyncracies and maybe a touch of overconfidence (both of which can be addressed) rather than an overarching NOTHERE motivation to massage the content to reflect personal bias.

:For the remaining diffs, I'm not going to do a play by play, but suffice it to say that I think most are similar issues of an editor coming from a specialist field and not yet hitting their stride in adapting their editorial approach to the context of encyclopedia prose and process. And others are just not particularly that problematic (or at least debatably so). It's true for example that genocide is treated under international law (and by most contemporary historical researchers) as a crime defined by the intent to wipe out or suppress a culture, while the soviet famine in question was famously the result of one of the most horrific outcomes of mismanagement, support for junk science, and cultural infighting in the Soviet bureaucracy. So it would not surprise me to hear that many contemporary historians and researchers do not label it as genocide per se. That said, THWoC, do be mindful of [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]] here: no matter how rational you think your argument is for a description being dated, biased, or otherwise inaccurate, you must accord your description in a fashion that is respectful of the balance of the sources.

:Lastly, the slight hubris extends to the discussion style: that means of introducing the discussion on the talk page for our article on the United States I would describe as almost calculated to start everyone off in entrenched positions, if I didn't have the context here to believe THWoC had no such intentions. But honestly, my friend, that level of antagonism as the ''starting point'' for discussion is only a little south of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and putting aside for the moment the question of whether you might be sanctioned for it, it's just not going to serve you very well in any consensus discussions here. Nobody expects you to woo your rhetorical opponents with honeyed tones, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by blowing into a discussion with an approach that clearly marks that you think your perspective is indisputable and the standing consensus clearly the collectively reasoning of nitwits. A significant adjustment is necessary in this area too.

:But what I'm not seeing is someone looking to serve as an apologist for the great tyrannies of the last hundred years. THWoC clearly is a little out of step with consensus on some of these topics, may have a somewhat noticeable bias with regard to communist topics, and after three years still needs to adjust some to our consensus dynamics. And they could definetly stand to dial down the arrogance a little. But I don't get the sense of someone incapable of doing these things and I do believe they are here to contribute to the project's stated mission. I believe no action is needed at this time other than a firm recommendation to ease up on their drive a little. Alien's concerns are not entirely unwarranted here, but I can't endorse their interpretation of the underlying motivation. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 01:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thebiguglyalien that these edits are difficult to defend and likely indications of POV editing:
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160543383 17 June 2023, deletes text because book has no page number], when a quote is clearly given and the content is [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Health_Politics_and_Revolution_in_Cuba_S/JCIxDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hirschfeld+%22Verbal+and+physical+mistreatment,+shaved+heads,+work+from+dawn+to+dusk,+hammocks,+dirt+floors,+scarce+food%22&pg=PT243&printsec=frontcover easily found on google.] (See analysis below of The History Wizard similarly not citing book page numbers in their own writing.)
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160426290 16 June 2023, fully cited text deleted, no good reason]; hard to accept that someone familiar with socialism does not understand that it is possible for there to be more supposed "rights" for certain groups even as there is less freedom overall. This is the clearest indication in this series of edits of POV crossing over into editing.
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160694587 18 June 2023], another weak reason for deleting cited text when the book is available online.
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:Adding on to my point 2 above, is The History Wizard unaware of the alleged "rights" given to minorities like the Indigenous people of Venezuela in the 1999 Chavez rewrite of the [[Constitution of Venezuela]] at the same time their overall rights were degraded? [https://www.iwgia.org/en/venezuela.html#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20establishes%20Indigenous%20rights,the%20lands%20they%20ancestrally%20and] [https://www.culturalsurvival.org/sites/default/files/CS%20submission%20to%20UPR_%20Venezuela%20July%2015%202021.pdf] [https://www.icj.org/venezuela-indigenous-peoples-face-deteriorating-human-rights-situation-due-to-mining-violence-and-covid-19-pandemic/] [https://share.america.gov/under-maduro-regime-indigenous-people-suffer/] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/01/yanomami-indigenous-people-risk-venezuela] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/26/venezuela-un-experts-mandate-should-be-renewed] [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3184965] ... I could go on ... same applied to women and other minorities ... deleting that completely logical and well-cited text from {{u|X-Editor}} because you disagree with it is blind POV. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' and '''warn''' - Pretty clear POV-Pushing based on CP-origin sourcing. Not good-faith editing in simply removing the sourcing. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 11:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

=== [[Trevor Carter]] (GA); POV, puffery, original research, and misrepresentation of sources ===
After IP2603 stated that The History Wizard’s editing was "textbook [[WP:CPOV]]" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171332343 "The problem is they edit with that bias"], I took a deeper dive by looking at The History Wizard's [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/The_History_Wizard_of_Cambridge#top-edited-pages highest assessed work], to see if POV is evident in their writing. In this sample, it is.{{pb}} As of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1170656633 today's version], The History Wizard is responsible for 88% of the page content. [[Wikipedia:WhoWroteThat|WhoWroteThat]] identifies the only significant text {{em|not}} written by The History Wizard is the throwaway sentence at the bottom of the article about his family donating a park bench in his honor. Since The History Wizard wrote essentially all of the content, with minor copyedits, I'm not providing diffs.
The following sources are useful for examining the article’s anti-US and pro-communism bias.{{pb}}
'''Bias from sources not used or misrepresented''':
* '''Okojie''': {{Cite journal |last=Okojie |first=Paul |date=October 1987 |title=Book reviews : Shattering illusions: West Indians in British politics By Trevor Carter (London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1986) |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030639688702900217#con |journal=Race & Class |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=107–108 |doi=10.1177/030639688702900217 |s2cid=145052302 |via=Sage}}
*: Okojie is used, but misrepresented. If anyone wants a copy, I can forward if you email me. All Wikipedia says is that it is a "positive review", when in fact, it is neither positive nor negative—it simply states what Carter states. More problematic is that POV is created by what it (the article) does {{em|not}} say about Carter’s views, when combined with the two sources below that are similarly {{em|not used}} (Brown and Smith E) and say the same things. Significantly emotive and negative wording is used to describe racism in the US, while Carter's condemnation of British racism in general, and the role of the communist party and the left specifically with respect to continuing that racism in Britain, is omitted from the article. The History Wizard has a {{em|remarkably different}} way of treating the US relative to the UK on racism, and has decidedly biased Carter’s own views on racism in Britian and among communists, according to interpretations of Carter’s own writing.
* '''Brown''': {{cite journal |url= https://isj.org.uk/tackling-racism-the-communist-party/ |title= Tackling racism: the Communist Party’s mixed record |journal= International Socialism |issue= 163 |date= 1 July 2019 |first= Geoff |last= Brown}}
*: This source is never used; view in conjunction with Okojie and Smith E, which make the same points.
* '''Smith E''': {{cite journal |title= Class before Race": British Communism and the Place of Empire in Postwar Race Relations |last= Smith |first= Evan |journal = Science & Society |volume = 72 |issue = 4 |date = October 2008 |page= 455-481 |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/40404511 }} If anyone wants this article, pls email me and I can forward.
*: This source is never used; it delves into Carter’s writings in ‘’Shattered Illusions’’ (describe in the Wikipedia article as Carter’s magnum opus), and supports what Okojie says. None of these views, explaining British racism or Carter’s views on communism’s role in that, are included in the article.
'''Bias from choice of sources used''':
The huge majority of the article is cited to Meddick and something cited only as ''Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies''. See below:
* '''Meddick''': {{Cite book |title=Red Lives: Communists and the Struggle for Socialism |last2= |last3= |publisher=Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited / Communist Party of Britain |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-907464-45-4 |editor-last=Meddick |editor-first=Simon |pages=33 |editor-last2=Payne |editor-first2=Liz |editor-last3=Katz |editor-first3=Phil}}
*: I cannot find this on WorldCat, Amazon, Google books, archive.org, or anywhere else I’ve looked. The ISBN returns as faulty everywhere I check. Can anyone find this book or determine what is wrong with the ISBN? Regardless, we have misrepresentation of sources (see above and below), and yet we are asked to take at face value a large amount of text from a book that can’t be located.
* '''Stevenson''': {{Cite news |last= |first= |date=25 August 2011 |title=Carter Trevor |work=Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies |url=https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/2011/08/25/carter-trevor/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430193137/https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/2011/08/25/carter-trevor/ |archive-date=30 April 2023}}
*: In an article with otherwise mostly complete citations, the author of this ‘’encyclopedia’’ (a personal website, eg, blog) is not listed. That author is [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]], and the page tells us it is maintained by his family. When evaluating Graham Stevenson wrt [[WP:EXPERTSPS]], the first thing one encounters is that his article is also written by The History Wizard (so I didn’t go further—I’ve already seen enough to know there is likely bias, and don’t have time to delve in to yet another article). At least it seems more attribution to blog and personal websites is needed here, along with adding that which is missing from more neutral sources.
*:: Found now at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies]], so generally as I thought, but I remain troubled that the author was omitted, which looks deceptive (to make it appear as a real "encyclopedia" rather than a personal website) considering all other citations were mostly complete. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Bias and puffery introduced by misrepresenting sources''':
* '''Wroe''': {{Cite news |last=Wroe |first=Simon |date=20 March 2008 |title=Trevor, a true fighter for equality |work=[[Camden New Journal]] |url=http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/032008/obit032008_01.html |url-status=live |access-date=12 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430193035/http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/032008/obit032008_01.html |archive-date=30 April 2023}}

On the matter of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1151776136 diff posted by Rockstone] and IP2603’s description of anti-Western bias, this is evident at [[Trevor Carter]] in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1170656633#Early_life Early life section]:
* {{tq| during this time he travelled to New Orleans where he witnessed the brutality of segregation. (Wroe) His experiences with "Jim Crow laws" made him vow to never live in the United States. (Stephenson, eg, the "encyclopedia")}}
Wroe never mentions "brutality"; that’s editorializing (of the kind that is curiously left out per the sources discussing UK racism above). <s>Nor does it mention segregation.</s> It says: {{tq| His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations.}} The History Wizard does not restrict their original research characterization of the US to one period in one part of the country, as Wroe does, rather goes on to use Stephenson to cite "Jim Crow laws", which Stephenson never mentions. Stephenson says: {{tq|He visited many places, including New Orleans then at the height of racial segregation in the USA. That experience was so awful that Carter vowed never to go and live in America.}} That is, besides never using the phrase designed to draw negative emotions (Jim Crow laws), Stephenson also characterizes the period during which Carter traveled there. In contrast, nothing in the article on this level describes Carter’s own writings about racism in the UK. {{pb}} There is a clear contrast to how The History Wizard treats the US and how they treat the UK (complete omission of racism, while using language to evoke the maximum negativity relative to the US racism). In fact relative to what more neutral sources say about Carter’s own views and communism and racism, the article has only the mild, "Elaborating on his political alignment, he claimed that there was a lot of racism within local Labour Party branches", as if Carter’s criticism applied {{em|only}} to the Labour Party—three sources listed above say it also applied to communist orgs. We do get a brief hint of what may be missing with the (underdeveloped) text: "After the CPGB dissolved in 1991, Carter joined the Labour Party".

While The History Wizard wholesale deletes text they disagree with when a book source doesn’t include a page number, here their own writing fails to identify either a page number or which section of the article (chapter, heading, otherwise) the text can be found:
* {{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j2O5DwAAQBAJ |title=West Indian Intellectuals in Britain |publisher=[[Manchester University Press]] |year=2013 |isbn=9781847795717 |editor-last=Schwarz |editor-first=Bill |location=United Kingdom |language=en |format=eBook}} This book has 11 chapters; at minimum, a Chapter title can be given.
*: Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=1153177011 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{Cite book |last=K. Smith |first=Melanie |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YklnDwAAQBAJ |title=Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2015 |isbn=9781317664208 |language=en |format=ebook |access-date=3 May 2023}} A 304-page book with 11 chapters.
*: Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=1152901823 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{Cite book |last=Cashmore |first=Ellis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G_uEAgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Trevor+Carter%22&pg=PT55 |title=Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations |date=12 April 2002 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=9781134773886 |language=en |format=ebook}} Used to cite a direct quote, found in the section labeled "Reading", which should be provided.
*: Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1153181933 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
* <s>[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a8c562dcf81e0bc546534e6/t/5c9a36daec212dd0c3c69ff1/1553610462562/Carnival%2BDiscourse%2BReport.pdf This is an 82-page report]; no page numbers given (Carter is mostly on page 34, but there's more to be trawled through).</s> Struck, my mistake, page 34 is given in the citation. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The History Wizard does not universally use page numbers or chapters or section headings themselves, making it additionally difficult to accept that as their only reason for deleting text they disagree with and more likely the deletions are another reflection of POV editing.

Skipping through the middle portion of the article, which goes well off-topic into other individuals, we get to things like SYNTH from [https://web.archive.org/web/20230502234857/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/nov/29/mangrove-nine-40th-anniversary this source, which never mentions Trevor Carter], and random other puffery throughout, like:
* "Carter became a qualified British teacher" (is there such a thing as an "unqualified" teacher in British schools, I ask—maybe there is?)
* "In 1986 with the help of Jean Coussins, Trevor Carter wrote his magnum opus" ... from what source comes "magnum opus"?
* "In 1998 Trevor Carter, a lifelong admirer of American political activist Paul Robeson," … where does the "lifelong admirer" come from?
* "Jeremy Corbyn, at the time an MP for Islington, was a great admirer of Carter," ... where does the "great admirer" come from?

These are examples of plain vanilla puffery; all of this combined with the lack of access to Meddick, and likely bias from the Stephenson blog, make me wonder if any of the article is neutral. I understand admins are loathe to involve themselves in <s>conduct</s> content disputes, but at what point does civil POV pushing become a behavioral issue? It looks like the whitewashing concern has validity and that The History Wizard's editing at articles related to Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea and other similar states should be subject to some restriction. We shouldn't wait 'til we have another Polish situation; communism is whitewashed at [[Trevor Carter]], and a different standard is applied to the US and the UK. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]], I'm in awe. Great analysis. Re: the Meddick book, I paged through the entire set of book listings on the [http://www.manifestopress.org.uk/index.php/publications2 publisher's website], no such book listed. I found a [https://www.wcml.org.uk/blogs/Lynette-Cawthra/Book-review--Red-Lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism/ book review] on a blog; ISBN fails, and it says published by the UK Communist Party whose site [https://www.communistparty.org.uk/?s=Red+Lives%3A+Communists+and+the+Struggle+for+Socialism can't find] that book. I did find an [https://www.communistparty.org.uk/preview-red-lives/ announcement] of the book on the Communist Party's website; reading the description, this would probably not be an acceptable source: it's a package of biographies {{tq|written by friends, family, activists and historians}} (I question how many are actual "historians"). Apparently the PDF can be [https://ebin.pub/red-lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism-1nbsped-9781907464454.html downloaded] (I'm not going to try it). [[User:Schazjmd|'''Schazjmd''']] [[User talk:Schazjmd|''(talk)'']] 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::The Meddick book is on the publisher's website, [https://www.manifestopress.coop/product/red-lives see it here.] Have a second glance at the "blog", it is the website of a historical archive called the [[Working Class Movement Library]] which is supported by Salford City Council. Also in that blog post, at the very bottom it does admittedly say it was published by the communist party so I can understand the confusion but this is clearly a mistake. If you look at the book's back cover it says the communist party's heritage programme helped support the book's publication (likely through author contributions and oral interviews contained in the book) but doesn't credit it as the publisher. I recommend downloading the PDF and having a look through the contents. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The Meddick book was "Published by Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party"; it is copyrighted to the Communist Party, and Manifesto Press has [https://www.manifestopress.coop/about "proclaimed itself republican and anti-imperialist; secular and feminist; anti-fascist and anti-racist; committed to working class political power, popular sovereignty and progressive culture"]. Excerpts from the first two pages include:
:::*"The people you read about in this book shared a desire to bring to an end a society based on exploitation and oppression, to establish socialism...This is their story, told by comrades, friends and family, in their own words."
:::*"The one thing that unites each and all, is pride in and ownership of, a ‘card’, they were members of the Communist Party, a revolutionary Party, striving for peace and socialism ... These ‘Red Lives’ are a testimony to lives lived in hope and determination. We are sure that they will inspire you as much as they did the editors."
:::*"In early September 2019, in anticipation of its centenary, the Communist Party wrote to its membership asking for recommendations of past members, no longer living, who might be included in a collection of life histories. Red Lives is a selection of these."
:::Yeah. I'm not convinced. You can find the book at [https://dokumen.pub/red-lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism-1nbsped-9781907464454.html this link]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Since it's directly relevant to this analysis, I'll say that I first thought this was looking into after checking the sourcing in [[Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1]], and their subsequent reluctance to remove a self-published source by [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]]. Stevenson's article was created by History Wizard, and Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::You say "Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian". However it took me a minute to look on google scholar and find at least [https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/action/doSearch?field1=AllField&text1=Graham+Stevenson&publication=&Ppub=&access=on three academic articles] he wrote for an academic journal published by [[Liverpool University Press]]. If having your historical research published in a journal by a well respected university doesn't make you a historian then what does.[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ealdgyth}} might explain what kind of credentials make one a historian, and also opine on the Meddick book published by the "Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party" (with a non-working ISBN and not found on WorldCat). I believe some sort of educational degree in history is a starting point (Stevenson's article says he left school at the age of 16), but Ealdgyth will know better. I notice that the lead of [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]] says he's a historian who specialized in x ... what independent source supports that text? It appears that Wikipedia has conferred upon him the status of historian. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: Generally, a historian is someone who has some training in history in a university setting - i.e. not just taking general history classes but classes that touch on the actual process of research and how to interpret sources. So a class that requires one to do original historical research would be a minimum. Failing that, I'd expect to see publications in a number of academic journals or having books published by scholarly publishers. In this specific case, I note that the three articles found above are published in [https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/journal/theory Theory & Struggle] which Liverpool University Press notes is the "journal of the Marx Memorial Library", which Stevenson is specifically noted as being the treasurer of, which makes the publication of articles by him in that journal .. a bit less independent than would be desired. Two of the articles listed show the author blurb, neither of which call him a historian nor give any academic affiliations. I'm not impressed with calling this person a "historian" - he seems most notable as a labor leader.[[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|SandyGeorgia}} Yes, there can be unqualified teachers (i.e. teachers without [[Qualified teacher status]]) in some (and only some) British schools, for a variety of reasons that are too boring to go into here. But the "qualified" seems somewhat spurious. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Yes. In UK, private schools don't require PGCE.
::I am scratching my head on this:
::"Nor does it mention segregation. It says: His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations."
::[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Also is it biased to say segregation was brutal? Did I miss something? [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::: Sorry, iPad typing again, had to dash out just after I hit send, and whatever I meant to say in that sentence, it is now just another of my infamous typos (maybe when I can catch up and re-read, I will remember what that sentence wanted to be ... have struck for now.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, {{u|Black Kite}}, in that case, a wikilink for the benefit of non-UKers would be good! [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I am not persuaded by SandyGeorgia's analysis.
:1. They list sources in [[Trevor Carter]] article without page numbers. We don't know who inserted these sources since no diffs are given. Many people have edited this article, which has been reviewed and given GA status, placing it within top 1% among articles in the Wikipedia project.
:2. The content removed by TWoC due to lack of page numbers has already been shown not to reflect bias one way or the other. See comment by Aquillion.
:3. The allegation of bias seems to rest on segregation in the US being referred to as brutal, and a reference to Jim Crow laws. Describing segregation as brutal or referring to Jim Crow laws is neither original research nor biased. Nor is questioning US's leadership in human rights in a talk page (the other 'evidence' for bias cited).
:4. I didn't see the stylsitic concerns (referred to as puffery) in the article indicative of bias.
[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:# Look again. And see [[WP:DCGAR]] for perspective (hundreds delisted at once).
:# This section is about content written by The History Wizard at [[Trevor Carter]], showing a double standard wrt use of page nos as a basis for deleting text.
:# The allegation of bias rests on choice of sources, content not included at all wrt communism and race, and sources chosen. The two sentences of misrepresenting one source merely lead us to worry what else is misrepresented in sources we can't access.
:# That's unfortunate. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm growing curious as to why an editor with less than 300 mainspace edits is so invested in this discussion that they feel the need to repeatedly reply to everyone who comments here and lecture them about what proper editing looks like, even though they apparently don't know that page evaluation tools can tell you what portions of the article were written by whom, that GA status is decided by one person with little oversight, or that [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] tone without judgemental language of any kind is one of our core content policies. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 22:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::I hope you aren't pulling rank ([[WP:PULLRANK]]).I am sorry if anyone thinks I have lectured to them. I have given my honest assessment to this case, as I think I am allowed. I believe wikipedia does have a systematic bias but not in the direction people have alleged here. I think the editor being targeted here is doing good work, and on the basis of evidence presented should be allowed to contribute freely. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::While I forgot to add that they should also be encouraged to stay away from articles about the US. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I would also like to add, I commented in response to SandyGeorgia's post, because they referenced their analysis in a reply to my prior comment. I am not "repeatedly" replying to everyone, and never replied to anything TBUA has posted here. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I am not (yet) troubled by your responses to my responses; you were right to ask for diffs on who inserted the sources, and in adding those, I did find one error, so thanks. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

[[Graham Stevenson (historian)]] is a POV title;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Encyclopedia_of_Communist_Biographies] the article should be moved to [[Graham Stevenson (trade union leader)]] before anyone else is misled about the nature of his "encyclopedia". [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not opposed to moving the Graham Stevenson article that I wrote but I wasn't "misleading" anybody by calling Graham Stevenson a historian. I discovered Graham Stevenson through his historical research on Britain's socialist movements, including [https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/action/doSearch?AllField=Graham+Stevenson his multiple articles in an academic journal] belonging to the [[University of Liverpool]]. I then later learned of his trade union activity while researching the article. I wish you had just asked me to explain my edits before going nuclear. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I have work so I'll need adequate time to respond to everything but I have this to say. For whatever faults you find in my work, if I were really such a sneaky POV pusher then I wouldn't be frequently inviting both experts and experienced editors to comb through my work. This all started after I began working with [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] to review my article on [[David Ivon Jones]] (which I'm still grateful for despite his views on my editing), conceding to 90% of his suggested changes [[Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1|during his GA review]]. @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] just put a POV template on my [[Trevor Carter]] article, again one which I submitted for GA Review and invited experts to comb through. I was so proud and confident in that wiki that I even linked to it at the very beginning of this dispute. For my [[Billy Strachan]] article, the largest wiki page I have ever created, I've gone through everything from a [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Billy Strachan/archive1|peer review,]] then onto an [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Billy Strachan/archive1|(unsuccessful) FA review]], and I'm currently on another [[Talk:Billy Strachan/GA1|GA Review.]] Inviting countless experts and experienced wiki editors to tear into my work is not the modus operandi of a POV pusher. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Where did I omit the author? Also how could I possibly omit the author of Graham Stevenson's Encyclopedia when his name is literally in the website address and there's a giant banner with his name and face on it when you follow the link? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=1171577633 Here, I inserted the author yesterday] which you omitted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1006369938#Educationalist_career_and_later_work from the very first edit] and up until yesterday. Since most real encyclopedias don't have individual authors for each entry, by leaving off the author, the fact that this a self-published website is obscured. (By the way, you've got many of the same issues with problematic sourcing raised here also at [[Billy Strachan]], now under review by [[User:Llewee]] at GAN, as well as others which I can detail when I have more time, but including failed verification and too-close-paraphrasing.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

::I have not thoroughly examined all the links above, probably there are a number of issues where it is acceptable to assume good faith, but the double standard regarding sources (immediate removal of sourced contents with the excuse that the page number is missing, while he himself introduced book sources with no page numbers given) is hardly defensible. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Where have I ever challenged somebody for deleting one of my own citations that did not include page numbers? I'm within my 3,000 edits there were cases where I mistakenly missed a page number, but if somebody deleted my mistakes then I would consider that fair game and correct myself. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 09:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: This is an unlikely scenario. No one has removed your citations just because removing a citation for lack of a page number is inappropriate, and I don't recall anyone but you removing citations with such a weak justification. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 09:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Warn about sourcing and POV editing wrt autocratic governments''': History Wizard, it's not a question of being intentionally deceptive or sneaky; many editors who edit with a POV are unaware that their POV affects their editing. You would be naturally inclined by your bias to label Stevenson a historian when he is not; this could cause a GA reviewer to think the source is a good one, for example. You are using a double standard on page numbers to remove text you dislike, but more importantly, using marginal and non-reliable sources to support pro-communist party content, leaving out balancing content from better sources, misrepresenting some sources to introduce an anti-US bias, all as in the [[Trevor Carter]] example, and confirming your pro-CP bias as seen in the diffs given in the discussion, where you also made unnecessarily inflammatory remarks on the US talk page, raising additional concerns about an anti-US bias. {{pb}} I think the POV at [[Trevor Carter]] can be fixed by adding in the better sources you failed to use, but I don't see how it can retain GA status with the use of two marginal sources (a self-published "encyclopedia", and a book from a communist press that no one can find). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Other examples of POV editing ===
:@[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] - Just FYI - Meddick, Payne, and Katz are all prominent members of the Communist Party of Britain (Meddick is head of a large local branch, Payne is chair-person of the party as a whole, Katz is head of communications). So that's a communist party-authored, communist-party published source, and BulgeuWu/The History Wizard uses it EVERYWHERE. He's well aware just how dubious a source it is, just as he knows how dubious anything from Lawrence & Wishart (a publishing hosue set up by the communist party) is, but even after basically conceding it shouldn't be used on one page you'll see them using on another. 
:The POV pushed is always the same - some random communist party member is an anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-fascist hero, and they are because the communist party said they are. For example the statement that [[Harry Pollitt]] {{tq|"ran an anti-war and anti-colonialism campaign against British colonialism in Malaya, publishing leaflets which exposed atrocities committed by British troops during the [[Malayan Emergency]]"}} was sourced by BulgeuWu/The History Wizard to a ''single pamphlet'' authored by Harry Pollitt and published by the communist party. They have persistently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Pollitt&diff=1168163451&oldid=1164537714 tried to add this content back] alongside a reference to Harry Pollitt supposedly leaking photos of attocities to the Daily Worker - however when you look at the source they are citing for this [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Age_of_Emergency/nEOwEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Age+of+Emergency:+Living+with+Violence+at+the+End+of+the+British+Empire&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover it makes no reference to Pollitt having done any such thing]. The POV-pushing is far too consistent to be a simple mistake. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:: {{u|FOARP}} if you could provide diffs to support that The History Wizard was made aware of their dubious sourcing and yet persisted, I would press for a topic ban. Could you provide more detail on the pamphlet you mention? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I raised the subject of ''Red Lives'' being an inappropriate source to The History Wizard (then editing as BulgeUwU) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarry_Pollitt&diff=1044454615&oldid=1044311025 on 14 September 2021]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarry_Pollitt&diff=1046332126&oldid=1045996162 They responded uncivilly]. They have repeatedly used the same source since then ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bolsheviks_are_Coming&oldid=1137946463 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liesel_Carritt&oldid=1121943033 2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noel_Carritt&oldid=1121752693 3] - just a random sampling looking only at new creations). They are also aware that Lawrence & Wishart is an non-independent source ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarry_Pollitt&diff=1058267144&oldid=1058265961 see diff]) but then still advocates using them (see Harry Pollitt talk page). The pamphlet ''Malaya: Stop the War!'' is not available online but is [https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1500002180 in the Imperial War Museum collection as published by the Communist Party]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: Thanks; it is interesting how civility issues evolve towards civil POV pushing, as admins are typically loathe to engage the content issues. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

When cleaning out after the move from Graham Stevenson "historian" to [[Graham Stevenson (trade union leader)]], I encountered another example of the effect at [[No Other Way]]:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Other_Way&diff=prev&oldid=1171688824 Puffery corrected] that was inserted by The History Wizard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Other_Way&oldid=1139854833 in February 2023].
My deep dive at [[Trevor Carter]] was perhaps not deep enough, and I suspect that {{u|Thebiguglyalien}} was on to something about whitewashing that may be more widespread than we have yet touched upon. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Topic ban proposal: The History Wizard of Cambridge ===
Through the discussions above, we now have pro-communist party and anti-US POV editing including puffery, source-to-text integrity problems, faulty sourcing and some indications of what may be deceptive editing or double standards at least identified in the discussion above and at:
* [[Trevor Carter]]
* [[Talk:Billy Strachan]]
* [[Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1]]
* [[Graham Stevenson (historian)|Graham Stevenson "historian"]]
* [[No Other Way]]
* [[Harry Pollitt]]
As FOARP has indicated, these problems have been brought to The History Wizard's attention since 2021, and as Thebiguglyalien has indicated, the whitewashing is widespread, and from FOARP, persistent and long-standing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

* I '''support a topic ban''' for The History Wizard of Cambridge, formerly BulgeUWU, broadly construed, on all discussions and topics and articles related to autocratic governments or individuals, socialism, and communism. Cleanup is needed across many articles, and we should not delay so another Polish or Nazi whitewashing more deeply permeates Wikipedia content. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor ==
{{atop|Leaving Starheroine, all the rest blocked pending responses. Will track Starheroine's edits over the next few weeks... [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 12:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

See edit history for {{user|A E WORLD}}, especially to prominent articles. Not responding to messages at their page, which sometimes leads me to suspect they've been down this road before. At any rate, they ought to be slowed down at the least, and allow for others to clean up in their wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*I'm wondering about a possible connection to blocked user {{user|Adakaibe}}, whose old edits they're now reverting. I'm also looking at a nest of similar accounts editing at articles like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Nigeria&action=history]. If it's not sock or meat activity, it could be an organized school assignment, but there's much damage in its wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*Adding {{user|Starheroine}}. Same issue, continuing to overlink after being warned and acknowledging the issue. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*And {{user|Ayyuha Sideeq}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**''Please'' block {{user|Starheroine}}. Mass disruption. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Block me for what. Did you go through the articles I edited? Kindly go through them again. And don't be judgemental. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:2601... no there are no edits by Starheroine in the page few days that are problematic. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I suspect there's much still on the table that ''is'' problematic, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, as at [[Christians Against Poverty]], where overlinking is in play, but even more so [[WP:ENGVAR]]. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been a week since Ayyuha Sideeq edited. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, {{u|EvergreenFir}}. See the most recent edits. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Starheroine}}, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been [[WP:OVERLINK]]ing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&diff=prev&oldid=1170645470]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_Development_Goal_3&diff=prev&oldid=1170678275], a few didn't allow for [[WP:ENGVAR]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christians_Against_Poverty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762741], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_plastic_pollution_treaty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762568]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1170697606]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Another one, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, {{u|Lourdes}}: {{user|Pmanofficial}}. [[Deforestation]] is protected, so I can't revert the edits there. Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*And another, {{user|Prowriter101}}, with a patently inappropriate username. They've also messed around with some locked articles that I'm unable to mend. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Apologies--though Prowriter's edits are disruptive, they don't appear to be related to the other accounts. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:M.Bitton]] ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = GF closure based on OP's final comment. Other experienced editors are advised to avoid aggressive positioning, even when faced with ANI reports against them (although one can see the frustrations that build up... yet...) Closing this here. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

I've had a series of reverts with this user who gave me [[User talk:Vyvagaba#August 2023|two disruptive editing warnings]], for two edits I made to address the neutrality of the lead in [[Dakhla, Western Sahara]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1170676466 the latest revert]).

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

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

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

:I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In [[User_talk:Vyvagaba#Question|the discussion]] that followed, first you said {{tq|I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts |q=yes}}, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::Why are you changing your replies? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Please explain how? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::It's for you to explain why '''you misrepresented the sources''' to push a political POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks [[Special:Diff/1170675949|this diff]]. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at [[WP:NPOV]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1170683348] [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to [https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19 this] document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).
*:So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Could you please view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170793456 this version] as @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is still being difficult. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I restored the reference in the second edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170792759 I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy.] [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::No what you did was change it to {{tq|but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}}. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You ''can't'' use those sources to say {{tq|also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}} as that's not what they say.
*:::::::It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the [[Political status of Western Sahara]]. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Nope, '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV'''. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::The status of WS is disputed, '''your using your POV''' (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories ([[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]). [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV.''' [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. [https://minurso.unmissions.org/background Example 1], [https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/S_RES_2654.pdf Example 2] to the extent some claim that the [https://www.focusonafrica.info/en/western-sahara-sahrawis-denounce-united-nations-support-the-occupying-power/ United Nations supports the occupying Power]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Why are you changing the subject? :) [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/22/western-sahara-wall-morocco-trump 1] [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2663843 2] [https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Wsahara.htm 3] [https://reliefweb.int/report/western-sahara/nrc-report-western-sahara-occupied-country-displaced-people-issue-22008 4]. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?
*::::::::::::P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples
*::::::::::::[https://minurso.unmissions.org/background United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara] "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."
*::::::::::::[https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/conflict-western-sahara ICRC] "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."
*::::::::::::[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115273 BBC] "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",
*::::::::::::[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220407-morocco-s-autonomy-plan-for-the-western-sahara France 24] "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",
*::::::::::::[https://childrensrightsresearch.com/stories/39-moroccan-controlled-western-sahara-freedom-of-expression Childrens Rights Research] "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."
*::::::::::::[https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/north-africa/western-sahara/paving-way-talks-western-sahara Crisis Group] "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."
*::::::::::::[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/13/morocco-launches-operation-in-western-sahara-border-zone Al Jazeera] "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.
*::::::::::::Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.
*::::::::::::The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".
*::::::::::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/world/africa/morocco-western-sahara-conflict-explained.html New York Times] "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara '''is not''' occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. {{re|Rosguill}} could you please share your views on this? Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Political_status_of_Western_Sahara|scouting]] and [[Xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria|creating]] [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0|WS and Algeria-related articles]], so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.
*::::::::::::::::I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.[[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{A note}} the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed {{tq|claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco|q=yes}} to two reliable sources[https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19][https://books.google.com/books?id=tGQJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT264] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{A Note}} I informed @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1170805979 The latest example in my dispute], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals] with the same "misrepresentation" show. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started [[Special:Diff/1170795647|following me]] to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1170795647 and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for '''your persistent misrepresentation of the sources''' to push a POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You should probably read [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]), not just the user reported. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is '''your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV'''. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{re|Rosguill|ActivelyDisinterested}} Since Vyvagaba has made it amply clear that they have no intention of addressing the raised issue, I think it's time that some action is taken as I don't see how anyone who behaves in such manner can be trusted. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Just to be clear, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is preventing and all debate diagreeing with his pov, [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|I posted a note on the article's talk page]] (since this is a behaviour noticeboard and because the NPOV noticeboard said that the complaint was too early to post since we didn't debate on the talk page) to present detailed quotes from reliable soures to support the wording I proposed, and to get feedback to tweak the wording to reach consensus. I dont see why @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] would keep stone walling any discussion with their "misrepresentation" saga, I provided detailed evidence in that post to see what others would think I'm misrepresenting and to fix that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Procedurally, if I were to have come across this thread without having participated in it, I would close in favor of the topic ban. While I am not [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the content disputes here, I don't think it would be fair for me to close here given that I initially proposed the sanction, only one other uninvolved editor has participated here at ANI, and this isn't a CTOP subject. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*[[User:Rosguill]], I think that Vyvagaba deserves a topic ban, yes, or perhaps a (partial) block. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:If you could spend the time to read the post I have on [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|the article's talk page]] and let me know if any of the points I raised are completly reasonabale and rational, and with evidence to support it, I'm just asking to know what I'm misrepresinting in the sources I included, since I'm starting to feel a little crazy at this point. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I only started to look into this out of interest of an RS issue, what I found has left me deeply unimpressed. The fact is that even now Vyvagaba can't see past the content issue to the behaviour issue at hand, so I would support a topic ban. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I still don't undertsand what the behviour issue here is? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::See your talk. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Based on this dialouge, I confirm that I will be mindful and stick to what sources say and to not remove reliably sourced material from now onwards. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[Special:Diff/1171642941/1171665871|This much longer comment]] (left on your talk page just before this one) paints a different picture and suggests that you're just saying what you think the others want to read (to avoid sanctions). There is no acknowledgement of the fact that you misrepresented the sources (not once, but twice), and therefore, no reason to believe that you won't do it again. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ctop|A distraction. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system
:Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think {{tq|Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one}} is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at [[Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system]]. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Rosguill}} Looking at what the IP did to the article ([[Special:Diff/1170846056s|they linked]] one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cbot}}
{{abot}}

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

:[[User:Shaan Sengupta]] has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:The user is clearly engaging in [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. '''[[User:Shaan Sengupta|Shaan Sengupta]]'''[[User talk:Shaan Sengupta|Talk]] 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems to be editing disruptively [[User:Maphumor]]. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some [[WP:SYN]] going on with the sources. [[User:XYZ 250706]], can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is formed in India to defeat the NDA in 2024 Indian general elections. But in some states like WB, Kerala, the members of INDIA will contest against each other. So those members are added in different alliances in those particular states. But user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring. Besides he makes original research. For example, in UP the members of INDIA which have confirmed to be in that alliance led by Samajwadi Party, are added together. But user Maphumor removes some parties like CPI(M), CPI, NCP without proper explanation. Sometimes he says they have no footprint. He removes some specific parties in similar pages giving such citation-less explanation. He is not promoting all national parties, but probably he is promoting Aam Aadmi Party. After my warning, his words like ''''this page is not your personal, everyone can edit'''' do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:XYZ 250706]] thanks for that explanation, but can you show actual edits where edit warring is occurring? You did say "user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring." Actual links to those edit war and reverting edits would be helpful.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] You can see in revision history of [[Next Indian general election in West Bengal]], [[Next Indian general election in Kerala]] where he adds non-aligning parties together. Besides he removes some specific parties in [[Next Indian general election in Himachal Pradesh]], [[Next Indian general election in Uttar Pradesh]], [[Next Indian general election in Punjab]] etc and sometimes contest in edit war. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I think @[[User:Shaan Sengupta|Shaan Sengupta]] can give some more examples. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] User of this ID 2404:7C00:47:D94D:3823:C249:D046:C33A is also removing some specific parties in similar pages. Can you please check whose ID it is? If possible please block that ID also. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Unless you can showcase diffs where there has been edit warring and you have used a BRD route that has not been reciprocated by the editor, this thread will be closed soon. In the future, please use the article talk pages to invite new editors for discussions, rather than just warning notes. Finally, please read up on the procedures for [[WP:DR|resolving disputes]] for future editorial disputes. However, feel free to come back right here with diffs in case the problem continues after you have followed dispute resolution procedures. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[WP:HOUNDING]], [[WP:INCIVILITY]] and [[WP:PERSONALATTACKS]] by [[User:Therapyisgood]] ==
{{atop
| status = closing
| result = Survey closed, discussion no longer needed. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

{{u|Therapyisgood}} was recently blocked 31 hours for personal attacks made at the [[WT:DYK|Did you know? talk page]] and at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2|theleekycauldron's request for adminship]]. While those comments were not addressed at me, these seem to be part of a campaign of his to drive me off the site by commenting at many of the discussions I've participated in and trying to get the opposite of what I want to happen. Therapyisgood has engaged in this [[WP:HOUNDING]] of me since about January. His behavior towards me has made me feel uncomfortable, has caused me great stress and has made me think at times about leaving the site. I've been trying my best not to retaliate and to be as civil as possible during this time, but Therapyisgood has continued HOUNDING me again and again and again for months. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have to take him here now for this as I think it has to stop. I've listed below many of the numerous examples of his HOUNDING, ranging from simply commenting at pages I do to outright nasty comments.
{{collapse top|title=What seems to have started this}}
* Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#User:BeanieFan11_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_at_NFL_AFDs here] (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1136016648] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985]).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=Worst violations since then}}
* I removed some articles from the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal list in March (also in the below section) that had SIGCOV and thus should not have been draftified, [[User:BilledMammal]] reverted it because he wanted to decide who could remove articles with significant coverage. I reverted three times, he reverted SIX - Therapyisgood somehow knows of this and reports ME to ANI for edit warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1142842396) - there was no consensus for anything.
* Then, after there was no consensus for anything at ANI - he went through the articles I improved and started adding maintenance tags (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hession&diff=prev&oldid=1143131465).
* A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly|nomination for Lewis Manly]] - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable) - it needed a new reviewer. Out of all the nominations Therapyisgood could have reviewed, he reviewed mine, came up with lots of issues (which were incorrect), and ultimately had it failed.
* April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too).
* Even worse, right after that, he nominated an absurd number of files I had created for deletion for being copyvios and messaged me to "stop uploading copyright violations" - users were outright confused at the discussions at how they could possibly have been copyright violations, and not a single one was deleted (see my commons userpage, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeanieFan11).
* April 25 - I had previously nominated Pro Football Hall of Famer [[Dave Wilcox]] to be listed at [[WP:ITN/C|ITN/RD]], it was close to being posted but was about to expire - Therapyisgood [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Wilcox&diff=prev&oldid=1151689211 TAGBOMBED the hell] out of the article, including for extremely silly things like the fact that one source listed him at 239 pounds, and another 241 pounds! It was not posted due to this.
* May 5 - I started a deletion review for the [[1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season|1991-92 Kilmarnock soccer team]], saying it should be relisted from delete - right after - "Endorse - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153242325). '''AND then, when I pointed out why it should be overturned - his response - "Go cry harder about it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153245470)'''
* May 28 - there was a discussion on whether a certain DYK hook that I had approved was racist - I pointed out why I didn't think so - right after, "Yes, this is racist - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1157344140) - he even went to [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] talking about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1157355211).
* June 2: I had recently been given [[WP:AFC|AFC]] reviewing rights, '''and Therapyisgood began going through my accepts and nominating them for deletion''' - see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65th Oregon Legislative Assembly]] - which had a unanimous consensus to keep, and Therapyisgood refused to withdraw it even when asked to.
* July 19: one of my DYK nominations was approved, Therapyisgood went to the DYK talk page and was trying to get it pulled for lack of interestingness, something he almost never does otherwise; everyone disagreed with him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_193#Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1).
* Then the most recent, which got him blocked, [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#John_Sterling_(American_football),_etc|insulting]] [[User:Gonzo fan2007]] at a discussion over a DYK I approved (again, he seems to almost never participate at WT:DYK discussion except when I am involved).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=More minor instances of HOUNDING since then}}
* At the start of March, when the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1142833690].
* A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Vehmeier&diff=prev&oldid=1144875410].
* Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junior_varsity_team&diff=prev&oldid=1147938410].
* April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1151691282].
* May 10 - I nominated [[Joe Kapp]] to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ).
* Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&diff=prev&oldid=1154170839#Should_we_soften_the_phrase_%22Sports_biographies_must_include_at_least_one_reference_to_a_source_providing_significant_coverage_of_the_subject,_excluding_database_sources.%22].
* June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on [[Tavon Rooks]] - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tavon_Rooks&diff=prev&oldid=1158124179] - this contributed to it being deleted.
* June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khaled_Soliman&diff=prev&oldid=1159169990]
* July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&diff=prev&oldid=1162954376]
* July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vladimir_Kryukov_(rower)&diff=prev&oldid=1163231320]
* July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1164340319]
* The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.
{{collapse bottom}}
Interestingly, looking at Therapyisgood's AFD log, [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname= ''every single discussion'' at which he has participated since late January was one involving me (minus the nominations, although they were all in either topics I was involved or on articles I worked on)] (and in all cases, him voting after my involvement ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Raynor|he commented at Wilson Raynor before me]], but that was only after I was involved in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Football_biography_cleanup#Wilson_Raynor NFL talk page discussion on him])). Also of note, only [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname=&nomsonly=true ''51%'' of his AFD nominations (19-18)] were successful and that number drops to {{abbr|10-16|10 successful, 16 not}} since October 2021. Since January 2023, he is {{abbr|8-10|8 successful, 10 not}}. I apologize for the massive amount of text, but I wanted to show just how extensive his HOUNDING of me has been. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' just wanted to note three things: (1) {{U|Therapyisgood}} appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by {{U|BeanieFan11}} (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of ''only two'' RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been ''right after one of my votes''/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with [[WP:HOUNDING]]. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:IBAN]] does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:: I understand that he has been {{tq|badgered, blocked and skewered}}, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but [[WP:HOUNDING]] is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I unblocked {{U|therapyisgood}} per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Thank you, please see my responses below. Thanks again. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I agree with [[User:Jayron32]]. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{ping|Therapyisgood}} and {{ping|BeanieFan11}}, can you both agree to an [[WP:IBAN]] with each other?[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to have my name engraved on the editing sanctions page when I don't think I've really done anything wrong. I'll have to think about this further. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK [[WP:TBAN]] for Therapyisgood seems in order. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* Support one-way [[WP:IBAN]] at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at [[WP:VP]] in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fulfillment_(book)&diff=prev&oldid=1029455929 this edit summary], and the original hook of [[Template:Did you know nominations/George Floyd (American football)|this DYK nomination]]) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.[[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

====TIG's response====
*I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused {{ping|BeanieFan11}} over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding {{ping|JoelleJay}} among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Looking at [[WP:IBAN]] it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. [[User:Dronkle|Dronkle]] ([[User talk:Dronkle|talk]]) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––[[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]] [[User talk:FormalDude|(talk)]] 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, [[WP:IBAN]] says that {{tq|A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}}[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in {{tq|a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}} One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::::I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::::Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:@ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. '''And that doesn't matter worth a damn.''' I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil ''no matter what.'' If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of {{tq|pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior}} and {{tq|hounding which if given time I can find diffs of}}. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]], 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The other 20% is insults and threats. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Quite. Possibly the text of [[WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!!]] should read "The invocation of this argument is ''prima facie'' ground for an indef." [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It feels like relevant context to point out that the ''other'' RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron1]], so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they ''weren't'' trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.
*::Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is [[per se]] an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.
*::In any event, the trolling comments that ''immediately'' came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::When I said {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that {{tq|"Are you really that thick?"}} comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after {{u|Gonzo fan2007}} let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, ''fast''. {{pb}}Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that ''she'' (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion? {{pb}}We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I don't like]]. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of [[WP:CIR|competency]] regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.{{pb}}Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all. {{pb}}Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This editor has problems beyond hounding BeanieFan11. See this thread from 6 months ago:
*[[User talk:Therapyisgood#AFD nominations]]
They gratuitously blew off a very polite request from [[User:Liz|Liz]] about pacing AfDs. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] did a good job of summarizing problematic edits concluding presciently that Therapyisgood was on track to WP:ANI someday. —[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{ping|A. B.}} Not only that, but he had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985 immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then] and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=next&oldid=1136016472 "stay off my talk page"]. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:So {{tq|”common courtesy”}} is not a good enough reason?. ''This is a collaborative project.'' Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you ''still refuse to accept'' this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.
**::—~~<~
**:[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –[[User:Novem Linguae|'''Novem Linguae''']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**{{ping|A. B.}} yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:[[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]], you ask, {{tq|”where was I wrong?”}}
**:Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.
**:I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.
**:One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people {{tq|”piss off”}} the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?
**:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*** Really? I'm {{tq|way off}} in my {{tq|whole framing}} of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is ''exactly'' how its felt to me. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to {{ping|BilledMammal}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142843309]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142844420]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
***** But my question is, ''how did you find all of those discussions''? (and you're misrepresenting some of those, for example, BilledMammal was not correct in his interpretation of 3RR, as shown by the closer declining your request) [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******The same way you found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646 this]. By the way, just because the closing admin declined a warning on the 3RR report doesn't make you right. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******* Thank you for confirming my belief; you've been [[WP:HOUNDING]] me by extensively going through all my contributions. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********"why are you so concerned about how people find discussions?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646] [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********:There's a big difference between periodically clicking on various editor's contribs and systematically hounding one person for months. If you can't understand that, you're not long for Wikipedia. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****:There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here. {{pb}}And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be [[WP:RBI|relatively simple]] and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and [[WP:CLUE|CLUEfulness]]. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to [[Occam's razor]]. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

===Survey===
{{archive top|result=Therapyisgood is banned from interacting with BeanieFan11 for one year. Besides the examples given in [[WP:IBAN]], they may not comment in discussions in which BeanieFan11 has already commented or nominate articles for deletion to which BeanieFan11 has contributed significantly. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan (talk)]] 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.
# Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
# Impose a two-way IBAN
# Block Therapyisgood for x duration
# Something else
[[User:Ca|Ca]] [[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]] 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''1 with additional conditions''' beyond what is at [[WP:IBAN]], to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''', in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least '''1 month''', recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: ''"If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses."'' While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:TIG was [[User talk:Therapyisgood/Archive 1#May 2020|given a 2-week block 3 years ago]] for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)|indefinitely restricted him to one account]] over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' seems like a commonsense approach.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Option 4''' I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban.</s> A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become [[WP:HARASSMENT|harassment]] in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. <s>Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
*# TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
*# BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
*<li style="list-style:none;">Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban.</s> [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:What you're proposing ''would'' be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years. {{pb}}However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.{{pb}}So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Snow Rise}} thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that [[WP:IBAN]] is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.
*:::And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Valereee}} I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that
*:::::# A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
*:::::# That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.
*:::::[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::{{re|Valereee}} a block is a punishment when:
*::::::1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them
*::::::2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased
*::::::TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I'll reply on your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3: Block and final warning''' If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If someone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will [[WP:AGF|act in good faith]] and not attempt to [[WP:BEAR|provoke or badger]] TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask {{ping|Floquenbeam}} how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to [[WP:AVOIDYOU]] in their interactions. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with additional conditions''' as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''' per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
**severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
**longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
**and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
*<li style="list-style:none;">In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of [[WP:ROPE]]. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a '''one month block''' is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that '''such block should be appealable only to the community''' as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.{{pb
}}I also '''support the 1-way IBAN''' as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.{{pb
}}Lastly, I '''support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement"''' sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:PA]] proclivities. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*A very broadly intended '''option 1''', and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block ('''option 3'''), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] seriously. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''1 with additional conditions''' as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3''' based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be '''7-14 days''', which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of [[WP:BLOCK]], which is {{tq|to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users}}. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. [[User:Carson Wentz|Carson Wentz]] ([[User talk:Carson Wentz|talk]]) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' with x=3 months and '''1 (+Jayron)'''. Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are ''very'' out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista/Archive|now-blocked, content-contributing hounder]] in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', oppose 3 as punitive [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3'''. I concur that a duration of '''1 month''' would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. [[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*''' Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month.''' The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1''' - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
** {{Ping|Valereee}} Obviously every administrative action (including option 1) results in some sort of punishment for those who are subjected to it, but I don't see how a short block (1/2 weeks in my view) would be just a punishment and not a preventive (and instructive) act. TIG was blocked for personal attacks just 3 days ago, and once unblocked he almost immediately resorted with the same gratuitously aggressive and insulting attitide. Even ignoring his comments towards BeanieFan11, he insulted Snow Rise, and when kindly asked to strike the insult he ignored the request. In his contribution history up to his last comments in this thread, he displayed a blatant [[Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT]] approach towards civility. I am the first one to hope TIG changes his attitude, as I see him as an otherwise valuable editor, but it is important he get the point about civility, be it with a block, with a strong warning or with some other means. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior. Time-limited blocks can simply be waited out. And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing.
**:In addiiton, a block would prevent TIG from doing things they don't need to be prevented from doing, so it's more restrictive than necessary to solve the problem, which at its heart is the hounding. If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community. A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::If this discussion results in only the IBAN, it won't be the end of the world: at least something will have been done to protect the community member who is currently bearing the brunt of TIGs inappropriate and vexatious behaviour and to send a message that the community has eyes on the rest. At the same time, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in at least one respect here:{{pb}}There are really two issues that need addressing here: 1) The concerted hounding of BeanieFan across a period of months, which is clearly unacceptable and which (we hope) the IBAN resolves, and 2) Petty, continuous, and pretty much instantaneous incivility any time TIG is criticized. These personal attacks don't come after heated back-and-forth's ramping the tension up, though they would be problematic enough in that context too. Rather, these kind of "Get a job--I have no time to argue with losers on the internet all day" / "Are you thick" comments are '''the very first things TIG says to people they have never had an interaction with before''' when they feel criticized, including community members contributing to an ANI where the goal is to get TIG to see their are issues with their mode of interaction with others on this project. That's a real problem. And the IBAN does absolutely nothing to address it.
**:::{{tq|"Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior."}}
**::Hey, I could be convinced to support an indef for that purpose, but I think we're probably both of the opinion that it's more than the minimum that might get TIGs attention here. I think Walt is right: that target is a month. And even if TIG does just wait out the block, at least they are shown that there are lines that this community will not let them routinely and indefinitely cross, and they will have time to consider what needs to change in their approach. Which is, you know, the usual point of any block that is not an indef?
**:::{{tq|"And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing."}}
**::Correct. And neither is a temporary block for repeated [[WP:CIV]] violations. It's not there for vindictive purposes or even to make us feel better that someone's behaviour has been "balanced" by punishment. But if it's necessary to force someone to reflect on problematic behaviour (as it very clearly is here), it's a preventative block. I'm surprised we're even having this debate: this is probably the single most common circumstance for the use of a block.
**:::{{tq|"If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community."}}
**::Actually, I think it very much does. Because we've seen that TIG can make a very contrite-seeming unblock appeal to an admin, feigning a willingness to comply with community expectations and the feedback of that admin...and then instantly go back to the offending behaviour they were blocked for in the first place. The fact that this behaviour occurs blatantly in view of the entire community in an ANI discussion where that very behaviour is being discussed only underscores how much TIG either doesn't get where the line is, or is completely incapable of controlling themselves and jumping to petty ad hominems in the face of any criticism. A CBAN is necessary precisely because it must be appealed the community.
**:::{{tq|"A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order."}}
**::Except, for the purposes of the conduct we are talking about here, calling this user a "well-intentioned, competent editor" is not appropriate. Nobody is being "well-intentioned" with regard to our community expectations when they are making the kind of personalized, spiteful comments TIG feels entitled to make when they see red (which is alarmingly fast in face of any opposition). And they are going to go on to feel entitled to that behaviour until the community draws a line in the sand. I'm sorry Val, normally I appreciate a light touch in an admin, but your description above feels more like enabling to me. And it won't do TIG any favours in the long run: it will just replace a one-month block now with an indef in the near future, I'd be willing to bet. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::{{edit conflict}} "''An IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''", I could say the same about a block: "''a block is not punishment. It may feel like it to the blocked editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''". None of the editors who support a (more or less brief) block here wants to "punish" TIG, we want him to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and adhere to it in in his future interactions. With respect, characterizing his long-term problematic behaviour as "a series of similar mistakes in short order" by "a well-intentioned, competent editor" goes exactly in the opposite direction and IMO sends the wrong message to the user. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::I'll answer at your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' - A one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]. A block is not necessary at this time, but will come soon enough if TIG does not learn quickly how restrictive a one-way IBAN is. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' — A one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]. This fair to BF and gives TIG time to find a way to be civil. Either TIG takes this new path as primary in contributing to Wikipedia or loses any long term chance of collaborating. — [[User:Neonorange|'''N''''''eonorange''']] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk to Phil]]) (he, they)` —
{{archive bottom}}
{{abot}}

== Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here ==

I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through [[Template:Deforestation in Nigeria]], used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria a project on Meta] The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)
*[[Draft:Deforestation and small ruminant farming]] (was in mainspace, I moved it to draft)
*[[Reforestation and urbanization in Nigeria]]
*[[Impact of deforestation on plant species diversity in Nigeria]]
*[[Deforestation in Nigeria]] (the main article)
*[[Deforestation and food security in Nigeria]]
*[[Animal grazing and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Effects of deforestation on the paper industry in Nigeria]]
*[[Tourism and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Fuel wood utilization in Nigeria]]
*[[Gender and timber trade in Nigeria]]
*[[Spatial pattern of deforestation in Nigeria]]

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

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

Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Participation], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Guidelines], on enwiki[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Task_Lists]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
A grant request[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into [[Deforestation in Nigeria]] some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{smalldiv|1=Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:::{{smalldiv|1=Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. [[User:Padgriffin|Padgriffin]] [[User Talk:Padgriffin|Griffin's Nest]] 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Olugold]] created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_overlinking_and_poor_grammar_'corrections'_by_relatively_new_editor] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. [[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.
:::However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".
:::I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. [[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] ([[User talk:Ngozi osadebe|talk]]) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]??? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] - {{tq|Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".}} I agree that putting the search term <code>deforestation in Nigeria</code> into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns120=1 a simple search for the phrase] will take you to [[d:Q5251686|Q5251686]], which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] @[[User:Olugold|Olugold]] you mention the list building tools in your grant proposal - but did this include just doing a keyword search on English Wikipedia itself? Surely that would be the ''first'' thing to try? Your grant proposal also indicates {{tq|Content Gender gap}} which pertains to the actual content (rather than the participants/editors) - what work is/will being done that falls into this category within the general scope of "deforestation in Nigeria"? [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Just flagging that after reviewing [[meta:Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria|the grant proposal]] and [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qksqwu2nBcan6KBo9qkn3rOgqOradX-QNqCN1cQDibg/edit linked spreadsheet], it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of [[purchasing power]] in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an ''extremely'' dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Thank you so much for drawig my attention to this. I have instructed the authors of the concerned articles to improve on them. The theme for our project is "Deforestation in Nigeria", as such there are likely to be topics that are related. Moreover, the editors though postgraduate students are new to Wikipedia editing. So it is likely that their edits will not be excellent. We have six month to work on the project. Many of the articles will improve before the expiry of the project life. [[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] ([[User talk:Ngozi osadebe|talk]]) 11:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Suggestion ===

I suggest that if there is any bridge of the wikipedia policy by any editor, such one should be called to order. If it was not intentional, the person will make the expected corrections or delete it. However, if the person insisted and some experts have looked into it and have arrived at what should be done, that should be done immediately.
For those that were making mistakes in editing, sometimes, the editor will not know. Sometimes where the corruption of words come from is not known to the editor. Once the person's attention is called, such corrections will be made.
We are here to help improve open knowledge and not to destroy it.
For me, if there is anywhere I made any mistake, I will like to know the place so I can correct it.
Thank you all for your patience and cooperation.[[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] ([[User talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|talk]]) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] I have move your post as it appears to relate to the Deforestation in Nigeria articles. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:I fear this is becoming a [[WP:CIR]] issue. I and others have had serious concerns about edits by this editor in the past (see [[User_talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu#March 2023]], and see from today things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edo_traditional_food&diff=1171500896&oldid=1167365759 this] (adding a picture from Uganda and claiming they are "varieties of Nigerian meals", and adding another picture from Ghana, for the topic [[Edo traditional food]] which is about a region in Nigeria) or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigerian_lowland_forests&diff=prev&oldid=1171491989 this] [[WP:POV]] edit. Basically, all their edits need thorough checking, and many need being reverted. It would be good if someone else can try to explain the issues, steering them in the right direction. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for the observation. Today, we were in a training and I was practicing. When I clicked on African food many of their images pumped up. I selected that one thinking it related to us. Sorry about that. I will correct it. Thank you. [[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] ([[User talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|talk]]) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it me, or is an addition like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_protection&diff=1146354871&oldid=1146222216 this one] (from March this year, and still largely unchanged present in the not important article) best reverted wholesale? From the start ("There has been a promise to end child labour internationally in 2020; unfortunately, we are in 2023 and we are looking forward to that of 2030.") over things like "Some do not go to public schools because the children are not being taking care of. Many of our public schools are without fence. " and "Right attitude to life will give children a beautiful light that life has well for them and when they work hard without allowing distractions, they will become great addition to humanity" to "Children are like arrows in the hand of mighty warriors", I don't see how this can easily be salvaged. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:This should be rolled back to the version from Jan 2023. The additions by this editor are extremely unencyclopedic and contain seriously unacceptable material in wikivoice. There are also numerous issues with referencing, both in the sources used and the formatting (e.g. a citation to a local church website home page to support the quiverful "arrows" paragraph above; citations to just "researchgate.net", "unicef.org", and numerous other website home pages with no other bibliographic info to identify what the specific article/page being referenced is). [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::I second this; we should restore to the Jan 2023 version. There's nothing but incredibly unencyclopedic and poorly written POV pushing in those additions. I do remember giving this editor a warning in March 2023 for POV pushing before while doing RCP back when I was still named Shadow of the Starlit Sky. I think that a [[WP:CIR]] block for Ngozi Stella Udechukwu may as well be in order as well. — '''[[User:Prodraxis|Prodraxis]]''' {[[User talk:Prodraxis|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Prodraxis|contribs]]} (she/her) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I share the concerns expressed by Fram and others, but a block at this stage would seem punitive, and that's not the goal of blocks. I think the focus should be on how to prevent this mess getting worse, then fix the content, and finally discuss what should be done to prevent this kind of botched outreach events that are relatively common today. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I've removed the added text at [[:Child protection]] and after commenting here, will start the talk page section I promised in my edit summary. I pinged {{U|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu}} in the edit summary; doing so again here. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

===Comment===
I greatly appreciate you all for your attention to this matter. While there does exist a specific page on 'Deforestation in Nigeria', it's essential to recognize that the broad subject holds potential for various nuanced topics beyond this scope. Consolidating all sub-topics under 'Deforestation in Nigeria' could potentially lead to a voluminous article with several stand-alone topics.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the grant approval process underwent rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. It's important to note that the rewards for the project's duration of six months encompass valuable resources such as data or internet connectivity subsidies.

I kindly request that if any article has not yet achieved an ideal state for inclusion in the Wikipedia mainspace, contributors can be notified on the talk page with possible suggestions for improvement or better still, moved to draftspace for further improvements. This collaborative approach helps identify areas for enhancement and ensures that the collective effort is not unfairly dismissed as unproductive. [[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{tq| The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value.}} Approval demonstrates that the WMF grants team judged the project worthy of funding, but doesn’t compel any specific project to treat it as significant. [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding your last paragraph, I don't see why the edits made by your editathon should be treated any differently to the thousands of other content edits made every day -- it is not our responsibility to faciliate the deforestation project, not least when there was no notification/consultation with enwiki despite there being an opportunity for such [[m:Grants:Programs/Organizer Lab/Deforestation in Nigeria|on the grant form (Q10)]]. [[User:Giraffer|Giraffer]] ([[User talk:Giraffer|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Giraffer|contribs]]) 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Why not just draftify all of these articles and have them go through the normal AFC process? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Seconding {{U|Jonesey95}}'s suggestion of mass draftification. That's the best way to find out whether they can be improved to a standard that justifies either reinstatement as independent articles or merger. We have no control over the WMF's processes, but a responsibility to protect the encyclopedia from poorly thought out and executed content, regardless of the good intentions of the editors involved. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Jonteemil]] ==

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

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

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

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

::Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, ''they have specifically said nothing about deletion'' in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even ''asking'' for these files to be deleted. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10]] as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::No, they don't ''need'' to but they are ''allowed'' to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that ''maybe'' something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure ''enough'' to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD ''is the exact process'' where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg]] on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're ''still not going to block Jonteemill'' because some admin fucked up. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be ''kept'' or ''deleted''… rather ''Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F''. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. [[WP:FFD]] gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]], it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not [[c:COM:TOO US]]. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Well, {{t|PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO ([[threshold of originality]]) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{t|Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the [[WP:NFCCP|Non-free criteria]], whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some [[WP:Non-copyright restrictions]] as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.
::::::::The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even [[:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg]] is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to [[:File:Best Western logo.svg]] nor [[:File:Jamba logo.svg]] (read more at [[c:COM:TOO Australia]] and [[c:COM:TOO US]]).
::::::::My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above [[c:COM:TOO Spain]]), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below [[c:COM:TOO US]]). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers '''''Keep''''' haha.
::::::::I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm pinging {{U|Edward-Woodrow}} who closed one of the FFDs as ''keep'' and {{U|Marchjuly}} who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I feel like I've entered into a game of Chinese whispers without knowing. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Come on {{u|Govvy}}, they have a nook around here for us ludites whenever things turn towards file hosting protocols. Well watch something with [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7OWlVYYRw slightly more sensible and accessible language]. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Snow Rise}} Thanks for that technically insight! And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uko3RU6h8 here's my reply!], Probably time for a close!? [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Witchcraft and related topics ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = No consensus on anything; and no action here (except one indef I've issued on the sidelines). The RfC ([[Talk:Witchcraft#RFC on Lede Section on Witchcraft|it's actually interesting]]) should contribute to some level of DR... and for those interested in knowing the real difference between Wicca and Witchcraft. Closing this now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 11:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

[[user:CorbieVreccan]] made a post at [[Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft]] claiming that another user had attempted to [[WP:CANVASS]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASystemic_bias&diff=1164716594&oldid=1148026263]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias&diff=next&oldid=1164802153] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] over the page for some time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1065455830&oldid=1065412597][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1065455830][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1164335557&oldid=1164309405]

I became involved,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1164845755&oldid=1164832640] was immediately reverted,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1164846266] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166673169] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167331496&oldid=1167329970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169277375&oldid=1169259738] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWitchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168294712&oldid=1168285517][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1166461323&oldid=1166453545][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169208102&oldid=1169200522]

About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and [[Wikipedia:Tag team|established coordination]] with [[user:Asarlaí]] for further efforts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorbieVreccan&diff=prev&oldid=1165212353] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEsowteric&diff=1165058795&oldid=1164781619][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167739795&oldid=1167738218] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1166783262&oldid=1166766606] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168562312&oldid=1168495409]

I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168449182&oldid=1168363448], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166176326] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165243409&oldid=1165238129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165341831&oldid=1165340593]

There's more, but I'm not sure what else to add as relevant and I've lost visibility on some of it through page deletions. This has been exhausting. I'm just trying to cover the material in line with what academic sources say - including sources already being used in the main Witchcraft article; but somehow that's insufficient justification. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]], you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by {{np|Asarlaí}} for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of [[WP:BOLD]] changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet [[wp:onus]], Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when [[Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built|people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built]]. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}}. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.
:::::::report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I have been dragged into this tangentially after voting on a RM related to this dispute. I do not think the situation currently needs admin attention. There is a very nasty content dispute over the lead section of [[Witchcraft]]; but the current RFC process seems to be addressing that problem in a civil manner. The concerns and accusations about canvassing or tag-teaming should be ignored; this is a situation where additional voices are helpful, and accusations that any new participant might have been "canvassed" are harmful. As far as POV-pushing: with this type of disagreement, it is inevitable that people view "the other side" as POV-pushing. Until there is some form of consensus, that is not actionable. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Walt Yoder}} point of clarity; I'm not accusing CV of canvassing specifically. My first encounter was ''them'' (incorrectly) making that accusation (diff linked above). - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Here we go again''' This is exactly what Darker Dreams posted to ArbCom (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring at the Edit-warring board in defense of Skyerise on July 23]). It is full of misrepresentations, personal attacks, confusion, and blatant lies. I suggest folks go and read what happened there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Statement_by_CorbieVreccan Direct link to my statement to Arbcom]. I am requesting [[WP:BOOMERANG]] for DD's ongoing disruption, [[WP:forum shopping]], and wasting of Wikipedians' time and energy.
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics Responses by myself and other editors to this same text by Darker Dreams at rejected Arbcom request].
:However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': having been watching and to some degree involved in this dispute, I personally find no issues with [[user:Asarlaí]]'s editing as they seem more willing to collaborate. As for [[User:CorbieVreccan]], I can only say that I had hoped that an administrator would hold themselves to higher standards rather than ending up the editor with the higher revert count in sevaral disputes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has a block record for personal attacks and harassment, for edit-warring on WP in general, and after Darker Dreams, is the other most-disruptive person in this dispute, along with Esoterwic. Though her editing is a bit better since DD was blocked. She had to take a 48 hour break when reported for 3RR on [[Witchcraft]] by Asarlaí.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1167467045#User:Skyerise_reported_by_User:Asarla%C3%AD_(Result:_Full_protection_for_three_days)] She also engaged in the same personal attacks as Darker Dreams, calling me a "vandal" for doing normal, good-faith editing on Darker Dreams' POV-pushing [[Template:Witchcraft sidebar]]:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWitchcraft_sidebar&diff=1168416745&oldid=1168302906 "rv POV vandalism"]. Interestingly, Darker Dreams then used basically the same edit summary in that account's personal attacks, also on Asarlaí and me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230802222105&diff=prev "Undid revision 1168449182 by CorbieVreccan (talk) POV vandalism"],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230803190744&diff=prev "Revert to 02:41, 3 August 2023‎ edit by Josvebot to undo admitted POV vandalism and off-topic push by User:Asarlaí"] (there was no "admission" of any of the false accusations in the personal attack edit summaries) - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::That doesn't invalidate or address what I said. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft "You just gonna watch from the sidelines?"]. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Still deflecting, I see. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a [[WP:SNOW]]ed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at [[Talk:Witchcraft]], but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western [[neopagan]] understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Darker%20Dreams/1/Witchcraft 71,328 bytes] to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*: I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on [[Talk:Witchcraft]], and I'm not sure that [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]]'s approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on [[European witchcraft]], the supposedly global article on [[Witchcraft]] focuses [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]] and the witch trials summarized in [[European witchcraft]], and the [[WP:BROADCONCEPT|overview article]] get to the global coverage it professes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&diff=prev&oldid=1166441494 blatant battleground behavior]. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Care to provide an example that's not a month old? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::What should that matter? Blatant battleground behavior doesn't suddenly become not-objectionable because a few weeks have passed. The civility policies don't have sell-by dates. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 09:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|Ravenswing}} Our blocking policy has always been ''preventative'', not ''punitive''. This means we don't block people just because some editor might dislike previous behavior that is not currently ongoing. It is incumbent on the editor who brings up the issue to show that ongoing damage to Wikipedia is currently occurring and unlikely to stop. That's why. And if you want to establish an "ongoing pattern" of "blatant battleground behavior", you're going to need more than one diff to document it. The IP you are apparently supporting even misinterpreted the one diff it did supply, not knowing the context: I only said that to Randy because he kept thanking me for my edits even though he was not participating in the talk page discussion himself. And my intent was that he join the discussion, not join me in any imaginary "battle". Anyway, context is important and you should also document the number of articles I've written along with your attempted attack on my character. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Erm. Want to show me where in my comment I mentioned the word "block?" But allow me to amend that now. Quite aside from that ''no'' one's edit count immunizes them against the requirement to follow civility policies (unless you're comfortable with being judged on your extensive block log in the same breath as your article count, while we're talking about "context"), the reason why we discuss such incidents is to assess the likelihood that such behavior is an ongoing problem, for which of course there are sanctions other than blocking, including IBANs, TBANs, simple admonishments and trout slaps.With that, if you consider ''that'' an attack on your character, then along with some of your other statements in this thread and elsewhere? This reflexive lashing out is not a good look on your part. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 19:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::So let me get this straight. It's okay for CV to assert that I have "been editing the Witchcraft articles at a feverish pace, splitting off ''many'' articles into new ones", but it's not okay for me to say that actually I have only split off ''one'' article and that therefore "many" is an exaggeration? Is that what you're saying? I'd just like you to be clear about that. Or that it's okay for CV to say "She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account", implying that I am socking – without backing it up? There are quite a few things that CV says about me here and elsewhere that simply aren't accurate, most of which I would characterize as "exaggeration", and they appear to me to be doing the same thing with respect to DD's behavior. Again, I expect better from an admin, and I believe [[WP:ADMINCOND|Wikipedia policy]] does as well. But you're saying that pointing that out here in the places where it is actually occurring is uncivil? Is that what you're saying? Because they're an admin. Is that right? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 10:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*{{Userlinks|Darker Dreams}} has slowed their editing since the partial block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1169870190#User:Darker_Dreams_reported_by_User:CorbieVreccan_(Result:_Blocked_from_article_for_a_week) for one week for tendentious editing / edit-warring] to focus on [[WP:forum shopping]]. But
*{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has been editing the [[Witchcraft]] articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones. While so far the ones I've seen seem OK, I am still concerned, with the history of aggressive POV pushing, personal attacks (see diffs above and block log), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft this exchange about being patient while revert-warring] that this could result in many different article to watch, and that over time the POV push will return on multiple fronts. I'm waiting for someone to say, "AGF!" ... we're way past that at this point. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:CorbieVreccan also has a tendency to exaggerate. I've made several already existing witchcraft articles more robust ([[Asian witchcraft]], [[European witchcraft]], and [[Witchcraft in Latin America]]); but I've only created one, [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]], not "many". [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You have proposed new articles for multiple sections on the page. The templates have a link to discuss on the main talk page (which is now hugely cluttered and difficult to navigate, with an ongoing RfC), but I did not see any section set up to discuss more forks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I'm not talking about forks. I'm talking about regional coverage, which is half in place. I think all but one of those links go the the target article talk page. I guess you haven't actually pursued discussing them. The exaggeration is something you and Darker Dreams have in common. You should find a way to work together better. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Skyrise's edits to witchcraft daughter articles are mostly connected to this discussion: [[Talk:Witchcraft#Article length]]—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You restored [[Neopagan witchcraft]] from a redirect, challenging a previously uncontested merge from 2017, which did effectively create a child article. [[Draft:Witch (archetype)]] and [[User:Skyerise/sandbox/Witch (archetype)]] appear to be a partially done spin off. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|Witchcraft (traditional)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|Witchcraft (diabolic)]] were also created, but I don't know by whom because they were then deleted. [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] is also relevant, though it was created by Darker Dreams. Not weighing in on which of these should or shouldn't exist, but there's definitely been some effort to spin off articles, one of which was determined at AfD to be a POV fork. Further move/split proposals were made at [[Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 21:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Not sure what my drafts have to do with anything. It's not a "spin-off" of anything. It's missing coverage. I'm undecided whether the material can stand on its own or should be merged somewhere, or where. The others were created by Darker Dreams, not I. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"that this could result in many different article to watch" how does this not read as "make it difficult for me to [[wp:own]]" which is the core complaint I'm making. Also of note, the "forum shopping" arriving here is exactly what several of the arbitrators said should have happened when declining that request. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::How? Well, because the core of your complaint is unclear and poorly-structured, for the reasons I explained above. So, no, you have not established a coherent basis for WP:OWNERSHIP, which the quoted passage does not necessarily presupposes. That said, I don't see how it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING if a declined arbitration request was the only previous forum (I presume you prematurely jumped to arbitration before exhausting all other options, like here). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It wasn't DD's first forum.
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Darker Dreams posts same text he used at Arbcom, and here, at ANI at Edit-warring board on July 23, 2023]
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1167132878 Darker Dreams files "Witchcraft" at Dispute Resolution board, July 25, 2023]
*:::* Then ignoring the DR and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&oldid=1170296610#RFC_on_Lede_Section_on_Witchcraft RfC] in progress,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft/Draft_RFC&diff=prev&oldid=1169459771] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics files same text from 3RR at Arbcom on 13 August 2023]. This is in addition to long rants with large overlaps in text on multiple talk pages and XfDs. Please see the uninvolved editor statements about this in the filing.
*:::* And here we are at ANI for round 4, not including all the casting of aspersions in edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::That's right, mediated dispute resolution wasn't exhausted, but was interrupted, and {{u|Robert McClenon}} [[Special:Diff/1170464920|complained]] about this, saying: "ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to [[WP:ANI]]." —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Huh. Well, that's not good. Prior DR attempts ought to have been provided in a clear way by the OP, rather than partially and half-hazardly, within unmarked (untitled) diffs. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I am somewhat involved with the [[Talk:Witchcraft]] discussion, but not deeply so. While I won’t go into content issues here, I will address some of my observations of behavior. One of the main problems with the discussion is that some editors, in particular Darker Dreams keep taking things personally and reacting emotionally. IMHO, it is more productive here to take a detached view, as it helps to maintain a NPOV. WP goes by what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions or belief systems are.

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

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

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

:To my mind, this is the very definition of tendentious editing, [[WP:TEND]]. Their behavior has been a huge, [[WP:TIMESINK|time-sink]]. It is my opinion as an editor that Darker Dreams should be topic blocked from all articles dealing with witchcraft. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I am also involved in the dispute, but also not very deeply perhaps. In connection to the above, I believe that editors should also be aware that, during the dispute, Darker Dreams created three spin-off articles, two of which were deleted: I find it quite noteworthy that one of them underwent A10 deletion ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|AfD]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Witchcraft+%28diabolic%29 log]); another was AfD'd as a POV fork ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|AfD]]); the third one is [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] article, and it has problems to put it mildly. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:I have a question about what the OP, [[User:Darker Dreams]], is requesting. What administrative action are you asking for the community to take either against [[User:CorbieVreccan]] or against anyone else? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:The only administrative action that I see proposed in this thread is that Netherzone has called for a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] against Darker Dreams from the area of witchcraft. Is there any connection between [[witchcraft]] and [[boomerangs]]? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:: The decorations on boomerangs and other Indigenous Australian artifacts often carry spiritual and symbolic significance. These designs and patterns are more than just aesthetic elements; they can convey important cultural, spiritual, and ancestral meanings. The decorations on boomerangs can indeed be considered as magical or spiritual symbols in the context of Indigenous Australian cultures. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 07:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Support''' boomerang topic ban. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' while a couple of article creation attempts were misguided, DD also produced a nice {{Template|Witchcraft sidebar}} which aids navigation between the regional daughter articles under [[Witchcraft]]. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::So? if I create an incredibly useful template on [a topic]but i act like a jerk on [topic], does that protect me from being Tbanned from [topic]? [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149|2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149|talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Also '''oppose boomerang''' as a mostly non-involved party here. While I admittedly haven't been following the whole saga super closely, I haven't really gotten a sense that DD in particular is a problem editor separate from the general [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] attitude going around here. (I do wish they'd let the DRN process work itself out before going to drama boards tho, I really do think taking this to ANI so quickly was counterproductive.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Strong Support''' for topic banning DD from [[Witchcraft]] and all related articles, broadly construed. Would also like some administrative action taken against Skyerise for her [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, chronic incivility, poisoning of the well, vicious personal attacks and casting of aspersions. I offered a diff above of her calling me a "POV vandal" for normal editing, a phrase which the DD account also used in attacking me and Asarlaí, and you can see her constant jabs on this page. She has been just as [[WP:OWN]]y on these articles as DD. As shown in the diffs I offered above, she is the one who coordinated tag-team edit-warring with Randy Kryn and DD. She is very capable of playing nice for a while, but then reversing it all later and, like above, claiming things she did a month ago (or longer) don't count. She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account, and is clever at gaming the system. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I must object to the [[WP:ASPERSION|aspersions]] cast by CV suggesting that I have abused multiple accounts. I have never edited with any other account, though before I created this, my one and only account, I edited as an IP for a few years. My original user name was "Yworo", I went through the official process to have my account renamed. That's it. If CV thinks otherwise they are welcome to open an SPI case. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''SUPPORT''' a topic ban for Darker Dreams. I'd also '''support serious consequences''' for Skyerise who has been a very [[WP:Tendentious|tendenious editor]] in all of this, including personal attacks, incivility, and casting aspersions about CorbieVreccan and others(e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1171067924 "CorbieVreccan has a tendency to exaggerate."]). She also has a pattern of insinuating that any admin or editor who disagrees with her is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1171058252 either incompetent or has ulterior motives.] I don't have the time or energy tonight to provide more examples/diffs but if anyone wants to look at [[Talk:Witchcraft]], they can probably be found. I have past experience with Skyerise's particular technique of wearing down other editors by a combination of bullying and misrepresentation. Cheers, [[User:Mark Ironie|Mark Ironie]] ([[User talk:Mark Ironie|talk]]) 01:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Do be sure to click through that link labelled "either incompetent or has ulterior motives" - neither accusation is supported by what I said there. Also, I invite anyone to test the ironic assertion that more (sic) examples could probably be found "if anyone wants to look at [[Talk:Witchcraft]]", I invite them to do as MI suggests: go ahead and review all my comments on that talk page. I have, and I found that they are all polite, detailed logical reasoning about content matters. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 11:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' and would ask that all editors stop this merry-go-round and concentrate on removing language at [[Witchcraft]] which sinks to the level of accusatory language brought by the anti-feminist witchhunters of the past. When Wikipedia repeats, in Wikipedia's voice, the absurd claims of those who murdered tens of thousands of women by accusing them of things those women knew nothing about, it focuses on the spin of other-hate rather than on the involved topic. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' sanctions on {{U|Skyerise}}. They have made '''many, really useful improvements''' to [[European witchcraft]], [[Asian witchcraft]], [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]] (which was quite sensibly split from the Asia article, as the Middle East and Asia are two very different domains), and [[Neopagan witchcraft]]. As a result of this, and her eye for fine detail as well as a good view of the broader picture, [[Witchcraft]] itself is being improved. It's not at all right to drag her through the mud here. I'm also sad to see that the dispute resolution process failed due to DD's jumping the gun and mistakenly taking the issue to ArbCom, but I'm glad to see the RfC about the lede that nevertheless came out of the DRN. [[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]] + [[User talk:Esowteric|Talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|Breadcrumbs]] 14:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Page blocked for following [[WP:DENY]], without warning, in contentious DRV ==
{{atop|Consensus tending broadly towards:
#Aman reverting the sock being okay, per policy/guideline/essay
#AB reverting Aman being okay
#Aman's subsequent edit warring not being okay
#Cryptic's block of Aman being not okay, if done purely based on his reverting the sock; and being broadly okay, if done due to Aman's edit warring (which presumably was the case)
#General okay towards lifting of the indefinite block put on Aman by Cryptic

Given the above, with due regard to all comments by editors here, I am lifting Aman's block. In case any administrator wishes to overturn this closure, you may please do so without my permission. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

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

*This sock came back to start [[WP:DRV]] at '''19:53,''' on 17 August‎.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170885872]
*The sock got blocked for evading his block at '''09:42''' 18 August for block evasion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141].
*At '''10:06''', I closed the DRV per [[WP:DENY]], [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE]] and [[WP:SNOW]] because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729]
*Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151]
*From '''17:40''', I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
*At '''17:55''', my close was now reverted by a different editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041589] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV]
*Now 20 minutes later, at '''18:16''', I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171044510]
*Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171045480]

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

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

:See:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17# Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:The AfD’s initiator, [[User: Aman.kumar.goel| Aman.kumar.goel]], an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171035962][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766], then speedy closed, then told @[[The ed17|The ed17]] he closed since there were no objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171042082].
:If you look at this AfD’s [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history edit history], you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.
:Now he’s going after @[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] here at ANI.
:My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay]]
:**currently underway
:**Upadhyay authored Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
:**[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ved_Prakash_Upadhyay&action=history edit history]
:I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.
:—~~<~ [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "{{tq|Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven}}" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]].
:::There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 per the version of the DRV which I closed]. That close was perfectly valid per [[WP:DENY]] and [[WP:SNOW]].
:::You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&action=history]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.
::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 the version of the DRV which I closed]. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Aman, there you go again.
::::::You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.'' [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766 diff]
::::::Clearly duplicitous behaviour.
::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171039766 This edit which you are citing] appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=next&oldid=1171039766] It is not same as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 this edit] (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Dympies|Dympies]], please explain these diffs:
::::::::Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::::::::His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::::::::After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::This is irrelevant to your false claim that {{tq|"You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.''"}} Don't shift the goalposts. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of [[WP:HOLES|holes]]. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::How? The DRV was started [[WP:DENY|by a sock]] and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I’ll also note that [[WP:DENY]] is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:DENY]] cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It isn't an excuse to make [[WP:INVOLVED]] closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an ''essay'' is doing no-one any good. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:
:::*First:[[Special:MobileDiff/1171039766|you delete my oppose]]
:::*Then: [[Special:MobileDiff/1171039834|you close the DRV]]
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Kusma}} The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A [[WP:DENY|sock can be reverted by anyone]].
::::{{ping|Cryptic}} The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 nobody who opposed the closure]. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] reverted you.
:::::You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] reverted you twice.
:::::After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.
:::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041039] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412 AfD] as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Ping {{U|Bishonen}}, {{U|RegentsPark}} and {{U|El C}} since they are familiar with the area. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

:I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Illegal? In what jurisdiction? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.
*:I ''do'' care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.
*:—20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*:There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and ''really'' should not have gotten into an edit war over ''either'' of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I agree with {{u|Kusma}}. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Isabelle Belato}} I had already started the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV here] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#Don't here]. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy [[Wikipedia:Involved]] and the explanatory essay [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closures]] are clear: "{{green|''Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes.''}}" Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse {{u|Drmies}}' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]] 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Recommend 1RR restriction'''. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious [[WP:DRV|DRV]]. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that [[User:Aman.kumar.goel]] was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that [[User:A. B.]] also is in good faith requesting [[WP:DRV|deletion review]], so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear [[WP:IDHT]], and I think Cryptic got it spot on. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*{{ping|RegentsPark|SportingFlyer}} But I had already stopped reverting on DRV before the block was made since I was discussing elsewhere about it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV] I was obviously not planning to resume reverting but the block came without any prior warning and in middle of the discussion. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.
:{{U|Cryptic}}'s use of [[WP:ROLLBACK]] against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] These actions are not in the line with [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK|the blocking policy]].
:Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.
::@[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] please explain how the following is “good faith”:
::*Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::*His next edit was to close the DRV:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::*After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] your criticism of [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]]’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. [[WP:DENY]] is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::*@A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, [[Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures|you have to first consult]] the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOTBURO|judicial body]] so your use of the term "{{tq|illegal}}" is misleading. It is correct that [[WP:ROLLBACK]] says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "{{tq|disingenuous}}", "{{tq|disingenuousness}}", "{{tq|duplicitous}}" across this thread, you have already put yourself into [[WP:NPA]] block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Cryptic}}, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
* Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]], which ''is'' policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in ''opposition'' to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a ''closure'' myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) '''However''', BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted ''once'' by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. ''wanted'' to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It's covered in the fourth bullet point. I've made such closures myself (though not recently, and I don't think it's worth going and looking for a diff). But the point is to minimize disruption and wasted editor-hours, and the closure attempts here did the precise opposite in both respects. It's not like the discussion was ever in any danger of giving the ip what they wanted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see [[WP:IAR]]) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than [[WP:EVADE]] or [[WP:BANREVERT]] or indeed, [[WP:DENY]]. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::[[WP:BANREVERT]] is a site-wide policy, and it would be improper to sanction an editor for enforcing it. DRV [[WP:LOCALCON|cannot make itself immune]]. There is no excuse for reverting the restoration by an editor in good standing, though. At that point, policy [[WP:PROXYING|considers]] the thread to belong to whoever restored it, so unless they're violating some other policy, it's valid. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Not only is [[WP:INVOLVED]] also a site-wide policy, the block was not levied because of WP:BANREVERT. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You are wrong because the BANREVERT is among the reasons behind blocking in the words of Cryptic; "early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171057849] [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Lucky that's among the reasons. If it was the sole reason for the block, IMO that would be a serious enough administrative error that we should be contemplating an arbcom case. [[User:Cryptic]], [[WP:DENY]] is site-wide policy. Please learn it if you want to continue to be an admin. If you're unwilling, please hand in your tools voluntarily under a cloud and save us the hassle of a future arbcom case when you ignore [[WP:DENY]] in circumstances where a block wasn't otherwise justified. DRV regulars, we have enough problem areas as it is. Please '''do not''' allow DRV to become another one since it serves a useful purpose. If you continue to ignore site wide policy, we may have no choice but to shut down DRV and look at other ways of handling deletion reviews which doesn't allow the development of an insular [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] board that has developed a culture where sitewide policy is ignored is. Such a thing is '''completely unacceptable''' so it's not something we should allow to continue. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::P.S. Since I'm a nitpicker myself, I should clarify it is [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] and [[WP:SOCK]] which are policy which is what I should have said instead of [[WP:DENY]]. Remember that [[WP:3RRNO]] even makes it clear that reverting a sock or evader doesn't count as edit warring. For further clarity, I'm aware that Aman Kumar Goel started to edit war against non socks, that's why I said there was other reasonable justification for the block. My point is that it's well established that block and ban evaders are unwelcome here, and editors are very welcome to remove their disruption no matter whether they're technically [[WP:INVOLVED]]. It's something that all admins, and frankly all experienced editors hoping to contribution useful to DRV should be well aware of. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{EC}} I should clarify I have no specific opposition A.B. restoring the discussion if they felt it had merit (as opposed to restoring it since they thought what Aman Kumar Goel did was improper). However as Aquillion's said, the sock's comments should have remained struck. And it might have been better to simply start a fresh discussion untainted by a sock if there was little useful to support the case A.B. wanted to make. It's complicated since older participants may feel they already addressed A.B. points and there was no need for them to remake them. OTOH, as we've seen at ANI and elsewhere, when we leave open threads started by known socks, there can be dissatisfaction with the result which lasts a long time and generates more AN//I threads and I see no reason to doubt the same could happen at DRV. Note that IMO if there have been good faith contributions, unless you're absolutely sure the people who made the comment doesn't mind, it's generally better to archive etc rather than to delete a pointless discussion started by the sock. While it is cleaner to simply delete all sock nonsense, we do have to consider the feelings or other editors who might be unhappy with their good faith contributions being deleted. If it's a small number of contributions you could ask for permission but if it's complicated just strike and close/archive. Anything else risks increasing disruption from the sock (which could be what they want), not reduce it which should ultimately be our goal. Perhaps my final point, I think we need to be clear why BANEVADE matters here. This case is complicated by the fact there were other comments even if they were almost universally in opposition to the sock. However, from what [[User:SportingFlyer]] has said, it seems to me they think that if a sock S opens a DRV then editor E who was involved in the deletion cannot speedy close this discussion even if there are no comments besides sock S. And this would apply even if editor E noticed this sock (before or after the report, it doesn't matter) and reported sock S to an admin or CU who agreed and blocked sock S as a sock. This is not in any way acceptable, and DRV need to get with the programme, or risk being shut down. Socks and their contributions are unwelcome, and so there is no harm in removing them, involved or not. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], this is the language at the top of the [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition]] (“WP:DENY”)
:*{{tq|” This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, ''nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines'', as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”}}
:[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] did not violate any policy. It is inappropriate to say he should hand in his tools. Clearly outside a small group of editors, there is wide support here for Cryptic’s actions.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::@Nil Einne: If I can squeeze a word in edgewise through the edit conflicts?{{pb}}[[WP:DENY]] is not site-wide or any other sort of policy [I see you acknowledged that afterwards]. It doesn't say anything like what you seem think it does. What actual policy has to say is that editors can reinstate the edits of blocked users if "[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Proxying|the changes are either verifiable or productive '''and''' they have independent reasons for making such edits]]", which I think we can all agree A. B. has done. And a selective quote out of context - when the context is on this very page, even if it's not visible in the linked diff - doesn't make something true. You want to know what I blocked for? You could look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAman.kumar.goel&diff=1171044961&oldid=1170966010 what I said I blocked for].{{pb}}Look. I don't usually participate in reviews of my administrative actions - if they can't stand on the reasons I stated for them, they probably weren't justified - but ''this'' I cannot allow to stand. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|A. B.}} Yes I linked to the wrong pages. I already acknowledged that. Also you and [[User:Cryptic]] seem to have misunderstood they key point of my comments. Aman.kumar.goel was edit warring against non socks. For that reason the block was justified. But this in no way shape or form justifies any misunderstanding of policy on the part of an admin. Socks are unwelcome to edit here. Editors can remove their contributions without concern even when they are involved. As I said in my clarification above which I unfortunately only finished after you two posted, this is very important thing that needs to be understood from this discussion. Since if we put aside the case which involved good faith contributions and editing warring, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor removing the contributions of a sock even if you are involved. Any admin needs to know this. It doesn't matter if you're at DRV or anywhere else. It's deeply concerning that from Cryptic own comments here at ANI (which I read before my first reply), it sounds like they do not understand this. As I said, their block was justified for other reasons, so I'm not suggesting an arbcom case would succeed which I said in my first reply before any edits. But the fact remains an admin who is so seriously misinformed of policy is surely going to make a mistake in the future and so needs to either quickly learn, or yes should just hand in their tools. Putting Cryptic aside, SportingFlyer definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy and thinks some localconsensus at DRV override sitewide policy on BLOCKEVADE. If another editor wishes to reintroduce the contributions of a sock, that's fine provided they are doing so because they feel they have merit. It is however unacceptable to restore the contributions simply because you don't think the editor had any right to remove them because they were uninvolved or because of some local consensus at [[WP:DRV]]. Note that I am not saying this happened here, I mentioned it just because it is important to understand the key issue namely there is nothing wrong with removing the contributions of socks. Ultimately I remain deeply concerned that SportingFlyer, and probably Cryptic seems to think some localconsensus at DRV means discussions can't be closed by an uninvolved editor when they clear can be in certain circumstances as they can be anywhere else. Note also that in the case of a talk page discussion, it's well accepted that sock contributions can be struck and discarded. Good faith replies from non socks shouldn't be. However the net result of this is if another editor agrees with what a sock said, they should reintroduce these points, preferably in their one words rather than trying to fight the striking of sock's comments. (This doesn't apply in article space of course.) P.S. One reason why I'm so concerned is SportingFlyer kept insisting there is effectively some local consensus at DRV which prevented the application of BLOCKEVADE which is well accepted by regulars. This was greatly compounded when I read Cryptic's clarification of their block linked by Orientls above when they seemed to ignore the important points. (Was the editor a sock because if so Aman Kumar Goel involvement and DRV's localconsensus was irrelevant as to the basics of removing the socks contributions. How Aman Kumar Goel handled the good faith contributions of others is a reasonable point of discussion. Aman Kumar Goel editwarring is not, it was wrong. I don't see anyone who has questioned this except for maybe Aman Kumar Goel themselves.) Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Of course I don't think local consensus at DRV overrides [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. Do you really think I'm arguing socks are welcome there? The entire problem here started because an [[WP:INVOLVED]] non-administrator closed the discussion, and the prong that they closed it under even notes that generally these are "administrative closes." If they had just struck the sock's comments, we'd be fine. If they had asked an admin to close early, we'd be fine. If they hadn't reverted after it was reopened, we'd be fine. But you've completely mis-interpreted what I'm arguing, and considering you've said that I "definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy" and were yet incorrect in even understanding what I was arguing, I'd like it if you offered an apology. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 21:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{EC}} I see Cryptic themselves has pointed out above SportingFlyer is simply wrong as DRV speedy closure guidelines implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of closures for BANEVADE reasons "{{tqi|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations}}" Given this, it seems Cryptic must understand that a local consensus at DRV cannot override BANEVADE or SOCK so I no longer have concerns over their understanding of this fundamental point. However I've re-read what they said above several times and stick by my original comment. It was very unclear from what Cryptic said that they said that they understood this important point namely that if the editor was a sock, removing their contributions in as reasonable a manner as possible was fully justified no matter involvement or DRV guidelines. Which given the presence of other good faith contributions was complicated so we can debate the best way to do so, but not the fundamental issue namely that socks are unwelcome so involved doesn't matter, DRV guidelines notwithstanding. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::In case there's still any doubt, even if an editor W in good standing reverted solely for an invalid reason e.g. saying editor E should not close a discussion started by and who's sole contributors were sock S (or maybe editor E too) when it was already established sock S was a sock, editor E should not get into an edit war with editor W. At most, I'd argue a single reversion by editor E of editor W's reversion combined with a polite explanation on editor W's talk page might be okay. Any further than that barring further specific consensus would almost definitely be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As always, if you find yourself needing to edit war against an editor in good standing unless it's [[WP:3RRNO]] (which would apply to the sock edits themselves but for good reason isn't generally taken to apply to the restoration of sock edits), then just don't. As annoying and dumb as it may seem, get the consensus first. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Nil Einne]] writes: {{tq|Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point.}} I think that I am one of the DRV regulars, but I think that I don't know what the supposed rule at DRV is. I am not aware of a local rule at DRV about early closures. <del> It is true that early closures at DRV are rare. I don't think that is because of a rule. I think that is just the way it is.</del> So what, if anything, is the issue about the culture at DRV? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A DRV was just early-closed. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I see why there is confusion about whether there is a local consensus at DRV about early closures. [[User:SportingFlyer]] has misinterpreted a notice. SportingFlyer wrote: {{tq|There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned.}} It is true that DRV lists four DRV-specific speedy closures. It doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. Besides, the fourth speedy closure is a catch-all: {{tqb|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} I would say that an appeal by a sock has no prospect of success. Anyway, the list doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. So SportingFlyer made an easy-to-make-mistake. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm looking at this from the perspective of a non-administrative closer. If I went to see if I ''can'' close a discussion early, I'd look at the four reasons why. The fourth is written: {{tq|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success...these will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} It ''can'' apply to a sock's nomination, but as a non-admin, even if a sock had ''started'' a discussion, there's no way I would read this and think, oh, I can ''close'' this discussion on my own. I think the "administrative close" bit is key. (Note I have closed DRV before, as someone involved, after the closer withdrew their nomination, and no one else had opposed at that point, with the express note anyone could revert the close.) [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Probably me, as I tend to do those @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]]. I firmly believe IAR applies to most situations, and when I close it's because it's a clear human error (Poast) or headed to XfD anyway (the KPop redirect) so we don't need 7 days of bureaucracy. If those are out of process, I'm absolutely willing to stop but it has never been raised. On this specific DRV, I think it can be closed but it should be by someone else besides A.B or AKG, both of whom have had their say. I'm definitely not wading into the minefield though. [[User:Star Mississippi|Star]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|Mississippi]] 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I would never close a discussion I was involved in. I also personally think potentially contentious discussions should only be closed by admins since they are community-vetted in RfAs.
:::::::::--[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Star Mississippi]] - I am not entirely sure what I was pinged about. I was trying to defend DRV by saying that, in my experience, it doesn't have a local consensus that overrides policies. SportingFlyer said that there are four provisions for early closure at DRV. Yes, and two of them are straightforward (withdrawn by filer, or reversed by closer), and one is itself sort of [[WP:IAR|IAR]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' - It can be argued on the process, but the DRV has a snowballs chance in hell of actually convincing anyone. Started by a sock, on an article that was clearly non notable, with keep votes not based in policy - It would be impossible to convince any reasonable editor that the close was wrong. That was reflected in the votes there.{{pb}}This is an area with a lot of disruption, particularly by POV socks. The major issue here is that the block was more punitive than preventive, since no ongoing disruption was taking place. A reminder to editors in this discussion, who seem to have forgotten this - "They did something wrong, we should punish them" is not the standard at Wikipedia. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to punish things that are perceived as (potentially, in this case, controversially) disruptive. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Good block''', but limit the block to 7 days. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' bad block. The entire issue emerged with uncommon understanding over closing a unanimously opposed DRV which was started by a ban evader. It is clear now that Aman.kumar.goel was correct with closing it. Had A.B. and Cryptic recognized it, then there would be no issue. Yes Aman.kumar.goel edit warred but so did A.B. and Cryptic as rightly noted above. Starting with A.B., he had unilaterally reverted a correct closure 2 times with false impression that the sock was a legitimate user given their removal of [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE|sock-strike]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] A.B. clearly refused to stop reverting it even after being told about the right procedure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Cryptic has abused rollback for making 2 reverts and he provided explanation for these reverts hours after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] I am not seeing any justification for this behavior. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 13:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' per above. Edit warring to revert closure of a filing (by sock) is meaningless. Socks are not allowed to evade block. We warn even vandals but there was no warning for the OP. Cryptic was himself edit warring with the OP so I don't think he was qualified to make a block in the first place. Chronology of the events tell that the block came in middle of an ongoing discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&oldid=1171044139#Re:Close_on_DRV] thus it was not preventative. It is safe to say that if Cryptic had reported OP on a appropriate noticeboard then the report would be unsuccessful. [[User:Azuredivay|Azuredivay]] ([[User talk:Azuredivay|talk]]) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Endorse but lift now''' - a good (partial) block; "I know it's a sock" doesn't justify involved edit-warring for a procedural discussion, and the page-ban was appropriately narrow. But now the socking is confirmed, and the DRV is approaching SNOW close support; there is no longer a need for the block. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as a bad block per [[WP:BANREVERT|policy]]. As noted above, socking is expressly included in the [[WP:3RRNO|exception]] to 3RR. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|SN54129]] 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Bad block'''. It's a rule that requests from socks should not be entertained. The difference in opinion had to be discussed. Therefore, the use of block buttons was unwarranted. [[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 20:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Footballrelated ==

{{user|Footballrelated}} has been blocked three times for making unsourced changes to BLPs (raised at ANI previously) - yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filip_Sachpekidis&diff=1171035846&oldid=1164999562 is still at it]. I suggest an indef. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:An explicit inline citation would be preferable but the change is supported by two references in article, [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ Worldfootball.net] and [https://int.soccerway.com/players/filip-sachpekidis/297031/ Soccerway]. I haven't looked into their other recent contributions, that diff alone is not a blockable offence to me though. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{ec}} The items removed aren't specifically reffed, and while I'm not familiar with worldfootball.net's (the [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ first ref on the page]) reliability or practices, they seem to say he's indeed no longer playing for that team - compare their entries for [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/paulo-vinicius/ three] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/georgios-nikas/ current] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/david-grof/ players]. If Sachpekidis ''did'' leave the team, then - obviously - it would have been better if Footballrelated said and sourced that in their edit instead of just removing the infobox items and the currently-plays-for statement from the lead, but I honestly can't see how their version of the article so much worse than yours that it merits a block. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::GiantSnowman acts a little ruthless in the pages he "owns". He blocks without hesitation EVEN if the edit is correct.
::My concern is that he can edit the changes himself, yet he doesn't do it.
::I don't think Wikipedia needs an authoritarian figure like him. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That isn't called for. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Robby.is.on|Cryptic}} this is about an editor with a long history of making unsourced edits to BLPs who doesn't seem to give a damn about sourcing or verifiability. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Also Soccerway does not say he has left - WorldFootball (a stats database) does. That is not sufficient sourcing. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::There was already a source in this specific article which comfirms my edit.
::::Most, if not all, of the articles related to footballers have a reference which leads to their profile from a football page, like Soccerway or WorldFootball.
::::Your job is not patrolling and terrorizing editors while you could make the change in this article all by yourself before all this drama occurs. [[Special:Contributions/178.59.44.56|178.59.44.56]] ([[User talk:178.59.44.56|talk]]) 16:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::And neither is that. I get that you're upset, but tone it down. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::At no point, until you read the edits from Robby and Cryptic above suggesting WF, did you suggest that you used WF to make the edit in question. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|you could make the change in this article all by yourself}} That is not how Wikipedia works, Footballrelated. The [[WP:BURDEN]] is on you to make sure the changes you make are verifiable. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::As i said already, footballers articles have almost always a reference which leads to their profile bios, also he doesn't allow transfermarkt references, which are more accurate to the already existing ones.
::::::None of my edits are misleading or vandalism.
::::::GiantSnowman owns many pages which he doesn't edit by himself at all.
::::::He feels the urge to block people, i cannot do anything against it.
::::::It's up to you [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:Verifiability]] is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Many of the changes you make are not verifiable. You have been told so many, many times in recent years, and not just by GS. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've looked at their [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107#User:Footballrelated|prior]] trips [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120#User:Footballrelated, again|to AN/I]]. But what we have right ''now'' is the removal - not addition - of statements to a BLP that, per the refs already in the article, appear no longer to be true. Even if they were only right ''by accident'' this time, that's not blockable. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Fransson&diff=prev&oldid=1171189170 Another unsourced edit yesterday], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sotirios_Kokkinis&diff=prev&oldid=1171037299 another the day before], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vangelis_Kerthi&diff=prev&oldid=1171037020 another], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paraskevas_Doumanis&diff=prev&oldid=1171036868 another]. This is not a standalone or one-off issue. This is somebody who has been blocked THREE times before for these same types of edits. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::'''Support indefinite block''' Fransson's move is supported by the Soccerway reference in the article. The moves of Kokkinis, Kerthi and Ntoumanis are not supported by references in the articles. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::OK, ''those'' are actionable. I'm not going to be the one to block - scroll up a bit and it should be obvious why - but, particularly given the recentness of the three-month-long block for the same behavior, I agree an indef is now warranted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Fine, you won.
::::::Consider my opinion about giantsnowman, though.
::::::Bye [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}I've removed the external link to an attack page from FR and blocked indef. Quite enough of that. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 16:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support Community Ban''' - The combination of this editor's history of adding unreliable information to [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] and subsequent personal attacks on editors who caution them and clean up make this editor a net negative who does not appear to be willing to learn. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN:''' Yeah, I'm up for this as well as a failsafe against appeal. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]]'s racked up ''years'' of warning and multiple blocks over sourcing issues, and no one can claim he hasn't been warned and warned and warned again. It's just that he doesn't give a damn, just refuses to do it, and seems to believe that his edit count immunizes him against bothering. (Why not, after all ... for how many years did that premise suit the likes of Lugnuts just fine?) Toss in his frequent incivilities and that's just the crust on top of the road apple. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Really? A CBAN? I mean, '''Support''' while we're here, but that's definitely overkill. The account is indeffed. We can talk about a CBAN later if they keep causing problems, but it really seems [[WP:NOTBURO|bureaucratic]] to go there right now. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 16:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Golden Mage, various personal preference cosmetic edits, disregard of [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] and complete lack of communication ==
{{atop|Resolved for now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{user|Golden Mage}} has repeatedly been asked on their talk page to stop unnecessarily changing between usage of [[MOS:OXFORDCOMMA]]S, changing links against [[WP:NOTBROKEN]], indiscriminately removing red links etc. Instead of addressing the issues or even responding to people raising them, they ignore everyone and continue along the same lines, often making several miniscule edits inserting their preference of oxford commas and changing links. These unproductive edits fill people's watch lists and I'm not convinced Golden Mage is a net positive with their contributions if they refuse to discuss the problem. Pinging @[[User:FutureFlowsLoveYou|FutureFlowsLoveYou]] @[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] and @[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] as others that have also recently brought up these issues as well as @[[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] who created a report on this board about the same editor in January.

The best outcome here would be Golden Mage finally responding and communicating that they understand the issues, if they do not administrator action may be needed. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:I dont know entirely, but there is a part of me that wonders if they're a sock of [[User:Kung Hibbe]], the infamous [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] user. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s&diff=prev&oldid=1171372442 Well, they're still doing it.] Not a word of communication. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::And we know they've found their talk page as they've previously blanked it (their one and only user talk edit.) [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]], cross reference [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo]]. This has simultaneously spread to different venues. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 05:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Sorry for tipping this but I blocked Mage with some advise on their talk. Tamzin can upgrade this to a CU block if so is confirmed. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] Do you have a link to that earlier report? I honestly forgotten that I did so. [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 02:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Stonewalling and POV pushing in the [[Aghlabids]] article ==

Some users, mostly @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] and @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], have been [[WP:STONEWALLING]] the [[Aghlabids]] page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia (as well as most of Southern Italy) is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR]) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1084612896&diffmode=source editing it after a consensus was reached] and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the [[Talk:Aghlabids|talk page]] where I explained why:

:The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "''The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab '''occupation of Sicily''' that was to last more than 250 years and '''raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy.'''''" They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

[https://imgur.com/9pG8l2l This is page 24, that contains both the original map and the text], and [https://imgbb.com/BsFK5qp this is page 12]. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] is using the argument that the OR map it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1150169317&diffmode=source allegedly partially supported by other ones] (''near-identical'' ones), which is [[WP:SYNTH]].
The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. I've already brought this issue to the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|appropriate noticeboard]] some time ago, but it was ignored (you can see the last revision before the topic was deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1153574063 here]), and then I dropped it for a while because work and some personal issues didn't leave me a lot of time for Wikipedia, but since the discussion was reopened by another editor I think it's time to bring it here. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 19:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*The arguments presented by Prazeres and M.Bitton on [[Talk:Aghlabids]] appear to be justifiable inference from cited sources, policy-wise; there may be room for rebuttal with other arguments and sources, but they don't appear to be prima facie egregious OR. A more appropriate response to this dispute would have been to open an RfC and make the case for your preferred map, rather than lobby for a behavioral sanction. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Raided and conquered areas, while in the original map are showed differently, in the one used in the article are all painted the same. That conveys a completely different message. Especially combined with the refusal to explain it better in the description, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source this comment] (why refuse to add that single word, and keeping the explanation only inside the less-visible note, otherwise?), it seems to me like a POV-pushing problem as well. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes|Infoboxes should "''summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article''" and should allow the readers to "''identify key facts at a glance''"]], but in this case it tells something else, and there is no intention by the editors to try and fix it. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:This is of course another content dispute. When this issue came up at the article in April 2022, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] and [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] were discussed in detail [[Talk:Aghlabids#Inclusion of Sardinia to the map|on the talk page]] and multiple editors with different views came to a consensus. Some other editors (including L2212) have since tried to unilaterally change the article in favour of one POV, circumventing [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus-building]] by edit-warring (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aghlabids&action=history&offset=&limit=500 article history] in September 2022 and August 2023) and by attempting to replace or delete the map image directly at Wiki Commons (see [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aghlabids_Dynasty_800_-_909_(AD).svg&action=history the file page's history]). Contrary to what L2212 implies, M.Bitton and I are not, in fact, the only ones to have reverted these attempts. But the repeated assumptions of bad faith (which this report exemplifies), the constant disruptive editing, and other [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] responses have made any further attempts at productive discussion incredibly frustrating and circular. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::The consensus was reached for a version of the article that was immediately changed after it and ignoring it (by M.Bitton), so accusing me of breaking it when that had already happened makes no sense. And the productive discussion was made impossible by the double standards used while taking into consideration the different sources, the refusal of recognizing a clear error in how the map was adapted even after the original was shown, and especially the lack of civility in the discussion, starting with M.Bitton's tone and "ultimatums" (that way of debating alone deserves a discussion here) and your condescending tone (against both me and other editors). Also I've already wrote that you were not the only editors involved in my first paragraph here, so I don't know what are you accusing me of with your "''Contrary to what L2212 implies''". I mentioned you because you are the one whose behaviour needs to be addressed here. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 22:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That's a lie and you know it all too well (the talk page is there is prove it). As for the rest: coming from a disruptive SPA with a clear nationalist agenda, it can only be taken as a compliment. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Yes, the talk page is there, and it proves that you changed the article right after Floydpig and Dk1919 had agreed on a revision. Also, coming from you, the accusation of having a nationalist agenda is pure projection. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:User:RussBot]] is malfunctioning ==

Bot is making incorrect edits to hat-notes of people named [[Bob Quinn]] or variant thereof. Bot incorrectly assumes that [[Bob Quinn (disambiguation)]] is the direct dab link but it is not, the correct link is just [[Bob Quinn]], the other is a redir. [[User:Groupthink|Groupthink]] ([[User talk:Groupthink|talk]]) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:<s>I'm not inclined to block RussBot just yet, because the hatnote it's editing shouldn't exist per [[WP:NAMB]]. Pinging [[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] to see if this is a one-off. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)</s> nevermind, there's an exception per [[Wikipedia:Hatnote#Similar proper names ("For other people named ...")]]. Steppin back from this one :) [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 22:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::I've tagged the dab page with G14 (it only had one link coming in altogether outside its mention here), which should solve the issue. '''[[User:MrSchimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|chatter]])'' 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I'll let someone else make the final call on the speedy, as I'm not familiar with G14 in practice, but bullets 1 and 2 don't seem to apply because it's a redirect and bullet 3 doesn't apply because it points to a dab page. From the rcat, it looks like a ton of similar pages exist. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 21:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::G14 does not apply to that redirect, so I have removed the tag. The bot's edits were correct and should not have been reverted. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.66|192.76.8.66]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.66|talk]]) 22:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::'66 is correct. Every DAB page which does not have a (disambiguation) qualifier should be targeted by a redirect which does and which is tagged {{tl|R to disambiguation page}}. (Other redirects to DAB pages should be tagged {{tl|R from ambiguous term}}; links to those are also logged as errors.) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:The bot is working correctly. Links to disambiguation pages should always be routed through pages ending with (disambiguation), even if the base page does not end with that title, see [[WP:INTDAB]]. Linking directly to the page "Bob Quinn" is tagged as an error that needs fixing. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.66|192.76.8.66]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.66|talk]]) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{+1}} -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{+1}} See also [[WP:HOWTODAB]], which is consistent with INTDAB. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 09:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{+1}} The bot is not malfunctioning; this is the intended result. --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 21:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Tekosh ==

{{userlinks|Tekosh}}

In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114063700 "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely."]. These were the two attacks they had made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114060793] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114062843]

Unfortunately they did not heed this warning. After that they first started editing again on 18 August 2023, where they continued this conduct:

#At [[Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius]], they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilan_Ye%C5%9Filg%C3%B6z-Zegerius&diff=prev&oldid=1171028203] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilan_Ye%C5%9Filg%C3%B6z-Zegerius&diff=prev&oldid=1171115455], despite it having no relevance ([[MOS:ETHNICITY]]) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
#Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Hanifa_Dinawari&diff=next&oldid=1171252513]
#This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gomada&diff=prev&oldid=1171357145 '''That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related.''' I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.]. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

[[WP:NOTHERE]] if you ask me. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:My friend as I mentioned multiple times (you should have included those statements also) I am new here and didn't know about the edit rules. You're right about the part where I should've started a discussion instead of editing the document directly and I have done so. About the ethnicity part, I still don't agree but I don't want to start a discussion about that here. We can use the article's talk page to discuss it and mention sources. Thanks. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your willingness to discuss issues (as opposed to [[WP:MASTADON|acting like an angry mastadon]]) [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Whether you agree or not is irrelevant in this context. In Wikipedia we follow [[WP:RS]], not the personal opinions of users. You don't have to be a veteran user to know not to alter sourced information and direct quotes of authors, or make random attacks. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:Their sole aim seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. They also appear to think that ethnicity matters – see [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#New_here_-_in_the_middle_of_a_discussion|this]] fruitless discussion. A classic [[WP:ADVOCACY]] issue: they wrote {{tqq|We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong.}} I wrote back {{tqq|Ethnicity isn't important. You need to move on.}} [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|HistoryofIran}} I have given them a ctopic notification. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Tekosh}}, thank you for taking the time and patience to engage in discussions here. Essential: Please read up [[WP:PILLARS]], [[WP:NOT]] and most importantly, [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. That should make you understand that it's not truth that we are striving for, but to document what reliable sources mention (even if you believe reliable sources are wrong). The facts that you are engaging here and are a new user, are the reasons you are not being blocked (To be clear, what you wrote at [[Special:Permalink/1171471351#New_here_-_in_the_middle_of_a_discussion|the Teahouse]] is enough for blocking you)). Please feel free to ask editors for clarification and support -- always go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if I were to suggest strongly -- stop editing pages related to the contentious topic you are currently engaged with. It will not do your tenure any good, if you continue to get slighted by reliably sourced material contained within our articles. To conclude, read up the pages I referenced above and do please confirm you understand them, before you start editing or engaging with other editors. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another [[WP:NPA]] towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gomada&diff=prev&oldid=1171357145]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Hanifa_Dinawari&diff=prev&oldid=1171438436]. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|HistoryofIran}}, hope you are well. It might be prudent for you to sit back for a bit and allow administrators to wait for Tekosh's responses. Of course, to new commentators such as me, it is fine to repeat the points you are making. It's just that we would want to hear from Tekoshi, and not repeatedly from you. Thank you for understanding. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Dude, thanks for your nice message. I appreciate it a lot. I have learnt a lot just in the past week from peeps like yourself.
::I will abide by the rules and try to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to have my reliable resources ready when I discuss with people here.
::But quick question to you as you're showing genuine interest in helping me: What do you exactly mean by stop editing those specific pages? Do you even mean not even contributing to the discussion? I will not edit for sure but I would still like to talk about my resources and why I think they are reliable as well. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] forgot to tag you. :) [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Tekosh}}, thank you for the response. I would suggest that you cut yourself completely off from this area. No articles, no discussions. This is only a voluntary step I am advising. Also, please confirm if you have read the policies listed under [[WP:Content policies]]. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks I have read the [[Wikipedia:CONTENTS]]. History of Kurdistan is my passion and to a degree my profession. I am mainly on Wikipedia because of that, I hope you understand that I can't simply just cut myself completely off from that area. But for a second, I will focus on my main specialty which is math and physics. :) Thanks again for the comments. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Tekosh}}, sorry for belabouring this. Have you read the policies documented at [[WP:Content policies|this link]]? If yes, which ones have you read? Thank you for your patience in answering these queries, but it is important for us to know whether you rightly understand verifiability and reliable sourcing. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I have read many including: [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]], [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]
:::::::Things make more sense now. I will be active within those guidelines. Thanks. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== Pornographic vandalism on article. ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Sorted. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]][[User talk:Waggers|''TALK'']] 08:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

Started with this revision, a few restorations later by a few different users. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luna_25&diff=prev&oldid=1171471316 [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Protected now, though bans/blocks, page revision strikeouts, and a review of the offending image might be needed. It's graphic. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:This is not the first instance of vandalism from that IP range; see also: {{diff2|1170746488}} {{diff2|1169265306}} {{diff2|1161342361}}. There are also several [[WP:REVDEL]]ed edits. [[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. The image is hosted at a seperate WMF project, IP: [[Wikimedia Commons]], which is, like, 10 percent porn. Not much can be done about that. Also, their admins are generally not fond of admins from the English Wikipedia, which makes collaborating on enforcement challenging to say the least (and they especially dislike me, but I wear it as a badge of honour). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ctop|Tangential discussion. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:::I had no idea there was a feud between Wikipedia admins and Commons admins — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 11:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It is un-spoken, but I slaughter [[sacred cow (idiom)|sacred cows]] on the regular, so fuck it! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Can you elaborate a bit on the feud? [[User:Northern Moonlight|NM]] 17:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: I suspect that expanding on the attitude of some Commons admins to some of that website's more unacceptable images may end up crossing a legal boundary on libel. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::: Out of sheer curiosity, and because this vandal seems to have chosen their target for optimum traffic today, what was the image? Description or link: I'm no shrinking violet. ;) ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::A POV close-up of a man wearing a condom (suprisingly) having sexual intercourse doggy style with a woman. Pretty boring image but utterly inappropriate. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, so probably some bored adolescent titillating themselves, rather than a more longterm committed troll. Still, given their targets, a range block might be appropriate? Or was that part of what El_C's <nowiki>{{done}}</nowiki> was about? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 21:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Btw, the image description mentions how the woman photographed was making cat noises or some shit. Which is real fucking educational, minus the educational. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od|3}}
Part of what's going on is that (as someone -- [[User:Iridescent|Arid Desiccant]], perhaps? -- once observed) Commons has long been the English Wikipedia's penal colony, to which its convicted felons, and those otherwise disgraced or disgruntled in some way, are transported. So it's a bit of a wild west. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 22:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'll bear all of this in mind the next time I have a photo of a rare tree frog or graph of a metabolic pathway deleted off of commons because of a misplaced comma in the license description. Good to know that we can't have images useful to WM educational purposes without meeting the most stringent of licensure conditions, but we can serve as a webhost for thousands of images of fellatio, so long as the people who took them really, really wanted us to have them. ;)

:Actually, I'm exaggerating my ire and my position: I understand the reasons for our (and Commons') standards and (mostly) support them--at least as far as what is removed, and maybe a bit less so as to what is kept. But it does work some peculiar outcomes sometimes. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cbot}}
::I'm curious if revisions {{diff2|1170746488}} {{diff2|1169265306}} could also be looked into and suppressed as mentioned above. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::It seems {{u|Ingenuity}} has already revdel'ed those revisions. The /20 range responsible for those has also been temporarily block. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 00:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you so much. I think we're done here. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 03:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== JohnEC Jr and [[Talk:Jesus]] ==
:{{userlinks|JohnEC Jr}}
Looking for advice and recommendations here regarding an emerging incident.
* User made additions to [[Jesus]] on June 18 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=1160835950&oldid=1160605290] to add a fringe theory by [[Scholem Asch]] that "the resurrection was a mock event" and requires the Gospels to be reinterpreted. This theory has no traction or even mention amongst reliable sources or experts in the field. These edits were quickly reverted by other editors.
* User correctly took the topic to Talk on June 19 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1161012397&oldid=1160373878] to discuss. This is when the problems started.
* During the discussion, multiple editors pointed out problems with the edits: that Asch is not an expert, that the theory is [[WP:FRINGE]], and that it was unclear what changes the editor actually wanted to make short of simply repeating the theory in whole cloth. (I believe) final state of the discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=1165431126]
* During this time, in at least one case the editor attempted to redact other editors' comments, and was warned against doing so. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1162806126&oldid=1162769462]
* Editor also started the same topic, with same opening text, a second time while primary topic was still open. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1162754466&oldid=1162753581]
* Discussion continued until roughly July 10. Editor attempted to undo an archive bot to keep the topic open [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1164787148&oldid=1164784151], but with no active editing of the topic, archiving was ultimately allowed. At this time, other editors' responses were unanimous that the content did not belong in [[Jesus]] per WP policy and guidelines.
* Editor posted exactly the same opening statements on August 20 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171288706&oldid=1171134031], reopening the discussion. Again, editors' responses have been unanimous against inclusion, and for the same reasons. Again, editor attempted to redact other editors' statements [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171482511&oldid=1171481932], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171484945&oldid=1171484778]. Yesterday, editor made an accusation that recent edits in the topic were due to "unprofessionalism, rudeness and racism" on their personal Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnEC_Jr&diff=1171485470&oldid=1171485000].

This is a new editor, and edits on other pages have generally been constructive. I believe they genuinely are here to build and improve WP. However, their behavior on [[Jesus]] and [[Talk:Jesus]], and more recently on their personal talk page, are concerning. It appears that the editor simply does not want to take no for an answer, posting content that they like despite a unanimous voice of multiple editors opposing them based on WP policy; further, the accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to, also go beyond the pale. (Accusations of "rudeness" may be fair: however, I at least am growing tired of repeating the same WP policy on at least three occasions and being ignored - sometimes redacted.) As an involved editor who has tried to guide this new editor, I am seeking advice on a constructive way forward. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:As a final note, I should comment that the "racism" accusation is especially perplexing, as neither I nor any other editor are even aware of the editor's race or background, and I wasn't aware Asch was Jewish until another editor pointed it out. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[WP:BITE]] applies. But, the user has a serious problem with sources. A past example.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Camino_de_Santiago#The_Peace_Movement] Also an attitude problem with editor interaction. This isn’t all that unusual on religious articles where people believe what they believe. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed on both, especially [[WP:BITE]]. Definitely looking to guide, not silence, here. I don't believe further direct interaction by me would be helpful; constructive guidance by uninvolved editors might be. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Looking through their edits there's very little idea about proper sourcing etc. While there's BITE, there's also quite a stubborn unwillingness to listen (not just at [[Talk:Jesus]] but elsewhere). Btw, their top 2 articles edited are (the late) [[E. C. John]] and the latter's father-in-law [[Hans Ehrenberg]]. Given the username, they may or may not need COI guidance too. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 15:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Good point. A user with name JohnEC Jr editing [[E. C. John]] and a relative of the same does make one wonder. I was suspicious of the same but have no objective evidence. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Despite the potential COI, I have not found any particularly concerning edits on [[E. C. John]] or [[Hans Ehrenberg]] by this editor, other than potentially unsourced / irrelevant material which is minor. Others are welcome to look. [[E. C. John]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._C._John&diff=1113079196&oldid=1092660210], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._C._John&diff=1155656098&oldid=1147371415]; [[Hans Ehrenberg]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Ehrenberg&diff=1170677547&oldid=1158898502]
*This is a poorly-formulated report wrt evidence. Same with the replies. Not a single [[WP:DIFF|diff]]. No link to the user being complained about. Instead, obvious links like [[WP:BITE]] or [[Jesus]] are repeated. Both OP and respondents (several of whom are veteran editors), in future, please try to make it easier for reviewers so we could just click directly. Anyway, I'll add userlinks to the top. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:My apologies. I will go back and add relevant specific diffs when I have time - probably later today. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::NP [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]]. Here's what I recommend you do. You mention above about {{tq|accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to}} (emphasis added) — add a diff about the racism accusation, and if the comment is lengthy, also excerpt the pertinent sentence. Additionally, add a diff or diffs to any redaction of others' comments on the article talk page (their own user talk page does not count, they are allowed). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks! I believe the relevant diffs are now added. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I have indefinitely page-blocked JohnEC Jr from [[Jesus]] and [[Talk: Jesus]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 01:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Because of his attacks on Cullen, I've blocked him outright and removed talk page access. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan (talk)]] 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. I'm saddened that that was necessary but in light of the latest edits, it is the best course of action. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This may warrant ongoing monitoring. The user created an obvious sock, [[User talk:JohnEC Fa|JohnEC Fa]], then immediately resumed prior behavior. (The sock is already indef banned.) Were they to demonstrate an abrupt change in behavior they would be welcome back. But so far, they have not. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 12:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== In the news discussion of [[Lucy Letby]] ==

I am frankly amazed by the comments being made in the discussions, which are essentially anglophobia, and anti- UK sentiment. The discussion is chock full of personal attacks from multiple editors, the discussion is at points nothing to do with the nominated ITN candidate and the whole discussion is incredibly toxic.

This needs to be looked at as this is a poisonous discussion and there is a lot of bad behaviour on display and a lot of what amounts to anti-English sentiment.

*[[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#August_21|Sentencing nomination for Lucy Letby]]
*[[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#August_18|Conviction nomination for Lucy Letby]]

A selection of comments are like this which are very hostile to the UK and by extension UK editors and contributors:
#"But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron32 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)"
#"Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)"
#"This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- RockstoneSend"
#"Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)"

There is a genuine loss of good faith assumptions here and the whole discussion is not collaborative in nature, amounts to simply voting by a large number and is very combative to the point of it being simply a battleground. None of which benefit the encyclopaedia and none of which help get new editors involved and dissolutions existing editors.
[[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 22:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:The really sad part is that these two discussions are barely even outliers. I've about given up. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::(I do want to note that - taken in context - [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]'s comment isn't hostile to UK editors; it's hostile to editors that are hostile to UK editors.) —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::ITN is, by quite a long and obvious way, consistently the worst quality feature on the main page and ITN discussions are a sinkhole of appalling behaviour. It's inexplicable why it continues - but it does and it's untouchable. Just one of many Wikipedia mysteries. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::This sounds like a good opportunity to point out that [[WP:Today's Featured List|Today's Featured List]] runs twice-weekly in a dusty corner of the main page, when the list of FLs-never-on-TFL is substantially longer than the list of FAs-never-on-TFA and if given a permanent big four slot would have plenty of material for years. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidal]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|prophet]] 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm beginning to wonder if we're at the point where arbitration is necessary. Everybody seems to be in agreement that ITN/C is uncivil and toxic, but in all the times I have seen it brought up, nothing ever gets done. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm having trouble picturing what an Arbcom decision that fixes it would look like. Honestly, just putting it out of its misery is the only answer. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Concur, as a longtime watcher from the sidelines there. Not sure what (if there are) any solutions are, though. [[User:Connormah|Connormah]] ([[User talk:Connormah|talk]]) 23:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I dunno. It would probably help to summarily ban some of the worst actors from the area or perhaps from Wikipedia as a whole, and to authorize sanctions over the page in general (instead of just part of one side, like we already have with [[WP:AP2]] - I haven't been able to decide whether it's good or bad no admin's been willing to enforce it on ITNC). Though I'll admit I've also been mulling starting a proposal to just remove ITN from the main page. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Not to say I support the tone, phrasing, or even the majority of the sentiment in these comments, this commentary comes on the heals of a premature posting of this story in a short period of time regarding an event of questionable sustained impact for which many of the initial support votes simply cited high coverage, which is something that is always a tenuous main reason for supporting given such a concept is debatable in it's criteria, and I think it's fair to argue that this story is more of a passing one to the non-Brit population. And this story comes on the heels of several contentions death blurb nominations, such as the Michael Parkinson one. There is a growing discontent with inconsistent blurb procedure and bias in particular at ITN (which I think is very much present and certainly not limited to UK-related stories, but Western ones broadly speaking), and more and more dubious nominations and questionable postings recently have really put people off. And I hate to say it, but Fakescientist is fairly close to the truth here, even if not right on the money. If such a murderer had been active in a non-Western country, we probably wouldn't bat an eye, mostly because Western media in general doesn't give a **** about what happens outside of the West under most circumstances. For example the Mahach Kala gas station explosion would probably have been posted had it happened in, say, the US, the UK, etc. Personally, I think Jayron not assuming good faith is the real violation here. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Having long observed (and remained extremely reticent to participate in) ITN discussions, it seems there are factions of American and British users who are convinced that the other represents a critical mass of regular users who routinely shoot down nominations involving news from the other country. This in effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because many such editors then get extremely prickly when an item involving the other country is posted, or are more inclined to support nominations from their country in response. Add in the ''inherent'' tension of ITN discussions—major, real-world tragedies being callously reduced to their "notability"—and it's a recipe for the brutal and toxic environment that's festered on that board. [[User:Sunshineisles2|Sunshineisles2]] ([[User talk:Sunshineisles2|talk]]) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:These...don't really seem particularly egregious? Is it not normal for ITN discussions to evaluate the global relevance of a topic? We get far worse characterizations of groups of editors at AfD every day. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::In theory, global relevance should not be a major feature of discussion, as [[WP:ITNATA]] says that "arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful." But it's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry into actual discussion much. [[User:Sunshineisles2|Sunshineisles2]] ([[User talk:Sunshineisles2|talk]]) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Delete ITN already ... [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*Two things. 1) You really ought to ping the users whose comments you quoted (I will do it for you, in a moment). 2) I ''really'' don't think my comment was hostile to the UK or its citizens, and if it is being interpreted that way, I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intent. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 03:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Rockstone35 informed me of this discussion. For context, I am one of the more conservative users on ITN. My record reflects contrarianism; going against the grain is the strongest vote a user can have. Supporting a nomination that which only falters in article quality is an unnecessary vote and detracts from work I could be doing elsewhere on this site. The sentiment here that ITN is Anglophobic and anti-U.K. is an egregious exaggeration of ITN and this particular situation. Before detailing why I wrote that comment, I should take the time to inform users on ITN's environment and why consensus opposed the Lucy Letby nomination. ITN is a partisan forum because it relies on personal points of view and biases to generate discussion. ITN reflects both its users and the news. The definitions of both have changed; the 2010 Stockholm bombings were posted but would likely not be today, as was the authenticity of ''Sunset at Montmajour'', the posthumous royal pardon of Alan Turing, AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV, the conviction of Abu Hamza, and the encyclical ''Laudato si{{'}}''. At one point, ''Pokémon Go'' was temporarily added to the ongoing section. In recent years, ITN has shifted to a global focus, driven by Wikipedia's global reach, and it is conversely facing pushback from younger and newer users who believe ITN needs to reflect their perspective.
:The Lucy Letby nomination was opened and attracted plenty of attention from British editors who believed that it was notable on the basis that they had heard of Letby. The discussion was closed very prematurely before being pulled because it was U.K.-internal news. The nomination wasn't pulled because of Anglophobia—I'm American, as are plenty of people here, and I have no issue with British editors—but because it was only relevant in the United Kingdom. Editors often cite the second rule of [[WP:ITNCDONT|ITNCDONT]] but neglect to see its purpose. A train derailment in Pakistan is exceptional for what it is. A woman murdering seven infants is a horrible story but only exceptional because the United Kingdom rarely has such stories. I wrote the comment in the way that I did not because I felt that it was vengeful, but because I felt the need to state what I was observing. A focus on stories from one particular country is much to be avoided regardless of which country it is. The U.S. happens to have this issue to a much larger degree because it is a larger country, but ITN has molded to reject any mass shooting with less than a dozen deaths.
:ITN is valuable because it provides readers with an accessible ticker to which they can click on individual stories, and it provides a running obituary where editors seek to improve articles on people that would otherwise go untouched after reflecting the past tense. Dismantling the system presupposes that toxicity is rooted within ITN itself when it is the juxtaposition of ideas that is breeding conflict. The increasing use of hidden archive templates is not a promising sign for ITN's longevity, but this period of disagreement will subside. Editors need to be vigilant and respectful; fortunately, Wikipedia has systems for the former and punitive processes when the latter is not represented. In a worst case scenario, I would not be opposed to the enforcement of contentious nominations à la [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics]]. Ultimately, editors who are meek and understanding will be met with respect on ITN. Such respect wanes when editors choose to be obstinate. This is not a flaw of ITN in particular, it is a flaw in humans. [[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him) 05:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::We’ve had our disagreements before, but I can’t succinctly and clearly sum up the situation any better than you have spectacularly done so. Brilliant comment.
::This arb case is a gross misrepresentation of the system, and in attempting to accuse users of supposed Anglophobia it almost seems almost to bolster the concern of pro-English bias. [[User:The Kip|The Kip]] ([[User talk:The Kip|talk]]) 07:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::I was accused of anglophobia despite being British! Just horrible environment. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 09:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

* Firstly, I’d like to second Rockstone’s comment regarding not pinging those who have been mentioned on ANI, as it’s typically normal procedure to do so. Secondly, I’d like to take the time to point out the fact that my comment (and some of the others) were meant to take aim against U.K.-based items frequently being posted, not the UK/its people/editors on Wikipedia from the U.K. Thirdly, the item in question was regarding a nurse who had killed seven babies. Horrifying? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely, and I’m not trying to downplay its affect on the families or the general UK populace - but if seven people would die in a tragic event like this in someplace like China, or India, or Australia, or Canada, or any African nation, or even the U.S., then I feel as though consensus probably would not develop to post those items to ITN, unlike how it happened here. Regardless, I can confirm that my comment had no intention of wishing harm or bringing anti-U.K. sentiment to ITN, and if it did end up being interpreted to mean that, then I apologize, as I personally have nothing against the U.K. or its people. Cheers, ''atque supra''! [[User:Fakescientist8000|Fake]][[User talk:Fakescientist8000|scientist]][[Special:Contributions/Fakescientist8000|8000]] 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I believe there is no intended maliciousness, bigotry, or anglophobia in your comments FS. I suspect everyone here can readily take you at your word as to that. But here's the problem: ITN has become habitually (and I mean in pretty much every single one of it's day-to-day determinations) disconnected from any of the normal policies which govern how much weight to show to a given topic. Large numbers of the regulars there routinely oppose entries along "X country gets enough attention in the world already." rationales. Even though ITN's own inclusion criteria clearly advise against this kind of argument, it is absolutely omnipresent: the last four times I've been RfC'd or otherwise passed through ITN in the last few years, the majority of the proposals had comments that were constructed exclusively around this sentiment. In if it's not objection based on geography, it's some other personal, idiosyncratic objection as to why the subject isn't "really" important, when you think about it. {{pb}}Now, that's all problem enough in itself, from a content perspective, but the real issue is that because the space has become so completely unmoored from any objective, source-based test, it is an absolute hotbed of subjective sentimentality, and all the usual value-based flame wars that define so much of the open forum of the internet. You see, the precise reason we have an [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]]-based test as the only kind of metric of "importance" on this project is to short-circuit those kinds of arguments based on personal perspective, by tethering our determinations of inclusion to an analysis that takes the personal perspectives of our editors out of the equation.{{pb}} ITN lacks that objectivity, and so instead there is a constant cultural tug-of-war there based on the values and biases of the individual contributors as to what is "significant" (that is to say "important" enough to mention. As a consequences, it has become without question and without even a remotely close competitor, the single most consistently toxic, disruptive, and unmanageable space on the entire project. And for the record, I am including ANI and AE for comparison. I'm sure there are many there who, like you, have no particular hate in your hearts for the residents of other countries, but many of those same editors nevertheless are clearly on a self-appointed mission to fight systemic bias, one ITN candidate !vote at a time, and that only further inflames the issues there, actually elevating the overall levels of bias, and the pitched battles that result, in the space as a whole.{{pb}} And I know for a fact that these issues have been raised there many times, and the regulars have failed to heed community concerns or make even the most marginal efforts at reforming the space. So bluntly, the cost-benefit ratio for the project has been in the red for many, many years, and I agree with others above, it's time to cut this diseased appendage of the main page off. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::I think everyone can acknowledge that many votes are nonsensical in their rationales, which harms the process, but calling it a diseased appendage is absolutely absurd. The real solution is to just empower admins to be more decisive on not counting unproductive votes, which is already policy but I'd certainly support it being followed even more strongly. And it's quite clear, I'd say, that the "significance" issue is a broader one throughout Wikipedia, where no one gives a you-know-what about [[WP:DELAY]] and posts an article on anything they THINK might be notable. [[WP:ITN/R]] attempted to codify certain events considered as automatically notable, but itself faces issues, none bigger then [[WP:CCC]]. And I absolutely understand your concerns regarding the tug of war between nations at ITN, but I would say a lot of this is derived from media bias itself, which explains why not just US or UK news, but both dominate ITN at any given time. I think it's policy that should be revisited here rather then taking a TNT approach. We can't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, which is what every proposal regarding changes to ITN seems to be. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Someone make a VPP proposal already.''' I'm ready to !vote to close ITN once and for all. I have held out hope for years that the space and its processes could be reformed to work consistently with this project's policies and values, but it's never happened, and the talk pages associated with it have been a chronic source of disruption and toxicity, as well as a recurrent drag on community attention and resources that far exceeds the value our readers extract from the feature. Not withstanding the "for all" above, perhaps we can relaunch it in the future with tighter constraints and a more objective basis for decisions made in the space, avoiding the kind of culture war nonsense that currently defines its daily arguments, but I don't think it's possible while it remains live and functioning as it is. Please, please someone competent construct the proposal, and notify me when it goes up. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Yep we should get rid of it, it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd say keep the "recent deaths" but for the rest, if people want to edit WikiNews then they should go and do so; [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]] and WikiNews needs more contributors.
*:Just to correct @[[User:Fakescientist8000|Fakescientist8000]]'s comment, the Letby saga isn't a case of a nurse killing 7 babies. She was convicted of 7 murders, with 5 more counts potentially going to retrial and might have been responsible for many other deaths that weren't part of the court case. It was Britain's longest ever murder trial and probably the UK's biggest instance of serial killing in the 21st century. But none of that takes away from the point that this story seems to be of limited interest outside the UK. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]][[User talk:Waggers|''TALK'']] 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::(1) The toxicity of those debates is in the eye of the beholder; they're not that bad.
*::(2) If the real problem is that US readers don't want to read UK news stories, can't we have regional variants of ITN that display depending on your geographical locale?
*::(3) Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway? Don't they belong on newspapers? Encyclopaedias are supposed to provide information on a very wide range of subjects of lasting interest, while ITN is about providing information on a very small number of things that are interesting in this precise moment. Diametrically opposite aims. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Elemimele}} The purpose of ITN has always been to encourage the improvement or articles or the creation of new ones. Regionalizing it would be difficult and imperfect. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway|q=yes}}: There is some background at [[Wikipedia:In the news]]. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::If paper encyclopedias had the text information of over 100 Britannicas like Wikipedia does and also as much image information as Wikipedia and were as up-to-date as Wikipedia (they'd have to be magic like Harry Potter newspapers) then they'd definitely have an article on things by the time they reach ITN. Encyclopedias have simply moved on. Britannicas also had yearbooks for each year and every few years or so articles were rewritten before they became too out-of-date, Wikipedia is simply a more advanced version of that. [[User:Sagittarian Milky Way|Sagittarian Milky Way]] ([[User talk:Sagittarian Milky Way|talk]]) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*I have come to think ITN should be more like Recent Deaths, with much less room to object on notability or newsworthy grounds. I don't know the specifics on how that would work so I've never offered a proposal, but there is too much voting on, in essence super-notability. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:And some cite "[[Wikipedia:Systemic bias|systemic bias]]" to discount what is actually in the news so that it is not posted on "In the news". —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My thinking largely aligns with 331dot. Focusing our efforts almost entirely on improving articles and not worrying about some "extra notability" hurdle to clear to make ITN would improve the working environment immensely. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::If I recall RD was trialed before being fully implemented. We could trial whatever changes are made(like removing supernotability discussion somehow). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:That's pretty much just Current Events. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Yes, and? --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Yes and what? Current events already exists, therefore there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I think therein lies a problem. The current events portal is an easter egg currently. Multiple attempts at fixing that have failed. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 01:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Make VPP proposal to mark ITN historical''' and start the discussion about what to replace it with. It cannot be saved. We recently tried banning problematic editors; they were quickly replaced. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I disagree that saving it is impossible, but even if what you suggest is done, Recent Deaths could just be expanded to fill that space. No need to come up with something else. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::The problem isn't with what kind of text is on the webpage. The problem is the people. Anyway, this is a discussion for the pump. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::I'm with Lev on this one: if salvaging anything like ITN on the main page is going to be feasible in the longterm, I think it's going to need to happen by TNTing and rebuilding from the ground up. The issues have been as apparent from inside the rotting building as from without, and yet I have observed nothing there except deeply entrenched commitment from most of the regulars to their self-presumed right to judge the abstract "importance" of events from a personal and idiosyncratic basis, with all the inevitable clashes of perspective, values, bias, and personality that entails. Not one in ten of the regulars even abides by ITN's own proscriptions on arguments, and those are the rules they ostensibly all agreed to among themselves, once upon a time! Fixing from within the space is obviously a non-starter, and I expect that even a reformatory process at VPP would become an absolute quagmire of conflicting outlooks (and probably no shortage of surly offense that we are trying to take away the right to decide for the main page's half million daily viewers what, in all the world's happenings, is important enough to know about.{{pb}} No, much more sound for the community excise the problem altogether and then have a second, even deeper conversation about whether to replace it with something similar, and make the stakeholders buy into the process of building (and thus internalizing) new, more objective, and less disruptive rules for moderating the processes. Doing this piecemeal will only lead to cloudier revised standards that many will just avoid comporting with, to the maximum extent possible, in order to try to preserve their old standards, expectations, and methodologies, with all the entitlements as arbiters of the important that they currently enjoy. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Others have said points I would make (this far from what has more uncivil behavior in the past; that the issue of these noms stems from the rapid posting based primarily on UK editors' !votes,leading to the national aspect issues). But this case epidemic of the broader issue that we broadly are violating NOTNEWS. There are a contingent of editors that create news ates on any event no matter how insignificant it is. And I think some of those also want to push ITN to be more on line with headline news, rather than the original purpose of feature high quality articles that happen to be in the news. This has created a rift of how ITN should be handled, which has been discussed at length on its talk page but without agreement on any solution because of this divisive rift. And that I don't know if we can fix without addressing the broader NOTNEWS issue, pointing editors to Wikinews if they want to focus on current events and keeping our focus on encyclopedic topics, some which will be news studies with clear enduring coverage. [[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::That is largely fixed by focusing on ''currency'' rather than newsiness. If we are only concerned with the recency of an event, and on the quality of the Wikipedia coverage of the event, we don't have to worry about if the event is "newsworthy", merely that it's something that's happened recently (so is broadly "in the news" in the most general sense) and that we have a really good article about. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment I'''' {{ping|PicturePerfect666}}, there's literally no Anglophobic sentiments in the quoted comments, with the closest being Jayron's, which, if we're using these standards, was rather anglophilic - he was attacking the "anti-UK" side. As stated, most of them were not out of hate for the United Kingdom, but more over the perceived bias towards British stories, especially when compared to American stories. The immediate [[WP:ASPERSION]] casted upon the listed users should frankly warrant a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] on the part of PP666. By that logic, every anti-US-centrism on ITN is Ameriphobic, which, considering some of the statements that have been made in that department, would hold more weight, but still be largely generalizing. — [[User:Knightoftheswords281|'''Knightof''']][[User talk:Knightoftheswords281|'''theswords''']] 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::Please refrain from making personalised comments, these are unhelpful subjective observations on your part. What you may consider to be something interpreted subjectively one way. may subjectively be seen by others as something else. Please also do not post threatening comments which amount to a SLAPP-style comments of <blockquote>"The immediate WP:ASPERSION casted upon the listed users should frankly warrant a WP:BOOMERANG on the part of PP666."</blockquote> What you are failing to see is that the comments are exemplars used to illustrate a point, not attacks on the commentors, and by you making a SLAPP-style comment you are having chilling effect on participation and raising issues. You cannot bring up an issue like this without examples and the only examples available are comments made by users of Wikipedia.
:: 
::Before you state 'legal threat', it is not. I am simply drawing an equivalence from the legal world which fits.
:: 
::Please withdraw your comments which are an attack on my motives for posting this item. your comments are also an attack on posting this kind of observation, and it can cause and does have a chilling effect cowing people from raising these issues. Also before you come back with No no no how dare you, these are my subjective opinions of your subjective opinions on my posting of this item. I am not attacking you, simply pointing out my subjective observations.
:: 
::I am not saying posters get immunity, but the way you have come in and stated what you have is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and is not in anyway constructive. Again this is also my subjective opinion. It is also in my subjective opinion emblematic of the toxicity that is on ITN/C. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 21:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I mean, you just labeled at least four users as Anglophobes; literally stating that they think ill of the United Kingdom and the like for simply opposing a British story. That's essentially what you said above, which is very much an [[WP:ASPERSION]]. — [[User:Knightoftheswords281|'''Knightof''']][[User talk:Knightoftheswords281|'''theswords''']] 12:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Question''' - Would there be some way to turn over this small section of the main page to Wikinews? (See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikinews]], [[m:WikiNews]], and [[n:Main_Page]].) I mean, we have a whole project dedicated to this, with [[n:Wikinews:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] and everything. And I say this noting that I kinda appreciate that I can read ITN occaisionally. But it sounds like we're attempting to re-create the wheel in this section? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I kind of like the idea, but there's a tricky cycle involved where Wikinews is...''quieter'' than might be viable (I recall in late January 2021 seeing that it hadn't been updated since the 4th -- "well, good thing nothing in the news has happened since January 4, then"). While big-four attention might help this, it also might result in the preservation of the "extremely slow news ticker" element. Obviously Wikinews would also have to consent. (I still think TFL is a viable big four candidate.) [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidal]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|prophet]] 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Well, that sounds like an opportunity than a problem. Instead of having a "big 4" in a 2x2 grid, put them in a left-side column, and put the Sister projects along the right hand side (NOT hidden), to help inspire/nudge people to go there to read and edit those prohects as well. We don't do third-party ads, to be sure, but we ''really'' seem to do a poor job of advertising our sister projects. And having them buried "below the fold" as it were, on the main page, really seems less-than-helpful. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Respectfully, turning it over to Wikinews(which isn't terribly active anyway) misses the point of what ITN is for(please see [[WP:ITN]]. It isn't to be a newspaper, but to motivate the improvement or addition of articles and highlight them. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::If that's the goal, wouldn't a link to [[:Category:Current events]] do that? [[:Template:Current]] adds articles to a dated subcat. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 16:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::That only tracks recentness, but not quality. Because we are highlighting articles, those articles should represent some of WP's best work. ITN does link to Portal:Current Events for those seeking other topics in the headlines. [[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::It's consistently failing to do that. There was a comment on ITNC recently that stood out to me, opposing a western (I think US [yes, the [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2023#(Posted) 2023 Hawaii wildfires|Hawaii wildfires]]]) news story for being an example of systemic bias. Not because we were considering posting it, but because if it had happened in Mali, then editors wouldn't have gotten it to the quality that ITNC could post it. All the other Main Page sections update at least once a day; lately ITN blurbs have been averaging closer to once a week, and not for lack of sufficiently-improved articles. Of the four bullet points at [[Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose]], we're objectively failing at least the first, second, and fourth. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I don't disagree with your assessment- although Wikipedia is not responsible for bias in the news media; which is why I think removing the ability to object on notability grounds might help. I think RD functions well and ITN would be helped to be more like it. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::The ability to object on notability is the best way to combat media bias. Otherwise you are probably determining eligibility by frequency of coverage, which is the main symptom of such bias. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 01:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Here's an idea to piss everyone off! Toss out DYK and OTD, ''expand'' ITN to give enough room for both the UK- and America-centric news articles as well as a "rest of the world we don't care about unless it's a major disaster" section. Ban all politicians from RD that weren't long-term leaders of countries. Ban any subjects whose activities (during life or upon death) weren't reported on in at least 10 national newspapers of record. Today we have entries on the Shiba Inu Cheems meme dog (most notable topic by far), a captive orca, an Italian opera singer, and a trio of unspectacular American politicians whose names 99.5% of Americans wouldn't recognize and 99.9% wouldn't care about, including an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, a NY senator, and a judge for the middle district of Alabama. (Didn't we recently have a protracted debate over whether Barbara Walters was notable enough around the globe for RD? And yet these people are??) [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::: No, we didn't. We had a discussion about whether she was notable enough for an ITN entry, which is completely different. Every person with a Wikipedia article is notable enough for RD if their article is up to scratch. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Ah my bad, then. Is there not a limit to how many RD entries can be posted at a time, or their geographical breadth, if the only criteria an article has to pass are "not a stub" and "sufficient quality"? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Hi Joelle, I think you misunderstand RD. RD does not assess notability, merely article quality. Thus no matter if the person is [[JFK]] or ([[Special:RandomPage]]), they are considered eligible for posting as long as their article is up to the minimum quality standard ([[WP:ITNQUALITY]]; largely the same as DYK's). The discussion about Walters was if she was notable enough for a death-blurb, which is completely different from RD. Geographic distribution is such a big deal for RD as we can't control who dies and where they are from, only their article quality; additionally as there are only six RD slots (the goldilocks zone, not too few and not too many), RD has a full cycle every day or two if things are running smooth. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:'''Comment II, on the state of ITN''' - I've seen the writing on the wall for months, and I knew it was going to occur; we were finna exhaust the community's patience and get dismantled. Here's my two cents. I, and many others across this mini-project and the broad project believe firmly in the purpose of ITN. If I didn't, I would have left months ago, and if the community hadn't, it would have been dissolved years ago. I personally made it my mission to attempt to reform the processes of this mini-project, and despite several times of complete and utter disillusionment and anger, I've remained and attempted to persist. I am apart of the problem; I can be crass, disruptive, rude, and intolerant on ITN/C; a contagion certainly supported by the rest of the mini-project. My spat with Jayron in the earlier of the listed noms are indicative of this.
:ITN hasn't faced any serious crisis to force reform of the system; compare it to the culture wars in the west, in which critical issues like transgenderism, the role of men and women, work-life balance, dating, etc. are currently unanswered since we're wealthy enough that we can feign outrage over them and self-flagellate over our inherent moral superiority over the opposition, while not actually solving the issues at hand. [[WT:ITN]] has always been amusing to me, since most discussions will feature massive, ''[[götterdämmerung]]'' conflicts over key issues relating to the very purpose of ITN, where dozens massive walls of text will be erected and discussions often escalate into toxicity, only for the discussion to fizzle out after a week at most when everyone gets exhausted and just unknowingly passively accept the status quo and move on to another controversy. Just like how the questions of the culture war will be answered when the coming global crisis occurs, this crisis, where ITN is at serious risk of being deleted altogether, will (hopefully) force serious answers.
:The thing is that ITN often has discussions and guidelines that should prevent the current state of ITN, but these are completely ignored. For example, last year, there was a successful push on [[WT:ITN]] to hat all disruptive comments on [[WP:ITN/C]]. Despite garnering consensus, it has rarely been seriously enforced.
:The issue, I think, is that many on ITN simply are too-conflict adverse in the stuff where conflict is actually desperately needed. I think the story of {{user|Fuzheado}} is a prime example of this. One of the primal examples of ITN's weak-willedness is how !votes on ITN are more or less counted as votes (this is actually a better descriptor than the reality, in which, to keep the illusion of a !vote-based system, if there isn't an overwhelming majority in favor of posting a story, it often won't get posted; meaning that often times, noms have to get a 1/3 minority of opposers to get shut down). Since consensus on Wikipedia is already vague enough, on ITN, many admins when judging consensus simply just choose this system since judging in favor of the posting position will lead to accusations of [[WP:SUPERVOTING]]. Fuzheado tried to unlock this system, but people labeled him as a supervoter and eventually took it to ANI, where they threatened to desyop him, and even went as far as targeting other users in the discussion, claiming that Fuzheado had organized members of the WMF to defend him. Shit like this is why many on prefer to not deal with all the drama and be rather passive on ITN.
:What we need to do is put our foot down. We've agreed on multiple solutions to combat systemic issues, but they never get enforced because people are two timid and want to avoid drama, ironically leading to even more drama in the long-term. ITN's various guidelines are getting ignored because we let them be ignored. As a mini-project, to save ourselves from destruction, we ought to learn to say "no" and take serious action to defend the fundamental principles of [[Wikipedia:In the news]].
:TL;DR: [[WP:JUSTDOIT]]. — [[User:Knightoftheswords281|'''Knightof''']][[User talk:Knightoftheswords281|'''theswords''']] 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::(Unrelated, but just FYI — [[wikt:transgenderism|transgenderism]] is a bit of an outdated term, predominately used these days by anti-trans activists.) [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447|2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447|talk]]) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:: The main problem with Fuzheado was not the supervoting (though this did happen) but the fact that (a) on at least five occasions he posted articles which were not up to scratch, with citations missing, (b) posted articles without sufficient time for consensus to form, (c) on at least one occasion posted an article with BLP violations in it, and (d) wheel-warred to post an entry which he had already voted in favour of. And there were other issues as well, over a long period. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*I have opened an idea lab discussion with some ideas I have to remove notability discussions from the ITN process, it is at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Changes to ITN]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Slightly wider, and thus equally unfocussed, I find myself agreeing with those who think the ITN section has outlived its usefulness. On the plus side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles. On the negative side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles.

I wonder if we could have some sort of crosswiki conference with Wikinews, where we could take their headlines in return for exporting more editors to them? Of course, they are much smaller and might crumple under the weight of the extra new editors, and, with something like 90% of their active editors being in North America, the headlines would be very US dominated.

But an exchange of our new users who think an encyclopaedia is for news for their problems with attracting editors at all could prove profitable for both of our sites if negotiated well.

ITN would have to die for it to work, but, well, I'm okay with that. YMMV. — '''[[User talk:Trey Maturin|Trey Maturin]]™''' 20:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*I think I've come to the conclusion that ITN needs to be put out to pasture. It has long outlived its usefulness. I wouldn't shed a tear to see it go. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*I would disagree with any proposal to abolish that doesn't keep RD (Recent Deaths) alive. RD is working fine, discussions remain cordial and productive, and serves as a great venue to encourage content creation and improvement. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
* I'd oppose any proposal to abolish ITN full stop. Outlived its usefulness? Really? When something big happens one of the first places I look for an overview is Wikipedia (and I know I'm not the only one who does that), and most of the time the relevant articles are linked from ITN - very useful. Anyone saying ITN has "outlived its usefulness" needs to specify usefulness for whom, because they're definitely not thinking from the persepective of a reader. As for ITN/C, it's definitely not perfect but it's the only main page process which isn't hidden behind layer upon layer of instruction creep and bureaucracy, and I think that's a good thing. And I don't believe for a second that DYK and FAC are completely non-toxic and drama-free either. – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 08:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== Mass reverts at shopping mall articles by 174.215.219.158 ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Content dispute - involved editors to thrash it out on a talk page somewhere. No admin action required (yet) [[User:Waggers|Waggers]][[User talk:Waggers|''TALK'']] 08:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

I made a series of about 15 edits to a number of articles for shopping malls. In many of these articles, as part of other edits, lists of tenants were removed, as described at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants]]; while this is not policy, there has been clear consensus on this matter by those editing such articles as part of this project. In many cases, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_of_Prussia_(shopping_mall)&diff=prev&oldid=1171570337 here], the only source provided for the list of tenants was a mall directory. After explaining my edit and pointing out that a mall directory doesn't justify inclusion in an article, this was again reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_of_Prussia_(shopping_mall)&diff=next&oldid=1171573505 here] (and elsewhere), with the claim "This isn't questionable enough to warrant a source".

Every one of my original approximately 15 edits were reverted. The same edit summary of "These are notable for this center" was used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mall_at_Rockingham_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1171572782 here] (and elsewhere), even when no lists of tenants had been removed. Clearly, the editor was just reverting blindly, without ever appearing to look at the edits in question.

I left unchanged those where there was any kind of sourcing, even where the only non-directory sources were local news stories of the variety "New store opens at mall". Every single edit I made that addressed the claim "These are notable for this center" was in turn reverted by 174.215.219.158. In edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danbury_Fair_(shopping_mall)&diff=prev&oldid=1171573828 this one] (among several others), the lists of tenants were restored in the absence of any source, with the edit summary "This isn't questionable enough to warrant a source".

In total, it appears that 174.215.219.158 has made about 30 such reverts to these articles, in every case restoring the status quo, despite other changes being included.

It appears that this editor is unwilling to engage in anything but making reverts. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 00:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Hi I worked very hard on these edits and followed consensus as these are noteworthy stores you reverted. Although many of the articles have references to back up their notability, I also feel that the notoriety of those retailers isn't questionable. I explained this in each revert. You reverted so many articles, that it would take quite some time to find the sources which I'm sure are out there. Wikipedia has "good faith" for small claims such as the notoriety of stores which are supported by the mall directory on their websites already. [[Special:Contributions/174.215.219.158|174.215.219.158]] ([[User talk:174.215.219.158|talk]]) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::This seems like a content dispute. Both of you should use a talk page (either of one of the articles or of the related wiki project) to discuss this issue instead of using edit summaries. I'll say, [[WP:NOT]] applies to the kind of information the IP is trying to add, so I'd suggest they refrain from doing so again. Also, [[WP:AGF|good faith]] is related to conduct, not content. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 01:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I understand and agree. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/174.215.219.158|174.215.219.158]] ([[User talk:174.215.219.158|talk]]) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User Fixthetyp0's sockpuppet allegations over [[Mrs. Globe]] ==

Hello,

[[User:Fixthetyp0|Fixthetyp0]] appears to be having issues with a blocked user named [[User:Australianblackbelt|Australianblackbelt]].

The user states that the articles [[Mrs. Globe]], [[Svetlana Kruk]] and [[Alisa Krylova]] were created by [[User:Australianblackbelt|Australianblackbelt]] for the purposes of self-promotion. I created [[Svetlana Kruk]], so it seems I am now involved in this.

His first attempt at a triple AfD was done here in July:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(2nd_nomination)

The user's second attempt at a triple AfD is now ongoing here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(3rd_nomination)

Can someone take a look at this? I have no idea what's going on with those two, but it doesn't seem like it's accomplishing anything of value and I don't really want to be involved with this.

Thanks, [[User:KatoKungLee|KatoKungLee]] ([[User talk:KatoKungLee|talk]]) 00:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Went and wrote up an oppose on the AFD and I can second that this is a situation requiring sanctions, because Fixthetyp0 for some reason has beef with the aforementioned blocked user and is letting it spill out onto uninvolved pages. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:It seems like Fixthetyp0 is a rather new account with very few edit counts. I do not quite understand why they are having a row with another editor. Is it possible that Fixthetyp0 is run by someone undisclosed? [[User:TheLonelyPather|TheLonelyPather]] ([[User talk:TheLonelyPather|talk]]) 03:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::It should be noted that Australianblackbelt was blocked back in January, before Fixthetyp0 was registered. ABB was a prolific self-promoter for themselves and their friends (and is now globally locked due to doing it on other Wikis as well) however and had many dozens of articles deleted as a result. It's not a bad idea to go back through their other creations and see what else is non-notable. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 12:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::But in this case it is quite evident that these articles are NOT self-promotion. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::No not self-promotion, but possibly still promotional. They seemed to have many contacts in the beauty contest world and would actively promote non-notable entities in that world through one of them, especially anything even remotely related to the non-notable attention seeker Maurice Novoa (who may or may not have actually been Australianblackbelt) who seemed to have his fingers in every beauty contest and attempted connection to every contestant. So I couldn't rule out a connection. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== Gratuitous charts and other disruptions to multiple articles ==
{{atop|{{non-admin closure}} IP {{IPuser2|2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64}} blocked for 2 years by Ad Orientem due to LTA (see {{blocklog|2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64}}).-- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}

*{{user|2603:7000:B500:70D:BC8A:308A:BABE:BB14}}
*{{user|2603:7000:B500:70D:DC73:EA2E:4A32:1DE4}}
*{{user|2603:7000:B500:70D:395B:95D9:B972:9876}}

For example, charts like these: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171387503]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171388923]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Emoji_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171387920]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171387808]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171352405]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171352982]. And adding cn tags, often inappropriately, while simultaneously adding unsourced content: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benchmark_(crude_oil)&diff=prev&oldid=1171590429]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korea_National_Oil_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=1171589860]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171582539]. I like the preemptive cn tags, too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171578350]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Card&diff=prev&oldid=1171567746]. The IP range is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 02:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Oo, I like prescriptive {{tl|citation needed}} tags too. You don't see them much, which is a shame.

:Like sometimes I've got a worthwhile contribution, I'm confident it's true, It's not super important, and I'm confident that there are good sources, I just don't have them at hand personally, or whatever. Or I'm copying a statement to another article that's sourced to a book I don't have. I mean {{tl|citation needed}} isn't necessarily supposed to be a black mark indicating a shameful failure, it's often supposed to be 1) an advisement to the reader, and 2) a collegial request to get the attention of some editor who has the time, interest, experience, and/or resources to pop in a source. Or was, in the Before Times.

:Sorry for the marginal point, I just get excited to see another of my species (in this matter at least). But it is maybe a small point in favor of the defendant. The rest I'll leave to you all. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 04:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I feel you, Hero buddy. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::Perhaps my examples weren't the best, though there are enough above to make the point: user is adding cn tags to sourced content, while adding their own unsourced content. That's on top of the lengthy and unnecessary (unsourced) charts. Assuming good faith, it looks like a [[WP:CIR]] issue. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::Unsourced content was added, unsourced content was challenged, that just seems like a normal content issue. The only odd thing here is the reported IP then spamming the tables to the article talk pages. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 11:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Rather than engaging, this has been the response today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171640458]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640458]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640511]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640529]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171640676]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640676]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640784]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171640926]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640926]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640986]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_generation&diff=prev&oldid=1171646001]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_generation&diff=next&oldid=1171646001]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_generation&diff=next&oldid=1171646134]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emojipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1171646512]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emojipedia&diff=next&oldid=1171646512]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emojipedia&diff=next&oldid=1171646629], etc. Reverting and restoring unsourced content and junk charts. This helps Wikipedia how? [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|talk]]) 13:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Restoring unsourced content that has been challenged is against [[WP:BURDEN]]. It could be that the editor can't hear us [[WP:TCHY]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Interesting. Several editors have left edit summaries, as well. If they noticed their edits had been reverted, then restored the contested content, they'd be aware of pushback. I'm betting the rinse/repeat will continue. Thank you, {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm hoping they will be able to spot that they someone is trying to reach them, if not next stop should be [[WP:AN/3]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I've added the most recent IP up top. Thanks for catching that. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|talk]]) 17:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::These are all covered by {{checkip|2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64}} -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 17:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The IP range has been blocked by Ad Orientem for LTA. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 18:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Goblintear, BLP and Danish model Nina Agdal ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Two weeks... [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 12:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

*[[Nina Agdal]]
*{{checkuser|Goblintear}}

I could have gone to [[WP:AN3]] with this issue but it is somewhat nuanced. There has been edit warring at the Nina Agdal biography regarding her sex life. The manosphere has been blowing up about her in the last week in their favorite forums, and she is being accused of gold-digging and whatnot ostensibly because she said yes to a marriage proposal from YouTuber [[Logan Paul]].

The manosphere crap starting spilling over to her wiki bio in July and August, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170438114 stuff like this "304 lifestyle"] which is a dog whistle for promiscuity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170787452 More crap] like that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170797961 started appearing], followed quickly by Goblintear adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170947908 another boyfriend] and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170954924 yet another].

Goblintear was reverted over and over. He was warned by me[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoblintear&diff=1171442489&oldid=1128089399] and then by {{u|Daniel Quinlan}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoblintear&diff=1171553788&oldid=1171475676] who also put the biography in protection for just one hour.

Goblintear restored the material yet again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=prev&oldid=1171598161] I am asking that the biography be protected for a longer period, and Goblintear partially blocked. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:The content dispute is clearly an edit war at this point so I temporarily fully protected [[Nina Agdal]] (extended-confirmed users are involved). The material and sources being added by Goblintear seem inconsistent with BLP policies, but I would like another administrator to take a look. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]]) 07:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170954924 This edit] highlighted by Binksternet is clearly not appropriate for a BLP: both the sourcing to the Daily Mail and the scandalmongering "made headlines for their raunchy public displays of affection" are clearly unencyclopedic. Goblintear's other edits aren't {{em|as bad}}, but they certainly seem to be excessively focusing on Agdal's romantic links to various men based on some pretty tabloidy sources. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 08:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==Persistent bigoted edits by [[user:24.57.55.50]]==
{{atop|{{non-admin closure}} User blocked three months by Black Kite. [[User:ToadetteEdit|Toadette]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|chat]])/([[Special:Contributions/ToadetteEdit|logs]]) 13:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
Edits such as these:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Laura_Ann_Carleton&diff=prev&oldid=1171491823], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahsis&diff=prev&oldid=1164299476], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahsis&diff=prev&oldid=1164299021], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_McNallie&diff=prev&oldid=1155925006], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1147548981], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bay_Project&diff=prev&oldid=1113662936], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddy_(scooter)&diff=prev&oldid=1123668988], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Period_(manga)&diff=prev&oldid=1136949102]

Suggests that this user is [[wp:nothere]] and in violation of [[wp:nonazis]]. This user's intractable pattern of. bigoted edits to both articles and talk pages is deeply concerning.[[Special:Contributions/173.62.27.69|173.62.27.69]] ([[User talk:173.62.27.69|talk]]) 11:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Blocked''' for 3 months. Appears to be a fairly static IP, and there are BLP and racism issues writ large there. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== AfD on [[List of Islamist terrorist attacks]] ==

I started an [[WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks|AfD discussion]] and I'm seeing what I believe to be concerning votes from IP editors which geolocate to the same location/ISP. Can I get some admin eyes please. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 12:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== Scottish/British nationality warrior ==
{{Atop|reason=Indeffed.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}

*{{userlinks|Jbhoy}}
*{{pagelinks|Andy Murray}}
*{{pagelinks|Colin McRae}}
*{{pagelinks|David Coulthard}}
This new user is edit warring across these three articles to show the subjects' nationalities as Scottish, rather than British. I'm [[WP:INVOLVED|INVOLVED]], at the Andy Murray article at least, having been involved in discussions on the talk page in the past, where the consensus has long been to describe him as British (largely due to the fact that he describes himself as British on his personal website). Jbhoy has been reverted at all three articles by multiple editors, and has just kept reinstating their edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJbhoy&diff=1171573249&oldid=1171568999 This] was their response to a templated message; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jbhoy&diff=next&oldid=1171631421 this] was their response to a personal (and very informative) message from {{u|Escape Orbit}}. I don't see any further point in trying to communicate them - could another admin consider a block? [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== ST47ProxyBot, 10.80.1.x blocks ==
{{atop|Resolved via config change tracked in phabricator, not a bug in ST47's bot --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{tracked|T344704}}
Note that {{np|ST47ProxyBot}} accidentally issued some blocks on 10.80.1.x IP addresses. This looks to have been a bug, I notified {{np|ST47}}. If I see it happening again, I'll temporarily block the bot, but I don't think that'll be necessary. You can see the list of blocks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=ST47ProxyBot&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist here]. If you are patrolling the unblock requests and see a request claiming to be from 10.80.1.6 or 1.7 or 1.9 or 1.11, just mark the request as ''accepted'' and ask the user to try again. I am posting this notice because I've already handled rather a lot of unblock requests and I'm sure more will come in. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 14:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:I blocked the bot. Any admin, including ST47, can lift the block without consulting me. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 14:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::I've anon-blocked the /23 range. There seems to be an excessive amount of traffic going through the 10.x IP I checked. It may well be a wider bug. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::This is indeed a bug ([[phab:T344704]]), we're working on a fix. Also note that 10/8 addresses are already anon-blocked via MediaWiki config. [[User:Taavi|Taavi]] ([[User talk:Taavi|talk!]]) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks, Taavi! --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Also thanks. The anonblock was an attempt to deter the bot blocks, before I saw the bot was blocked. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 14:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::The fix is live now. I was going to lift the anon-block as that would still have affected anon edits via [[X-Forwarded-For]] data, but looks like that was already done. [[User:Taavi|Taavi]] ([[User talk:Taavi|talk!]]) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User: RevolutionaryAct ==

Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources [[User:Teenyplayspop|Teenyplayspop]] ([[User talk:Teenyplayspop|talk]]) 20:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Teenyplayspop}} If you want admins to take any action on this, you're almost certainly going to have to provide them with some diffs showing the behavior you're reporting. If you don't know how to do that, see [[WP:DIFFS]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::I appreciate the follow up [[User:Teenyplayspop|Teenyplayspop]] ([[User talk:Teenyplayspop|talk]]) 23:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::You are required to leave a notice on the editor's talk page—as per the big red box at the top of this page—which you didn't, so I've gone ahead and done so. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64|2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64|talk]]) 23:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Hello, I have been made aware of a discussion about my edits. Please allow me to defend myself: 
::::First, one can edit whatever subject they want to my understanding on Wikipedia, provided that the page is not locked or restricted. Working in one area does not disqualify a person, or otherwise there would be no subject matter experts or people working on what interests them. 
::::Second, the edits that I made on other pages regarding "alt-right" figures - Tina Peters, Gregg Phillips, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer - are largely critical of them, their claims, their history, etc. so to accuse me of partisanship and activism is unfair and unfounded. Furthermore, all of the sources presented come from reputable sources and are properly cited. 
::::Third, the very page which you are using as evidence against me regarding Andy Ngo has a hyperlink in it which takes one to a separate civil case against 2 of the 5 initially sued/charged, and it describes them as "left wing activists":https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/andy-ngo-loses-civil-lawsuit-against-portland-activists.html 
::::That article links to the following article: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/right-wing-writer-andy-ngos-lawsuit-against-portland-activists-begins.html 
::::Which links one to the following in which Ngo sued Rose City Antifa and named the 5 defendants, 3 of whom were in the original article, and 2 who were dismissed in the civil suit. The defendants have not denied affiliation, nor has Rose City Antifa, nor have they contested anything he claimed or showed up: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/06/conservative-writer-sues-portland-antifa-group-for-900k-claims-campaign-of-intimidation-and-terror.html 
::::Given that it was in the original lawsuit and no parties have denied or stepped forward to contest these claims, and all media has referred to these defendants as left wing activists, it is understandable to see why one would consider them Antifa. However, even if we remove the name Antifa from the article, it is unfair to accuse me of hyper partisanship and try to remove my editing ability or punish me over one word. 
::::Partisanship certainly cuts both ways on this website and none of us are perfect, but it would have been better to discuss this on the talk page or speak with me vs. assume bad motives and try to get me in trouble at the outset. [[User:RevolutionaryAct|RevolutionaryAct]] ([[User talk:RevolutionaryAct|talk]]) 03:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You specifically added this [https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/andy-ngo-wins-300k-from-defendants-who-ignored-lawsuit-over-portland-protest-beating.html citation] to support your edit in which you accused people of being antifa on [[Andy Ngo]]. The article is a [[WP:BLP]] and the word antifa is not found once in that citation that you used. Your edit was disruptive at a minimum. You need to be aware of that instead of making excuses and throwing around accusations towards others. Have you even bothered to read [[WP:BLP]] or perhaps [[WP:OR]]? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 04:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::As an example, refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=1171598824&oldid=1171593250 this] disruptive editing in which they edited [[Andy Ngo]], which is a [[WP:BLP]] to indtroduce heavily biased political language not found in the source which they were citing, ie the word antifa. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Pinging @[[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]], perhaps you can provide some context on what happened at [[Tina Peters (politician)]]. The revision history does not paint a pretty picture. Also can you provide your interpretation on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_88&diff=prev&oldid=1170412397 this]? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 10:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice_for_J6_rally&diff=prev&oldid=1051274865 this] which demonstrates [[WP:ADVOCACY]]. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:SurrealSurgeon]] [[WP:CTOP]] 3RR/EW abuse at [[Joseph Stalin]] ==
{{atop
| status =
| result =
}}

{{resolved|Blocked indef by {{u|Bbb23}}. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{user links|SurrealSurgeon}}

{{article links|Joseph Stalin}}

3RR:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1171596647]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=1171597596&oldid=1171596647]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1171677067]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1171725210]

Warned:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurrealSurgeon&oldid=1171679848]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurrealSurgeon&diff=prev&oldid=1171684696]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASurrealSurgeon&diff=1171696856&oldid=1171688941]

Acknowledges warning:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurrealSurgeon&diff=prev&oldid=1171683244]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASurrealSurgeon&diff=1171688941&oldid=1171684696]

I am asking for stronger than 3RR measures to address this user due to the contentious topic and being very explicitly warned about both CTOP and 3RR and saying they understand. I find that a user like this might get a short block at 3RR and something longer is appropriate here - not indef (necessarily), but not 24 or 36 hours either. Probably too early to call a CIR situation but I haven't looked carefully at their edit history either. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked, not per CTOP. I don't think the user is [[WP:CIR|incompetent]], just passive-aggressive and sly.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Thanks. Thought perhaps it could be some kind of trolling as well, too much trouble to analyze these clowns. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 22:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== IP removing sourced content ==
{{atop
| status =
| result =
}}

{{resolved|Warned user [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 00:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{IP|2605:59C8:159A:EF00:C421:3360:CD94:B903}} has been removing sourced content. Diffs:
* at [[Rodney Howard-Browne]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Howard-Browne&diff=prev&oldid=1171742648], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Howard-Browne&diff=prev&oldid=1171743869], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Howard-Browne&diff=prev&oldid=1171744488]
* at [[Kenneth Copeland]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Copeland&diff=prev&oldid=1171742942]
[[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 00:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:I gave them a final warning. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 00:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks. Your warning is about adding unsourced content but they have been removing sourced content. That's probably the wrong warning? [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 00:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:LoveHop123]] ==

I have several concerns about this users behavior.

Most recently, they removed a reply in a discussion ([[Special:MobileDiff/1171747486|1]]) because they felt X/Twitter was an unreliable source. Even if that was true, that is up to the person reviewing the edit request to decide. They’ve done this before too ([[Special:MobileDiff/1171573475|2]] [[Special:MobileDiff/1171441056|3]] [[Special:MobileDiff/1125087734|4]]). Normally this might only merit a warning but they continued to blank comments after a [[Special:MobileDiff/1171593580|final warning]]. They have also caused other headaches on [[Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)]], including trying to prematurely close an RM, as well as the mess at [[Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)# Why is this sentence in here?]] and [[Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)#MORE ISSUES! TORNADO WARNING MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!]]. This should be grounds for at least a temp block. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]] ([[User talk:173.23.45.183|talk]]) 00:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:Look. If it will make everyone feel better, I'll just stay out of it. Sorry for everything. It won't happen again. Also, deleting the source was an accident and I was just trying to get it back for you. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 00:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] If it was an accident, why did you also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2610:130:109:12:6DCE:2418:948B:2085&oldid=1171747928 warn the IP] for making the comment? —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I just wanted to let them know, too. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 00:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] Why did you leave a warning template, stating that their edit was inappropriate, if ''you'' made a mistake in removing their comment? Not to mention that the warning template you used wasn't appropriate for the type of edit in the first place. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Because I thought that at first. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::That makes sense and ties with the sequence of events, where LoveHop123 did subsequently remove the warning. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm currently deleting the FORKED conversations and the rest of the mess I caused. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 01:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Hm, it appears LoveHop123 has acknowledged their wrong actions. This report can probably be closed, under the condition that if they ever cause a mess again, they will be re-reported and very likely to be blocked. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]] ([[User talk:173.23.45.183|talk]]) 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Hey @173.23.45.183,
:::I myself have has problems with @[[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]]. I don't think they have bad intentions, just that they make suspicious edits, for example vandalism and blanking warns on their talk page. I would've come with the same conclusion, make one more error and your gone, but I would love to assist you in resolving this issue.
:::[[User:ItsCheck|ItsCheck]] ([[User talk:ItsCheck|talk]]) 01:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I have realized what I've done wrong. I apologize for the disruptive edits. I won't cause you any further pain. If there is anything you need me to do, let me know here or on my talk page. Again, I am very sorry for all this. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 01:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::If it would help, I'll put the warnings back on my talk page. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Deleting warnings on your talk page is allowed, but they will always remain in the page history. In fact, removing a warning is an acknowledgement you read it. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]] ([[User talk:173.23.45.183|talk]]) 02:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
===My wrong actions===

I apologize to everyone for all the issues I've caused. I have made multiple disruptive edits and have been warned multiple times regarding this. I've also issues warnings to other users who has not done wrong. I have reverted those warnings and the disruptive edits I've created. I want to apologize to many users, but especially [[User:C. Fred|C. Fred]], [[User:ItsCheck|ItsCheck]], and [[User:173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]]. This will not happen again. I will try to be calmer next time and acknowledge the user if they have done anything wrong instead of giving then warnings that don't make any sense. I am very sorry for all the trouble. This will not happen again. [[User talk:LoveHop123]] 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Gorebath]] ==
This account has already been charged with vandalism on Wikipage "Emirati nationality law". This account seems to propagate agenda of United Arab Emirates by deleting factual/Negative information associated with UAE in a frequent manner. Kindly review this account!

== Please address immediately ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = User indeffed and edit revdelled. {{nac}} '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|LilianaUwU]]''''' ([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]]) 05:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1171781621]

I'm not using the tools for personal reasons unrelated to the edit or editor in question. But would an admin please address this immediately. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 05:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:User blocked, and hopefully the CSD paperwork on the Commons end is sorted. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 05:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== KyleJoan, Migsmigss, edit warring, article ownership, hounding allegations ==

{{moved from|[[WP:ANEW]]|2=[[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)}}

The following section, originally titled "User:KyleJoan reported by User:Migsmigss (Result: )", was created at the edit warring noticeboard. The usual form asking for "page, user being reported, previous revision reverted to, diff of the user's reverts" et cetera was not filled out, so this is not just topically but also syntactically rather suitable for ANI than ANEW. I have removed the broken form, fixed the lack of [[Help:Threading|indentation]] in {{u|Migsmigss}}'s comments and changed the heading slightly. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

----

Reverting edits and owning articles, even asking me why I've started editing on articles he's supposed to be editing for a long time. I didn't know Wikipedia and those articles have been owned by this editor, and that I need to provide explanation when and where I edit?

Please see: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Migsmigss#Hounding?|1]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799794|2]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799467|3]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171797374|//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171797374]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798199|5]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798866|6]]. [[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 08:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:Why leave pertinent details out, Migsmigss? Some of the thorough explanations for my reverts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Staz_Nair&diff=prev&oldid=1171796032][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798866] The ''four'' requests to review what a minor edit is,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1161255841&oldid=1158838756][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1164255446&oldid=1162336794][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1164655740&oldid=1164272026][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1171796422&oldid=1170840071] the last of which was where our interaction began. The fact that you had never edited one of the articles I referenced in relation to possible hounding until after you interacted with me–you had made one prior edit on the other.[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Migsmigss&page=Taron+Egerton&max=500&server=enwiki][https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Migsmigss&page=Paul_Mescal&server=enwiki&max=] Your intention to continue to hound me by beginning to edit another article I frequent, {{pagelinks|Christian Bale}}, after filing this report.[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Migsmigss&page=Christian+Bale&max=500&server=enwiki] The entitlement in asking for an explanation when you are reverted when you never bothered to summarize the initial edit (and numerous others).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=1171798078&oldid=1171797374] [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Wow, when an editor edits articles another one had edited first, it's already hounding? You are accusing me of hounding, based on who edited which articles first? I didn't leave important details out. Not in this discussion, not in the edits I made. But you've reverted most if not all of them, even the improvements in punctuations and grammar. Why? I suspect article ownership. Do you own those articles? Aren't other editors allowed to make edits? [[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 08:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Also, please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171803144|this]. "Capitalization" changes were not helpful? When it's diction and sentence flow, aiding semantics, were improved, and simply not capitalization?
::This is not only edit warring on the part of KyleJoan, but also ownership of articles. Plus the accusation that I'm "Hounding" them. Wow. Just wow.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 08:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=881567683&oldid=881543810 The block you received in 2019 was partly due to hounding, was it not?] [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 09:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::A resolved issue that's irrelevant to this discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Migsmigss#Hounding?| Accusing me of hounding], though, and reverting all edits not done by you ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171803144]|1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799794|2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799467|3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798866|4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798199|5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taron_Egerton&diff=prev&oldid=1171798109|6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171797374|7]) simply because you want to keep your edits without valid reason, is article ownership and edit warring.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You don't intially summarize, I don't summarize in return. When you look at my history, I'm pretty elaborate in my summaries. Here's the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summer_Rae&diff=prev&oldid=1171809047 summary for my last edit]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Elordi&diff=prev&oldid=1171810001 Your last edit] included a [[WP:BLP]] violation (i.e., an unsourced middle name). It was also incorrectly marked as minor. Again. [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 09:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Doesn't explain your accusation of me hounding you, and your insistence that I explain my edits to you, simply because you've already preposterously accused me of hounding you:
::::::"How long have you been interested in contributing to Paul Mescal and Taron Egerton? Is it merely a wild coincidence that you began editing the two, both of which are in my 50 most recent contributions, after our interaction on Staz Nair."
::::::Can't I edit said articles? Why would I need to explain how long I've been editing these articles (when said information is available to you in my edit summaries), and explain these especially for you? Are edits more valid when the editor has been editing said articles for a long time, or is it just a way for some editors to insist on their edits, and revert all other edits not made by them? Which you've done.
::::::The edits I made were mostly minor, punctuation marks and grammar. But you reverted all of them simply because you want to own these articles.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Migsmigss}}, at very least when editing featured articles such as the one about [[Paul Mescal]], you'll generally have to expect reverts because you are changing something that has passed a strict community review to something that is likely just a personal preference. This is described by the [[WP:FAOWN|"Featured articles" section]] of the policy against article ownership. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Pardon me, {{u|ToBeFree}}, but I think you meant to link [[Christian Bale]], which is one of the two articles Migs had never edited prior to our dispute. My guess is they found it on my contributions page and decided to edit it. Migs has not denied hounding despite having ample opportunity to do so. [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 10:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Huh, I was sure I had seen the FA star at the top right of [[Paul Mescal]]. Sorry. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::What I find laughable (and hypocritical) is when editors like KyleJoan insist only on their edits (article ownership) by reverting all other edits, when those edits are simply minor, such as the addition of the right and necessary punctuations, and improvements on cohesion and flow. Editors like KyleJoan, who revert all edits not made by them, are simply gatekeeping and doing article ownership. No doubt about that, in my opinion. Actions like this won't inspire more editors, new editors who want to contribute, and in turn won't inspire more edits and growth in Wikipedia. It is in my opinion, that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership and edit warring, and accusing other editors of hounding and other ridiculous accusations then requiring these newer editors to explain things for them to support their unreasonable accusations, simply are bullying these newer editors to submission—these actions are more detrimental to the site, than they are helpful. Editors like KyleJoan who look down on newer editors, and then gatekeep and own articles insisting only on their edits as the right and one-true edit, are, in my opinion, a harm to this site in the long run.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|Migsmigss}}, by which path have you reached the article about [[Christian Bale]] today? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Google search "Christian Bale wiki"—Why, does the path determine whether an edit or a series of edits is valid or not? I have long since wanted to make edits in Christian Bale, among other articles I wanted. Also, is any other way to the Christian Bale article wrong or inadmissible?
::::::::::::Again, it is in my opinion that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership<ins>[verbatim copy of text already present above removed ~ToBeFree]</ins> [[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It does matter for determining whether there might have been harassment involved.
:::::::::::::You have already stated your opinion; please avoid repetition. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The hounding accusation and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Migsmigss&oldid=1171818714#Hounding? the condescending nature by which the accusation was delivered by KyleJoan], should also be reviewed for harassment.
::::::::::::::I repeated myself only because I didn't think my part was heard, or if heard, taken into due and equal consideration. Thanks.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{u|Migsmigss}}, I have looked closer at this now, and there are less than four minutes between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1171800953] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171801334]. Your contribution list around that time looks like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Migsmigss?offset=20230823084800&limit=25] You did a Google search in between them? Why? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Why not?[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 11:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Because all you had to do was clicking "Christian Bale" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KyleJoan?offset=20230823081500&limit=50 KyleJoan's list of 50 latest contributions]. I'll probably block but I'll wait for {{u|Bishonen}}'s opinion. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} I've been asked to weigh in here because I blocked Migsmigss for two weeks in February 2019 for some appalling behavior including hounding, which I described [[Special:Diff/881567683|here]]. It was pretty bad, but was more than four years ago, so I don't think it's ''highly'' relevant at this time. However, reading through the discussion above, it's obvious to me that Migsmigss is again behaving appallingly, in both their vengeful actions towards KyleJoan, and their evasive and insulting posts on this very page (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Migsmigss&oldid=1171818714#Hounding? here], too). I recommend a block of at least two months, and would not object to an indefinite block. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC).

:Thank you very much! I'll end this with an indefinite block. Adding commas before "and" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171801334] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171801455]) directly after reporting KyleJoan looks like an easy way to make any edit with the sole purpose of hounding rather than the "long since wanted to make edits" explanation above. I assume that {{u|Migsmigss}} was looking for plausible deniability in their harassment, but has failed. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

2023-08-23T12:51:00Z

L2212: /* Stonewalling and POV pushing in the Aghlabids article */ Reply

{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}
<noinclude>{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1137
|algo = old(3d)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}


== POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments ==

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

* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – Wiped the article of a pro-democracy Vietnamese party, justifying some of the removals because of broken links.
* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – Whitewashed [[Human rights in Vietnam]], removing reliable sources because they disagree with them.
* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – Removed sourced information from [[Human experimentation in North Korea]], citing the source's Wikipedia page to say that it's unreliable.
* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – Deleted unsourced information, but only the portion that documented North Korean atrocities, leaving the rest of the unsourced content there. This followed [[Special:Diff/1166655920|a similar edit]] to that article regarding China and the Soviet Union.
* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – A [[WP:COATRACK]] edit to criticize [[Yeonmi Park]], a North Korean defector, on the article of someone she was once interviewed by.
* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. [[Special:Diff/1166829863|Reverted]] an attempt to restore the content.
* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – Promoted [[Holodomor denial]] on the article of a Holodomor denier and the subsequent [[Talk:Douglas Tottle#Holodomor denial|talk page discussion]].
* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – Deleted sourced information about political executions in Cuba because it was sourced by an offline book and the publisher's webpage didn't verify the information.
* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Deleted information about government oppression of LGBT people in Cuba because the source had no page number.
* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – Deleted sourced information about human rights in communism because they felt that the information wasn't right.

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

:Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on [[David Ivon Jones]] so I'm sorry it ended up like this.
:I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being [[Trevor Carter]] and [[Billy Strachan]]. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.
:Let's have a look at these cases individually.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the [[Việt Tân]] wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by [[Ngo Dinh Diem]]. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for [[Voice of America]], since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider [[Russia today]] a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
:* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for [[The Black Book of Communism|''The Black Book of Communism'']] is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
:* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
:* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated ([[Donald Trump Jr.]] [[Kanye West]], etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in [[The Washington Post|''The Washington Post'']] (see [https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/07/16/yeonmi-park-conservative-defector-stories-questioned/ here]) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
:* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
:* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – I was read [[Ronald Grigor Suny]]'s work ''Red Flag Unfurled'' (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide"''.'' I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor [[Stephen G. Wheatcroft]], and [[R. W. Davies]], don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by [[Anne Applebaum]] at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
:* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – A sentence in the wikipedia page for [[Cuba]] claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
:* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
:* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.
:[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{t|page needed}} is for. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.{{pb}}I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{t|page needed}} or {{t|verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely ''assuming'' it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::<nowiki>This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{</nowiki>[[Template:Page needed|page needed]]<nowiki>}} or {{</nowiki>[[Template:Verify source|verify source]]<nowiki>}} in the future. </nowiki>[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Google Books preview mode often won't display page numbers, though. Ostensibly so that you buy the book. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I doubt you will find that most editors agree with you; even THWoC has cited books without providing the exact location of the text in the book (back later today with sample). It's one thing to delete text that has long been tagged as needing a full citation (as in many years); quite another to simply delete untagged text because no page number was given, as many editors aren't even aware of that requirement. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Not only that, the page number citation policy should arguably be relaxed in the case of eBooks that don't provide page numbers to begin with, but can easily be searched digitally. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 08:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::For ebooks, as in every example I have given here, it is perfectly acceptable to give a chapter name, section heading, or some other means of verifying the text without scrolling through 300 pages. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::What does THWoC mean? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I believe that's an abbreviation for your username. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46|2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46|talk]]) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes that makes more sense than the [[The Real Housewives of Orange County]]. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 14:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at [[WP:RSP]]) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather ''editorial independence'' that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks ''editorial independence'' from the Russian government ''and'' it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{tq|[[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content.}} - just to be clear, the cited text refers to ''South'' Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The ''yeonjwaje'' bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding [[Special:Diff/1169763206]], while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a [[WP:RS]], certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people ''want'' to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Black_Book_of_Communism|here]]. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1151776136 the United States talkpage] back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to [[WP:NOTHERE|be here]] to build a neutral encyclopedia. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Their language was not conducive to collegiality. It was abrasive. There were a million better ways for them to express themselves, such as simply inquiring why the statement was there, but they chose to be aggressive instead. I'm not calling for sanctions on them. Also, they're still being aggressive below. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I don't see any aggression. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You don't see how calling something a "laughable description" is aggressive? Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy, but it is unhelpful and not conducive to the atmosphere we're trying to foster here. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Actually I thought this was a bit agressive/personal attack: "they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia". [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::Please don't deflect. Answer the question as was posed to you. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::I didn't think their comment about the article was agressive, nor do I think it is sanctionable. It was about content not a person. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::Thank you... I also don't think the comment is sanctionable, but I do think it was aggressive as it was a comment on the people contributing to the article. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though, it's just something to keep in mind. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::{{tq|Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy}}. Well this is the issue, isn't it? The trademark of efficient civil POV pushing is that each edit looks innocuous in a vacuum, and it's only when you look at the contributions as a whole that the behaviors described at [[WP:CPUSH]] start to line up. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::You're not wrong; I'm just speaking in regards to my one experience with them. The only reason I'm even commenting here is because I thought I had something of note to mention about them. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You tell me to assume good faith while at the same time you vote to permanently sanction my account because I criticised a wiki page you contributed to. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Where did I '''!vote''' for sanctioning your account? I did not, I left a comment that I felt that people should be aware of when discussing your editing history. I'm ''not'' calling for sanctions on your account.-- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I largely agree with this assessment. I don't see any damning evidence posted above that warrants the editor in question being sanctioned.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 16:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think there's anything that is worthy of sanctions discussed here, but I do think that they should be reminded of [[WP:CIVIL]] and try to express disagreements on article content in a more polite manner, with awareness that the people who frequent the article talk page are likely the same people who wrote the content being criticized. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems more like they hold an anti-Western bias, which is just as bad as a pro-Western bias. The problem is they edit with that bias.
::For instance, they hate the U.S. because it's a "country with a torture camp" yet defend Vietnam, China, North Korea, and The USSR, who are/were all countries with "torture camps." Textbook [[WP:CPOV]], and as [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] states, a long history of it. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That is complete rubbish, I have never once defended torture on wikipedia, ever! [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yet no evidence of "bias" editing was been provided. I don't think this is a forum to attack someone because they don't share one's views.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, they edit with the bias identified by Rockstone and IP2603; I'll be back later today, from real computer, with examples (iPad editing now). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Neither Rockstone nor IP2603 showed any evidence of bias. Rockstone showed a talk page comment which they didn't think was polite. I saw no bias.IP2603 made some quite scandalous assertions with no evidence. Not thinking the US as a bastion of human rights isn't bias.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 15:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

'''In my defence:''' When [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] accuses me of pov-pushing for 'autocratic governments', his evidence is a short select list of edits from the past few months, all of which I've provided reasonable explanations for. However, of my 3,000+ edits on wikipedia, the vast majority of them are actually made on pages I created, a list of [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/userviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&namespace=0&redirects=0&range=latest-20&sort=size&direction=1&view=list&user=The%20History%20Wizard%20of%20Cambridge which you can see here]. Thebiguglyalien depicts me as some lunatic who is obsessed with dictatorships like North Korea and Joseph Stalin. However glancing at the pages I created, which is a far more systematic record of my behaviour then a few cherrypicked edits, reveals that none of the biographies I wrote held any great levels of political power. The most influential and powerful person I ever created a wiki page for was a woman called Jessie Eden who led a tenants union. My specialist area is Marxist and anti-colonial activists in 20th century Britain and my page creation history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien selection of edits provides anecdotes whereas my page creation history provides proof of my systematic behaviour. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*I've had some highly positive interactions with Thebiguglyalien over the last six months or so, the duration of the time I've known them on the project: they've impressed me with a pretty nuanced understanding of policy for someone who has been here five years. I preface my comments in this fashion to emphasize that I came into this thread primed to give their analysis some degree of benefit of the doubt. But in truth, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here--at least not yet--and I suspect that Alien may have seen more of a pattern here than holds for the larger sample size, as THWoC implies in their defense.

:To be certain, Wizard could stand to benefit from, well as the charming American idiom goes "slowing their roll". I won't reiterate the feedback they have already received regarding deleting sources because they were entered without a page number: I view that as a highly problematic habit that needs to stop immediately. If a goodfaith investigation of the source gives them cause to believe the source is invalid, that is one thing, but that level of presumptuousness that a source and any content is supports may be chucked out because of a pro forma flaw that small is incredibly flippant with regard to the contributions of other editors and (much more importantly) not in the best interests of the accuracy of most articles, if we assume most such absent parameters are the consequence technical issues or goodfaith oversights--as I believe most are entitled to be, one or the other. However, while this is an instance of a case of issues with Wizard's approach, I think it also illustrates that said issues come from personal editorial idiosyncracies and maybe a touch of overconfidence (both of which can be addressed) rather than an overarching NOTHERE motivation to massage the content to reflect personal bias.

:For the remaining diffs, I'm not going to do a play by play, but suffice it to say that I think most are similar issues of an editor coming from a specialist field and not yet hitting their stride in adapting their editorial approach to the context of encyclopedia prose and process. And others are just not particularly that problematic (or at least debatably so). It's true for example that genocide is treated under international law (and by most contemporary historical researchers) as a crime defined by the intent to wipe out or suppress a culture, while the soviet famine in question was famously the result of one of the most horrific outcomes of mismanagement, support for junk science, and cultural infighting in the Soviet bureaucracy. So it would not surprise me to hear that many contemporary historians and researchers do not label it as genocide per se. That said, THWoC, do be mindful of [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]] here: no matter how rational you think your argument is for a description being dated, biased, or otherwise inaccurate, you must accord your description in a fashion that is respectful of the balance of the sources.

:Lastly, the slight hubris extends to the discussion style: that means of introducing the discussion on the talk page for our article on the United States I would describe as almost calculated to start everyone off in entrenched positions, if I didn't have the context here to believe THWoC had no such intentions. But honestly, my friend, that level of antagonism as the ''starting point'' for discussion is only a little south of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and putting aside for the moment the question of whether you might be sanctioned for it, it's just not going to serve you very well in any consensus discussions here. Nobody expects you to woo your rhetorical opponents with honeyed tones, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by blowing into a discussion with an approach that clearly marks that you think your perspective is indisputable and the standing consensus clearly the collectively reasoning of nitwits. A significant adjustment is necessary in this area too.

:But what I'm not seeing is someone looking to serve as an apologist for the great tyrannies of the last hundred years. THWoC clearly is a little out of step with consensus on some of these topics, may have a somewhat noticeable bias with regard to communist topics, and after three years still needs to adjust some to our consensus dynamics. And they could definetly stand to dial down the arrogance a little. But I don't get the sense of someone incapable of doing these things and I do believe they are here to contribute to the project's stated mission. I believe no action is needed at this time other than a firm recommendation to ease up on their drive a little. Alien's concerns are not entirely unwarranted here, but I can't endorse their interpretation of the underlying motivation. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 01:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thebiguglyalien that these edits are difficult to defend and likely indications of POV editing:
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160543383 17 June 2023, deletes text because book has no page number], when a quote is clearly given and the content is [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Health_Politics_and_Revolution_in_Cuba_S/JCIxDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hirschfeld+%22Verbal+and+physical+mistreatment,+shaved+heads,+work+from+dawn+to+dusk,+hammocks,+dirt+floors,+scarce+food%22&pg=PT243&printsec=frontcover easily found on google.] (See analysis below of The History Wizard similarly not citing book page numbers in their own writing.)
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160426290 16 June 2023, fully cited text deleted, no good reason]; hard to accept that someone familiar with socialism does not understand that it is possible for there to be more supposed "rights" for certain groups even as there is less freedom overall. This is the clearest indication in this series of edits of POV crossing over into editing.
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160694587 18 June 2023], another weak reason for deleting cited text when the book is available online.
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:Adding on to my point 2 above, is The History Wizard unaware of the alleged "rights" given to minorities like the Indigenous people of Venezuela in the 1999 Chavez rewrite of the [[Constitution of Venezuela]] at the same time their overall rights were degraded? [https://www.iwgia.org/en/venezuela.html#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20establishes%20Indigenous%20rights,the%20lands%20they%20ancestrally%20and] [https://www.culturalsurvival.org/sites/default/files/CS%20submission%20to%20UPR_%20Venezuela%20July%2015%202021.pdf] [https://www.icj.org/venezuela-indigenous-peoples-face-deteriorating-human-rights-situation-due-to-mining-violence-and-covid-19-pandemic/] [https://share.america.gov/under-maduro-regime-indigenous-people-suffer/] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/01/yanomami-indigenous-people-risk-venezuela] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/26/venezuela-un-experts-mandate-should-be-renewed] [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3184965] ... I could go on ... same applied to women and other minorities ... deleting that completely logical and well-cited text from {{u|X-Editor}} because you disagree with it is blind POV. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' and '''warn''' - Pretty clear POV-Pushing based on CP-origin sourcing. Not good-faith editing in simply removing the sourcing. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 11:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

=== [[Trevor Carter]] (GA); POV, puffery, original research, and misrepresentation of sources ===
After IP2603 stated that The History Wizard’s editing was "textbook [[WP:CPOV]]" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171332343 "The problem is they edit with that bias"], I took a deeper dive by looking at The History Wizard's [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/The_History_Wizard_of_Cambridge#top-edited-pages highest assessed work], to see if POV is evident in their writing. In this sample, it is.{{pb}} As of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1170656633 today's version], The History Wizard is responsible for 88% of the page content. [[Wikipedia:WhoWroteThat|WhoWroteThat]] identifies the only significant text {{em|not}} written by The History Wizard is the throwaway sentence at the bottom of the article about his family donating a park bench in his honor. Since The History Wizard wrote essentially all of the content, with minor copyedits, I'm not providing diffs.
The following sources are useful for examining the article’s anti-US and pro-communism bias.{{pb}}
'''Bias from sources not used or misrepresented''':
* '''Okojie''': {{Cite journal |last=Okojie |first=Paul |date=October 1987 |title=Book reviews : Shattering illusions: West Indians in British politics By Trevor Carter (London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1986) |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030639688702900217#con |journal=Race & Class |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=107–108 |doi=10.1177/030639688702900217 |s2cid=145052302 |via=Sage}}
*: Okojie is used, but misrepresented. If anyone wants a copy, I can forward if you email me. All Wikipedia says is that it is a "positive review", when in fact, it is neither positive nor negative—it simply states what Carter states. More problematic is that POV is created by what it (the article) does {{em|not}} say about Carter’s views, when combined with the two sources below that are similarly {{em|not used}} (Brown and Smith E) and say the same things. Significantly emotive and negative wording is used to describe racism in the US, while Carter's condemnation of British racism in general, and the role of the communist party and the left specifically with respect to continuing that racism in Britain, is omitted from the article. The History Wizard has a {{em|remarkably different}} way of treating the US relative to the UK on racism, and has decidedly biased Carter’s own views on racism in Britian and among communists, according to interpretations of Carter’s own writing.
* '''Brown''': {{cite journal |url= https://isj.org.uk/tackling-racism-the-communist-party/ |title= Tackling racism: the Communist Party’s mixed record |journal= International Socialism |issue= 163 |date= 1 July 2019 |first= Geoff |last= Brown}}
*: This source is never used; view in conjunction with Okojie and Smith E, which make the same points.
* '''Smith E''': {{cite journal |title= Class before Race": British Communism and the Place of Empire in Postwar Race Relations |last= Smith |first= Evan |journal = Science & Society |volume = 72 |issue = 4 |date = October 2008 |page= 455-481 |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/40404511 }} If anyone wants this article, pls email me and I can forward.
*: This source is never used; it delves into Carter’s writings in ‘’Shattered Illusions’’ (describe in the Wikipedia article as Carter’s magnum opus), and supports what Okojie says. None of these views, explaining British racism or Carter’s views on communism’s role in that, are included in the article.
'''Bias from choice of sources used''':
The huge majority of the article is cited to Meddick and something cited only as ''Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies''. See below:
* '''Meddick''': {{Cite book |title=Red Lives: Communists and the Struggle for Socialism |last2= |last3= |publisher=Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited / Communist Party of Britain |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-907464-45-4 |editor-last=Meddick |editor-first=Simon |pages=33 |editor-last2=Payne |editor-first2=Liz |editor-last3=Katz |editor-first3=Phil}}
*: I cannot find this on WorldCat, Amazon, Google books, archive.org, or anywhere else I’ve looked. The ISBN returns as faulty everywhere I check. Can anyone find this book or determine what is wrong with the ISBN? Regardless, we have misrepresentation of sources (see above and below), and yet we are asked to take at face value a large amount of text from a book that can’t be located.
* '''Stevenson''': {{Cite news |last= |first= |date=25 August 2011 |title=Carter Trevor |work=Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies |url=https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/2011/08/25/carter-trevor/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430193137/https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/2011/08/25/carter-trevor/ |archive-date=30 April 2023}}
*: In an article with otherwise mostly complete citations, the author of this ‘’encyclopedia’’ (a personal website, eg, blog) is not listed. That author is [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]], and the page tells us it is maintained by his family. When evaluating Graham Stevenson wrt [[WP:EXPERTSPS]], the first thing one encounters is that his article is also written by The History Wizard (so I didn’t go further—I’ve already seen enough to know there is likely bias, and don’t have time to delve in to yet another article). At least it seems more attribution to blog and personal websites is needed here, along with adding that which is missing from more neutral sources.
*:: Found now at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies]], so generally as I thought, but I remain troubled that the author was omitted, which looks deceptive (to make it appear as a real "encyclopedia" rather than a personal website) considering all other citations were mostly complete. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Bias and puffery introduced by misrepresenting sources''':
* '''Wroe''': {{Cite news |last=Wroe |first=Simon |date=20 March 2008 |title=Trevor, a true fighter for equality |work=[[Camden New Journal]] |url=http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/032008/obit032008_01.html |url-status=live |access-date=12 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430193035/http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/032008/obit032008_01.html |archive-date=30 April 2023}}

On the matter of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1151776136 diff posted by Rockstone] and IP2603’s description of anti-Western bias, this is evident at [[Trevor Carter]] in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1170656633#Early_life Early life section]:
* {{tq| during this time he travelled to New Orleans where he witnessed the brutality of segregation. (Wroe) His experiences with "Jim Crow laws" made him vow to never live in the United States. (Stephenson, eg, the "encyclopedia")}}
Wroe never mentions "brutality"; that’s editorializing (of the kind that is curiously left out per the sources discussing UK racism above). <s>Nor does it mention segregation.</s> It says: {{tq| His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations.}} The History Wizard does not restrict their original research characterization of the US to one period in one part of the country, as Wroe does, rather goes on to use Stephenson to cite "Jim Crow laws", which Stephenson never mentions. Stephenson says: {{tq|He visited many places, including New Orleans then at the height of racial segregation in the USA. That experience was so awful that Carter vowed never to go and live in America.}} That is, besides never using the phrase designed to draw negative emotions (Jim Crow laws), Stephenson also characterizes the period during which Carter traveled there. In contrast, nothing in the article on this level describes Carter’s own writings about racism in the UK. {{pb}} There is a clear contrast to how The History Wizard treats the US and how they treat the UK (complete omission of racism, while using language to evoke the maximum negativity relative to the US racism). In fact relative to what more neutral sources say about Carter’s own views and communism and racism, the article has only the mild, "Elaborating on his political alignment, he claimed that there was a lot of racism within local Labour Party branches", as if Carter’s criticism applied {{em|only}} to the Labour Party—three sources listed above say it also applied to communist orgs. We do get a brief hint of what may be missing with the (underdeveloped) text: "After the CPGB dissolved in 1991, Carter joined the Labour Party".

While The History Wizard wholesale deletes text they disagree with when a book source doesn’t include a page number, here their own writing fails to identify either a page number or which section of the article (chapter, heading, otherwise) the text can be found:
* {{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j2O5DwAAQBAJ |title=West Indian Intellectuals in Britain |publisher=[[Manchester University Press]] |year=2013 |isbn=9781847795717 |editor-last=Schwarz |editor-first=Bill |location=United Kingdom |language=en |format=eBook}} This book has 11 chapters; at minimum, a Chapter title can be given.
*: Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=1153177011 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{Cite book |last=K. Smith |first=Melanie |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YklnDwAAQBAJ |title=Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2015 |isbn=9781317664208 |language=en |format=ebook |access-date=3 May 2023}} A 304-page book with 11 chapters.
*: Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=1152901823 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{Cite book |last=Cashmore |first=Ellis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G_uEAgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Trevor+Carter%22&pg=PT55 |title=Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations |date=12 April 2002 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=9781134773886 |language=en |format=ebook}} Used to cite a direct quote, found in the section labeled "Reading", which should be provided.
*: Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1153181933 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
* <s>[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a8c562dcf81e0bc546534e6/t/5c9a36daec212dd0c3c69ff1/1553610462562/Carnival%2BDiscourse%2BReport.pdf This is an 82-page report]; no page numbers given (Carter is mostly on page 34, but there's more to be trawled through).</s> Struck, my mistake, page 34 is given in the citation. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The History Wizard does not universally use page numbers or chapters or section headings themselves, making it additionally difficult to accept that as their only reason for deleting text they disagree with and more likely the deletions are another reflection of POV editing.

Skipping through the middle portion of the article, which goes well off-topic into other individuals, we get to things like SYNTH from [https://web.archive.org/web/20230502234857/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/nov/29/mangrove-nine-40th-anniversary this source, which never mentions Trevor Carter], and random other puffery throughout, like:
* "Carter became a qualified British teacher" (is there such a thing as an "unqualified" teacher in British schools, I ask—maybe there is?)
* "In 1986 with the help of Jean Coussins, Trevor Carter wrote his magnum opus" ... from what source comes "magnum opus"?
* "In 1998 Trevor Carter, a lifelong admirer of American political activist Paul Robeson," … where does the "lifelong admirer" come from?
* "Jeremy Corbyn, at the time an MP for Islington, was a great admirer of Carter," ... where does the "great admirer" come from?

These are examples of plain vanilla puffery; all of this combined with the lack of access to Meddick, and likely bias from the Stephenson blog, make me wonder if any of the article is neutral. I understand admins are loathe to involve themselves in <s>conduct</s> content disputes, but at what point does civil POV pushing become a behavioral issue? It looks like the whitewashing concern has validity and that The History Wizard's editing at articles related to Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea and other similar states should be subject to some restriction. We shouldn't wait 'til we have another Polish situation; communism is whitewashed at [[Trevor Carter]], and a different standard is applied to the US and the UK. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]], I'm in awe. Great analysis. Re: the Meddick book, I paged through the entire set of book listings on the [http://www.manifestopress.org.uk/index.php/publications2 publisher's website], no such book listed. I found a [https://www.wcml.org.uk/blogs/Lynette-Cawthra/Book-review--Red-Lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism/ book review] on a blog; ISBN fails, and it says published by the UK Communist Party whose site [https://www.communistparty.org.uk/?s=Red+Lives%3A+Communists+and+the+Struggle+for+Socialism can't find] that book. I did find an [https://www.communistparty.org.uk/preview-red-lives/ announcement] of the book on the Communist Party's website; reading the description, this would probably not be an acceptable source: it's a package of biographies {{tq|written by friends, family, activists and historians}} (I question how many are actual "historians"). Apparently the PDF can be [https://ebin.pub/red-lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism-1nbsped-9781907464454.html downloaded] (I'm not going to try it). [[User:Schazjmd|'''Schazjmd''']] [[User talk:Schazjmd|''(talk)'']] 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::The Meddick book is on the publisher's website, [https://www.manifestopress.coop/product/red-lives see it here.] Have a second glance at the "blog", it is the website of a historical archive called the [[Working Class Movement Library]] which is supported by Salford City Council. Also in that blog post, at the very bottom it does admittedly say it was published by the communist party so I can understand the confusion but this is clearly a mistake. If you look at the book's back cover it says the communist party's heritage programme helped support the book's publication (likely through author contributions and oral interviews contained in the book) but doesn't credit it as the publisher. I recommend downloading the PDF and having a look through the contents. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The Meddick book was "Published by Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party"; it is copyrighted to the Communist Party, and Manifesto Press has [https://www.manifestopress.coop/about "proclaimed itself republican and anti-imperialist; secular and feminist; anti-fascist and anti-racist; committed to working class political power, popular sovereignty and progressive culture"]. Excerpts from the first two pages include:
:::*"The people you read about in this book shared a desire to bring to an end a society based on exploitation and oppression, to establish socialism...This is their story, told by comrades, friends and family, in their own words."
:::*"The one thing that unites each and all, is pride in and ownership of, a ‘card’, they were members of the Communist Party, a revolutionary Party, striving for peace and socialism ... These ‘Red Lives’ are a testimony to lives lived in hope and determination. We are sure that they will inspire you as much as they did the editors."
:::*"In early September 2019, in anticipation of its centenary, the Communist Party wrote to its membership asking for recommendations of past members, no longer living, who might be included in a collection of life histories. Red Lives is a selection of these."
:::Yeah. I'm not convinced. You can find the book at [https://dokumen.pub/red-lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism-1nbsped-9781907464454.html this link]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Since it's directly relevant to this analysis, I'll say that I first thought this was looking into after checking the sourcing in [[Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1]], and their subsequent reluctance to remove a self-published source by [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]]. Stevenson's article was created by History Wizard, and Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::You say "Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian". However it took me a minute to look on google scholar and find at least [https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/action/doSearch?field1=AllField&text1=Graham+Stevenson&publication=&Ppub=&access=on three academic articles] he wrote for an academic journal published by [[Liverpool University Press]]. If having your historical research published in a journal by a well respected university doesn't make you a historian then what does.[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ealdgyth}} might explain what kind of credentials make one a historian, and also opine on the Meddick book published by the "Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party" (with a non-working ISBN and not found on WorldCat). I believe some sort of educational degree in history is a starting point (Stevenson's article says he left school at the age of 16), but Ealdgyth will know better. I notice that the lead of [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]] says he's a historian who specialized in x ... what independent source supports that text? It appears that Wikipedia has conferred upon him the status of historian. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: Generally, a historian is someone who has some training in history in a university setting - i.e. not just taking general history classes but classes that touch on the actual process of research and how to interpret sources. So a class that requires one to do original historical research would be a minimum. Failing that, I'd expect to see publications in a number of academic journals or having books published by scholarly publishers. In this specific case, I note that the three articles found above are published in [https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/journal/theory Theory & Struggle] which Liverpool University Press notes is the "journal of the Marx Memorial Library", which Stevenson is specifically noted as being the treasurer of, which makes the publication of articles by him in that journal .. a bit less independent than would be desired. Two of the articles listed show the author blurb, neither of which call him a historian nor give any academic affiliations. I'm not impressed with calling this person a "historian" - he seems most notable as a labor leader.[[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|SandyGeorgia}} Yes, there can be unqualified teachers (i.e. teachers without [[Qualified teacher status]]) in some (and only some) British schools, for a variety of reasons that are too boring to go into here. But the "qualified" seems somewhat spurious. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Yes. In UK, private schools don't require PGCE.
::I am scratching my head on this:
::"Nor does it mention segregation. It says: His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations."
::[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Also is it biased to say segregation was brutal? Did I miss something? [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::: Sorry, iPad typing again, had to dash out just after I hit send, and whatever I meant to say in that sentence, it is now just another of my infamous typos (maybe when I can catch up and re-read, I will remember what that sentence wanted to be ... have struck for now.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, {{u|Black Kite}}, in that case, a wikilink for the benefit of non-UKers would be good! [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I am not persuaded by SandyGeorgia's analysis.
:1. They list sources in [[Trevor Carter]] article without page numbers. We don't know who inserted these sources since no diffs are given. Many people have edited this article, which has been reviewed and given GA status, placing it within top 1% among articles in the Wikipedia project.
:2. The content removed by TWoC due to lack of page numbers has already been shown not to reflect bias one way or the other. See comment by Aquillion.
:3. The allegation of bias seems to rest on segregation in the US being referred to as brutal, and a reference to Jim Crow laws. Describing segregation as brutal or referring to Jim Crow laws is neither original research nor biased. Nor is questioning US's leadership in human rights in a talk page (the other 'evidence' for bias cited).
:4. I didn't see the stylsitic concerns (referred to as puffery) in the article indicative of bias.
[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:# Look again. And see [[WP:DCGAR]] for perspective (hundreds delisted at once).
:# This section is about content written by The History Wizard at [[Trevor Carter]], showing a double standard wrt use of page nos as a basis for deleting text.
:# The allegation of bias rests on choice of sources, content not included at all wrt communism and race, and sources chosen. The two sentences of misrepresenting one source merely lead us to worry what else is misrepresented in sources we can't access.
:# That's unfortunate. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm growing curious as to why an editor with less than 300 mainspace edits is so invested in this discussion that they feel the need to repeatedly reply to everyone who comments here and lecture them about what proper editing looks like, even though they apparently don't know that page evaluation tools can tell you what portions of the article were written by whom, that GA status is decided by one person with little oversight, or that [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] tone without judgemental language of any kind is one of our core content policies. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 22:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::I hope you aren't pulling rank ([[WP:PULLRANK]]).I am sorry if anyone thinks I have lectured to them. I have given my honest assessment to this case, as I think I am allowed. I believe wikipedia does have a systematic bias but not in the direction people have alleged here. I think the editor being targeted here is doing good work, and on the basis of evidence presented should be allowed to contribute freely. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::While I forgot to add that they should also be encouraged to stay away from articles about the US. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I would also like to add, I commented in response to SandyGeorgia's post, because they referenced their analysis in a reply to my prior comment. I am not "repeatedly" replying to everyone, and never replied to anything TBUA has posted here. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I am not (yet) troubled by your responses to my responses; you were right to ask for diffs on who inserted the sources, and in adding those, I did find one error, so thanks. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

[[Graham Stevenson (historian)]] is a POV title;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Encyclopedia_of_Communist_Biographies] the article should be moved to [[Graham Stevenson (trade union leader)]] before anyone else is misled about the nature of his "encyclopedia". [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not opposed to moving the Graham Stevenson article that I wrote but I wasn't "misleading" anybody by calling Graham Stevenson a historian. I discovered Graham Stevenson through his historical research on Britain's socialist movements, including [https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/action/doSearch?AllField=Graham+Stevenson his multiple articles in an academic journal] belonging to the [[University of Liverpool]]. I then later learned of his trade union activity while researching the article. I wish you had just asked me to explain my edits before going nuclear. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I have work so I'll need adequate time to respond to everything but I have this to say. For whatever faults you find in my work, if I were really such a sneaky POV pusher then I wouldn't be frequently inviting both experts and experienced editors to comb through my work. This all started after I began working with [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] to review my article on [[David Ivon Jones]] (which I'm still grateful for despite his views on my editing), conceding to 90% of his suggested changes [[Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1|during his GA review]]. @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] just put a POV template on my [[Trevor Carter]] article, again one which I submitted for GA Review and invited experts to comb through. I was so proud and confident in that wiki that I even linked to it at the very beginning of this dispute. For my [[Billy Strachan]] article, the largest wiki page I have ever created, I've gone through everything from a [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Billy Strachan/archive1|peer review,]] then onto an [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Billy Strachan/archive1|(unsuccessful) FA review]], and I'm currently on another [[Talk:Billy Strachan/GA1|GA Review.]] Inviting countless experts and experienced wiki editors to tear into my work is not the modus operandi of a POV pusher. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Where did I omit the author? Also how could I possibly omit the author of Graham Stevenson's Encyclopedia when his name is literally in the website address and there's a giant banner with his name and face on it when you follow the link? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=1171577633 Here, I inserted the author yesterday] which you omitted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1006369938#Educationalist_career_and_later_work from the very first edit] and up until yesterday. Since most real encyclopedias don't have individual authors for each entry, by leaving off the author, the fact that this a self-published website is obscured. (By the way, you've got many of the same issues with problematic sourcing raised here also at [[Billy Strachan]], now under review by [[User:Llewee]] at GAN, as well as others which I can detail when I have more time, but including failed verification and too-close-paraphrasing.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

::I have not thoroughly examined all the links above, probably there are a number of issues where it is acceptable to assume good faith, but the double standard regarding sources (immediate removal of sourced contents with the excuse that the page number is missing, while he himself introduced book sources with no page numbers given) is hardly defensible. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Where have I ever challenged somebody for deleting one of my own citations that did not include page numbers? I'm within my 3,000 edits there were cases where I mistakenly missed a page number, but if somebody deleted my mistakes then I would consider that fair game and correct myself. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 09:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: This is an unlikely scenario. No one has removed your citations just because removing a citation for lack of a page number is inappropriate, and I don't recall anyone but you removing citations with such a weak justification. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 09:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Warn about sourcing and POV editing wrt autocratic governments''': History Wizard, it's not a question of being intentionally deceptive or sneaky; many editors who edit with a POV are unaware that their POV affects their editing. You would be naturally inclined by your bias to label Stevenson a historian when he is not; this could cause a GA reviewer to think the source is a good one, for example. You are using a double standard on page numbers to remove text you dislike, but more importantly, using marginal and non-reliable sources to support pro-communist party content, leaving out balancing content from better sources, misrepresenting some sources to introduce an anti-US bias, all as in the [[Trevor Carter]] example, and confirming your pro-CP bias as seen in the diffs given in the discussion, where you also made unnecessarily inflammatory remarks on the US talk page, raising additional concerns about an anti-US bias. {{pb}} I think the POV at [[Trevor Carter]] can be fixed by adding in the better sources you failed to use, but I don't see how it can retain GA status with the use of two marginal sources (a self-published "encyclopedia", and a book from a communist press that no one can find). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Other examples of POV editing ===
:@[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] - Just FYI - Meddick, Payne, and Katz are all prominent members of the Communist Party of Britain (Meddick is head of a large local branch, Payne is chair-person of the party as a whole, Katz is head of communications). So that's a communist party-authored, communist-party published source, and BulgeuWu/The History Wizard uses it EVERYWHERE. He's well aware just how dubious a source it is, just as he knows how dubious anything from Lawrence & Wishart (a publishing hosue set up by the communist party) is, but even after basically conceding it shouldn't be used on one page you'll see them using on another. 
:The POV pushed is always the same - some random communist party member is an anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-fascist hero, and they are because the communist party said they are. For example the statement that [[Harry Pollitt]] {{tq|"ran an anti-war and anti-colonialism campaign against British colonialism in Malaya, publishing leaflets which exposed atrocities committed by British troops during the [[Malayan Emergency]]"}} was sourced by BulgeuWu/The History Wizard to a ''single pamphlet'' authored by Harry Pollitt and published by the communist party. They have persistently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Pollitt&diff=1168163451&oldid=1164537714 tried to add this content back] alongside a reference to Harry Pollitt supposedly leaking photos of attocities to the Daily Worker - however when you look at the source they are citing for this [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Age_of_Emergency/nEOwEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Age+of+Emergency:+Living+with+Violence+at+the+End+of+the+British+Empire&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover it makes no reference to Pollitt having done any such thing]. The POV-pushing is far too consistent to be a simple mistake. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:: {{u|FOARP}} if you could provide diffs to support that The History Wizard was made aware of their dubious sourcing and yet persisted, I would press for a topic ban. Could you provide more detail on the pamphlet you mention? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I raised the subject of ''Red Lives'' being an inappropriate source to The History Wizard (then editing as BulgeUwU) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarry_Pollitt&diff=1044454615&oldid=1044311025 on 14 September 2021]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarry_Pollitt&diff=1046332126&oldid=1045996162 They responded uncivilly]. They have repeatedly used the same source since then ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bolsheviks_are_Coming&oldid=1137946463 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liesel_Carritt&oldid=1121943033 2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noel_Carritt&oldid=1121752693 3] - just a random sampling looking only at new creations). They are also aware that Lawrence & Wishart is an non-independent source ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarry_Pollitt&diff=1058267144&oldid=1058265961 see diff]) but then still advocates using them (see Harry Pollitt talk page). The pamphlet ''Malaya: Stop the War!'' is not available online but is [https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1500002180 in the Imperial War Museum collection as published by the Communist Party]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: Thanks; it is interesting how civility issues evolve towards civil POV pushing, as admins are typically loathe to engage the content issues. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

When cleaning out after the move from Graham Stevenson "historian" to [[Graham Stevenson (trade union leader)]], I encountered another example of the effect at [[No Other Way]]:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Other_Way&diff=prev&oldid=1171688824 Puffery corrected] that was inserted by The History Wizard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Other_Way&oldid=1139854833 in February 2023].
My deep dive at [[Trevor Carter]] was perhaps not deep enough, and I suspect that {{u|Thebiguglyalien}} was on to something about whitewashing that may be more widespread than we have yet touched upon. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Topic ban proposal: The History Wizard of Cambridge ===
Through the discussions above, we now have pro-communist party and anti-US POV editing including puffery, source-to-text integrity problems, faulty sourcing and some indications of what may be deceptive editing or double standards at least identified in the discussion above and at:
* [[Trevor Carter]]
* [[Talk:Billy Strachan]]
* [[Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1]]
* [[Graham Stevenson (historian)|Graham Stevenson "historian"]]
* [[No Other Way]]
* [[Harry Pollitt]]
As FOARP has indicated, these problems have been brought to The History Wizard's attention since 2021, and as Thebiguglyalien has indicated, the whitewashing is widespread, and from FOARP, persistent and long-standing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

* I '''support a topic ban''' for The History Wizard of Cambridge, formerly BulgeUWU, broadly construed, on all discussions and topics and articles related to autocratic governments or individuals, socialism, and communism. Cleanup is needed across many articles, and we should not delay so another Polish or Nazi whitewashing more deeply permeates Wikipedia content. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor ==
{{atop|Leaving Starheroine, all the rest blocked pending responses. Will track Starheroine's edits over the next few weeks... [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 12:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

See edit history for {{user|A E WORLD}}, especially to prominent articles. Not responding to messages at their page, which sometimes leads me to suspect they've been down this road before. At any rate, they ought to be slowed down at the least, and allow for others to clean up in their wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*I'm wondering about a possible connection to blocked user {{user|Adakaibe}}, whose old edits they're now reverting. I'm also looking at a nest of similar accounts editing at articles like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Nigeria&action=history]. If it's not sock or meat activity, it could be an organized school assignment, but there's much damage in its wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*Adding {{user|Starheroine}}. Same issue, continuing to overlink after being warned and acknowledging the issue. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*And {{user|Ayyuha Sideeq}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**''Please'' block {{user|Starheroine}}. Mass disruption. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Block me for what. Did you go through the articles I edited? Kindly go through them again. And don't be judgemental. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:2601... no there are no edits by Starheroine in the page few days that are problematic. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I suspect there's much still on the table that ''is'' problematic, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, as at [[Christians Against Poverty]], where overlinking is in play, but even more so [[WP:ENGVAR]]. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been a week since Ayyuha Sideeq edited. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, {{u|EvergreenFir}}. See the most recent edits. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Starheroine}}, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been [[WP:OVERLINK]]ing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&diff=prev&oldid=1170645470]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_Development_Goal_3&diff=prev&oldid=1170678275], a few didn't allow for [[WP:ENGVAR]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christians_Against_Poverty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762741], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_plastic_pollution_treaty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762568]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1170697606]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Another one, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, {{u|Lourdes}}: {{user|Pmanofficial}}. [[Deforestation]] is protected, so I can't revert the edits there. Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*And another, {{user|Prowriter101}}, with a patently inappropriate username. They've also messed around with some locked articles that I'm unable to mend. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Apologies--though Prowriter's edits are disruptive, they don't appear to be related to the other accounts. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:M.Bitton]] ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = GF closure based on OP's final comment. Other experienced editors are advised to avoid aggressive positioning, even when faced with ANI reports against them (although one can see the frustrations that build up... yet...) Closing this here. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

I've had a series of reverts with this user who gave me [[User talk:Vyvagaba#August 2023|two disruptive editing warnings]], for two edits I made to address the neutrality of the lead in [[Dakhla, Western Sahara]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1170676466 the latest revert]).

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

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

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

:I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In [[User_talk:Vyvagaba#Question|the discussion]] that followed, first you said {{tq|I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts |q=yes}}, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::Why are you changing your replies? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Please explain how? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::It's for you to explain why '''you misrepresented the sources''' to push a political POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks [[Special:Diff/1170675949|this diff]]. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at [[WP:NPOV]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1170683348] [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to [https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19 this] document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).
*:So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Could you please view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170793456 this version] as @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is still being difficult. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I restored the reference in the second edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170792759 I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy.] [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::No what you did was change it to {{tq|but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}}. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You ''can't'' use those sources to say {{tq|also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}} as that's not what they say.
*:::::::It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the [[Political status of Western Sahara]]. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Nope, '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV'''. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::The status of WS is disputed, '''your using your POV''' (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories ([[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]). [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV.''' [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. [https://minurso.unmissions.org/background Example 1], [https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/S_RES_2654.pdf Example 2] to the extent some claim that the [https://www.focusonafrica.info/en/western-sahara-sahrawis-denounce-united-nations-support-the-occupying-power/ United Nations supports the occupying Power]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Why are you changing the subject? :) [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/22/western-sahara-wall-morocco-trump 1] [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2663843 2] [https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Wsahara.htm 3] [https://reliefweb.int/report/western-sahara/nrc-report-western-sahara-occupied-country-displaced-people-issue-22008 4]. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?
*::::::::::::P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples
*::::::::::::[https://minurso.unmissions.org/background United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara] "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."
*::::::::::::[https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/conflict-western-sahara ICRC] "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."
*::::::::::::[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115273 BBC] "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",
*::::::::::::[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220407-morocco-s-autonomy-plan-for-the-western-sahara France 24] "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",
*::::::::::::[https://childrensrightsresearch.com/stories/39-moroccan-controlled-western-sahara-freedom-of-expression Childrens Rights Research] "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."
*::::::::::::[https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/north-africa/western-sahara/paving-way-talks-western-sahara Crisis Group] "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."
*::::::::::::[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/13/morocco-launches-operation-in-western-sahara-border-zone Al Jazeera] "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.
*::::::::::::Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.
*::::::::::::The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".
*::::::::::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/world/africa/morocco-western-sahara-conflict-explained.html New York Times] "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara '''is not''' occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. {{re|Rosguill}} could you please share your views on this? Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Political_status_of_Western_Sahara|scouting]] and [[Xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria|creating]] [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0|WS and Algeria-related articles]], so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.
*::::::::::::::::I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.[[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{A note}} the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed {{tq|claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco|q=yes}} to two reliable sources[https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19][https://books.google.com/books?id=tGQJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT264] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{A Note}} I informed @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1170805979 The latest example in my dispute], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals] with the same "misrepresentation" show. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started [[Special:Diff/1170795647|following me]] to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1170795647 and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for '''your persistent misrepresentation of the sources''' to push a POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You should probably read [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]), not just the user reported. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is '''your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV'''. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{re|Rosguill|ActivelyDisinterested}} Since Vyvagaba has made it amply clear that they have no intention of addressing the raised issue, I think it's time that some action is taken as I don't see how anyone who behaves in such manner can be trusted. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Just to be clear, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is preventing and all debate diagreeing with his pov, [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|I posted a note on the article's talk page]] (since this is a behaviour noticeboard and because the NPOV noticeboard said that the complaint was too early to post since we didn't debate on the talk page) to present detailed quotes from reliable soures to support the wording I proposed, and to get feedback to tweak the wording to reach consensus. I dont see why @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] would keep stone walling any discussion with their "misrepresentation" saga, I provided detailed evidence in that post to see what others would think I'm misrepresenting and to fix that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Procedurally, if I were to have come across this thread without having participated in it, I would close in favor of the topic ban. While I am not [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the content disputes here, I don't think it would be fair for me to close here given that I initially proposed the sanction, only one other uninvolved editor has participated here at ANI, and this isn't a CTOP subject. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*[[User:Rosguill]], I think that Vyvagaba deserves a topic ban, yes, or perhaps a (partial) block. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:If you could spend the time to read the post I have on [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|the article's talk page]] and let me know if any of the points I raised are completly reasonabale and rational, and with evidence to support it, I'm just asking to know what I'm misrepresinting in the sources I included, since I'm starting to feel a little crazy at this point. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I only started to look into this out of interest of an RS issue, what I found has left me deeply unimpressed. The fact is that even now Vyvagaba can't see past the content issue to the behaviour issue at hand, so I would support a topic ban. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I still don't undertsand what the behviour issue here is? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::See your talk. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Based on this dialouge, I confirm that I will be mindful and stick to what sources say and to not remove reliably sourced material from now onwards. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[Special:Diff/1171642941/1171665871|This much longer comment]] (left on your talk page just before this one) paints a different picture and suggests that you're just saying what you think the others want to read (to avoid sanctions). There is no acknowledgement of the fact that you misrepresented the sources (not once, but twice), and therefore, no reason to believe that you won't do it again. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ctop|A distraction. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system
:Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think {{tq|Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one}} is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at [[Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system]]. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Rosguill}} Looking at what the IP did to the article ([[Special:Diff/1170846056s|they linked]] one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cbot}}
{{abot}}

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

:[[User:Shaan Sengupta]] has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:The user is clearly engaging in [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. '''[[User:Shaan Sengupta|Shaan Sengupta]]'''[[User talk:Shaan Sengupta|Talk]] 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems to be editing disruptively [[User:Maphumor]]. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some [[WP:SYN]] going on with the sources. [[User:XYZ 250706]], can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is formed in India to defeat the NDA in 2024 Indian general elections. But in some states like WB, Kerala, the members of INDIA will contest against each other. So those members are added in different alliances in those particular states. But user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring. Besides he makes original research. For example, in UP the members of INDIA which have confirmed to be in that alliance led by Samajwadi Party, are added together. But user Maphumor removes some parties like CPI(M), CPI, NCP without proper explanation. Sometimes he says they have no footprint. He removes some specific parties in similar pages giving such citation-less explanation. He is not promoting all national parties, but probably he is promoting Aam Aadmi Party. After my warning, his words like ''''this page is not your personal, everyone can edit'''' do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:XYZ 250706]] thanks for that explanation, but can you show actual edits where edit warring is occurring? You did say "user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring." Actual links to those edit war and reverting edits would be helpful.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] You can see in revision history of [[Next Indian general election in West Bengal]], [[Next Indian general election in Kerala]] where he adds non-aligning parties together. Besides he removes some specific parties in [[Next Indian general election in Himachal Pradesh]], [[Next Indian general election in Uttar Pradesh]], [[Next Indian general election in Punjab]] etc and sometimes contest in edit war. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I think @[[User:Shaan Sengupta|Shaan Sengupta]] can give some more examples. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] User of this ID 2404:7C00:47:D94D:3823:C249:D046:C33A is also removing some specific parties in similar pages. Can you please check whose ID it is? If possible please block that ID also. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Unless you can showcase diffs where there has been edit warring and you have used a BRD route that has not been reciprocated by the editor, this thread will be closed soon. In the future, please use the article talk pages to invite new editors for discussions, rather than just warning notes. Finally, please read up on the procedures for [[WP:DR|resolving disputes]] for future editorial disputes. However, feel free to come back right here with diffs in case the problem continues after you have followed dispute resolution procedures. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[WP:HOUNDING]], [[WP:INCIVILITY]] and [[WP:PERSONALATTACKS]] by [[User:Therapyisgood]] ==
{{atop
| status = closing
| result = Survey closed, discussion no longer needed. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

{{u|Therapyisgood}} was recently blocked 31 hours for personal attacks made at the [[WT:DYK|Did you know? talk page]] and at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2|theleekycauldron's request for adminship]]. While those comments were not addressed at me, these seem to be part of a campaign of his to drive me off the site by commenting at many of the discussions I've participated in and trying to get the opposite of what I want to happen. Therapyisgood has engaged in this [[WP:HOUNDING]] of me since about January. His behavior towards me has made me feel uncomfortable, has caused me great stress and has made me think at times about leaving the site. I've been trying my best not to retaliate and to be as civil as possible during this time, but Therapyisgood has continued HOUNDING me again and again and again for months. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have to take him here now for this as I think it has to stop. I've listed below many of the numerous examples of his HOUNDING, ranging from simply commenting at pages I do to outright nasty comments.
{{collapse top|title=What seems to have started this}}
* Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#User:BeanieFan11_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_at_NFL_AFDs here] (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1136016648] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985]).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=Worst violations since then}}
* I removed some articles from the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal list in March (also in the below section) that had SIGCOV and thus should not have been draftified, [[User:BilledMammal]] reverted it because he wanted to decide who could remove articles with significant coverage. I reverted three times, he reverted SIX - Therapyisgood somehow knows of this and reports ME to ANI for edit warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1142842396) - there was no consensus for anything.
* Then, after there was no consensus for anything at ANI - he went through the articles I improved and started adding maintenance tags (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hession&diff=prev&oldid=1143131465).
* A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly|nomination for Lewis Manly]] - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable) - it needed a new reviewer. Out of all the nominations Therapyisgood could have reviewed, he reviewed mine, came up with lots of issues (which were incorrect), and ultimately had it failed.
* April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too).
* Even worse, right after that, he nominated an absurd number of files I had created for deletion for being copyvios and messaged me to "stop uploading copyright violations" - users were outright confused at the discussions at how they could possibly have been copyright violations, and not a single one was deleted (see my commons userpage, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeanieFan11).
* April 25 - I had previously nominated Pro Football Hall of Famer [[Dave Wilcox]] to be listed at [[WP:ITN/C|ITN/RD]], it was close to being posted but was about to expire - Therapyisgood [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Wilcox&diff=prev&oldid=1151689211 TAGBOMBED the hell] out of the article, including for extremely silly things like the fact that one source listed him at 239 pounds, and another 241 pounds! It was not posted due to this.
* May 5 - I started a deletion review for the [[1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season|1991-92 Kilmarnock soccer team]], saying it should be relisted from delete - right after - "Endorse - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153242325). '''AND then, when I pointed out why it should be overturned - his response - "Go cry harder about it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153245470)'''
* May 28 - there was a discussion on whether a certain DYK hook that I had approved was racist - I pointed out why I didn't think so - right after, "Yes, this is racist - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1157344140) - he even went to [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] talking about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1157355211).
* June 2: I had recently been given [[WP:AFC|AFC]] reviewing rights, '''and Therapyisgood began going through my accepts and nominating them for deletion''' - see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65th Oregon Legislative Assembly]] - which had a unanimous consensus to keep, and Therapyisgood refused to withdraw it even when asked to.
* July 19: one of my DYK nominations was approved, Therapyisgood went to the DYK talk page and was trying to get it pulled for lack of interestingness, something he almost never does otherwise; everyone disagreed with him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_193#Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1).
* Then the most recent, which got him blocked, [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#John_Sterling_(American_football),_etc|insulting]] [[User:Gonzo fan2007]] at a discussion over a DYK I approved (again, he seems to almost never participate at WT:DYK discussion except when I am involved).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=More minor instances of HOUNDING since then}}
* At the start of March, when the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1142833690].
* A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Vehmeier&diff=prev&oldid=1144875410].
* Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junior_varsity_team&diff=prev&oldid=1147938410].
* April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1151691282].
* May 10 - I nominated [[Joe Kapp]] to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ).
* Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&diff=prev&oldid=1154170839#Should_we_soften_the_phrase_%22Sports_biographies_must_include_at_least_one_reference_to_a_source_providing_significant_coverage_of_the_subject,_excluding_database_sources.%22].
* June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on [[Tavon Rooks]] - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tavon_Rooks&diff=prev&oldid=1158124179] - this contributed to it being deleted.
* June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khaled_Soliman&diff=prev&oldid=1159169990]
* July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&diff=prev&oldid=1162954376]
* July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vladimir_Kryukov_(rower)&diff=prev&oldid=1163231320]
* July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1164340319]
* The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.
{{collapse bottom}}
Interestingly, looking at Therapyisgood's AFD log, [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname= ''every single discussion'' at which he has participated since late January was one involving me (minus the nominations, although they were all in either topics I was involved or on articles I worked on)] (and in all cases, him voting after my involvement ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Raynor|he commented at Wilson Raynor before me]], but that was only after I was involved in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Football_biography_cleanup#Wilson_Raynor NFL talk page discussion on him])). Also of note, only [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname=&nomsonly=true ''51%'' of his AFD nominations (19-18)] were successful and that number drops to {{abbr|10-16|10 successful, 16 not}} since October 2021. Since January 2023, he is {{abbr|8-10|8 successful, 10 not}}. I apologize for the massive amount of text, but I wanted to show just how extensive his HOUNDING of me has been. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' just wanted to note three things: (1) {{U|Therapyisgood}} appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by {{U|BeanieFan11}} (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of ''only two'' RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been ''right after one of my votes''/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with [[WP:HOUNDING]]. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:IBAN]] does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:: I understand that he has been {{tq|badgered, blocked and skewered}}, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but [[WP:HOUNDING]] is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I unblocked {{U|therapyisgood}} per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Thank you, please see my responses below. Thanks again. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I agree with [[User:Jayron32]]. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{ping|Therapyisgood}} and {{ping|BeanieFan11}}, can you both agree to an [[WP:IBAN]] with each other?[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to have my name engraved on the editing sanctions page when I don't think I've really done anything wrong. I'll have to think about this further. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK [[WP:TBAN]] for Therapyisgood seems in order. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* Support one-way [[WP:IBAN]] at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at [[WP:VP]] in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fulfillment_(book)&diff=prev&oldid=1029455929 this edit summary], and the original hook of [[Template:Did you know nominations/George Floyd (American football)|this DYK nomination]]) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.[[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

====TIG's response====
*I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused {{ping|BeanieFan11}} over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding {{ping|JoelleJay}} among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Looking at [[WP:IBAN]] it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. [[User:Dronkle|Dronkle]] ([[User talk:Dronkle|talk]]) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––[[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]] [[User talk:FormalDude|(talk)]] 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, [[WP:IBAN]] says that {{tq|A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}}[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in {{tq|a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}} One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::::I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::::Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:@ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. '''And that doesn't matter worth a damn.''' I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil ''no matter what.'' If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of {{tq|pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior}} and {{tq|hounding which if given time I can find diffs of}}. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]], 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The other 20% is insults and threats. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Quite. Possibly the text of [[WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!!]] should read "The invocation of this argument is ''prima facie'' ground for an indef." [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It feels like relevant context to point out that the ''other'' RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron1]], so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they ''weren't'' trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.
*::Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is [[per se]] an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.
*::In any event, the trolling comments that ''immediately'' came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::When I said {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that {{tq|"Are you really that thick?"}} comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after {{u|Gonzo fan2007}} let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, ''fast''. {{pb}}Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that ''she'' (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion? {{pb}}We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I don't like]]. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of [[WP:CIR|competency]] regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.{{pb}}Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all. {{pb}}Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This editor has problems beyond hounding BeanieFan11. See this thread from 6 months ago:
*[[User talk:Therapyisgood#AFD nominations]]
They gratuitously blew off a very polite request from [[User:Liz|Liz]] about pacing AfDs. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] did a good job of summarizing problematic edits concluding presciently that Therapyisgood was on track to WP:ANI someday. —[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{ping|A. B.}} Not only that, but he had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985 immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then] and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=next&oldid=1136016472 "stay off my talk page"]. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:So {{tq|”common courtesy”}} is not a good enough reason?. ''This is a collaborative project.'' Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you ''still refuse to accept'' this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.
**::—~~<~
**:[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –[[User:Novem Linguae|'''Novem Linguae''']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**{{ping|A. B.}} yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:[[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]], you ask, {{tq|”where was I wrong?”}}
**:Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.
**:I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.
**:One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people {{tq|”piss off”}} the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?
**:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*** Really? I'm {{tq|way off}} in my {{tq|whole framing}} of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is ''exactly'' how its felt to me. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to {{ping|BilledMammal}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142843309]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142844420]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
***** But my question is, ''how did you find all of those discussions''? (and you're misrepresenting some of those, for example, BilledMammal was not correct in his interpretation of 3RR, as shown by the closer declining your request) [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******The same way you found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646 this]. By the way, just because the closing admin declined a warning on the 3RR report doesn't make you right. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******* Thank you for confirming my belief; you've been [[WP:HOUNDING]] me by extensively going through all my contributions. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********"why are you so concerned about how people find discussions?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646] [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********:There's a big difference between periodically clicking on various editor's contribs and systematically hounding one person for months. If you can't understand that, you're not long for Wikipedia. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****:There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here. {{pb}}And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be [[WP:RBI|relatively simple]] and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and [[WP:CLUE|CLUEfulness]]. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to [[Occam's razor]]. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

===Survey===
{{archive top|result=Therapyisgood is banned from interacting with BeanieFan11 for one year. Besides the examples given in [[WP:IBAN]], they may not comment in discussions in which BeanieFan11 has already commented or nominate articles for deletion to which BeanieFan11 has contributed significantly. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan (talk)]] 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.
# Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
# Impose a two-way IBAN
# Block Therapyisgood for x duration
# Something else
[[User:Ca|Ca]] [[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]] 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''1 with additional conditions''' beyond what is at [[WP:IBAN]], to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''', in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least '''1 month''', recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: ''"If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses."'' While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:TIG was [[User talk:Therapyisgood/Archive 1#May 2020|given a 2-week block 3 years ago]] for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)|indefinitely restricted him to one account]] over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' seems like a commonsense approach.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Option 4''' I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban.</s> A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become [[WP:HARASSMENT|harassment]] in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. <s>Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
*# TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
*# BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
*<li style="list-style:none;">Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban.</s> [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:What you're proposing ''would'' be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years. {{pb}}However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.{{pb}}So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Snow Rise}} thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that [[WP:IBAN]] is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.
*:::And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Valereee}} I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that
*:::::# A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
*:::::# That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.
*:::::[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::{{re|Valereee}} a block is a punishment when:
*::::::1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them
*::::::2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased
*::::::TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I'll reply on your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3: Block and final warning''' If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If someone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will [[WP:AGF|act in good faith]] and not attempt to [[WP:BEAR|provoke or badger]] TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask {{ping|Floquenbeam}} how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to [[WP:AVOIDYOU]] in their interactions. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with additional conditions''' as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''' per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
**severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
**longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
**and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
*<li style="list-style:none;">In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of [[WP:ROPE]]. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a '''one month block''' is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that '''such block should be appealable only to the community''' as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.{{pb
}}I also '''support the 1-way IBAN''' as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.{{pb
}}Lastly, I '''support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement"''' sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:PA]] proclivities. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*A very broadly intended '''option 1''', and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block ('''option 3'''), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] seriously. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''1 with additional conditions''' as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3''' based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be '''7-14 days''', which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of [[WP:BLOCK]], which is {{tq|to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users}}. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. [[User:Carson Wentz|Carson Wentz]] ([[User talk:Carson Wentz|talk]]) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' with x=3 months and '''1 (+Jayron)'''. Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are ''very'' out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista/Archive|now-blocked, content-contributing hounder]] in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', oppose 3 as punitive [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3'''. I concur that a duration of '''1 month''' would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. [[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*''' Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month.''' The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1''' - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
** {{Ping|Valereee}} Obviously every administrative action (including option 1) results in some sort of punishment for those who are subjected to it, but I don't see how a short block (1/2 weeks in my view) would be just a punishment and not a preventive (and instructive) act. TIG was blocked for personal attacks just 3 days ago, and once unblocked he almost immediately resorted with the same gratuitously aggressive and insulting attitide. Even ignoring his comments towards BeanieFan11, he insulted Snow Rise, and when kindly asked to strike the insult he ignored the request. In his contribution history up to his last comments in this thread, he displayed a blatant [[Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT]] approach towards civility. I am the first one to hope TIG changes his attitude, as I see him as an otherwise valuable editor, but it is important he get the point about civility, be it with a block, with a strong warning or with some other means. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior. Time-limited blocks can simply be waited out. And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing.
**:In addiiton, a block would prevent TIG from doing things they don't need to be prevented from doing, so it's more restrictive than necessary to solve the problem, which at its heart is the hounding. If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community. A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::If this discussion results in only the IBAN, it won't be the end of the world: at least something will have been done to protect the community member who is currently bearing the brunt of TIGs inappropriate and vexatious behaviour and to send a message that the community has eyes on the rest. At the same time, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in at least one respect here:{{pb}}There are really two issues that need addressing here: 1) The concerted hounding of BeanieFan across a period of months, which is clearly unacceptable and which (we hope) the IBAN resolves, and 2) Petty, continuous, and pretty much instantaneous incivility any time TIG is criticized. These personal attacks don't come after heated back-and-forth's ramping the tension up, though they would be problematic enough in that context too. Rather, these kind of "Get a job--I have no time to argue with losers on the internet all day" / "Are you thick" comments are '''the very first things TIG says to people they have never had an interaction with before''' when they feel criticized, including community members contributing to an ANI where the goal is to get TIG to see their are issues with their mode of interaction with others on this project. That's a real problem. And the IBAN does absolutely nothing to address it.
**:::{{tq|"Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior."}}
**::Hey, I could be convinced to support an indef for that purpose, but I think we're probably both of the opinion that it's more than the minimum that might get TIGs attention here. I think Walt is right: that target is a month. And even if TIG does just wait out the block, at least they are shown that there are lines that this community will not let them routinely and indefinitely cross, and they will have time to consider what needs to change in their approach. Which is, you know, the usual point of any block that is not an indef?
**:::{{tq|"And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing."}}
**::Correct. And neither is a temporary block for repeated [[WP:CIV]] violations. It's not there for vindictive purposes or even to make us feel better that someone's behaviour has been "balanced" by punishment. But if it's necessary to force someone to reflect on problematic behaviour (as it very clearly is here), it's a preventative block. I'm surprised we're even having this debate: this is probably the single most common circumstance for the use of a block.
**:::{{tq|"If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community."}}
**::Actually, I think it very much does. Because we've seen that TIG can make a very contrite-seeming unblock appeal to an admin, feigning a willingness to comply with community expectations and the feedback of that admin...and then instantly go back to the offending behaviour they were blocked for in the first place. The fact that this behaviour occurs blatantly in view of the entire community in an ANI discussion where that very behaviour is being discussed only underscores how much TIG either doesn't get where the line is, or is completely incapable of controlling themselves and jumping to petty ad hominems in the face of any criticism. A CBAN is necessary precisely because it must be appealed the community.
**:::{{tq|"A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order."}}
**::Except, for the purposes of the conduct we are talking about here, calling this user a "well-intentioned, competent editor" is not appropriate. Nobody is being "well-intentioned" with regard to our community expectations when they are making the kind of personalized, spiteful comments TIG feels entitled to make when they see red (which is alarmingly fast in face of any opposition). And they are going to go on to feel entitled to that behaviour until the community draws a line in the sand. I'm sorry Val, normally I appreciate a light touch in an admin, but your description above feels more like enabling to me. And it won't do TIG any favours in the long run: it will just replace a one-month block now with an indef in the near future, I'd be willing to bet. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::{{edit conflict}} "''An IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''", I could say the same about a block: "''a block is not punishment. It may feel like it to the blocked editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''". None of the editors who support a (more or less brief) block here wants to "punish" TIG, we want him to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and adhere to it in in his future interactions. With respect, characterizing his long-term problematic behaviour as "a series of similar mistakes in short order" by "a well-intentioned, competent editor" goes exactly in the opposite direction and IMO sends the wrong message to the user. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::I'll answer at your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' - A one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]. A block is not necessary at this time, but will come soon enough if TIG does not learn quickly how restrictive a one-way IBAN is. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' — A one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]. This fair to BF and gives TIG time to find a way to be civil. Either TIG takes this new path as primary in contributing to Wikipedia or loses any long term chance of collaborating. — [[User:Neonorange|'''N''''''eonorange''']] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk to Phil]]) (he, they)` —
{{archive bottom}}
{{abot}}

== Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here ==

I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through [[Template:Deforestation in Nigeria]], used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria a project on Meta] The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)
*[[Draft:Deforestation and small ruminant farming]] (was in mainspace, I moved it to draft)
*[[Reforestation and urbanization in Nigeria]]
*[[Impact of deforestation on plant species diversity in Nigeria]]
*[[Deforestation in Nigeria]] (the main article)
*[[Deforestation and food security in Nigeria]]
*[[Animal grazing and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Effects of deforestation on the paper industry in Nigeria]]
*[[Tourism and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Fuel wood utilization in Nigeria]]
*[[Gender and timber trade in Nigeria]]
*[[Spatial pattern of deforestation in Nigeria]]

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

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

Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Participation], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Guidelines], on enwiki[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Task_Lists]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
A grant request[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into [[Deforestation in Nigeria]] some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{smalldiv|1=Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:::{{smalldiv|1=Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. [[User:Padgriffin|Padgriffin]] [[User Talk:Padgriffin|Griffin's Nest]] 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Olugold]] created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_overlinking_and_poor_grammar_'corrections'_by_relatively_new_editor] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. [[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.
:::However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".
:::I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. [[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] ([[User talk:Ngozi osadebe|talk]]) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]??? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] - {{tq|Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".}} I agree that putting the search term <code>deforestation in Nigeria</code> into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns120=1 a simple search for the phrase] will take you to [[d:Q5251686|Q5251686]], which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] @[[User:Olugold|Olugold]] you mention the list building tools in your grant proposal - but did this include just doing a keyword search on English Wikipedia itself? Surely that would be the ''first'' thing to try? Your grant proposal also indicates {{tq|Content Gender gap}} which pertains to the actual content (rather than the participants/editors) - what work is/will being done that falls into this category within the general scope of "deforestation in Nigeria"? [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Just flagging that after reviewing [[meta:Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria|the grant proposal]] and [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qksqwu2nBcan6KBo9qkn3rOgqOradX-QNqCN1cQDibg/edit linked spreadsheet], it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of [[purchasing power]] in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an ''extremely'' dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Thank you so much for drawig my attention to this. I have instructed the authors of the concerned articles to improve on them. The theme for our project is "Deforestation in Nigeria", as such there are likely to be topics that are related. Moreover, the editors though postgraduate students are new to Wikipedia editing. So it is likely that their edits will not be excellent. We have six month to work on the project. Many of the articles will improve before the expiry of the project life. [[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] ([[User talk:Ngozi osadebe|talk]]) 11:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Suggestion ===

I suggest that if there is any bridge of the wikipedia policy by any editor, such one should be called to order. If it was not intentional, the person will make the expected corrections or delete it. However, if the person insisted and some experts have looked into it and have arrived at what should be done, that should be done immediately.
For those that were making mistakes in editing, sometimes, the editor will not know. Sometimes where the corruption of words come from is not known to the editor. Once the person's attention is called, such corrections will be made.
We are here to help improve open knowledge and not to destroy it.
For me, if there is anywhere I made any mistake, I will like to know the place so I can correct it.
Thank you all for your patience and cooperation.[[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] ([[User talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|talk]]) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] I have move your post as it appears to relate to the Deforestation in Nigeria articles. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:I fear this is becoming a [[WP:CIR]] issue. I and others have had serious concerns about edits by this editor in the past (see [[User_talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu#March 2023]], and see from today things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edo_traditional_food&diff=1171500896&oldid=1167365759 this] (adding a picture from Uganda and claiming they are "varieties of Nigerian meals", and adding another picture from Ghana, for the topic [[Edo traditional food]] which is about a region in Nigeria) or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigerian_lowland_forests&diff=prev&oldid=1171491989 this] [[WP:POV]] edit. Basically, all their edits need thorough checking, and many need being reverted. It would be good if someone else can try to explain the issues, steering them in the right direction. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for the observation. Today, we were in a training and I was practicing. When I clicked on African food many of their images pumped up. I selected that one thinking it related to us. Sorry about that. I will correct it. Thank you. [[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] ([[User talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|talk]]) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it me, or is an addition like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_protection&diff=1146354871&oldid=1146222216 this one] (from March this year, and still largely unchanged present in the not important article) best reverted wholesale? From the start ("There has been a promise to end child labour internationally in 2020; unfortunately, we are in 2023 and we are looking forward to that of 2030.") over things like "Some do not go to public schools because the children are not being taking care of. Many of our public schools are without fence. " and "Right attitude to life will give children a beautiful light that life has well for them and when they work hard without allowing distractions, they will become great addition to humanity" to "Children are like arrows in the hand of mighty warriors", I don't see how this can easily be salvaged. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:This should be rolled back to the version from Jan 2023. The additions by this editor are extremely unencyclopedic and contain seriously unacceptable material in wikivoice. There are also numerous issues with referencing, both in the sources used and the formatting (e.g. a citation to a local church website home page to support the quiverful "arrows" paragraph above; citations to just "researchgate.net", "unicef.org", and numerous other website home pages with no other bibliographic info to identify what the specific article/page being referenced is). [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::I second this; we should restore to the Jan 2023 version. There's nothing but incredibly unencyclopedic and poorly written POV pushing in those additions. I do remember giving this editor a warning in March 2023 for POV pushing before while doing RCP back when I was still named Shadow of the Starlit Sky. I think that a [[WP:CIR]] block for Ngozi Stella Udechukwu may as well be in order as well. — '''[[User:Prodraxis|Prodraxis]]''' {[[User talk:Prodraxis|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Prodraxis|contribs]]} (she/her) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I share the concerns expressed by Fram and others, but a block at this stage would seem punitive, and that's not the goal of blocks. I think the focus should be on how to prevent this mess getting worse, then fix the content, and finally discuss what should be done to prevent this kind of botched outreach events that are relatively common today. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I've removed the added text at [[:Child protection]] and after commenting here, will start the talk page section I promised in my edit summary. I pinged {{U|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu}} in the edit summary; doing so again here. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

===Comment===
I greatly appreciate you all for your attention to this matter. While there does exist a specific page on 'Deforestation in Nigeria', it's essential to recognize that the broad subject holds potential for various nuanced topics beyond this scope. Consolidating all sub-topics under 'Deforestation in Nigeria' could potentially lead to a voluminous article with several stand-alone topics.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the grant approval process underwent rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. It's important to note that the rewards for the project's duration of six months encompass valuable resources such as data or internet connectivity subsidies.

I kindly request that if any article has not yet achieved an ideal state for inclusion in the Wikipedia mainspace, contributors can be notified on the talk page with possible suggestions for improvement or better still, moved to draftspace for further improvements. This collaborative approach helps identify areas for enhancement and ensures that the collective effort is not unfairly dismissed as unproductive. [[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{tq| The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value.}} Approval demonstrates that the WMF grants team judged the project worthy of funding, but doesn’t compel any specific project to treat it as significant. [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding your last paragraph, I don't see why the edits made by your editathon should be treated any differently to the thousands of other content edits made every day -- it is not our responsibility to faciliate the deforestation project, not least when there was no notification/consultation with enwiki despite there being an opportunity for such [[m:Grants:Programs/Organizer Lab/Deforestation in Nigeria|on the grant form (Q10)]]. [[User:Giraffer|Giraffer]] ([[User talk:Giraffer|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Giraffer|contribs]]) 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Why not just draftify all of these articles and have them go through the normal AFC process? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Seconding {{U|Jonesey95}}'s suggestion of mass draftification. That's the best way to find out whether they can be improved to a standard that justifies either reinstatement as independent articles or merger. We have no control over the WMF's processes, but a responsibility to protect the encyclopedia from poorly thought out and executed content, regardless of the good intentions of the editors involved. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Jonteemil]] ==

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

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

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

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

::Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, ''they have specifically said nothing about deletion'' in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even ''asking'' for these files to be deleted. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10]] as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::No, they don't ''need'' to but they are ''allowed'' to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that ''maybe'' something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure ''enough'' to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD ''is the exact process'' where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg]] on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're ''still not going to block Jonteemill'' because some admin fucked up. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be ''kept'' or ''deleted''… rather ''Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F''. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. [[WP:FFD]] gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]], it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not [[c:COM:TOO US]]. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Well, {{t|PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO ([[threshold of originality]]) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{t|Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the [[WP:NFCCP|Non-free criteria]], whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some [[WP:Non-copyright restrictions]] as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.
::::::::The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even [[:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg]] is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to [[:File:Best Western logo.svg]] nor [[:File:Jamba logo.svg]] (read more at [[c:COM:TOO Australia]] and [[c:COM:TOO US]]).
::::::::My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above [[c:COM:TOO Spain]]), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below [[c:COM:TOO US]]). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers '''''Keep''''' haha.
::::::::I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm pinging {{U|Edward-Woodrow}} who closed one of the FFDs as ''keep'' and {{U|Marchjuly}} who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I feel like I've entered into a game of Chinese whispers without knowing. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Come on {{u|Govvy}}, they have a nook around here for us ludites whenever things turn towards file hosting protocols. Well watch something with [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7OWlVYYRw slightly more sensible and accessible language]. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Snow Rise}} Thanks for that technically insight! And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uko3RU6h8 here's my reply!], Probably time for a close!? [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Witchcraft and related topics ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = No consensus on anything; and no action here (except one indef I've issued on the sidelines). The RfC ([[Talk:Witchcraft#RFC on Lede Section on Witchcraft|it's actually interesting]]) should contribute to some level of DR... and for those interested in knowing the real difference between Wicca and Witchcraft. Closing this now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 11:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

[[user:CorbieVreccan]] made a post at [[Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft]] claiming that another user had attempted to [[WP:CANVASS]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASystemic_bias&diff=1164716594&oldid=1148026263]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias&diff=next&oldid=1164802153] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] over the page for some time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1065455830&oldid=1065412597][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1065455830][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1164335557&oldid=1164309405]

I became involved,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1164845755&oldid=1164832640] was immediately reverted,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1164846266] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166673169] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167331496&oldid=1167329970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169277375&oldid=1169259738] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWitchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168294712&oldid=1168285517][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1166461323&oldid=1166453545][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169208102&oldid=1169200522]

About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and [[Wikipedia:Tag team|established coordination]] with [[user:Asarlaí]] for further efforts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorbieVreccan&diff=prev&oldid=1165212353] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEsowteric&diff=1165058795&oldid=1164781619][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167739795&oldid=1167738218] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1166783262&oldid=1166766606] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168562312&oldid=1168495409]

I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168449182&oldid=1168363448], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166176326] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165243409&oldid=1165238129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165341831&oldid=1165340593]

There's more, but I'm not sure what else to add as relevant and I've lost visibility on some of it through page deletions. This has been exhausting. I'm just trying to cover the material in line with what academic sources say - including sources already being used in the main Witchcraft article; but somehow that's insufficient justification. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]], you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by {{np|Asarlaí}} for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of [[WP:BOLD]] changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet [[wp:onus]], Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when [[Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built|people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built]]. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}}. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.
:::::::report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I have been dragged into this tangentially after voting on a RM related to this dispute. I do not think the situation currently needs admin attention. There is a very nasty content dispute over the lead section of [[Witchcraft]]; but the current RFC process seems to be addressing that problem in a civil manner. The concerns and accusations about canvassing or tag-teaming should be ignored; this is a situation where additional voices are helpful, and accusations that any new participant might have been "canvassed" are harmful. As far as POV-pushing: with this type of disagreement, it is inevitable that people view "the other side" as POV-pushing. Until there is some form of consensus, that is not actionable. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Walt Yoder}} point of clarity; I'm not accusing CV of canvassing specifically. My first encounter was ''them'' (incorrectly) making that accusation (diff linked above). - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Here we go again''' This is exactly what Darker Dreams posted to ArbCom (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring at the Edit-warring board in defense of Skyerise on July 23]). It is full of misrepresentations, personal attacks, confusion, and blatant lies. I suggest folks go and read what happened there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Statement_by_CorbieVreccan Direct link to my statement to Arbcom]. I am requesting [[WP:BOOMERANG]] for DD's ongoing disruption, [[WP:forum shopping]], and wasting of Wikipedians' time and energy.
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics Responses by myself and other editors to this same text by Darker Dreams at rejected Arbcom request].
:However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': having been watching and to some degree involved in this dispute, I personally find no issues with [[user:Asarlaí]]'s editing as they seem more willing to collaborate. As for [[User:CorbieVreccan]], I can only say that I had hoped that an administrator would hold themselves to higher standards rather than ending up the editor with the higher revert count in sevaral disputes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has a block record for personal attacks and harassment, for edit-warring on WP in general, and after Darker Dreams, is the other most-disruptive person in this dispute, along with Esoterwic. Though her editing is a bit better since DD was blocked. She had to take a 48 hour break when reported for 3RR on [[Witchcraft]] by Asarlaí.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1167467045#User:Skyerise_reported_by_User:Asarla%C3%AD_(Result:_Full_protection_for_three_days)] She also engaged in the same personal attacks as Darker Dreams, calling me a "vandal" for doing normal, good-faith editing on Darker Dreams' POV-pushing [[Template:Witchcraft sidebar]]:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWitchcraft_sidebar&diff=1168416745&oldid=1168302906 "rv POV vandalism"]. Interestingly, Darker Dreams then used basically the same edit summary in that account's personal attacks, also on Asarlaí and me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230802222105&diff=prev "Undid revision 1168449182 by CorbieVreccan (talk) POV vandalism"],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230803190744&diff=prev "Revert to 02:41, 3 August 2023‎ edit by Josvebot to undo admitted POV vandalism and off-topic push by User:Asarlaí"] (there was no "admission" of any of the false accusations in the personal attack edit summaries) - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::That doesn't invalidate or address what I said. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft "You just gonna watch from the sidelines?"]. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Still deflecting, I see. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a [[WP:SNOW]]ed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at [[Talk:Witchcraft]], but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western [[neopagan]] understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Darker%20Dreams/1/Witchcraft 71,328 bytes] to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*: I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on [[Talk:Witchcraft]], and I'm not sure that [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]]'s approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on [[European witchcraft]], the supposedly global article on [[Witchcraft]] focuses [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]] and the witch trials summarized in [[European witchcraft]], and the [[WP:BROADCONCEPT|overview article]] get to the global coverage it professes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&diff=prev&oldid=1166441494 blatant battleground behavior]. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Care to provide an example that's not a month old? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::What should that matter? Blatant battleground behavior doesn't suddenly become not-objectionable because a few weeks have passed. The civility policies don't have sell-by dates. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 09:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|Ravenswing}} Our blocking policy has always been ''preventative'', not ''punitive''. This means we don't block people just because some editor might dislike previous behavior that is not currently ongoing. It is incumbent on the editor who brings up the issue to show that ongoing damage to Wikipedia is currently occurring and unlikely to stop. That's why. And if you want to establish an "ongoing pattern" of "blatant battleground behavior", you're going to need more than one diff to document it. The IP you are apparently supporting even misinterpreted the one diff it did supply, not knowing the context: I only said that to Randy because he kept thanking me for my edits even though he was not participating in the talk page discussion himself. And my intent was that he join the discussion, not join me in any imaginary "battle". Anyway, context is important and you should also document the number of articles I've written along with your attempted attack on my character. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Erm. Want to show me where in my comment I mentioned the word "block?" But allow me to amend that now. Quite aside from that ''no'' one's edit count immunizes them against the requirement to follow civility policies (unless you're comfortable with being judged on your extensive block log in the same breath as your article count, while we're talking about "context"), the reason why we discuss such incidents is to assess the likelihood that such behavior is an ongoing problem, for which of course there are sanctions other than blocking, including IBANs, TBANs, simple admonishments and trout slaps.With that, if you consider ''that'' an attack on your character, then along with some of your other statements in this thread and elsewhere? This reflexive lashing out is not a good look on your part. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 19:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::So let me get this straight. It's okay for CV to assert that I have "been editing the Witchcraft articles at a feverish pace, splitting off ''many'' articles into new ones", but it's not okay for me to say that actually I have only split off ''one'' article and that therefore "many" is an exaggeration? Is that what you're saying? I'd just like you to be clear about that. Or that it's okay for CV to say "She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account", implying that I am socking – without backing it up? There are quite a few things that CV says about me here and elsewhere that simply aren't accurate, most of which I would characterize as "exaggeration", and they appear to me to be doing the same thing with respect to DD's behavior. Again, I expect better from an admin, and I believe [[WP:ADMINCOND|Wikipedia policy]] does as well. But you're saying that pointing that out here in the places where it is actually occurring is uncivil? Is that what you're saying? Because they're an admin. Is that right? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 10:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*{{Userlinks|Darker Dreams}} has slowed their editing since the partial block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1169870190#User:Darker_Dreams_reported_by_User:CorbieVreccan_(Result:_Blocked_from_article_for_a_week) for one week for tendentious editing / edit-warring] to focus on [[WP:forum shopping]]. But
*{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has been editing the [[Witchcraft]] articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones. While so far the ones I've seen seem OK, I am still concerned, with the history of aggressive POV pushing, personal attacks (see diffs above and block log), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft this exchange about being patient while revert-warring] that this could result in many different article to watch, and that over time the POV push will return on multiple fronts. I'm waiting for someone to say, "AGF!" ... we're way past that at this point. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:CorbieVreccan also has a tendency to exaggerate. I've made several already existing witchcraft articles more robust ([[Asian witchcraft]], [[European witchcraft]], and [[Witchcraft in Latin America]]); but I've only created one, [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]], not "many". [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You have proposed new articles for multiple sections on the page. The templates have a link to discuss on the main talk page (which is now hugely cluttered and difficult to navigate, with an ongoing RfC), but I did not see any section set up to discuss more forks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I'm not talking about forks. I'm talking about regional coverage, which is half in place. I think all but one of those links go the the target article talk page. I guess you haven't actually pursued discussing them. The exaggeration is something you and Darker Dreams have in common. You should find a way to work together better. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Skyrise's edits to witchcraft daughter articles are mostly connected to this discussion: [[Talk:Witchcraft#Article length]]—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You restored [[Neopagan witchcraft]] from a redirect, challenging a previously uncontested merge from 2017, which did effectively create a child article. [[Draft:Witch (archetype)]] and [[User:Skyerise/sandbox/Witch (archetype)]] appear to be a partially done spin off. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|Witchcraft (traditional)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|Witchcraft (diabolic)]] were also created, but I don't know by whom because they were then deleted. [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] is also relevant, though it was created by Darker Dreams. Not weighing in on which of these should or shouldn't exist, but there's definitely been some effort to spin off articles, one of which was determined at AfD to be a POV fork. Further move/split proposals were made at [[Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 21:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Not sure what my drafts have to do with anything. It's not a "spin-off" of anything. It's missing coverage. I'm undecided whether the material can stand on its own or should be merged somewhere, or where. The others were created by Darker Dreams, not I. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"that this could result in many different article to watch" how does this not read as "make it difficult for me to [[wp:own]]" which is the core complaint I'm making. Also of note, the "forum shopping" arriving here is exactly what several of the arbitrators said should have happened when declining that request. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::How? Well, because the core of your complaint is unclear and poorly-structured, for the reasons I explained above. So, no, you have not established a coherent basis for WP:OWNERSHIP, which the quoted passage does not necessarily presupposes. That said, I don't see how it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING if a declined arbitration request was the only previous forum (I presume you prematurely jumped to arbitration before exhausting all other options, like here). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It wasn't DD's first forum.
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Darker Dreams posts same text he used at Arbcom, and here, at ANI at Edit-warring board on July 23, 2023]
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1167132878 Darker Dreams files "Witchcraft" at Dispute Resolution board, July 25, 2023]
*:::* Then ignoring the DR and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&oldid=1170296610#RFC_on_Lede_Section_on_Witchcraft RfC] in progress,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft/Draft_RFC&diff=prev&oldid=1169459771] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics files same text from 3RR at Arbcom on 13 August 2023]. This is in addition to long rants with large overlaps in text on multiple talk pages and XfDs. Please see the uninvolved editor statements about this in the filing.
*:::* And here we are at ANI for round 4, not including all the casting of aspersions in edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::That's right, mediated dispute resolution wasn't exhausted, but was interrupted, and {{u|Robert McClenon}} [[Special:Diff/1170464920|complained]] about this, saying: "ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to [[WP:ANI]]." —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Huh. Well, that's not good. Prior DR attempts ought to have been provided in a clear way by the OP, rather than partially and half-hazardly, within unmarked (untitled) diffs. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I am somewhat involved with the [[Talk:Witchcraft]] discussion, but not deeply so. While I won’t go into content issues here, I will address some of my observations of behavior. One of the main problems with the discussion is that some editors, in particular Darker Dreams keep taking things personally and reacting emotionally. IMHO, it is more productive here to take a detached view, as it helps to maintain a NPOV. WP goes by what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions or belief systems are.

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

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

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

:To my mind, this is the very definition of tendentious editing, [[WP:TEND]]. Their behavior has been a huge, [[WP:TIMESINK|time-sink]]. It is my opinion as an editor that Darker Dreams should be topic blocked from all articles dealing with witchcraft. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I am also involved in the dispute, but also not very deeply perhaps. In connection to the above, I believe that editors should also be aware that, during the dispute, Darker Dreams created three spin-off articles, two of which were deleted: I find it quite noteworthy that one of them underwent A10 deletion ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|AfD]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Witchcraft+%28diabolic%29 log]); another was AfD'd as a POV fork ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|AfD]]); the third one is [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] article, and it has problems to put it mildly. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:I have a question about what the OP, [[User:Darker Dreams]], is requesting. What administrative action are you asking for the community to take either against [[User:CorbieVreccan]] or against anyone else? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:The only administrative action that I see proposed in this thread is that Netherzone has called for a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] against Darker Dreams from the area of witchcraft. Is there any connection between [[witchcraft]] and [[boomerangs]]? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:: The decorations on boomerangs and other Indigenous Australian artifacts often carry spiritual and symbolic significance. These designs and patterns are more than just aesthetic elements; they can convey important cultural, spiritual, and ancestral meanings. The decorations on boomerangs can indeed be considered as magical or spiritual symbols in the context of Indigenous Australian cultures. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 07:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Support''' boomerang topic ban. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' while a couple of article creation attempts were misguided, DD also produced a nice {{Template|Witchcraft sidebar}} which aids navigation between the regional daughter articles under [[Witchcraft]]. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::So? if I create an incredibly useful template on [a topic]but i act like a jerk on [topic], does that protect me from being Tbanned from [topic]? [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149|2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149|talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Also '''oppose boomerang''' as a mostly non-involved party here. While I admittedly haven't been following the whole saga super closely, I haven't really gotten a sense that DD in particular is a problem editor separate from the general [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] attitude going around here. (I do wish they'd let the DRN process work itself out before going to drama boards tho, I really do think taking this to ANI so quickly was counterproductive.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Strong Support''' for topic banning DD from [[Witchcraft]] and all related articles, broadly construed. Would also like some administrative action taken against Skyerise for her [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, chronic incivility, poisoning of the well, vicious personal attacks and casting of aspersions. I offered a diff above of her calling me a "POV vandal" for normal editing, a phrase which the DD account also used in attacking me and Asarlaí, and you can see her constant jabs on this page. She has been just as [[WP:OWN]]y on these articles as DD. As shown in the diffs I offered above, she is the one who coordinated tag-team edit-warring with Randy Kryn and DD. She is very capable of playing nice for a while, but then reversing it all later and, like above, claiming things she did a month ago (or longer) don't count. She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account, and is clever at gaming the system. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I must object to the [[WP:ASPERSION|aspersions]] cast by CV suggesting that I have abused multiple accounts. I have never edited with any other account, though before I created this, my one and only account, I edited as an IP for a few years. My original user name was "Yworo", I went through the official process to have my account renamed. That's it. If CV thinks otherwise they are welcome to open an SPI case. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''SUPPORT''' a topic ban for Darker Dreams. I'd also '''support serious consequences''' for Skyerise who has been a very [[WP:Tendentious|tendenious editor]] in all of this, including personal attacks, incivility, and casting aspersions about CorbieVreccan and others(e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1171067924 "CorbieVreccan has a tendency to exaggerate."]). She also has a pattern of insinuating that any admin or editor who disagrees with her is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1171058252 either incompetent or has ulterior motives.] I don't have the time or energy tonight to provide more examples/diffs but if anyone wants to look at [[Talk:Witchcraft]], they can probably be found. I have past experience with Skyerise's particular technique of wearing down other editors by a combination of bullying and misrepresentation. Cheers, [[User:Mark Ironie|Mark Ironie]] ([[User talk:Mark Ironie|talk]]) 01:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Do be sure to click through that link labelled "either incompetent or has ulterior motives" - neither accusation is supported by what I said there. Also, I invite anyone to test the ironic assertion that more (sic) examples could probably be found "if anyone wants to look at [[Talk:Witchcraft]]", I invite them to do as MI suggests: go ahead and review all my comments on that talk page. I have, and I found that they are all polite, detailed logical reasoning about content matters. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 11:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' and would ask that all editors stop this merry-go-round and concentrate on removing language at [[Witchcraft]] which sinks to the level of accusatory language brought by the anti-feminist witchhunters of the past. When Wikipedia repeats, in Wikipedia's voice, the absurd claims of those who murdered tens of thousands of women by accusing them of things those women knew nothing about, it focuses on the spin of other-hate rather than on the involved topic. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' sanctions on {{U|Skyerise}}. They have made '''many, really useful improvements''' to [[European witchcraft]], [[Asian witchcraft]], [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]] (which was quite sensibly split from the Asia article, as the Middle East and Asia are two very different domains), and [[Neopagan witchcraft]]. As a result of this, and her eye for fine detail as well as a good view of the broader picture, [[Witchcraft]] itself is being improved. It's not at all right to drag her through the mud here. I'm also sad to see that the dispute resolution process failed due to DD's jumping the gun and mistakenly taking the issue to ArbCom, but I'm glad to see the RfC about the lede that nevertheless came out of the DRN. [[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]] + [[User talk:Esowteric|Talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|Breadcrumbs]] 14:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Page blocked for following [[WP:DENY]], without warning, in contentious DRV ==
{{atop|Consensus tending broadly towards:
#Aman reverting the sock being okay, per policy/guideline/essay
#AB reverting Aman being okay
#Aman's subsequent edit warring not being okay
#Cryptic's block of Aman being not okay, if done purely based on his reverting the sock; and being broadly okay, if done due to Aman's edit warring (which presumably was the case)
#General okay towards lifting of the indefinite block put on Aman by Cryptic

Given the above, with due regard to all comments by editors here, I am lifting Aman's block. In case any administrator wishes to overturn this closure, you may please do so without my permission. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

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

*This sock came back to start [[WP:DRV]] at '''19:53,''' on 17 August‎.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170885872]
*The sock got blocked for evading his block at '''09:42''' 18 August for block evasion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141].
*At '''10:06''', I closed the DRV per [[WP:DENY]], [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE]] and [[WP:SNOW]] because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729]
*Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151]
*From '''17:40''', I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
*At '''17:55''', my close was now reverted by a different editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041589] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV]
*Now 20 minutes later, at '''18:16''', I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171044510]
*Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171045480]

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

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

:See:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17# Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:The AfD’s initiator, [[User: Aman.kumar.goel| Aman.kumar.goel]], an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171035962][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766], then speedy closed, then told @[[The ed17|The ed17]] he closed since there were no objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171042082].
:If you look at this AfD’s [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history edit history], you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.
:Now he’s going after @[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] here at ANI.
:My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay]]
:**currently underway
:**Upadhyay authored Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
:**[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ved_Prakash_Upadhyay&action=history edit history]
:I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.
:—~~<~ [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "{{tq|Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven}}" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]].
:::There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 per the version of the DRV which I closed]. That close was perfectly valid per [[WP:DENY]] and [[WP:SNOW]].
:::You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&action=history]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.
::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 the version of the DRV which I closed]. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Aman, there you go again.
::::::You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.'' [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766 diff]
::::::Clearly duplicitous behaviour.
::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171039766 This edit which you are citing] appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=next&oldid=1171039766] It is not same as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 this edit] (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Dympies|Dympies]], please explain these diffs:
::::::::Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::::::::His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::::::::After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::This is irrelevant to your false claim that {{tq|"You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.''"}} Don't shift the goalposts. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of [[WP:HOLES|holes]]. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::How? The DRV was started [[WP:DENY|by a sock]] and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I’ll also note that [[WP:DENY]] is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:DENY]] cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It isn't an excuse to make [[WP:INVOLVED]] closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an ''essay'' is doing no-one any good. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:
:::*First:[[Special:MobileDiff/1171039766|you delete my oppose]]
:::*Then: [[Special:MobileDiff/1171039834|you close the DRV]]
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Kusma}} The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A [[WP:DENY|sock can be reverted by anyone]].
::::{{ping|Cryptic}} The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 nobody who opposed the closure]. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] reverted you.
:::::You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] reverted you twice.
:::::After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.
:::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041039] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412 AfD] as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Ping {{U|Bishonen}}, {{U|RegentsPark}} and {{U|El C}} since they are familiar with the area. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

:I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Illegal? In what jurisdiction? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.
*:I ''do'' care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.
*:—20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*:There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and ''really'' should not have gotten into an edit war over ''either'' of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I agree with {{u|Kusma}}. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Isabelle Belato}} I had already started the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV here] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#Don't here]. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy [[Wikipedia:Involved]] and the explanatory essay [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closures]] are clear: "{{green|''Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes.''}}" Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse {{u|Drmies}}' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]] 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Recommend 1RR restriction'''. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious [[WP:DRV|DRV]]. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that [[User:Aman.kumar.goel]] was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that [[User:A. B.]] also is in good faith requesting [[WP:DRV|deletion review]], so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear [[WP:IDHT]], and I think Cryptic got it spot on. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*{{ping|RegentsPark|SportingFlyer}} But I had already stopped reverting on DRV before the block was made since I was discussing elsewhere about it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV] I was obviously not planning to resume reverting but the block came without any prior warning and in middle of the discussion. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.
:{{U|Cryptic}}'s use of [[WP:ROLLBACK]] against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] These actions are not in the line with [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK|the blocking policy]].
:Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.
::@[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] please explain how the following is “good faith”:
::*Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::*His next edit was to close the DRV:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::*After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] your criticism of [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]]’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. [[WP:DENY]] is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::*@A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, [[Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures|you have to first consult]] the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOTBURO|judicial body]] so your use of the term "{{tq|illegal}}" is misleading. It is correct that [[WP:ROLLBACK]] says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "{{tq|disingenuous}}", "{{tq|disingenuousness}}", "{{tq|duplicitous}}" across this thread, you have already put yourself into [[WP:NPA]] block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Cryptic}}, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
* Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]], which ''is'' policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in ''opposition'' to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a ''closure'' myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) '''However''', BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted ''once'' by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. ''wanted'' to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It's covered in the fourth bullet point. I've made such closures myself (though not recently, and I don't think it's worth going and looking for a diff). But the point is to minimize disruption and wasted editor-hours, and the closure attempts here did the precise opposite in both respects. It's not like the discussion was ever in any danger of giving the ip what they wanted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see [[WP:IAR]]) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than [[WP:EVADE]] or [[WP:BANREVERT]] or indeed, [[WP:DENY]]. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::[[WP:BANREVERT]] is a site-wide policy, and it would be improper to sanction an editor for enforcing it. DRV [[WP:LOCALCON|cannot make itself immune]]. There is no excuse for reverting the restoration by an editor in good standing, though. At that point, policy [[WP:PROXYING|considers]] the thread to belong to whoever restored it, so unless they're violating some other policy, it's valid. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Not only is [[WP:INVOLVED]] also a site-wide policy, the block was not levied because of WP:BANREVERT. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You are wrong because the BANREVERT is among the reasons behind blocking in the words of Cryptic; "early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171057849] [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Lucky that's among the reasons. If it was the sole reason for the block, IMO that would be a serious enough administrative error that we should be contemplating an arbcom case. [[User:Cryptic]], [[WP:DENY]] is site-wide policy. Please learn it if you want to continue to be an admin. If you're unwilling, please hand in your tools voluntarily under a cloud and save us the hassle of a future arbcom case when you ignore [[WP:DENY]] in circumstances where a block wasn't otherwise justified. DRV regulars, we have enough problem areas as it is. Please '''do not''' allow DRV to become another one since it serves a useful purpose. If you continue to ignore site wide policy, we may have no choice but to shut down DRV and look at other ways of handling deletion reviews which doesn't allow the development of an insular [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] board that has developed a culture where sitewide policy is ignored is. Such a thing is '''completely unacceptable''' so it's not something we should allow to continue. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::P.S. Since I'm a nitpicker myself, I should clarify it is [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] and [[WP:SOCK]] which are policy which is what I should have said instead of [[WP:DENY]]. Remember that [[WP:3RRNO]] even makes it clear that reverting a sock or evader doesn't count as edit warring. For further clarity, I'm aware that Aman Kumar Goel started to edit war against non socks, that's why I said there was other reasonable justification for the block. My point is that it's well established that block and ban evaders are unwelcome here, and editors are very welcome to remove their disruption no matter whether they're technically [[WP:INVOLVED]]. It's something that all admins, and frankly all experienced editors hoping to contribution useful to DRV should be well aware of. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{EC}} I should clarify I have no specific opposition A.B. restoring the discussion if they felt it had merit (as opposed to restoring it since they thought what Aman Kumar Goel did was improper). However as Aquillion's said, the sock's comments should have remained struck. And it might have been better to simply start a fresh discussion untainted by a sock if there was little useful to support the case A.B. wanted to make. It's complicated since older participants may feel they already addressed A.B. points and there was no need for them to remake them. OTOH, as we've seen at ANI and elsewhere, when we leave open threads started by known socks, there can be dissatisfaction with the result which lasts a long time and generates more AN//I threads and I see no reason to doubt the same could happen at DRV. Note that IMO if there have been good faith contributions, unless you're absolutely sure the people who made the comment doesn't mind, it's generally better to archive etc rather than to delete a pointless discussion started by the sock. While it is cleaner to simply delete all sock nonsense, we do have to consider the feelings or other editors who might be unhappy with their good faith contributions being deleted. If it's a small number of contributions you could ask for permission but if it's complicated just strike and close/archive. Anything else risks increasing disruption from the sock (which could be what they want), not reduce it which should ultimately be our goal. Perhaps my final point, I think we need to be clear why BANEVADE matters here. This case is complicated by the fact there were other comments even if they were almost universally in opposition to the sock. However, from what [[User:SportingFlyer]] has said, it seems to me they think that if a sock S opens a DRV then editor E who was involved in the deletion cannot speedy close this discussion even if there are no comments besides sock S. And this would apply even if editor E noticed this sock (before or after the report, it doesn't matter) and reported sock S to an admin or CU who agreed and blocked sock S as a sock. This is not in any way acceptable, and DRV need to get with the programme, or risk being shut down. Socks and their contributions are unwelcome, and so there is no harm in removing them, involved or not. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], this is the language at the top of the [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition]] (“WP:DENY”)
:*{{tq|” This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, ''nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines'', as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”}}
:[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] did not violate any policy. It is inappropriate to say he should hand in his tools. Clearly outside a small group of editors, there is wide support here for Cryptic’s actions.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::@Nil Einne: If I can squeeze a word in edgewise through the edit conflicts?{{pb}}[[WP:DENY]] is not site-wide or any other sort of policy [I see you acknowledged that afterwards]. It doesn't say anything like what you seem think it does. What actual policy has to say is that editors can reinstate the edits of blocked users if "[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Proxying|the changes are either verifiable or productive '''and''' they have independent reasons for making such edits]]", which I think we can all agree A. B. has done. And a selective quote out of context - when the context is on this very page, even if it's not visible in the linked diff - doesn't make something true. You want to know what I blocked for? You could look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAman.kumar.goel&diff=1171044961&oldid=1170966010 what I said I blocked for].{{pb}}Look. I don't usually participate in reviews of my administrative actions - if they can't stand on the reasons I stated for them, they probably weren't justified - but ''this'' I cannot allow to stand. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|A. B.}} Yes I linked to the wrong pages. I already acknowledged that. Also you and [[User:Cryptic]] seem to have misunderstood they key point of my comments. Aman.kumar.goel was edit warring against non socks. For that reason the block was justified. But this in no way shape or form justifies any misunderstanding of policy on the part of an admin. Socks are unwelcome to edit here. Editors can remove their contributions without concern even when they are involved. As I said in my clarification above which I unfortunately only finished after you two posted, this is very important thing that needs to be understood from this discussion. Since if we put aside the case which involved good faith contributions and editing warring, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor removing the contributions of a sock even if you are involved. Any admin needs to know this. It doesn't matter if you're at DRV or anywhere else. It's deeply concerning that from Cryptic own comments here at ANI (which I read before my first reply), it sounds like they do not understand this. As I said, their block was justified for other reasons, so I'm not suggesting an arbcom case would succeed which I said in my first reply before any edits. But the fact remains an admin who is so seriously misinformed of policy is surely going to make a mistake in the future and so needs to either quickly learn, or yes should just hand in their tools. Putting Cryptic aside, SportingFlyer definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy and thinks some localconsensus at DRV override sitewide policy on BLOCKEVADE. If another editor wishes to reintroduce the contributions of a sock, that's fine provided they are doing so because they feel they have merit. It is however unacceptable to restore the contributions simply because you don't think the editor had any right to remove them because they were uninvolved or because of some local consensus at [[WP:DRV]]. Note that I am not saying this happened here, I mentioned it just because it is important to understand the key issue namely there is nothing wrong with removing the contributions of socks. Ultimately I remain deeply concerned that SportingFlyer, and probably Cryptic seems to think some localconsensus at DRV means discussions can't be closed by an uninvolved editor when they clear can be in certain circumstances as they can be anywhere else. Note also that in the case of a talk page discussion, it's well accepted that sock contributions can be struck and discarded. Good faith replies from non socks shouldn't be. However the net result of this is if another editor agrees with what a sock said, they should reintroduce these points, preferably in their one words rather than trying to fight the striking of sock's comments. (This doesn't apply in article space of course.) P.S. One reason why I'm so concerned is SportingFlyer kept insisting there is effectively some local consensus at DRV which prevented the application of BLOCKEVADE which is well accepted by regulars. This was greatly compounded when I read Cryptic's clarification of their block linked by Orientls above when they seemed to ignore the important points. (Was the editor a sock because if so Aman Kumar Goel involvement and DRV's localconsensus was irrelevant as to the basics of removing the socks contributions. How Aman Kumar Goel handled the good faith contributions of others is a reasonable point of discussion. Aman Kumar Goel editwarring is not, it was wrong. I don't see anyone who has questioned this except for maybe Aman Kumar Goel themselves.) Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Of course I don't think local consensus at DRV overrides [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. Do you really think I'm arguing socks are welcome there? The entire problem here started because an [[WP:INVOLVED]] non-administrator closed the discussion, and the prong that they closed it under even notes that generally these are "administrative closes." If they had just struck the sock's comments, we'd be fine. If they had asked an admin to close early, we'd be fine. If they hadn't reverted after it was reopened, we'd be fine. But you've completely mis-interpreted what I'm arguing, and considering you've said that I "definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy" and were yet incorrect in even understanding what I was arguing, I'd like it if you offered an apology. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 21:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{EC}} I see Cryptic themselves has pointed out above SportingFlyer is simply wrong as DRV speedy closure guidelines implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of closures for BANEVADE reasons "{{tqi|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations}}" Given this, it seems Cryptic must understand that a local consensus at DRV cannot override BANEVADE or SOCK so I no longer have concerns over their understanding of this fundamental point. However I've re-read what they said above several times and stick by my original comment. It was very unclear from what Cryptic said that they said that they understood this important point namely that if the editor was a sock, removing their contributions in as reasonable a manner as possible was fully justified no matter involvement or DRV guidelines. Which given the presence of other good faith contributions was complicated so we can debate the best way to do so, but not the fundamental issue namely that socks are unwelcome so involved doesn't matter, DRV guidelines notwithstanding. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::In case there's still any doubt, even if an editor W in good standing reverted solely for an invalid reason e.g. saying editor E should not close a discussion started by and who's sole contributors were sock S (or maybe editor E too) when it was already established sock S was a sock, editor E should not get into an edit war with editor W. At most, I'd argue a single reversion by editor E of editor W's reversion combined with a polite explanation on editor W's talk page might be okay. Any further than that barring further specific consensus would almost definitely be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As always, if you find yourself needing to edit war against an editor in good standing unless it's [[WP:3RRNO]] (which would apply to the sock edits themselves but for good reason isn't generally taken to apply to the restoration of sock edits), then just don't. As annoying and dumb as it may seem, get the consensus first. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Nil Einne]] writes: {{tq|Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point.}} I think that I am one of the DRV regulars, but I think that I don't know what the supposed rule at DRV is. I am not aware of a local rule at DRV about early closures. <del> It is true that early closures at DRV are rare. I don't think that is because of a rule. I think that is just the way it is.</del> So what, if anything, is the issue about the culture at DRV? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A DRV was just early-closed. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I see why there is confusion about whether there is a local consensus at DRV about early closures. [[User:SportingFlyer]] has misinterpreted a notice. SportingFlyer wrote: {{tq|There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned.}} It is true that DRV lists four DRV-specific speedy closures. It doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. Besides, the fourth speedy closure is a catch-all: {{tqb|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} I would say that an appeal by a sock has no prospect of success. Anyway, the list doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. So SportingFlyer made an easy-to-make-mistake. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm looking at this from the perspective of a non-administrative closer. If I went to see if I ''can'' close a discussion early, I'd look at the four reasons why. The fourth is written: {{tq|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success...these will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} It ''can'' apply to a sock's nomination, but as a non-admin, even if a sock had ''started'' a discussion, there's no way I would read this and think, oh, I can ''close'' this discussion on my own. I think the "administrative close" bit is key. (Note I have closed DRV before, as someone involved, after the closer withdrew their nomination, and no one else had opposed at that point, with the express note anyone could revert the close.) [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Probably me, as I tend to do those @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]]. I firmly believe IAR applies to most situations, and when I close it's because it's a clear human error (Poast) or headed to XfD anyway (the KPop redirect) so we don't need 7 days of bureaucracy. If those are out of process, I'm absolutely willing to stop but it has never been raised. On this specific DRV, I think it can be closed but it should be by someone else besides A.B or AKG, both of whom have had their say. I'm definitely not wading into the minefield though. [[User:Star Mississippi|Star]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|Mississippi]] 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I would never close a discussion I was involved in. I also personally think potentially contentious discussions should only be closed by admins since they are community-vetted in RfAs.
:::::::::--[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Star Mississippi]] - I am not entirely sure what I was pinged about. I was trying to defend DRV by saying that, in my experience, it doesn't have a local consensus that overrides policies. SportingFlyer said that there are four provisions for early closure at DRV. Yes, and two of them are straightforward (withdrawn by filer, or reversed by closer), and one is itself sort of [[WP:IAR|IAR]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' - It can be argued on the process, but the DRV has a snowballs chance in hell of actually convincing anyone. Started by a sock, on an article that was clearly non notable, with keep votes not based in policy - It would be impossible to convince any reasonable editor that the close was wrong. That was reflected in the votes there.{{pb}}This is an area with a lot of disruption, particularly by POV socks. The major issue here is that the block was more punitive than preventive, since no ongoing disruption was taking place. A reminder to editors in this discussion, who seem to have forgotten this - "They did something wrong, we should punish them" is not the standard at Wikipedia. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to punish things that are perceived as (potentially, in this case, controversially) disruptive. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Good block''', but limit the block to 7 days. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' bad block. The entire issue emerged with uncommon understanding over closing a unanimously opposed DRV which was started by a ban evader. It is clear now that Aman.kumar.goel was correct with closing it. Had A.B. and Cryptic recognized it, then there would be no issue. Yes Aman.kumar.goel edit warred but so did A.B. and Cryptic as rightly noted above. Starting with A.B., he had unilaterally reverted a correct closure 2 times with false impression that the sock was a legitimate user given their removal of [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE|sock-strike]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] A.B. clearly refused to stop reverting it even after being told about the right procedure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Cryptic has abused rollback for making 2 reverts and he provided explanation for these reverts hours after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] I am not seeing any justification for this behavior. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 13:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' per above. Edit warring to revert closure of a filing (by sock) is meaningless. Socks are not allowed to evade block. We warn even vandals but there was no warning for the OP. Cryptic was himself edit warring with the OP so I don't think he was qualified to make a block in the first place. Chronology of the events tell that the block came in middle of an ongoing discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&oldid=1171044139#Re:Close_on_DRV] thus it was not preventative. It is safe to say that if Cryptic had reported OP on a appropriate noticeboard then the report would be unsuccessful. [[User:Azuredivay|Azuredivay]] ([[User talk:Azuredivay|talk]]) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Endorse but lift now''' - a good (partial) block; "I know it's a sock" doesn't justify involved edit-warring for a procedural discussion, and the page-ban was appropriately narrow. But now the socking is confirmed, and the DRV is approaching SNOW close support; there is no longer a need for the block. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as a bad block per [[WP:BANREVERT|policy]]. As noted above, socking is expressly included in the [[WP:3RRNO|exception]] to 3RR. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|SN54129]] 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Bad block'''. It's a rule that requests from socks should not be entertained. The difference in opinion had to be discussed. Therefore, the use of block buttons was unwarranted. [[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 20:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Footballrelated ==

{{user|Footballrelated}} has been blocked three times for making unsourced changes to BLPs (raised at ANI previously) - yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filip_Sachpekidis&diff=1171035846&oldid=1164999562 is still at it]. I suggest an indef. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:An explicit inline citation would be preferable but the change is supported by two references in article, [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ Worldfootball.net] and [https://int.soccerway.com/players/filip-sachpekidis/297031/ Soccerway]. I haven't looked into their other recent contributions, that diff alone is not a blockable offence to me though. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{ec}} The items removed aren't specifically reffed, and while I'm not familiar with worldfootball.net's (the [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ first ref on the page]) reliability or practices, they seem to say he's indeed no longer playing for that team - compare their entries for [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/paulo-vinicius/ three] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/georgios-nikas/ current] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/david-grof/ players]. If Sachpekidis ''did'' leave the team, then - obviously - it would have been better if Footballrelated said and sourced that in their edit instead of just removing the infobox items and the currently-plays-for statement from the lead, but I honestly can't see how their version of the article so much worse than yours that it merits a block. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::GiantSnowman acts a little ruthless in the pages he "owns". He blocks without hesitation EVEN if the edit is correct.
::My concern is that he can edit the changes himself, yet he doesn't do it.
::I don't think Wikipedia needs an authoritarian figure like him. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That isn't called for. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Robby.is.on|Cryptic}} this is about an editor with a long history of making unsourced edits to BLPs who doesn't seem to give a damn about sourcing or verifiability. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Also Soccerway does not say he has left - WorldFootball (a stats database) does. That is not sufficient sourcing. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::There was already a source in this specific article which comfirms my edit.
::::Most, if not all, of the articles related to footballers have a reference which leads to their profile from a football page, like Soccerway or WorldFootball.
::::Your job is not patrolling and terrorizing editors while you could make the change in this article all by yourself before all this drama occurs. [[Special:Contributions/178.59.44.56|178.59.44.56]] ([[User talk:178.59.44.56|talk]]) 16:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::And neither is that. I get that you're upset, but tone it down. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::At no point, until you read the edits from Robby and Cryptic above suggesting WF, did you suggest that you used WF to make the edit in question. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|you could make the change in this article all by yourself}} That is not how Wikipedia works, Footballrelated. The [[WP:BURDEN]] is on you to make sure the changes you make are verifiable. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::As i said already, footballers articles have almost always a reference which leads to their profile bios, also he doesn't allow transfermarkt references, which are more accurate to the already existing ones.
::::::None of my edits are misleading or vandalism.
::::::GiantSnowman owns many pages which he doesn't edit by himself at all.
::::::He feels the urge to block people, i cannot do anything against it.
::::::It's up to you [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:Verifiability]] is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Many of the changes you make are not verifiable. You have been told so many, many times in recent years, and not just by GS. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've looked at their [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107#User:Footballrelated|prior]] trips [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120#User:Footballrelated, again|to AN/I]]. But what we have right ''now'' is the removal - not addition - of statements to a BLP that, per the refs already in the article, appear no longer to be true. Even if they were only right ''by accident'' this time, that's not blockable. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Fransson&diff=prev&oldid=1171189170 Another unsourced edit yesterday], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sotirios_Kokkinis&diff=prev&oldid=1171037299 another the day before], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vangelis_Kerthi&diff=prev&oldid=1171037020 another], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paraskevas_Doumanis&diff=prev&oldid=1171036868 another]. This is not a standalone or one-off issue. This is somebody who has been blocked THREE times before for these same types of edits. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::'''Support indefinite block''' Fransson's move is supported by the Soccerway reference in the article. The moves of Kokkinis, Kerthi and Ntoumanis are not supported by references in the articles. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::OK, ''those'' are actionable. I'm not going to be the one to block - scroll up a bit and it should be obvious why - but, particularly given the recentness of the three-month-long block for the same behavior, I agree an indef is now warranted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Fine, you won.
::::::Consider my opinion about giantsnowman, though.
::::::Bye [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}I've removed the external link to an attack page from FR and blocked indef. Quite enough of that. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 16:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support Community Ban''' - The combination of this editor's history of adding unreliable information to [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] and subsequent personal attacks on editors who caution them and clean up make this editor a net negative who does not appear to be willing to learn. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN:''' Yeah, I'm up for this as well as a failsafe against appeal. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]]'s racked up ''years'' of warning and multiple blocks over sourcing issues, and no one can claim he hasn't been warned and warned and warned again. It's just that he doesn't give a damn, just refuses to do it, and seems to believe that his edit count immunizes him against bothering. (Why not, after all ... for how many years did that premise suit the likes of Lugnuts just fine?) Toss in his frequent incivilities and that's just the crust on top of the road apple. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Really? A CBAN? I mean, '''Support''' while we're here, but that's definitely overkill. The account is indeffed. We can talk about a CBAN later if they keep causing problems, but it really seems [[WP:NOTBURO|bureaucratic]] to go there right now. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 16:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Golden Mage, various personal preference cosmetic edits, disregard of [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] and complete lack of communication ==
{{atop|Resolved for now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{user|Golden Mage}} has repeatedly been asked on their talk page to stop unnecessarily changing between usage of [[MOS:OXFORDCOMMA]]S, changing links against [[WP:NOTBROKEN]], indiscriminately removing red links etc. Instead of addressing the issues or even responding to people raising them, they ignore everyone and continue along the same lines, often making several miniscule edits inserting their preference of oxford commas and changing links. These unproductive edits fill people's watch lists and I'm not convinced Golden Mage is a net positive with their contributions if they refuse to discuss the problem. Pinging @[[User:FutureFlowsLoveYou|FutureFlowsLoveYou]] @[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] and @[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] as others that have also recently brought up these issues as well as @[[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] who created a report on this board about the same editor in January.

The best outcome here would be Golden Mage finally responding and communicating that they understand the issues, if they do not administrator action may be needed. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:I dont know entirely, but there is a part of me that wonders if they're a sock of [[User:Kung Hibbe]], the infamous [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] user. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s&diff=prev&oldid=1171372442 Well, they're still doing it.] Not a word of communication. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::And we know they've found their talk page as they've previously blanked it (their one and only user talk edit.) [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]], cross reference [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo]]. This has simultaneously spread to different venues. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 05:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Sorry for tipping this but I blocked Mage with some advise on their talk. Tamzin can upgrade this to a CU block if so is confirmed. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] Do you have a link to that earlier report? I honestly forgotten that I did so. [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 02:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Stonewalling and POV pushing in the [[Aghlabids]] article ==

Some users, mostly @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] and @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], have been [[WP:STONEWALLING]] the [[Aghlabids]] page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia (as well as most of Southern Italy) is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR]) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1084612896&diffmode=source editing it after a consensus was reached] and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the [[Talk:Aghlabids|talk page]] where I explained why:

:The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "''The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab '''occupation of Sicily''' that was to last more than 250 years and '''raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy.'''''" They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

[https://imgur.com/9pG8l2l This is page 24, that contains both the original map and the text], and [https://imgbb.com/BsFK5qp this is page 12]. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] is using the argument that the OR map it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1150169317&diffmode=source allegedly partially supported by other ones] (''near-identical'' ones), which is [[WP:SYNTH]].
The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. I've already brought this issue to the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|appropriate noticeboard]] some time ago, but it was ignored (you can see the last revision before the topic was deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1153574063 here]), and then I dropped it for a while because work and some personal issues didn't leave me a lot of time for Wikipedia, but since the discussion was reopened by another editor I think it's time to bring it here. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 19:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*The arguments presented by Prazeres and M.Bitton on [[Talk:Aghlabids]] appear to be justifiable inference from cited sources, policy-wise; there may be room for rebuttal with other arguments and sources, but they don't appear to be prima facie egregious OR. A more appropriate response to this dispute would have been to open an RfC and make the case for your preferred map, rather than lobby for a behavioral sanction. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Raided and conquered areas, while in the original map are showed differently, in the one used in the article are all painted the same. That conveys a completely different message. Especially combined with the refusal to explain it better in the description, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source this comment] (why refuse to add that single word, and keeping the explanation only inside the less-visible note, otherwise?), it seems to me like a POV-pushing problem as well. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes|Infoboxes should "''summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article''" and should allow the readers to "''identify key facts at a glance''"]], but in this case it tells something else, and there is no intention by the editors to try and fix it. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:This is of course another content dispute. When this issue came up at the article in April 2022, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] and [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] were discussed in detail [[Talk:Aghlabids#Inclusion of Sardinia to the map|on the talk page]] and multiple editors with different views came to a consensus. Some other editors (including L2212) have since tried to unilaterally change the article in favour of one POV, circumventing [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus-building]] by edit-warring (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aghlabids&action=history&offset=&limit=500 article history] in September 2022 and August 2023) and by attempting to replace or delete the map image directly at Wiki Commons (see [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aghlabids_Dynasty_800_-_909_(AD).svg&action=history the file page's history]). Contrary to what L2212 implies, M.Bitton and I are not, in fact, the only ones to have reverted these attempts. But the repeated assumptions of bad faith (which this report exemplifies), the constant disruptive editing, and other [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] responses have made any further attempts at productive discussion incredibly frustrating and circular. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::The consensus was reached for a version of the article that was immediately changed after it and ignoring it (by M.Bitton), so accusing me of breaking it when that had already happened makes no sense. And the productive discussion was made impossible by the double standards used while taking into consideration the different sources, the refusal of recognizing a clear error in how the map was adapted even after the original was shown, and especially the lack of civility in the discussion, starting with M.Bitton's tone and "ultimatums" (that way of debating alone deserves a discussion here) and your condescending tone (against both me and other editors). Also I've already wrote that you were not the only editors involved in my first paragraph here, so I don't know what are you accusing me of with your "''Contrary to what L2212 implies''". I mentioned you because you are the one whose behaviour needs to be addressed here. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 22:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That's a lie and you know it all too well (the talk page is there is prove it). As for the rest: coming from a disruptive SPA with a clear nationalist agenda, it can only be taken as a compliment. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Yes, the talk page is there, and it proves that you changed the article right after Floydpig and Dk1919 had agreed on a revision. Also, coming from you, the accusation of having a nationalist agenda are pure projection. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:User:RussBot]] is malfunctioning ==

Bot is making incorrect edits to hat-notes of people named [[Bob Quinn]] or variant thereof. Bot incorrectly assumes that [[Bob Quinn (disambiguation)]] is the direct dab link but it is not, the correct link is just [[Bob Quinn]], the other is a redir. [[User:Groupthink|Groupthink]] ([[User talk:Groupthink|talk]]) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:<s>I'm not inclined to block RussBot just yet, because the hatnote it's editing shouldn't exist per [[WP:NAMB]]. Pinging [[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] to see if this is a one-off. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)</s> nevermind, there's an exception per [[Wikipedia:Hatnote#Similar proper names ("For other people named ...")]]. Steppin back from this one :) [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 22:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::I've tagged the dab page with G14 (it only had one link coming in altogether outside its mention here), which should solve the issue. '''[[User:MrSchimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|chatter]])'' 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I'll let someone else make the final call on the speedy, as I'm not familiar with G14 in practice, but bullets 1 and 2 don't seem to apply because it's a redirect and bullet 3 doesn't apply because it points to a dab page. From the rcat, it looks like a ton of similar pages exist. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 21:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::G14 does not apply to that redirect, so I have removed the tag. The bot's edits were correct and should not have been reverted. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.66|192.76.8.66]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.66|talk]]) 22:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::'66 is correct. Every DAB page which does not have a (disambiguation) qualifier should be targeted by a redirect which does and which is tagged {{tl|R to disambiguation page}}. (Other redirects to DAB pages should be tagged {{tl|R from ambiguous term}}; links to those are also logged as errors.) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:The bot is working correctly. Links to disambiguation pages should always be routed through pages ending with (disambiguation), even if the base page does not end with that title, see [[WP:INTDAB]]. Linking directly to the page "Bob Quinn" is tagged as an error that needs fixing. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.66|192.76.8.66]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.66|talk]]) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{+1}} -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{+1}} See also [[WP:HOWTODAB]], which is consistent with INTDAB. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 09:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{+1}} The bot is not malfunctioning; this is the intended result. --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 21:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Tekosh ==

{{userlinks|Tekosh}}

In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114063700 "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely."]. These were the two attacks they had made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114060793] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114062843]

Unfortunately they did not heed this warning. After that they first started editing again on 18 August 2023, where they continued this conduct:

#At [[Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius]], they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilan_Ye%C5%9Filg%C3%B6z-Zegerius&diff=prev&oldid=1171028203] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilan_Ye%C5%9Filg%C3%B6z-Zegerius&diff=prev&oldid=1171115455], despite it having no relevance ([[MOS:ETHNICITY]]) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
#Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Hanifa_Dinawari&diff=next&oldid=1171252513]
#This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gomada&diff=prev&oldid=1171357145 '''That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related.''' I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.]. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

[[WP:NOTHERE]] if you ask me. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:My friend as I mentioned multiple times (you should have included those statements also) I am new here and didn't know about the edit rules. You're right about the part where I should've started a discussion instead of editing the document directly and I have done so. About the ethnicity part, I still don't agree but I don't want to start a discussion about that here. We can use the article's talk page to discuss it and mention sources. Thanks. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your willingness to discuss issues (as opposed to [[WP:MASTADON|acting like an angry mastadon]]) [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Whether you agree or not is irrelevant in this context. In Wikipedia we follow [[WP:RS]], not the personal opinions of users. You don't have to be a veteran user to know not to alter sourced information and direct quotes of authors, or make random attacks. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:Their sole aim seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. They also appear to think that ethnicity matters – see [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#New_here_-_in_the_middle_of_a_discussion|this]] fruitless discussion. A classic [[WP:ADVOCACY]] issue: they wrote {{tqq|We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong.}} I wrote back {{tqq|Ethnicity isn't important. You need to move on.}} [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|HistoryofIran}} I have given them a ctopic notification. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Tekosh}}, thank you for taking the time and patience to engage in discussions here. Essential: Please read up [[WP:PILLARS]], [[WP:NOT]] and most importantly, [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. That should make you understand that it's not truth that we are striving for, but to document what reliable sources mention (even if you believe reliable sources are wrong). The facts that you are engaging here and are a new user, are the reasons you are not being blocked (To be clear, what you wrote at [[Special:Permalink/1171471351#New_here_-_in_the_middle_of_a_discussion|the Teahouse]] is enough for blocking you)). Please feel free to ask editors for clarification and support -- always go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if I were to suggest strongly -- stop editing pages related to the contentious topic you are currently engaged with. It will not do your tenure any good, if you continue to get slighted by reliably sourced material contained within our articles. To conclude, read up the pages I referenced above and do please confirm you understand them, before you start editing or engaging with other editors. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another [[WP:NPA]] towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gomada&diff=prev&oldid=1171357145]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Hanifa_Dinawari&diff=prev&oldid=1171438436]. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|HistoryofIran}}, hope you are well. It might be prudent for you to sit back for a bit and allow administrators to wait for Tekosh's responses. Of course, to new commentators such as me, it is fine to repeat the points you are making. It's just that we would want to hear from Tekoshi, and not repeatedly from you. Thank you for understanding. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Dude, thanks for your nice message. I appreciate it a lot. I have learnt a lot just in the past week from peeps like yourself.
::I will abide by the rules and try to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to have my reliable resources ready when I discuss with people here.
::But quick question to you as you're showing genuine interest in helping me: What do you exactly mean by stop editing those specific pages? Do you even mean not even contributing to the discussion? I will not edit for sure but I would still like to talk about my resources and why I think they are reliable as well. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] forgot to tag you. :) [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Tekosh}}, thank you for the response. I would suggest that you cut yourself completely off from this area. No articles, no discussions. This is only a voluntary step I am advising. Also, please confirm if you have read the policies listed under [[WP:Content policies]]. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks I have read the [[Wikipedia:CONTENTS]]. History of Kurdistan is my passion and to a degree my profession. I am mainly on Wikipedia because of that, I hope you understand that I can't simply just cut myself completely off from that area. But for a second, I will focus on my main specialty which is math and physics. :) Thanks again for the comments. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Tekosh}}, sorry for belabouring this. Have you read the policies documented at [[WP:Content policies|this link]]? If yes, which ones have you read? Thank you for your patience in answering these queries, but it is important for us to know whether you rightly understand verifiability and reliable sourcing. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I have read many including: [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]], [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]
:::::::Things make more sense now. I will be active within those guidelines. Thanks. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== Pornographic vandalism on article. ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Sorted. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]][[User talk:Waggers|''TALK'']] 08:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

Started with this revision, a few restorations later by a few different users. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luna_25&diff=prev&oldid=1171471316 [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Protected now, though bans/blocks, page revision strikeouts, and a review of the offending image might be needed. It's graphic. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:This is not the first instance of vandalism from that IP range; see also: {{diff2|1170746488}} {{diff2|1169265306}} {{diff2|1161342361}}. There are also several [[WP:REVDEL]]ed edits. [[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. The image is hosted at a seperate WMF project, IP: [[Wikimedia Commons]], which is, like, 10 percent porn. Not much can be done about that. Also, their admins are generally not fond of admins from the English Wikipedia, which makes collaborating on enforcement challenging to say the least (and they especially dislike me, but I wear it as a badge of honour). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ctop|Tangential discussion. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:::I had no idea there was a feud between Wikipedia admins and Commons admins — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 11:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It is un-spoken, but I slaughter [[sacred cow (idiom)|sacred cows]] on the regular, so fuck it! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Can you elaborate a bit on the feud? [[User:Northern Moonlight|NM]] 17:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: I suspect that expanding on the attitude of some Commons admins to some of that website's more unacceptable images may end up crossing a legal boundary on libel. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::: Out of sheer curiosity, and because this vandal seems to have chosen their target for optimum traffic today, what was the image? Description or link: I'm no shrinking violet. ;) ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::A POV close-up of a man wearing a condom (suprisingly) having sexual intercourse doggy style with a woman. Pretty boring image but utterly inappropriate. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, so probably some bored adolescent titillating themselves, rather than a more longterm committed troll. Still, given their targets, a range block might be appropriate? Or was that part of what El_C's <nowiki>{{done}}</nowiki> was about? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 21:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Btw, the image description mentions how the woman photographed was making cat noises or some shit. Which is real fucking educational, minus the educational. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od|3}}
Part of what's going on is that (as someone -- [[User:Iridescent|Arid Desiccant]], perhaps? -- once observed) Commons has long been the English Wikipedia's penal colony, to which its convicted felons, and those otherwise disgraced or disgruntled in some way, are transported. So it's a bit of a wild west. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 22:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'll bear all of this in mind the next time I have a photo of a rare tree frog or graph of a metabolic pathway deleted off of commons because of a misplaced comma in the license description. Good to know that we can't have images useful to WM educational purposes without meeting the most stringent of licensure conditions, but we can serve as a webhost for thousands of images of fellatio, so long as the people who took them really, really wanted us to have them. ;)

:Actually, I'm exaggerating my ire and my position: I understand the reasons for our (and Commons') standards and (mostly) support them--at least as far as what is removed, and maybe a bit less so as to what is kept. But it does work some peculiar outcomes sometimes. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cbot}}
::I'm curious if revisions {{diff2|1170746488}} {{diff2|1169265306}} could also be looked into and suppressed as mentioned above. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::It seems {{u|Ingenuity}} has already revdel'ed those revisions. The /20 range responsible for those has also been temporarily block. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 00:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you so much. I think we're done here. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 03:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== JohnEC Jr and [[Talk:Jesus]] ==
:{{userlinks|JohnEC Jr}}
Looking for advice and recommendations here regarding an emerging incident.
* User made additions to [[Jesus]] on June 18 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=1160835950&oldid=1160605290] to add a fringe theory by [[Scholem Asch]] that "the resurrection was a mock event" and requires the Gospels to be reinterpreted. This theory has no traction or even mention amongst reliable sources or experts in the field. These edits were quickly reverted by other editors.
* User correctly took the topic to Talk on June 19 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1161012397&oldid=1160373878] to discuss. This is when the problems started.
* During the discussion, multiple editors pointed out problems with the edits: that Asch is not an expert, that the theory is [[WP:FRINGE]], and that it was unclear what changes the editor actually wanted to make short of simply repeating the theory in whole cloth. (I believe) final state of the discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=1165431126]
* During this time, in at least one case the editor attempted to redact other editors' comments, and was warned against doing so. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1162806126&oldid=1162769462]
* Editor also started the same topic, with same opening text, a second time while primary topic was still open. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1162754466&oldid=1162753581]
* Discussion continued until roughly July 10. Editor attempted to undo an archive bot to keep the topic open [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1164787148&oldid=1164784151], but with no active editing of the topic, archiving was ultimately allowed. At this time, other editors' responses were unanimous that the content did not belong in [[Jesus]] per WP policy and guidelines.
* Editor posted exactly the same opening statements on August 20 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171288706&oldid=1171134031], reopening the discussion. Again, editors' responses have been unanimous against inclusion, and for the same reasons. Again, editor attempted to redact other editors' statements [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171482511&oldid=1171481932], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171484945&oldid=1171484778]. Yesterday, editor made an accusation that recent edits in the topic were due to "unprofessionalism, rudeness and racism" on their personal Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnEC_Jr&diff=1171485470&oldid=1171485000].

This is a new editor, and edits on other pages have generally been constructive. I believe they genuinely are here to build and improve WP. However, their behavior on [[Jesus]] and [[Talk:Jesus]], and more recently on their personal talk page, are concerning. It appears that the editor simply does not want to take no for an answer, posting content that they like despite a unanimous voice of multiple editors opposing them based on WP policy; further, the accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to, also go beyond the pale. (Accusations of "rudeness" may be fair: however, I at least am growing tired of repeating the same WP policy on at least three occasions and being ignored - sometimes redacted.) As an involved editor who has tried to guide this new editor, I am seeking advice on a constructive way forward. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:As a final note, I should comment that the "racism" accusation is especially perplexing, as neither I nor any other editor are even aware of the editor's race or background, and I wasn't aware Asch was Jewish until another editor pointed it out. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[WP:BITE]] applies. But, the user has a serious problem with sources. A past example.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Camino_de_Santiago#The_Peace_Movement] Also an attitude problem with editor interaction. This isn’t all that unusual on religious articles where people believe what they believe. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed on both, especially [[WP:BITE]]. Definitely looking to guide, not silence, here. I don't believe further direct interaction by me would be helpful; constructive guidance by uninvolved editors might be. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Looking through their edits there's very little idea about proper sourcing etc. While there's BITE, there's also quite a stubborn unwillingness to listen (not just at [[Talk:Jesus]] but elsewhere). Btw, their top 2 articles edited are (the late) [[E. C. John]] and the latter's father-in-law [[Hans Ehrenberg]]. Given the username, they may or may not need COI guidance too. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 15:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Good point. A user with name JohnEC Jr editing [[E. C. John]] and a relative of the same does make one wonder. I was suspicious of the same but have no objective evidence. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Despite the potential COI, I have not found any particularly concerning edits on [[E. C. John]] or [[Hans Ehrenberg]] by this editor, other than potentially unsourced / irrelevant material which is minor. Others are welcome to look. [[E. C. John]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._C._John&diff=1113079196&oldid=1092660210], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._C._John&diff=1155656098&oldid=1147371415]; [[Hans Ehrenberg]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Ehrenberg&diff=1170677547&oldid=1158898502]
*This is a poorly-formulated report wrt evidence. Same with the replies. Not a single [[WP:DIFF|diff]]. No link to the user being complained about. Instead, obvious links like [[WP:BITE]] or [[Jesus]] are repeated. Both OP and respondents (several of whom are veteran editors), in future, please try to make it easier for reviewers so we could just click directly. Anyway, I'll add userlinks to the top. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:My apologies. I will go back and add relevant specific diffs when I have time - probably later today. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::NP [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]]. Here's what I recommend you do. You mention above about {{tq|accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to}} (emphasis added) — add a diff about the racism accusation, and if the comment is lengthy, also excerpt the pertinent sentence. Additionally, add a diff or diffs to any redaction of others' comments on the article talk page (their own user talk page does not count, they are allowed). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks! I believe the relevant diffs are now added. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I have indefinitely page-blocked JohnEC Jr from [[Jesus]] and [[Talk: Jesus]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 01:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Because of his attacks on Cullen, I've blocked him outright and removed talk page access. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan (talk)]] 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. I'm saddened that that was necessary but in light of the latest edits, it is the best course of action. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This may warrant ongoing monitoring. The user created an obvious sock, [[User talk:JohnEC Fa|JohnEC Fa]], then immediately resumed prior behavior. (The sock is already indef banned.) Were they to demonstrate an abrupt change in behavior they would be welcome back. But so far, they have not. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 12:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== In the news discussion of [[Lucy Letby]] ==

I am frankly amazed by the comments being made in the discussions, which are essentially anglophobia, and anti- UK sentiment. The discussion is chock full of personal attacks from multiple editors, the discussion is at points nothing to do with the nominated ITN candidate and the whole discussion is incredibly toxic.

This needs to be looked at as this is a poisonous discussion and there is a lot of bad behaviour on display and a lot of what amounts to anti-English sentiment.

*[[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#August_21|Sentencing nomination for Lucy Letby]]
*[[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#August_18|Conviction nomination for Lucy Letby]]

A selection of comments are like this which are very hostile to the UK and by extension UK editors and contributors:
#"But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron32 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)"
#"Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)"
#"This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- RockstoneSend"
#"Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)"

There is a genuine loss of good faith assumptions here and the whole discussion is not collaborative in nature, amounts to simply voting by a large number and is very combative to the point of it being simply a battleground. None of which benefit the encyclopaedia and none of which help get new editors involved and dissolutions existing editors.
[[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 22:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:The really sad part is that these two discussions are barely even outliers. I've about given up. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::(I do want to note that - taken in context - [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]'s comment isn't hostile to UK editors; it's hostile to editors that are hostile to UK editors.) —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::ITN is, by quite a long and obvious way, consistently the worst quality feature on the main page and ITN discussions are a sinkhole of appalling behaviour. It's inexplicable why it continues - but it does and it's untouchable. Just one of many Wikipedia mysteries. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::This sounds like a good opportunity to point out that [[WP:Today's Featured List|Today's Featured List]] runs twice-weekly in a dusty corner of the main page, when the list of FLs-never-on-TFL is substantially longer than the list of FAs-never-on-TFA and if given a permanent big four slot would have plenty of material for years. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidal]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|prophet]] 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm beginning to wonder if we're at the point where arbitration is necessary. Everybody seems to be in agreement that ITN/C is uncivil and toxic, but in all the times I have seen it brought up, nothing ever gets done. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm having trouble picturing what an Arbcom decision that fixes it would look like. Honestly, just putting it out of its misery is the only answer. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Concur, as a longtime watcher from the sidelines there. Not sure what (if there are) any solutions are, though. [[User:Connormah|Connormah]] ([[User talk:Connormah|talk]]) 23:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I dunno. It would probably help to summarily ban some of the worst actors from the area or perhaps from Wikipedia as a whole, and to authorize sanctions over the page in general (instead of just part of one side, like we already have with [[WP:AP2]] - I haven't been able to decide whether it's good or bad no admin's been willing to enforce it on ITNC). Though I'll admit I've also been mulling starting a proposal to just remove ITN from the main page. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Not to say I support the tone, phrasing, or even the majority of the sentiment in these comments, this commentary comes on the heals of a premature posting of this story in a short period of time regarding an event of questionable sustained impact for which many of the initial support votes simply cited high coverage, which is something that is always a tenuous main reason for supporting given such a concept is debatable in it's criteria, and I think it's fair to argue that this story is more of a passing one to the non-Brit population. And this story comes on the heels of several contentions death blurb nominations, such as the Michael Parkinson one. There is a growing discontent with inconsistent blurb procedure and bias in particular at ITN (which I think is very much present and certainly not limited to UK-related stories, but Western ones broadly speaking), and more and more dubious nominations and questionable postings recently have really put people off. And I hate to say it, but Fakescientist is fairly close to the truth here, even if not right on the money. If such a murderer had been active in a non-Western country, we probably wouldn't bat an eye, mostly because Western media in general doesn't give a **** about what happens outside of the West under most circumstances. For example the Mahach Kala gas station explosion would probably have been posted had it happened in, say, the US, the UK, etc. Personally, I think Jayron not assuming good faith is the real violation here. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Having long observed (and remained extremely reticent to participate in) ITN discussions, it seems there are factions of American and British users who are convinced that the other represents a critical mass of regular users who routinely shoot down nominations involving news from the other country. This in effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because many such editors then get extremely prickly when an item involving the other country is posted, or are more inclined to support nominations from their country in response. Add in the ''inherent'' tension of ITN discussions—major, real-world tragedies being callously reduced to their "notability"—and it's a recipe for the brutal and toxic environment that's festered on that board. [[User:Sunshineisles2|Sunshineisles2]] ([[User talk:Sunshineisles2|talk]]) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:These...don't really seem particularly egregious? Is it not normal for ITN discussions to evaluate the global relevance of a topic? We get far worse characterizations of groups of editors at AfD every day. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::In theory, global relevance should not be a major feature of discussion, as [[WP:ITNATA]] says that "arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful." But it's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry into actual discussion much. [[User:Sunshineisles2|Sunshineisles2]] ([[User talk:Sunshineisles2|talk]]) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Delete ITN already ... [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*Two things. 1) You really ought to ping the users whose comments you quoted (I will do it for you, in a moment). 2) I ''really'' don't think my comment was hostile to the UK or its citizens, and if it is being interpreted that way, I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intent. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 03:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Rockstone35 informed me of this discussion. For context, I am one of the more conservative users on ITN. My record reflects contrarianism; going against the grain is the strongest vote a user can have. Supporting a nomination that which only falters in article quality is an unnecessary vote and detracts from work I could be doing elsewhere on this site. The sentiment here that ITN is Anglophobic and anti-U.K. is an egregious exaggeration of ITN and this particular situation. Before detailing why I wrote that comment, I should take the time to inform users on ITN's environment and why consensus opposed the Lucy Letby nomination. ITN is a partisan forum because it relies on personal points of view and biases to generate discussion. ITN reflects both its users and the news. The definitions of both have changed; the 2010 Stockholm bombings were posted but would likely not be today, as was the authenticity of ''Sunset at Montmajour'', the posthumous royal pardon of Alan Turing, AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV, the conviction of Abu Hamza, and the encyclical ''Laudato si{{'}}''. At one point, ''Pokémon Go'' was temporarily added to the ongoing section. In recent years, ITN has shifted to a global focus, driven by Wikipedia's global reach, and it is conversely facing pushback from younger and newer users who believe ITN needs to reflect their perspective.
:The Lucy Letby nomination was opened and attracted plenty of attention from British editors who believed that it was notable on the basis that they had heard of Letby. The discussion was closed very prematurely before being pulled because it was U.K.-internal news. The nomination wasn't pulled because of Anglophobia—I'm American, as are plenty of people here, and I have no issue with British editors—but because it was only relevant in the United Kingdom. Editors often cite the second rule of [[WP:ITNCDONT|ITNCDONT]] but neglect to see its purpose. A train derailment in Pakistan is exceptional for what it is. A woman murdering seven infants is a horrible story but only exceptional because the United Kingdom rarely has such stories. I wrote the comment in the way that I did not because I felt that it was vengeful, but because I felt the need to state what I was observing. A focus on stories from one particular country is much to be avoided regardless of which country it is. The U.S. happens to have this issue to a much larger degree because it is a larger country, but ITN has molded to reject any mass shooting with less than a dozen deaths.
:ITN is valuable because it provides readers with an accessible ticker to which they can click on individual stories, and it provides a running obituary where editors seek to improve articles on people that would otherwise go untouched after reflecting the past tense. Dismantling the system presupposes that toxicity is rooted within ITN itself when it is the juxtaposition of ideas that is breeding conflict. The increasing use of hidden archive templates is not a promising sign for ITN's longevity, but this period of disagreement will subside. Editors need to be vigilant and respectful; fortunately, Wikipedia has systems for the former and punitive processes when the latter is not represented. In a worst case scenario, I would not be opposed to the enforcement of contentious nominations à la [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics]]. Ultimately, editors who are meek and understanding will be met with respect on ITN. Such respect wanes when editors choose to be obstinate. This is not a flaw of ITN in particular, it is a flaw in humans. [[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him) 05:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::We’ve had our disagreements before, but I can’t succinctly and clearly sum up the situation any better than you have spectacularly done so. Brilliant comment.
::This arb case is a gross misrepresentation of the system, and in attempting to accuse users of supposed Anglophobia it almost seems almost to bolster the concern of pro-English bias. [[User:The Kip|The Kip]] ([[User talk:The Kip|talk]]) 07:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::I was accused of anglophobia despite being British! Just horrible environment. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 09:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

* Firstly, I’d like to second Rockstone’s comment regarding not pinging those who have been mentioned on ANI, as it’s typically normal procedure to do so. Secondly, I’d like to take the time to point out the fact that my comment (and some of the others) were meant to take aim against U.K.-based items frequently being posted, not the UK/its people/editors on Wikipedia from the U.K. Thirdly, the item in question was regarding a nurse who had killed seven babies. Horrifying? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely, and I’m not trying to downplay its affect on the families or the general UK populace - but if seven people would die in a tragic event like this in someplace like China, or India, or Australia, or Canada, or any African nation, or even the U.S., then I feel as though consensus probably would not develop to post those items to ITN, unlike how it happened here. Regardless, I can confirm that my comment had no intention of wishing harm or bringing anti-U.K. sentiment to ITN, and if it did end up being interpreted to mean that, then I apologize, as I personally have nothing against the U.K. or its people. Cheers, ''atque supra''! [[User:Fakescientist8000|Fake]][[User talk:Fakescientist8000|scientist]][[Special:Contributions/Fakescientist8000|8000]] 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I believe there is no intended maliciousness, bigotry, or anglophobia in your comments FS. I suspect everyone here can readily take you at your word as to that. But here's the problem: ITN has become habitually (and I mean in pretty much every single one of it's day-to-day determinations) disconnected from any of the normal policies which govern how much weight to show to a given topic. Large numbers of the regulars there routinely oppose entries along "X country gets enough attention in the world already." rationales. Even though ITN's own inclusion criteria clearly advise against this kind of argument, it is absolutely omnipresent: the last four times I've been RfC'd or otherwise passed through ITN in the last few years, the majority of the proposals had comments that were constructed exclusively around this sentiment. In if it's not objection based on geography, it's some other personal, idiosyncratic objection as to why the subject isn't "really" important, when you think about it. {{pb}}Now, that's all problem enough in itself, from a content perspective, but the real issue is that because the space has become so completely unmoored from any objective, source-based test, it is an absolute hotbed of subjective sentimentality, and all the usual value-based flame wars that define so much of the open forum of the internet. You see, the precise reason we have an [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]]-based test as the only kind of metric of "importance" on this project is to short-circuit those kinds of arguments based on personal perspective, by tethering our determinations of inclusion to an analysis that takes the personal perspectives of our editors out of the equation.{{pb}} ITN lacks that objectivity, and so instead there is a constant cultural tug-of-war there based on the values and biases of the individual contributors as to what is "significant" (that is to say "important" enough to mention. As a consequences, it has become without question and without even a remotely close competitor, the single most consistently toxic, disruptive, and unmanageable space on the entire project. And for the record, I am including ANI and AE for comparison. I'm sure there are many there who, like you, have no particular hate in your hearts for the residents of other countries, but many of those same editors nevertheless are clearly on a self-appointed mission to fight systemic bias, one ITN candidate !vote at a time, and that only further inflames the issues there, actually elevating the overall levels of bias, and the pitched battles that result, in the space as a whole.{{pb}} And I know for a fact that these issues have been raised there many times, and the regulars have failed to heed community concerns or make even the most marginal efforts at reforming the space. So bluntly, the cost-benefit ratio for the project has been in the red for many, many years, and I agree with others above, it's time to cut this diseased appendage of the main page off. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::I think everyone can acknowledge that many votes are nonsensical in their rationales, which harms the process, but calling it a diseased appendage is absolutely absurd. The real solution is to just empower admins to be more decisive on not counting unproductive votes, which is already policy but I'd certainly support it being followed even more strongly. And it's quite clear, I'd say, that the "significance" issue is a broader one throughout Wikipedia, where no one gives a you-know-what about [[WP:DELAY]] and posts an article on anything they THINK might be notable. [[WP:ITN/R]] attempted to codify certain events considered as automatically notable, but itself faces issues, none bigger then [[WP:CCC]]. And I absolutely understand your concerns regarding the tug of war between nations at ITN, but I would say a lot of this is derived from media bias itself, which explains why not just US or UK news, but both dominate ITN at any given time. I think it's policy that should be revisited here rather then taking a TNT approach. We can't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, which is what every proposal regarding changes to ITN seems to be. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Someone make a VPP proposal already.''' I'm ready to !vote to close ITN once and for all. I have held out hope for years that the space and its processes could be reformed to work consistently with this project's policies and values, but it's never happened, and the talk pages associated with it have been a chronic source of disruption and toxicity, as well as a recurrent drag on community attention and resources that far exceeds the value our readers extract from the feature. Not withstanding the "for all" above, perhaps we can relaunch it in the future with tighter constraints and a more objective basis for decisions made in the space, avoiding the kind of culture war nonsense that currently defines its daily arguments, but I don't think it's possible while it remains live and functioning as it is. Please, please someone competent construct the proposal, and notify me when it goes up. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Yep we should get rid of it, it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd say keep the "recent deaths" but for the rest, if people want to edit WikiNews then they should go and do so; [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]] and WikiNews needs more contributors.
*:Just to correct @[[User:Fakescientist8000|Fakescientist8000]]'s comment, the Letby saga isn't a case of a nurse killing 7 babies. She was convicted of 7 murders, with 5 more counts potentially going to retrial and might have been responsible for many other deaths that weren't part of the court case. It was Britain's longest ever murder trial and probably the UK's biggest instance of serial killing in the 21st century. But none of that takes away from the point that this story seems to be of limited interest outside the UK. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]][[User talk:Waggers|''TALK'']] 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::(1) The toxicity of those debates is in the eye of the beholder; they're not that bad.
*::(2) If the real problem is that US readers don't want to read UK news stories, can't we have regional variants of ITN that display depending on your geographical locale?
*::(3) Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway? Don't they belong on newspapers? Encyclopaedias are supposed to provide information on a very wide range of subjects of lasting interest, while ITN is about providing information on a very small number of things that are interesting in this precise moment. Diametrically opposite aims. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Elemimele}} The purpose of ITN has always been to encourage the improvement or articles or the creation of new ones. Regionalizing it would be difficult and imperfect. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway|q=yes}}: There is some background at [[Wikipedia:In the news]]. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::If paper encyclopedias had the text information of over 100 Britannicas like Wikipedia does and also as much image information as Wikipedia and were as up-to-date as Wikipedia (they'd have to be magic like Harry Potter newspapers) then they'd definitely have an article on things by the time they reach ITN. Encyclopedias have simply moved on. Britannicas also had yearbooks for each year and every few years or so articles were rewritten before they became too out-of-date, Wikipedia is simply a more advanced version of that. [[User:Sagittarian Milky Way|Sagittarian Milky Way]] ([[User talk:Sagittarian Milky Way|talk]]) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*I have come to think ITN should be more like Recent Deaths, with much less room to object on notability or newsworthy grounds. I don't know the specifics on how that would work so I've never offered a proposal, but there is too much voting on, in essence super-notability. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:And some cite "[[Wikipedia:Systemic bias|systemic bias]]" to discount what is actually in the news so that it is not posted on "In the news". —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My thinking largely aligns with 331dot. Focusing our efforts almost entirely on improving articles and not worrying about some "extra notability" hurdle to clear to make ITN would improve the working environment immensely. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::If I recall RD was trialed before being fully implemented. We could trial whatever changes are made(like removing supernotability discussion somehow). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:That's pretty much just Current Events. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Yes, and? --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Yes and what? Current events already exists, therefore there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I think therein lies a problem. The current events portal is an easter egg currently. Multiple attempts at fixing that have failed. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 01:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Make VPP proposal to mark ITN historical''' and start the discussion about what to replace it with. It cannot be saved. We recently tried banning problematic editors; they were quickly replaced. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I disagree that saving it is impossible, but even if what you suggest is done, Recent Deaths could just be expanded to fill that space. No need to come up with something else. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::The problem isn't with what kind of text is on the webpage. The problem is the people. Anyway, this is a discussion for the pump. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::I'm with Lev on this one: if salvaging anything like ITN on the main page is going to be feasible in the longterm, I think it's going to need to happen by TNTing and rebuilding from the ground up. The issues have been as apparent from inside the rotting building as from without, and yet I have observed nothing there except deeply entrenched commitment from most of the regulars to their self-presumed right to judge the abstract "importance" of events from a personal and idiosyncratic basis, with all the inevitable clashes of perspective, values, bias, and personality that entails. Not one in ten of the regulars even abides by ITN's own proscriptions on arguments, and those are the rules they ostensibly all agreed to among themselves, once upon a time! Fixing from within the space is obviously a non-starter, and I expect that even a reformatory process at VPP would become an absolute quagmire of conflicting outlooks (and probably no shortage of surly offense that we are trying to take away the right to decide for the main page's half million daily viewers what, in all the world's happenings, is important enough to know about.{{pb}} No, much more sound for the community excise the problem altogether and then have a second, even deeper conversation about whether to replace it with something similar, and make the stakeholders buy into the process of building (and thus internalizing) new, more objective, and less disruptive rules for moderating the processes. Doing this piecemeal will only lead to cloudier revised standards that many will just avoid comporting with, to the maximum extent possible, in order to try to preserve their old standards, expectations, and methodologies, with all the entitlements as arbiters of the important that they currently enjoy. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Others have said points I would make (this far from what has more uncivil behavior in the past; that the issue of these noms stems from the rapid posting based primarily on UK editors' !votes,leading to the national aspect issues). But this case epidemic of the broader issue that we broadly are violating NOTNEWS. There are a contingent of editors that create news ates on any event no matter how insignificant it is. And I think some of those also want to push ITN to be more on line with headline news, rather than the original purpose of feature high quality articles that happen to be in the news. This has created a rift of how ITN should be handled, which has been discussed at length on its talk page but without agreement on any solution because of this divisive rift. And that I don't know if we can fix without addressing the broader NOTNEWS issue, pointing editors to Wikinews if they want to focus on current events and keeping our focus on encyclopedic topics, some which will be news studies with clear enduring coverage. [[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::That is largely fixed by focusing on ''currency'' rather than newsiness. If we are only concerned with the recency of an event, and on the quality of the Wikipedia coverage of the event, we don't have to worry about if the event is "newsworthy", merely that it's something that's happened recently (so is broadly "in the news" in the most general sense) and that we have a really good article about. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment I'''' {{ping|PicturePerfect666}}, there's literally no Anglophobic sentiments in the quoted comments, with the closest being Jayron's, which, if we're using these standards, was rather anglophilic - he was attacking the "anti-UK" side. As stated, most of them were not out of hate for the United Kingdom, but more over the perceived bias towards British stories, especially when compared to American stories. The immediate [[WP:ASPERSION]] casted upon the listed users should frankly warrant a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] on the part of PP666. By that logic, every anti-US-centrism on ITN is Ameriphobic, which, considering some of the statements that have been made in that department, would hold more weight, but still be largely generalizing. — [[User:Knightoftheswords281|'''Knightof''']][[User talk:Knightoftheswords281|'''theswords''']] 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::Please refrain from making personalised comments, these are unhelpful subjective observations on your part. What you may consider to be something interpreted subjectively one way. may subjectively be seen by others as something else. Please also do not post threatening comments which amount to a SLAPP-style comments of <blockquote>"The immediate WP:ASPERSION casted upon the listed users should frankly warrant a WP:BOOMERANG on the part of PP666."</blockquote> What you are failing to see is that the comments are exemplars used to illustrate a point, not attacks on the commentors, and by you making a SLAPP-style comment you are having chilling effect on participation and raising issues. You cannot bring up an issue like this without examples and the only examples available are comments made by users of Wikipedia.
:: 
::Before you state 'legal threat', it is not. I am simply drawing an equivalence from the legal world which fits.
:: 
::Please withdraw your comments which are an attack on my motives for posting this item. your comments are also an attack on posting this kind of observation, and it can cause and does have a chilling effect cowing people from raising these issues. Also before you come back with No no no how dare you, these are my subjective opinions of your subjective opinions on my posting of this item. I am not attacking you, simply pointing out my subjective observations.
:: 
::I am not saying posters get immunity, but the way you have come in and stated what you have is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and is not in anyway constructive. Again this is also my subjective opinion. It is also in my subjective opinion emblematic of the toxicity that is on ITN/C. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 21:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I mean, you just labeled at least four users as Anglophobes; literally stating that they think ill of the United Kingdom and the like for simply opposing a British story. That's essentially what you said above, which is very much an [[WP:ASPERSION]]. — [[User:Knightoftheswords281|'''Knightof''']][[User talk:Knightoftheswords281|'''theswords''']] 12:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Question''' - Would there be some way to turn over this small section of the main page to Wikinews? (See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikinews]], [[m:WikiNews]], and [[n:Main_Page]].) I mean, we have a whole project dedicated to this, with [[n:Wikinews:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] and everything. And I say this noting that I kinda appreciate that I can read ITN occaisionally. But it sounds like we're attempting to re-create the wheel in this section? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I kind of like the idea, but there's a tricky cycle involved where Wikinews is...''quieter'' than might be viable (I recall in late January 2021 seeing that it hadn't been updated since the 4th -- "well, good thing nothing in the news has happened since January 4, then"). While big-four attention might help this, it also might result in the preservation of the "extremely slow news ticker" element. Obviously Wikinews would also have to consent. (I still think TFL is a viable big four candidate.) [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidal]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|prophet]] 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Well, that sounds like an opportunity than a problem. Instead of having a "big 4" in a 2x2 grid, put them in a left-side column, and put the Sister projects along the right hand side (NOT hidden), to help inspire/nudge people to go there to read and edit those prohects as well. We don't do third-party ads, to be sure, but we ''really'' seem to do a poor job of advertising our sister projects. And having them buried "below the fold" as it were, on the main page, really seems less-than-helpful. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Respectfully, turning it over to Wikinews(which isn't terribly active anyway) misses the point of what ITN is for(please see [[WP:ITN]]. It isn't to be a newspaper, but to motivate the improvement or addition of articles and highlight them. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::If that's the goal, wouldn't a link to [[:Category:Current events]] do that? [[:Template:Current]] adds articles to a dated subcat. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 16:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::That only tracks recentness, but not quality. Because we are highlighting articles, those articles should represent some of WP's best work. ITN does link to Portal:Current Events for those seeking other topics in the headlines. [[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::It's consistently failing to do that. There was a comment on ITNC recently that stood out to me, opposing a western (I think US [yes, the [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2023#(Posted) 2023 Hawaii wildfires|Hawaii wildfires]]]) news story for being an example of systemic bias. Not because we were considering posting it, but because if it had happened in Mali, then editors wouldn't have gotten it to the quality that ITNC could post it. All the other Main Page sections update at least once a day; lately ITN blurbs have been averaging closer to once a week, and not for lack of sufficiently-improved articles. Of the four bullet points at [[Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose]], we're objectively failing at least the first, second, and fourth. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I don't disagree with your assessment- although Wikipedia is not responsible for bias in the news media; which is why I think removing the ability to object on notability grounds might help. I think RD functions well and ITN would be helped to be more like it. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::The ability to object on notability is the best way to combat media bias. Otherwise you are probably determining eligibility by frequency of coverage, which is the main symptom of such bias. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 01:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Here's an idea to piss everyone off! Toss out DYK and OTD, ''expand'' ITN to give enough room for both the UK- and America-centric news articles as well as a "rest of the world we don't care about unless it's a major disaster" section. Ban all politicians from RD that weren't long-term leaders of countries. Ban any subjects whose activities (during life or upon death) weren't reported on in at least 10 national newspapers of record. Today we have entries on the Shiba Inu Cheems meme dog (most notable topic by far), a captive orca, an Italian opera singer, and a trio of unspectacular American politicians whose names 99.5% of Americans wouldn't recognize and 99.9% wouldn't care about, including an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, a NY senator, and a judge for the middle district of Alabama. (Didn't we recently have a protracted debate over whether Barbara Walters was notable enough around the globe for RD? And yet these people are??) [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::: No, we didn't. We had a discussion about whether she was notable enough for an ITN entry, which is completely different. Every person with a Wikipedia article is notable enough for RD if their article is up to scratch. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Ah my bad, then. Is there not a limit to how many RD entries can be posted at a time, or their geographical breadth, if the only criteria an article has to pass are "not a stub" and "sufficient quality"? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Hi Joelle, I think you misunderstand RD. RD does not assess notability, merely article quality. Thus no matter if the person is [[JFK]] or ([[Special:RandomPage]]), they are considered eligible for posting as long as their article is up to the minimum quality standard ([[WP:ITNQUALITY]]; largely the same as DYK's). The discussion about Walters was if she was notable enough for a death-blurb, which is completely different from RD. Geographic distribution is such a big deal for RD as we can't control who dies and where they are from, only their article quality; additionally as there are only six RD slots (the goldilocks zone, not too few and not too many), RD has a full cycle every day or two if things are running smooth. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:'''Comment II, on the state of ITN''' - I've seen the writing on the wall for months, and I knew it was going to occur; we were finna exhaust the community's patience and get dismantled. Here's my two cents. I, and many others across this mini-project and the broad project believe firmly in the purpose of ITN. If I didn't, I would have left months ago, and if the community hadn't, it would have been dissolved years ago. I personally made it my mission to attempt to reform the processes of this mini-project, and despite several times of complete and utter disillusionment and anger, I've remained and attempted to persist. I am apart of the problem; I can be crass, disruptive, rude, and intolerant on ITN/C; a contagion certainly supported by the rest of the mini-project. My spat with Jayron in the earlier of the listed noms are indicative of this.
:ITN hasn't faced any serious crisis to force reform of the system; compare it to the culture wars in the west, in which critical issues like transgenderism, the role of men and women, work-life balance, dating, etc. are currently unanswered since we're wealthy enough that we can feign outrage over them and self-flagellate over our inherent moral superiority over the opposition, while not actually solving the issues at hand. [[WT:ITN]] has always been amusing to me, since most discussions will feature massive, ''[[götterdämmerung]]'' conflicts over key issues relating to the very purpose of ITN, where dozens massive walls of text will be erected and discussions often escalate into toxicity, only for the discussion to fizzle out after a week at most when everyone gets exhausted and just unknowingly passively accept the status quo and move on to another controversy. Just like how the questions of the culture war will be answered when the coming global crisis occurs, this crisis, where ITN is at serious risk of being deleted altogether, will (hopefully) force serious answers.
:The thing is that ITN often has discussions and guidelines that should prevent the current state of ITN, but these are completely ignored. For example, last year, there was a successful push on [[WT:ITN]] to hat all disruptive comments on [[WP:ITN/C]]. Despite garnering consensus, it has rarely been seriously enforced.
:The issue, I think, is that many on ITN simply are too-conflict adverse in the stuff where conflict is actually desperately needed. I think the story of {{user|Fuzheado}} is a prime example of this. One of the primal examples of ITN's weak-willedness is how !votes on ITN are more or less counted as votes (this is actually a better descriptor than the reality, in which, to keep the illusion of a !vote-based system, if there isn't an overwhelming majority in favor of posting a story, it often won't get posted; meaning that often times, noms have to get a 1/3 minority of opposers to get shut down). Since consensus on Wikipedia is already vague enough, on ITN, many admins when judging consensus simply just choose this system since judging in favor of the posting position will lead to accusations of [[WP:SUPERVOTING]]. Fuzheado tried to unlock this system, but people labeled him as a supervoter and eventually took it to ANI, where they threatened to desyop him, and even went as far as targeting other users in the discussion, claiming that Fuzheado had organized members of the WMF to defend him. Shit like this is why many on prefer to not deal with all the drama and be rather passive on ITN.
:What we need to do is put our foot down. We've agreed on multiple solutions to combat systemic issues, but they never get enforced because people are two timid and want to avoid drama, ironically leading to even more drama in the long-term. ITN's various guidelines are getting ignored because we let them be ignored. As a mini-project, to save ourselves from destruction, we ought to learn to say "no" and take serious action to defend the fundamental principles of [[Wikipedia:In the news]].
:TL;DR: [[WP:JUSTDOIT]]. — [[User:Knightoftheswords281|'''Knightof''']][[User talk:Knightoftheswords281|'''theswords''']] 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::(Unrelated, but just FYI — [[wikt:transgenderism|transgenderism]] is a bit of an outdated term, predominately used these days by anti-trans activists.) [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447|2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447|talk]]) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:: The main problem with Fuzheado was not the supervoting (though this did happen) but the fact that (a) on at least five occasions he posted articles which were not up to scratch, with citations missing, (b) posted articles without sufficient time for consensus to form, (c) on at least one occasion posted an article with BLP violations in it, and (d) wheel-warred to post an entry which he had already voted in favour of. And there were other issues as well, over a long period. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*I have opened an idea lab discussion with some ideas I have to remove notability discussions from the ITN process, it is at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Changes to ITN]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Slightly wider, and thus equally unfocussed, I find myself agreeing with those who think the ITN section has outlived its usefulness. On the plus side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles. On the negative side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles.

I wonder if we could have some sort of crosswiki conference with Wikinews, where we could take their headlines in return for exporting more editors to them? Of course, they are much smaller and might crumple under the weight of the extra new editors, and, with something like 90% of their active editors being in North America, the headlines would be very US dominated.

But an exchange of our new users who think an encyclopaedia is for news for their problems with attracting editors at all could prove profitable for both of our sites if negotiated well.

ITN would have to die for it to work, but, well, I'm okay with that. YMMV. — '''[[User talk:Trey Maturin|Trey Maturin]]™''' 20:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*I think I've come to the conclusion that ITN needs to be put out to pasture. It has long outlived its usefulness. I wouldn't shed a tear to see it go. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*I would disagree with any proposal to abolish that doesn't keep RD (Recent Deaths) alive. RD is working fine, discussions remain cordial and productive, and serves as a great venue to encourage content creation and improvement. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
* I'd oppose any proposal to abolish ITN full stop. Outlived its usefulness? Really? When something big happens one of the first places I look for an overview is Wikipedia (and I know I'm not the only one who does that), and most of the time the relevant articles are linked from ITN - very useful. Anyone saying ITN has "outlived its usefulness" needs to specify usefulness for whom, because they're definitely not thinking from the persepective of a reader. As for ITN/C, it's definitely not perfect but it's the only main page process which isn't hidden behind layer upon layer of instruction creep and bureaucracy, and I think that's a good thing. And I don't believe for a second that DYK and FAC are completely non-toxic and drama-free either. – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 08:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== Mass reverts at shopping mall articles by 174.215.219.158 ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Content dispute - involved editors to thrash it out on a talk page somewhere. No admin action required (yet) [[User:Waggers|Waggers]][[User talk:Waggers|''TALK'']] 08:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

I made a series of about 15 edits to a number of articles for shopping malls. In many of these articles, as part of other edits, lists of tenants were removed, as described at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants]]; while this is not policy, there has been clear consensus on this matter by those editing such articles as part of this project. In many cases, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_of_Prussia_(shopping_mall)&diff=prev&oldid=1171570337 here], the only source provided for the list of tenants was a mall directory. After explaining my edit and pointing out that a mall directory doesn't justify inclusion in an article, this was again reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_of_Prussia_(shopping_mall)&diff=next&oldid=1171573505 here] (and elsewhere), with the claim "This isn't questionable enough to warrant a source".

Every one of my original approximately 15 edits were reverted. The same edit summary of "These are notable for this center" was used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mall_at_Rockingham_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1171572782 here] (and elsewhere), even when no lists of tenants had been removed. Clearly, the editor was just reverting blindly, without ever appearing to look at the edits in question.

I left unchanged those where there was any kind of sourcing, even where the only non-directory sources were local news stories of the variety "New store opens at mall". Every single edit I made that addressed the claim "These are notable for this center" was in turn reverted by 174.215.219.158. In edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danbury_Fair_(shopping_mall)&diff=prev&oldid=1171573828 this one] (among several others), the lists of tenants were restored in the absence of any source, with the edit summary "This isn't questionable enough to warrant a source".

In total, it appears that 174.215.219.158 has made about 30 such reverts to these articles, in every case restoring the status quo, despite other changes being included.

It appears that this editor is unwilling to engage in anything but making reverts. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 00:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Hi I worked very hard on these edits and followed consensus as these are noteworthy stores you reverted. Although many of the articles have references to back up their notability, I also feel that the notoriety of those retailers isn't questionable. I explained this in each revert. You reverted so many articles, that it would take quite some time to find the sources which I'm sure are out there. Wikipedia has "good faith" for small claims such as the notoriety of stores which are supported by the mall directory on their websites already. [[Special:Contributions/174.215.219.158|174.215.219.158]] ([[User talk:174.215.219.158|talk]]) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::This seems like a content dispute. Both of you should use a talk page (either of one of the articles or of the related wiki project) to discuss this issue instead of using edit summaries. I'll say, [[WP:NOT]] applies to the kind of information the IP is trying to add, so I'd suggest they refrain from doing so again. Also, [[WP:AGF|good faith]] is related to conduct, not content. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 01:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I understand and agree. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/174.215.219.158|174.215.219.158]] ([[User talk:174.215.219.158|talk]]) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User Fixthetyp0's sockpuppet allegations over [[Mrs. Globe]] ==

Hello,

[[User:Fixthetyp0|Fixthetyp0]] appears to be having issues with a blocked user named [[User:Australianblackbelt|Australianblackbelt]].

The user states that the articles [[Mrs. Globe]], [[Svetlana Kruk]] and [[Alisa Krylova]] were created by [[User:Australianblackbelt|Australianblackbelt]] for the purposes of self-promotion. I created [[Svetlana Kruk]], so it seems I am now involved in this.

His first attempt at a triple AfD was done here in July:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(2nd_nomination)

The user's second attempt at a triple AfD is now ongoing here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(3rd_nomination)

Can someone take a look at this? I have no idea what's going on with those two, but it doesn't seem like it's accomplishing anything of value and I don't really want to be involved with this.

Thanks, [[User:KatoKungLee|KatoKungLee]] ([[User talk:KatoKungLee|talk]]) 00:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:Went and wrote up an oppose on the AFD and I can second that this is a situation requiring sanctions, because Fixthetyp0 for some reason has beef with the aforementioned blocked user and is letting it spill out onto uninvolved pages. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:It seems like Fixthetyp0 is a rather new account with very few edit counts. I do not quite understand why they are having a row with another editor. Is it possible that Fixthetyp0 is run by someone undisclosed? [[User:TheLonelyPather|TheLonelyPather]] ([[User talk:TheLonelyPather|talk]]) 03:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::It should be noted that Australianblackbelt was blocked back in January, before Fixthetyp0 was registered. ABB was a prolific self-promoter for themselves and their friends (and is now globally locked due to doing it on other Wikis as well) however and had many dozens of articles deleted as a result. It's not a bad idea to go back through their other creations and see what else is non-notable. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 12:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::But in this case it is quite evident that these articles are NOT self-promotion. [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::No not self-promotion, but possibly still promotional. They seemed to have many contacts in the beauty contest world and would actively promote non-notable entities in that world through one of them, especially anything even remotely related to the non-notable attention seeker Maurice Novoa (who may or may not have actually been Australianblackbelt) who seemed to have his fingers in every beauty contest and attempted connection to every contestant. So I couldn't rule out a connection. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== Gratuitous charts and other disruptions to multiple articles ==
{{atop|{{non-admin closure}} IP {{IPuser2|2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64}} blocked for 2 years by Ad Orientem due to LTA (see {{blocklog|2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64}}).-- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}

*{{user|2603:7000:B500:70D:BC8A:308A:BABE:BB14}}
*{{user|2603:7000:B500:70D:DC73:EA2E:4A32:1DE4}}
*{{user|2603:7000:B500:70D:395B:95D9:B972:9876}}

For example, charts like these: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171387503]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171388923]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Emoji_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171387920]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171387808]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171352405]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171352982]. And adding cn tags, often inappropriately, while simultaneously adding unsourced content: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benchmark_(crude_oil)&diff=prev&oldid=1171590429]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korea_National_Oil_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=1171589860]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171582539]. I like the preemptive cn tags, too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171578350]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Card&diff=prev&oldid=1171567746]. The IP range is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 02:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:Oo, I like prescriptive {{tl|citation needed}} tags too. You don't see them much, which is a shame.

:Like sometimes I've got a worthwhile contribution, I'm confident it's true, It's not super important, and I'm confident that there are good sources, I just don't have them at hand personally, or whatever. Or I'm copying a statement to another article that's sourced to a book I don't have. I mean {{tl|citation needed}} isn't necessarily supposed to be a black mark indicating a shameful failure, it's often supposed to be 1) an advisement to the reader, and 2) a collegial request to get the attention of some editor who has the time, interest, experience, and/or resources to pop in a source. Or was, in the Before Times.

:Sorry for the marginal point, I just get excited to see another of my species (in this matter at least). But it is maybe a small point in favor of the defendant. The rest I'll leave to you all. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 04:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I feel you, Hero buddy. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::Perhaps my examples weren't the best, though there are enough above to make the point: user is adding cn tags to sourced content, while adding their own unsourced content. That's on top of the lengthy and unnecessary (unsourced) charts. Assuming good faith, it looks like a [[WP:CIR]] issue. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::Unsourced content was added, unsourced content was challenged, that just seems like a normal content issue. The only odd thing here is the reported IP then spamming the tables to the article talk pages. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 11:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Rather than engaging, this has been the response today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171640458]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640458]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640511]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Emoji_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640529]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171640676]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640676]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Environment_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640784]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1171640926]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640926]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Oceans_Day&diff=next&oldid=1171640986]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_generation&diff=prev&oldid=1171646001]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_generation&diff=next&oldid=1171646001]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_generation&diff=next&oldid=1171646134]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emojipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1171646512]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emojipedia&diff=next&oldid=1171646512]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emojipedia&diff=next&oldid=1171646629], etc. Reverting and restoring unsourced content and junk charts. This helps Wikipedia how? [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|talk]]) 13:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Restoring unsourced content that has been challenged is against [[WP:BURDEN]]. It could be that the editor can't hear us [[WP:TCHY]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Interesting. Several editors have left edit summaries, as well. If they noticed their edits had been reverted, then restored the contested content, they'd be aware of pushback. I'm betting the rinse/repeat will continue. Thank you, {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm hoping they will be able to spot that they someone is trying to reach them, if not next stop should be [[WP:AN/3]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I've added the most recent IP up top. Thanks for catching that. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1|talk]]) 17:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::These are all covered by {{checkip|2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64}} -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 17:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The IP range has been blocked by Ad Orientem for LTA. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 18:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Goblintear, BLP and Danish model Nina Agdal ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Two weeks... [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 12:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

*[[Nina Agdal]]
*{{checkuser|Goblintear}}

I could have gone to [[WP:AN3]] with this issue but it is somewhat nuanced. There has been edit warring at the Nina Agdal biography regarding her sex life. The manosphere has been blowing up about her in the last week in their favorite forums, and she is being accused of gold-digging and whatnot ostensibly because she said yes to a marriage proposal from YouTuber [[Logan Paul]].

The manosphere crap starting spilling over to her wiki bio in July and August, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170438114 stuff like this "304 lifestyle"] which is a dog whistle for promiscuity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170787452 More crap] like that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170797961 started appearing], followed quickly by Goblintear adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170947908 another boyfriend] and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170954924 yet another].

Goblintear was reverted over and over. He was warned by me[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoblintear&diff=1171442489&oldid=1128089399] and then by {{u|Daniel Quinlan}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoblintear&diff=1171553788&oldid=1171475676] who also put the biography in protection for just one hour.

Goblintear restored the material yet again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=prev&oldid=1171598161] I am asking that the biography be protected for a longer period, and Goblintear partially blocked. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:The content dispute is clearly an edit war at this point so I temporarily fully protected [[Nina Agdal]] (extended-confirmed users are involved). The material and sources being added by Goblintear seem inconsistent with BLP policies, but I would like another administrator to take a look. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]]) 07:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Agdal&diff=next&oldid=1170954924 This edit] highlighted by Binksternet is clearly not appropriate for a BLP: both the sourcing to the Daily Mail and the scandalmongering "made headlines for their raunchy public displays of affection" are clearly unencyclopedic. Goblintear's other edits aren't {{em|as bad}}, but they certainly seem to be excessively focusing on Agdal's romantic links to various men based on some pretty tabloidy sources. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 08:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==Persistent bigoted edits by [[user:24.57.55.50]]==
{{atop|{{non-admin closure}} User blocked three months by Black Kite. [[User:ToadetteEdit|Toadette]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|chat]])/([[Special:Contributions/ToadetteEdit|logs]]) 13:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
Edits such as these:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Laura_Ann_Carleton&diff=prev&oldid=1171491823], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahsis&diff=prev&oldid=1164299476], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahsis&diff=prev&oldid=1164299021], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_McNallie&diff=prev&oldid=1155925006], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1147548981], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bay_Project&diff=prev&oldid=1113662936], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddy_(scooter)&diff=prev&oldid=1123668988], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Period_(manga)&diff=prev&oldid=1136949102]

Suggests that this user is [[wp:nothere]] and in violation of [[wp:nonazis]]. This user's intractable pattern of. bigoted edits to both articles and talk pages is deeply concerning.[[Special:Contributions/173.62.27.69|173.62.27.69]] ([[User talk:173.62.27.69|talk]]) 11:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Blocked''' for 3 months. Appears to be a fairly static IP, and there are BLP and racism issues writ large there. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== AfD on [[List of Islamist terrorist attacks]] ==

I started an [[WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks|AfD discussion]] and I'm seeing what I believe to be concerning votes from IP editors which geolocate to the same location/ISP. Can I get some admin eyes please. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 12:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== Scottish/British nationality warrior ==
{{Atop|reason=Indeffed.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}

*{{userlinks|Jbhoy}}
*{{pagelinks|Andy Murray}}
*{{pagelinks|Colin McRae}}
*{{pagelinks|David Coulthard}}
This new user is edit warring across these three articles to show the subjects' nationalities as Scottish, rather than British. I'm [[WP:INVOLVED|INVOLVED]], at the Andy Murray article at least, having been involved in discussions on the talk page in the past, where the consensus has long been to describe him as British (largely due to the fact that he describes himself as British on his personal website). Jbhoy has been reverted at all three articles by multiple editors, and has just kept reinstating their edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJbhoy&diff=1171573249&oldid=1171568999 This] was their response to a templated message; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jbhoy&diff=next&oldid=1171631421 this] was their response to a personal (and very informative) message from {{u|Escape Orbit}}. I don't see any further point in trying to communicate them - could another admin consider a block? [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== ST47ProxyBot, 10.80.1.x blocks ==
{{atop|Resolved via config change tracked in phabricator, not a bug in ST47's bot --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{tracked|T344704}}
Note that {{np|ST47ProxyBot}} accidentally issued some blocks on 10.80.1.x IP addresses. This looks to have been a bug, I notified {{np|ST47}}. If I see it happening again, I'll temporarily block the bot, but I don't think that'll be necessary. You can see the list of blocks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=ST47ProxyBot&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist here]. If you are patrolling the unblock requests and see a request claiming to be from 10.80.1.6 or 1.7 or 1.9 or 1.11, just mark the request as ''accepted'' and ask the user to try again. I am posting this notice because I've already handled rather a lot of unblock requests and I'm sure more will come in. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 14:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:I blocked the bot. Any admin, including ST47, can lift the block without consulting me. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 14:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::I've anon-blocked the /23 range. There seems to be an excessive amount of traffic going through the 10.x IP I checked. It may well be a wider bug. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::This is indeed a bug ([[phab:T344704]]), we're working on a fix. Also note that 10/8 addresses are already anon-blocked via MediaWiki config. [[User:Taavi|Taavi]] ([[User talk:Taavi|talk!]]) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks, Taavi! --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Also thanks. The anonblock was an attempt to deter the bot blocks, before I saw the bot was blocked. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 14:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::The fix is live now. I was going to lift the anon-block as that would still have affected anon edits via [[X-Forwarded-For]] data, but looks like that was already done. [[User:Taavi|Taavi]] ([[User talk:Taavi|talk!]]) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User: RevolutionaryAct ==

Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources [[User:Teenyplayspop|Teenyplayspop]] ([[User talk:Teenyplayspop|talk]]) 20:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Teenyplayspop}} If you want admins to take any action on this, you're almost certainly going to have to provide them with some diffs showing the behavior you're reporting. If you don't know how to do that, see [[WP:DIFFS]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::I appreciate the follow up [[User:Teenyplayspop|Teenyplayspop]] ([[User talk:Teenyplayspop|talk]]) 23:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::You are required to leave a notice on the editor's talk page—as per the big red box at the top of this page—which you didn't, so I've gone ahead and done so. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64|2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64|talk]]) 23:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Hello, I have been made aware of a discussion about my edits. Please allow me to defend myself: 
::::First, one can edit whatever subject they want to my understanding on Wikipedia, provided that the page is not locked or restricted. Working in one area does not disqualify a person, or otherwise there would be no subject matter experts or people working on what interests them. 
::::Second, the edits that I made on other pages regarding "alt-right" figures - Tina Peters, Gregg Phillips, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer - are largely critical of them, their claims, their history, etc. so to accuse me of partisanship and activism is unfair and unfounded. Furthermore, all of the sources presented come from reputable sources and are properly cited. 
::::Third, the very page which you are using as evidence against me regarding Andy Ngo has a hyperlink in it which takes one to a separate civil case against 2 of the 5 initially sued/charged, and it describes them as "left wing activists":https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/andy-ngo-loses-civil-lawsuit-against-portland-activists.html 
::::That article links to the following article: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/right-wing-writer-andy-ngos-lawsuit-against-portland-activists-begins.html 
::::Which links one to the following in which Ngo sued Rose City Antifa and named the 5 defendants, 3 of whom were in the original article, and 2 who were dismissed in the civil suit. The defendants have not denied affiliation, nor has Rose City Antifa, nor have they contested anything he claimed or showed up: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/06/conservative-writer-sues-portland-antifa-group-for-900k-claims-campaign-of-intimidation-and-terror.html 
::::Given that it was in the original lawsuit and no parties have denied or stepped forward to contest these claims, and all media has referred to these defendants as left wing activists, it is understandable to see why one would consider them Antifa. However, even if we remove the name Antifa from the article, it is unfair to accuse me of hyper partisanship and try to remove my editing ability or punish me over one word. 
::::Partisanship certainly cuts both ways on this website and none of us are perfect, but it would have been better to discuss this on the talk page or speak with me vs. assume bad motives and try to get me in trouble at the outset. [[User:RevolutionaryAct|RevolutionaryAct]] ([[User talk:RevolutionaryAct|talk]]) 03:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You specifically added this [https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/andy-ngo-wins-300k-from-defendants-who-ignored-lawsuit-over-portland-protest-beating.html citation] to support your edit in which you accused people of being antifa on [[Andy Ngo]]. The article is a [[WP:BLP]] and the word antifa is not found once in that citation that you used. Your edit was disruptive at a minimum. You need to be aware of that instead of making excuses and throwing around accusations towards others. Have you even bothered to read [[WP:BLP]] or perhaps [[WP:OR]]? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 04:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::As an example, refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=1171598824&oldid=1171593250 this] disruptive editing in which they edited [[Andy Ngo]], which is a [[WP:BLP]] to indtroduce heavily biased political language not found in the source which they were citing, ie the word antifa. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Pinging @[[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]], perhaps you can provide some context on what happened at [[Tina Peters (politician)]]. The revision history does not paint a pretty picture. Also can you provide your interpretation on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_88&diff=prev&oldid=1170412397 this]? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 10:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice_for_J6_rally&diff=prev&oldid=1051274865 this] which demonstrates [[WP:ADVOCACY]]. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']][[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:SurrealSurgeon]] [[WP:CTOP]] 3RR/EW abuse at [[Joseph Stalin]] ==
{{atop
| status =
| result =
}}

{{resolved|Blocked indef by {{u|Bbb23}}. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{user links|SurrealSurgeon}}

{{article links|Joseph Stalin}}

3RR:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1171596647]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=1171597596&oldid=1171596647]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1171677067]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1171725210]

Warned:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurrealSurgeon&oldid=1171679848]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurrealSurgeon&diff=prev&oldid=1171684696]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASurrealSurgeon&diff=1171696856&oldid=1171688941]

Acknowledges warning:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurrealSurgeon&diff=prev&oldid=1171683244]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASurrealSurgeon&diff=1171688941&oldid=1171684696]

I am asking for stronger than 3RR measures to address this user due to the contentious topic and being very explicitly warned about both CTOP and 3RR and saying they understand. I find that a user like this might get a short block at 3RR and something longer is appropriate here - not indef (necessarily), but not 24 or 36 hours either. Probably too early to call a CIR situation but I haven't looked carefully at their edit history either. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked, not per CTOP. I don't think the user is [[WP:CIR|incompetent]], just passive-aggressive and sly.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Thanks. Thought perhaps it could be some kind of trolling as well, too much trouble to analyze these clowns. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 22:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== IP removing sourced content ==
{{atop
| status =
| result =
}}

{{resolved|Warned user [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 00:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{IP|2605:59C8:159A:EF00:C421:3360:CD94:B903}} has been removing sourced content. Diffs:
* at [[Rodney Howard-Browne]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Howard-Browne&diff=prev&oldid=1171742648], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Howard-Browne&diff=prev&oldid=1171743869], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Howard-Browne&diff=prev&oldid=1171744488]
* at [[Kenneth Copeland]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Copeland&diff=prev&oldid=1171742942]
[[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 00:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:I gave them a final warning. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 00:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks. Your warning is about adding unsourced content but they have been removing sourced content. That's probably the wrong warning? [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 00:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:LoveHop123]] ==

I have several concerns about this users behavior.

Most recently, they removed a reply in a discussion ([[Special:MobileDiff/1171747486|1]]) because they felt X/Twitter was an unreliable source. Even if that was true, that is up to the person reviewing the edit request to decide. They’ve done this before too ([[Special:MobileDiff/1171573475|2]] [[Special:MobileDiff/1171441056|3]] [[Special:MobileDiff/1125087734|4]]). Normally this might only merit a warning but they continued to blank comments after a [[Special:MobileDiff/1171593580|final warning]]. They have also caused other headaches on [[Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)]], including trying to prematurely close an RM, as well as the mess at [[Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)# Why is this sentence in here?]] and [[Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)#MORE ISSUES! TORNADO WARNING MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!]]. This should be grounds for at least a temp block. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]] ([[User talk:173.23.45.183|talk]]) 00:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:Look. If it will make everyone feel better, I'll just stay out of it. Sorry for everything. It won't happen again. Also, deleting the source was an accident and I was just trying to get it back for you. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 00:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] If it was an accident, why did you also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2610:130:109:12:6DCE:2418:948B:2085&oldid=1171747928 warn the IP] for making the comment? —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I just wanted to let them know, too. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 00:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] Why did you leave a warning template, stating that their edit was inappropriate, if ''you'' made a mistake in removing their comment? Not to mention that the warning template you used wasn't appropriate for the type of edit in the first place. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Because I thought that at first. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::That makes sense and ties with the sequence of events, where LoveHop123 did subsequently remove the warning. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm currently deleting the FORKED conversations and the rest of the mess I caused. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 01:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Hm, it appears LoveHop123 has acknowledged their wrong actions. This report can probably be closed, under the condition that if they ever cause a mess again, they will be re-reported and very likely to be blocked. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]] ([[User talk:173.23.45.183|talk]]) 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Hey @173.23.45.183,
:::I myself have has problems with @[[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]]. I don't think they have bad intentions, just that they make suspicious edits, for example vandalism and blanking warns on their talk page. I would've come with the same conclusion, make one more error and your gone, but I would love to assist you in resolving this issue.
:::[[User:ItsCheck|ItsCheck]] ([[User talk:ItsCheck|talk]]) 01:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I have realized what I've done wrong. I apologize for the disruptive edits. I won't cause you any further pain. If there is anything you need me to do, let me know here or on my talk page. Again, I am very sorry for all this. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 01:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::If it would help, I'll put the warnings back on my talk page. [[User:LoveHop123|LoveHop123]] ([[User talk:LoveHop123|talk]]) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Deleting warnings on your talk page is allowed, but they will always remain in the page history. In fact, removing a warning is an acknowledgement you read it. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]] ([[User talk:173.23.45.183|talk]]) 02:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
===My wrong actions===

I apologize to everyone for all the issues I've caused. I have made multiple disruptive edits and have been warned multiple times regarding this. I've also issues warnings to other users who has not done wrong. I have reverted those warnings and the disruptive edits I've created. I want to apologize to many users, but especially [[User:C. Fred|C. Fred]], [[User:ItsCheck|ItsCheck]], and [[User:173.23.45.183|173.23.45.183]]. This will not happen again. I will try to be calmer next time and acknowledge the user if they have done anything wrong instead of giving then warnings that don't make any sense. I am very sorry for all the trouble. This will not happen again. [[User talk:LoveHop123]] 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Gorebath]] ==
This account has already been charged with vandalism on Wikipage "Emirati nationality law". This account seems to propagate agenda of United Arab Emirates by deleting factual/Negative information associated with UAE in a frequent manner. Kindly review this account!

== Please address immediately ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = User indeffed and edit revdelled. {{nac}} '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|LilianaUwU]]''''' ([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]]) 05:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1171781621]

I'm not using the tools for personal reasons unrelated to the edit or editor in question. But would an admin please address this immediately. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 05:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:User blocked, and hopefully the CSD paperwork on the Commons end is sorted. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 05:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== KyleJoan, Migsmigss, edit warring, article ownership, hounding allegations ==

{{moved from|[[WP:ANEW]]|2=[[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)}}

The following section, originally titled "User:KyleJoan reported by User:Migsmigss (Result: )", was created at the edit warring noticeboard. The usual form asking for "page, user being reported, previous revision reverted to, diff of the user's reverts" et cetera was not filled out, so this is not just topically but also syntactically rather suitable for ANI than ANEW. I have removed the broken form, fixed the lack of [[Help:Threading|indentation]] in {{u|Migsmigss}}'s comments and changed the heading slightly. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

----

Reverting edits and owning articles, even asking me why I've started editing on articles he's supposed to be editing for a long time. I didn't know Wikipedia and those articles have been owned by this editor, and that I need to provide explanation when and where I edit?

Please see: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Migsmigss#Hounding?|1]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799794|2]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799467|3]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171797374|//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171797374]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798199|5]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798866|6]]. [[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 08:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:Why leave pertinent details out, Migsmigss? Some of the thorough explanations for my reverts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Staz_Nair&diff=prev&oldid=1171796032][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798866] The ''four'' requests to review what a minor edit is,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1161255841&oldid=1158838756][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1164255446&oldid=1162336794][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1164655740&oldid=1164272026][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=1171796422&oldid=1170840071] the last of which was where our interaction began. The fact that you had never edited one of the articles I referenced in relation to possible hounding until after you interacted with me–you had made one prior edit on the other.[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Migsmigss&page=Taron+Egerton&max=500&server=enwiki][https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Migsmigss&page=Paul_Mescal&server=enwiki&max=] Your intention to continue to hound me by beginning to edit another article I frequent, {{pagelinks|Christian Bale}}, after filing this report.[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Migsmigss&page=Christian+Bale&max=500&server=enwiki] The entitlement in asking for an explanation when you are reverted when you never bothered to summarize the initial edit (and numerous others).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=1171798078&oldid=1171797374] [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Wow, when an editor edits articles another one had edited first, it's already hounding? You are accusing me of hounding, based on who edited which articles first? I didn't leave important details out. Not in this discussion, not in the edits I made. But you've reverted most if not all of them, even the improvements in punctuations and grammar. Why? I suspect article ownership. Do you own those articles? Aren't other editors allowed to make edits? [[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 08:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::Also, please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171803144|this]. "Capitalization" changes were not helpful? When it's diction and sentence flow, aiding semantics, were improved, and simply not capitalization?
::This is not only edit warring on the part of KyleJoan, but also ownership of articles. Plus the accusation that I'm "Hounding" them. Wow. Just wow.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 08:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMigsmigss&diff=881567683&oldid=881543810 The block you received in 2019 was partly due to hounding, was it not?] [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 09:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::A resolved issue that's irrelevant to this discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Migsmigss#Hounding?| Accusing me of hounding], though, and reverting all edits not done by you ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171803144]|1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799794|2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171799467|3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798866|4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171798199|5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taron_Egerton&diff=prev&oldid=1171798109|6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Mescal&diff=prev&oldid=1171797374|7]) simply because you want to keep your edits without valid reason, is article ownership and edit warring.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You don't intially summarize, I don't summarize in return. When you look at my history, I'm pretty elaborate in my summaries. Here's the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summer_Rae&diff=prev&oldid=1171809047 summary for my last edit]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Elordi&diff=prev&oldid=1171810001 Your last edit] included a [[WP:BLP]] violation (i.e., an unsourced middle name). It was also incorrectly marked as minor. Again. [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 09:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Doesn't explain your accusation of me hounding you, and your insistence that I explain my edits to you, simply because you've already preposterously accused me of hounding you:
::::::"How long have you been interested in contributing to Paul Mescal and Taron Egerton? Is it merely a wild coincidence that you began editing the two, both of which are in my 50 most recent contributions, after our interaction on Staz Nair."
::::::Can't I edit said articles? Why would I need to explain how long I've been editing these articles (when said information is available to you in my edit summaries), and explain these especially for you? Are edits more valid when the editor has been editing said articles for a long time, or is it just a way for some editors to insist on their edits, and revert all other edits not made by them? Which you've done.
::::::The edits I made were mostly minor, punctuation marks and grammar. But you reverted all of them simply because you want to own these articles.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Migsmigss}}, at very least when editing featured articles such as the one about [[Paul Mescal]], you'll generally have to expect reverts because you are changing something that has passed a strict community review to something that is likely just a personal preference. This is described by the [[WP:FAOWN|"Featured articles" section]] of the policy against article ownership. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Pardon me, {{u|ToBeFree}}, but I think you meant to link [[Christian Bale]], which is one of the two articles Migs had never edited prior to our dispute. My guess is they found it on my contributions page and decided to edit it. Migs has not denied hounding despite having ample opportunity to do so. [[User:KyleJoan|'''K'''yle'''J'''oan]][[User talk:KyleJoan|talk]] 10:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Huh, I was sure I had seen the FA star at the top right of [[Paul Mescal]]. Sorry. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::What I find laughable (and hypocritical) is when editors like KyleJoan insist only on their edits (article ownership) by reverting all other edits, when those edits are simply minor, such as the addition of the right and necessary punctuations, and improvements on cohesion and flow. Editors like KyleJoan, who revert all edits not made by them, are simply gatekeeping and doing article ownership. No doubt about that, in my opinion. Actions like this won't inspire more editors, new editors who want to contribute, and in turn won't inspire more edits and growth in Wikipedia. It is in my opinion, that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership and edit warring, and accusing other editors of hounding and other ridiculous accusations then requiring these newer editors to explain things for them to support their unreasonable accusations, simply are bullying these newer editors to submission—these actions are more detrimental to the site, than they are helpful. Editors like KyleJoan who look down on newer editors, and then gatekeep and own articles insisting only on their edits as the right and one-true edit, are, in my opinion, a harm to this site in the long run.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|Migsmigss}}, by which path have you reached the article about [[Christian Bale]] today? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Google search "Christian Bale wiki"—Why, does the path determine whether an edit or a series of edits is valid or not? I have long since wanted to make edits in Christian Bale, among other articles I wanted. Also, is any other way to the Christian Bale article wrong or inadmissible?
::::::::::::Again, it is in my opinion that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership<ins>[verbatim copy of text already present above removed ~ToBeFree]</ins> [[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It does matter for determining whether there might have been harassment involved.
:::::::::::::You have already stated your opinion; please avoid repetition. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The hounding accusation and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Migsmigss&oldid=1171818714#Hounding? the condescending nature by which the accusation was delivered by KyleJoan], should also be reviewed for harassment.
::::::::::::::I repeated myself only because I didn't think my part was heard, or if heard, taken into due and equal consideration. Thanks.[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 10:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{u|Migsmigss}}, I have looked closer at this now, and there are less than four minutes between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1171800953] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171801334]. Your contribution list around that time looks like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Migsmigss?offset=20230823084800&limit=25] You did a Google search in between them? Why? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Why not?[[User:Migsmigss|Migsmigss]] ([[User talk:Migsmigss|talk]]) 11:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Because all you had to do was clicking "Christian Bale" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KyleJoan?offset=20230823081500&limit=50 KyleJoan's list of 50 latest contributions]. I'll probably block but I'll wait for {{u|Bishonen}}'s opinion. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} I've been asked to weigh in here because I blocked Migsmigss for two weeks in February 2019 for some appalling behavior including hounding, which I described [[Special:Diff/881567683|here]]. It was pretty bad, but was more than four years ago, so I don't think it's ''highly'' relevant at this time. However, reading through the discussion above, it's obvious to me that Migsmigss is again behaving appallingly, in both their vengeful actions towards KyleJoan, and their evasive and insulting posts on this very page (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Migsmigss&oldid=1171818714#Hounding? here], too). I recommend a block of at least two months, and would not object to an indefinite block. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC).

:Thank you very much! I'll end this with an indefinite block. Adding commas before "and" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171801334] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Bale&diff=prev&oldid=1171801455]) directly after reporting KyleJoan looks like an easy way to make any edit with the sole purpose of hounding rather than the "long since wanted to make edits" explanation above. I assume that {{u|Migsmigss}} was looking for plausible deniability in their harassment, but has failed. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

2023-08-21T22:03:26Z

L2212: /* Stonewalling and POV pushing in the Aghlabids article */ Reply

{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}
<noinclude>{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1136
|algo = old(3d)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}


== User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS ==

For months now, {{u|WMrapids}} has repeatedly [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions|casted asperstions]] against me and other editors:

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

In the span of around two months, the editor has accused me of [[WP:OWN]] at least 6 times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159234985][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159280767][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159387476][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159474870][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159582971][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1168593057]), [[WP:CANVASS]] at least 4 times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1152362109][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1158924831][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159387817][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165567054]) and [[WP:ADVOCACY]] at least 14 times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1158924831][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159234985][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160190236][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1162433903][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1162454692][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165566529][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165566710][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165567165][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165567337][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166012121][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166012450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166063882][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166064978][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1168433260]). Other accusations have included [[WP:HOUNDING]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159804156][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160190236]), "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160390197 I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.]", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166147764], and whatever this is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160090391 "You two seem to be ''pretty'' close in step with each other..."], which seems to be an accusation of [[Wikipedia:Meatpuppet|meatpuppetry]]. The first accusation of canvassing would be withdrawn after realizing the mistake ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1152364480]) and WP:OWN specifically, which was argued mostly regarding WP:VENRS, can be easily can be easily disproved by just taking a look at the essay's statistics ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia%20talk:WikiProject%20Venezuela/Reliable%20and%20unreliable%20sources Xtools]), where it is shown that WMrapids has become one of the main contributors to the page, both in terms of content as well as number of edits.

In many of these cases, specifically those that took place in RfCs, were not directed towards me and the main purpose was to support their position during the discussion, and some of them were also levelled against other users, specifically [[User:ReyHahn]] and [[User:Kingsif]]. I have asked them several times to stop casting aspersions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?1159857069][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?1166148825]), asking for concerns to discuss the issues directly with me and pointing out that continuing only creates a hostile environment, but they have continued. At the third canvass accusation, I asked WMrapids to strike the accusation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159395659]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159427626][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159448589]), <s>but the request was ignored</s>. Now, I have asked ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?1168624884]) for further accusations be withdrawn from a new RfC ([[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS]]), <s>which at this moment really feels like a personal attack. So far, no response has been received</s>.

Lastly, although not the main issue at hand, it's worth mentioning other problems with the RfCs: in the same period of two months, WMrapids has opened five RfCs ([[Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|3]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|4]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS|5]]), all of which remain open (save for one, closed today) and three of which are related to WP:VENRS. Several editors have expressed their concern regarding them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159278367][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159504696][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159920143]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160230663], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1159529215]). I fear that with this, along with the mentioned hostility, editors will be discouraged in participating in related topics; not only limited to Venezuela, but also to Peru, the main edit topic for WMrapids where similar issues might have happened ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1168879722]), but I cannot comment about it without further analysis.

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

'''Update:''' I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1169058732][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1169080069]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1169055078]). If the user has taken steps to de-escalate the situation and the situation is not repeated, I don't think further action is warranted. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

:While the personalization has stopped after this report, and further action (beyond a warning) may not be warranted in that department, the BLP issues are still of concern. It appears from the timeline that the pro- and anti-campaign stemming from the Peruvian discussion was the impetus for WMrapid's pointy Venezuelan editing and from there spilled over to slant Venezuelan BLPs, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1169811222#Reliability_of_La_Patilla_closure_review can then be used to slant reliability discussions] (as most of Venezuela's top journalists had to move to other venues after previously reliable sources were censored and shut down by the Chavez/Maduro governments). WMrapids has become much more cooperative and less combative on talk, but the change in tone on talk has not been reflected by a change in editing. I am still concerned they should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

''' Timeline''': (I declare myself to be friends with anyone who offers me an [[arepa]]).{{pb}} I’ve been watching this trainwreck, including the frequent personalization by WMrapids listed above (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=1168920140#RfC:_La_Patilla including one aimed at me]) unfold via the proliferation of poorly presented RFCs. {{pb}} The best I can tell, WMrapids had never edited Venezuelan content until they had a disagreement with NoonIcarus and began engaging in what looks like [[WP:POINT|pointy editing]].
* 25 February, WMrapids is successful in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&oldid=1165055250#Requested_move_25_February_2023 move request] at [[Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt]] that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&oldid=1165055250#Move_was_hasty_and_not_grounded_on_sources prematurely closed].
* 22 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&oldid=1165055250#Requested_move_22_April_2023 NoonIcarus re-opens the move discussion]
** 19 May WMrapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=prev&oldid=1155622498 relists the discussion] and oddly does not ping [[WP:PERU]] (tagged on the talk page), but does ping [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Socialism&diff=prev&oldid=1155624565 WP:Socialism] (which is not tagged on the talk page - inappropriate canvassing)
** 12:26, 24 May the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=prev&oldid=1156751330 move request closes], not in the direction WMrapids preferred
* Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&diff=prev&oldid=1156798190][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Venezuelan_uprising_attempt&diff=prev&oldid=1156798825] ([[WP:POINT]]) Neither of these close as WMrapids preferred. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Venezuelan_uprising_attempt&oldid=1168598205#Requested_move_24_May_2023 One closed 31 May], the other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&oldid=1168938449#Requested_move_24_May_2023 closed 21 June]
* WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk (Colombia, Crime, International relations, Latin America, Military history, Organized crime, South America and Venezuela) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=8&contribs=user&target=WMrapids&offset=20230524184000 notify instead WP:Politics and WP:History] (WP:CANVASS)
* Until 5 June, WMrapids confines their edits to Peru other than these (pointy) move requests
* 5 June, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Patilla#RfC:_Reliability_of_La_Patilla series of RFCs leading to the complaints in this ANI began].
* 7 June, WMrapids begins biasing [[Nelson Bocaranda]], a BLP.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1159023577] See [[#Case study]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

:* {{tq|"including one aimed at me"}}
:** Did not know that I had to read the top of every user's talk page.
:* {{tq|"oddly does not ping WP:PERU"}}
:**The project would be automatically notified due to the talk page template.
:*{{tq|"Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[106][107] (WP:POINT)"}}
:** NoonIcarus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=1152321188&oldid=1152317461 mentioned the article] [[Operation Gideon (2020)]] as an example. After reviewing this article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=1152496613&oldid=1152485429 I suggested that the same conditions] for the [[2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt]] be applied to those other articles. One can perceive this as [[WP:POINT]], while I was interpreting this as [[WP:CCC]], especially when both articles were handled differently.
:*{{tq|"WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk"}}
:**Again, the projects should be notified via template.
:*{{tq|"7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP"}}
:**After reviewing various articles from reliable sources describing a process how Bocaranda based his career on "rumors" and supported the Venezuelan opposition, I attributed the sources and added such information to the article.
:[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

===Case study ===
::: (Aside: the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=1169733994#Who_Wrote_That? WhoWroteThat tool is not working at this article]) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
* 7 June [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1158812711 adds unbalanced content to the lead] of [[Nelson Bocaranda]], a BLP, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1159023722 NoonIcarus appropriately incorporates to the body of the article]
* 7 June [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1159023881 removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery] – this edit alone (because of the popularity of Bocaranda which pre-dates Chavez's cancer), indicates that WMRapids is inserting POV while editing outside of their knowledge base. Further, a Google search easily turns up [https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2012/03/120316_venezuela_entrevista_nelson_bocaranda_salud_chavez_jp BBC sourcing this content] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1168952788#Recognition others] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1168951220#Career more]. Before removing something so obvious, sources could have been found easily; NoonIcarus had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1165161739 readd it later], after which WMrapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1165161739 attributes it without necessity] (still not finding an easy source BBC via Google). Again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1166032589 later fixed by NoonIcarus], who added BBC. A lot of work because WMrapids didn't do a simple search before deleting obvious information easily sourced (POV editing).
* 7 June, further indicating they are editing outside of their knowledge base, and with a POV, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1159025399 WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following"] while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters. Bocaranda increased his {{em|social media}} following after the Chavez diagnosis; he was well among the most popular journalists and television personalities in Venezuela even before that (see sources now in the article).
* 18 July [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1165161739 WMrapids installs content] sourced to a blog, [[Caracas Chronicles]], on a BLP.
* 18 July [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1166020093 installs unbalanced content] without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted.
** And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer and maligning Bocaranda for reporting it, by changing "veil of secrecy" (quote) to "Bocaranda would go on to gain much of his following covering information on the [[Hugo Chávez#Illness|illness of Hugo Chávez]] at a time when information about his health was scarce." (Information was not "scarce"; the gov't was denying it, and had to acknowledge same a few days after Bocaranda reported it -- see reliable sources now in the article.)
So, this is one example of what NoonIcarus has been dealing with to address WMrapid's biased editing. I stopped at that point. {{pb}} I know ANI can’t resolve content disputes, but we should be able to recognize disruption and tendentious editing when it comes in the form of bias combined with frequent personalization of issues. And WMrapids' focus on labeling people or outlets as "pro-opposition" demonstrates another kind of bias; I can't imagine labeling Democrats "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Trump administration, or Republicans "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Biden administration. Or saying that someone "opposes the US government" when they oppose one administration's policies. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

:I'll add real quick that starting from 6 June, the outlets articles edited have been [[La Patilla]], [[Efecto Cocuyo]], [[Runrunes]], [[El Pitazo]], [[Tal Cual]] and [[El Nacional (Venezuela)]], as shown in the diffs, all of in which WMrapids edited for the first time and nearly all of which were cited at [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 4#Requested move 24 May 2023|Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023]]. I tried to avoid discussing content disputes unless it helped to provide context, but they further illustrate the pointy and disruptive editing. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::I looked only at the first Venezuelan article WMrapids edited, and partly because [[Nelson Bocaranda]] is a [[WP:BLP|BLP]], as BLPs require editing more responsibly than elsewhere. What I found there was not encouraging, but I don't want to descend further into analyzing the crusade to characterize media outlets; as I said on my talk, slogging through the POV editing in Venezuela topics takes more time than I've got. {{pb}} But according to [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/as-it-slides-toward-authoritarianism-venezuela-targets-one-of-its-last-independent-newspapers/2018/07/03/9cb5fe22-7a2d-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html The Washington Post], the [https://apnews.com/136a0008890841f39d9344787defc0ac Associated Press], and just about everyone else ([https://niemanreports.org/articles/how-venezuelas-independent-digital-news-outlets-are-covering-the-turmoil-in-their-country/ sample 1], [https://www.rsf-es.org/clasificacion-mundial-de-la-libertad-de-prensa-rsf-2023-tabla-de-paises/ sample 2] but there are hundreds to thousands of RS on press freedom issues in Venezuela), it appears there is no longer a single media outlet in Venezuela that is not under the control of the Maduro administration, and those issues-- widely covered in all RS-- are hardly covered in any of the media outlet articles, with a handful of editors assuring that continues to be the case. Regardless of their political stance, the bigger issues are not covered in most of those articles, and tendentious editing just makes it harder to write decent articles. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:SandyGeorgia, with your extensive history of being involved in Venezuela, I know you know that the term [[:es:Oposición_al_chavismo|"opposition" is a popular term describing those opposed to the Venezuelan government]]. So do [[WP:GREL]] sources, [https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c200pqkj including BBC] (see [[WP:RSP]]), with the article clearly outlining sources as "government" or "opposition". Using [[WP:RS]] to place [[WP:VERIFY|verifiable]] content on the project is one of the most ''basic'' processes on Wikipedia. So no, you making a [[false equivalence]] of the ''Venezuelan'' opposition and ''[[political opposition]]'' in general is not accurate. My edits were to plainly describe the media organizations as [[WP:GREL]] sources describe them, which can be verified. Unfortunately these two descriptions of "government" and "opposition" are a result of the [[political polarization]] that exists in Venezuela, but as [[International Media Support]] writes, '''"[https://www.mediasupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Venezuela-report_4-ENG-final3.pdf Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society. Rather than reporting on the challenges facing Venezuela, many media outlets have become part of the problem instead of the solution]."''' [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:*{{tq|"7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda"}}
:**It was a tiny article about an individual of questionable [[WP:NOTABILITY]]. Where else was I supposed to place the information?
:*{{tq|"7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery"}}
:**The phrase "is considered one of the best Venezuelan journalists by his colleagues" is not easily verifiable and is [[WP:PUFF]].
:*{{tq|"WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters."}}
:**Reuters plainly says "[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-chavez-journalist/venezuelan-journalist-in-eye-of-chavez-cancer-storm-idUSBRE8270TD20120308 Bocaranda's investigative work on Chavez's health has brought him more fame than at any point in a half-century media career spanning back to when he was 16]". Pretty sure this was properly placed. It is questionable that you are attempting to twist this...
:*18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
:**[[WP:VENRS]] said Caracas Chronicles was "run by respected journalists" until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Venezuela%2FReliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=1169014489&oldid=1169010798 it was removed by Sandy today]. Again, this information was attributed as part of reception, which is common.
:*{{tq|"18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted"}}
:**Pretty sure wording it as "the Venezuelan government reportedly said it would refuse to renew Unión Radio's license if Bocaranda did not prevent his criticism" is as balanced as you can get with describing potential censorship.
:*{{tq|"And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer"}}
:**This somewhat shows your bias. Information was scarce and that is accurate. If you want to change the wording to that it was a "cover up" operation, that seems to have more bias than simply saying information was not available.
:Some of these accusations against me seem to be [[WP:POT]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::Now [[Nelson Bocaranda]]--widely known since at least the 80s as one of Venezuela's most popular journalists and television presenters, with sources easily found in Reuters, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post-- without even going in to Spanish sources-- is "of questionable notability"? WMrapids, again, I'm concerned that while you are wading into territory you may be unfamiliar with, you aren't reading sources, and are apparently cherry-picking around for which sources suit the content you want to write. If you want to do that on media outlets, have at it-- I don't have time to concern myself-- but you can't do that on a BLP. The phrase you called PUFF was cited. Yes, the Chavez cancer knowledge brought him more fame-- that is ''even more'' fame (made him known even outside of Venezuela, while he has been quite well known there since the 80s-- as one of the sources mentions, it brought him fame within and outside of Venezuela-- he always had it in Venezuela). ''Even if'' you (or someone) considered that Caracas Chronicles was run by a "respected" journalist, Bocaranda is a BLP, and you shouldn't be using a blog to cite a BLP (and Toro was by no means the only writer at Caracas Chronicles, and they finally took it private because too many people were complaining about their content, making it difficult now to give examples of their gaffes such as we would need for a reliability discussion). Information is not scarce when it's all over Twitter, from a well-known respected journalist. {{pb}} Yes, I very well know that "opposition" is a popular term used by the media; my concern is with how ''you'' want to use it and how you present it in RFC after RFC. Do as you wish in media articles, but I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela to know when you're slanting an article about a living person. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Please don't use ''[[ad hominem]]s'' against me by suggesting that I cannot edit in a "territory" that I may be "unfamiliar" with, it is ''very'' unwelcoming to a fellow editor. The [[Nelson Bocaranda]] article has been of minuscule importance; until I started editing it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=1166022635&oldid=1165161739 expanding it greatly recently], there were hardly any edits (besides bot, link and category edits) since you created the article in 2008. I will reiterate; ''all'' of my edits were verifiable from sources and in no way were [[WP:CHERRY|cherrypicking]], attempting to [[WP:POINT|illustrate a point]], [[WP:LIBEL|libel]] or [[WP:CANVASS| to canvass]], etc. Pinging other users to promote a more broad consensus has always been my goal when using the tool. As for using Caracas Chronicles, okay, maybe that source shouldn't have been used. Information from "'''colleagues'''" describing someone as "one of the best Venezuelan journalists" is [[WP:PUFF]], plain and simple whether or not it is cited. Overall, your accusations are not helpful. Please stop. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Reminding you that competence and diligence are requisites to editing a BLP is not an ''ad hominem''. If you intend to edit BLPs in a country where there is no press freedom; where most news archives from what were once the country's reliable sources were scrubbed after the government censored, shut down, and took them over (you have read the abundance of reliable sources on that, yes?); where most independent news reporting happens via social media sites and sources that may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards but are the only ones the government cannot shut down because they operate on social media, you had best be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library familiarizing yourself with the living persons whose articles you touch and the actual history of events that can no longer be found in the now-scrubbed archives of the former national newspapers. ''Even with'' access to a library, the going is tough when most previous newspaper archives are now gone; it's apparent by now you likely had no familarity with [[Nelson Bocaranda]] when you started editing the article, so caution is warranted before editing a BLP considering the difficulty in uncovering sources due to censorship in Venezuela. Nonetheless, your first clue to notability should have been the journalism prize you deleted. {{pb}} Regardless whether you think an individual meets notability or think they are of "miniscule importance", [[WP:BLP|BLP policy]] applies to ''all'' living people (and your statements here to those two issues further reinforce my concern that you shouldn't be editing BLPs). {{pb}} Adding two or three sentences and content sourced to a blog is not "expanding greatly"; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1159023881 removing a national prize for journalism] from the article, while sticking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1158812711 your personal campaign about labeling pro-opposition and pro-government into the lead], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1165161739 expanding the article based on a blog source] to make Bocaranda appear as having no journalistic credentials behind "rumors" is a gross BLP violation. You did this while real articles in really real reliable sources exist. That's tendentious, POV, and you shouldn't edit BLPs in an area you appear to be unfamiliar with if you can't do so responsibly. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

==== BLP vios continue ====
::: See [[Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP]]
I should take this to either the BLP noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard, but the WMrapids issues are already here at ANI, at [[WP:AN]] and at [[WP:RSN]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1169310225#Reliability_of_La_Patilla_closure_review] so this seems to be the most central place. Two days after I [[#Case study|pointed out the first BLP issue]], and with two of us in this discussion asking WMrapids to slow down ([[#Comment from ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested and me, pointing out that WMrapids should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs]]), WMrapids returned to [[Nelson Bocaranda]] to make a series of POV insertions and BLP vios. This editor should not be touching BLPs; their mission to pro- and anti- every media outlet that remains in Venezuela has spilled over into slanting the biographies of living persons. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

:Slanting and OR continues on 9 August; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1169516825#9_August_2023_edits points 3 and 6 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:For concerns about my edits regarding [[WP:BLP]], please see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1169582977 I successfully advocated for the page protection] of [[Lil Tay|an article about a child]] who has faced controversy about her well-being in the past. This occurred as the child's article was facing a bombardment of edits stating that she had died, all of which was based on unconfirmed reports. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm here because my username was mentioned, I don't think I have anything to add to discussion, but you having asked for page protection for a BLP that is being vandalised is not an endorsement that you know how to edit BLPs. If you think it is, that raises more concerns. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 09:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::The tendentious issues are in Venezuelan topics; re "successfully advocat[ing]", [[Lil Tay]] is so bad that anyone could have gotten it protected. Biased editing is sometimes confined to one content area where the editor is unable to see their own bias; that's the issue here. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

===Response===
{{u|NoonIcarus}} has been been performing [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] edits for years {{strike|and this will be properly outlined in an extensive ANI report that I will subsequently begin myself}}. Though we have had issues with edits, I have attempted to work with them to determine a consensus across a multitude of articles throughout the project. Both of our actions have perhaps been unhelpful at times and I will admit that I fell for [[WP:BAIT]] on occasion. This can be seen when [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive470#User%3AWMrapids_reported_by_User%3ANoonIcarus_(Result%3A_No_violation)|NoonIcarus first attempted to bring me to an administrator noticeboard over alleged edit warring on July 19]] in which {{ping|Bbb23}} said we both needed to improve our behavior. After this, I attempted to extend an olive branch on [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)]] the same day, saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOperation_Gideon_%282020%29&diff=1166135611&oldid=1163306350 "Let's move on from different discussions and find a better title for this article. I'll suggest something here soon"], hoping that we could collaborate on finding a better article title for [[Operation Gideon (2020)]] (its title is almost universally opposed). Before I could make my proposal, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOperation_Gideon_%282020%29&diff=1166144354&oldid=1166135611 NoonIcarus made their own proposal] (which had already been rejected before) while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOperation_Gideon_%282020%29&diff=1166144952&oldid=1166144354 I was drafting my own] (which I had already told them I was doing).

Observing this behavior, it seemed that NoonIcarus was intentionally attempting to block my edits and proposals before they had even occurred, showing [[WP:HOUNDING]]. So I continued editing as I had in the past. The main concern I had with Venezuela-related articles was that though government sources were described as unreliable and partisan (as it should be), opposition sources were not described the same way despite reliable sources describing the two parties in the same manner. This was obvious in [[WP:VENRS]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168593057&oldid=1168591470 so I opened a discussion about the issues] on [[WP:RSN]] in order to establish a more broad consensus. In the replies {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168733666&oldid=1168730054 suggested that if I had issues with NoonIcarus], that I open an ANI myself. I replied, saying "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168785658&oldid=1168777768 Ok, I will keep your recommendations in mind if further action is needed to remedy these persistent problems. My only goal is to maintain an accurate and neutral project]." Upon seeing this, NoonIcarus opened their own ANI in a similar manner to what occurred with the [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)]] move proposal (mentioned above), apparently trying to jump the gun with an ANI, though I had no intention on opening one. Seeing this behavior from NoonIcarus was truly disheartening as I showed before, I was attempting to bury the hatchet with them, though they seem to have taken things too personal.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

===Comment from ActivelyDisinterested===
I was going to try and ignore this discussion, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. WMrapids has an issue with [[WP:VENRS]], as can been seen from the many discussions on its talk page, and that's fine. Editors are allowed to disagree with each other, but project do as a normal activity maintain such lists. As I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1159502233 said at VENRS] (in an RFC that isnyet to be closed), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168684501&oldid=1168677228 reiterated at RSN], the lists are fine as long as the project does try to maintain them against a higher level of consenus. So if you have a problem with the way a source is discribed bring it to RSN, this is what happened with [[WP:RSN#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|La Patilla]] (the close of which is currently at AN). There seems to be two problems, first is that WMrapids is raising questions and multiple RFC without waiting for the final consenus. This has left a confusing trails of discussions without any clear consenuses, I feel WMrapids needs to slow down and allow the processes to finish before starting a new discussion. The second problem is the one under discussion here, my comment at RSN (mentioned by WMrapids above) over aspersions of [[WP:OWN]] could have been stronger but I was hoping to softly direct rather than bludgeon. I suggest that WMrapids strike all such comments that NoonIcarus has objected to at VENRS and RSN, simply as neither is an appropriate forum for such discussions and as a sign of good faith. If they then won't to bring those accusations here, with diffs showing prove, they should do so. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 19:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

:I have no problem striking those comments. I did not know if there was such a policy requiring me to do so, but as a gesture of good faith, I'm more than willing. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] both make comments about how to treat other users. Personally if another editor is working in a way I feel is negative I'll raise it with them and if they disagreee either drop it or (if it is actually problematic) I would raise it here with appropriate evidence. Making continued accusations against another editor on talk pages or noticeboards doesn't foster a good editting environment. I feel that if you struck those comments it would certainly be a step towards de-escalating the situation. This is only my personal advice though, I'm just another editor. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} Also, I attempted to remove the templates from multiple RfCs believing that it would end the discussion (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Venezuela%2FReliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=1160192122&oldid=1160084373 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=1165055250&oldid=1162401691 here]). The new RfC is genuinely an attempt to achieve more inclusion as the other discussions had already stopped. Sorry for dragging you in here and your recommendations are appreciated! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure that the best direction, as other editors have already replied to them. Best to let them run there course, and work from whatever consenus emerges. Also the current RFC at RSN has many problems, I suggest closing that one. Once the others have closed maybe start an RFC with clearer objectives (specific details of VENRS that you disagree with) and a much more neutral statement. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think there is a formal RfC at RSN, just an outline of topics that I was concerned about, so nothing to really "close". I'll keep the neutrality in mind for opening statements in the future. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::WMrapids, I told you months ago in one of these many discussions somewhere that you needed to slow down and better understand processes, policies and guidelines. I'm pretty sure I told you that ''before'' you started editing a BLP, which is not a place one should go when one is on a roll about a topic like VENRS. And your excessive pinging of the world to every discussion is another bad look. Would it be possible to get you to agree to 1) stop with the personalization and casting of aspersions towards NoonIcarus, b) refrain from editing BLPs of Venezuelans for the meantime (you need to be either better versed with Venezuelan common knowledge or how to follow policy and guideline, and no one remotely associated with Venezuela doesn't know who [[Nelson Bocaranda]] is, and I'm saying that going back to the 1980s, and he certainly is not of "questionable notability"-- by definition the content you deleted about a National Journalism Prize probably alone makes him notable), c) slow down on the RFCs, d) read and digest [[WP:BLUDGEON]], and e) stop the pinging of the world and other borderline canvassing? Your actions have now spread from articles, to the reliable sources noticeboard, to WP:AN, and are probably making it very unlikely that anyone will want to wade in to those RFCs anyway (I sure didn't). If the personalization and bludgeoning stops, I won't press for a topic ban from BLPs, but I don't think you should be editing there. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

===A quick comment===
Good luck sorting this out. I am sure there are faults on all sides. Haven't read everything in detail but some thoughts are:
* We should blow up the VENRS essay and scatter it to the four winds. It is the hobby of a small number of editors which is misused to justify the insertion and deletion of text. There is already a process for assessing the suitability of sources.
* The Caracas Chronicles was mentioned somewhere in the middle of this mess. It has been used in many Venezuela related articles, including BLP's. As far as I can tell, the heaviest user is {{User|Kingsif}}. However, Noonicarus has used it as a source a number of times, including for BLP information. SandyGeorgia has also used it as a source. In the interests of transparency, I have also used it once.

[[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
: Your input is unsurprising here; "the hobby of a small number of editors" are words you might contemplate more carefully. I'm most interested to hear I used Caracas Chronicles once, and would like to see a diff for either context, or so I can correct that. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:: "Your input is unsurprising here": keep your eye on the ball, not the editor.
:: "the hobby of a small number of editors": I went back three years. These editors had a small number of edits during that time: SandyGeorgia (1 edit on 7 August 2023), Ira Leviton (1), ReyHahn (6), John of Reading (1), Buidlhe (1), Kingsif (6), Novem Linguae (2), Stephenamills (1), Wilfredor (1). WMRapids bravely entered the fray on 5 June 2023 and has made 47 edits, a large number of which were reverted by Noonicarus. The remaining several hundred edits over the last 3 years were made by Noonicarus. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 07:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::You did not supply a diff for where, as you say, I used Caracas Chronicles as a source. We all make mistakes, and I'd like to know if I did. {{pb}}Based on what I've seen at [[Nelson Bocaranda]] in only three days of engagement, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1169516825#BLP essentially everything WMrapids has written has needed to be removed, substantially corrected, or has outright bias POV and faulty sourcing and original research], so I'm unsurprised to hear that NoonIcarus has had to revert often. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: As expected, your diffs show I have not used Caracas Chronicles to source text. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])

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

Your use of Caracas Chronicles came in those heady regime-change days of February 2019. You created the article [[Juan Andrés Mejía]] containing an External link to an article in CC. The link is still there.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Andr%C3%A9s_Mej%C3%ADa&oldid=881052255] You also used CC as a reference when you created the article [[Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis]]. The CC reference you used is still on the page and a second reference has since been added.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=885144877]

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

Poverty in South America [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065671936], Economy of Venezuela [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1103765854], Cine Mestizo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cine_Mestizo&oldid=1111616889], Greg Abbott [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1110697467] (On September 15, 2022, Abbott sent two buses with 101 migrants detained after crossing the U.S. border with Mexico, mostly Venezuelan, to the residence of Vice President [[Kamala Harris]], at the [[United States Naval Observatory|Naval Observatory]] in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington, D. C.]]. Rafael Osío Cabrices in [[Caracas Chronicles]] compared his tactics to [[Alexander Lukashenko|Aleksander Lukashenko]]'s, who provoked a [[2021–2022 Belarus–European Union border crisis|migrant crisis in the European Union Eastern border]] as a reprisal to criticism, and [[Fidel Castro]]'s, who released released common criminals and mental health patients during the 1980 [[Mariel boatlift]] and shipped them to the United States.), Alfred-Maurice de Zayas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1017648532], 2021 Apure clashes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1014574271] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1014780217], Special Action Forces [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Action_Forces&oldid=1029354965], Crisis in Venezuela [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1061847841] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisis_in_Venezuela&diff=prev&oldid=1122684385], Venezuelan presidential crisis [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_presidential_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1122684418]

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

:{{re|Burrobert}} Thanks for the in-depth review. It seems that most of us can be burnt for participating in similar actions. Going forward, we should maintain [[WP:CIVILITY]] and if we have disagreements, seek [[WP:CONSENSUS]] before plowing ahead. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:Your diffs of my use of Caracas Chronicles show nothing more than I expected, which is that I have never used Caracas Chronicles to source text.
:* [[Juan Andrés Mejía]] has Caracas Chronicles in external links (feel free to delete it if you think providing something in English for our readers as an External link is inappropriate).
:* In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=885144877 this diff], where I am copying from another article, Caracas Chronicles is used to provide a translation from Spanish to English, and for that purpose, it is not unreliable.
: [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Stalled with feedback from only one independent editor ===
[Note: The above section header does not belong to me, despite my comment following it: it was introduced in a refactor/reorganization of the discussion by another editor. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)]
[[File:Polish stable in Gdansk.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Stalled with feed (back){{right|-[[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]]}}]]

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

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

::Unfortunately, because of the weird place that the community has chosen to host the Advice pages guideline and discussion of the relevant distinction between [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] on an individual article's talk page (or a policy talk page or noticeboard) vs. advisory discussions at a WikiProject, unfortunately this distinction is often lost on new editors durinjg onboarding (and even sometimes experienced ones over time). We really should have moved it to its own policy page a decade ago, frankly. But for those who don't know, there was past mass disruption that necessitated making this rule a formal one, so by all means, subscribe to VENRS if you think it makes sense, and repeat it's arguments on individual articles if you think they are sound. But do not wave it like a talisman indicating "consensus to do it this way with regard to all articles of type X". That's a one-way ticket back here to ANI. All that said, it seems to me that the remaining content issues can probably be resolved at the relevant talk pages? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Snow Rise}}, you made no mention of the BLP issues, which WMrapids is ''still'' not understanding days in to this discussion. At the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1169926097&oldid=1169903318 NPOV noticeboard, hours after your post and with many reminders about BLP, WMrapids puts forward a source] for a BLP described by ''The Guardian'' as a "pro-Maduro tabloid". Yes, WMrapids has gotten much more polite since this ANI, but the tendentiousness has not abated, and a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::That discussion is taking place at RFN, not in the edit summaries of an edit war or some other inherently disruptive discussion. Why should we take action on what is basically a content dispute between the two of you, one which at the moment no other editors have weighed in on, and in which you have actually outpaced them in volume by about 7:1? WMR's relatively tepid and single comment in that discussion does not rise to the level of tendentious by even the most liberal reading, in my view. Let alone disruptive to the point of validating sanction or other action. If you are that confident of your view on the matter, why not let the discussion play out? Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views on a few things here, including the two most recently discussed sources in particular. But the mere fact that you feel BLP is implicated does not obviate the need for discussion. So long as WMR does not violate [[WP:BRD]] on the article itself and attempt to shift [[WP:ONUS]] in some sort of way, they are merely participating in process at this point. If they do edit war, by all means let us know immediately. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Snow Rise}} don't look now, but I always outpace others because "brevity is not the soul of my wit" and it [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch112#I had to take action|takes me ten posts to make one]]. :) {{pb}} It doesn't help that I have to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1169968007&oldid=1169946900 digress in the midst of a neutrality discussion to explain reliability] in relation to BLPs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A%C3%9Altimas_Noticias&diff=1169985907&oldid=1044585820] {{pb}} The VENRS discussion in my mind pales in comparison to edits that defame living persons. The BLP issues at [[#Case study]] and [[#BLP vios continue]] date to August 7 and 8 (only four days ago). Until the NPOV noticeboard posts within the last few hours, I would have agreed that we are making enough progress on the BLP issues to close the thread, as no further content issues have occurred. But with discussions (eg at NPOV noticeboard) sidetracked by an ongoing failure to understand BLP, it becomes less likely that others will engage a topic already made difficult because most sources are in Spanish. I don't think we're done here and wonder how progress is possible without more input from Spanish speakers. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Snow Rise}} I'll drop by just a second. I mentioned above that further action might not be needed considering WMR retracted from the comments, but I wanted to comment on this since you specifically mentioned [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. There has been edit warring in the outlets articles mentioned above, namely [[Efecto Cocuyo]], [[El Pitazo]], [[Tal Cual]], [[El Nacional (Venezuela)]] and [[Runrunes]], of which the last one is directly related to journalist [[Nelson Bocaranda]]. I have added tags to the disputed sections and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Political stance sections|the discussion about the issue has restarted]], but the onus has in practed shifted to me to restore the articles stable versions, where WMR is the proponent of the changes, currently does not have consensus and the restoration has meant edit warring. I did not start the ANI about this because I believed that it could eventually be solved through discussion, but for [[WP:BRD]] to be respected I believe the best alternative would be to have the articles original versions and discuss based on them. Kind regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, without question the status quo versions (if they have been longterm stable) should be left as the standing versions during the BRD cycle, until consensus for the changes has been achieved. Anything else is likely to fall into the category of tendentious edit warring and refusal to follow process, in most circumstances. {{pb}}That said, I continue to have concerns about how all of you seem to be approaching dispute resolution with regard to the specific articles and sources involved here. In my opinion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|this amount of dedication]] to trying to resolve these issues on the talk page of an essay and advice page is just setting yourself up for trouble. You can't cite any conclusions you arrive at there as "preexisting consensus" that has to be applied to the [[WP:LOCALCONSENUS]] issues on individual articles, and yet at the same time, this amount of debating those same points on that talk page for the essay is going to make you all very attached to the conclusions you form there and very inclined to leave that space expecting you can use the page as shorthand to win "consensus" arguments on particular articles. {{pb}}It's all very much likely to funnel you all into disruptive loggerheads. Most of this discussion should be taking place on the talk pages of the articles in question, with the WikiProject reserved for coordinating and notifying about those discussions, not as a space to centralize the discussions themselves. To the extent that you do need broader forums to resolve some issues, RSN, NPOVN, and the talk pages of relevant policies are where those discussions should be focused. I'm a little concerned that I'm observing the slow build up to a 'VENRS' ArbCom case some ways down the line. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 06:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Snow Rise}} I agree with your broader point about activity at the VENRS talk page, but the devil is in the detail. First, I finally engaged at the talk page of VENRS to try to understand the thinking on a few cases or whether there are points I'm missing, and to save examples that can be used at centralized RFCs. I think that's a necessary precursor to going to [[WP:RSN]] and to minimizing disputes. Second, talk pages of articles have been used inappropriately in the past for RFCs, so don't want to encourage that. Third, the activity you describe as necessary is also happening at article talk pages. Encouraging more use of talk is a good thing, and it's good the aspersions have stopped as a result of this ANI. I'm seeing discussion on previously empty talk pages, and issues coming up that go back years including paid editing. There are very few editors in this area, and help is needed. Venezuelan-topic editors have sought that help, here and at other fora.{{pb}} But fourth and most importantly, when the NPOV noticeboard has been used appropriately when a difference reaches the level of needing feedback, while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1170169000#Feral_cats_and_trap–neuter–release_programs feral cats are all the rage], Bocaranda just above the cats (exactly like this ANI) has gotten not a single independent response (other than you and Actively Disinterested). Same applies to the BLP noticeboard. So if this is a "slow buildup to a VENRS ArbCom", we can thank the whole community for not engaging while Venezuela-topic editors have used the appropriate fora, and I would encourage the arbs to reject a case for that very reason. We're asking; no one is answering. Even an acknowledgement that others don't weigh in because they can't read the Spanish sources would help, because we would at least know if that's the problem. Thank you for at least responding. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::That all sounds pretty reasonable--well I'm not sure why the particular RfCs you cited were not appropriate for article talk pages, but otherwise, I follow your reasoning. I'm sorry you all are having trouble flagging down more community involvement: as you know, some areas just get hit by a dearth of available man power for periods, even with abundant sourcing to work with. Perhaps I can do something small to help: would an extra hand translating sources improve feedback for when you have need of a [[WP:3O]], [[WP:RfC]], the noticeboards, or anywhere that you trying to get eyes on the sourcing? I'm not perfectly fluent, but proficient enough to deliver polished translations, which I used to do more regularly. I don't know if you feel that would actually do a lot of good in these circumstances, but please consider it a standing offer if a translation by someone not involved in the underlying dispute would be helpful. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 16:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Any additional eyes to help with conflicting opinions is always welcome from me. I always advocate for additional participation to help establish a more accurate consensus. Thank you for navigating your way through this discussion as well! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm very happy to be of some small help with feedback. I think you made this discussion much less intractable than it could have been, by being open to striking some comments and amending your approach in some respects from early on. It made a big difference here, I feel. As to any additional bit of help I can offer to you guys, I think I may be more helpful in the role of a neutral for setting up any RfCs on the sourcing issues, or translating sources or some such. But if you disagree at any point and feel a [[WP:3O]] happens to be the most helpful thing I can supply to the process, please feel free to ping me. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks for the offer! But I'm not (yet) sure translation help is needed, as it's not clear that is the problem. Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable. {{pb}} I was left wondering if the NPOV noticeboard might have gotten more response on a simple question (are these sources due weight for this content?) if it hadn't had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1170176850#Nelson_Bocaranda veer off into explaining the use of tabloids to source a BLP]. So we still have no community feedback there; that's what's needed, but the 3O offer is also a good one. Thx, again, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tq|"Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.}}
::::::::::::Yes, now that you've said it, that does seem obvious now! I guess I am still adjusting to this reality: all my adult life the ability to produce translations for multiple languages has been a value-added skill, generally separate from but useful for my main work which I could interject to offer for help here and there. Presumably it was much the same for many similarly-situated, going back through generations of our forebearers. And now, very suddenly, the same results are trivially available (with increasing reliability, at least in the basics) everywhere. I guess my mind is still catching up with that. Thing is, even when talking just about the immediate future, it probably won't be nearly the last task with analytical elements that I am used to occasionally doing that I will now have to get used to being done through automation. Will I sound old, wistful and slowing with respect to keeping up with the times, if I opine that the times, they surely are a'changin'? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yep ... but thanks for the offer nonethelss, as I do still worry that others have not jumped in for the translation issue. Regards, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Respectively, I think we should be done here as I have agreed and participated in plenty of discussions with these two regarding improved content. {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} provided a lot of help to me not only here, but in other discussions as well, so I have to thank them for their behavior. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocated by Sandy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=1169779413&oldid=1169755017 who responded harshly] after I asked for help regarding a sensitive BLP. In addition, I recently saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Últimas_Noticias&diff=999707739&oldid=999704870 some edits that would support my argument] about an existing double standard used by NoonIcarus (since my similar edits were reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runrunes&diff=1159065048&oldid=1159024278 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tal_Cual&diff=1162399184&oldid=1162377160 here]), though I recognized that these edits were in the past and we should move forward after we discussed the recent issues at hand. I already said I would de-escalate here and not place an ANI regarding NoonIcarus despite ample evidence that they are not innocent, though I have [[WP:GOODFAITH]] that their edits will improve in the future. For Sandy, maybe you should take the advice you gave me and slow down too? Again, I’m saying this with with the best intentions and in an attempt to focus on collaboration. So [[Wikipedia:Just drop it|let’s just all drop this]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I've already mentioned my position regarding the ANI. Avoiding to talk about content (particularly seems some of your claims can be easily disproved), I don't appreciate the accusations of a "double standard" unless they are discussed in the article's talk page before, as the main point of why the thread was opened can be pretty much in effect until it is closed. I look forward your feedback regarding my last proposals on the topics. As for the dispute with Sandy, I cannot comment much on the activity about Bocaranda's article (at least in the recent days). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::As I said, my intention was to be as respectful as possible when raising this concern, but it's important to [[Wikipedia:SPADE|call a spade a spade]], so sorry for the [[Wikipedia:BOOMERANG|boomerang]]. The main reason this should end is so we can focus on improvements and the proposals, not on conflict. Again, I have [[WP:GOODFAITH|good faith]] that we can move forward and that lessons were learned. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::What boomerang? Even if nothing else comes of this ANI, getting the aspersions and BLP vios, along with acknowledgement of maintaining the consensus version during the BRD cycle, to stop was worthwhile. I do see that Burrobert continues to allege ownership because most of the edits were NoonIcarus's, even though the talk page shows ample engagement from others, with NoonIcarus being the one to make the edits. This is similar to the FAR of [[J. K. Rowling]], where I show up as the author of a lot of content because I was the one who installed the consensus version developed on talk. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Burrobert is correct about some of the reports and the “consensus” is dubious at best. And like the poster, who you say you’re “friends” with, your behavior has been questionable. Though I appreciate and accept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=1169927641&oldid=1169913442 your apology], it seemed half-hearted and somewhat similar to [[WP:BROTHER]] as you blamed your dog for ''your'' behavior, which ''you'' are responsible for. This circumstance reminds me of the adage “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”, which has recently helped me remain [[WP:CIVIL]] in these situations. Again, this is in no way to be condescending, but while we are all here, we should ''all'' work on improving our behavior and civility in order to collaborate more effectively in the future. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Alright, that's all fair enough--and the last point in particular should be taken to heart by all involved. But that said, the back and forth is leaning back towards passive aggression again. And for the record, you really shouldn't keep making a point of saying that you are being cooperative because you didn't file an ANI against someone else who was discussing your conduct here (if I am reading that correctly). It's true that that's the right thing to do in the circumstances, but it would have been disruptive to have done so anyway: anybody who is involved in the underlying dispute can have their conduct reviewed in this discussion, so counter-filing would have been perceived as retaliatory and unhelpful. {{pb}}That said, my initial inquiry was whether or not the other parties here were satisfied with your response to the need to avoid aspersions, and it seems to me that with fair caveats (going both ways) everyone here seems to be a willingness to move forward and try to work together. The major concern right now (and I honestly do not yet feel up to speed enough on all the ins-and-outs to know whether to endorse or reject this claim) is that your sourcing may not be up to snuff for some BLP purposes. Under the circumstances I feel like I can only ask you to be open to the possibility. [[WP:BLP]] is afterall regarded as a cornerstone of content work on contemporary issues. But again, we seem to be sufficiently back in to the content side of things at this point, that I think further discussion should return to relevant talk pages. Please consider running RfCs if you are still at loggerheads on the same couple of articles in a few days. If you do not have experience with that process and are at all unsure about the formatting or approach, please let me know and if it is helpful to you all, I will consult with each side and draft a prompt which hopefully fairly and neutrally presents each side's arguments as to the acceptability and sufficiency of the sources. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree and thank you for your help. No more responses from me here (unless something major happens). [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::It's unclear to me why WMrapids believes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=1169927641#Change_in_scenery? this conversation on a topic completely unrelated to Venezuela and unrelated to WMrapids about an article in which I have no interest in participating required an apology at all-- I offered one anyway just because apologies never hurt when one has been short]. (On an earlier question, the RFCs on the talk pages were going to generate no more than the same local consensus.) Further, I did not say I was friends with any poster; I made a joke about [[arepa]]s. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:I propose to turn this case to [[WP:Arbcom]]. [[user:Lemonaka‎|-Lemonaka‎]] 06:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

== User: [[user:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ==
{{atop|result = Bluthmark, please try to be more civil when dealing with others. Everyone in general needs to take the heat down some; it's northern hemisphere summer for many of us, and I think we're all getting a bit crazy from the heat. Regardless, general consensus seems to be that while Bluthmark could use some reminders to be more congenial when working with others, and be more careful in general, that no bad faith editing is happening. Closing this as, per suggestion, it is clear nothing will become of this report at this time, and we've reached the phase where the heat is greater than the light. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)|status = no action}}
Editor has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluthmark#August_2023] The disruptive behavior continues.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greta_Gerwig&diff=prev&oldid=1169519882]. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:Not a ''single person'', not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, [[User talk:Soetermans#Why are you reverting my edits on Jedi fallen order?|this conversation]] shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:AGF]] is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically ''zero'' attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::What's goin on [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::::My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates ''left by others'' are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to [[WP:FORUMSHOP|wait around for another admin to do your bidding]] if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to ''actually explain the situation in detail'' and ''actually provide diffs'' showing the problem and ''actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously'' (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing [[Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order]], rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_on_Both_Sides&diff=prev&oldid=1169541070]. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::My bad I'm working on it [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::You're still[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitman_3&diff=prev&oldid=1169550061] doing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goat_Simulator&diff=prev&oldid=1169551484] it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goat_Simulator&diff=prev&oldid=1169551611] [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I promise I will do it next time [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::On 5 August 2023, you changed
::::::::*"vous" to "vois" in [[French personal pronouns]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_personal_pronouns&diff=prev&oldid=1168912622]
::::::::*"In Spain, northern dialects" to "In Africa, east-western dialects" in [[Spanish language]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_language&diff=prev&oldid=1168912522]
::::::::*<nowiki>[[Urdu language|Urdu]]</nowiki> to <nowiki>[[Urdu language|Durdu]]</nowiki> in [[Official languages of the United Nations]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Official_languages_of_the_United_Nations&diff=prev&oldid=1168912565]
::::::::That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluthmark&diff=prev&oldid=1168917121] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] Can you provide a more substantive reply? [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry for the editorial distruptivness [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at [[Steep (video game)]], without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Check Mobygames [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::The video game infobox guide [[WP:VG/MOS]] says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::concept artists* [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[https://www.mobygames.com/game/81848/steep/ Mobygames] does not explicitly support [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steep_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1169550855 your changes]. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on [[WP:VG/MOS]] (though [[Template:Infobox video game/doc]] could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference [[WP:VG/MOS#Infobox|in WP:VG/MOS]]). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:"Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per [[WP:VG/MOS]] we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. [[User:Soetermans|soetermans]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A '''TALK''']] 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::No, not "whatever man". I am a person, a fellow editor. You should not refer to me, or anybody else for that matter, as "some [x] guy". That borders [[WP:UNCIVIL]] behaviour. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Jedi%3A_Fallen_Order&diff=1169670381&oldid=1169662186 you are still edit warring]. [[WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT]]? [[User:Soetermans|soetermans]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A '''TALK''']] 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Soetermans|Soetermans]] Can you point out where you linked to [[WP:VG/MOS]] as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at [[Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order]] with no attempts at starting a discussion. [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Hi {{u|Shells-shelss}}, I mostly edit on my phone, I guess I forgot to mention it. But again, they're still edit warring and as {{u|NebY}} pointed out, several of their edits are plain vandalism. Edit warring isn't a beginner's mistake. They've been here for over half a year, they should know better. They've been issued several warnings, not just by me. Even if you consider those to be poorly explained, they should've at least gotten the message they're doing something wrong. Like adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Jedi:_Fallen_Order&action=history writers and producers] to an infobox. {{u|Ferret}}, care to chime in? [[User:Soetermans|soetermans]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A '''TALK''']] 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Soetermans|Soetermans]] In regards to Bluthmark and infobox credits? Nope, not really. I reverted one change, and they accepted my revert. I'm on team "we should remove credits from the infobox" :P The rules for those fields on {{tl|infobox video game}} are arcane, and barely defined in relation to modern large scale video game production. Just context-less lists of non-notable BLPs, with no prose or reliable secondary coverage. Changing the producers to senior producers, when the infobox doc says "exclude executive producers", is really an edge case call. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of this ANI post, just responding to the immediate ping for where I crossed this editor's path. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:Soetermans|Soetermans]], I absolutely agree they should have gotten the message that they were doing something wrong; the problem seems to me that they had little way of knowing exactly ''what'' they were doing wrong, since nobody made any effort at communication besides the sublimely unspecific stock warning templates. They even [[special:diff/1169387321|asked you directly]] for help and received little more than a hand-wave towards 'consensus' and 'the guidelines'. And maybe it's true that they should have known better than to edit war; but doesn't that apply doubly to you? You violated [[WP:3RR]] on that page as well (also, what's up with [[special:diff/1169676353|this unexplained revert]]?). I guess I would just like to see more helpful communication here. [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, the editor who made the ''most'' effort to communicate here was Bluthmark. They made multiple attempts to address the other editors' concerns, despite the others refusing to explain it. That he was taken to ANEW and ANI doesn't look good for those other two editors. That said "some German guy" was uncalled-for, but if I was Bluthmark, I'd be fed up, too. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
:I do not believe sanctions should be taken towards @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] per the two threads above.
:TL;DR:
:The persons involved have done negligible effort in creating constructive criticism with @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] to improve his editing and has given, at most, modest evidence of vandalism but no evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, some persons involved have also been found to be hypocritical of their own accusations towards @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] in regards to edit warring. Among editors, @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] has given the most effort to create dialogue though has made an uncivil remark. [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:I still think I'm right about my edits on Jedi: Fallen Order but, like misrecognizing his nationality from a glance at his user page, they seem to really upset Soetermans so I'll quit it out of respect. It's an infobox about a Star Wars game after all, it doesn't mean the world. I'm sorry if I've broken any other of these rules that are hidden in secret articles with names that sound like abbreviations of mental disorders ([[WP: VG/MOS]], wtf?). My bad for not giving a "substantial apology" for putting the letter D infront of "Urdu" that one time, and a big sorry for any other misunderstandings caused by me not always understanding this outdated ass interface. I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text. Plus I've had an account for like 7 months and I don't really edit often. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (sotermans taught me to sign like that instead of explaining why he reverted my edits)
:::Unfortunately, the only visual puns I could muster for ''outdated ass interface'' are not publishable under current US law. (For those not familiar, see [[WP:ASSPERSIANS]] for the general idea.) [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::Y'all are taking some Swedish guy adding nonessential info about a game he likes and calling some guy "some guy" waaaay to seriously. A bit sad tbh [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I suggest that you strike that. [[user:Soetermans]] has already indicated that they find that form of address uncivil. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::Comparing Wikipedia Guideline shortcuts to mental disorders isn't a great look either, on top of doubling down on referencing people by nationality. You've had some folks in this thread come out in your support, but this last response is really... not great. This "outdated ass interface" didn't cause you to deliberately disrupt past articles. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::''"I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text."''
::Sir, I'm 21. I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text either. In my opinion everything you have said after my previous post was unnecessary. We are not taking these things "to [sic] seriously". Communication is the art of understanding how details in dialogue can cause or resolve conflict.
::The reason why people deem your use of nationalities in addressing others as uncivil or offensive is because it implies you perceive others superficially and it negates their humanity. I wouldn't like it if you referred to me as some American because I am just as human as you. My nationality doesn't make my real emotions, complex life, and vulnerability to suffering any different than your. No single noun is complex enough to describe a person. When you do this you're taking the first step in the march towards being racist. Not to mention bringing up someone's nationality is irrelevant to the heart of what we are trying to convey to you. As the idiom goes "missing the forest for the trees."
::And nodding towards the previous point, its just ignorant to perceive any abbreviation as akin to the abbreviations used in medicine for with mental illnesses. Would it be a safe presumption to believe that you would also call ASL and IMF abbreviations for mental illnesses too? You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.
::Currently your optics show real insensitivity and, though not overtly uncivil, you are treading precariously close to crossing the line. You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism. Still, being ignorant is not a crime but '''I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence''' before you say something out of emotion that will cause me to retract my previous post above.
::<nowiki>Remember, I stated that you shouldn't be sanctioned and I believe this event should be something to learn from as feedback in your time here at Wikipedia — not punitive. If you sincerely don't like Wikipedia, you have the choice to leave. There are many other amazing things waiting for you other than Wikipedia. Please use your faculties and agency in making good choices. ~~~</nowiki> [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 09:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Some ''human'' guy just gave me a whole life lesson cause I was being slightly rude at someone I though was sabotaging ''me''. No shit you're life is complex, but this isn't life, this is wikipedia, and the only reason I brough up mental disorders is cause I was at the psychiatrist the other day and I swear to god there was an illness called WP:VG/MOS. I'mma go now goodbyyye x [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 10:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::''"I was at the psychiatrist"''
::::That explains a lot.
::::''"No shit you're'' [sic] ''life is complex"''
::::I'm genuinely curious to why you're so hostile?
::::"Some ''human'' guy...I though [sic] was sabotaging ''me."''
::::So what are you trying to accomplish from all this? What is your endgame? I'm actually really curious.
::::It legitimately seems you are unhappy with Wikipedia but you're still here. Unironically ironic. [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Now I'm curious what does it explain [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 14:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Wait who ever are you? You showed up to wikipedia like two weeks ago and you're here talking big shit. Half of what you've done on wikipedia is THIS, talkin bout sumn "I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence". Like just tell me to shut the fuck up you don't have to do all that. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|UnironicEditor}}, in response to someone saying they see a psychiatrist: "{{tq|That explains a lot.}}"
:::::{{u|UnironicEditor}}, mere hours before posting that: "{{tq|You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.}} [...] {{tq|Currently your optics show real insensitivity}} [...] {{tq|You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism.}}"
:::::Sarcastically jabbing at someone else's mental health right after proclaiming the need for sensitivity does not make you look like the bigger person. Nor does pettily inserting ''[sic]'' every time you quote them. If you're going to go that route, it helps to proofread your own words; "any different than your [sic]", "its [sic] just as ignorant", "used in medicine for with [sic]", "perfectly capable in [sic] using"...
:::::You've been on Wikipedia for two weeks, and already 50% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at ANI. May I kindly suggest spending as little time in the [[WP:CESSPOOL]] as possible? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A|2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A|talk]]) 08:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.
::::::How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.
::::::"pettily inserting ''[sic]'' every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?
::::::Not sure how being this ironic is accomplishing anything. And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation. [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 12:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.}}
:::::::Don't flatter yourself. I have no accounts, nor am I a sock. [[User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64|IPv6 editors' IPs change regularly.]] You can just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=2600%3A1700%3A87D3%3A3460%3A1054%3AF245%3A%3A%2F64&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 check my /64] to see that I've been editing at my apartment's IP range long before you ever made an account.
::::::::{{tq|How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.}}
:::::::''Sure, Jan.''
::::::::{{tq|"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?}}
:::::::Yes, that was indeed the point — that using [sic]s to make someone sound less cogent than you is A) petty and pointless, and B) not a wise strategy when your own prose is just as prone to error.
::::::::{{tq|And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation.}}
:::::::Please don't cast unfounded aspersions about someone more experienced than you gently and genuinely suggesting that spending the bulk of your time on the drama board isn't a good way to start your editing career here. (And while I have no intent of making anything about your behavior, ''for future reference'', [[Wikipedia:VEXBYSTERANG|boomerangs don't discriminate]].) [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5|2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5|talk]]) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved like to close this? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

:I think the problem with that is despite this being a travesty of an AN/I where almost nobody seems to be able to keep their head on straight, there is genuinely problematic behavior here. For what its worth, Bluthmark has made multiple deliberate attempts to inflame another user ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1169537791 ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1169868963 ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1169955450 ]) but I can understand why people might not be chomping at the bit to MOP up this mess considering how messy it is. [[User:GabberFlasted|GabberFlasted]] ([[User talk:GabberFlasted|talk]]) 11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::Bluthark at least needs a serious [[WP:Civility]] warning, and to realize that antagonizing people on the admin notice board is a ''really'' bad idea. Beyond that, I don't think we need specific action. — [[User:HandThatFeeds|The Hand That Feeds You]]:[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]] 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:Please. This thread is 10% rational discussion and 90% tangential sniping. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Persistent misuse of talk pages ==

*[[Special:Contributions/95.149.166.0/24]]
A lot of [[WP:FORUM]] posts (e.g. {{diff2|1161217367}} {{diff2|1161861097}} {{diff2|1163016844}} {{diff2|1169217690}}) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. [[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Sure:
*[[User talk:95.149.166.130]] (three warnings)
*[[User talk:95.149.166.138]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.153]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.156]] (one warning, not for misuse of talk pages but for trying to whitewash an article)
*[[User talk:95.149.166.186]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.192]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.194]] (one warning for addition of their opinions to an article)
*[[User talk:95.149.166.231]]
[[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 02:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Unarchiving this since the user continues this behavior: {{diff2|1170045044}} {{diff2|1170365707}}. [[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:It does seem that a range block is going to be in order, if only to get their attention. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' Many of the comments did make an argument about editorial decisions (77, 79 and 81 explicitly do). I dont think the IP address warrants a penalty, or even a warning. I think a penalty will be perceived as being more for the users opinions than for at most minor violation of policy that has negligible disruption to the project. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 06:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

== Article [[Rebecca Bradley (justice)]] edits ==

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

:I've semi'd the page for three days and will watch after the protection expires to see if the activity resumes. Thanks for the report. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Bradley_(justice)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rlgbjd
:[[Special:Contributions/208.87.236.201|208.87.236.201]] ([[User talk:208.87.236.201|talk]]) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:The article currently states that the account and subject are the same person, plus the editors talk page, and a report at COIN. All of this is based on one article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is turn is based on a tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Some BLP eyes might be useful. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article did also include an interview where Bradley confirmed she used the account. [[User:Muhibm0307|Muhibm0307]] ([[User talk:Muhibm0307|talk]]) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks your the second editor to point out my mistake, I'll just slink of somewhere before EENG spellcheks my post. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I'll just slink of}}{{snd}}See [[WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER]] (Corollary 1). [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You missed {{tq|spellcheks my post}}. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské Couriano]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^&lowbar;^v]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]] 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I scan left to right and stop at the first mismatch. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*I think there's enough sourcing now to include details about her editing of the article in the article itself. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
** {{re|EEng#s}} I see that this is now included in the body, but has not been mentioned in the lede. I am wondering, does getting caught in the self-editing (or perhaps directed editing) of one's Wikipedia article generally merit mention in the lede? [[User:BD2412|'''''BD2412''''']] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
***I don't really think so. I mean, it's a big deal to Wikipedia, but in the grand scheme of the outside world, most people don't care about it that much. [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Noise!]] 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
**:I don't believe it should be lead worthy, unless the case is egregious. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|LilianaUwU]]''''' ([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]]) 19:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
**:I've removed the section. This happens every time someone edits their own article ([[Mike Lawler]]) or their article otherwise gets media coverage ([[Emily St. John Mandel]]). But a single news cycle of attention does not [[WP:DUE]] make, especially on a BLP. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
**:: {{re|Tamzin}} I see this as almost the opposite of a [[WP:DENY]] situation. Calling out those who manipulate Wikipedia in the most forward context possible (noting it in their article, and where it is substantial, in the lede) will discourage such behavior generally. [[User:BD2412|'''''BD2412''''']] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::Article content is entirely separate from user conduct considerations. To the extent that we have upheld BLP and our core content policies by omitting from articles the fact that their subjects are/were long-term abusers. More broadly, we do not use articles to "name and shame". We are an encyclopedia, not a wall of shame. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 19:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::But it's not just user (editor) conduct -- it's conduct of the article subject as well. And I can see some logic to using articles to name and shame when the shameful behavior occurred ''on Wikipedia itself''. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 22:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::[[WP:SUBJECT|We don't give ourself any special status in our articles.]] -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 23:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::But what shame is there? WE are aghast because it's a violation of a WP policy, and we know that because we fiddle around behind the scenes all the time, but the average person who reads something like "...and she was caught EDITING HER OWN ARTICLE..." would immediately think "Yeah? So what?" [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Noise!]] 03:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::I'm not sure that's true. My sense from following a number of these stories over the years is that a politician (and this justice is an elected official afterall) editing criticism out of their own article is something that is likely to be perceived as socially dubious behaviour--and it's likely to get even more attention where the political figure in question is already a contentious one. I guess you can label me as rather on the fence about discussing these events in general, and in this case with the sourcing to date, but there can come a time when the [[WP:WEIGHT]] doesn't give us much choice ''but'' to mention such happenings. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*Surely we should also block the account for undisclosed COI editing and/or edit warring? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Neither of those usually results in a block on the first offense. And the username is her initials plus "[[Juris Doctor|JD]]", so not exactly an attempt to deceive. Plus the account hasn't edited in 2 months. Warnings should suffice for now. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 23:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*::I take your pro forma point and all, but the behaviour still seems pretty clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]] to me. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

== POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments ==

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

* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – Wiped the article of a pro-democracy Vietnamese party, justifying some of the removals because of broken links.
* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – Whitewashed [[Human rights in Vietnam]], removing reliable sources because they disagree with them.
* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – Removed sourced information from [[Human experimentation in North Korea]], citing the source's Wikipedia page to say that it's unreliable.
* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – Deleted unsourced information, but only the portion that documented North Korean atrocities, leaving the rest of the unsourced content there. This followed [[Special:Diff/1166655920|a similar edit]] to that article regarding China and the Soviet Union.
* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – A [[WP:COATRACK]] edit to criticize [[Yeonmi Park]], a North Korean defector, on the article of someone she was once interviewed by.
* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. [[Special:Diff/1166829863|Reverted]] an attempt to restore the content.
* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – Promoted [[Holodomor denial]] on the article of a Holodomor denier and the subsequent [[Talk:Douglas Tottle#Holodomor denial|talk page discussion]].
* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – Deleted sourced information about political executions in Cuba because it was sourced by an offline book and the publisher's webpage didn't verify the information.
* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Deleted information about government oppression of LGBT people in Cuba because the source had no page number.
* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – Deleted sourced information about human rights in communism because they felt that the information wasn't right.

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

:Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on [[David Ivon Jones]] so I'm sorry it ended up like this.
:I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being [[Trevor Carter]] and [[Billy Strachan]]. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.
:Let's have a look at these cases individually.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the [[Việt Tân]] wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by [[Ngo Dinh Diem]]. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for [[Voice of America]], since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider [[Russia today]] a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
:* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for [[The Black Book of Communism|''The Black Book of Communism'']] is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
:* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
:* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated ([[Donald Trump Jr.]] [[Kanye West]], etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in [[The Washington Post|''The Washington Post'']] (see [https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/07/16/yeonmi-park-conservative-defector-stories-questioned/ here]) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
:* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
:* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – I was read [[Ronald Grigor Suny]]'s work ''Red Flag Unfurled'' (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide"''.'' I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor [[Stephen G. Wheatcroft]], and [[R. W. Davies]], don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by [[Anne Applebaum]] at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
:* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – A sentence in the wikipedia page for [[Cuba]] claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
:* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
:* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.
:[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{t|page needed}} is for. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.{{pb}}I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{t|page needed}} or {{t|verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely ''assuming'' it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::<nowiki>This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{</nowiki>[[Template:Page needed|page needed]]<nowiki>}} or {{</nowiki>[[Template:Verify source|verify source]]<nowiki>}} in the future. </nowiki>[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I doubt you will find that most editors agree with you; even THWoC has cited books without providing the exact location of the text in the book (back later today with sample). It's one thing to delete text that has long been tagged as needing a full citation (as in many years); quite another to simply delete untagged text because no page number was given, as many editors aren't even aware of that requirement. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at [[WP:RSP]]) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather ''editorial independence'' that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks ''editorial independence'' from the Russian government ''and'' it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{tq|[[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content.}} - just to be clear, the cited text refers to ''South'' Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The ''yeonjwaje'' bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding [[Special:Diff/1169763206]], while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a [[WP:RS]], certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people ''want'' to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Black_Book_of_Communism|here]]. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1151776136 the United States talkpage] back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to [[WP:NOTHERE|be here]] to build a neutral encyclopedia. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Their language was not conducive to collegiality. It was abrasive. There were a million better ways for them to express themselves, such as simply inquiring why the statement was there, but they chose to be aggressive instead. I'm not calling for sanctions on them. Also, they're still being aggressive below. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I don't see any aggression. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You don't see how calling something a "laughable description" is aggressive? Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy, but it is unhelpful and not conducive to the atmosphere we're trying to foster here. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Actually I thought this was a bit agressive/personal attack: "they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia". [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::Please don't deflect. Answer the question as was posed to you. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::I didn't think their comment about the article was agressive, nor do I think it is sanctionable. It was about content not a person. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::Thank you... I also don't think the comment is sanctionable, but I do think it was aggressive as it was a comment on the people contributing to the article. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though, it's just something to keep in mind. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::{{tq|Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy}}. Well this is the issue, isn't it? The trademark of efficient civil POV pushing is that each edit looks innocuous in a vacuum, and it's only when you look at the contributions as a whole that the behaviors described at [[WP:CPUSH]] start to line up. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::You're not wrong; I'm just speaking in regards to my one experience with them. The only reason I'm even commenting here is because I thought I had something of note to mention about them. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You tell me to assume good faith while at the same time you vote to permanently sanction my account because I criticised a wiki page you contributed to. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Where did I '''!vote''' for sanctioning your account? I did not, I left a comment that I felt that people should be aware of when discussing your editing history. I'm ''not'' calling for sanctions on your account.-- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I largely agree with this assessment. I don't see any damning evidence posted above that warrants the editor in question being sanctioned.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 16:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think there's anything that is worthy of sanctions discussed here, but I do think that they should be reminded of [[WP:CIVIL]] and try to express disagreements on article content in a more polite manner, with awareness that the people who frequent the article talk page are likely the same people who wrote the content being criticized. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems more like they hold an anti-Western bias, which is just as bad as a pro-Western bias. The problem is they edit with that bias.
::For instance, they hate the U.S. because it's a "country with a torture camp" yet defend Vietnam, China, North Korea, and The USSR, who are/were all countries with "torture camps." Textbook [[WP:CPOV]], and as [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] states, a long history of it. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That is complete rubbish, I have never once defended torture on wikipedia, ever! [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yet no evidence of "bias" editing was been provided. I don't think this is a forum to attack someone because they don't share one's views.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, they edit with the bias identified by Rockstone and IP2603; I'll be back later today, from real computer, with examples (iPad editing now). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Neither Rockstone nor IP2603 showed any evidence of bias. Rockstone showed a talk page comment which they didn't think was polite. I saw no bias.IP2603 made some quite scandalous assertions with no evidence. Not thinking the US as a bastion of human rights isn't bias.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 15:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

'''In my defence:''' When [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] accuses me of pov-pushing for 'autocratic governments', his evidence is a short select list of edits from the past few months, all of which I've provided reasonable explanations for. However, of my 3,000+ edits on wikipedia, the vast majority of them are actually made on pages I created, a list of [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/userviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&namespace=0&redirects=0&range=latest-20&sort=size&direction=1&view=list&user=The%20History%20Wizard%20of%20Cambridge which you can see here]. Thebiguglyalien depicts me as some lunatic who is obsessed with dictatorships like North Korea and Joseph Stalin. However glancing at the pages I created, which is a far more systematic record of my behaviour then a few cherrypicked edits, reveals that none of the biographies I wrote held any great levels of political power. The most influential and powerful person I ever created a wiki page for was a woman called Jessie Eden who led a tenants union. My specialist area is Marxist and anti-colonial activists in 20th century Britain and my page creation history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien selection of edits provides anecdotes whereas my page creation history provides proof of my systematic behaviour. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*I've had some highly positive interactions with Thebiguglyalien over the last six months or so, the duration of the time I've known them on the project: they've impressed me with a pretty nuanced understanding of policy for someone who has been here five years. I preface my comments in this fashion to emphasize that I came into this thread primed to give their analysis some degree of benefit of the doubt. But in truth, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here--at least not yet--and I suspect that Alien may have seen more of a pattern here than holds for the larger sample size, as THWoC implies in their defense.

:To be certain, Wizard could stand to benefit from, well as the charming American idiom goes "slowing their roll". I won't reiterate the feedback they have already received regarding deleting sources because they were entered without a page number: I view that as a highly problematic habit that needs to stop immediately. If a goodfaith investigation of the source gives them cause to believe the source is invalid, that is one thing, but that level of presumptuousness that a source and any content is supports may be chucked out because of a pro forma flaw that small is incredibly flippant with regard to the contributions of other editors and (much more importantly) not in the best interests of the accuracy of most articles, if we assume most such absent parameters are the consequence technical issues or goodfaith oversights--as I believe most are entitled to be, one or the other. However, while this is an instance of a case of issues with Wizard's approach, I think it also illustrates that said issues come from personal editorial idiosyncracies and maybe a touch of overconfidence (both of which can be addressed) rather than an overarching NOTHERE motivation to massage the content to reflect personal bias.

:For the remaining diffs, I'm not going to do a play by play, but suffice it to say that I think most are similar issues of an editor coming from a specialist field and not yet hitting their stride in adapting their editorial approach to the context of encyclopedia prose and process. And others are just not particularly that problematic (or at least debatably so). It's true for example that genocide is treated under international law (and by most contemporary historical researchers) as a crime defined by the intent to wipe out or suppress a culture, while the soviet famine in question was famously the result of one of the most horrific outcomes of mismanagement, support for junk science, and cultural infighting in the Soviet bureaucracy. So it would not surprise me to hear that many contemporary historians and researchers do not label it as genocide per se. That said, THWoC, do be mindful of [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]] here: no matter how rational you think your argument is for a description being dated, biased, or otherwise inaccurate, you must accord your description in a fashion that is respectful of the balance of the sources.

:Lastly, the slight hubris extends to the discussion style: that means of introducing the discussion on the talk page for our article on the United States I would describe as almost calculated to start everyone off in entrenched positions, if I didn't have the context here to believe THWoC had no such intentions. But honestly, my friend, that level of antagonism as the ''starting point'' for discussion is only a little south of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and putting aside for the moment the question of whether you might be sanctioned for it, it's just not going to serve you very well in any consensus discussions here. Nobody expects you to woo your rhetorical opponents with honeyed tones, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by blowing into a discussion with an approach that clearly marks that you think your perspective is indisputable and the standing consensus clearly the collectively reasoning of nitwits. A significant adjustment is necessary in this area too.

:But what I'm not seeing is someone looking to serve as an apologist for the great tyrannies of the last hundred years. THWoC clearly is a little out of step with consensus on some of these topics, may have a somewhat noticeable bias with regard to communist topics, and after three years still needs to adjust some to our consensus dynamics. And they could definetly stand to dial down the arrogance a little. But I don't get the sense of someone incapable of doing these things and I do believe they are here to contribute to the project's stated mission. I believe no action is needed at this time other than a firm recommendation to ease up on their drive a little. Alien's concerns are not entirely unwarranted here, but I can't endorse their interpretation of the underlying motivation. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 01:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thebiguglyalien that these edits are difficult to defend and likely indications of POV editing:
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160543383 17 June 2023, deletes text because book has no page number], when a quote is clearly given and the content is [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Health_Politics_and_Revolution_in_Cuba_S/JCIxDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hirschfeld+%22Verbal+and+physical+mistreatment,+shaved+heads,+work+from+dawn+to+dusk,+hammocks,+dirt+floors,+scarce+food%22&pg=PT243&printsec=frontcover easily found on google.] (See analysis below of The History Wizard similarly not citing book page numbers in their own writing.)
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160426290 16 June 2023, fully cited text deleted, no good reason]; hard to accept that someone familiar with socialism does not understand that it is possible for there to be more supposed "rights" for certain groups even as there is less freedom overall. This is the clearest indication in this series of edits of POV crossing over into editing.
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160694587 18 June 2023], another weak reason for deleting cited text when the book is available online.
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:Adding on to my point 2 above, is The History Wizard unaware of the alleged "rights" given to minorities like the Indigenous people of Venezuela in the 1999 Chavez rewrite of the [[Constitution of Venezuela]] at the same time their overall rights were degraded? [https://www.iwgia.org/en/venezuela.html#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20establishes%20Indigenous%20rights,the%20lands%20they%20ancestrally%20and] [https://www.culturalsurvival.org/sites/default/files/CS%20submission%20to%20UPR_%20Venezuela%20July%2015%202021.pdf] [https://www.icj.org/venezuela-indigenous-peoples-face-deteriorating-human-rights-situation-due-to-mining-violence-and-covid-19-pandemic/] [https://share.america.gov/under-maduro-regime-indigenous-people-suffer/] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/01/yanomami-indigenous-people-risk-venezuela] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/26/venezuela-un-experts-mandate-should-be-renewed] [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3184965] ... I could go on ... same applied to women and other minorities ... deleting that completely logical and well-cited text from {{u|X-Editor}} because you disagree with it is blind POV. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

=== [[Trevor Carter]] (GA); POV, puffery, original research, and misrepresentation of sources ===
After IP2603 stated that The History Wizard’s editing was "textbook [[WP:CPOV]]" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171332343 "The problem is they edit with that bias"], I took a deeper dive by looking at The History Wizard's [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/The_History_Wizard_of_Cambridge#top-edited-pages highest assessed work], to see if POV is evident in their writing. In this sample, it is.{{pb}} As of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1170656633 today's version], The History Wizard is responsible for 88% of the page content. [[Wikipedia:WhoWroteThat|WhoWroteThat]] identifies the only significant text {{em|not}} written by The History Wizard is the throwaway sentence at the bottom of the article about his family donating a park bench in his honor. Since The History Wizard wrote essentially all of the content, with minor copyedits, I'm not providing diffs.
The following sources are useful for examining the article’s anti-US and pro-communism bias.{{pb}}
'''Bias from sources not used or misrepresented''':
* '''Okojie''': {{Cite journal |last=Okojie |first=Paul |date=October 1987 |title=Book reviews : Shattering illusions: West Indians in British politics By Trevor Carter (London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1986) |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030639688702900217#con |journal=Race & Class |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=107–108 |doi=10.1177/030639688702900217 |s2cid=145052302 |via=Sage}}
*: Okojie is used, but misrepresented. If anyone wants a copy, I can forward if you email me. All Wikipedia says is that it is a "positive review", when in fact, it is neither positive nor negative—it simply states what Carter states. More problematic is that POV is created by what it (the article) does {{em|not}} say about Carter’s views, when combined with the two sources below that are similarly {{em|not used}} (Brown and Smith E) and say the same things. Significantly emotive and negative wording is used to describe racism in the US, while Carter's condemnation of British racism in general, and the role of the communist party and the left specifically with respect to continuing that racism in Britain, is omitted from the article. The History Wizard has a {{em|remarkably different}} way of treating the US relative to the UK on racism, and has decidedly biased Carter’s own views on racism in Britian and among communists, according to interpretations of Carter’s own writing.
* '''Brown''': {{cite journal |url= https://isj.org.uk/tackling-racism-the-communist-party/ |title= Tackling racism: the Communist Party’s mixed record |journal= International Socialism |issue= 163 |date= 1 July 2019 |first= Geoff |last= Brown}}
*: This source is never used; view in conjunction with Okojie and Smith E, which make the same points.
* '''Smith E''': {{cite journal |title= Class before Race": British Communism and the Place of Empire in Postwar Race Relations |last= Smith |first= Evan |journal = Science & Society |volume = 72 |issue = 4 |date = October 2008 |page= 455-481 |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/40404511 }} If anyone wants this article, pls email me and I can forward.
*: This source is never used; it delves into Carter’s writings in ‘’Shattered Illusions’’ (describe in the Wikipedia article as Carter’s magnum opus), and supports what Okojie says. None of these views, explaining British racism or Carter’s views on communism’s role in that, are included in the article.
'''Bias from choice of sources used''':
The huge majority of the article is cited to Meddick and something cited only as ''Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies''. See below:
* '''Meddick''': {{Cite book |title=Red Lives: Communists and the Struggle for Socialism |last2= |last3= |publisher=Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited / Communist Party of Britain |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-907464-45-4 |editor-last=Meddick |editor-first=Simon |pages=33 |editor-last2=Payne |editor-first2=Liz |editor-last3=Katz |editor-first3=Phil}}
*: I cannot find this on WorldCat, Amazon, Google books, archive.org, or anywhere else I’ve looked. The ISBN returns as faulty everywhere I check. Can anyone find this book or determine what is wrong with the ISBN? Regardless, we have misrepresentation of sources (see above and below), and yet we are asked to take at face value a large amount of text from a book that can’t be located.
* '''Stevenson''': {{Cite news |last= |first= |date=25 August 2011 |title=Carter Trevor |work=Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies |url=https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/2011/08/25/carter-trevor/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430193137/https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/2011/08/25/carter-trevor/ |archive-date=30 April 2023}}
*: In an article with otherwise mostly complete citations, the author of this ‘’encyclopedia’’ (a personal website, eg, blog) is not listed. That author is [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]], and the page tells us it is maintained by his family. When evaluating Graham Stevenson wrt [[WP:EXPERTSPS]], the first thing one encounters is that his article is also written by The History Wizard (so I didn’t go further—I’ve already seen enough to know there is likely bias, and don’t have time to delve in to yet another article). At least it seems more attribution to blog and personal websites is needed here, along with adding that which is missing from more neutral sources.
'''Bias and puffery introduced by misrepresenting sources''':
* '''Wroe''': {{Cite news |last=Wroe |first=Simon |date=20 March 2008 |title=Trevor, a true fighter for equality |work=[[Camden New Journal]] |url=http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/032008/obit032008_01.html |url-status=live |access-date=12 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430193035/http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/032008/obit032008_01.html |archive-date=30 April 2023}}

On the matter of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1151776136 diff posted by Rockstone] and IP2603’s description of anti-Western bias, this is evident at [[Trevor Carter]] in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Carter&oldid=1170656633#Early_life Early life section]:
* {{tq| during this time he travelled to New Orleans where he witnessed the brutality of segregation. (Wroe) His experiences with "Jim Crow laws" made him vow to never live in the United States. (Stephenson, eg, the "encyclopedia")}}
Wroe never mentions "brutality"; that’s editorializing (of the kind that is curiously left out per the sources discussing UK racism above). <s>Nor does it mention segregation.</s> It says: {{tq| His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations.}} The History Wizard does not restrict their original research characterization of the US to one period in one part of the country, as Wroe does, rather goes on to use Stephenson to cite "Jim Crow laws", which Stephenson never mentions. Stephenson says: {{tq|He visited many places, including New Orleans then at the height of racial segregation in the USA. That experience was so awful that Carter vowed never to go and live in America.}} That is, besides never using the phrase designed to draw negative emotions (Jim Crow laws), Stephenson also characterizes the period during which Carter traveled there. In contrast, nothing in the article on this level describes Carter’s own writings about racism in the UK. {{pb}} There is a clear contrast to how The History Wizard treats the US and how they treat the UK (complete omission of racism, while using language to evoke the maximum negativity relative to the US racism). In fact relative to what more neutral sources say about Carter’s own views and communism and racism, the article has only the mild, "Elaborating on his political alignment, he claimed that there was a lot of racism within local Labour Party branches", as if Carter’s criticism applied {{em|only}} to the Labour Party—three sources listed above say it also applied to communist orgs. We do get a brief hint of what may be missing with the (underdeveloped) text: "After the CPGB dissolved in 1991, Carter joined the Labour Party".

While The History Wizard wholesale deletes text they disagree with when a book source doesn’t include a page number, here their own writing fails to identify either a page number or which section of the article (chapter, heading, otherwise) the text can be found:
* {{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j2O5DwAAQBAJ |title=West Indian Intellectuals in Britain |publisher=[[Manchester University Press]] |year=2013 |isbn=9781847795717 |editor-last=Schwarz |editor-first=Bill |location=United Kingdom |language=en |format=eBook}} This book has 11 chapters; at minimum, a Chapter title can be given.
* {{Cite book |last=K. Smith |first=Melanie |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YklnDwAAQBAJ |title=Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2015 |isbn=9781317664208 |language=en |format=ebook |access-date=3 May 2023}} A 304-page book with 11 chapters.
* {{Cite book |last=Cashmore |first=Ellis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G_uEAgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Trevor+Carter%22&pg=PT55 |title=Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations |date=12 April 2002 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=9781134773886 |language=en |format=ebook}} Used to cite a direct quote, found in the section labeled "Reading", which should be provided.
* [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a8c562dcf81e0bc546534e6/t/5c9a36daec212dd0c3c69ff1/1553610462562/Carnival%2BDiscourse%2BReport.pdf This is an 82-page report]; no page numbers given (Carter is mostly on page 34, but there's more to be trawled through).
The History Wizard does not universally use page numbers or chapters or section headings themselves, making it additionally difficult to accept that as their only reason for deleting text they disagree with and more likely the deletions are another reflection of POV editing.

Skipping through the middle portion of the article, which goes well off-topic into other individuals, we get to things like SYNTH from [https://web.archive.org/web/20230502234857/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/nov/29/mangrove-nine-40th-anniversary this source, which never mentions Trevor Carter], and random other puffery throughout, like:
* "Carter became a qualified British teacher" (is there such a thing as an "unqualified" teacher in British schools, I ask—maybe there is?)
* "In 1986 with the help of Jean Coussins, Trevor Carter wrote his magnum opus" ... from what source comes "magnum opus"?
* "In 1998 Trevor Carter, a lifelong admirer of American political activist Paul Robeson," … where does the "lifelong admirer" come from?
* "Jeremy Corbyn, at the time an MP for Islington, was a great admirer of Carter," ... where does the "great admirer" come from?

These are examples of plain vanilla puffery; all of this combined with the lack of access to Meddick, and likely bias from the Stephenson blog, make me wonder if any of the article is neutral. I understand admins are loathe to involve themselves in conduct disputes, but at what point does civil POV pushing become a behavioral issue? It looks like the whitewashing concern has validity and that The History Wizard's editing at articles related to Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea and other similar states should be subject to some restriction. We shouldn't wait 'til we have another Polish situation; communism is whitewashed at [[Trevor Carter]], and a different standard is applied to the US and the UK. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]], I'm in awe. Great analysis. Re: the Meddick book, I paged through the entire set of book listings on the [http://www.manifestopress.org.uk/index.php/publications2 publisher's website], no such book listed. I found a [https://www.wcml.org.uk/blogs/Lynette-Cawthra/Book-review--Red-Lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism/ book review] on a blog; ISBN fails, and it says published by the UK Communist Party whose site [https://www.communistparty.org.uk/?s=Red+Lives%3A+Communists+and+the+Struggle+for+Socialism can't find] that book. I did find an [https://www.communistparty.org.uk/preview-red-lives/ announcement] of the book on the Communist Party's website; reading the description, this would probably not be an acceptable source: it's a package of biographies {{tq|written by friends, family, activists and historians}} (I question how many are actual "historians"). Apparently the PDF can be [https://ebin.pub/red-lives-communists-and-the-struggle-for-socialism-1nbsped-9781907464454.html downloaded] (I'm not going to try it). [[User:Schazjmd|'''Schazjmd''']] [[User talk:Schazjmd|''(talk)'']] 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Since it's directly relevant to this analysis, I'll say that I first thought this was looking into after checking the sourcing in [[Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1]], and their subsequent reluctance to remove a self-published source by [[Graham Stevenson (historian)]]. Stevenson's article was created by History Wizard, and Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|SandyGeorgia}} Yes, there can be unqualified teachers (i.e. teachers without [[Qualified teacher status]]) in some (and only some) British schools, for a variety of reasons that are too boring to go into here. But the "qualified" seems somewhat spurious. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Yes. In UK, private schools don't require PGCE.
::I am scratching my head on this:
::"Nor does it mention segregation. It says: His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations."
::[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Also is it biased to say segregation was brutal? Did I miss something? [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::: Sorry, iPad typing again, had to dash out just after I hit send, and whatever I meant to say in that sentence, it is now just another of my infamous typos (maybe when I can catch up and re-read, I will remember what that sentence wanted to be ... have struck for now.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, {{u|Black Kite}}, in that case, a wikilink for the benefit of non-UKers would be good! [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor ==
{{atop|Leaving Starheroine, all the rest blocked pending responses. Will track Starheroine's edits over the next few weeks... [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 12:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

See edit history for {{user|A E WORLD}}, especially to prominent articles. Not responding to messages at their page, which sometimes leads me to suspect they've been down this road before. At any rate, they ought to be slowed down at the least, and allow for others to clean up in their wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*I'm wondering about a possible connection to blocked user {{user|Adakaibe}}, whose old edits they're now reverting. I'm also looking at a nest of similar accounts editing at articles like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Nigeria&action=history]. If it's not sock or meat activity, it could be an organized school assignment, but there's much damage in its wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*Adding {{user|Starheroine}}. Same issue, continuing to overlink after being warned and acknowledging the issue. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*And {{user|Ayyuha Sideeq}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**''Please'' block {{user|Starheroine}}. Mass disruption. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Block me for what. Did you go through the articles I edited? Kindly go through them again. And don't be judgemental. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:2601... no there are no edits by Starheroine in the page few days that are problematic. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I suspect there's much still on the table that ''is'' problematic, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, as at [[Christians Against Poverty]], where overlinking is in play, but even more so [[WP:ENGVAR]]. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been a week since Ayyuha Sideeq edited. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, {{u|EvergreenFir}}. See the most recent edits. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Starheroine}}, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been [[WP:OVERLINK]]ing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&diff=prev&oldid=1170645470]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_Development_Goal_3&diff=prev&oldid=1170678275], a few didn't allow for [[WP:ENGVAR]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christians_Against_Poverty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762741], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_plastic_pollution_treaty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762568]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1170697606]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Another one, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, {{u|Lourdes}}: {{user|Pmanofficial}}. [[Deforestation]] is protected, so I can't revert the edits there. Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*And another, {{user|Prowriter101}}, with a patently inappropriate username. They've also messed around with some locked articles that I'm unable to mend. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Apologies--though Prowriter's edits are disruptive, they don't appear to be related to the other accounts. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:M.Bitton]] ==

I've had a series of reverts with this user who gave me [[User talk:Vyvagaba#August 2023|two disruptive editing warnings]], for two edits I made to address the neutrality of the lead in [[Dakhla, Western Sahara]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1170676466 the latest revert]).

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

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

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

:I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In [[User_talk:Vyvagaba#Question|the discussion]] that followed, first you said {{tq|I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts |q=yes}}, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::Why are you changing your replies? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Please explain how? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::It's for you to explain why '''you misrepresented the sources''' to push a political POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks [[Special:Diff/1170675949|this diff]]. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at [[WP:NPOV]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1170683348] [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to [https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19 this] document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).
*:So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Could you please view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170793456 this version] as @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is still being difficult. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I restored the reference in the second edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170792759 I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy.] [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::No what you did was change it to {{tq|but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}}. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You ''can't'' use those sources to say {{tq|also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}} as that's not what they say.
*:::::::It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the [[Political status of Western Sahara]]. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Nope, '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV'''. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::The status of WS is disputed, '''your using your POV''' (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories ([[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]). [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV.''' [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. [https://minurso.unmissions.org/background Example 1], [https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/S_RES_2654.pdf Example 2] to the extent some claim that the [https://www.focusonafrica.info/en/western-sahara-sahrawis-denounce-united-nations-support-the-occupying-power/ United Nations supports the occupying Power]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Why are you changing the subject? :) [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/22/western-sahara-wall-morocco-trump 1] [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2663843 2] [https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Wsahara.htm 3] [https://reliefweb.int/report/western-sahara/nrc-report-western-sahara-occupied-country-displaced-people-issue-22008 4]. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?
*::::::::::::P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples
*::::::::::::[https://minurso.unmissions.org/background United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara] "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."
*::::::::::::[https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/conflict-western-sahara ICRC] "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."
*::::::::::::[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115273 BBC] "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",
*::::::::::::[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220407-morocco-s-autonomy-plan-for-the-western-sahara France 24] "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",
*::::::::::::[https://childrensrightsresearch.com/stories/39-moroccan-controlled-western-sahara-freedom-of-expression Childrens Rights Research] "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."
*::::::::::::[https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/north-africa/western-sahara/paving-way-talks-western-sahara Crisis Group] "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."
*::::::::::::[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/13/morocco-launches-operation-in-western-sahara-border-zone Al Jazeera] "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.
*::::::::::::Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.
*::::::::::::The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".
*::::::::::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/world/africa/morocco-western-sahara-conflict-explained.html New York Times] "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara '''is not''' occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. {{re|Rosguill}} could you please share your views on this? Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Political_status_of_Western_Sahara|scouting]] and [[Xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria|creating]] [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0|WS and Algeria-related articles]], so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.
*::::::::::::::::I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.[[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{A note}} the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed {{tq|claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco|q=yes}} to two reliable sources[https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19][https://books.google.com/books?id=tGQJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT264] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{A Note}} I informed @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1170805979 The latest example in my dispute], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals] with the same "misrepresentation" show. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started [[Special:Diff/1170795647|following me]] to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1170795647 and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for '''your persistent misrepresentation of the sources''' to push a POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You should probably read [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]), not just the user reported. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is '''your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV'''. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{re|Rosguill|ActivelyDisinterested}} Since Vyvagaba has made it amply clear that they have no intention of addressing the raised issue, I think it's time that some action is taken as I don't see how anyone who behaves in such manner can be trusted. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Just to be clear, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is preventing and all debate diagreeing with his pov, [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|I posted a note on the article's talk page]] (since this is a behaviour noticeboard and because the NPOV noticeboard said that the complaint was too early to post since we didn't debate on the talk page) to present detailed quotes from reliable soures to support the wording I proposed, and to get feedback to tweak the wording to reach consensus. I dont see why @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] would keep stone walling any discussion with their "misrepresentation" saga, I provided detailed evidence in that post to see what others would think I'm misrepresenting and to fix that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Procedurally, if I were to have come across this thread without having participated in it, I would close in favor of the topic ban. While I am not [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the content disputes here, I don't think it would be fair for me to close here given that I initially proposed the sanction, only one other uninvolved editor has participated here at ANI, and this isn't a CTOP subject. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*[[User:Rosguill]], I think that Vyvagaba deserves a topic ban, yes, or perhaps a (partial) block. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:If you could spend the time to read the post I have on [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|the article's talk page]] and let me know if any of the points I raised are completly reasonabale and rational, and with evidence to support it, I'm just asking to know what I'm misrepresinting in the sources I included, since I'm starting to feel a little crazy at this point. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I only started to look into this out of interest of an RS issue, what I found has left me deeply unimpressed. The fact is that even now Vyvagaba can't see past the content issue to the behaviour issue at hand, so I would support a topic ban. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I still don't undertsand what the behviour issue here is? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ctop|A distraction. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system
:Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think {{tq|Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one}} is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at [[Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system]]. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Rosguill}} Looking at what the IP did to the article ([[Special:Diff/1170846056s|they linked]] one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

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

:[[User:Shaan Sengupta]] has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:The user is clearly engaging in [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. '''[[User:Shaan Sengupta|Shaan Sengupta]]'''[[User talk:Shaan Sengupta|Talk]] 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems to be editing disruptively [[User:Maphumor]]. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some [[WP:SYN]] going on with the sources. [[User:XYZ 250706]], can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is formed in India to defeat the NDA in 2024 Indian general elections. But in some states like WB, Kerala, the members of INDIA will contest against each other. So those members are added in different alliances in those particular states. But user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring. Besides he makes original research. For example, in UP the members of INDIA which have confirmed to be in that alliance led by Samajwadi Party, are added together. But user Maphumor removes some parties like CPI(M), CPI, NCP without proper explanation. Sometimes he says they have no footprint. He removes some specific parties in similar pages giving such citation-less explanation. He is not promoting all national parties, but probably he is promoting Aam Aadmi Party. After my warning, his words like ''''this page is not your personal, everyone can edit'''' do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 04:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:XYZ 250706]] thanks for that explanation, but can you show actual edits where edit warring is occurring? You did say "user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring." Actual links to those edit war and reverting edits would be helpful.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Promotional editing is making a speedy deletion confusing ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = {{nac}} {{u|Mariyachowdhury}} has been indefinitely blocked by Girth Summit for [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 14:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

{{Userlinks|Mariyachowdhury}}

{{Pagelinks|Younusr Howlader}}

Mariyachowdhury first moved the page [[View]] to [[Younusr Howlader]]. I moved the page back and [[Special:diff/1170793570|nominated the resulting redirect Younusr Howlader]] for speedy deletion. Mariyachowdhury then replaced the article with [[Special/diff:1170793777|this]], which I subsequently [[Special:diff/1170793946|reverted]]. Mariyachowdhury then proceeded to [[Special:diff/1170793946|replace the entire page]] with a very promotional biography. After I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younusr_Howlader&diff=prev&oldid=1170795573 nominated this for deletion] for being promotional, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younusr_Howlader&diff=next&oldid=1170795573 removed the promotional content], so my speedy delete tag doesn't apply, but the subject is not notable at all and the only source is a blog. I do not wish to keep switching the speedy deletion criterion, so I need an admin to deal this. Thanks. [[User:Nythar|'''Nythar''']] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:Burninated. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] @[[User:Nythar|Nythar]] This user has hijacked a couple of other articles as well, [[Hridoy Islam]] was moved to [[Sakib Ahmed Tuhin]] and replaced with a biography of a different person, [[Alam Khan discography]] was moved to [[Atikur Rahman Mahi]] and replaced with a spam biography. Could you clean up those pages too please? I strongly suspect this is UPE. [[Special:Contributions/163.1.15.238|163.1.15.238]] ([[User talk:163.1.15.238|talk]]) 11:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I've cleaned up those pages, I think. I will also be indef blocking Mariyachowdhury for DE (as well as their sock, {{noping|Samirakhanmahibd}}). [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivambangwal]]? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[WP:HOUNDING]], [[WP:INCIVILITY]] and [[WP:PERSONALATTACKS]] by [[User:Therapyisgood]] ==

{{u|Therapyisgood}} was recently blocked 31 hours for personal attacks made at the [[WT:DYK|Did you know? talk page]] and at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2|theleekycauldron's request for adminship]]. While those comments were not addressed at me, these seem to be part of a campaign of his to drive me off the site by commenting at many of the discussions I've participated in and trying to get the opposite of what I want to happen. Therapyisgood has engaged in this [[WP:HOUNDING]] of me since about January. His behavior towards me has made me feel uncomfortable, has caused me great stress and has made me think at times about leaving the site. I've been trying my best not to retaliate and to be as civil as possible during this time, but Therapyisgood has continued HOUNDING me again and again and again for months. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have to take him here now for this as I think it has to stop. I've listed below many of the numerous examples of his HOUNDING, ranging from simply commenting at pages I do to outright nasty comments.
{{collapse top|title=What seems to have started this}}
* Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#User:BeanieFan11_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_at_NFL_AFDs here] (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1136016648] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985]).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=Worst violations since then}}
* I removed some articles from the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal list in March (also in the below section) that had SIGCOV and thus should not have been draftified, [[User:BilledMammal]] reverted it because he wanted to decide who could remove articles with significant coverage. I reverted three times, he reverted SIX - Therapyisgood somehow knows of this and reports ME to ANI for edit warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1142842396) - there was no consensus for anything.
* Then, after there was no consensus for anything at ANI - he went through the articles I improved and started adding maintenance tags (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hession&diff=prev&oldid=1143131465).
* A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly|nomination for Lewis Manly]] - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable) - it needed a new reviewer. Out of all the nominations Therapyisgood could have reviewed, he reviewed mine, came up with lots of issues (which were incorrect), and ultimately had it failed.
* April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too).
* Even worse, right after that, he nominated an absurd number of files I had created for deletion for being copyvios and messaged me to "stop uploading copyright violations" - users were outright confused at the discussions at how they could possibly have been copyright violations, and not a single one was deleted (see my commons userpage, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeanieFan11).
* April 25 - I had previously nominated Pro Football Hall of Famer [[Dave Wilcox]] to be listed at [[WP:ITN/C|ITN/RD]], it was close to being posted but was about to expire - Therapyisgood [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Wilcox&diff=prev&oldid=1151689211 TAGBOMBED the hell] out of the article, including for extremely silly things like the fact that one source listed him at 239 pounds, and another 241 pounds! It was not posted due to this.
* May 5 - I started a deletion review for the [[1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season|1991-92 Kilmarnock soccer team]], saying it should be relisted from delete - right after - "Endorse - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153242325). '''AND then, when I pointed out why it should be overturned - his response - "Go cry harder about it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153245470)'''
* May 28 - there was a discussion on whether a certain DYK hook that I had approved was racist - I pointed out why I didn't think so - right after, "Yes, this is racist - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1157344140) - he even went to [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] talking about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1157355211).
* June 2: I had recently been given [[WP:AFC|AFC]] reviewing rights, '''and Therapyisgood began going through my accepts and nominating them for deletion''' - see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65th Oregon Legislative Assembly]] - which had a unanimous consensus to keep, and Therapyisgood refused to withdraw it even when asked to.
* July 19: one of my DYK nominations was approved, Therapyisgood went to the DYK talk page and was trying to get it pulled for lack of interestingness, something he almost never does otherwise; everyone disagreed with him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_193#Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1).
* Then the most recent, which got him blocked, [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#John_Sterling_(American_football),_etc|insulting]] [[User:Gonzo fan2007]] at a discussion over a DYK I approved (again, he seems to almost never participate at WT:DYK discussion except when I am involved).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=More minor instances of HOUNDING since then}}
* At the start of March, when the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1142833690].
* A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Vehmeier&diff=prev&oldid=1144875410].
* Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junior_varsity_team&diff=prev&oldid=1147938410].
* April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1151691282].
* May 10 - I nominated [[Joe Kapp]] to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ).
* Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&diff=prev&oldid=1154170839#Should_we_soften_the_phrase_%22Sports_biographies_must_include_at_least_one_reference_to_a_source_providing_significant_coverage_of_the_subject,_excluding_database_sources.%22].
* June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on [[Tavon Rooks]] - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tavon_Rooks&diff=prev&oldid=1158124179] - this contributed to it being deleted.
* June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khaled_Soliman&diff=prev&oldid=1159169990]
* July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&diff=prev&oldid=1162954376]
* July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vladimir_Kryukov_(rower)&diff=prev&oldid=1163231320]
* July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1164340319]
* The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.
{{collapse bottom}}
Interestingly, looking at Therapyisgood's AFD log, [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname= ''every single discussion'' at which he has participated since late January was one involving me (minus the nominations, although they were all in either topics I was involved or on articles I worked on)] (and in all cases, him voting after my involvement ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Raynor|he commented at Wilson Raynor before me]], but that was only after I was involved in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Football_biography_cleanup#Wilson_Raynor NFL talk page discussion on him])). Also of note, only [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname=&nomsonly=true ''51%'' of his AFD nominations (19-18)] were successful and that number drops to {{abbr|10-16|10 successful, 16 not}} since October 2021. Since January 2023, he is {{abbr|8-10|8 successful, 10 not}}. I apologize for the massive amount of text, but I wanted to show just how extensive his HOUNDING of me has been. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' just wanted to note three things: (1) {{U|Therapyisgood}} appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by {{U|BeanieFan11}} (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of ''only two'' RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been ''right after one of my votes''/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with [[WP:HOUNDING]]. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:IBAN]] does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:: I understand that he has been {{tq|badgered, blocked and skewered}}, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but [[WP:HOUNDING]] is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I unblocked {{U|therapyisgood}} per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Thank you, please see my responses below. Thanks again. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I agree with [[User:Jayron32]]. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{ping|Therapyisgood}} and {{ping|BeanieFan11}}, can you both agree to an [[WP:IBAN]] with each other?[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to have my name engraved on the editing sanctions page when I don't think I've really done anything wrong. I'll have to think about this further. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK [[WP:TBAN]] for Therapyisgood seems in order. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* Support one-way [[WP:IBAN]] at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at [[WP:VP]] in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fulfillment_(book)&diff=prev&oldid=1029455929 this edit summary], and the original hook of [[Template:Did you know nominations/George Floyd (American football)|this DYK nomination]]) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.[[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

====TIG's response====
*I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused {{ping|BeanieFan11}} over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding {{ping|JoelleJay}} among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Looking at [[WP:IBAN]] it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. [[User:Dronkle|Dronkle]] ([[User talk:Dronkle|talk]]) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––[[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]] [[User talk:FormalDude|(talk)]] 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, [[WP:IBAN]] says that {{tq|A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}}[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in {{tq|a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}} One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::::I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::::Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:@ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. '''And that doesn't matter worth a damn.''' I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil ''no matter what.'' If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of {{tq|pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior}} and {{tq|hounding which if given time I can find diffs of}}. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]], 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The other 20% is insults and threats. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Quite. Possibly the text of [[WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!!]] should read "The invocation of this argument is ''prima facie'' ground for an indef." [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It feels like relevant context to point out that the ''other'' RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron1]], so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they ''weren't'' trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.
*::Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is [[per se]] an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.
*::In any event, the trolling comments that ''immediately'' came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::When I said {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that {{tq|"Are you really that thick?"}} comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after {{u|Gonzo fan2007}} let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, ''fast''. {{pb}}Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that ''she'' (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion? {{pb}}We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I don't like]]. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of [[WP:CIR|competency]] regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.{{pb}}Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all. {{pb}}Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This editor has problems beyond hounding BeanieFan11. See this thread from 6 months ago:
*[[User talk:Therapyisgood#AFD nominations]]
They gratuitously blew off a very polite request from [[User:Liz|Liz]] about pacing AfDs. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] did a good job of summarizing problematic edits concluding presciently that Therapyisgood was on track to WP:ANI someday. —[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{ping|A. B.}} Not only that, but he had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985 immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then] and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=next&oldid=1136016472 "stay off my talk page"]. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:So {{tq|”common courtesy”}} is not a good enough reason?. ''This is a collaborative project.'' Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you ''still refuse to accept'' this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.
**::—~~<~
**:[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –[[User:Novem Linguae|'''Novem Linguae''']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**{{ping|A. B.}} yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:[[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]], you ask, {{tq|”where was I wrong?”}}
**:Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.
**:I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.
**:One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people {{tq|”piss off”}} the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?
**:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*** Really? I'm {{tq|way off}} in my {{tq|whole framing}} of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is ''exactly'' how its felt to me. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to {{ping|BilledMammal}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142843309]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142844420]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
***** But my question is, ''how did you find all of those discussions''? (and you're misrepresenting some of those, for example, BilledMammal was not correct in his interpretation of 3RR, as shown by the closer declining your request) [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******The same way you found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646 this]. By the way, just because the closing admin declined a warning on the 3RR report doesn't make you right. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******* Thank you for confirming my belief; you've been [[WP:HOUNDING]] me by extensively going through all my contributions. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********"why are you so concerned about how people find discussions?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646] [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********:There's a big difference between periodically clicking on various editor's contribs and systematically hounding one person for months. If you can't understand that, you're not long for Wikipedia. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****:There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here. {{pb}}And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be [[WP:RBI|relatively simple]] and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and [[WP:CLUE|CLUEfulness]]. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to [[Occam's razor]]. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

===Survey===
I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.
# Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
# Impose a two-way IBAN
# Block Therapyisgood for x duration
# Something else
[[User:Ca|Ca]] [[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]] 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''1 with additional conditions''' beyond what is at [[WP:IBAN]], to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''', in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least '''1 month''', recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: ''"If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses."'' While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:TIG was [[User talk:Therapyisgood/Archive 1#May 2020|given a 2-week block 3 years ago]] for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)|indefinitely restricted him to one account]] over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' seems like a commonsense approach.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Option 4''' I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban.</s> A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become [[WP:HARASSMENT|harassment]] in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. <s>Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
*# TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
*# BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
*<li style="list-style:none;">Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban.</s> [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:What you're proposing ''would'' be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years. {{pb}}However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.{{pb}}So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Snow Rise}} thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that [[WP:IBAN]] is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.
*:::And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Valereee}} I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that
*:::::# A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
*:::::# That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.
*:::::[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::{{re|Valereee}} a block is a punishment when:
*::::::1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them
*::::::2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased
*::::::TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I'll reply on your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3: Block and final warning''' If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If someone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will [[WP:AGF|act in good faith]] and not attempt to [[WP:BEAR|provoke or badger]] TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask {{ping|Floquenbeam}} how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to [[WP:AVOIDYOU]] in their interactions. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with additional conditions''' as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''' per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
**severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
**longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
**and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
*<li style="list-style:none;">In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of [[WP:ROPE]]. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a '''one month block''' is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that '''such block should be appealable only to the community''' as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.{{pb
}}I also '''support the 1-way IBAN''' as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.{{pb
}}Lastly, I '''support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement"''' sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:PA]] proclivities. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*A very broadly intended '''option 1''', and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block ('''option 3'''), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] seriously. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''1 with additional conditions''' as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3''' based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be '''7-14 days''', which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of [[WP:BLOCK]], which is {{tq|to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users}}. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. [[User:Carson Wentz|Carson Wentz]] ([[User talk:Carson Wentz|talk]]) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' with x=3 months and '''1 (+Jayron)'''. Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are ''very'' out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista/Archive|now-blocked, content-contributing hounder]] in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', oppose 3 as punitive [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3'''. I concur that a duration of '''1 month''' would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. [[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*''' Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month.''' The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1''' - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
** {{Ping|Valereee}} Obviously every administrative action (including option 1) results in some sort of punishment for those who are subjected to it, but I don't see how a short block (1/2 weeks in my view) would be just a punishment and not a preventive (and instructive) act. TIG was blocked for personal attacks just 3 days ago, and once unblocked he almost immediately resorted with the same gratuitously aggressive and insulting attitide. Even ignoring his comments towards BeanieFan11, he insulted Snow Rise, and when kindly asked to strike the insult he ignored the request. In his contribution history up to his last comments in this thread, he displayed a blatant [[Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT]] approach towards civility. I am the first one to hope TIG changes his attitude, as I see him as an otherwise valuable editor, but it is important he get the point about civility, be it with a block, with a strong warning or with some other means. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior. Time-limited blocks can simply be waited out. And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing.
**:In addiiton, a block would prevent TIG from doing things they don't need to be prevented from doing, so it's more restrictive than necessary to solve the problem, which at its heart is the hounding. If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community. A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::If this discussion results in only the IBAN, it won't be the end of the world: at least something will have been done to protect the community member who is currently bearing the brunt of TIGs inappropriate and vexatious behaviour and to send a message that the community has eyes on the rest. At the same time, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in at least one respect here:{{pb}}There are really two issues that need addressing here: 1) The concerted hounding of BeanieFan across a period of months, which is clearly unacceptable and which (we hope) the IBAN resolves, and 2) Petty, continuous, and pretty much instantaneous incivility any time TIG is criticized. These personal attacks don't come after heated back-and-forth's ramping the tension up, though they would be problematic enough in that context too. Rather, these kind of "Get a job--I have no time to argue with losers on the internet all day" / "Are you thick" comments are '''the very first things TIG says to people they have never had an interaction with before''' when they feel criticized, including community members contributing to an ANI where the goal is to get TIG to see their are issues with their mode of interaction with others on this project. That's a real problem. And the IBAN does absolutely nothing to address it.
**:::{{tq|"Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior."}}
**::Hey, I could be convinced to support an indef for that purpose, but I think we're probably both of the opinion that it's more than the minimum that might get TIGs attention here. I think Walt is right: that target is a month. And even if TIG does just wait out the block, at least they are shown that there are lines that this community will not let them routinely and indefinitely cross, and they will have time to consider what needs to change in their approach. Which is, you know, the usual point of any block that is not an indef?
**:::{{tq|"And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing."}}
**::Correct. And neither is a temporary block for repeated [[WP:CIV]] violations. It's not there for vindictive purposes or even to make us feel better that someone's behaviour has been "balanced" by punishment. But if it's necessary to force someone to reflect on problematic behaviour (as it very clearly is here), it's a preventative block. I'm surprised we're even having this debate: this is probably the single most common circumstance for the use of a block.
**:::{{tq|"If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community."}}
**::Actually, I think it very much does. Because we've seen that TIG can make a very contrite-seeming unblock appeal to an admin, feigning a willingness to comply with community expectations and the feedback of that admin...and then instantly go back to the offending behaviour they were blocked for in the first place. The fact that this behaviour occurs blatantly in view of the entire community in an ANI discussion where that very behaviour is being discussed only underscores how much TIG either doesn't get where the line is, or is completely incapable of controlling themselves and jumping to petty ad hominems in the face of any criticism. A CBAN is necessary precisely because it must be appealed the community.
**:::{{tq|"A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order."}}
**::Except, for the purposes of the conduct we are talking about here, calling this user a "well-intentioned, competent editor" is not appropriate. Nobody is being "well-intentioned" with regard to our community expectations when they are making the kind of personalized, spiteful comments TIG feels entitled to make when they see red (which is alarmingly fast in face of any opposition). And they are going to go on to feel entitled to that behaviour until the community draws a line in the sand. I'm sorry Val, normally I appreciate a light touch in an admin, but your description above feels more like enabling to me. And it won't do TIG any favours in the long run: it will just replace a one-month block now with an indef in the near future, I'd be willing to bet. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::{{edit conflict}} "''An IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''", I could say the same about a block: "''a block is not punishment. It may feel like it to the blocked editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''". None of the editors who support a (more or less brief) block here wants to "punish" TIG, we want him to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and adhere to it in in his future interactions. With respect, characterizing his long-term problematic behaviour as "a series of similar mistakes in short order" by "a well-intentioned, competent editor" goes exactly in the opposite direction and IMO sends the wrong message to the user. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::I'll answer at your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' - A one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]. A block is not necessary at this time, but will come soon enough if TIG does not learn quickly how restrictive a one-way IBAN is. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' — A one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]. This fair to BF and gives TIG time to find a way to be civil. Either TIG takes this new path as primary in contributing to Wikipedia or loses any long term chance of collaborating. — [[User:Neonorange|'''N''''''eonorange''']] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk to Phil]]) (he, they)` —

== Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here ==

I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through [[Template:Deforestation in Nigeria]], used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria a project on Meta] The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)
*[[Draft:Deforestation and small ruminant farming]] (was in mainspace, I moved it to draft)
*[[Reforestation and urbanization in Nigeria]]
*[[Impact of deforestation on plant species diversity in Nigeria]]
*[[Deforestation in Nigeria]] (the main article)
*[[Deforestation and food security in Nigeria]]
*[[Animal grazing and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Effects of deforestation on the paper industry in Nigeria]]
*[[Tourism and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Fuel wood utilization in Nigeria]]
*[[Gender and timber trade in Nigeria]]
*[[Spatial pattern of deforestation in Nigeria]]

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

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

Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Participation], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Guidelines], on enwiki[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Task_Lists]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
A grant request[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into [[Deforestation in Nigeria]] some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{smalldiv|1=Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:::{{smalldiv|1=Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. [[User:Padgriffin|Padgriffin]] [[User Talk:Padgriffin|Griffin's Nest]] 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Olugold]] created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_overlinking_and_poor_grammar_'corrections'_by_relatively_new_editor] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. [[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.
:::However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".
:::I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. [[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] ([[User talk:Ngozi osadebe|talk]]) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]??? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] - {{tq|Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".}} I agree that putting the search term <code>deforestation in Nigeria</code> into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns120=1 a simple search for the phrase] will take you to [[d:Q5251686|Q5251686]], which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] @[[User:Olugold|Olugold]] you mention the list building tools in your grant proposal - but did this include just doing a keyword search on English Wikipedia itself? Surely that would be the ''first'' thing to try? Your grant proposal also indicates {{tq|Content Gender gap}} which pertains to the actual content (rather than the participants/editors) - what work is/will being done that falls into this category within the general scope of "deforestation in Nigeria"? [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Just flagging that after reviewing [[meta:Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria|the grant proposal]] and [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qksqwu2nBcan6KBo9qkn3rOgqOradX-QNqCN1cQDibg/edit linked spreadsheet], it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of [[purchasing power]] in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an ''extremely'' dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Thank you so much for drawig my attention to this. I have instructed the authors of the concerned articles to improve on them. The theme for our project is "Deforestation in Nigeria", as such there are likely to be topics that are related. Moreover, the editors though postgraduate students are new to Wikipedia editing. So it is likely that their edits will not be excellent. We have six month to work on the project. Many of the articles will improve before the expiry of the project life. [[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] ([[User talk:Ngozi osadebe|talk]]) 11:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Suggestion ===

I suggest that if there is any bridge of the wikipedia policy by any editor, such one should be called to order. If it was not intentional, the person will make the expected corrections or delete it. However, if the person insisted and some experts have looked into it and have arrived at what should be done, that should be done immediately.
For those that were making mistakes in editing, sometimes, the editor will not know. Sometimes where the corruption of words come from is not known to the editor. Once the person's attention is called, such corrections will be made.
We are here to help improve open knowledge and not to destroy it.
For me, if there is anywhere I made any mistake, I will like to know the place so I can correct it.
Thank you all for your patience and cooperation.[[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] ([[User talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|talk]]) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] I have move your post as it appears to relate to the Deforestation in Nigeria articles. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:I fear this is becoming a [[WP:CIR]] issue. I and others have had serious concerns about edits by this editor in the past (see [[User_talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu#March 2023]], and see from today things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edo_traditional_food&diff=1171500896&oldid=1167365759 this] (adding a picture from Uganda and claiming they are "varieties of Nigerian meals", and adding another picture from Ghana, for the topic [[Edo traditional food]] which is about a region in Nigeria) or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigerian_lowland_forests&diff=prev&oldid=1171491989 this] [[WP:POV]] edit. Basically, all their edits need thorough checking, and many need being reverted. It would be good if someone else can try to explain the issues, steering them in the right direction. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for the observation. Today, we were in a training and I was practicing. When I clicked on African food many of their images pumped up. I selected that one thinking it related to us. Sorry about that. I will correct it. Thank you. [[User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|Ngozi Stella Udechukwu]] ([[User talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu|talk]]) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it me, or is an addition like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_protection&diff=1146354871&oldid=1146222216 this one] (from March this year, and still largely unchanged present in the not important article) best reverted wholesale? From the start ("There has been a promise to end child labour internationally in 2020; unfortunately, we are in 2023 and we are looking forward to that of 2030.") over things like "Some do not go to public schools because the children are not being taking care of. Many of our public schools are without fence. " and "Right attitude to life will give children a beautiful light that life has well for them and when they work hard without allowing distractions, they will become great addition to humanity" to "Children are like arrows in the hand of mighty warriors", I don't see how this can easily be salvaged. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:This should be rolled back to the version from Jan 2023. The additions by this editor are extremely unencyclopedic and contain seriously unacceptable material in wikivoice. There are also numerous issues with referencing, both in the sources used and the formatting (e.g. a citation to a local church website home page to support the quiverful "arrows" paragraph above; citations to just "researchgate.net", "unicef.org", and numerous other website home pages with no other bibliographic info to identify what the specific article/page being referenced is). [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::I second this; we should restore to the Jan 2023 version. There's nothing but incredibly unencyclopedic and poorly written POV pushing in those additions. I do remember giving this editor a warning in March 2023 for POV pushing before while doing RCP back when I was still named Shadow of the Starlit Sky. I think that a [[WP:CIR]] block for Ngozi Stella Udechukwu may as well be in order as well. — '''[[User:Prodraxis|Prodraxis]]''' {[[User talk:Prodraxis|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Prodraxis|contribs]]} (she/her) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

===Comment===
I greatly appreciate you all for your attention to this matter. While there does exist a specific page on 'Deforestation in Nigeria', it's essential to recognize that the broad subject holds potential for various nuanced topics beyond this scope. Consolidating all sub-topics under 'Deforestation in Nigeria' could potentially lead to a voluminous article with several stand-alone topics.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the grant approval process underwent rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. It's important to note that the rewards for the project's duration of six months encompass valuable resources such as data or internet connectivity subsidies.

I kindly request that if any article has not yet achieved an ideal state for inclusion in the Wikipedia mainspace, contributors can be notified on the talk page with possible suggestions for improvement or better still, moved to draftspace for further improvements. This collaborative approach helps identify areas for enhancement and ensures that the collective effort is not unfairly dismissed as unproductive. [[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{tq| The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value.}} Approval demonstrates that the WMF grants team judged the project worthy of funding, but doesn’t compel any specific project to treat it as significant. [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding your last paragraph, I don't see why the edits made by your editathon should be treated any differently to the thousands of other content edits made every day -- it is not our responsibility to faciliate the deforestation project, not least when there was no notification/consultation with enwiki despite there being an opportunity for such [[m:Grants:Programs/Organizer Lab/Deforestation in Nigeria|on the grant form (Q10)]]. [[User:Giraffer|Giraffer]] ([[User talk:Giraffer|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Giraffer|contribs]]) 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Jonteemil]] ==

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

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

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

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

::Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, ''they have specifically said nothing about deletion'' in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even ''asking'' for these files to be deleted. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10]] as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::No, they don't ''need'' to but they are ''allowed'' to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that ''maybe'' something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure ''enough'' to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD ''is the exact process'' where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg]] on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're ''still not going to block Jonteemill'' because some admin fucked up. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be ''kept'' or ''deleted''… rather ''Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F''. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. [[WP:FFD]] gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]], it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not [[c:COM:TOO US]]. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Well, {{t|PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO ([[threshold of originality]]) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{t|Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the [[WP:NFCCP|Non-free criteria]], whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some [[WP:Non-copyright restrictions]] as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.
::::::::The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even [[:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg]] is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to [[:File:Best Western logo.svg]] nor [[:File:Jamba logo.svg]] (read more at [[c:COM:TOO Australia]] and [[c:COM:TOO US]]).
::::::::My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above [[c:COM:TOO Spain]]), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below [[c:COM:TOO US]]). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers '''''Keep''''' haha.
::::::::I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm pinging {{U|Edward-Woodrow}} who closed one of the FFDs as ''keep'' and {{U|Marchjuly}} who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I feel like I've entered into a game of Chinese whispers without knowing. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Come on {{u|Govvy}}, they have a nook around here for us ludites whenever things turn towards file hosting protocols. Well watch something with [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7OWlVYYRw slightly more sensible and accessible language]. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Snow Rise}} Thanks for that technically insight! And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uko3RU6h8 here's my reply!], Probably time for a close!? [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Witchcraft and related topics ==
[[user:CorbieVreccan]] made a post at [[Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft]] claiming that another user had attempted to [[WP:CANVASS]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASystemic_bias&diff=1164716594&oldid=1148026263]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias&diff=next&oldid=1164802153] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] over the page for some time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1065455830&oldid=1065412597][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1065455830][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1164335557&oldid=1164309405]

I became involved,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1164845755&oldid=1164832640] was immediately reverted,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1164846266] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166673169] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167331496&oldid=1167329970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169277375&oldid=1169259738] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWitchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168294712&oldid=1168285517][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1166461323&oldid=1166453545][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169208102&oldid=1169200522]

About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and [[Wikipedia:Tag team|established coordination]] with [[user:Asarlaí]] for further efforts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorbieVreccan&diff=prev&oldid=1165212353] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEsowteric&diff=1165058795&oldid=1164781619][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167739795&oldid=1167738218] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1166783262&oldid=1166766606] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168562312&oldid=1168495409]

I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168449182&oldid=1168363448], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166176326] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165243409&oldid=1165238129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165341831&oldid=1165340593]

There's more, but I'm not sure what else to add as relevant and I've lost visibility on some of it through page deletions. This has been exhausting. I'm just trying to cover the material in line with what academic sources say - including sources already being used in the main Witchcraft article; but somehow that's insufficient justification. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]], you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by {{np|Asarlaí}} for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of [[WP:BOLD]] changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet [[wp:onus]], Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when [[Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built|people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built]]. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}}. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.
:::::::report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I have been dragged into this tangentially after voting on a RM related to this dispute. I do not think the situation currently needs admin attention. There is a very nasty content dispute over the lead section of [[Witchcraft]]; but the current RFC process seems to be addressing that problem in a civil manner. The concerns and accusations about canvassing or tag-teaming should be ignored; this is a situation where additional voices are helpful, and accusations that any new participant might have been "canvassed" are harmful. As far as POV-pushing: with this type of disagreement, it is inevitable that people view "the other side" as POV-pushing. Until there is some form of consensus, that is not actionable. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Walt Yoder}} point of clarity; I'm not accusing CV of canvassing specifically. My first encounter was ''them'' (incorrectly) making that accusation (diff linked above). - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Here we go again''' This is exactly what Darker Dreams posted to ArbCom (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring at the Edit-warring board in defense of Skyerise on July 23]). It is full of misrepresentations, personal attacks, confusion, and blatant lies. I suggest folks go and read what happened there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Statement_by_CorbieVreccan Direct link to my statement to Arbcom]. I am requesting [[WP:BOOMERANG]] for DD's ongoing disruption, [[WP:forum shopping]], and wasting of Wikipedians' time and energy.
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics Responses by myself and other editors to this same text by Darker Dreams at rejected Arbcom request].
:However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': having been watching and to some degree involved in this dispute, I personally find no issues with [[user:Asarlaí]]'s editing as they seem more willing to collaborate. As for [[User:CorbieVreccan]], I can only say that I had hoped that an administrator would hold themselves to higher standards rather than ending up the editor with the higher revert count in sevaral disputes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has a block record for personal attacks and harassment, for edit-warring on WP in general, and after Darker Dreams, is the other most-disruptive person in this dispute, along with Esoterwic. Though her editing is a bit better since DD was blocked. She had to take a 48 hour break when reported for 3RR on [[Witchcraft]] by Asarlaí.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1167467045#User:Skyerise_reported_by_User:Asarla%C3%AD_(Result:_Full_protection_for_three_days)] She also engaged in the same personal attacks as Darker Dreams, calling me a "vandal" for doing normal, good-faith editing on Darker Dreams' POV-pushing [[Template:Witchcraft sidebar]]:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWitchcraft_sidebar&diff=1168416745&oldid=1168302906 "rv POV vandalism"]. Interestingly, Darker Dreams then used basically the same edit summary in that account's personal attacks, also on Asarlaí and me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230802222105&diff=prev "Undid revision 1168449182 by CorbieVreccan (talk) POV vandalism"],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230803190744&diff=prev "Revert to 02:41, 3 August 2023‎ edit by Josvebot to undo admitted POV vandalism and off-topic push by User:Asarlaí"] (there was no "admission" of any of the false accusations in the personal attack edit summaries) - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::That doesn't invalidate or address what I said. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft "You just gonna watch from the sidelines?"]. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Still deflecting, I see. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a [[WP:SNOW]]ed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at [[Talk:Witchcraft]], but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western [[neopagan]] understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Darker%20Dreams/1/Witchcraft 71,328 bytes] to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*: I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on [[Talk:Witchcraft]], and I'm not sure that [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]]'s approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on [[European witchcraft]], the supposedly global article on [[Witchcraft]] focuses [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]] and the witch trials summarized in [[European witchcraft]], and the [[WP:BROADCONCEPT|overview article]] get to the global coverage it professes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&diff=prev&oldid=1166441494 blatant battleground behavior]. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Care to provide an example that's not a month old? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::What should that matter? Blatant battleground behavior doesn't suddenly become not-objectionable because a few weeks have passed. The civility policies don't have sell-by dates. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 09:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|Ravenswing}} Our blocking policy has always been ''preventative'', not ''punitive''. This means we don't block people just because some editor might dislike previous behavior that is not currently ongoing. It is incumbent on the editor who brings up the issue to show that ongoing damage to Wikipedia is currently occurring and unlikely to stop. That's why. And if you want to establish an "ongoing pattern" of "blatant battleground behavior", you're going to need more than one diff to document it. The IP you are apparently supporting even misinterpreted the one diff it did supply, not knowing the context: I only said that to Randy because he kept thanking me for my edits even though he was not participating in the talk page discussion himself. And my intent was that he join the discussion, not join me in any imaginary "battle". Anyway, context is important and you should also document the number of articles I've written along with your attempted attack on my character. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Erm. Want to show me where in my comment I mentioned the word "block?" But allow me to amend that now. Quite aside from that ''no'' one's edit count immunizes them against the requirement to follow civility policies (unless you're comfortable with being judged on your extensive block log in the same breath as your article count, while we're talking about "context"), the reason why we discuss such incidents is to assess the likelihood that such behavior is an ongoing problem, for which of course there are sanctions other than blocking, including IBANs, TBANs, simple admonishments and trout slaps.With that, if you consider ''that'' an attack on your character, then along with some of your other statements in this thread and elsewhere? This reflexive lashing out is not a good look on your part. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 19:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*{{Userlinks|Darker Dreams}} has slowed their editing since the partial block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1169870190#User:Darker_Dreams_reported_by_User:CorbieVreccan_(Result:_Blocked_from_article_for_a_week) for one week for tendentious editing / edit-warring] to focus on [[WP:forum shopping]]. But
*{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has been editing the [[Witchcraft]] articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones. While so far the ones I've seen seem OK, I am still concerned, with the history of aggressive POV pushing, personal attacks (see diffs above and block log), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft this exchange about being patient while revert-warring] that this could result in many different article to watch, and that over time the POV push will return on multiple fronts. I'm waiting for someone to say, "AGF!" ... we're way past that at this point. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:CorbieVreccan also has a tendency to exaggerate. I've made several already existing witchcraft articles more robust ([[Asian witchcraft]], [[European witchcraft]], and [[Witchcraft in Latin America]]); but I've only created one, [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]], not "many". [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You have proposed new articles for multiple sections on the page. The templates have a link to discuss on the main talk page (which is now hugely cluttered and difficult to navigate, with an ongoing RfC), but I did not see any section set up to discuss more forks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I'm not talking about forks. I'm talking about regional coverage, which is half in place. I think all but one of those links go the the target article talk page. I guess you haven't actually pursued discussing them. The exaggeration is something you and Darker Dreams have in common. You should find a way to work together better. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Skyrise's edits to witchcraft daughter articles are mostly connected to this discussion: [[Talk:Witchcraft#Article length]]—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You restored [[Neopagan witchcraft]] from a redirect, challenging a previously uncontested merge from 2017, which did effectively create a child article. [[Draft:Witch (archetype)]] and [[User:Skyerise/sandbox/Witch (archetype)]] appear to be a partially done spin off. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|Witchcraft (traditional)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|Witchcraft (diabolic)]] were also created, but I don't know by whom because they were then deleted. [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] is also relevant, though it was created by Darker Dreams. Not weighing in on which of these should or shouldn't exist, but there's definitely been some effort to spin off articles, one of which was determined at AfD to be a POV fork. Further move/split proposals were made at [[Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 21:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Not sure what my drafts have to do with anything. It's not a "spin-off" of anything. It's missing coverage. I'm undecided whether the material can stand on its own or should be merged somewhere, or where. The others were created by Darker Dreams, not I. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"that this could result in many different article to watch" how does this not read as "make it difficult for me to [[wp:own]]" which is the core complaint I'm making. Also of note, the "forum shopping" arriving here is exactly what several of the arbitrators said should have happened when declining that request. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::How? Well, because the core of your complaint is unclear and poorly-structured, for the reasons I explained above. So, no, you have not established a coherent basis for WP:OWNERSHIP, which the quoted passage does not necessarily presupposes. That said, I don't see how it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING if a declined arbitration request was the only previous forum (I presume you prematurely jumped to arbitration before exhausting all other options, like here). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It wasn't DD's first forum.
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Darker Dreams posts same text he used at Arbcom, and here, at ANI at Edit-warring board on July 23, 2023]
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1167132878 Darker Dreams files "Witchcraft" at Dispute Resolution board, July 25, 2023]
*:::* Then ignoring the DR and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&oldid=1170296610#RFC_on_Lede_Section_on_Witchcraft RfC] in progress,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft/Draft_RFC&diff=prev&oldid=1169459771] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics files same text from 3RR at Arbcom on 13 August 2023]. This is in addition to long rants with large overlaps in text on multiple talk pages and XfDs. Please see the uninvolved editor statements about this in the filing.
*:::* And here we are at ANI for round 4, not including all the casting of aspersions in edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::That's right, mediated dispute resolution wasn't exhausted, but was interrupted, and {{u|Robert McClenon}} [[Special:Diff/1170464920|complained]] about this, saying: "ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to [[WP:ANI]]." —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Huh. Well, that's not good. Prior DR attempts ought to have been provided in a clear way by the OP, rather than partially and half-hazardly, within unmarked (untitled) diffs. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I am somewhat involved with the [[Talk:Witchcraft]] discussion, but not deeply so. While I won’t go into content issues here, I will address some of my observations of behavior. One of the main problems with the discussion is that some editors, in particular Darker Dreams keep taking things personally and reacting emotionally. IMHO, it is more productive here to take a detached view, as it helps to maintain a NPOV. WP goes by what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions or belief systems are.

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

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

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

:To my mind, this is the very definition of tendentious editing, [[WP:TEND]]. Their behavior has been a huge, [[WP:TIMESINK|time-sink]]. It is my opinion as an editor that Darker Dreams should be topic blocked from all articles dealing with witchcraft. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I am also involved in the dispute, but also not very deeply perhaps. In connection to the above, I believe that editors should also be aware that, during the dispute, Darker Dreams created three spin-off articles, two of which were deleted: I find it quite noteworthy that one of them underwent A10 deletion ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|AfD]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Witchcraft+%28diabolic%29 log]); another was AfD'd as a POV fork ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|AfD]]); the third one is [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] article, and it has problems to put it mildly. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:I have a question about what the OP, [[User:Darker Dreams]], is requesting. What administrative action are you asking for the community to take either against [[User:CorbieVreccan]] or against anyone else? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:The only administrative action that I see proposed in this thread is that Netherzone has called for a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] against Darker Dreams from the area of witchcraft. Is there any connection between [[witchcraft]] and [[boomerangs]]? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:: The decorations on boomerangs and other Indigenous Australian artifacts often carry spiritual and symbolic significance. These designs and patterns are more than just aesthetic elements; they can convey important cultural, spiritual, and ancestral meanings. The decorations on boomerangs can indeed be considered as magical or spiritual symbols in the context of Indigenous Australian cultures. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 07:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Support''' boomerang topic ban. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' while a couple of article creation attempts were misguided, DD also produced a nice {{Template|Witchcraft sidebar}} which aids navigation between the regional daughter articles under [[Witchcraft]]. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::So? if I create an incredibly useful template on [a topic]but i act like a jerk on [topic], does that protect me from being Tbanned from [topic]? [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149|2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149|talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Also '''oppose boomerang''' as a mostly non-involved party here. While I admittedly haven't been following the whole saga super closely, I haven't really gotten a sense that DD in particular is a problem editor separate from the general [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] attitude going around here. (I do wish they'd let the DRN process work itself out before going to drama boards tho, I really do think taking this to ANI so quickly was counterproductive.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Strong Support''' for topic banning DD from [[Witchcraft]] and all related articles, broadly construed. Would also like some administrative action taken against Skyerise for her [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, chronic incivility, poisoning of the well, vicious personal attacks and casting of aspersions. I offered a diff above of her calling me a "POV vandal" for normal editing, a phrase which the DD account also used in attacking me and Asarlaí, and you can see her constant jabs on this page. She has been just as [[WP:OWN]]y on these articles as DD. As shown in the diffs I offered above, she is the one who coordinated tag-team edit-warring with Randy Kryn and DD. She is very capable of playing nice for a while, but then reversing it all later and, like above, claiming things she did a month ago (or longer) don't count. She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account, and is clever at gaming the system. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I must object to the [[WP:ASPERSION|aspersions]] cast by CV suggesting that I have abused multiple accounts. I have never edited with any other account, though before I created this, my one and only account, I edited as an IP for a few years. My original user name was "Yworo", I went through the official process to have my account renamed. That's it. If CV thinks otherwise they are welcome to open an SPI case. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''SUPPORT''' a topic ban for Darker Dreams. I'd also '''support serious consequences''' for Skyerise who has been a very [[WP:Tendentious|tendenious editor]] in all of this, including personal attacks, incivility, and casting aspersions about CorbieVreccan and others(e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1171067924 "CorbieVreccan has a tendency to exaggerate."]). She also has a pattern of insinuating that any admin or editor who disagrees with her is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1171058252 either incompetent or has ulterior motives.] I don't have the time or energy tonight to provide more examples/diffs but if anyone wants to look at [[Talk:Witchcraft]], they can probably be found. I have past experience with Skyerise's particular technique of wearing down other editors by a combination of bullying and misrepresentation. Cheers, [[User:Mark Ironie|Mark Ironie]] ([[User talk:Mark Ironie|talk]]) 01:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Do be sure to click through that link labelled "either incompetent or has ulterior motives" - neither accusation is supported by what I said there. Also, I invite anyone to test the ironic assertion that more (sic) examples could probably be found "if anyone wants to look at [[Talk:Witchcraft]]", I invite them to do as MI suggests: go ahead and review all my comments on that talk page. I have, and I found that they are all polite, detailed logical reasoning about content matters. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 11:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' and would ask that all editors stop this merry-go-round and concentrate on removing language at [[Witchcraft]] which sinks to the level of accusatory language brought by the anti-feminist witchhunters of the past. When Wikipedia repeats, in Wikipedia's voice, the absurd claims of those who murdered tens of thousands of women by accusing them of things those women knew nothing about, it focuses on the spin of other-hate rather than on the involved topic. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' sanctions on {{U|Skyerise}}. They have made '''many, really useful improvements''' to [[European witchcraft]], [[Asian witchcraft]], [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]] (which was quite sensibly split from the Asia article, as the Middle East and Asia are two very different domains), and [[Neopagan witchcraft]]. As a result of this, and her eye for fine detail as well as a good view of the broader picture, [[Witchcraft]] itself is being improved. It's not at all right to drag her through the mud here. I'm also sad to see that the dispute resolution process failed due to DD's jumping the gun and taking the issue to ArbCom, but I'm glad to see the RfC about the lede that nevertheless came out of the DRN. [[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]] + [[User talk:Esowteric|Talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|Breadcrumbs]] 14:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Page blocked for following [[WP:DENY]], without warning, in contentious DRV ==
{{atop|Consensus tending broadly towards:
#Aman reverting the sock being okay, per policy/guideline/essay
#AB reverting Aman being okay
#Aman's subsequent edit warring not being okay
#Cryptic's block of Aman being not okay, if done purely based on his reverting the sock; and being broadly okay, if done due to Aman's edit warring (which presumably was the case)
#General okay towards lifting of the indefinite block put on Aman by Cryptic

Given the above, with due regard to all comments by editors here, I am lifting Aman's block. In case any administrator wishes to overturn this closure, you may please do so without my permission. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

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

*This sock came back to start [[WP:DRV]] at '''19:53,''' on 17 August‎.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170885872]
*The sock got blocked for evading his block at '''09:42''' 18 August for block evasion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141].
*At '''10:06''', I closed the DRV per [[WP:DENY]], [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE]] and [[WP:SNOW]] because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729]
*Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151]
*From '''17:40''', I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
*At '''17:55''', my close was now reverted by a different editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041589] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV]
*Now 20 minutes later, at '''18:16''', I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171044510]
*Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171045480]

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

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

:See:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17# Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:The AfD’s initiator, [[User: Aman.kumar.goel| Aman.kumar.goel]], an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171035962][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766], then speedy closed, then told @[[The ed17|The ed17]] he closed since there were no objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171042082].
:If you look at this AfD’s [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history edit history], you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.
:Now he’s going after @[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] here at ANI.
:My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay]]
:**currently underway
:**Upadhyay authored Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
:**[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ved_Prakash_Upadhyay&action=history edit history]
:I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.
:—~~<~ [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "{{tq|Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven}}" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]].
:::There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 per the version of the DRV which I closed]. That close was perfectly valid per [[WP:DENY]] and [[WP:SNOW]].
:::You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&action=history]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.
::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 the version of the DRV which I closed]. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Aman, there you go again.
::::::You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.'' [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766 diff]
::::::Clearly duplicitous behaviour.
::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171039766 This edit which you are citing] appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=next&oldid=1171039766] It is not same as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 this edit] (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Dympies|Dympies]], please explain these diffs:
::::::::Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::::::::His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::::::::After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::This is irrelevant to your false claim that {{tq|"You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.''"}} Don't shift the goalposts. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of [[WP:HOLES|holes]]. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::How? The DRV was started [[WP:DENY|by a sock]] and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I’ll also note that [[WP:DENY]] is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:DENY]] cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It isn't an excuse to make [[WP:INVOLVED]] closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an ''essay'' is doing no-one any good. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:
:::*First:[[Special:MobileDiff/1171039766|you delete my oppose]]
:::*Then: [[Special:MobileDiff/1171039834|you close the DRV]]
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Kusma}} The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A [[WP:DENY|sock can be reverted by anyone]].
::::{{ping|Cryptic}} The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 nobody who opposed the closure]. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] reverted you.
:::::You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] reverted you twice.
:::::After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.
:::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041039] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412 AfD] as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Ping {{U|Bishonen}}, {{U|RegentsPark}} and {{U|El C}} since they are familiar with the area. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

:I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Illegal? In what jurisdiction? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.
*:I ''do'' care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.
*:—20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*:There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and ''really'' should not have gotten into an edit war over ''either'' of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I agree with {{u|Kusma}}. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Isabelle Belato}} I had already started the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV here] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#Don't here]. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy [[Wikipedia:Involved]] and the explanatory essay [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closures]] are clear: "{{green|''Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes.''}}" Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse {{u|Drmies}}' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]] 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Recommend 1RR restriction'''. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious [[WP:DRV|DRV]]. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that [[User:Aman.kumar.goel]] was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that [[User:A. B.]] also is in good faith requesting [[WP:DRV|deletion review]], so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear [[WP:IDHT]], and I think Cryptic got it spot on. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*{{ping|RegentsPark|SportingFlyer}} But I had already stopped reverting on DRV before the block was made since I was discussing elsewhere about it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV] I was obviously not planning to resume reverting but the block came without any prior warning and in middle of the discussion. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.
:{{U|Cryptic}}'s use of [[WP:ROLLBACK]] against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] These actions are not in the line with [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK|the blocking policy]].
:Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.
::@[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] please explain how the following is “good faith”:
::*Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::*His next edit was to close the DRV:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::*After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] your criticism of [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]]’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. [[WP:DENY]] is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::*@A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, [[Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures|you have to first consult]] the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOTBURO|judicial body]] so your use of the term "{{tq|illegal}}" is misleading. It is correct that [[WP:ROLLBACK]] says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "{{tq|disingenuous}}", "{{tq|disingenuousness}}", "{{tq|duplicitous}}" across this thread, you have already put yourself into [[WP:NPA]] block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Cryptic}}, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
* Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]], which ''is'' policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in ''opposition'' to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a ''closure'' myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) '''However''', BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted ''once'' by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. ''wanted'' to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It's covered in the fourth bullet point. I've made such closures myself (though not recently, and I don't think it's worth going and looking for a diff). But the point is to minimize disruption and wasted editor-hours, and the closure attempts here did the precise opposite in both respects. It's not like the discussion was ever in any danger of giving the ip what they wanted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see [[WP:IAR]]) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than [[WP:EVADE]] or [[WP:BANREVERT]] or indeed, [[WP:DENY]]. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::[[WP:BANREVERT]] is a site-wide policy, and it would be improper to sanction an editor for enforcing it. DRV [[WP:LOCALCON|cannot make itself immune]]. There is no excuse for reverting the restoration by an editor in good standing, though. At that point, policy [[WP:PROXYING|considers]] the thread to belong to whoever restored it, so unless they're violating some other policy, it's valid. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Not only is [[WP:INVOLVED]] also a site-wide policy, the block was not levied because of WP:BANREVERT. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You are wrong because the BANREVERT is among the reasons behind blocking in the words of Cryptic; "early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171057849] [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Lucky that's among the reasons. If it was the sole reason for the block, IMO that would be a serious enough administrative error that we should be contemplating an arbcom case. [[User:Cryptic]], [[WP:DENY]] is site-wide policy. Please learn it if you want to continue to be an admin. If you're unwilling, please hand in your tools voluntarily under a cloud and save us the hassle of a future arbcom case when you ignore [[WP:DENY]] in circumstances where a block wasn't otherwise justified. DRV regulars, we have enough problem areas as it is. Please '''do not''' allow DRV to become another one since it serves a useful purpose. If you continue to ignore site wide policy, we may have no choice but to shut down DRV and look at other ways of handling deletion reviews which doesn't allow the development of an insular [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] board that has developed a culture where sitewide policy is ignored is. Such a thing is '''completely unacceptable''' so it's not something we should allow to continue. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::P.S. Since I'm a nitpicker myself, I should clarify it is [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] and [[WP:SOCK]] which are policy which is what I should have said instead of [[WP:DENY]]. Remember that [[WP:3RRNO]] even makes it clear that reverting a sock or evader doesn't count as edit warring. For further clarity, I'm aware that Aman Kumar Goel started to edit war against non socks, that's why I said there was other reasonable justification for the block. My point is that it's well established that block and ban evaders are unwelcome here, and editors are very welcome to remove their disruption no matter whether they're technically [[WP:INVOLVED]]. It's something that all admins, and frankly all experienced editors hoping to contribution useful to DRV should be well aware of. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{EC}} I should clarify I have no specific opposition A.B. restoring the discussion if they felt it had merit (as opposed to restoring it since they thought what Aman Kumar Goel did was improper). However as Aquillion's said, the sock's comments should have remained struck. And it might have been better to simply start a fresh discussion untainted by a sock if there was little useful to support the case A.B. wanted to make. It's complicated since older participants may feel they already addressed A.B. points and there was no need for them to remake them. OTOH, as we've seen at ANI and elsewhere, when we leave open threads started by known socks, there can be dissatisfaction with the result which lasts a long time and generates more AN//I threads and I see no reason to doubt the same could happen at DRV. Note that IMO if there have been good faith contributions, unless you're absolutely sure the people who made the comment doesn't mind, it's generally better to archive etc rather than to delete a pointless discussion started by the sock. While it is cleaner to simply delete all sock nonsense, we do have to consider the feelings or other editors who might be unhappy with their good faith contributions being deleted. If it's a small number of contributions you could ask for permission but if it's complicated just strike and close/archive. Anything else risks increasing disruption from the sock (which could be what they want), not reduce it which should ultimately be our goal. Perhaps my final point, I think we need to be clear why BANEVADE matters here. This case is complicated by the fact there were other comments even if they were almost universally in opposition to the sock. However, from what [[User:SportingFlyer]] has said, it seems to me they think that if a sock S opens a DRV then editor E who was involved in the deletion cannot speedy close this discussion even if there are no comments besides sock S. And this would apply even if editor E noticed this sock (before or after the report, it doesn't matter) and reported sock S to an admin or CU who agreed and blocked sock S as a sock. This is not in any way acceptable, and DRV need to get with the programme, or risk being shut down. Socks and their contributions are unwelcome, and so there is no harm in removing them, involved or not. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], this is the language at the top of the [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition]] (“WP:DENY”)
:*{{tq|” This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, ''nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines'', as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”}}
:[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] did not violate any policy. It is inappropriate to say he should hand in his tools. Clearly outside a small group of editors, there is wide support here for Cryptic’s actions.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::@Nil Einne: If I can squeeze a word in edgewise through the edit conflicts?{{pb}}[[WP:DENY]] is not site-wide or any other sort of policy [I see you acknowledged that afterwards]. It doesn't say anything like what you seem think it does. What actual policy has to say is that editors can reinstate the edits of blocked users if "[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Proxying|the changes are either verifiable or productive '''and''' they have independent reasons for making such edits]]", which I think we can all agree A. B. has done. And a selective quote out of context - when the context is on this very page, even if it's not visible in the linked diff - doesn't make something true. You want to know what I blocked for? You could look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAman.kumar.goel&diff=1171044961&oldid=1170966010 what I said I blocked for].{{pb}}Look. I don't usually participate in reviews of my administrative actions - if they can't stand on the reasons I stated for them, they probably weren't justified - but ''this'' I cannot allow to stand. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|A. B.}} Yes I linked to the wrong pages. I already acknowledged that. Also you and [[User:Cryptic]] seem to have misunderstood they key point of my comments. Aman.kumar.goel was edit warring against non socks. For that reason the block was justified. But this in no way shape or form justifies any misunderstanding of policy on the part of an admin. Socks are unwelcome to edit here. Editors can remove their contributions without concern even when they are involved. As I said in my clarification above which I unfortunately only finished after you two posted, this is very important thing that needs to be understood from this discussion. Since if we put aside the case which involved good faith contributions and editing warring, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor removing the contributions of a sock even if you are involved. Any admin needs to know this. It doesn't matter if you're at DRV or anywhere else. It's deeply concerning that from Cryptic own comments here at ANI (which I read before my first reply), it sounds like they do not understand this. As I said, their block was justified for other reasons, so I'm not suggesting an arbcom case would succeed which I said in my first reply before any edits. But the fact remains an admin who is so seriously misinformed of policy is surely going to make a mistake in the future and so needs to either quickly learn, or yes should just hand in their tools. Putting Cryptic aside, SportingFlyer definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy and thinks some localconsensus at DRV override sitewide policy on BLOCKEVADE. If another editor wishes to reintroduce the contributions of a sock, that's fine provided they are doing so because they feel they have merit. It is however unacceptable to restore the contributions simply because you don't think the editor had any right to remove them because they were uninvolved or because of some local consensus at [[WP:DRV]]. Note that I am not saying this happened here, I mentioned it just because it is important to understand the key issue namely there is nothing wrong with removing the contributions of socks. Ultimately I remain deeply concerned that SportingFlyer, and probably Cryptic seems to think some localconsensus at DRV means discussions can't be closed by an uninvolved editor when they clear can be in certain circumstances as they can be anywhere else. Note also that in the case of a talk page discussion, it's well accepted that sock contributions can be struck and discarded. Good faith replies from non socks shouldn't be. However the net result of this is if another editor agrees with what a sock said, they should reintroduce these points, preferably in their one words rather than trying to fight the striking of sock's comments. (This doesn't apply in article space of course.) P.S. One reason why I'm so concerned is SportingFlyer kept insisting there is effectively some local consensus at DRV which prevented the application of BLOCKEVADE which is well accepted by regulars. This was greatly compounded when I read Cryptic's clarification of their block linked by Orientls above when they seemed to ignore the important points. (Was the editor a sock because if so Aman Kumar Goel involvement and DRV's localconsensus was irrelevant as to the basics of removing the socks contributions. How Aman Kumar Goel handled the good faith contributions of others is a reasonable point of discussion. Aman Kumar Goel editwarring is not, it was wrong. I don't see anyone who has questioned this except for maybe Aman Kumar Goel themselves.) Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Of course I don't think local consensus at DRV overrides [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. Do you really think I'm arguing socks are welcome there? The entire problem here started because an [[WP:INVOLVED]] non-administrator closed the discussion, and the prong that they closed it under even notes that generally these are "administrative closes." If they had just struck the sock's comments, we'd be fine. If they had asked an admin to close early, we'd be fine. If they hadn't reverted after it was reopened, we'd be fine. But you've completely mis-interpreted what I'm arguing, and considering you've said that I "definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy" and were yet incorrect in even understanding what I was arguing, I'd like it if you offered an apology. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 21:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{EC}} I see Cryptic themselves has pointed out above SportingFlyer is simply wrong as DRV speedy closure guidelines implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of closures for BANEVADE reasons "{{tqi|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations}}" Given this, it seems Cryptic must understand that a local consensus at DRV cannot override BANEVADE or SOCK so I no longer have concerns over their understanding of this fundamental point. However I've re-read what they said above several times and stick by my original comment. It was very unclear from what Cryptic said that they said that they understood this important point namely that if the editor was a sock, removing their contributions in as reasonable a manner as possible was fully justified no matter involvement or DRV guidelines. Which given the presence of other good faith contributions was complicated so we can debate the best way to do so, but not the fundamental issue namely that socks are unwelcome so involved doesn't matter, DRV guidelines notwithstanding. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::In case there's still any doubt, even if an editor W in good standing reverted solely for an invalid reason e.g. saying editor E should not close a discussion started by and who's sole contributors were sock S (or maybe editor E too) when it was already established sock S was a sock, editor E should not get into an edit war with editor W. At most, I'd argue a single reversion by editor E of editor W's reversion combined with a polite explanation on editor W's talk page might be okay. Any further than that barring further specific consensus would almost definitely be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As always, if you find yourself needing to edit war against an editor in good standing unless it's [[WP:3RRNO]] (which would apply to the sock edits themselves but for good reason isn't generally taken to apply to the restoration of sock edits), then just don't. As annoying and dumb as it may seem, get the consensus first. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Nil Einne]] writes: {{tq|Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point.}} I think that I am one of the DRV regulars, but I think that I don't know what the supposed rule at DRV is. I am not aware of a local rule at DRV about early closures. <del> It is true that early closures at DRV are rare. I don't think that is because of a rule. I think that is just the way it is.</del> So what, if anything, is the issue about the culture at DRV? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A DRV was just early-closed. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I see why there is confusion about whether there is a local consensus at DRV about early closures. [[User:SportingFlyer]] has misinterpreted a notice. SportingFlyer wrote: {{tq|There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned.}} It is true that DRV lists four DRV-specific speedy closures. It doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. Besides, the fourth speedy closure is a catch-all: {{tqb|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} I would say that an appeal by a sock has no prospect of success. Anyway, the list doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. So SportingFlyer made an easy-to-make-mistake. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm looking at this from the perspective of a non-administrative closer. If I went to see if I ''can'' close a discussion early, I'd look at the four reasons why. The fourth is written: {{tq|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success...these will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} It ''can'' apply to a sock's nomination, but as a non-admin, even if a sock had ''started'' a discussion, there's no way I would read this and think, oh, I can ''close'' this discussion on my own. I think the "administrative close" bit is key. (Note I have closed DRV before, as someone involved, after the closer withdrew their nomination, and no one else had opposed at that point, with the express note anyone could revert the close.) [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Probably me, as I tend to do those @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]]. I firmly believe IAR applies to most situations, and when I close it's because it's a clear human error (Poast) or headed to XfD anyway (the KPop redirect) so we don't need 7 days of bureaucracy. If those are out of process, I'm absolutely willing to stop but it has never been raised. On this specific DRV, I think it can be closed but it should be by someone else besides A.B or AKG, both of whom have had their say. I'm definitely not wading into the minefield though. [[User:Star Mississippi|Star]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|Mississippi]] 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I would never close a discussion I was involved in. I also personally think potentially contentious discussions should only be closed by admins since they are community-vetted in RfAs.
:::::::::--[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Star Mississippi]] - I am not entirely sure what I was pinged about. I was trying to defend DRV by saying that, in my experience, it doesn't have a local consensus that overrides policies. SportingFlyer said that there are four provisions for early closure at DRV. Yes, and two of them are straightforward (withdrawn by filer, or reversed by closer), and one is itself sort of [[WP:IAR|IAR]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' - It can be argued on the process, but the DRV has a snowballs chance in hell of actually convincing anyone. Started by a sock, on an article that was clearly non notable, with keep votes not based in policy - It would be impossible to convince any reasonable editor that the close was wrong. That was reflected in the votes there.{{pb}}This is an area with a lot of disruption, particularly by POV socks. The major issue here is that the block was more punitive than preventive, since no ongoing disruption was taking place. A reminder to editors in this discussion, who seem to have forgotten this - "They did something wrong, we should punish them" is not the standard at Wikipedia. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to punish things that are perceived as (potentially, in this case, controversially) disruptive. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Good block''', but limit the block to 7 days. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' bad block. The entire issue emerged with uncommon understanding over closing a unanimously opposed DRV which was started by a ban evader. It is clear now that Aman.kumar.goel was correct with closing it. Had A.B. and Cryptic recognized it, then there would be no issue. Yes Aman.kumar.goel edit warred but so did A.B. and Cryptic as rightly noted above. Starting with A.B., he had unilaterally reverted a correct closure 2 times with false impression that the sock was a legitimate user given their removal of [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE|sock-strike]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] A.B. clearly refused to stop reverting it even after being told about the right procedure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Cryptic has abused rollback for making 2 reverts and he provided explanation for these reverts hours after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] I am not seeing any justification for this behavior. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 13:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' per above. Edit warring to revert closure of a filing (by sock) is meaningless. Socks are not allowed to evade block. We warn even vandals but there was no warning for the OP. Cryptic was himself edit warring with the OP so I don't think he was qualified to make a block in the first place. Chronology of the events tell that the block came in middle of an ongoing discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&oldid=1171044139#Re:Close_on_DRV] thus it was not preventative. It is safe to say that if Cryptic had reported OP on a appropriate noticeboard then the report would be unsuccessful. [[User:Azuredivay|Azuredivay]] ([[User talk:Azuredivay|talk]]) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Endorse but lift now''' - a good (partial) block; "I know it's a sock" doesn't justify involved edit-warring for a procedural discussion, and the page-ban was appropriately narrow. But now the socking is confirmed, and the DRV is approaching SNOW close support; there is no longer a need for the block. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as a bad block per [[WP:BANREVERT|policy]]. As noted above, socking is expressly included in the [[WP:3RRNO|exception]] to 3RR. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|SN54129]] 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Bad block'''. It's a rule that requests from socks should not be entertained. The difference in opinion had to be discussed. Therefore, the use of block buttons was unwarranted. [[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 20:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Long term issues with user Kinfo Pedia, redux ==
{{atop|Resolved for now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
* {{user|Kinfo Pedia}} has long caused immense difficulties for those trying to clean up damage at [[Glenn Miller]], with perhaps hundreds of edits reverted. I had sort of hoped for a topic ban last year, but I don't think that will solve this, as can be seen at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chattanooga_Choo_Choo&diff=prev&oldid=1169893358], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talking_animals_in_fiction&diff=prev&oldid=1167110633], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_cats_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1171117649], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Miller_discography&diff=prev&oldid=1169861582], and external links under 'see also' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Airmen_of_Note&diff=prev&oldid=1160141945]. Previously there were lengthy disruptions at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chincoteague_Pony&diff=prev&oldid=1127724003], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chincoteague_Pony&diff=prev&oldid=1139833217], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transubstantiation&action=history] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Hoogenakker]. The earlier issues culminated in my report here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#History_of_problematic_editing_by_Kinfo_Pedia_(talk_%C2%B7_contribs)], but really not much has changed since. To mix metaphors, a lot of leeway has been given, and the batting average hasn't improved. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:*Given them a two weeks' block from the article space and have given them some essential reading. Do come back in case they resume editing articles in the same manner after the two-weeks' block. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you, {{u|Lourdes}}. Back in December, I think they made a vague resolution to learn more about editing here with respect to guidelines. We'll see in a few weeks. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[user:Yousefsw07|Yousefsw07]] edit-warring, pushing unsourced POV changes ==
{{atop|Resolved by El C. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Yousefsw07}}

Account has been consistently making unsourced POV edits across multiple articles (generally to infoboxes of military history articles concerning Libya). All have been reverted and they frequently edit-war over them. They received multiple warnings about this on their talk page, with no change in behaviour.
* Examples of unsourced POV edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1168261649], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Msallata_clashes&diff=prev&oldid=1167166146], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisian%E2%80%93Algerian_War_%281694%29&diff=1169747541&oldid=1164939655], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Egyptian_involvement_in_the_Second_Libyan_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=1167123498], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Tunis_(1694)&diff=prev&oldid=1162493841], etc.
* Examples of edit-warring: at [[Chadian–Libyan War]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1168261649], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1169810579], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1170917020]), [[Battle of Wazzin]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=1167491793&oldid=1166163272], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=1168580261&oldid=1168463969], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=prev&oldid=1170229330], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=prev&oldid=1170467418]), [[Second Italo-Senussi War]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Italo-Senussi_War&diff=prev&oldid=1170931830] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Italo-Senussi_War&diff=prev&oldid=1171096482]). All continuing after they were already warned about edit-warring on their talk page on 13 August. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 07:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{an3|b|72 hours}}: [[User talk:Yousefsw07#Block]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== 14.0.128.0/17 ==
{{atop|Expanded JBW's range block to include article space. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{vandal|14.0.128.0/17}}

This IP range possible broke edit ban in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] and [[List of Disney animated films based on fairy tales]], please see [https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%E5%82%80%E5%84%A1%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5/%E6%A1%88%E4%BB%B6/AXXXXK&diff=prev&oldid=78557853], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales&diff=prev&oldid=1170837385 why IP user 14.0.229.194 know Chicken Little 2005 has already blocked in this wiki and Meta]? I feel this LTA camouflage anti vandal user and obtain the trust, and this IP range must not new user, also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=14.0.128.0%2F17&namespace=4&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 sometimes this IP range can edit in this page].--'''[[User:MCC214|MCC214]][[Special:Contributions/MCC214|#]][[User Talk:MCC214|ex umbra in solem]]''' 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Note, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=124.217.188.0%2F23&namespace=4&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 old sock 124.217.188.0/23 edit in this page before].--'''[[User:MCC214|MCC214]][[Special:Contributions/MCC214|#]][[User Talk:MCC214|ex umbra in solem]]''' 10:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Absurd forms of vandalism ==
{{atop|Resolved for now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
Recently I have seen many different IPs which are going out of the typical vandalism trends.
[[Hurricane Hilary (2023)]] has been [[WP:OVERCITE|ref-bombed]] by several IPs recently, while [[User talk:Tamzin]] has been bombed by worthless nonsense.
Do these events deserve a deep investigation? [[User:IntegerSequences|IntegerSequences]] ([[User_talk:IntegerSequences|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/IntegerSequences|contribs]]) 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Zero diffs provided. I see no particular problem with Tamzin's Talk page, and if there were a problem, she is well able to deal with it herself. Hilary was semi'd earlier today for 12 hours (unusual) for disruption, but if there is a problem after that protection expires, [[WP:RFPP]] is the place to go.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I blocked the IP, who seems to be amusing themselves by testing boundaries. Block or protect and ignore. '''[[User:Acroterion|Acroterion]] [[User talk:Acroterion|(talk)]]''' 12:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::For those of us who are totally in the dark, the IP blocked by Acroterion (for two weeks) is [[Special:contributions/77.48.135.9]]. BTW, their edits to Tamzin's Talk page were on August 11, and their edits to Hilary were today.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:It's LTA stuff, revert them, block any IPs with repeat usage or accounts, and protect pages as necessary, but otherwise ignore them. Blocks can be requested at [[WP:AIV]], protection can be requested at [[WP:RFP]]; if they return with autoconfirmed socks don't hesitate to request ECP. Eventually they'll get bored and find something else to do. [[Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126|74.73.224.126]] ([[User talk:74.73.224.126|talk]]) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::The IP is (at least sometimes) a residential proxy, so I'm actually not sure if this is the same LTA now or if this is two people proxying through the same IP. Doesn't matter hugely at this juncture, though. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Agree, there's a significant chance it's two people using the same service, but whether it's one LTA or two (or more) different LTAs really doesn't matter. There was a discussion a ways back at WPOP where it came up that multiple LTAs were using the same known cheap residential proxy service provider, but I don't have the time to dig it up right now, and again it probably doesn't matter. TBH I probably shouldn't be looking at Wikipedia at all today or for the next month or so, but you know, procrastination.
:::Anyway, {{user|세상에 열린}} is now blocked, and another AC sock has followed. If disruption persists with more autoconfirmed socks than a bump to ECP can be requested at RFP, but otherwise there's nothing more to do here. [[Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126|74.73.224.126]] ([[User talk:74.73.224.126|talk]]) 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Did I do the right thing here? ==
{{atop|OP's queries answered significantly; {{u|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} advised strongly (and has responded with reasonable explanations). Taking the liberty to close this. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Squared.Circle.Boxing&diff=prev&oldid=1171179909]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be [[WP:XRV]] and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, ''[[What Is a Woman?]]'' is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a [[cisgender]] woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with [[WP:POLEMIC]] (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than [[polemic]]s)—{{tq|statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities}}. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Squared.Circle.Boxing&type=block was blocked] by [[User:El_C|El_C]] in October for [[Special:Diff/1115405699|a comment]] that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.{{pb}}So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought {{diff2|1148782539|this addition}} was fine, a sentence added right after {{diff2|1143726370|adding a quote by JK Rowling}} ([[Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights|context on how that's related to those unaware]]). [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at [[WP:UPNOT]] which explicitly says {{tq|In addition, there is broad agreement that '''you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute''', or which is likely to give widespread offense (''e.g.'' [[Racism|racist ideology]]). Whether serious or [[Internet troll|trolling]], "[[Wikipedia:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "[[Wikipedia:NOT#CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]]" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there '''are''' restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but [[Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate|don't be inconsiderate]]. ''Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.''}} Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:AbuseLog/33583676]]. Also, {{yo|Squared.Circle.Boxing|p=,}} can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named {{np|WanderingWanda}} (who is very much alive, {{transl|he|[[baruch hashem]]}}), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or [[Wanda Maximoff]] or somebody else. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the [[Where's Waldo?]] series which has a character named ''Wenda''. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>cough* ''[[Where's Wally]]'', I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really {{tq|right after}}. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not {{tq|to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status}}. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''2'']].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|'''''O''''']].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''Boxing'']] 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Squared.Circle.Boxing&users=WanderingWanda&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:These comments [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing&oldid=1115491559#Block] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing&oldid=1115483348#Block] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what [[Special:AbuseLog/33583676|this]] is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''2'']].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|'''''O''''']].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''Boxing'']] 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} {{replyto|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing&diff=prev&oldid=1058146641] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway. The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour. The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.) Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions]]. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play. Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward. If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|Clovermoss}} you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page. {{pb}}While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is ''per se'' a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered ''far'' more contentious. {{pb}}Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, ''all'' infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate [[WP:POLEMIC]], [[WP:NOTAFORUM]], and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias. {{pb}}Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, [[WP:MfD]] is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically [[Template:User enjoys TV]]. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at [[WP:UPNOT]] here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision. {{pb}}For [[persuasive authority]], I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas. {{pb}}Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am ''highly'' opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not. {{pb}}At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria. {{pb}} Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Highly disrespectful editing behaviour. ==
{{atop|72 hours for 3RR. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Seasider53}}

Firstly Seasider53 removed what I believe perfectly valid content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=1171085579 here], I restored it once, as I feel its valid content, he removed it a second time, I reverted it on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=1171179184 good faith edit] once more to try and leave it at that. But alas, Seasider53 breaks the [[WP:3RR]] and tag's my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Govvy&diff=prev&oldid=1171181895 uw-3]. Frankly, this behaviour is unacceptable in my opinion. How is adding legitimate correct information to an article regarded as disruptive editing is bizarre. There is frankly nothing wrong with the content, just the behaviour of Seasider in my opinion. I don't want him banned or anything like that, just for someone to tell the guy to have respect for other editors, I've seen it before towards other editors, I just don't think his type of editing practices should be this. P.S. can someone restore the content, Harry Kane the 3rd every English player for [[Bayern Munich]] is noteworthy, [https://sportsbrief.com/football/46452-english-stars-played-bayern-munich-harry-kane-nears-germany-switch/], [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 15:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:I made two reversions, so I don't know how you've come up with a 3RR violation. And I asked for you to explain on the Harry Kane talk page why you think said information is notable, yet you use an edit summary to state “I like it”…? [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Obviously the user is right, they didn't break the 3RR, but did three reverts today. While they didn't touch the article talk page, should Govvy restore the edit and Seasider53 removing, it will really be a violation. [[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|chat]])/([[Special:Contributions/ToadetteEdit|logs]]) 16:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Where are the “three reverts today”? And my edit yesterday wasn’t a reversion. [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
Content dispute in which neither experienced editor has made use of the article talk page. Not an issue for ANI. [[User:Schazjmd|'''Schazjmd''']] [[User talk:Schazjmd|''(talk)'']] 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:Chuachenchie]] ==
{{atop|Final warning given. Will block if they persist. Come back if I miss this and they resume editing. Thanks, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 06:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*Update: Blocked indefinitely. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

I am [[WP:CIR|concerned]] about the behavior of [[User_talk:Chuachenchie|User:Chuachenchie]], an editor for more than 2 years, who:

# has not provided a single edit summary during their entire Wikipedia tenure despite being asked multiple times to do so (see warnings [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#March_2021|#1]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#re:_Need_for_Edit_summaries_(yet_again)|#2]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Edits_without_confirmation|#3]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Edit_summaries|#4]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Please_add_references_to_your_edits_on_Wikipedia,_and_don't_forget_to_add_edit_summary|#5]]), that is 9k+ edits without a summary.
# failed to provide RS (see warnings [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#January_2021|#1]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Please_stop_adding_unsourced_material_to_List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities_or_restore_unsourced_material|#2]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#November_2021|#3]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#March_2022|#4]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#March_2022_2|#5]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#April_2022|#6]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Please_add_references_to_your_edits_on_Wikipedia,_and_don't_forget_to_add_edit_summary|#7]])
# farmed edit counts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiangong_space_station&diff=prev&oldid=1052607282 #1] and the following 17 (!) edits are just them undoing and redoing the same edit over and over.

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

== Sierra Nevada ==
{{atop|IPA content dispute. Directed likewise by Snow Rise to parties. For those more interested, deeper clarity below by Cullen. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
[[User:Crescent77]] is going against both [[MOS:DIAPHONEMIC]] and [[Help:IPA/English]] itself by reinserting the pronunciation {{IPA|/-nəˈvædə/}} to the article [[Sierra Nevada]], which is covered by the first transcription {{IPA|/nɪˈvædə/}} (see note 21 in [[Help:IPA/English]]). He is telling me to "get consensus" to remove {{IPA|/-nəˈvædə/}} from the article. The consensus has already been reached on [[Help:IPA/English]] to transcribe this [[Weak vowel merger|variable]] vowel with {{angbr IPA|ɪ}} and there is a very lengthy discussion on [[Talk:Sierra Nevada]] (which is irrelevant because [[Help:IPA/English]] takes precedence). The box at the top of [[Help:IPA/English]] says {{tq|Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first.}} I request a revert to my diff.

Diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171193909], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171201445], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171201985], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171202132], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171203181], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171206172], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171210466]. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:Usage with the schwa is included in the reference Sol50500 himself provided, as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references. I'm unclear as to why he is so adamant as to its removal from the article as an alternative transcription of the pronunciation.
:I reference the article's talk page, which indicates I am not alone in my concerns of which he has not made adequate attempts to address; consensus does not seem to be with him. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references}} it is not, not as a ''transcriptional'' alternative. The [[Help:IPA/English]] explicitly says that this kind of variation is covered by the symbol {{angbr IPA|ɪ}} alone. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 19:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Sol, I just digested the entirety of that very long and technically complex discussion (even for someone like myself with a formal, if dated and infrequently used these days, background in phonemics), and there is absolutely no firm consensus as yet that your interpretation is the more valid one. In fact, if anything, the discussion seemed to be leaning towards support for multiple IPA glosses, before it trailed off. Therefor this is very much still a content dispute and not a behavioural issue, and ANI is not the place to resolve any of this. You have five editors contributing there, with an apparent deadlock, insofar as you are very committed to your perspective, Crescent is something like 90% committed to the other option (but slightly open to having their mind changed, I think, as they recognize the technicalities are on the periphery of their wheelhouse), and three editors are in the middle ground and thus far have described only the complexities here, no firm positions on which way to go. {{pb}}Normally under these circumstances, I would suggest you RfA the issue. But the technicalities here are such that I don't see that as a particularly likely solution for ending this particular deadlock. You might consider positing at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics]]: it's slow these days, but not as dead as some WikiProjects. It may take some time to get the numbers you need to form a firm consensus here, but there's really [[WP:NORUSH]]. And honestly, particularly not in this case. I doubt that one reader out of a thousand has enough facility with IPA to be taking their lead for pronunciations from those glosses routinely: most probably only reference the relevant articles when they really need to know how to pronounce a topic they are wholly unfamiliar with, but need to sound informed about--basically we are talking niche within niche within niche need here. {{pb}}The project (nor even the article) is about to fall over this, and honestly, one of you could probably afford to just give way. I doubt that's going to happen, given how far the discussion has already com, but you need to at least understand that you're in a touch position here (needing consensus but lacking the ability to poll the average editor to give cogent feedback to form it) and you're jsut going to have to wait it out, if neither of you can let go. Regardless, there is no behavioural violation here and ANI cannot help you at this juncture. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks for taking the time to look through this and share your views. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::No problem at all: did take my mind back a long time ago to a phonology lab for a moment there, mind you! I wish I could help with the deadlock, but the issue is that I see both arguments as quite valid and I'll have to process the entire discussion at least once more before I feel confident lodging a firm position here. These are close issues and my reading of the technicalities is hindered by the deprivations of time on my adroitness for phonemics! ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::No, as the Help:IPA you reference clearly shows, and has been thoroughly discusssed yet not addressed by yourself in the article talk page, the schwa is acceptable for a weak vowel and is differentiated from the i. You protested by claiming there's a weak vowel merger, which as discussed, many American vernaculars, including some of those in the region in question, do not have. For a more thorough understanding of the ambiguity present in the "i" to speakers of American English, and our desire to include the schwa as is standard, please go to [[International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects]].
:::Once again, your Longman source explicitly includes, as you yourself indicate in the article talk page, the schwa as an IPA alternative in this specific case, yet you are adamant on its completely removal, without adequate justification and with a resistance to the compromise suggested. This makes it seem like you may be veering into [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS&redirect=no WP:RightGreatWrongs] territory. I understand your desire to promote a universal global standard for consistent pronunciation transcriptions, but not all vernaculars readily fit into the simplified IPA format. The issues surrounding this specific symbology are well documented, and the format is still in transition. I'm not understanding why you have such an issue with including both transcriptions, that you would engage in edit warring, and then when called out, elevate it here without any further discussion in the article talk. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}Crescent, I think that's a reasonable perspective, but I'd save it for a forum where it will matter. There's no way even someone completely uninformed about these areas is going to to look at that discussion and say that you are acting against consensus. There is unambiguously no consensus at this moment in time: just a lot of very close (and for most editors, inaccessible) technical distinctions. Continue to butt heads if you must, but here's the long and the short of it: whichever version was there in a long term stable version of the article up until the onset of this debate should stay in the article (or if a new one was inserted between the initial start of this debate three months back and the re-flare up today, that one ''might'' be the new stable version for the time being). Either way, nobody should edit war over it. Keep discussing until someone is convinced (or just simply tires, recognizes the extremely low stakes and gives way), or you get enough input to get a firm consensus. That's just the best that can be done here at the moment. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks again for your input.
:::::I'd suggest the schwa was the long-term stable version, but as I've repeatedly indicated, I'm willing to accept the inclusion of both, as it now stands. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
----
On a side note, {{u|Cullen328}}, I assume I cannot have been the only one whose brain registered the words "Sierra Nevada" and "IPA" and momentarily assumed this dispute was about an entirely different subject altogether? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[Sierra Nevada Brewing Company]] [[India Pale Ale]], I assume. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Good gracious are they proud of that drink there, with a regional fervour usually reserved for a sport franchise elsewhere. Glad you got it, Jim: that close to the border, and they might have tried to spirit you across in the middle of the night otherwise. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 22:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Rocafellla/Continued lack of [[WP:EDITISIS|edit summaries]] ==
{{atop|Warned them fwiw one final time. Come back if they persist once they return to editing. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
*{{user|Rocafellla}}

The above user was [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#User:Rocafellla|brought here in January]] for a severe lack of edit summaries in their many edits, and were warned to start using them or expect a block. After I and {{ping|Roman Reigns Fanboy}} dropped talk page warnings, they literally left [[User talk:Rocafellla|three entire words]] on the subject to shove off the issue and outside [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Rocafellla&namespace=1&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=500 some discussion], not another word of discussion on any talk space since then.

I checked on their record today going through past talk edits for myself and discovered that none of this advisement has been taken to heart; out of the 500 edits I could run on ESS, it came back with only 6% of edits summarized by them, and one of them was literally saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1167459189 "per Netflix site" (along with sourcing some AI SEO crap 'type-what-I'm seeing' a recap of a show trailer)], which is wholly inappropriate for sourcing. It may be time to block this monkish editor who refuses to use any summaries unless literally arm-twisted to do so. They haven't edited in over a week, but their number of edits needs a stronger flag than a brush off with 'ok' or 'got it'. '''[[User:MrSchimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|chatter]])'' 18:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Anonymous [[Thalapathy Vijay]] fanboy making personal attacks ==
{{Atop|reason= IP (evading {{noping|BangaloreNorth}}) blocked 72h.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{ipvandal|185.185.50.174}}

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

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

Clearly shows [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Kaseng55|Kaseng55]] ([[User talk:Kaseng55|talk]]) 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Korisnik User Being ==
{{atop
| status =
| result =
}}

{{resolved}}

{{userlinks|Korisnik User Being}} is making persistent [[WP:NOTFORUM]] posts on [[Talk:Lucy Letby]], despite being warned against doing so in their talkpage. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
: That would be a sock puppet of {{noping|Beaneater00}}. Blocked indefinitely. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Disruption of wrestling [[WP:BLP]]s by South Korean [[WP:LTA]] ==
{{atop|Semi'd by Courcelles. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}

My second time here on this issue--[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1166782734#Persistent_disruption_at_multiple_wrestling_WP:BLPs_by_South_Korean_IPs]. Since they change IPs like so much underwear, I'm proposing long term protection for, among others:

*[[Raymond Rougeau]]
*[[Jacques Rougeau]]
*[[Pierre Carl Ouellet]]
*[[Spike Dudley]]
*[[Stevie Richards]]
*[[Bronson Reed]]

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

:We have a useful tool given by the community, [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling]] that seems a little underused. I’ve semied these six and will now log them as enforcement actions under those sanctions. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 05:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|Courcelles}}, thank you. I'm certain we'll add more to the list, but this is an unfortunate and necessary start. Cheers, [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 05:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Aquatic Ambiance ==
{{atop|As requested by the OP. Also, that was not a "threat." Please default to [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Aquatic Ambiance}}
*{{pagelinks|Energy medicine}}
*{{pagelinks|Nature therapy}}

{{u|Aquatic Ambiance}} is edit warring to include fringe material based on sources such as the 'journal' ''Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine'' at [[Energy medicine]] and [[Nature therapy]]. I have reverted them twice, but they have reinstated their edits, and I do not wish to get into an edit war. I have asked that the self revert and make their case on the talk page, but they have refused to do so. I have advised them about the [[WP:CTOP]] rules that apply in this area, and advised them to make their case on the article's talk page, but to no avail. I am obviously [[WP:INVOLVED|INVOLVED]]; could another admin make it clear to them that this is not acceptable conduct? [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 12:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::I genuinely have no clue what's wrong with the scientific journals I used. Otherwise I would have searched for better sources. I thought using scientific journals is what Wikipedia is all about. What am I missing? I'm trying to learn here. Is that not allowed? [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]] ([[User talk:Aquatic Ambiance|talk]]) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Again: this isn't about the content, or the sourcing, we can discuss that at the article's talk page. It's about your conduct in reinstating an edit that you know to be contested, instead of making the case for it on the article talk page. I'm happy for this to be closed without action if you will self-revert and go to the talk page. [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 12:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::So I have to revert my edit because you're threatening me? And not because there's something wrong with the edit itself? I already opened a topic on the talk page. [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]] ([[User talk:Aquatic Ambiance|talk]]) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I have not threatened you - I actually made it clear that I am acting in my capacity as an ordinary editor, not as an administrator - I won't be the one to block you. You have to revert your edit because it has been contested, and the onus is on you to gain consensus for the change, not on others to convince you that it is wrong. It is my view that you are adding pseudoscientific nonsense to our articles, based on unpublished primary studies and in-universe alt med journals; maybe I will be shown to be wrong about that, but you need to remove the contested material until you get consensus for it. [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 12:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Ok I've reverted the page and wait to get more feedback on the help desk. It's all good, but I don't think threatening someone who's still learning is the way to go though. [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]] ([[User talk:Aquatic Ambiance|talk]]) 13:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Again, I have not threatened you. I did tell you that I would ask you to be blocked for edit warring if you refused to self-revert - that's not a threat, it's simply laying out the next steps. You have over 4,000 edits, you have been warned about edit warring in the past, and you are aware of the [[WP:CTOP|CTOP]] rules - you can't play the 'still learning the way' card, you need to edit more responsibly. Thank you, however, for finally self-reverting. This report can be closed now. [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 13:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Footballrelated ==

{{user|Footballrelated}} has been blocked three times for making unsourced changes to BLPs (raised at ANI previously) - yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filip_Sachpekidis&diff=1171035846&oldid=1164999562 is still at it]. I suggest an indef. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:An explicit inline citation would be preferable but the change is supported by two references in article, [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ Worldfootball.net] and [https://int.soccerway.com/players/filip-sachpekidis/297031/ Soccerway]. I haven't looked into their other recent contributions, that diff alone is not a blockable offence to me though. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{ec}} The items removed aren't specifically reffed, and while I'm not familiar with worldfootball.net's (the [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ first ref on the page]) reliability or practices, they seem to say he's indeed no longer playing for that team - compare their entries for [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/paulo-vinicius/ three] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/georgios-nikas/ current] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/david-grof/ players]. If Sachpekidis ''did'' leave the team, then - obviously - it would have been better if Footballrelated said and sourced that in their edit instead of just removing the infobox items and the currently-plays-for statement from the lead, but I honestly can't see how their version of the article so much worse than yours that it merits a block. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::GiantSnowman acts a little ruthless in the pages he "owns". He blocks without hesitation EVEN if the edit is correct.
::My concern is that he can edit the changes himself, yet he doesn't do it.
::I don't think Wikipedia needs an authoritarian figure like him. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That isn't called for. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Robby.is.on|Cryptic}} this is about an editor with a long history of making unsourced edits to BLPs who doesn't seem to give a damn about sourcing or verifiability. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Also Soccerway does not say he has left - WorldFootball (a stats database) does. That is not sufficient sourcing. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::There was already a source in this specific article which comfirms my edit.
::::Most, if not all, of the articles related to footballers have a reference which leads to their profile from a football page, like Soccerway or WorldFootball.
::::Your job is not patrolling and terrorizing editors while you could make the change in this article all by yourself before all this drama occurs. [[Special:Contributions/178.59.44.56|178.59.44.56]] ([[User talk:178.59.44.56|talk]]) 16:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::And neither is that. I get that you're upset, but tone it down. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::At no point, until you read the edits from Robby and Cryptic above suggesting WF, did you suggest that you used WF to make the edit in question. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|you could make the change in this article all by yourself}} That is not how Wikipedia works, Footballrelated. The [[WP:BURDEN]] is on you to make sure the changes you make are verifiable. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::As i said already, footballers articles have almost always a reference which leads to their profile bios, also he doesn't allow transfermarkt references, which are more accurate to the already existing ones.
::::::None of my edits are misleading or vandalism.
::::::GiantSnowman owns many pages which he doesn't edit by himself at all.
::::::He feels the urge to block people, i cannot do anything against it.
::::::It's up to you [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:Verifiability]] is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Many of the changes you make are not verifiable. You have been told so many, many times in recent years, and not just by GS. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've looked at their [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107#User:Footballrelated|prior]] trips [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120#User:Footballrelated, again|to AN/I]]. But what we have right ''now'' is the removal - not addition - of statements to a BLP that, per the refs already in the article, appear no longer to be true. Even if they were only right ''by accident'' this time, that's not blockable. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Fransson&diff=prev&oldid=1171189170 Another unsourced edit yesterday], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sotirios_Kokkinis&diff=prev&oldid=1171037299 another the day before], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vangelis_Kerthi&diff=prev&oldid=1171037020 another], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paraskevas_Doumanis&diff=prev&oldid=1171036868 another]. This is not a standalone or one-off issue. This is somebody who has been blocked THREE times before for these same types of edits. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::'''Support indefinite block''' Fransson's move is supported by the Soccerway reference in the article. The moves of Kokkinis, Kerthi and Ntoumanis are not supported by references in the articles. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::OK, ''those'' are actionable. I'm not going to be the one to block - scroll up a bit and it should be obvious why - but, particularly given the recentness of the three-month-long block for the same behavior, I agree an indef is now warranted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Fine, you won.
::::::Consider my opinion about giantsnowman, though.
::::::Bye [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}I've removed the external link to an attack page from FR and blocked indef. Quite enough of that. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 16:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support Community Ban''' - The combination of this editor's history of adding unreliable information to [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] and subsequent personal attacks on editors who caution them and clean up make this editor a net negative who does not appear to be willing to learn. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN:''' Yeah, I'm up for this as well as a failsafe against appeal. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]]'s racked up ''years'' of warning and multiple blocks over sourcing issues, and no one can claim he hasn't been warned and warned and warned again. It's just that he doesn't give a damn, just refuses to do it, and seems to believe that his edit count immunizes him against bothering. (Why not, after all ... for how many years did that premise suit the likes of Lugnuts just fine?) Toss in his frequent incivilities and that's just the crust on top of the road apple. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Really? A CBAN? I mean, '''Support''' while we're here, but that's definitely overkill. The account is indeffed. We can talk about a CBAN later if they keep causing problems, but it really seems [[WP:NOTBURO|bureaucratic]] to go there right now. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 16:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Golden Mage, various personal preference cosmetic edits, disregard of [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] and complete lack of communication ==

{{user|Golden Mage}} has repeatedly been asked on their talk page to stop unnecessarily changing between usage of [[MOS:OXFORDCOMMA]]S, changing links against [[WP:NOTBROKEN]], indiscriminately removing red links etc. Instead of addressing the issues or even responding to people raising them, they ignore everyone and continue along the same lines, often making several miniscule edits inserting their preference of oxford commas and changing links. These unproductive edits fill people's watch lists and I'm not convinced Golden Mage is a net positive with their contributions if they refuse to discuss the problem. Pinging @[[User:FutureFlowsLoveYou|FutureFlowsLoveYou]] @[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] and @[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] as others that have also recently brought up these issues as well as @[[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] who created a report on this board about the same editor in January.

The best outcome here would be Golden Mage finally responding and communicating that they understand the issues, if they do not administrator action may be needed. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:I dont know entirely, but there is a part of me that wonders if they're a sock of [[User:Kung Hibbe]], the infamous [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] user. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s&diff=prev&oldid=1171372442 Well, they're still doing it.] Not a word of communication. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::And we know they've found their talk page as they've previously blanked it (their one and only user talk edit.) [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|talk]] 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]], cross reference [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo]]. This has simultaneously spread to different venues. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 05:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Sorry for tipping this but I blocked Mage with some advise on their talk. Tamzin can upgrade this to a CU block if so is confirmed. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Stonewalling and POV pushing in the [[Aghlabids]] article ==

Some users, mostly @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] and @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], have been [[WP:STONEWALLING]] the [[Aghlabids]] page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia (as well as most of Southern Italy) is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR]) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1084612896&diffmode=source editing it after a consensus was reached] and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the [[Talk:Aghlabids|talk page]] where I explained why:

:The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "''The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab '''occupation of Sicily''' that was to last more than 250 years and '''raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy.'''''" They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

[https://imgur.com/9pG8l2l This is page 24, that contains both the original map and the text], and [https://imgbb.com/BsFK5qp this is page 12]. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] is using the argument that the OR map it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1150169317&diffmode=source allegedly partially supported by other ones] (''near-identical'' ones), which is [[WP:SYNTH]].
The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. I've already brought this issue to the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|appropriate noticeboard]] some time ago, but it was ignored (you can see the last revision before the topic was deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1153574063 here]), and then I dropped it for a while because work and some personal issues didn't leave me a lot of time for Wikipedia, but since the discussion was reopened by another editor I think it's time to bring it here. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 19:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*The arguments presented by Prazeres and M.Bitton on [[Talk:Aghlabids]] appear to be justifiable inference from cited sources, policy-wise; there may be room for rebuttal with other arguments and sources, but they don't appear to be prima facie egregious OR. A more appropriate response to this dispute would have been to open an RfC and make the case for your preferred map, rather than lobby for a behavioral sanction. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Raided and conquered areas, while in the original map are showed differently, in the one used in the article are all painted the same. That conveys a completely different message. Especially combined with the refusal to explain it better in the description, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source this comment] (why refuse to add that single word, and keeping the explanation only inside the less-visible note, otherwise?), it seems to me like a POV-pushing problem as well. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes|Infoboxes should "''summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article''" and should allow the readers to "''identify key facts at a glance''"]], but in this case it tells something else, and there is no intention by the editors to try and fix it. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:This is of course another content dispute. When this issue came up at the article in April 2022, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] and [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] were discussed in detail [[Talk:Aghlabids#Inclusion of Sardinia to the map|on the talk page]] and multiple editors with different views came to a consensus. Some other editors (including L2212) have since tried to unilaterally change the article in favour of one POV, circumventing [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus-building]] by edit-warring (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aghlabids&action=history&offset=&limit=500 article history] in September 2022 and August 2023) and by attempting to replace or delete the map image directly at Wiki Commons (see [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aghlabids_Dynasty_800_-_909_(AD).svg&action=history the file page's history]). Contrary to what L2212 implies, M.Bitton and I are not, in fact, the only ones to have reverted these attempts. But the repeated assumptions of bad faith (which this report exemplifies), the constant disruptive editing, and other [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] responses have made any further attempts at productive discussion incredibly frustrating and circular. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::The consensus was reached for a version of the article that was immediately changed after it and ignoring it (by M.Bitton), so accusing me of breaking it when that had already happened makes no sense. And the productive discussion was made impossible by the double standards used while taking into consideration the different sources, the refusal of recognizing a clear error in how the map was adapted even after the original was shown, and especially the lack of civility in the discussion, starting with M.Bitton's tone and "ultimatums" (that way of debating alone deserves a discussion here) and your condescending tone (against both me and other editors). Also I've already wrote that you were not the only editors involved in my first paragraph here, so I don't know what are you accusing me of with your "''Contrary to what L2212 implies''". I mentioned you because you are the one whose behaviour needs to be addressed here. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 22:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Roblox888i2|Roblox888i2]] talkpage abuse ==

This user continues to abuse his talkpage after being blocked indefinitely. Do you think an admin should revoke talkpage access? [[User:Filmssssssssssss|𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔]] ([[User talk:Filmssssssssssss|talk]]) 20:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:In the vast majority of cases, if you ignore them, they simply go away. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm having editing problems but I've taken their talk page and email away. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 22:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:User:RussBot]] is malfunctioning ==

Bot is making incorrect edits to hat-notes of people named [[Bob Quinn]] or variant thereof. Bot incorrectly assumes that [[Bob Quinn (disambiguation)]] is the direct dab link but it is not, the correct link is just [[Bob Quinn]], the other is a redir. [[User:Groupthink|Groupthink]] ([[User talk:Groupthink|talk]]) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:<s>I'm not inclined to block RussBot just yet, because the hatnote it's editing shouldn't exist per [[WP:NAMB]]. Pinging [[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] to see if this is a one-off. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)</s> nevermind, there's an exception per [[Wikipedia:Hatnote#Similar proper names ("For other people named ...")]]. Steppin back from this one :) [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 22:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::I've tagged the dab page with G14 (it only had one link coming in altogether outside its mention here), which should solve the issue. '''[[User:MrSchimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|chatter]])'' 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I'll let someone else make the final call on the speedy, as I'm not familiar with G14 in practice, but bullets 1 and 2 don't seem to apply because it's a redirect and bullet 3 doesn't apply because it points to a dab page. From the rcat, it looks like a ton of similar pages exist. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) (she/her) 21:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::G14 does not apply to that redirect, so I have removed the tag. The bot's edits were correct and should not have been reverted. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.66|192.76.8.66]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.66|talk]]) 22:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::'66 is correct. Every DAB page which does not have a (disambiguation) qualifier should be targeted by a redirect which does and which is tagged {{tl|R to disambiguation page}}. (Other redirects to DAB pages should be tagged {{tl|R from ambiguous term}}; links to those are also logged as errors.) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:The bot is working correctly. Links to disambiguation pages should always be routed through pages ending with (disambiguation), even if the base page does not end with that title, see [[WP:INTDAB]]. Linking directly to the page "Bob Quinn" is tagged as an error that needs fixing. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.66|192.76.8.66]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.66|talk]]) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{+1}} -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{+1}} See also [[WP:HOWTODAB]], which is consistent with INTDAB. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 09:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{+1}} The bot is not malfunctioning; this is the intended result. --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 21:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Tekosh ==

{{userlinks|Tekosh}}

In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114063700 "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely."]. These were the two attacks they had made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114060793] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekosh&diff=prev&oldid=1114062843]

Unfortunately they did not heed this warning. After that they first started editing again on 18 August 2023, where they continued this conduct:

#At [[Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius]], they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilan_Ye%C5%9Filg%C3%B6z-Zegerius&diff=prev&oldid=1171028203] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilan_Ye%C5%9Filg%C3%B6z-Zegerius&diff=prev&oldid=1171115455], despite it having no relevance ([[MOS:ETHNICITY]]) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
#Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Hanifa_Dinawari&diff=next&oldid=1171252513]
#This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gomada&diff=prev&oldid=1171357145 '''That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related.''' I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.]. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

[[WP:NOTHERE]] if you ask me. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:My friend as I mentioned multiple times (you should have included those statements also) I am new here and didn't know about the edit rules. You're right about the part where I should've started a discussion instead of editing the document directly and I have done so. About the ethnicity part, I still don't agree but I don't want to start a discussion about that here. We can use the article's talk page to discuss it and mention sources. Thanks. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your willingness to discuss issues (as opposed to [[WP:MASTADON|acting like an angry mastadon]]) [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Whether you agree or not is irrelevant in this context. In Wikipedia we follow [[WP:RS]], not the personal opinions of users. You don't have to be a veteran user to know not to alter sourced information and direct quotes of authors, or make random attacks. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:Their sole aim seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. They also appear to think that ethnicity matters – see [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#New_here_-_in_the_middle_of_a_discussion|this]] fruitless discussion. A classic [[WP:ADVOCACY]] issue: they wrote {{tqq|We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong.}} I wrote back {{tqq|Ethnicity isn't important. You need to move on.}} [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|HistoryofIran}} I have given them a ctopic notification. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Tekosh}}, thank you for taking the time and patience to engage in discussions here. Essential: Please read up [[WP:PILLARS]], [[WP:NOT]] and most importantly, [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. That should make you understand that it's not truth that we are striving for, but to document what reliable sources mention (even if you believe reliable sources are wrong). The facts that you are engaging here and are a new user, are the reasons you are not being blocked (To be clear, what you wrote at [[Special:Permalink/1171471351#New_here_-_in_the_middle_of_a_discussion|the Teahouse]] is enough for blocking you)). Please feel free to ask editors for clarification and support -- always go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if I were to suggest strongly -- stop editing pages related to the contentious topic you are currently engaged with. It will not do your tenure any good, if you continue to get slighted by reliably sourced material contained within our articles. To conclude, read up the pages I referenced above and do please confirm you understand them, before you start editing or engaging with other editors. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another [[WP:NPA]] towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gomada&diff=prev&oldid=1171357145]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Hanifa_Dinawari&diff=prev&oldid=1171438436]. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|HistoryofIran}}, hope you are well. It might be prudent for you to sit back for a bit and allow administrators to wait for Tekosh's responses. Of course, to new commentators such as me, it is fine to repeat the points you are making. It's just that we would want to hear from Tekoshi, and not repeatedly from you. Thank you for understanding. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Dude, thanks for your nice message. I appreciate it a lot. I have learnt a lot just in the past week from peeps like yourself.
::I will abide by the rules and try to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to have my reliable resources ready when I discuss with people here.
::But quick question to you as you're showing genuine interest in helping me: What do you exactly mean by stop editing those specific pages? Do you even mean not even contributing to the discussion? I will not edit for sure but I would still like to talk about my resources and why I think they are reliable as well. [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] forgot to tag you. :) [[User:Tekosh|Tekosh]] ([[User talk:Tekosh|talk]]) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== User:Crumpled Fire removing my comment repeatedly alleging it's a "personal attack" ==
{{atop|Involved editors advised by regulars; probably better to close here. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)}}

On the talk page of [[Snow White (2024 film)]], I replied to a user about using social media as a source is not acceptable. [[User:Crumpled Fire]] asked why TikTok could not be used a source, saying " Like it or not, Tiktok is essentially THE central hub for youth culture now. Most young adult trends, memes, etc. all emerge from there." I replied back "This coming from someone that has been here over 10 years, is pretty shocking. You probably need to familiarize yourself with [[WP:RS]], ''particularly'' [[WP:UGC]] and [[WP:SOCIALMEDIA]]." This editor has removed my comment citing "[[WP:PERSONALATTACK]]" over three times. I do not see how I personally attacked them and do not agree with my comment being removed. I added in some important resources that they evidently need to read. I do not want to engage in an edit war over this, on a ''talk page''. '''[[User:MikeAllen|Mike]] [[User talk:MikeAllen|Allen]]''' 00:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:I said nothing about using TikTok as a source, reread my comment. The comment was discussing the relevance of TikTok as a ''site of origin for trending topics''. Obviously, the sourcing about whatever's trending at TikTok would need to come from reliable sources. My editing history would make it clear that I strive to only ever cite reliable sources. I do believe the above user's comment which constituted nothing other than my length of time on the encyclopedia in contrast with my apparent lack of knowledge and how I "should familiarize myself" with policies contravenes the [[WP:PERSONAL ATTACK]] policy, which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Nothing about the comment made by the above user was about the content, it was entirely a negative comment about me. Was it ''particularly'' egregious, perhaps not. But it absolutely constitutes a personal attack, and I feel justified in removing it, as per the note in the WP:PA policy stating "''Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.''" In fact, the above user's repeated re-addition of the personal attack may violate the same policy, namely the following: "''Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans''". I'm not asking that the above user be sanctioned, only that the personal attack remain removed.— '''[[User:Crumpled Fire|Crumpled Fire]]''' • ''[[Special:Contributions/Crumpled Fire|contribs]]'' • 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::What exactly is the personal attack? That I was legitimately shocked that you were advocating the use as TikTok as reliable source for a ''controversy'' section on a [[WP:BLP|person's]] comments, when you seem like a seasoned editor (based on how long you've been registered). We will let the admins decide if my comment should remain. '''[[User:MikeAllen|Mike]] [[User talk:MikeAllen|Allen]]''' 00:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:The comment was not so uncivil as to warrant removal, but the community is not likely to have much enthusiasm for forcing Crumpled Fire to reinstate it. I believe that the OP has successfully made his point and now both of you should return to discussing article content at the article's talk page. In short, there's nothing to be accomplished here. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 01:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Similar to Lepricavark, my take here is that Mike's comment was 1) based on a misunderstanding of Crumpled Fire's comment, 2) more strongly worded than is ideal, but not a personal attack, 3) not worth removing, especially by the person it was directed at, and 4) not worth restoring. {{tl|plip}}s to both; let's move on. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 03:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:It absolutely does....not constitute a personal attack. Look, the tone was ill-considered to the point of making me question what Mike could have possibly thought would be gained from framing their concerns in that way. I might even call it socially obtuse and counterintuitive, but it's just a very different kind of animal from anything described in [[WP:WIAPA]]. Yes, one should typically keep discussion focused on source, policy, and editorial issues, and avoid commentary on the rhetorical opposition personally. And if there was some broad issue with Crumpled Fire's editing that Mike absolutely felt had to be addressed, a user talk page is probably a better place for it. {{pb}}But at the end of the day Mike made a comment about another editor's competency, not their character. That has to be a topic that remains fair game, even if some people (and yes Mike, in this instance, this is you) are not particularly clued in on the best way to go about that. This project relies too much on our oversighting one-another--with all the good....and the lots and lots of ugly that come with that--for us to ban commenting upon another character's understanding of a policy under most circumstances. There are some exceptions ([[WP:aspersions]] and worse), but I'm sorry CF, this just is not one of them. Furthermore, the comment ''was'' serving some small rhetorical purpose relevant to the editorial issue, by emphasizing how much Mike disagreed with you. Again, there are ''much'' more artful ways to do this, but it's still legitimate commentary, if on the edge of civil.{{pb}}Which brings us to what I actually consider the bigger issue: edit warring to remove another editor's comment from a talk page. This is a pretty massive violation of [[WP:TPG]], and even if you were convinced this was a personal attack, you should have brought the matter here or to and admin, Crumpled Fire. You are not entitled to remove criticism from a talk page unilaterally, let alone to edit war over it. I'm actually pretty surprised to see Lep and Tamzin be so laissez-faire about it. I expect it's that they consider the conduct here to have equalized out a bit and that as a practical matter it's best to let the two fighters retire to their corners. Well, maybe there's something to that thinking, but my instincts in this instance say you both deserve <s>boxed ears</s> ...er, a [[WP:Trout]] on this one. {{pb}} But I'm most concerned that you believed this was content you were entitled to remove--and that this fact leaves open a lot of room for content you will feel entitled to remove in the future. This is a bad look, and not only do I think you need to stop edit warring to keep it out, but it wouldn't hurt to restore it yourself. Because honestly, I doubt very much that I am the only one who is going to want to see you acknowledge that you recognize you cannot be removing another editor's criticisms of your approach on an article talk page, going forward. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*If that was my comment and someone removed it, I'd rip them a new one. If you (who are, it should be remembered, just one of many editors) think a post is inappropriate, then generally the thing to do is to add your own post saying so. [https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/940/counterspeech-doctrine "If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."] [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 06:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Pornographic vandalism on article. ==

Started with this revision, a few restorations later by a few different users. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luna_25&diff=prev&oldid=1171471316 [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Protected now, though bans/blocks, page revision strikeouts, and a review of the offending image might be needed. It's graphic. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.120.118|108.160.120.118]] ([[User talk:108.160.120.118|talk]]) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:This is not the first instance of vandalism from that IP range; see also: {{diff2|1170746488}} {{diff2|1169265306}} {{diff2|1161342361}}. There are also several [[WP:REVDEL]]ed edits. [[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. The image is hosted at a seperate WMF project, IP: [[Wikimedia Commons]], which is, like, 10 percent porn. Not much can be done about that. Also, their admins are generally not fond of admins from the English Wikipedia, which makes collaborating on enforcement challenging to say the least (and they especially dislike me, but I wear it as a badge of honour). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I had no idea there was a feud between Wikipedia admins and Commons admins — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 11:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It is un-spoken, but I slaughter [[sacred cow (idiom)|sacred cows]] on the regular, so fuck it! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Can you elaborate a bit on the feud? [[User:Northern Moonlight|NM]] 17:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: I suspect that expanding on the attitude of some Commons admins to some of that website's more unacceptable images may end up crossing a legal boundary on libel. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::: Out of sheer curiosity, and because this vandal seems to have chosen their target for optimum traffic today, what was the image? Description or link: I'm no shrinking violet. ;) ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::A POV close-up of a man wearing a condom (suprisingly) having sexual intercourse doggy style with a woman. Pretty boring image but utterly inappropriate. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, so probably some bored adolescent titillating themselves, rather than a more longterm committed troll. Still, given their targets, a range block might be appropriate? Or was that part of what El_C's <nowiki>{{done}}</nowiki> was about? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 21:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== JohnEC Jr and [[Talk:Jesus]] ==
:{{userlinks|JohnEC Jr}}
Looking for advice and recommendations here regarding an emerging incident.
* User made additions to [[Jesus]] on June 18 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=1160835950&oldid=1160605290] to add a fringe theory by [[Scholem Asch]] that "the resurrection was a mock event" and requires the Gospels to be reinterpreted. This theory has no traction or even mention amongst reliable sources or experts in the field. These edits were quickly reverted by other editors.
* User correctly took the topic to Talk on June 19 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1161012397&oldid=1160373878] to discuss. This is when the problems started.
* During the discussion, multiple editors pointed out problems with the edits: that Asch is not an expert, that the theory is [[WP:FRINGE]], and that it was unclear what changes the editor actually wanted to make short of simply repeating the theory in whole cloth. (I believe) final state of the discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=1165431126]
* During this time, in at least one case the editor attempted to redact other editors' comments, and was warned against doing so. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1162806126&oldid=1162769462]
* Editor also started the same topic, with same opening text, a second time while primary topic was still open. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1162754466&oldid=1162753581]
* Discussion continued until roughly July 10. Editor attempted to undo an archive bot to keep the topic open [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1164787148&oldid=1164784151], but with no active editing of the topic, archiving was ultimately allowed. At this time, other editors' responses were unanimous that the content did not belong in [[Jesus]] per WP policy and guidelines.
* Editor posted exactly the same opening statements on August 20 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171288706&oldid=1171134031], reopening the discussion. Again, editors' responses have been unanimous against inclusion, and for the same reasons. Again, editor attempted to redact other editors' statements [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171482511&oldid=1171481932], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=1171484945&oldid=1171484778]. Yesterday, editor made an accusation that recent edits in the topic were due to "unprofessionalism, rudeness and racism" on their personal Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnEC_Jr&diff=1171485470&oldid=1171485000].

This is a new editor, and edits on other pages have generally been constructive. I believe they genuinely are here to build and improve WP. However, their behavior on [[Jesus]] and [[Talk:Jesus]], and more recently on their personal talk page, are concerning. It appears that the editor simply does not want to take no for an answer, posting content that they like despite a unanimous voice of multiple editors opposing them based on WP policy; further, the accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to, also go beyond the pale. (Accusations of "rudeness" may be fair: however, I at least am growing tired of repeating the same WP policy on at least three occasions and being ignored - sometimes redacted.) As an involved editor who has tried to guide this new editor, I am seeking advice on a constructive way forward. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:As a final note, I should comment that the "racism" accusation is especially perplexing, as neither I nor any other editor are even aware of the editor's race or background, and I wasn't aware Asch was Jewish until another editor pointed it out. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[WP:BITE]] applies. But, the user has a serious problem with sources. A past example.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Camino_de_Santiago#The_Peace_Movement] Also an attitude problem with editor interaction. This isn’t all that unusual on religious articles where people believe what they believe. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed on both, especially [[WP:BITE]]. Definitely looking to guide, not silence, here. I don't believe further direct interaction by me would be helpful; constructive guidance by uninvolved editors might be. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Looking through their edits there's very little idea about proper sourcing etc. While there's BITE, there's also quite a stubborn unwillingness to listen (not just at [[Talk:Jesus]] but elsewhere). Btw, their top 2 articles edited are (the late) [[E. C. John]] and the latter's father-in-law [[Hans Ehrenberg]]. Given the username, they may or may not need COI guidance too. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 15:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Good point. A user with name JohnEC Jr editing [[E. C. John]] and a relative of the same does make one wonder. I was suspicious of the same but have no objective evidence. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Despite the potential COI, I have not found any particularly concerning edits on [[E. C. John]] or [[Hans Ehrenberg]] by this editor, other than potentially unsourced / irrelevant material which is minor. Others are welcome to look. [[E. C. John]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._C._John&diff=1113079196&oldid=1092660210], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._C._John&diff=1155656098&oldid=1147371415]; [[Hans Ehrenberg]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Ehrenberg&diff=1170677547&oldid=1158898502]
*This is a poorly-formulated report wrt evidence. Same with the replies. Not a single [[WP:DIFF|diff]]. No link to the user being complained about. Instead, obvious links like [[WP:BITE]] or [[Jesus]] are repeated. Both OP and respondents (several of whom are veteran editors), in future, please try to make it easier for reviewers so we could just click directly. Anyway, I'll add userlinks to the top. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:My apologies. I will go back and add relevant specific diffs when I have time - probably later today. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::NP [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]]. Here's what I recommend you do. You mention above about {{tq|accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to}} (emphasis added) — add a diff about the racism accusation, and if the comment is lengthy, also excerpt the pertinent sentence. Additionally, add a diff or diffs to any redaction of others' comments on the article talk page (their own user talk page does not count, they are allowed). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks! I believe the relevant diffs are now added. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I have indefinitely page-blocked JohnEC Jr from [[Jesus]] and [[Talk: Jesus]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== IP here to POV-push ==

[[User:2605:59C8:3170:A600:F89C:89D4:E197:24AF]] edit-wars at [[Precepts of the Church]], where they recently stated: {{tq|I don't care what the satanists, heretics, gays, and other perverts do to make the Vaticans website say}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precepts_of_the_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1171530614]). A warning at their talk page changed nothing. I think a block is needed. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 17:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:Blocked for 48 hours. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 19:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC).

== In the news discussion of [[Lucy Letby]] ==

I am frankly amazed by the comments being made in the discussions, which are essentially anglophobia, and anti- UK sentiment. The discussion is chock full of personal attacks from multiple editors, the discussion is at points nothing to do with the nominated ITN candidate and the whole discussion is incredibly toxic.

This needs to be looked at as this is a poisonous discussion and there is a lot of bad behaviour on display and a lot of what amounts to anti-English sentiment.

*[[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#August_21|Sentencing nomination for Lucy Letby]]
*[[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#August_18|Conviction nomination for Lucy Letby]]

A selection of comments are like this which are very hostile to the UK and by extension UK editors and contributors:
#"But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron32 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)"

#"Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)"

#"This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- RockstoneSend"

#"Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)"

There is a genuine loss of good faith assumptions here and the hole discussion is not collaborative in nature, amounts to simply voting by a large number and is very combative to the point of it being simply a battleground. None of which benefit the encyclopaedia and none of which help get new editors involved and dissolutions existing editors.
[[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 22:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

2023-08-20T20:56:31Z

L2212: /* Stonewalling and POV pushing in the Aghlabids article */ Reply

{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}
<noinclude>{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1136
|algo = old(3d)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}


== User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS ==

For months now, {{u|WMrapids}} has repeatedly [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions|casted asperstions]] against me and other editors:

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

In the span of around two months, the editor has accused me of [[WP:OWN]] at least 6 times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159234985][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159280767][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159387476][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159474870][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159582971][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1168593057]), [[WP:CANVASS]] at least 4 times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1152362109][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1158924831][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159387817][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165567054]) and [[WP:ADVOCACY]] at least 14 times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1158924831][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159234985][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160190236][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1162433903][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1162454692][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165566529][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165566710][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165567165][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165567337][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166012121][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166012450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166063882][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166064978][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1168433260]). Other accusations have included [[WP:HOUNDING]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159804156][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160190236]), "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160390197 I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.]", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166147764], and whatever this is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160090391 "You two seem to be ''pretty'' close in step with each other..."], which seems to be an accusation of [[Wikipedia:Meatpuppet|meatpuppetry]]. The first accusation of canvassing would be withdrawn after realizing the mistake ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1152364480]) and WP:OWN specifically, which was argued mostly regarding WP:VENRS, can be easily can be easily disproved by just taking a look at the essay's statistics ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia%20talk:WikiProject%20Venezuela/Reliable%20and%20unreliable%20sources Xtools]), where it is shown that WMrapids has become one of the main contributors to the page, both in terms of content as well as number of edits.

In many of these cases, specifically those that took place in RfCs, were not directed towards me and the main purpose was to support their position during the discussion, and some of them were also levelled against other users, specifically [[User:ReyHahn]] and [[User:Kingsif]]. I have asked them several times to stop casting aspersions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?1159857069][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?1166148825]), asking for concerns to discuss the issues directly with me and pointing out that continuing only creates a hostile environment, but they have continued. At the third canvass accusation, I asked WMrapids to strike the accusation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159395659]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159427626][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159448589]), <s>but the request was ignored</s>. Now, I have asked ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?1168624884]) for further accusations be withdrawn from a new RfC ([[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS]]), <s>which at this moment really feels like a personal attack. So far, no response has been received</s>.

Lastly, although not the main issue at hand, it's worth mentioning other problems with the RfCs: in the same period of two months, WMrapids has opened five RfCs ([[Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|3]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|4]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS|5]]), all of which remain open (save for one, closed today) and three of which are related to WP:VENRS. Several editors have expressed their concern regarding them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159278367][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159504696][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1159920143]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1160230663], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1159529215]). I fear that with this, along with the mentioned hostility, editors will be discouraged in participating in related topics; not only limited to Venezuela, but also to Peru, the main edit topic for WMrapids where similar issues might have happened ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1168879722]), but I cannot comment about it without further analysis.

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

'''Update:''' I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1169058732][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1169080069]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1169055078]). If the user has taken steps to de-escalate the situation and the situation is not repeated, I don't think further action is warranted. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

:While the personalization has stopped after this report, and further action (beyond a warning) may not be warranted in that department, the BLP issues are still of concern. It appears from the timeline that the pro- and anti-campaign stemming from the Peruvian discussion was the impetus for WMrapid's pointy Venezuelan editing and from there spilled over to slant Venezuelan BLPs, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1169811222#Reliability_of_La_Patilla_closure_review can then be used to slant reliability discussions] (as most of Venezuela's top journalists had to move to other venues after previously reliable sources were censored and shut down by the Chavez/Maduro governments). WMrapids has become much more cooperative and less combative on talk, but the change in tone on talk has not been reflected by a change in editing. I am still concerned they should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

''' Timeline''': (I declare myself to be friends with anyone who offers me an [[arepa]]).{{pb}} I’ve been watching this trainwreck, including the frequent personalization by WMrapids listed above (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=1168920140#RfC:_La_Patilla including one aimed at me]) unfold via the proliferation of poorly presented RFCs. {{pb}} The best I can tell, WMrapids had never edited Venezuelan content until they had a disagreement with NoonIcarus and began engaging in what looks like [[WP:POINT|pointy editing]].
* 25 February, WMrapids is successful in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&oldid=1165055250#Requested_move_25_February_2023 move request] at [[Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt]] that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&oldid=1165055250#Move_was_hasty_and_not_grounded_on_sources prematurely closed].
* 22 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&oldid=1165055250#Requested_move_22_April_2023 NoonIcarus re-opens the move discussion]
** 19 May WMrapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=prev&oldid=1155622498 relists the discussion] and oddly does not ping [[WP:PERU]] (tagged on the talk page), but does ping [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Socialism&diff=prev&oldid=1155624565 WP:Socialism] (which is not tagged on the talk page - inappropriate canvassing)
** 12:26, 24 May the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=prev&oldid=1156751330 move request closes], not in the direction WMrapids preferred
* Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&diff=prev&oldid=1156798190][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Venezuelan_uprising_attempt&diff=prev&oldid=1156798825] ([[WP:POINT]]) Neither of these close as WMrapids preferred. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Venezuelan_uprising_attempt&oldid=1168598205#Requested_move_24_May_2023 One closed 31 May], the other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&oldid=1168938449#Requested_move_24_May_2023 closed 21 June]
* WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk (Colombia, Crime, International relations, Latin America, Military history, Organized crime, South America and Venezuela) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=8&contribs=user&target=WMrapids&offset=20230524184000 notify instead WP:Politics and WP:History] (WP:CANVASS)
* Until 5 June, WMrapids confines their edits to Peru other than these (pointy) move requests
* 5 June, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Patilla#RfC:_Reliability_of_La_Patilla series of RFCs leading to the complaints in this ANI began].
* 7 June, WMrapids begins biasing [[Nelson Bocaranda]], a BLP.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1159023577] See [[#Case study]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

:* {{tq|"including one aimed at me"}}
:** Did not know that I had to read the top of every user's talk page.
:* {{tq|"oddly does not ping WP:PERU"}}
:**The project would be automatically notified due to the talk page template.
:*{{tq|"Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[106][107] (WP:POINT)"}}
:** NoonIcarus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=1152321188&oldid=1152317461 mentioned the article] [[Operation Gideon (2020)]] as an example. After reviewing this article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=1152496613&oldid=1152485429 I suggested that the same conditions] for the [[2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt]] be applied to those other articles. One can perceive this as [[WP:POINT]], while I was interpreting this as [[WP:CCC]], especially when both articles were handled differently.
:*{{tq|"WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk"}}
:**Again, the projects should be notified via template.
:*{{tq|"7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP"}}
:**After reviewing various articles from reliable sources describing a process how Bocaranda based his career on "rumors" and supported the Venezuelan opposition, I attributed the sources and added such information to the article.
:[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

===Case study ===
::: (Aside: the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=1169733994#Who_Wrote_That? WhoWroteThat tool is not working at this article]) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
* 7 June [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1158812711 adds unbalanced content to the lead] of [[Nelson Bocaranda]], a BLP, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1159023722 NoonIcarus appropriately incorporates to the body of the article]
* 7 June [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1159023881 removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery] – this edit alone (because of the popularity of Bocaranda which pre-dates Chavez's cancer), indicates that WMRapids is inserting POV while editing outside of their knowledge base. Further, a Google search easily turns up [https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2012/03/120316_venezuela_entrevista_nelson_bocaranda_salud_chavez_jp BBC sourcing this content] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1168952788#Recognition others] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1168951220#Career more]. Before removing something so obvious, sources could have been found easily; NoonIcarus had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1165161739 readd it later], after which WMrapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1165161739 attributes it without necessity] (still not finding an easy source BBC via Google). Again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1166032589 later fixed by NoonIcarus], who added BBC. A lot of work because WMrapids didn't do a simple search before deleting obvious information easily sourced (POV editing).
* 7 June, further indicating they are editing outside of their knowledge base, and with a POV, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=prev&oldid=1159025399 WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following"] while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters. Bocaranda increased his {{em|social media}} following after the Chavez diagnosis; he was well among the most popular journalists and television personalities in Venezuela even before that (see sources now in the article).
* 18 July [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1165161739 WMrapids installs content] sourced to a blog, [[Caracas Chronicles]], on a BLP.
* 18 July [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1166020093 installs unbalanced content] without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted.
** And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer and maligning Bocaranda for reporting it, by changing "veil of secrecy" (quote) to "Bocaranda would go on to gain much of his following covering information on the [[Hugo Chávez#Illness|illness of Hugo Chávez]] at a time when information about his health was scarce." (Information was not "scarce"; the gov't was denying it, and had to acknowledge same a few days after Bocaranda reported it -- see reliable sources now in the article.)
So, this is one example of what NoonIcarus has been dealing with to address WMrapid's biased editing. I stopped at that point. {{pb}} I know ANI can’t resolve content disputes, but we should be able to recognize disruption and tendentious editing when it comes in the form of bias combined with frequent personalization of issues. And WMrapids' focus on labeling people or outlets as "pro-opposition" demonstrates another kind of bias; I can't imagine labeling Democrats "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Trump administration, or Republicans "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Biden administration. Or saying that someone "opposes the US government" when they oppose one administration's policies. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

:I'll add real quick that starting from 6 June, the outlets articles edited have been [[La Patilla]], [[Efecto Cocuyo]], [[Runrunes]], [[El Pitazo]], [[Tal Cual]] and [[El Nacional (Venezuela)]], as shown in the diffs, all of in which WMrapids edited for the first time and nearly all of which were cited at [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 4#Requested move 24 May 2023|Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023]]. I tried to avoid discussing content disputes unless it helped to provide context, but they further illustrate the pointy and disruptive editing. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::I looked only at the first Venezuelan article WMrapids edited, and partly because [[Nelson Bocaranda]] is a [[WP:BLP|BLP]], as BLPs require editing more responsibly than elsewhere. What I found there was not encouraging, but I don't want to descend further into analyzing the crusade to characterize media outlets; as I said on my talk, slogging through the POV editing in Venezuela topics takes more time than I've got. {{pb}} But according to [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/as-it-slides-toward-authoritarianism-venezuela-targets-one-of-its-last-independent-newspapers/2018/07/03/9cb5fe22-7a2d-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html The Washington Post], the [https://apnews.com/136a0008890841f39d9344787defc0ac Associated Press], and just about everyone else ([https://niemanreports.org/articles/how-venezuelas-independent-digital-news-outlets-are-covering-the-turmoil-in-their-country/ sample 1], [https://www.rsf-es.org/clasificacion-mundial-de-la-libertad-de-prensa-rsf-2023-tabla-de-paises/ sample 2] but there are hundreds to thousands of RS on press freedom issues in Venezuela), it appears there is no longer a single media outlet in Venezuela that is not under the control of the Maduro administration, and those issues-- widely covered in all RS-- are hardly covered in any of the media outlet articles, with a handful of editors assuring that continues to be the case. Regardless of their political stance, the bigger issues are not covered in most of those articles, and tendentious editing just makes it harder to write decent articles. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:SandyGeorgia, with your extensive history of being involved in Venezuela, I know you know that the term [[:es:Oposición_al_chavismo|"opposition" is a popular term describing those opposed to the Venezuelan government]]. So do [[WP:GREL]] sources, [https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c200pqkj including BBC] (see [[WP:RSP]]), with the article clearly outlining sources as "government" or "opposition". Using [[WP:RS]] to place [[WP:VERIFY|verifiable]] content on the project is one of the most ''basic'' processes on Wikipedia. So no, you making a [[false equivalence]] of the ''Venezuelan'' opposition and ''[[political opposition]]'' in general is not accurate. My edits were to plainly describe the media organizations as [[WP:GREL]] sources describe them, which can be verified. Unfortunately these two descriptions of "government" and "opposition" are a result of the [[political polarization]] that exists in Venezuela, but as [[International Media Support]] writes, '''"[https://www.mediasupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Venezuela-report_4-ENG-final3.pdf Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society. Rather than reporting on the challenges facing Venezuela, many media outlets have become part of the problem instead of the solution]."''' [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:*{{tq|"7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda"}}
:**It was a tiny article about an individual of questionable [[WP:NOTABILITY]]. Where else was I supposed to place the information?
:*{{tq|"7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery"}}
:**The phrase "is considered one of the best Venezuelan journalists by his colleagues" is not easily verifiable and is [[WP:PUFF]].
:*{{tq|"WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters."}}
:**Reuters plainly says "[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-chavez-journalist/venezuelan-journalist-in-eye-of-chavez-cancer-storm-idUSBRE8270TD20120308 Bocaranda's investigative work on Chavez's health has brought him more fame than at any point in a half-century media career spanning back to when he was 16]". Pretty sure this was properly placed. It is questionable that you are attempting to twist this...
:*18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
:**[[WP:VENRS]] said Caracas Chronicles was "run by respected journalists" until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Venezuela%2FReliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=1169014489&oldid=1169010798 it was removed by Sandy today]. Again, this information was attributed as part of reception, which is common.
:*{{tq|"18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted"}}
:**Pretty sure wording it as "the Venezuelan government reportedly said it would refuse to renew Unión Radio's license if Bocaranda did not prevent his criticism" is as balanced as you can get with describing potential censorship.
:*{{tq|"And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer"}}
:**This somewhat shows your bias. Information was scarce and that is accurate. If you want to change the wording to that it was a "cover up" operation, that seems to have more bias than simply saying information was not available.
:Some of these accusations against me seem to be [[WP:POT]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::Now [[Nelson Bocaranda]]--widely known since at least the 80s as one of Venezuela's most popular journalists and television presenters, with sources easily found in Reuters, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post-- without even going in to Spanish sources-- is "of questionable notability"? WMrapids, again, I'm concerned that while you are wading into territory you may be unfamiliar with, you aren't reading sources, and are apparently cherry-picking around for which sources suit the content you want to write. If you want to do that on media outlets, have at it-- I don't have time to concern myself-- but you can't do that on a BLP. The phrase you called PUFF was cited. Yes, the Chavez cancer knowledge brought him more fame-- that is ''even more'' fame (made him known even outside of Venezuela, while he has been quite well known there since the 80s-- as one of the sources mentions, it brought him fame within and outside of Venezuela-- he always had it in Venezuela). ''Even if'' you (or someone) considered that Caracas Chronicles was run by a "respected" journalist, Bocaranda is a BLP, and you shouldn't be using a blog to cite a BLP (and Toro was by no means the only writer at Caracas Chronicles, and they finally took it private because too many people were complaining about their content, making it difficult now to give examples of their gaffes such as we would need for a reliability discussion). Information is not scarce when it's all over Twitter, from a well-known respected journalist. {{pb}} Yes, I very well know that "opposition" is a popular term used by the media; my concern is with how ''you'' want to use it and how you present it in RFC after RFC. Do as you wish in media articles, but I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela to know when you're slanting an article about a living person. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Please don't use ''[[ad hominem]]s'' against me by suggesting that I cannot edit in a "territory" that I may be "unfamiliar" with, it is ''very'' unwelcoming to a fellow editor. The [[Nelson Bocaranda]] article has been of minuscule importance; until I started editing it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=1166022635&oldid=1165161739 expanding it greatly recently], there were hardly any edits (besides bot, link and category edits) since you created the article in 2008. I will reiterate; ''all'' of my edits were verifiable from sources and in no way were [[WP:CHERRY|cherrypicking]], attempting to [[WP:POINT|illustrate a point]], [[WP:LIBEL|libel]] or [[WP:CANVASS| to canvass]], etc. Pinging other users to promote a more broad consensus has always been my goal when using the tool. As for using Caracas Chronicles, okay, maybe that source shouldn't have been used. Information from "'''colleagues'''" describing someone as "one of the best Venezuelan journalists" is [[WP:PUFF]], plain and simple whether or not it is cited. Overall, your accusations are not helpful. Please stop. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Reminding you that competence and diligence are requisites to editing a BLP is not an ''ad hominem''. If you intend to edit BLPs in a country where there is no press freedom; where most news archives from what were once the country's reliable sources were scrubbed after the government censored, shut down, and took them over (you have read the abundance of reliable sources on that, yes?); where most independent news reporting happens via social media sites and sources that may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards but are the only ones the government cannot shut down because they operate on social media, you had best be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library familiarizing yourself with the living persons whose articles you touch and the actual history of events that can no longer be found in the now-scrubbed archives of the former national newspapers. ''Even with'' access to a library, the going is tough when most previous newspaper archives are now gone; it's apparent by now you likely had no familarity with [[Nelson Bocaranda]] when you started editing the article, so caution is warranted before editing a BLP considering the difficulty in uncovering sources due to censorship in Venezuela. Nonetheless, your first clue to notability should have been the journalism prize you deleted. {{pb}} Regardless whether you think an individual meets notability or think they are of "miniscule importance", [[WP:BLP|BLP policy]] applies to ''all'' living people (and your statements here to those two issues further reinforce my concern that you shouldn't be editing BLPs). {{pb}} Adding two or three sentences and content sourced to a blog is not "expanding greatly"; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1159023881 removing a national prize for journalism] from the article, while sticking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1158812711 your personal campaign about labeling pro-opposition and pro-government into the lead], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&diff=next&oldid=1165161739 expanding the article based on a blog source] to make Bocaranda appear as having no journalistic credentials behind "rumors" is a gross BLP violation. You did this while real articles in really real reliable sources exist. That's tendentious, POV, and you shouldn't edit BLPs in an area you appear to be unfamiliar with if you can't do so responsibly. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

==== BLP vios continue ====
::: See [[Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP]]
I should take this to either the BLP noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard, but the WMrapids issues are already here at ANI, at [[WP:AN]] and at [[WP:RSN]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1169310225#Reliability_of_La_Patilla_closure_review] so this seems to be the most central place. Two days after I [[#Case study|pointed out the first BLP issue]], and with two of us in this discussion asking WMrapids to slow down ([[#Comment from ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested and me, pointing out that WMrapids should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs]]), WMrapids returned to [[Nelson Bocaranda]] to make a series of POV insertions and BLP vios. This editor should not be touching BLPs; their mission to pro- and anti- every media outlet that remains in Venezuela has spilled over into slanting the biographies of living persons. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

:Slanting and OR continues on 9 August; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1169516825#9_August_2023_edits points 3 and 6 here]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:For concerns about my edits regarding [[WP:BLP]], please see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1169582977 I successfully advocated for the page protection] of [[Lil Tay|an article about a child]] who has faced controversy about her well-being in the past. This occurred as the child's article was facing a bombardment of edits stating that she had died, all of which was based on unconfirmed reports. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm here because my username was mentioned, I don't think I have anything to add to discussion, but you having asked for page protection for a BLP that is being vandalised is not an endorsement that you know how to edit BLPs. If you think it is, that raises more concerns. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 09:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::The tendentious issues are in Venezuelan topics; re "successfully advocat[ing]", [[Lil Tay]] is so bad that anyone could have gotten it protected. Biased editing is sometimes confined to one content area where the editor is unable to see their own bias; that's the issue here. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

===Response===
{{u|NoonIcarus}} has been been performing [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] edits for years {{strike|and this will be properly outlined in an extensive ANI report that I will subsequently begin myself}}. Though we have had issues with edits, I have attempted to work with them to determine a consensus across a multitude of articles throughout the project. Both of our actions have perhaps been unhelpful at times and I will admit that I fell for [[WP:BAIT]] on occasion. This can be seen when [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive470#User%3AWMrapids_reported_by_User%3ANoonIcarus_(Result%3A_No_violation)|NoonIcarus first attempted to bring me to an administrator noticeboard over alleged edit warring on July 19]] in which {{ping|Bbb23}} said we both needed to improve our behavior. After this, I attempted to extend an olive branch on [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)]] the same day, saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOperation_Gideon_%282020%29&diff=1166135611&oldid=1163306350 "Let's move on from different discussions and find a better title for this article. I'll suggest something here soon"], hoping that we could collaborate on finding a better article title for [[Operation Gideon (2020)]] (its title is almost universally opposed). Before I could make my proposal, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOperation_Gideon_%282020%29&diff=1166144354&oldid=1166135611 NoonIcarus made their own proposal] (which had already been rejected before) while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOperation_Gideon_%282020%29&diff=1166144952&oldid=1166144354 I was drafting my own] (which I had already told them I was doing).

Observing this behavior, it seemed that NoonIcarus was intentionally attempting to block my edits and proposals before they had even occurred, showing [[WP:HOUNDING]]. So I continued editing as I had in the past. The main concern I had with Venezuela-related articles was that though government sources were described as unreliable and partisan (as it should be), opposition sources were not described the same way despite reliable sources describing the two parties in the same manner. This was obvious in [[WP:VENRS]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168593057&oldid=1168591470 so I opened a discussion about the issues] on [[WP:RSN]] in order to establish a more broad consensus. In the replies {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168733666&oldid=1168730054 suggested that if I had issues with NoonIcarus], that I open an ANI myself. I replied, saying "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168785658&oldid=1168777768 Ok, I will keep your recommendations in mind if further action is needed to remedy these persistent problems. My only goal is to maintain an accurate and neutral project]." Upon seeing this, NoonIcarus opened their own ANI in a similar manner to what occurred with the [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)]] move proposal (mentioned above), apparently trying to jump the gun with an ANI, though I had no intention on opening one. Seeing this behavior from NoonIcarus was truly disheartening as I showed before, I was attempting to bury the hatchet with them, though they seem to have taken things too personal.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

===Comment from ActivelyDisinterested===
I was going to try and ignore this discussion, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. WMrapids has an issue with [[WP:VENRS]], as can been seen from the many discussions on its talk page, and that's fine. Editors are allowed to disagree with each other, but project do as a normal activity maintain such lists. As I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1159502233 said at VENRS] (in an RFC that isnyet to be closed), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1168684501&oldid=1168677228 reiterated at RSN], the lists are fine as long as the project does try to maintain them against a higher level of consenus. So if you have a problem with the way a source is discribed bring it to RSN, this is what happened with [[WP:RSN#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|La Patilla]] (the close of which is currently at AN). There seems to be two problems, first is that WMrapids is raising questions and multiple RFC without waiting for the final consenus. This has left a confusing trails of discussions without any clear consenuses, I feel WMrapids needs to slow down and allow the processes to finish before starting a new discussion. The second problem is the one under discussion here, my comment at RSN (mentioned by WMrapids above) over aspersions of [[WP:OWN]] could have been stronger but I was hoping to softly direct rather than bludgeon. I suggest that WMrapids strike all such comments that NoonIcarus has objected to at VENRS and RSN, simply as neither is an appropriate forum for such discussions and as a sign of good faith. If they then won't to bring those accusations here, with diffs showing prove, they should do so. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 19:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

:I have no problem striking those comments. I did not know if there was such a policy requiring me to do so, but as a gesture of good faith, I'm more than willing. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] both make comments about how to treat other users. Personally if another editor is working in a way I feel is negative I'll raise it with them and if they disagreee either drop it or (if it is actually problematic) I would raise it here with appropriate evidence. Making continued accusations against another editor on talk pages or noticeboards doesn't foster a good editting environment. I feel that if you struck those comments it would certainly be a step towards de-escalating the situation. This is only my personal advice though, I'm just another editor. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} Also, I attempted to remove the templates from multiple RfCs believing that it would end the discussion (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Venezuela%2FReliable_and_unreliable_sources&diff=1160192122&oldid=1160084373 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&diff=1165055250&oldid=1162401691 here]). The new RfC is genuinely an attempt to achieve more inclusion as the other discussions had already stopped. Sorry for dragging you in here and your recommendations are appreciated! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure that the best direction, as other editors have already replied to them. Best to let them run there course, and work from whatever consenus emerges. Also the current RFC at RSN has many problems, I suggest closing that one. Once the others have closed maybe start an RFC with clearer objectives (specific details of VENRS that you disagree with) and a much more neutral statement. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think there is a formal RfC at RSN, just an outline of topics that I was concerned about, so nothing to really "close". I'll keep the neutrality in mind for opening statements in the future. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::WMrapids, I told you months ago in one of these many discussions somewhere that you needed to slow down and better understand processes, policies and guidelines. I'm pretty sure I told you that ''before'' you started editing a BLP, which is not a place one should go when one is on a roll about a topic like VENRS. And your excessive pinging of the world to every discussion is another bad look. Would it be possible to get you to agree to 1) stop with the personalization and casting of aspersions towards NoonIcarus, b) refrain from editing BLPs of Venezuelans for the meantime (you need to be either better versed with Venezuelan common knowledge or how to follow policy and guideline, and no one remotely associated with Venezuela doesn't know who [[Nelson Bocaranda]] is, and I'm saying that going back to the 1980s, and he certainly is not of "questionable notability"-- by definition the content you deleted about a National Journalism Prize probably alone makes him notable), c) slow down on the RFCs, d) read and digest [[WP:BLUDGEON]], and e) stop the pinging of the world and other borderline canvassing? Your actions have now spread from articles, to the reliable sources noticeboard, to WP:AN, and are probably making it very unlikely that anyone will want to wade in to those RFCs anyway (I sure didn't). If the personalization and bludgeoning stops, I won't press for a topic ban from BLPs, but I don't think you should be editing there. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

===A quick comment===
Good luck sorting this out. I am sure there are faults on all sides. Haven't read everything in detail but some thoughts are:
* We should blow up the VENRS essay and scatter it to the four winds. It is the hobby of a small number of editors which is misused to justify the insertion and deletion of text. There is already a process for assessing the suitability of sources.
* The Caracas Chronicles was mentioned somewhere in the middle of this mess. It has been used in many Venezuela related articles, including BLP's. As far as I can tell, the heaviest user is {{User|Kingsif}}. However, Noonicarus has used it as a source a number of times, including for BLP information. SandyGeorgia has also used it as a source. In the interests of transparency, I have also used it once.

[[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
: Your input is unsurprising here; "the hobby of a small number of editors" are words you might contemplate more carefully. I'm most interested to hear I used Caracas Chronicles once, and would like to see a diff for either context, or so I can correct that. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:: "Your input is unsurprising here": keep your eye on the ball, not the editor.
:: "the hobby of a small number of editors": I went back three years. These editors had a small number of edits during that time: SandyGeorgia (1 edit on 7 August 2023), Ira Leviton (1), ReyHahn (6), John of Reading (1), Buidlhe (1), Kingsif (6), Novem Linguae (2), Stephenamills (1), Wilfredor (1). WMRapids bravely entered the fray on 5 June 2023 and has made 47 edits, a large number of which were reverted by Noonicarus. The remaining several hundred edits over the last 3 years were made by Noonicarus. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 07:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::You did not supply a diff for where, as you say, I used Caracas Chronicles as a source. We all make mistakes, and I'd like to know if I did. {{pb}}Based on what I've seen at [[Nelson Bocaranda]] in only three days of engagement, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1169516825#BLP essentially everything WMrapids has written has needed to be removed, substantially corrected, or has outright bias POV and faulty sourcing and original research], so I'm unsurprised to hear that NoonIcarus has had to revert often. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::: As expected, your diffs show I have not used Caracas Chronicles to source text. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])

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

Your use of Caracas Chronicles came in those heady regime-change days of February 2019. You created the article [[Juan Andrés Mejía]] containing an External link to an article in CC. The link is still there.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Andr%C3%A9s_Mej%C3%ADa&oldid=881052255] You also used CC as a reference when you created the article [[Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis]]. The CC reference you used is still on the page and a second reference has since been added.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=885144877]

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

Poverty in South America [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065671936], Economy of Venezuela [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1103765854], Cine Mestizo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cine_Mestizo&oldid=1111616889], Greg Abbott [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1110697467] (On September 15, 2022, Abbott sent two buses with 101 migrants detained after crossing the U.S. border with Mexico, mostly Venezuelan, to the residence of Vice President [[Kamala Harris]], at the [[United States Naval Observatory|Naval Observatory]] in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington, D. C.]]. Rafael Osío Cabrices in [[Caracas Chronicles]] compared his tactics to [[Alexander Lukashenko|Aleksander Lukashenko]]'s, who provoked a [[2021–2022 Belarus–European Union border crisis|migrant crisis in the European Union Eastern border]] as a reprisal to criticism, and [[Fidel Castro]]'s, who released released common criminals and mental health patients during the 1980 [[Mariel boatlift]] and shipped them to the United States.), Alfred-Maurice de Zayas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1017648532], 2021 Apure clashes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1014574271] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1014780217], Special Action Forces [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Action_Forces&oldid=1029354965], Crisis in Venezuela [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1061847841] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisis_in_Venezuela&diff=prev&oldid=1122684385], Venezuelan presidential crisis [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_presidential_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1122684418]

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

:{{re|Burrobert}} Thanks for the in-depth review. It seems that most of us can be burnt for participating in similar actions. Going forward, we should maintain [[WP:CIVILITY]] and if we have disagreements, seek [[WP:CONSENSUS]] before plowing ahead. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:Your diffs of my use of Caracas Chronicles show nothing more than I expected, which is that I have never used Caracas Chronicles to source text.
:* [[Juan Andrés Mejía]] has Caracas Chronicles in external links (feel free to delete it if you think providing something in English for our readers as an External link is inappropriate).
:* In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=885144877 this diff], where I am copying from another article, Caracas Chronicles is used to provide a translation from Spanish to English, and for that purpose, it is not unreliable.
: [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Stalled with feedback from only one independent editor ===
[Note: The above section header does not belong to me, despite my comment following it: it was introduced in a refactor/reorganization of the discussion by another editor. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)]
[[File:Polish stable in Gdansk.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Stalled with feed (back){{right|-[[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]]}}]]

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

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

::Unfortunately, because of the weird place that the community has chosen to host the Advice pages guideline and discussion of the relevant distinction between [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] on an individual article's talk page (or a policy talk page or noticeboard) vs. advisory discussions at a WikiProject, unfortunately this distinction is often lost on new editors durinjg onboarding (and even sometimes experienced ones over time). We really should have moved it to its own policy page a decade ago, frankly. But for those who don't know, there was past mass disruption that necessitated making this rule a formal one, so by all means, subscribe to VENRS if you think it makes sense, and repeat it's arguments on individual articles if you think they are sound. But do not wave it like a talisman indicating "consensus to do it this way with regard to all articles of type X". That's a one-way ticket back here to ANI. All that said, it seems to me that the remaining content issues can probably be resolved at the relevant talk pages? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Snow Rise}}, you made no mention of the BLP issues, which WMrapids is ''still'' not understanding days in to this discussion. At the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1169926097&oldid=1169903318 NPOV noticeboard, hours after your post and with many reminders about BLP, WMrapids puts forward a source] for a BLP described by ''The Guardian'' as a "pro-Maduro tabloid". Yes, WMrapids has gotten much more polite since this ANI, but the tendentiousness has not abated, and a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::That discussion is taking place at RFN, not in the edit summaries of an edit war or some other inherently disruptive discussion. Why should we take action on what is basically a content dispute between the two of you, one which at the moment no other editors have weighed in on, and in which you have actually outpaced them in volume by about 7:1? WMR's relatively tepid and single comment in that discussion does not rise to the level of tendentious by even the most liberal reading, in my view. Let alone disruptive to the point of validating sanction or other action. If you are that confident of your view on the matter, why not let the discussion play out? Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views on a few things here, including the two most recently discussed sources in particular. But the mere fact that you feel BLP is implicated does not obviate the need for discussion. So long as WMR does not violate [[WP:BRD]] on the article itself and attempt to shift [[WP:ONUS]] in some sort of way, they are merely participating in process at this point. If they do edit war, by all means let us know immediately. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Snow Rise}} don't look now, but I always outpace others because "brevity is not the soul of my wit" and it [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch112#I had to take action|takes me ten posts to make one]]. :) {{pb}} It doesn't help that I have to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1169968007&oldid=1169946900 digress in the midst of a neutrality discussion to explain reliability] in relation to BLPs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A%C3%9Altimas_Noticias&diff=1169985907&oldid=1044585820] {{pb}} The VENRS discussion in my mind pales in comparison to edits that defame living persons. The BLP issues at [[#Case study]] and [[#BLP vios continue]] date to August 7 and 8 (only four days ago). Until the NPOV noticeboard posts within the last few hours, I would have agreed that we are making enough progress on the BLP issues to close the thread, as no further content issues have occurred. But with discussions (eg at NPOV noticeboard) sidetracked by an ongoing failure to understand BLP, it becomes less likely that others will engage a topic already made difficult because most sources are in Spanish. I don't think we're done here and wonder how progress is possible without more input from Spanish speakers. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Snow Rise}} I'll drop by just a second. I mentioned above that further action might not be needed considering WMR retracted from the comments, but I wanted to comment on this since you specifically mentioned [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. There has been edit warring in the outlets articles mentioned above, namely [[Efecto Cocuyo]], [[El Pitazo]], [[Tal Cual]], [[El Nacional (Venezuela)]] and [[Runrunes]], of which the last one is directly related to journalist [[Nelson Bocaranda]]. I have added tags to the disputed sections and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Political stance sections|the discussion about the issue has restarted]], but the onus has in practed shifted to me to restore the articles stable versions, where WMR is the proponent of the changes, currently does not have consensus and the restoration has meant edit warring. I did not start the ANI about this because I believed that it could eventually be solved through discussion, but for [[WP:BRD]] to be respected I believe the best alternative would be to have the articles original versions and discuss based on them. Kind regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, without question the status quo versions (if they have been longterm stable) should be left as the standing versions during the BRD cycle, until consensus for the changes has been achieved. Anything else is likely to fall into the category of tendentious edit warring and refusal to follow process, in most circumstances. {{pb}}That said, I continue to have concerns about how all of you seem to be approaching dispute resolution with regard to the specific articles and sources involved here. In my opinion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|this amount of dedication]] to trying to resolve these issues on the talk page of an essay and advice page is just setting yourself up for trouble. You can't cite any conclusions you arrive at there as "preexisting consensus" that has to be applied to the [[WP:LOCALCONSENUS]] issues on individual articles, and yet at the same time, this amount of debating those same points on that talk page for the essay is going to make you all very attached to the conclusions you form there and very inclined to leave that space expecting you can use the page as shorthand to win "consensus" arguments on particular articles. {{pb}}It's all very much likely to funnel you all into disruptive loggerheads. Most of this discussion should be taking place on the talk pages of the articles in question, with the WikiProject reserved for coordinating and notifying about those discussions, not as a space to centralize the discussions themselves. To the extent that you do need broader forums to resolve some issues, RSN, NPOVN, and the talk pages of relevant policies are where those discussions should be focused. I'm a little concerned that I'm observing the slow build up to a 'VENRS' ArbCom case some ways down the line. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 06:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Snow Rise}} I agree with your broader point about activity at the VENRS talk page, but the devil is in the detail. First, I finally engaged at the talk page of VENRS to try to understand the thinking on a few cases or whether there are points I'm missing, and to save examples that can be used at centralized RFCs. I think that's a necessary precursor to going to [[WP:RSN]] and to minimizing disputes. Second, talk pages of articles have been used inappropriately in the past for RFCs, so don't want to encourage that. Third, the activity you describe as necessary is also happening at article talk pages. Encouraging more use of talk is a good thing, and it's good the aspersions have stopped as a result of this ANI. I'm seeing discussion on previously empty talk pages, and issues coming up that go back years including paid editing. There are very few editors in this area, and help is needed. Venezuelan-topic editors have sought that help, here and at other fora.{{pb}} But fourth and most importantly, when the NPOV noticeboard has been used appropriately when a difference reaches the level of needing feedback, while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1170169000#Feral_cats_and_trap–neuter–release_programs feral cats are all the rage], Bocaranda just above the cats (exactly like this ANI) has gotten not a single independent response (other than you and Actively Disinterested). Same applies to the BLP noticeboard. So if this is a "slow buildup to a VENRS ArbCom", we can thank the whole community for not engaging while Venezuela-topic editors have used the appropriate fora, and I would encourage the arbs to reject a case for that very reason. We're asking; no one is answering. Even an acknowledgement that others don't weigh in because they can't read the Spanish sources would help, because we would at least know if that's the problem. Thank you for at least responding. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::That all sounds pretty reasonable--well I'm not sure why the particular RfCs you cited were not appropriate for article talk pages, but otherwise, I follow your reasoning. I'm sorry you all are having trouble flagging down more community involvement: as you know, some areas just get hit by a dearth of available man power for periods, even with abundant sourcing to work with. Perhaps I can do something small to help: would an extra hand translating sources improve feedback for when you have need of a [[WP:3O]], [[WP:RfC]], the noticeboards, or anywhere that you trying to get eyes on the sourcing? I'm not perfectly fluent, but proficient enough to deliver polished translations, which I used to do more regularly. I don't know if you feel that would actually do a lot of good in these circumstances, but please consider it a standing offer if a translation by someone not involved in the underlying dispute would be helpful. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 16:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Any additional eyes to help with conflicting opinions is always welcome from me. I always advocate for additional participation to help establish a more accurate consensus. Thank you for navigating your way through this discussion as well! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm very happy to be of some small help with feedback. I think you made this discussion much less intractable than it could have been, by being open to striking some comments and amending your approach in some respects from early on. It made a big difference here, I feel. As to any additional bit of help I can offer to you guys, I think I may be more helpful in the role of a neutral for setting up any RfCs on the sourcing issues, or translating sources or some such. But if you disagree at any point and feel a [[WP:3O]] happens to be the most helpful thing I can supply to the process, please feel free to ping me. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks for the offer! But I'm not (yet) sure translation help is needed, as it's not clear that is the problem. Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable. {{pb}} I was left wondering if the NPOV noticeboard might have gotten more response on a simple question (are these sources due weight for this content?) if it hadn't had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1170176850#Nelson_Bocaranda veer off into explaining the use of tabloids to source a BLP]. So we still have no community feedback there; that's what's needed, but the 3O offer is also a good one. Thx, again, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tq|"Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.}}
::::::::::::Yes, now that you've said it, that does seem obvious now! I guess I am still adjusting to this reality: all my adult life the ability to produce translations for multiple languages has been a value-added skill, generally separate from but useful for my main work which I could interject to offer for help here and there. Presumably it was much the same for many similarly-situated, going back through generations of our forebearers. And now, very suddenly, the same results are trivially available (with increasing reliability, at least in the basics) everywhere. I guess my mind is still catching up with that. Thing is, even when talking just about the immediate future, it probably won't be nearly the last task with analytical elements that I am used to occasionally doing that I will now have to get used to being done through automation. Will I sound old, wistful and slowing with respect to keeping up with the times, if I opine that the times, they surely are a'changin'? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yep ... but thanks for the offer nonethelss, as I do still worry that others have not jumped in for the translation issue. Regards, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Respectively, I think we should be done here as I have agreed and participated in plenty of discussions with these two regarding improved content. {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} provided a lot of help to me not only here, but in other discussions as well, so I have to thank them for their behavior. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocated by Sandy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=1169779413&oldid=1169755017 who responded harshly] after I asked for help regarding a sensitive BLP. In addition, I recently saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Últimas_Noticias&diff=999707739&oldid=999704870 some edits that would support my argument] about an existing double standard used by NoonIcarus (since my similar edits were reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runrunes&diff=1159065048&oldid=1159024278 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tal_Cual&diff=1162399184&oldid=1162377160 here]), though I recognized that these edits were in the past and we should move forward after we discussed the recent issues at hand. I already said I would de-escalate here and not place an ANI regarding NoonIcarus despite ample evidence that they are not innocent, though I have [[WP:GOODFAITH]] that their edits will improve in the future. For Sandy, maybe you should take the advice you gave me and slow down too? Again, I’m saying this with with the best intentions and in an attempt to focus on collaboration. So [[Wikipedia:Just drop it|let’s just all drop this]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I've already mentioned my position regarding the ANI. Avoiding to talk about content (particularly seems some of your claims can be easily disproved), I don't appreciate the accusations of a "double standard" unless they are discussed in the article's talk page before, as the main point of why the thread was opened can be pretty much in effect until it is closed. I look forward your feedback regarding my last proposals on the topics. As for the dispute with Sandy, I cannot comment much on the activity about Bocaranda's article (at least in the recent days). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::As I said, my intention was to be as respectful as possible when raising this concern, but it's important to [[Wikipedia:SPADE|call a spade a spade]], so sorry for the [[Wikipedia:BOOMERANG|boomerang]]. The main reason this should end is so we can focus on improvements and the proposals, not on conflict. Again, I have [[WP:GOODFAITH|good faith]] that we can move forward and that lessons were learned. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::What boomerang? Even if nothing else comes of this ANI, getting the aspersions and BLP vios, along with acknowledgement of maintaining the consensus version during the BRD cycle, to stop was worthwhile. I do see that Burrobert continues to allege ownership because most of the edits were NoonIcarus's, even though the talk page shows ample engagement from others, with NoonIcarus being the one to make the edits. This is similar to the FAR of [[J. K. Rowling]], where I show up as the author of a lot of content because I was the one who installed the consensus version developed on talk. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Burrobert is correct about some of the reports and the “consensus” is dubious at best. And like the poster, who you say you’re “friends” with, your behavior has been questionable. Though I appreciate and accept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=1169927641&oldid=1169913442 your apology], it seemed half-hearted and somewhat similar to [[WP:BROTHER]] as you blamed your dog for ''your'' behavior, which ''you'' are responsible for. This circumstance reminds me of the adage “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”, which has recently helped me remain [[WP:CIVIL]] in these situations. Again, this is in no way to be condescending, but while we are all here, we should ''all'' work on improving our behavior and civility in order to collaborate more effectively in the future. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Alright, that's all fair enough--and the last point in particular should be taken to heart by all involved. But that said, the back and forth is leaning back towards passive aggression again. And for the record, you really shouldn't keep making a point of saying that you are being cooperative because you didn't file an ANI against someone else who was discussing your conduct here (if I am reading that correctly). It's true that that's the right thing to do in the circumstances, but it would have been disruptive to have done so anyway: anybody who is involved in the underlying dispute can have their conduct reviewed in this discussion, so counter-filing would have been perceived as retaliatory and unhelpful. {{pb}}That said, my initial inquiry was whether or not the other parties here were satisfied with your response to the need to avoid aspersions, and it seems to me that with fair caveats (going both ways) everyone here seems to be a willingness to move forward and try to work together. The major concern right now (and I honestly do not yet feel up to speed enough on all the ins-and-outs to know whether to endorse or reject this claim) is that your sourcing may not be up to snuff for some BLP purposes. Under the circumstances I feel like I can only ask you to be open to the possibility. [[WP:BLP]] is afterall regarded as a cornerstone of content work on contemporary issues. But again, we seem to be sufficiently back in to the content side of things at this point, that I think further discussion should return to relevant talk pages. Please consider running RfCs if you are still at loggerheads on the same couple of articles in a few days. If you do not have experience with that process and are at all unsure about the formatting or approach, please let me know and if it is helpful to you all, I will consult with each side and draft a prompt which hopefully fairly and neutrally presents each side's arguments as to the acceptability and sufficiency of the sources. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree and thank you for your help. No more responses from me here (unless something major happens). [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::It's unclear to me why WMrapids believes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=1169927641#Change_in_scenery? this conversation on a topic completely unrelated to Venezuela and unrelated to WMrapids about an article in which I have no interest in participating required an apology at all-- I offered one anyway just because apologies never hurt when one has been short]. (On an earlier question, the RFCs on the talk pages were going to generate no more than the same local consensus.) Further, I did not say I was friends with any poster; I made a joke about [[arepa]]s. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:I propose to turn this case to [[WP:Arbcom]]. [[user:Lemonaka‎|-Lemonaka‎]] 06:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

== User: [[user:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ==
{{atop|result = Bluthmark, please try to be more civil when dealing with others. Everyone in general needs to take the heat down some; it's northern hemisphere summer for many of us, and I think we're all getting a bit crazy from the heat. Regardless, general consensus seems to be that while Bluthmark could use some reminders to be more congenial when working with others, and be more careful in general, that no bad faith editing is happening. Closing this as, per suggestion, it is clear nothing will become of this report at this time, and we've reached the phase where the heat is greater than the light. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)|status = no action}}
Editor has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluthmark#August_2023] The disruptive behavior continues.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greta_Gerwig&diff=prev&oldid=1169519882]. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:Not a ''single person'', not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, [[User talk:Soetermans#Why are you reverting my edits on Jedi fallen order?|this conversation]] shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:AGF]] is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically ''zero'' attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::What's goin on [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::::My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates ''left by others'' are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to [[WP:FORUMSHOP|wait around for another admin to do your bidding]] if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to ''actually explain the situation in detail'' and ''actually provide diffs'' showing the problem and ''actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously'' (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing [[Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order]], rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_on_Both_Sides&diff=prev&oldid=1169541070]. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::My bad I'm working on it [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::You're still[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitman_3&diff=prev&oldid=1169550061] doing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goat_Simulator&diff=prev&oldid=1169551484] it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goat_Simulator&diff=prev&oldid=1169551611] [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I promise I will do it next time [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::On 5 August 2023, you changed
::::::::*"vous" to "vois" in [[French personal pronouns]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_personal_pronouns&diff=prev&oldid=1168912622]
::::::::*"In Spain, northern dialects" to "In Africa, east-western dialects" in [[Spanish language]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_language&diff=prev&oldid=1168912522]
::::::::*<nowiki>[[Urdu language|Urdu]]</nowiki> to <nowiki>[[Urdu language|Durdu]]</nowiki> in [[Official languages of the United Nations]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Official_languages_of_the_United_Nations&diff=prev&oldid=1168912565]
::::::::That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluthmark&diff=prev&oldid=1168917121] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] Can you provide a more substantive reply? [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry for the editorial distruptivness [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at [[Steep (video game)]], without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Check Mobygames [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::The video game infobox guide [[WP:VG/MOS]] says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::concept artists* [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[https://www.mobygames.com/game/81848/steep/ Mobygames] does not explicitly support [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steep_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1169550855 your changes]. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on [[WP:VG/MOS]] (though [[Template:Infobox video game/doc]] could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference [[WP:VG/MOS#Infobox|in WP:VG/MOS]]). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:"Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per [[WP:VG/MOS]] we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. [[User:Soetermans|soetermans]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A '''TALK''']] 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::No, not "whatever man". I am a person, a fellow editor. You should not refer to me, or anybody else for that matter, as "some [x] guy". That borders [[WP:UNCIVIL]] behaviour. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Jedi%3A_Fallen_Order&diff=1169670381&oldid=1169662186 you are still edit warring]. [[WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT]]? [[User:Soetermans|soetermans]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A '''TALK''']] 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Soetermans|Soetermans]] Can you point out where you linked to [[WP:VG/MOS]] as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at [[Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order]] with no attempts at starting a discussion. [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Hi {{u|Shells-shelss}}, I mostly edit on my phone, I guess I forgot to mention it. But again, they're still edit warring and as {{u|NebY}} pointed out, several of their edits are plain vandalism. Edit warring isn't a beginner's mistake. They've been here for over half a year, they should know better. They've been issued several warnings, not just by me. Even if you consider those to be poorly explained, they should've at least gotten the message they're doing something wrong. Like adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Jedi:_Fallen_Order&action=history writers and producers] to an infobox. {{u|Ferret}}, care to chime in? [[User:Soetermans|soetermans]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A '''TALK''']] 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Soetermans|Soetermans]] In regards to Bluthmark and infobox credits? Nope, not really. I reverted one change, and they accepted my revert. I'm on team "we should remove credits from the infobox" :P The rules for those fields on {{tl|infobox video game}} are arcane, and barely defined in relation to modern large scale video game production. Just context-less lists of non-notable BLPs, with no prose or reliable secondary coverage. Changing the producers to senior producers, when the infobox doc says "exclude executive producers", is really an edge case call. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of this ANI post, just responding to the immediate ping for where I crossed this editor's path. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:Soetermans|Soetermans]], I absolutely agree they should have gotten the message that they were doing something wrong; the problem seems to me that they had little way of knowing exactly ''what'' they were doing wrong, since nobody made any effort at communication besides the sublimely unspecific stock warning templates. They even [[special:diff/1169387321|asked you directly]] for help and received little more than a hand-wave towards 'consensus' and 'the guidelines'. And maybe it's true that they should have known better than to edit war; but doesn't that apply doubly to you? You violated [[WP:3RR]] on that page as well (also, what's up with [[special:diff/1169676353|this unexplained revert]]?). I guess I would just like to see more helpful communication here. [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, the editor who made the ''most'' effort to communicate here was Bluthmark. They made multiple attempts to address the other editors' concerns, despite the others refusing to explain it. That he was taken to ANEW and ANI doesn't look good for those other two editors. That said "some German guy" was uncalled-for, but if I was Bluthmark, I'd be fed up, too. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
:I do not believe sanctions should be taken towards @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] per the two threads above.
:TL;DR:
:The persons involved have done negligible effort in creating constructive criticism with @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] to improve his editing and has given, at most, modest evidence of vandalism but no evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, some persons involved have also been found to be hypocritical of their own accusations towards @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] in regards to edit warring. Among editors, @[[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] has given the most effort to create dialogue though has made an uncivil remark. [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:I still think I'm right about my edits on Jedi: Fallen Order but, like misrecognizing his nationality from a glance at his user page, they seem to really upset Soetermans so I'll quit it out of respect. It's an infobox about a Star Wars game after all, it doesn't mean the world. I'm sorry if I've broken any other of these rules that are hidden in secret articles with names that sound like abbreviations of mental disorders ([[WP: VG/MOS]], wtf?). My bad for not giving a "substantial apology" for putting the letter D infront of "Urdu" that one time, and a big sorry for any other misunderstandings caused by me not always understanding this outdated ass interface. I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text. Plus I've had an account for like 7 months and I don't really edit often. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (sotermans taught me to sign like that instead of explaining why he reverted my edits)
:::Unfortunately, the only visual puns I could muster for ''outdated ass interface'' are not publishable under current US law. (For those not familiar, see [[WP:ASSPERSIANS]] for the general idea.) [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::Y'all are taking some Swedish guy adding nonessential info about a game he likes and calling some guy "some guy" waaaay to seriously. A bit sad tbh [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I suggest that you strike that. [[user:Soetermans]] has already indicated that they find that form of address uncivil. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
::Comparing Wikipedia Guideline shortcuts to mental disorders isn't a great look either, on top of doubling down on referencing people by nationality. You've had some folks in this thread come out in your support, but this last response is really... not great. This "outdated ass interface" didn't cause you to deliberately disrupt past articles. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::''"I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text."''
::Sir, I'm 21. I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text either. In my opinion everything you have said after my previous post was unnecessary. We are not taking these things "to [sic] seriously". Communication is the art of understanding how details in dialogue can cause or resolve conflict.
::The reason why people deem your use of nationalities in addressing others as uncivil or offensive is because it implies you perceive others superficially and it negates their humanity. I wouldn't like it if you referred to me as some American because I am just as human as you. My nationality doesn't make my real emotions, complex life, and vulnerability to suffering any different than your. No single noun is complex enough to describe a person. When you do this you're taking the first step in the march towards being racist. Not to mention bringing up someone's nationality is irrelevant to the heart of what we are trying to convey to you. As the idiom goes "missing the forest for the trees."
::And nodding towards the previous point, its just ignorant to perceive any abbreviation as akin to the abbreviations used in medicine for with mental illnesses. Would it be a safe presumption to believe that you would also call ASL and IMF abbreviations for mental illnesses too? You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.
::Currently your optics show real insensitivity and, though not overtly uncivil, you are treading precariously close to crossing the line. You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism. Still, being ignorant is not a crime but '''I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence''' before you say something out of emotion that will cause me to retract my previous post above.
::<nowiki>Remember, I stated that you shouldn't be sanctioned and I believe this event should be something to learn from as feedback in your time here at Wikipedia — not punitive. If you sincerely don't like Wikipedia, you have the choice to leave. There are many other amazing things waiting for you other than Wikipedia. Please use your faculties and agency in making good choices. ~~~</nowiki> [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 09:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Some ''human'' guy just gave me a whole life lesson cause I was being slightly rude at someone I though was sabotaging ''me''. No shit you're life is complex, but this isn't life, this is wikipedia, and the only reason I brough up mental disorders is cause I was at the psychiatrist the other day and I swear to god there was an illness called WP:VG/MOS. I'mma go now goodbyyye x [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 10:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::''"I was at the psychiatrist"''
::::That explains a lot.
::::''"No shit you're'' [sic] ''life is complex"''
::::I'm genuinely curious to why you're so hostile?
::::"Some ''human'' guy...I though [sic] was sabotaging ''me."''
::::So what are you trying to accomplish from all this? What is your endgame? I'm actually really curious.
::::It legitimately seems you are unhappy with Wikipedia but you're still here. Unironically ironic. [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Now I'm curious what does it explain [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 14:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Wait who ever are you? You showed up to wikipedia like two weeks ago and you're here talking big shit. Half of what you've done on wikipedia is THIS, talkin bout sumn "I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence". Like just tell me to shut the fuck up you don't have to do all that. [[User:Bluthmark|Bluthmark]] ([[User talk:Bluthmark|talk]]) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|UnironicEditor}}, in response to someone saying they see a psychiatrist: "{{tq|That explains a lot.}}"
:::::{{u|UnironicEditor}}, mere hours before posting that: "{{tq|You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.}} [...] {{tq|Currently your optics show real insensitivity}} [...] {{tq|You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism.}}"
:::::Sarcastically jabbing at someone else's mental health right after proclaiming the need for sensitivity does not make you look like the bigger person. Nor does pettily inserting ''[sic]'' every time you quote them. If you're going to go that route, it helps to proofread your own words; "any different than your [sic]", "its [sic] just as ignorant", "used in medicine for with [sic]", "perfectly capable in [sic] using"...
:::::You've been on Wikipedia for two weeks, and already 50% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at ANI. May I kindly suggest spending as little time in the [[WP:CESSPOOL]] as possible? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A|2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A|talk]]) 08:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.
::::::How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.
::::::"pettily inserting ''[sic]'' every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?
::::::Not sure how being this ironic is accomplishing anything. And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation. [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 12:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.}}
:::::::Don't flatter yourself. I have no accounts, nor am I a sock. [[User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64|IPv6 editors' IPs change regularly.]] You can just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=2600%3A1700%3A87D3%3A3460%3A1054%3AF245%3A%3A%2F64&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 check my /64] to see that I've been editing at my apartment's IP range long before you ever made an account.
::::::::{{tq|How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.}}
:::::::''Sure, Jan.''
::::::::{{tq|"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?}}
:::::::Yes, that was indeed the point — that using [sic]s to make someone sound less cogent than you is A) petty and pointless, and B) not a wise strategy when your own prose is just as prone to error.
::::::::{{tq|And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation.}}
:::::::Please don't cast unfounded aspersions about someone more experienced than you gently and genuinely suggesting that spending the bulk of your time on the drama board isn't a good way to start your editing career here. (And while I have no intent of making anything about your behavior, ''for future reference'', [[Wikipedia:VEXBYSTERANG|boomerangs don't discriminate]].) [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5|2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5|talk]]) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved like to close this? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

:I think the problem with that is despite this being a travesty of an AN/I where almost nobody seems to be able to keep their head on straight, there is genuinely problematic behavior here. For what its worth, Bluthmark has made multiple deliberate attempts to inflame another user ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1169537791 ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1169868963 ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1169955450 ]) but I can understand why people might not be chomping at the bit to MOP up this mess considering how messy it is. [[User:GabberFlasted|GabberFlasted]] ([[User talk:GabberFlasted|talk]]) 11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::Bluthark at least needs a serious [[WP:Civility]] warning, and to realize that antagonizing people on the admin notice board is a ''really'' bad idea. Beyond that, I don't think we need specific action. — [[User:HandThatFeeds|The Hand That Feeds You]]:[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]] 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:Please. This thread is 10% rational discussion and 90% tangential sniping. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Persistent misuse of talk pages ==

*[[Special:Contributions/95.149.166.0/24]]
A lot of [[WP:FORUM]] posts (e.g. {{diff2|1161217367}} {{diff2|1161861097}} {{diff2|1163016844}} {{diff2|1169217690}}) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. [[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Sure:
*[[User talk:95.149.166.130]] (three warnings)
*[[User talk:95.149.166.138]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.153]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.156]] (one warning, not for misuse of talk pages but for trying to whitewash an article)
*[[User talk:95.149.166.186]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.192]]
*[[User talk:95.149.166.194]] (one warning for addition of their opinions to an article)
*[[User talk:95.149.166.231]]
[[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 02:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Unarchiving this since the user continues this behavior: {{diff2|1170045044}} {{diff2|1170365707}}. [[Special:Contributions/93.72.49.123|93.72.49.123]] ([[User talk:93.72.49.123|talk]]) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:It does seem that a range block is going to be in order, if only to get their attention. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' Many of the comments did make an argument about editorial decisions (77, 79 and 81 explicitly do). I dont think the IP address warrants a penalty, or even a warning. I think a penalty will be perceived as being more for the users opinions than for at most minor violation of policy that has negligible disruption to the project. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 06:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

== Article [[Rebecca Bradley (justice)]] edits ==

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

:I've semi'd the page for three days and will watch after the protection expires to see if the activity resumes. Thanks for the report. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Bradley_(justice)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rlgbjd
:[[Special:Contributions/208.87.236.201|208.87.236.201]] ([[User talk:208.87.236.201|talk]]) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:The article currently states that the account and subject are the same person, plus the editors talk page, and a report at COIN. All of this is based on one article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is turn is based on a tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Some BLP eyes might be useful. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article did also include an interview where Bradley confirmed she used the account. [[User:Muhibm0307|Muhibm0307]] ([[User talk:Muhibm0307|talk]]) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks your the second editor to point out my mistake, I'll just slink of somewhere before EENG spellcheks my post. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I'll just slink of}}{{snd}}See [[WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER]] (Corollary 1). [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You missed {{tq|spellcheks my post}}. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské Couriano]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^&lowbar;^v]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]] 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I scan left to right and stop at the first mismatch. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*I think there's enough sourcing now to include details about her editing of the article in the article itself. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
** {{re|EEng#s}} I see that this is now included in the body, but has not been mentioned in the lede. I am wondering, does getting caught in the self-editing (or perhaps directed editing) of one's Wikipedia article generally merit mention in the lede? [[User:BD2412|'''''BD2412''''']] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
***I don't really think so. I mean, it's a big deal to Wikipedia, but in the grand scheme of the outside world, most people don't care about it that much. [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Noise!]] 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
**:I don't believe it should be lead worthy, unless the case is egregious. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|LilianaUwU]]''''' ([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]]) 19:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
**:I've removed the section. This happens every time someone edits their own article ([[Mike Lawler]]) or their article otherwise gets media coverage ([[Emily St. John Mandel]]). But a single news cycle of attention does not [[WP:DUE]] make, especially on a BLP. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
**:: {{re|Tamzin}} I see this as almost the opposite of a [[WP:DENY]] situation. Calling out those who manipulate Wikipedia in the most forward context possible (noting it in their article, and where it is substantial, in the lede) will discourage such behavior generally. [[User:BD2412|'''''BD2412''''']] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::Article content is entirely separate from user conduct considerations. To the extent that we have upheld BLP and our core content policies by omitting from articles the fact that their subjects are/were long-term abusers. More broadly, we do not use articles to "name and shame". We are an encyclopedia, not a wall of shame. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 19:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::But it's not just user (editor) conduct -- it's conduct of the article subject as well. And I can see some logic to using articles to name and shame when the shameful behavior occurred ''on Wikipedia itself''. [[User:EEng#s|E]][[User talk:EEng#s|Eng]] 22:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::[[WP:SUBJECT|We don't give ourself any special status in our articles.]] -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 23:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::But what shame is there? WE are aghast because it's a violation of a WP policy, and we know that because we fiddle around behind the scenes all the time, but the average person who reads something like "...and she was caught EDITING HER OWN ARTICLE..." would immediately think "Yeah? So what?" [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Noise!]] 03:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::I'm not sure that's true. My sense from following a number of these stories over the years is that a politician (and this justice is an elected official afterall) editing criticism out of their own article is something that is likely to be perceived as socially dubious behaviour--and it's likely to get even more attention where the political figure in question is already a contentious one. I guess you can label me as rather on the fence about discussing these events in general, and in this case with the sourcing to date, but there can come a time when the [[WP:WEIGHT]] doesn't give us much choice ''but'' to mention such happenings. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*Surely we should also block the account for undisclosed COI editing and/or edit warring? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Neither of those usually results in a block on the first offense. And the username is her initials plus "[[Juris Doctor|JD]]", so not exactly an attempt to deceive. Plus the account hasn't edited in 2 months. Warnings should suffice for now. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 23:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*::I take your pro forma point and all, but the behaviour still seems pretty clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]] to me. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

== POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments ==

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

* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – Wiped the article of a pro-democracy Vietnamese party, justifying some of the removals because of broken links.
* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – Whitewashed [[Human rights in Vietnam]], removing reliable sources because they disagree with them.
* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – Removed sourced information from [[Human experimentation in North Korea]], citing the source's Wikipedia page to say that it's unreliable.
* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – Deleted unsourced information, but only the portion that documented North Korean atrocities, leaving the rest of the unsourced content there. This followed [[Special:Diff/1166655920|a similar edit]] to that article regarding China and the Soviet Union.
* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – A [[WP:COATRACK]] edit to criticize [[Yeonmi Park]], a North Korean defector, on the article of someone she was once interviewed by.
* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. [[Special:Diff/1166829863|Reverted]] an attempt to restore the content.
* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – Promoted [[Holodomor denial]] on the article of a Holodomor denier and the subsequent [[Talk:Douglas Tottle#Holodomor denial|talk page discussion]].
* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – Deleted sourced information about political executions in Cuba because it was sourced by an offline book and the publisher's webpage didn't verify the information.
* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Deleted information about government oppression of LGBT people in Cuba because the source had no page number.
* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – Deleted sourced information about human rights in communism because they felt that the information wasn't right.

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

:Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on [[David Ivon Jones]] so I'm sorry it ended up like this.
:I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being [[Trevor Carter]] and [[Billy Strachan]]. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.
:Let's have a look at these cases individually.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169924025]] – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the [[Việt Tân]] wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by [[Ngo Dinh Diem]]. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for [[Voice of America]], since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider [[Russia today]] a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
:* Aug 12: [[Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317]] – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
:* Aug 11: [[Special:Diff/1169763206]] – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for [[The Black Book of Communism|''The Black Book of Communism'']] is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
:* Jul 29: [[Special:Diff/1167691330]] – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
:* Jul 28: [[Special:Diff/1167511860]] – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated ([[Donald Trump Jr.]] [[Kanye West]], etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in [[The Washington Post|''The Washington Post'']] (see [https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/07/16/yeonmi-park-conservative-defector-stories-questioned/ here]) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
:* Jul 24: [[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
:* Jun 28: [[Special:Diff/1162362200]] – I was read [[Ronald Grigor Suny]]'s work ''Red Flag Unfurled'' (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide"''.'' I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor [[Stephen G. Wheatcroft]], and [[R. W. Davies]], don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by [[Anne Applebaum]] at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
:* Jun 18: [[Special:Diff/1160694587]] – A sentence in the wikipedia page for [[Cuba]] claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
:* Jun 17: [[Special:Diff/1160543383]] – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
:* Jun 16: [[Special:Diff/1160426290]] – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.
:[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{t|page needed}} is for. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.{{pb}}I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{t|page needed}} or {{t|verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely ''assuming'' it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::<nowiki>This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{</nowiki>[[Template:Page needed|page needed]]<nowiki>}} or {{</nowiki>[[Template:Verify source|verify source]]<nowiki>}} in the future. </nowiki>[[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at [[WP:RSP]]) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather ''editorial independence'' that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks ''editorial independence'' from the Russian government ''and'' it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{tq|[[Special:Diff/1166815884]] – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content.}} - just to be clear, the cited text refers to ''South'' Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The ''yeonjwaje'' bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding [[Special:Diff/1169763206]], while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a [[WP:RS]], certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people ''want'' to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Black_Book_of_Communism|here]]. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1151776136 the United States talkpage] back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to [[WP:NOTHERE|be here]] to build a neutral encyclopedia. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Their language was not conducive to collegiality. It was abrasive. There were a million better ways for them to express themselves, such as simply inquiring why the statement was there, but they chose to be aggressive instead. I'm not calling for sanctions on them. Also, they're still being aggressive below. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I don't see any aggression. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You don't see how calling something a "laughable description" is aggressive? Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy, but it is unhelpful and not conducive to the atmosphere we're trying to foster here. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Actually I thought this was a bit agressive/personal attack: "they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia". [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::Please don't deflect. Answer the question as was posed to you. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::I didn't think their comment about the article was agressive, nor do I think it is sanctionable. It was about content not a person. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::Thank you... I also don't think the comment is sanctionable, but I do think it was aggressive as it was a comment on the people contributing to the article. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though, it's just something to keep in mind. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::{{tq|Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy}}. Well this is the issue, isn't it? The trademark of efficient civil POV pushing is that each edit looks innocuous in a vacuum, and it's only when you look at the contributions as a whole that the behaviors described at [[WP:CPUSH]] start to line up. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::You're not wrong; I'm just speaking in regards to my one experience with them. The only reason I'm even commenting here is because I thought I had something of note to mention about them. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You tell me to assume good faith while at the same time you vote to permanently sanction my account because I criticised a wiki page you contributed to. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Where did I '''!vote''' for sanctioning your account? I did not, I left a comment that I felt that people should be aware of when discussing your editing history. I'm ''not'' calling for sanctions on your account.-- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. [[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I largely agree with this assessment. I don't see any damning evidence posted above that warrants the editor in question being sanctioned.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 16:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think there's anything that is worthy of sanctions discussed here, but I do think that they should be reminded of [[WP:CIVIL]] and try to express disagreements on article content in a more polite manner, with awareness that the people who frequent the article talk page are likely the same people who wrote the content being criticized. -- [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone]][[User talk:Rockstone35|Send me a message!]] 00:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems more like they hold an anti-Western bias, which is just as bad as a pro-Western bias. The problem is they edit with that bias.
::For instance, they hate the U.S. because it's a "country with a torture camp" yet defend Vietnam, China, North Korea, and The USSR, who are/were all countries with "torture camps." Textbook [[WP:CPOV]], and as [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] states, a long history of it. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That is complete rubbish, I have never once defended torture on wikipedia, ever! [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yet no evidence of "bias" editing was been provided. I don't think this is a forum to attack someone because they don't share one's views.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

'''In my defence:''' When [[User:Thebiguglyalien]] accuses me of pov-pushing for 'autocratic governments', his evidence is a short select list of edits from the past few months, all of which I've provided reasonable explanations for. However, of my 3,000+ edits on wikipedia, the vast majority of them are actually made on pages I created, a list of [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/userviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&namespace=0&redirects=0&range=latest-20&sort=size&direction=1&view=list&user=The%20History%20Wizard%20of%20Cambridge which you can see here]. Thebiguglyalien depicts me as some lunatic who is obsessed with dictatorships like North Korea and Joseph Stalin. However glancing at the pages I created, which is a far more systematic record of my behaviour then a few cherrypicked edits, reveals that none of the biographies I wrote held any great levels of political power. The most influential and powerful person I ever created a wiki page for was a woman called Jessie Eden who led a tenants union. My specialist area is Marxist and anti-colonial activists in 20th century Britain and my page creation history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien selection of edits provides anecdotes whereas my page creation history provides proof of my systematic behaviour. [[User:The History Wizard of Cambridge|The History Wizard of Cambridge]] ([[User talk:The History Wizard of Cambridge|talk]]) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

See edit history for {{user|A E WORLD}}, especially to prominent articles. Not responding to messages at their page, which sometimes leads me to suspect they've been down this road before. At any rate, they ought to be slowed down at the least, and allow for others to clean up in their wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*I'm wondering about a possible connection to blocked user {{user|Adakaibe}}, whose old edits they're now reverting. I'm also looking at a nest of similar accounts editing at articles like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Nigeria&action=history]. If it's not sock or meat activity, it could be an organized school assignment, but there's much damage in its wake. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*Adding {{user|Starheroine}}. Same issue, continuing to overlink after being warned and acknowledging the issue. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*And {{user|Ayyuha Sideeq}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**''Please'' block {{user|Starheroine}}. Mass disruption. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Block me for what. Did you go through the articles I edited? Kindly go through them again. And don't be judgemental. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
**:2601... no there are no edits by Starheroine in the page few days that are problematic. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I suspect there's much still on the table that ''is'' problematic, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, as at [[Christians Against Poverty]], where overlinking is in play, but even more so [[WP:ENGVAR]]. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been a week since Ayyuha Sideeq edited. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, {{u|EvergreenFir}}. See the most recent edits. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Starheroine}}, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been [[WP:OVERLINK]]ing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&diff=prev&oldid=1170645470]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_Development_Goal_3&diff=prev&oldid=1170678275], a few didn't allow for [[WP:ENGVAR]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christians_Against_Poverty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762741], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_plastic_pollution_treaty&diff=prev&oldid=1170762568]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1170697606]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. [[User:Starheroine|Starheroine]] ([[User talk:Starheroine|talk]]) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Another one, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, {{u|Lourdes}}: {{user|Pmanofficial}}. [[Deforestation]] is protected, so I can't revert the edits there. Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*And another, {{user|Prowriter101}}, with a patently inappropriate username. They've also messed around with some locked articles that I'm unable to mend. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Apologies--though Prowriter's edits are disruptive, they don't appear to be related to the other accounts. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:M.Bitton]] ==

I've had a series of reverts with this user who gave me [[User talk:Vyvagaba#August 2023|two disruptive editing warnings]], for two edits I made to address the neutrality of the lead in [[Dakhla, Western Sahara]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1170676466 the latest revert]).

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

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

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

:I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In [[User_talk:Vyvagaba#Question|the discussion]] that followed, first you said {{tq|I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts |q=yes}}, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::Why are you changing your replies? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Please explain how? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::It's for you to explain why '''you misrepresented the sources''' to push a political POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks [[Special:Diff/1170675949|this diff]]. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at [[WP:NPOV]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1170683348] [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to [https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19 this] document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).
*:So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Could you please view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170793456 this version] as @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is still being difficult. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I restored the reference in the second edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakhla,_Western_Sahara&oldid=1170792759 I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy.] [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::No what you did was change it to {{tq|but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}}. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You ''can't'' use those sources to say {{tq|also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco}} as that's not what they say.
*:::::::It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the [[Political status of Western Sahara]]. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Nope, '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV'''. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::The status of WS is disputed, '''your using your POV''' (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories ([[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]). [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that '''you misrepresented the sources to push your POV.''' [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. [https://minurso.unmissions.org/background Example 1], [https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/S_RES_2654.pdf Example 2] to the extent some claim that the [https://www.focusonafrica.info/en/western-sahara-sahrawis-denounce-united-nations-support-the-occupying-power/ United Nations supports the occupying Power]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Why are you changing the subject? :) [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/22/western-sahara-wall-morocco-trump 1] [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2663843 2] [https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Wsahara.htm 3] [https://reliefweb.int/report/western-sahara/nrc-report-western-sahara-occupied-country-displaced-people-issue-22008 4]. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?
*::::::::::::P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples
*::::::::::::[https://minurso.unmissions.org/background United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara] "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."
*::::::::::::[https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/conflict-western-sahara ICRC] "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."
*::::::::::::[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115273 BBC] "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",
*::::::::::::[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220407-morocco-s-autonomy-plan-for-the-western-sahara France 24] "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",
*::::::::::::[https://childrensrightsresearch.com/stories/39-moroccan-controlled-western-sahara-freedom-of-expression Childrens Rights Research] "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."
*::::::::::::[https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/north-africa/western-sahara/paving-way-talks-western-sahara Crisis Group] "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."
*::::::::::::[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/13/morocco-launches-operation-in-western-sahara-border-zone Al Jazeera] "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.
*::::::::::::Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.
*::::::::::::The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".
*::::::::::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/world/africa/morocco-western-sahara-conflict-explained.html New York Times] "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara '''is not''' occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. {{re|Rosguill}} could you please share your views on this? Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Political_status_of_Western_Sahara|scouting]] and [[Xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0/Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria|creating]] [[xtools:topedits/en.wikipedia.org/M.Bitton/0|WS and Algeria-related articles]], so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.
*::::::::::::::::I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.[[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{A note}} the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed {{tq|claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco|q=yes}} to two reliable sources[https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/19][https://books.google.com/books?id=tGQJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT264] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{A Note}} I informed @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1170805979 The latest example in my dispute], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals] with the same "misrepresentation" show. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started [[Special:Diff/1170795647|following me]] to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1170795647 and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you]. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for '''your persistent misrepresentation of the sources''' to push a POV. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You should probably read [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]), not just the user reported. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is '''your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV'''. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{re|Rosguill|ActivelyDisinterested}} Since Vyvagaba has made it amply clear that they have no intention of addressing the raised issue, I think it's time that some action is taken as I don't see how anyone who behaves in such manner can be trusted. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Just to be clear, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is preventing and all debate diagreeing with his pov, [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|I posted a note on the article's talk page]] (since this is a behaviour noticeboard and because the NPOV noticeboard said that the complaint was too early to post since we didn't debate on the talk page) to present detailed quotes from reliable soures to support the wording I proposed, and to get feedback to tweak the wording to reach consensus. I dont see why @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] would keep stone walling any discussion with their "misrepresentation" saga, I provided detailed evidence in that post to see what others would think I'm misrepresenting and to fix that. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Procedurally, if I were to have come across this thread without having participated in it, I would close in favor of the topic ban. While I am not [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the content disputes here, I don't think it would be fair for me to close here given that I initially proposed the sanction, only one other uninvolved editor has participated here at ANI, and this isn't a CTOP subject. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*[[User:Rosguill]], I think that Vyvagaba deserves a topic ban, yes, or perhaps a (partial) block. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:If you could spend the time to read the post I have on [[Talk:Dakhla, Western Sahara#Back to the point|the article's talk page]] and let me know if any of the points I raised are completly reasonabale and rational, and with evidence to support it, I'm just asking to know what I'm misrepresinting in the sources I included, since I'm starting to feel a little crazy at this point. [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I only started to look into this out of interest of an RS issue, what I found has left me deeply unimpressed. The fact is that even now Vyvagaba can't see past the content issue to the behaviour issue at hand, so I would support a topic ban. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]° 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I still don't undertsand what the behviour issue here is? [[User:Vyvagaba|Vyvagaba]] ([[User talk:Vyvagaba|talk]]) 23:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ctop|A distraction. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system
:Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think {{tq|Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one}} is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at [[Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system]]. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Rosguill}} Looking at what the IP did to the article ([[Special:Diff/1170846056s|they linked]] one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

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

:[[User:Shaan Sengupta]] has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:The user is clearly engaging in [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. '''[[User:Shaan Sengupta|Shaan Sengupta]]'''[[User talk:Shaan Sengupta|Talk]] 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems to be editing disruptively [[User:Maphumor]]. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some [[WP:SYN]] going on with the sources. [[User:XYZ 250706]], can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Promotional editing is making a speedy deletion confusing ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = {{nac}} {{u|Mariyachowdhury}} has been indefinitely blocked by Girth Summit for [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 14:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
}}

{{Userlinks|Mariyachowdhury}}

{{Pagelinks|Younusr Howlader}}

Mariyachowdhury first moved the page [[View]] to [[Younusr Howlader]]. I moved the page back and [[Special:diff/1170793570|nominated the resulting redirect Younusr Howlader]] for speedy deletion. Mariyachowdhury then replaced the article with [[Special/diff:1170793777|this]], which I subsequently [[Special:diff/1170793946|reverted]]. Mariyachowdhury then proceeded to [[Special:diff/1170793946|replace the entire page]] with a very promotional biography. After I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younusr_Howlader&diff=prev&oldid=1170795573 nominated this for deletion] for being promotional, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younusr_Howlader&diff=next&oldid=1170795573 removed the promotional content], so my speedy delete tag doesn't apply, but the subject is not notable at all and the only source is a blog. I do not wish to keep switching the speedy deletion criterion, so I need an admin to deal this. Thanks. [[User:Nythar|'''Nythar''']] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:Burninated. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] @[[User:Nythar|Nythar]] This user has hijacked a couple of other articles as well, [[Hridoy Islam]] was moved to [[Sakib Ahmed Tuhin]] and replaced with a biography of a different person, [[Alam Khan discography]] was moved to [[Atikur Rahman Mahi]] and replaced with a spam biography. Could you clean up those pages too please? I strongly suspect this is UPE. [[Special:Contributions/163.1.15.238|163.1.15.238]] ([[User talk:163.1.15.238|talk]]) 11:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I've cleaned up those pages, I think. I will also be indef blocking Mariyachowdhury for DE (as well as their sock, {{noping|Samirakhanmahibd}}). [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivambangwal]]? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[WP:HOUNDING]], [[WP:INCIVILITY]] and [[WP:PERSONALATTACKS]] by [[User:Therapyisgood]] ==

{{u|Therapyisgood}} was recently blocked 31 hours for personal attacks made at the [[WT:DYK|Did you know? talk page]] and at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2|theleekycauldron's request for adminship]]. While those comments were not addressed at me, these seem to be part of a campaign of his to drive me off the site by commenting at many of the discussions I've participated in and trying to get the opposite of what I want to happen. Therapyisgood has engaged in this [[WP:HOUNDING]] of me since about January. His behavior towards me has made me feel uncomfortable, has caused me great stress and has made me think at times about leaving the site. I've been trying my best not to retaliate and to be as civil as possible during this time, but Therapyisgood has continued HOUNDING me again and again and again for months. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have to take him here now for this as I think it has to stop. I've listed below many of the numerous examples of his HOUNDING, ranging from simply commenting at pages I do to outright nasty comments.
{{collapse top|title=What seems to have started this}}
* Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#User:BeanieFan11_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_at_NFL_AFDs here] (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1136016648] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985]).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=Worst violations since then}}
* I removed some articles from the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal list in March (also in the below section) that had SIGCOV and thus should not have been draftified, [[User:BilledMammal]] reverted it because he wanted to decide who could remove articles with significant coverage. I reverted three times, he reverted SIX - Therapyisgood somehow knows of this and reports ME to ANI for edit warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1142842396) - there was no consensus for anything.
* Then, after there was no consensus for anything at ANI - he went through the articles I improved and started adding maintenance tags (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hession&diff=prev&oldid=1143131465).
* A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly|nomination for Lewis Manly]] - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable) - it needed a new reviewer. Out of all the nominations Therapyisgood could have reviewed, he reviewed mine, came up with lots of issues (which were incorrect), and ultimately had it failed.
* April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too).
* Even worse, right after that, he nominated an absurd number of files I had created for deletion for being copyvios and messaged me to "stop uploading copyright violations" - users were outright confused at the discussions at how they could possibly have been copyright violations, and not a single one was deleted (see my commons userpage, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeanieFan11).
* April 25 - I had previously nominated Pro Football Hall of Famer [[Dave Wilcox]] to be listed at [[WP:ITN/C|ITN/RD]], it was close to being posted but was about to expire - Therapyisgood [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Wilcox&diff=prev&oldid=1151689211 TAGBOMBED the hell] out of the article, including for extremely silly things like the fact that one source listed him at 239 pounds, and another 241 pounds! It was not posted due to this.
* May 5 - I started a deletion review for the [[1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season|1991-92 Kilmarnock soccer team]], saying it should be relisted from delete - right after - "Endorse - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153242325). '''AND then, when I pointed out why it should be overturned - his response - "Go cry harder about it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153245470)'''
* May 28 - there was a discussion on whether a certain DYK hook that I had approved was racist - I pointed out why I didn't think so - right after, "Yes, this is racist - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1157344140) - he even went to [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] talking about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1157355211).
* June 2: I had recently been given [[WP:AFC|AFC]] reviewing rights, '''and Therapyisgood began going through my accepts and nominating them for deletion''' - see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65th Oregon Legislative Assembly]] - which had a unanimous consensus to keep, and Therapyisgood refused to withdraw it even when asked to.
* July 19: one of my DYK nominations was approved, Therapyisgood went to the DYK talk page and was trying to get it pulled for lack of interestingness, something he almost never does otherwise; everyone disagreed with him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_193#Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1).
* Then the most recent, which got him blocked, [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#John_Sterling_(American_football),_etc|insulting]] [[User:Gonzo fan2007]] at a discussion over a DYK I approved (again, he seems to almost never participate at WT:DYK discussion except when I am involved).
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=More minor instances of HOUNDING since then}}
* At the start of March, when the [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1142833690].
* A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Vehmeier&diff=prev&oldid=1144875410].
* Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junior_varsity_team&diff=prev&oldid=1147938410].
* April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1151691282].
* May 10 - I nominated [[Joe Kapp]] to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ).
* Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&diff=prev&oldid=1154170839#Should_we_soften_the_phrase_%22Sports_biographies_must_include_at_least_one_reference_to_a_source_providing_significant_coverage_of_the_subject,_excluding_database_sources.%22].
* June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on [[Tavon Rooks]] - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tavon_Rooks&diff=prev&oldid=1158124179] - this contributed to it being deleted.
* June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khaled_Soliman&diff=prev&oldid=1159169990]
* July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&diff=prev&oldid=1162954376]
* July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vladimir_Kryukov_(rower)&diff=prev&oldid=1163231320]
* July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1164340319]
* The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.
{{collapse bottom}}
Interestingly, looking at Therapyisgood's AFD log, [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname= ''every single discussion'' at which he has participated since late January was one involving me (minus the nominations, although they were all in either topics I was involved or on articles I worked on)] (and in all cases, him voting after my involvement ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Raynor|he commented at Wilson Raynor before me]], but that was only after I was involved in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Football_biography_cleanup#Wilson_Raynor NFL talk page discussion on him])). Also of note, only [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Therapyisgood&max=&startdate=&altname=&nomsonly=true ''51%'' of his AFD nominations (19-18)] were successful and that number drops to {{abbr|10-16|10 successful, 16 not}} since October 2021. Since January 2023, he is {{abbr|8-10|8 successful, 10 not}}. I apologize for the massive amount of text, but I wanted to show just how extensive his HOUNDING of me has been. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' just wanted to note three things: (1) {{U|Therapyisgood}} appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by {{U|BeanieFan11}} (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of ''only two'' RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been ''right after one of my votes''/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with [[WP:HOUNDING]]. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:IBAN]] does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:: I understand that he has been {{tq|badgered, blocked and skewered}}, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but [[WP:HOUNDING]] is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I unblocked {{U|therapyisgood}} per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Thank you, please see my responses below. Thanks again. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*I agree with [[User:Jayron32]]. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{ping|Therapyisgood}} and {{ping|BeanieFan11}}, can you both agree to an [[WP:IBAN]] with each other?[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
** Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to have my name engraved on the editing sanctions page when I don't think I've really done anything wrong. I'll have to think about this further. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK [[WP:TBAN]] for Therapyisgood seems in order. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* Support one-way [[WP:IBAN]] at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at [[WP:VP]] in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fulfillment_(book)&diff=prev&oldid=1029455929 this edit summary], and the original hook of [[Template:Did you know nominations/George Floyd (American football)|this DYK nomination]]) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.[[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

====TIG's response====
*I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused {{ping|BeanieFan11}} over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding {{ping|JoelleJay}} among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Looking at [[WP:IBAN]] it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. [[User:Dronkle|Dronkle]] ([[User talk:Dronkle|talk]]) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––[[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]] [[User talk:FormalDude|(talk)]] 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, [[WP:IBAN]] says that {{tq|A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}}[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in {{tq|a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}} One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::::::::I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::::::::Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:@ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. '''And that doesn't matter worth a damn.''' I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil ''no matter what.'' If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of {{tq|pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior}} and {{tq|hounding which if given time I can find diffs of}}. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]], 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The other 20% is insults and threats. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Quite. Possibly the text of [[WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!!]] should read "The invocation of this argument is ''prima facie'' ground for an indef." [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It feels like relevant context to point out that the ''other'' RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron1]], so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they ''weren't'' trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.
*::Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is [[per se]] an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.
*::In any event, the trolling comments that ''immediately'' came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::When I said {{tq|"user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed."}} I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that {{tq|"Are you really that thick?"}} comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after {{u|Gonzo fan2007}} let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, ''fast''. {{pb}}Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that ''she'' (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion? {{pb}}We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I don't like]]. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of [[WP:CIR|competency]] regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.{{pb}}Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all. {{pb}}Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This editor has problems beyond hounding BeanieFan11. See this thread from 6 months ago:
*[[User talk:Therapyisgood#AFD nominations]]
They gratuitously blew off a very polite request from [[User:Liz|Liz]] about pacing AfDs. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] did a good job of summarizing problematic edits concluding presciently that Therapyisgood was on track to WP:ANI someday. —[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{ping|A. B.}} Not only that, but he had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1135935985 immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then] and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therapyisgood&diff=next&oldid=1136016472 "stay off my talk page"]. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
**Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:So {{tq|”common courtesy”}} is not a good enough reason?. ''This is a collaborative project.'' Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you ''still refuse to accept'' this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.
**::—~~<~
**:[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –[[User:Novem Linguae|'''Novem Linguae''']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**{{ping|A. B.}} yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**:[[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]], you ask, {{tq|”where was I wrong?”}}
**:Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.
**:I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.
**:One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people {{tq|”piss off”}} the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?
**:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
**His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*** Really? I'm {{tq|way off}} in my {{tq|whole framing}} of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is ''exactly'' how its felt to me. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to {{ping|BilledMammal}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142843309]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=1142844420]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
***** But my question is, ''how did you find all of those discussions''? (and you're misrepresenting some of those, for example, BilledMammal was not correct in his interpretation of 3RR, as shown by the closer declining your request) [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******The same way you found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646 this]. By the way, just because the closing admin declined a warning on the 3RR report doesn't make you right. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
******* Thank you for confirming my belief; you've been [[WP:HOUNDING]] me by extensively going through all my contributions. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 01:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********"why are you so concerned about how people find discussions?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification&diff=prev&oldid=1157479646] [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
********:There's a big difference between periodically clicking on various editor's contribs and systematically hounding one person for months. If you can't understand that, you're not long for Wikipedia. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
****:There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here. {{pb}}And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be [[WP:RBI|relatively simple]] and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and [[WP:CLUE|CLUEfulness]]. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to [[Occam's razor]]. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

===Survey===
I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.
# Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
# Impose a two-way IBAN
# Block Therapyisgood for x duration
# Something else
[[User:Ca|Ca]] [[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]] 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''1 with additional conditions''' beyond what is at [[WP:IBAN]], to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''', in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least '''1 month''', recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: ''"If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses."'' While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:TIG was [[User talk:Therapyisgood/Archive 1#May 2020|given a 2-week block 3 years ago]] for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)|indefinitely restricted him to one account]] over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' seems like a commonsense approach.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007#top|(talk)]] @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Option 4''' I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban.</s> A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become [[WP:HARASSMENT|harassment]] in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. <s>Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
*# TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
*# BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
*<li style="list-style:none;">Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban.</s> [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:What you're proposing ''would'' be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years. {{pb}}However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.{{pb}}So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Snow Rise}} thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that [[WP:IBAN]] is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.
*:::And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Valereee}} I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]], no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that
*:::::# A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
*:::::# That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.
*:::::[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::{{re|Valereee}} a block is a punishment when:
*::::::1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them
*::::::2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased
*::::::TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I'll reply on your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3: Block and final warning''' If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If someone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with Jayron's addenda''' anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will [[WP:AGF|act in good faith]] and not attempt to [[WP:BEAR|provoke or badger]] TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ WaltClipper ]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask {{ping|Floquenbeam}} how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to [[WP:AVOIDYOU]] in their interactions. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 with additional conditions''' as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4''' per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
**severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
**longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
**and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
*<li style="list-style:none;">In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of [[WP:ROPE]]. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a '''one month block''' is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that '''such block should be appealable only to the community''' as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.{{pb
}}I also '''support the 1-way IBAN''' as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.{{pb
}}Lastly, I '''support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement"''' sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:PA]] proclivities. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*A very broadly intended '''option 1''', and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block ('''option 3'''), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] seriously. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''1 with additional conditions''' as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. '''[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]''' 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3''' based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be '''7-14 days''', which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of [[WP:BLOCK]], which is {{tq|to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users}}. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. [[User:Carson Wentz|Carson Wentz]] ([[User talk:Carson Wentz|talk]]) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' with x=3 months and '''1 (+Jayron)'''. Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are ''very'' out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista/Archive|now-blocked, content-contributing hounder]] in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', oppose 3 as punitive [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3'''. I concur that a duration of '''1 month''' would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. [[User:ComplexRational|'''Complex''']]/[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''Rational''']] 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*''' Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month.''' The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.[[User:Jagmanst|Jagmanst]] ([[User talk:Jagmanst|talk]]) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1''' - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
** {{Ping|Valereee}} Obviously every administrative action (including option 1) results in some sort of punishment for those who are subjected to it, but I don't see how a short block (1/2 weeks in my view) would be just a punishment and not a preventive (and instructive) act. TIG was blocked for personal attacks just 3 days ago, and once unblocked he almost immediately resorted with the same gratuitously aggressive and insulting attitide. Even ignoring his comments towards BeanieFan11, he insulted Snow Rise, and when kindly asked to strike the insult he ignored the request. In his contribution history up to his last comments in this thread, he displayed a blatant [[Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT]] approach towards civility. I am the first one to hope TIG changes his attitude, as I see him as an otherwise valuable editor, but it is important he get the point about civility, be it with a block, with a strong warning or with some other means. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior. Time-limited blocks can simply be waited out. And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing.
**:In addiiton, a block would prevent TIG from doing things they don't need to be prevented from doing, so it's more restrictive than necessary to solve the problem, which at its heart is the hounding. If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community. A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::If this discussion results in only the IBAN, it won't be the end of the world: at least something will have been done to protect the community member who is currently bearing the brunt of TIGs inappropriate and vexatious behaviour and to send a message that the community has eyes on the rest. At the same time, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in at least one respect here:{{pb}}There are really two issues that need addressing here: 1) The concerted hounding of BeanieFan across a period of months, which is clearly unacceptable and which (we hope) the IBAN resolves, and 2) Petty, continuous, and pretty much instantaneous incivility any time TIG is criticized. These personal attacks don't come after heated back-and-forth's ramping the tension up, though they would be problematic enough in that context too. Rather, these kind of "Get a job--I have no time to argue with losers on the internet all day" / "Are you thick" comments are '''the very first things TIG says to people they have never had an interaction with before''' when they feel criticized, including community members contributing to an ANI where the goal is to get TIG to see their are issues with their mode of interaction with others on this project. That's a real problem. And the IBAN does absolutely nothing to address it.
**:::{{tq|"Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior."}}
**::Hey, I could be convinced to support an indef for that purpose, but I think we're probably both of the opinion that it's more than the minimum that might get TIGs attention here. I think Walt is right: that target is a month. And even if TIG does just wait out the block, at least they are shown that there are lines that this community will not let them routinely and indefinitely cross, and they will have time to consider what needs to change in their approach. Which is, you know, the usual point of any block that is not an indef?
**:::{{tq|"And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing."}}
**::Correct. And neither is a temporary block for repeated [[WP:CIV]] violations. It's not there for vindictive purposes or even to make us feel better that someone's behaviour has been "balanced" by punishment. But if it's necessary to force someone to reflect on problematic behaviour (as it very clearly is here), it's a preventative block. I'm surprised we're even having this debate: this is probably the single most common circumstance for the use of a block.
**:::{{tq|"If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community."}}
**::Actually, I think it very much does. Because we've seen that TIG can make a very contrite-seeming unblock appeal to an admin, feigning a willingness to comply with community expectations and the feedback of that admin...and then instantly go back to the offending behaviour they were blocked for in the first place. The fact that this behaviour occurs blatantly in view of the entire community in an ANI discussion where that very behaviour is being discussed only underscores how much TIG either doesn't get where the line is, or is completely incapable of controlling themselves and jumping to petty ad hominems in the face of any criticism. A CBAN is necessary precisely because it must be appealed the community.
**:::{{tq|"A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order."}}
**::Except, for the purposes of the conduct we are talking about here, calling this user a "well-intentioned, competent editor" is not appropriate. Nobody is being "well-intentioned" with regard to our community expectations when they are making the kind of personalized, spiteful comments TIG feels entitled to make when they see red (which is alarmingly fast in face of any opposition). And they are going to go on to feel entitled to that behaviour until the community draws a line in the sand. I'm sorry Val, normally I appreciate a light touch in an admin, but your description above feels more like enabling to me. And it won't do TIG any favours in the long run: it will just replace a one-month block now with an indef in the near future, I'd be willing to bet. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::{{edit conflict}} "''An IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''", I could say the same about a block: "''a block is not punishment. It may feel like it to the blocked editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing''". None of the editors who support a (more or less brief) block here wants to "punish" TIG, we want him to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and adhere to it in in his future interactions. With respect, characterizing his long-term problematic behaviour as "a series of similar mistakes in short order" by "a well-intentioned, competent editor" goes exactly in the opposite direction and IMO sends the wrong message to the user. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::I'll answer at your user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

== Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here ==

I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through [[Template:Deforestation in Nigeria]], used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria a project on Meta] The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)
*[[Draft:Deforestation and small ruminant farming]] (was in mainspace, I moved it to draft)
*[[Reforestation and urbanization in Nigeria]]
*[[Impact of deforestation on plant species diversity in Nigeria]]
*[[Deforestation in Nigeria]] (the main article)
*[[Deforestation and food security in Nigeria]]
*[[Animal grazing and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Effects of deforestation on the paper industry in Nigeria]]
*[[Tourism and deforestation in Nigeria]]
*[[Fuel wood utilization in Nigeria]]
*[[Gender and timber trade in Nigeria]]
*[[Spatial pattern of deforestation in Nigeria]]

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

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

Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Participation], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Guidelines], on enwiki[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Nigeria/Task_Lists]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
A grant request[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into [[Deforestation in Nigeria]] some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]] ([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]]) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{smalldiv|1=Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:::{{smalldiv|1=Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)}}
:Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. [[User:Padgriffin|Padgriffin]] [[User Talk:Padgriffin|Griffin's Nest]] 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Olugold]] created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_overlinking_and_poor_grammar_'corrections'_by_relatively_new_editor] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. [[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.
:::However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".
:::I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. [[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] ([[User talk:Ngozi osadebe|talk]]) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article [[Deforestation in Nigeria]]??? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Ngozi osadebe|Ngozi osadebe]] - {{tq|Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".}} I agree that putting the search term <code>deforestation in Nigeria</code> into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&search=deforestation+in+nigeria&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns120=1 a simple search for the phrase] will take you to [[d:Q5251686|Q5251686]], which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Just flagging that after reviewing [[meta:Grants:Programs/Organizer_Lab/Deforestation_in_Nigeria|the grant proposal]] and [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qksqwu2nBcan6KBo9qkn3rOgqOradX-QNqCN1cQDibg/edit linked spreadsheet], it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of [[purchasing power]] in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an ''extremely'' dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! [[User:Firefly|firefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Jonteemil]] ==

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

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

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

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

::Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, ''they have specifically said nothing about deletion'' in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even ''asking'' for these files to be deleted. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10]] as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::No, they don't ''need'' to but they are ''allowed'' to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that ''maybe'' something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure ''enough'' to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD ''is the exact process'' where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg]] on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're ''still not going to block Jonteemill'' because some admin fucked up. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be ''kept'' or ''deleted''… rather ''Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F''. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. [[WP:FFD]] gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]], it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not [[c:COM:TOO US]]. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Well, {{t|PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO ([[threshold of originality]]) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{tlp|PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{t|Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the [[WP:NFCCP|Non-free criteria]], whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some [[WP:Non-copyright restrictions]] as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.
::::::::The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even [[:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg]] is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to [[:File:Best Western logo.svg]] nor [[:File:Jamba logo.svg]] (read more at [[c:COM:TOO Australia]] and [[c:COM:TOO US]]).
::::::::My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above [[c:COM:TOO Spain]]), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below [[c:COM:TOO US]]). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers '''''Keep''''' haha.
::::::::I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm pinging {{U|Edward-Woodrow}} who closed one of the FFDs as ''keep'' and {{U|Marchjuly}} who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. [[User:Jonteemil|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil|talk]]) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I feel like I've entered into a game of Chinese whispers without knowing. :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Come on {{u|Govvy}}, they have a nook around here for us ludites whenever things turn towards file hosting protocols. Well watch something with [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7OWlVYYRw slightly more sensible and accessible language]. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Snow Rise}} Thanks for that technically insight! And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uko3RU6h8 here's my reply!], Probably time for a close!? [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== LTA IP ==

{{vandal|47.36.43.0/24}}

Please block this IP range, sock of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Chicken_Little_2005 Chicken Little 2005], self edited and directed, see [https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:傀儡調查/案件/AXXXXK&diff=prev&oldid=78557853 this], such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.36.43.28 47.36.43.28] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.36.43.20 47.36.43.20], IP is pinged by that sock in zh wiki [[Special:Contributions/14.0.231.93|14.0.231.93]] ([[User talk:14.0.231.93|talk]]) 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

== Witchcraft and related topics ==
[[user:CorbieVreccan]] made a post at [[Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft]] claiming that another user had attempted to [[WP:CANVASS]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASystemic_bias&diff=1164716594&oldid=1148026263]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias&diff=next&oldid=1164802153] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] over the page for some time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1065455830&oldid=1065412597][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1065455830][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1164335557&oldid=1164309405]

I became involved,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=1164845755&oldid=1164832640] was immediately reverted,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1164846266] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166673169] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167331496&oldid=1167329970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169277375&oldid=1169259738] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWitchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168294712&oldid=1168285517][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1166461323&oldid=1166453545][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1169208102&oldid=1169200522]

About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and [[Wikipedia:Tag team|established coordination]] with [[user:Asarlaí]] for further efforts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorbieVreccan&diff=prev&oldid=1165212353] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEsowteric&diff=1165058795&oldid=1164781619][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1167739795&oldid=1167738218] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1166783262&oldid=1166766606] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168562312&oldid=1168495409]

I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168449182&oldid=1168363448], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166176326] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165243409&oldid=1165238129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165341831&oldid=1165340593]

There's more, but I'm not sure what else to add as relevant and I've lost visibility on some of it through page deletions. This has been exhausting. I'm just trying to cover the material in line with what academic sources say - including sources already being used in the main Witchcraft article; but somehow that's insufficient justification. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]], you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by {{np|Asarlaí}} for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of [[WP:BOLD]] changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet [[wp:onus]], Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when [[Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built|people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built]]. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}}. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.
:::::::report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I have been dragged into this tangentially after voting on a RM related to this dispute. I do not think the situation currently needs admin attention. There is a very nasty content dispute over the lead section of [[Witchcraft]]; but the current RFC process seems to be addressing that problem in a civil manner. The concerns and accusations about canvassing or tag-teaming should be ignored; this is a situation where additional voices are helpful, and accusations that any new participant might have been "canvassed" are harmful. As far as POV-pushing: with this type of disagreement, it is inevitable that people view "the other side" as POV-pushing. Until there is some form of consensus, that is not actionable. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Walt Yoder}} point of clarity; I'm not accusing CV of canvassing specifically. My first encounter was ''them'' (incorrectly) making that accusation (diff linked above). - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Here we go again''' This is exactly what Darker Dreams posted to ArbCom (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring at the Edit-warring board in defense of Skyerise on July 23]). It is full of misrepresentations, personal attacks, confusion, and blatant lies. I suggest folks go and read what happened there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Statement_by_CorbieVreccan Direct link to my statement to Arbcom]. I am requesting [[WP:BOOMERANG]] for DD's ongoing disruption, [[WP:forum shopping]], and wasting of Wikipedians' time and energy.
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics Responses by myself and other editors to this same text by Darker Dreams at rejected Arbcom request].
:However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': having been watching and to some degree involved in this dispute, I personally find no issues with [[user:Asarlaí]]'s editing as they seem more willing to collaborate. As for [[User:CorbieVreccan]], I can only say that I had hoped that an administrator would hold themselves to higher standards rather than ending up the editor with the higher revert count in sevaral disputes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has a block record for personal attacks and harassment, for edit-warring on WP in general, and after Darker Dreams, is the other most-disruptive person in this dispute, along with Esoterwic. Though her editing is a bit better since DD was blocked. She had to take a 48 hour break when reported for 3RR on [[Witchcraft]] by Asarlaí.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1167467045#User:Skyerise_reported_by_User:Asarla%C3%AD_(Result:_Full_protection_for_three_days)] She also engaged in the same personal attacks as Darker Dreams, calling me a "vandal" for doing normal, good-faith editing on Darker Dreams' POV-pushing [[Template:Witchcraft sidebar]]:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWitchcraft_sidebar&diff=1168416745&oldid=1168302906 "rv POV vandalism"]. Interestingly, Darker Dreams then used basically the same edit summary in that account's personal attacks, also on Asarlaí and me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230802222105&diff=prev "Undid revision 1168449182 by CorbieVreccan (talk) POV vandalism"],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Witchcraft+%28traditional%29&timestamp=20230803190744&diff=prev "Revert to 02:41, 3 August 2023‎ edit by Josvebot to undo admitted POV vandalism and off-topic push by User:Asarlaí"] (there was no "admission" of any of the false accusations in the personal attack edit summaries) - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::That doesn't invalidate or address what I said. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft "You just gonna watch from the sidelines?"]. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Still deflecting, I see. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a [[WP:SNOW]]ed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at [[Talk:Witchcraft]], but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western [[neopagan]] understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Darker%20Dreams/1/Witchcraft 71,328 bytes] to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*: I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on [[Talk:Witchcraft]], and I'm not sure that [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]]'s approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on [[European witchcraft]], the supposedly global article on [[Witchcraft]] focuses [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]] and the witch trials summarized in [[European witchcraft]], and the [[WP:BROADCONCEPT|overview article]] get to the global coverage it professes. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&diff=prev&oldid=1166441494 blatant battleground behavior]. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431|talk]]) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Care to provide an example that's not a month old? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::What should that matter? Blatant battleground behavior doesn't suddenly become not-objectionable because a few weeks have passed. The civility policies don't have sell-by dates. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 09:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*{{Userlinks|Darker Dreams}} has slowed their editing since the partial block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1169870190#User:Darker_Dreams_reported_by_User:CorbieVreccan_(Result:_Blocked_from_article_for_a_week) for one week for tendentious editing / edit-warring] to focus on [[WP:forum shopping]]. But
*{{Userlinks|Skyerise}} has been editing the [[Witchcraft]] articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones. While so far the ones I've seen seem OK, I am still concerned, with the history of aggressive POV pushing, personal attacks (see diffs above and block log), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1166442821#Witchcraft this exchange about being patient while revert-warring] that this could result in many different article to watch, and that over time the POV push will return on multiple fronts. I'm waiting for someone to say, "AGF!" ... we're way past that at this point. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:CorbieVreccan also has a tendency to exaggerate. I've made several already existing witchcraft articles more robust ([[Asian witchcraft]], [[European witchcraft]], and [[Witchcraft in Latin America]]); but I've only created one, [[Witchcraft in the Middle East]], not "many". [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You have proposed new articles for multiple sections on the page. The templates have a link to discuss on the main talk page (which is now hugely cluttered and difficult to navigate, with an ongoing RfC), but I did not see any section set up to discuss more forks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I'm not talking about forks. I'm talking about regional coverage, which is half in place. I think all but one of those links go the the target article talk page. I guess you haven't actually pursued discussing them. The exaggeration is something you and Darker Dreams have in common. You should find a way to work together better. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Skyrise's edits to witchcraft daughter articles are mostly connected to this discussion: [[Talk:Witchcraft#Article length]]—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You restored [[Neopagan witchcraft]] from a redirect, challenging a previously uncontested merge from 2017, which did effectively create a child article. [[Draft:Witch (archetype)]] and [[User:Skyerise/sandbox/Witch (archetype)]] appear to be a partially done spin off. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|Witchcraft (traditional)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|Witchcraft (diabolic)]] were also created, but I don't know by whom because they were then deleted. [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] is also relevant, though it was created by Darker Dreams. Not weighing in on which of these should or shouldn't exist, but there's definitely been some effort to spin off articles, one of which was determined at AfD to be a POV fork. Further move/split proposals were made at [[Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 21:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Not sure what my drafts have to do with anything. It's not a "spin-off" of anything. It's missing coverage. I'm undecided whether the material can stand on its own or should be merged somewhere, or where. The others were created by Darker Dreams, not I. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:"that this could result in many different article to watch" how does this not read as "make it difficult for me to [[wp:own]]" which is the core complaint I'm making. Also of note, the "forum shopping" arriving here is exactly what several of the arbitrators said should have happened when declining that request. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::How? Well, because the core of your complaint is unclear and poorly-structured, for the reasons I explained above. So, no, you have not established a coherent basis for WP:OWNERSHIP, which the quoted passage does not necessarily presupposes. That said, I don't see how it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING if a declined arbitration request was the only previous forum (I presume you prematurely jumped to arbitration before exhausting all other options, like here). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It wasn't DD's first forum.
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1166710521&oldid=1166710099&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Darker Dreams posts same text he used at Arbcom, and here, at ANI at Edit-warring board on July 23, 2023]
*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1167132878 Darker Dreams files "Witchcraft" at Dispute Resolution board, July 25, 2023]
*:::* Then ignoring the DR and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&oldid=1170296610#RFC_on_Lede_Section_on_Witchcraft RfC] in progress,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft/Draft_RFC&diff=prev&oldid=1169459771] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1170752634#Witchcraft_and_related_topics files same text from 3RR at Arbcom on 13 August 2023]. This is in addition to long rants with large overlaps in text on multiple talk pages and XfDs. Please see the uninvolved editor statements about this in the filing.
*:::* And here we are at ANI for round 4, not including all the casting of aspersions in edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::That's right, mediated dispute resolution wasn't exhausted, but was interrupted, and {{u|Robert McClenon}} [[Special:Diff/1170464920|complained]] about this, saying: "ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to [[WP:ANI]]." —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Huh. Well, that's not good. Prior DR attempts ought to have been provided in a clear way by the OP, rather than partially and half-hazardly, within unmarked (untitled) diffs. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I am somewhat involved with the [[Talk:Witchcraft]] discussion, but not deeply so. While I won’t go into content issues here, I will address some of my observations of behavior. One of the main problems with the discussion is that some editors, in particular Darker Dreams keep taking things personally and reacting emotionally. IMHO, it is more productive here to take a detached view, as it helps to maintain a NPOV. WP goes by what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions or belief systems are.

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

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

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

:To my mind, this is the very definition of tendentious editing, [[WP:TEND]]. Their behavior has been a huge, [[WP:TIMESINK|time-sink]]. It is my opinion as an editor that Darker Dreams should be topic blocked from all articles dealing with witchcraft. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I am also involved in the dispute, but also not very deeply perhaps. In connection to the above, I believe that editors should also be aware that, during the dispute, Darker Dreams created three spin-off articles, two of which were deleted: I find it quite noteworthy that one of them underwent A10 deletion ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)|AfD]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Witchcraft+%28diabolic%29 log]); another was AfD'd as a POV fork ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)|AfD]]); the third one is [[Witchcraft (feminist)]] article, and it has problems to put it mildly. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:I have a question about what the OP, [[User:Darker Dreams]], is requesting. What administrative action are you asking for the community to take either against [[User:CorbieVreccan]] or against anyone else? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:The only administrative action that I see proposed in this thread is that Netherzone has called for a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] against Darker Dreams from the area of witchcraft. Is there any connection between [[witchcraft]] and [[boomerangs]]? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:: The decorations on boomerangs and other Indigenous Australian artifacts often carry spiritual and symbolic significance. These designs and patterns are more than just aesthetic elements; they can convey important cultural, spiritual, and ancestral meanings. The decorations on boomerangs can indeed be considered as magical or spiritual symbols in the context of Indigenous Australian cultures. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 07:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Support''' boomerang topic ban. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579|talk]]) 13:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' while a couple of article creation attempts were misguided, DD also produced a nice {{Template|Witchcraft sidebar}} which aids navigation between the regional daughter articles under [[Witchcraft]]. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Also '''oppose boomerang''' as a mostly non-involved party here. While I admittedly haven't been following the whole saga super closely, I haven't really gotten a sense that DD in particular is a problem editor separate from the general [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] attitude going around here. (I do wish they'd let the DRN process work itself out before going to drama boards tho, I really do think taking this to ANI so quickly was counterproductive.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::'''Strong Support''' for topic banning DD from [[Witchcraft]] and all related articles, broadly construed. Would also like some administrative action taken against Skyerise for her [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, chronic incivility, poisoning of the well, vicious personal attacks and casting of aspersions. I offered a diff above of her calling me a "POV vandal" for normal editing, a phrase which the DD account also used in attacking me and Asarlaí, and you can see her constant jabs on this page. She has been just as [[WP:OWN]]y on these articles as DD. As shown in the diffs I offered above, she is the one who coordinated tag-team edit-warring with Randy Kryn and DD. She is very capable of playing nice for a while, but then reversing it all later and, like above, claiming things she did a month ago (or longer) don't count. She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account, and is clever at gaming the system. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|CorbieVreccan]] [[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]] [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

*This sock came back to start [[WP:DRV]] at '''19:53,''' on 17 August‎.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170885872]
*The sock got blocked for evading his block at '''09:42''' 18 August for block evasion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141].
*At '''10:06''', I closed the DRV per [[WP:DENY]], [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE]] and [[WP:SNOW]] because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729]
*Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151]
*From '''17:40''', I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
*At '''17:55''', my close was now reverted by a different editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041589] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV]
*Now 20 minutes later, at '''18:16''', I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171044510]
*Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=1171045480]

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

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

:See:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17# Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:The AfD’s initiator, [[User: Aman.kumar.goel| Aman.kumar.goel]], an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171035962][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766], then speedy closed, then told @[[The ed17|The ed17]] he closed since there were no objections[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171042082].
:If you look at this AfD’s [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history edit history], you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.
:Now he’s going after @[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] here at ANI.
:My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay]]
:**currently underway
:**Upadhyay authored Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
:**[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ved_Prakash_Upadhyay&action=history edit history]
:I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.
:—~~<~ [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "{{tq|Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven}}" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad]].
:::There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 per the version of the DRV which I closed]. That close was perfectly valid per [[WP:DENY]] and [[WP:SNOW]].
:::You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&action=history]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.
::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 the version of the DRV which I closed]. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Aman, there you go again.
::::::You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.'' [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766 diff]
::::::Clearly duplicitous behaviour.
::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171039766 This edit which you are citing] appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=next&oldid=1171039766] It is not same as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 this edit] (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Dympies|Dympies]], please explain these diffs:
::::::::Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::::::::His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::::::::After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::::::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::This is irrelevant to your false claim that {{tq|"You say you closed the DRV without objections - ''that’s because you deleted them before closing.''"}} Don't shift the goalposts. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of [[WP:HOLES|holes]]. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::How? The DRV was started [[WP:DENY|by a sock]] and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I’ll also note that [[WP:DENY]] is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:DENY]] cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It isn't an excuse to make [[WP:INVOLVED]] closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an ''essay'' is doing no-one any good. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:
:::*First:[[Special:MobileDiff/1171039766|you delete my oppose]]
:::*Then: [[Special:MobileDiff/1171039834|you close the DRV]]
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Kusma}} The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A [[WP:DENY|sock can be reverted by anyone]].
::::{{ping|Cryptic}} The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.141] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1170985729 nobody who opposed the closure]. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] reverted you.
:::::You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] reverted you twice.
:::::After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.
:::::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041039] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412 AfD] as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Ping {{U|Bishonen}}, {{U|RegentsPark}} and {{U|El C}} since they are familiar with the area. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

:I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Illegal? In what jurisdiction? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.
*:I ''do'' care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.
*:—20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::*:There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and ''really'' should not have gotten into an edit war over ''either'' of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
* I agree with {{u|Kusma}}. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Isabelle Belato}} I had already started the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV here] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#Don't here]. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy [[Wikipedia:Involved]] and the explanatory essay [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closures]] are clear: "{{green|''Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes.''}}" Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse {{u|Drmies}}' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]] 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

*'''Recommend 1RR restriction'''. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1169649412][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious [[WP:DRV|DRV]]. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that [[User:Aman.kumar.goel]] was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that [[User:A. B.]] also is in good faith requesting [[WP:DRV|deletion review]], so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*(pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear [[WP:IDHT]], and I think Cryptic got it spot on. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:*{{ping|RegentsPark|SportingFlyer}} But I had already stopped reverting on DRV before the block was made since I was discussing elsewhere about it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_ed17#Re:Close_on_DRV] I was obviously not planning to resume reverting but the block came without any prior warning and in middle of the discussion. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' (''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'') 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.
:{{U|Cryptic}}'s use of [[WP:ROLLBACK]] against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] These actions are not in the line with [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK|the blocking policy]].
:Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.
::@[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] please explain how the following is “good faith”:
::*Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039766]
::*His next edit was to close the DRV:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171039834]
::*After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171041202]
::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Orientls|Orientls]] your criticism of [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]]’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.
:::—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. [[WP:DENY]] is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::*@A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, [[Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures|you have to first consult]] the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOTBURO|judicial body]] so your use of the term "{{tq|illegal}}" is misleading. It is correct that [[WP:ROLLBACK]] says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "{{tq|disingenuous}}", "{{tq|disingenuousness}}", "{{tq|duplicitous}}" across this thread, you have already put yourself into [[WP:NPA]] block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Cryptic}}, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
* Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]], which ''is'' policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in ''opposition'' to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a ''closure'' myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) '''However''', BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted ''once'' by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. ''wanted'' to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It's covered in the fourth bullet point. I've made such closures myself (though not recently, and I don't think it's worth going and looking for a diff). But the point is to minimize disruption and wasted editor-hours, and the closure attempts here did the precise opposite in both respects. It's not like the discussion was ever in any danger of giving the ip what they wanted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see [[WP:IAR]]) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than [[WP:EVADE]] or [[WP:BANREVERT]] or indeed, [[WP:DENY]]. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::[[WP:BANREVERT]] is a site-wide policy, and it would be improper to sanction an editor for enforcing it. DRV [[WP:LOCALCON|cannot make itself immune]]. There is no excuse for reverting the restoration by an editor in good standing, though. At that point, policy [[WP:PROXYING|considers]] the thread to belong to whoever restored it, so unless they're violating some other policy, it's valid. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Not only is [[WP:INVOLVED]] also a site-wide policy, the block was not levied because of WP:BANREVERT. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::You are wrong because the BANREVERT is among the reasons behind blocking in the words of Cryptic; "early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171057849] [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Lucky that's among the reasons. If it was the sole reason for the block, IMO that would be a serious enough administrative error that we should be contemplating an arbcom case. [[User:Cryptic]], [[WP:DENY]] is site-wide policy. Please learn it if you want to continue to be an admin. If you're unwilling, please hand in your tools voluntarily under a cloud and save us the hassle of a future arbcom case when you ignore [[WP:DENY]] in circumstances where a block wasn't otherwise justified. DRV regulars, we have enough problem areas as it is. Please '''do not''' allow DRV to become another one since it serves a useful purpose. If you continue to ignore site wide policy, we may have no choice but to shut down DRV and look at other ways of handling deletion reviews which doesn't allow the development of an insular [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] board that has developed a culture where sitewide policy is ignored is. Such a thing is '''completely unacceptable''' so it's not something we should allow to continue. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::P.S. Since I'm a nitpicker myself, I should clarify it is [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]] and [[WP:SOCK]] which are policy which is what I should have said instead of [[WP:DENY]]. Remember that [[WP:3RRNO]] even makes it clear that reverting a sock or evader doesn't count as edit warring. For further clarity, I'm aware that Aman Kumar Goel started to edit war against non socks, that's why I said there was other reasonable justification for the block. My point is that it's well established that block and ban evaders are unwelcome here, and editors are very welcome to remove their disruption no matter whether they're technically [[WP:INVOLVED]]. It's something that all admins, and frankly all experienced editors hoping to contribution useful to DRV should be well aware of. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{EC}} I should clarify I have no specific opposition A.B. restoring the discussion if they felt it had merit (as opposed to restoring it since they thought what Aman Kumar Goel did was improper). However as Aquillion's said, the sock's comments should have remained struck. And it might have been better to simply start a fresh discussion untainted by a sock if there was little useful to support the case A.B. wanted to make. It's complicated since older participants may feel they already addressed A.B. points and there was no need for them to remake them. OTOH, as we've seen at ANI and elsewhere, when we leave open threads started by known socks, there can be dissatisfaction with the result which lasts a long time and generates more AN//I threads and I see no reason to doubt the same could happen at DRV. Note that IMO if there have been good faith contributions, unless you're absolutely sure the people who made the comment doesn't mind, it's generally better to archive etc rather than to delete a pointless discussion started by the sock. While it is cleaner to simply delete all sock nonsense, we do have to consider the feelings or other editors who might be unhappy with their good faith contributions being deleted. If it's a small number of contributions you could ask for permission but if it's complicated just strike and close/archive. Anything else risks increasing disruption from the sock (which could be what they want), not reduce it which should ultimately be our goal. Perhaps my final point, I think we need to be clear why BANEVADE matters here. This case is complicated by the fact there were other comments even if they were almost universally in opposition to the sock. However, from what [[User:SportingFlyer]] has said, it seems to me they think that if a sock S opens a DRV then editor E who was involved in the deletion cannot speedy close this discussion even if there are no comments besides sock S. And this would apply even if editor E noticed this sock (before or after the report, it doesn't matter) and reported sock S to an admin or CU who agreed and blocked sock S as a sock. This is not in any way acceptable, and DRV need to get with the programme, or risk being shut down. Socks and their contributions are unwelcome, and so there is no harm in removing them, involved or not. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], this is the language at the top of the [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition]] (“WP:DENY”)
:*{{tq|” This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, ''nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines'', as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”}}
:[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] did not violate any policy. It is inappropriate to say he should hand in his tools. Clearly outside a small group of editors, there is wide support here for Cryptic’s actions.
:—[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]]) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::@Nil Einne: If I can squeeze a word in edgewise through the edit conflicts?{{pb}}[[WP:DENY]] is not site-wide or any other sort of policy [I see you acknowledged that afterwards]. It doesn't say anything like what you seem think it does. What actual policy has to say is that editors can reinstate the edits of blocked users if "[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Proxying|the changes are either verifiable or productive '''and''' they have independent reasons for making such edits]]", which I think we can all agree A. B. has done. And a selective quote out of context - when the context is on this very page, even if it's not visible in the linked diff - doesn't make something true. You want to know what I blocked for? You could look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAman.kumar.goel&diff=1171044961&oldid=1170966010 what I said I blocked for].{{pb}}Look. I don't usually participate in reviews of my administrative actions - if they can't stand on the reasons I stated for them, they probably weren't justified - but ''this'' I cannot allow to stand. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|A. B.}} Yes I linked to the wrong pages. I already acknowledged that. Also you and [[User:Cryptic]] seem to have misunderstood they key point of my comments. Aman.kumar.goel was edit warring against non socks. For that reason the block was justified. But this in no way shape or form justifies any misunderstanding of policy on the part of an admin. Socks are unwelcome to edit here. Editors can remove their contributions without concern even when they are involved. As I said in my clarification above which I unfortunately only finished after you two posted, this is very important thing that needs to be understood from this discussion. Since if we put aside the case which involved good faith contributions and editing warring, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor removing the contributions of a sock even if you are involved. Any admin needs to know this. It doesn't matter if you're at DRV or anywhere else. It's deeply concerning that from Cryptic own comments here at ANI (which I read before my first reply), it sounds like they do not understand this. As I said, their block was justified for other reasons, so I'm not suggesting an arbcom case would succeed which I said in my first reply before any edits. But the fact remains an admin who is so seriously misinformed of policy is surely going to make a mistake in the future and so needs to either quickly learn, or yes should just hand in their tools. Putting Cryptic aside, SportingFlyer definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy and thinks some localconsensus at DRV override sitewide policy on BLOCKEVADE. If another editor wishes to reintroduce the contributions of a sock, that's fine provided they are doing so because they feel they have merit. It is however unacceptable to restore the contributions simply because you don't think the editor had any right to remove them because they were uninvolved or because of some local consensus at [[WP:DRV]]. Note that I am not saying this happened here, I mentioned it just because it is important to understand the key issue namely there is nothing wrong with removing the contributions of socks. Ultimately I remain deeply concerned that SportingFlyer, and probably Cryptic seems to think some localconsensus at DRV means discussions can't be closed by an uninvolved editor when they clear can be in certain circumstances as they can be anywhere else. Note also that in the case of a talk page discussion, it's well accepted that sock contributions can be struck and discarded. Good faith replies from non socks shouldn't be. However the net result of this is if another editor agrees with what a sock said, they should reintroduce these points, preferably in their one words rather than trying to fight the striking of sock's comments. (This doesn't apply in article space of course.) P.S. One reason why I'm so concerned is SportingFlyer kept insisting there is effectively some local consensus at DRV which prevented the application of BLOCKEVADE which is well accepted by regulars. This was greatly compounded when I read Cryptic's clarification of their block linked by Orientls above when they seemed to ignore the important points. (Was the editor a sock because if so Aman Kumar Goel involvement and DRV's localconsensus was irrelevant as to the basics of removing the socks contributions. How Aman Kumar Goel handled the good faith contributions of others is a reasonable point of discussion. Aman Kumar Goel editwarring is not, it was wrong. I don't see anyone who has questioned this except for maybe Aman Kumar Goel themselves.) Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Of course I don't think local consensus at DRV overrides [[WP:BLOCKEVADE]]. Do you really think I'm arguing socks are welcome there? The entire problem here started because an [[WP:INVOLVED]] non-administrator closed the discussion, and the prong that they closed it under even notes that generally these are "administrative closes." If they had just struck the sock's comments, we'd be fine. If they had asked an admin to close early, we'd be fine. If they hadn't reverted after it was reopened, we'd be fine. But you've completely mis-interpreted what I'm arguing, and considering you've said that I "definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy" and were yet incorrect in even understanding what I was arguing, I'd like it if you offered an apology. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 21:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{EC}} I see Cryptic themselves has pointed out above SportingFlyer is simply wrong as DRV speedy closure guidelines implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of closures for BANEVADE reasons "{{tqi|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations}}" Given this, it seems Cryptic must understand that a local consensus at DRV cannot override BANEVADE or SOCK so I no longer have concerns over their understanding of this fundamental point. However I've re-read what they said above several times and stick by my original comment. It was very unclear from what Cryptic said that they said that they understood this important point namely that if the editor was a sock, removing their contributions in as reasonable a manner as possible was fully justified no matter involvement or DRV guidelines. Which given the presence of other good faith contributions was complicated so we can debate the best way to do so, but not the fundamental issue namely that socks are unwelcome so involved doesn't matter, DRV guidelines notwithstanding. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::In case there's still any doubt, even if an editor W in good standing reverted solely for an invalid reason e.g. saying editor E should not close a discussion started by and who's sole contributors were sock S (or maybe editor E too) when it was already established sock S was a sock, editor E should not get into an edit war with editor W. At most, I'd argue a single reversion by editor E of editor W's reversion combined with a polite explanation on editor W's talk page might be okay. Any further than that barring further specific consensus would almost definitely be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As always, if you find yourself needing to edit war against an editor in good standing unless it's [[WP:3RRNO]] (which would apply to the sock edits themselves but for good reason isn't generally taken to apply to the restoration of sock edits), then just don't. As annoying and dumb as it may seem, get the consensus first. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Nil Einne]] writes: {{tq|Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point.}} I think that I am one of the DRV regulars, but I think that I don't know what the supposed rule at DRV is. I am not aware of a local rule at DRV about early closures. <del> It is true that early closures at DRV are rare. I don't think that is because of a rule. I think that is just the way it is.</del> So what, if anything, is the issue about the culture at DRV? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A DRV was just early-closed. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I see why there is confusion about whether there is a local consensus at DRV about early closures. [[User:SportingFlyer]] has misinterpreted a notice. SportingFlyer wrote: {{tq|There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned.}} It is true that DRV lists four DRV-specific speedy closures. It doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. Besides, the fourth speedy closure is a catch-all: {{tqb|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} I would say that an appeal by a sock has no prospect of success. Anyway, the list doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. So SportingFlyer made an easy-to-make-mistake. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm looking at this from the perspective of a non-administrative closer. If I went to see if I ''can'' close a discussion early, I'd look at the four reasons why. The fourth is written: {{tq|Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success...these will usually be marked as "administrative close".}} It ''can'' apply to a sock's nomination, but as a non-admin, even if a sock had ''started'' a discussion, there's no way I would read this and think, oh, I can ''close'' this discussion on my own. I think the "administrative close" bit is key. (Note I have closed DRV before, as someone involved, after the closer withdrew their nomination, and no one else had opposed at that point, with the express note anyone could revert the close.) [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]''·''[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]'' 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' - It can be argued on the process, but the DRV has a snowballs chance in hell of actually convincing anyone. Started by a sock, on an article that was clearly non notable, with keep votes not based in policy - It would be impossible to convince any reasonable editor that the close was wrong. That was reflected in the votes there.{{pb}}This is an area with a lot of disruption, particularly by POV socks. The major issue here is that the block was more punitive than preventive, since no ongoing disruption was taking place. A reminder to editors in this discussion, who seem to have forgotten this - "They did something wrong, we should punish them" is not the standard at Wikipedia. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to punish things that are perceived as (potentially, in this case, controversially) disruptive. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Good block''', but limit the block to 7 days. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' bad block. The entire issue emerged with uncommon understanding over closing a unanimously opposed DRV which was started by a ban evader. It is clear now that Aman.kumar.goel was correct with closing it. Had A.B. and Cryptic recognized it, then there would be no issue. Yes Aman.kumar.goel edit warred but so did A.B. and Cryptic as rightly noted above. Starting with A.B., he had unilaterally reverted a correct closure 2 times with false impression that the sock was a legitimate user given their removal of [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE|sock-strike]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_August_17&diff=prev&oldid=1171001151] A.B. clearly refused to stop reverting it even after being told about the right procedure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B.&diff=prev&oldid=1171040202] Cryptic has abused rollback for making 2 reverts and he provided explanation for these reverts hours after making the block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki_Avatar_and_Muhammad&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1171067722] I am not seeing any justification for this behavior. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 13:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Overturn''' per above. Edit warring to revert closure of a filing (by sock) is meaningless. Socks are not allowed to evade block. We warn even vandals but there was no warning for the OP. Cryptic was himself edit warring with the OP so I don't think he was qualified to make a block in the first place. Chronology of the events tell that the block came in middle of an ongoing discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&oldid=1171044139#Re:Close_on_DRV] thus it was not preventative. It is safe to say that if Cryptic had reported OP on a appropriate noticeboard then the report would be unsuccessful. [[User:Azuredivay|Azuredivay]] ([[User talk:Azuredivay|talk]]) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Endorse but lift now''' - a good (partial) block; "I know it's a sock" doesn't justify involved edit-warring for a procedural discussion, and the page-ban was appropriately narrow. But now the socking is confirmed, and the DRV is approaching SNOW close support; there is no longer a need for the block. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as a bad block per [[WP:BANREVERT|policy]]. As noted above, socking is expressly included in the [[WP:3RRNO|exception]] to 3RR. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|SN54129]] 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Bad block'''. It's a rule that requests from socks should not be entertained. The difference in opinion had to be discussed. Therefore, the use of block buttons was unwarranted. [[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 20:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Long term issues with user Kinfo Pedia, redux ==
{{atop|Resolved for now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
* {{user|Kinfo Pedia}} has long caused immense difficulties for those trying to clean up damage at [[Glenn Miller]], with perhaps hundreds of edits reverted. I had sort of hoped for a topic ban last year, but I don't think that will solve this, as can be seen at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chattanooga_Choo_Choo&diff=prev&oldid=1169893358], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talking_animals_in_fiction&diff=prev&oldid=1167110633], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_cats_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1171117649], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Miller_discography&diff=prev&oldid=1169861582], and external links under 'see also' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Airmen_of_Note&diff=prev&oldid=1160141945]. Previously there were lengthy disruptions at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chincoteague_Pony&diff=prev&oldid=1127724003], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chincoteague_Pony&diff=prev&oldid=1139833217], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transubstantiation&action=history] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Hoogenakker]. The earlier issues culminated in my report here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#History_of_problematic_editing_by_Kinfo_Pedia_(talk_%C2%B7_contribs)], but really not much has changed since. To mix metaphors, a lot of leeway has been given, and the batting average hasn't improved. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:*Given them a two weeks' block from the article space and have given them some essential reading. Do come back in case they resume editing articles in the same manner after the two-weeks' block. Thank you, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 07:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you, {{u|Lourdes}}. Back in December, I think they made a vague resolution to learn more about editing here with respect to guidelines. We'll see in a few weeks. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[user:Yousefsw07|Yousefsw07]] edit-warring, pushing unsourced POV changes ==
{{atop|Resolved by El C. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Yousefsw07}}

Account has been consistently making unsourced POV edits across multiple articles (generally to infoboxes of military history articles concerning Libya). All have been reverted and they frequently edit-war over them. They received multiple warnings about this on their talk page, with no change in behaviour.
* Examples of unsourced POV edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1168261649], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Msallata_clashes&diff=prev&oldid=1167166146], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisian%E2%80%93Algerian_War_%281694%29&diff=1169747541&oldid=1164939655], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Egyptian_involvement_in_the_Second_Libyan_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=1167123498], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Tunis_(1694)&diff=prev&oldid=1162493841], etc.
* Examples of edit-warring: at [[Chadian–Libyan War]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1168261649], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1169810579], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_War&diff=prev&oldid=1170917020]), [[Battle of Wazzin]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=1167491793&oldid=1166163272], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=1168580261&oldid=1168463969], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=prev&oldid=1170229330], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Wazzin&diff=prev&oldid=1170467418]), [[Second Italo-Senussi War]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Italo-Senussi_War&diff=prev&oldid=1170931830] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Italo-Senussi_War&diff=prev&oldid=1171096482]). All continuing after they were already warned about edit-warring on their talk page on 13 August. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 07:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{an3|b|72 hours}}: [[User talk:Yousefsw07#Block]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== 14.0.128.0/17 ==
{{atop|Expanded JBW's range block to include article space. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 09:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{vandal|14.0.128.0/17}}

This IP range possible broke edit ban in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] and [[List of Disney animated films based on fairy tales]], please see [https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%E5%82%80%E5%84%A1%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5/%E6%A1%88%E4%BB%B6/AXXXXK&diff=prev&oldid=78557853], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales&diff=prev&oldid=1170837385 why IP user 14.0.229.194 know Chicken Little 2005 has already blocked in this wiki and Meta]? I feel this LTA camouflage anti vandal user and obtain the trust, and this IP range must not new user, also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=14.0.128.0%2F17&namespace=4&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 sometimes this IP range can edit in this page].--'''[[User:MCC214|MCC214]][[Special:Contributions/MCC214|#]][[User Talk:MCC214|ex umbra in solem]]''' 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*Note, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=124.217.188.0%2F23&namespace=4&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 old sock 124.217.188.0/23 edit in this page before].--'''[[User:MCC214|MCC214]][[Special:Contributions/MCC214|#]][[User Talk:MCC214|ex umbra in solem]]''' 10:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Absurd forms of vandalism ==
{{atop|Resolved for now. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
Recently I have seen many different IPs which are going out of the typical vandalism trends.
[[Hurricane Hilary (2023)]] has been [[WP:OVERCITE|ref-bombed]] by several IPs recently, while [[User talk:Tamzin]] has been bombed by worthless nonsense.
Do these events deserve a deep investigation? [[User:IntegerSequences|IntegerSequences]] ([[User_talk:IntegerSequences|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/IntegerSequences|contribs]]) 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Zero diffs provided. I see no particular problem with Tamzin's Talk page, and if there were a problem, she is well able to deal with it herself. Hilary was semi'd earlier today for 12 hours (unusual) for disruption, but if there is a problem after that protection expires, [[WP:RFPP]] is the place to go.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I blocked the IP, who seems to be amusing themselves by testing boundaries. Block or protect and ignore. '''[[User:Acroterion|Acroterion]] [[User talk:Acroterion|(talk)]]''' 12:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::For those of us who are totally in the dark, the IP blocked by Acroterion (for two weeks) is [[Special:contributions/77.48.135.9]]. BTW, their edits to Tamzin's Talk page were on August 11, and their edits to Hilary were today.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:It's LTA stuff, revert them, block any IPs with repeat usage or accounts, and protect pages as necessary, but otherwise ignore them. Blocks can be requested at [[WP:AIV]], protection can be requested at [[WP:RFP]]; if they return with autoconfirmed socks don't hesitate to request ECP. Eventually they'll get bored and find something else to do. [[Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126|74.73.224.126]] ([[User talk:74.73.224.126|talk]]) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::The IP is (at least sometimes) a residential proxy, so I'm actually not sure if this is the same LTA now or if this is two people proxying through the same IP. Doesn't matter hugely at this juncture, though. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Agree, there's a significant chance it's two people using the same service, but whether it's one LTA or two (or more) different LTAs really doesn't matter. There was a discussion a ways back at WPOP where it came up that multiple LTAs were using the same known cheap residential proxy service provider, but I don't have the time to dig it up right now, and again it probably doesn't matter. TBH I probably shouldn't be looking at Wikipedia at all today or for the next month or so, but you know, procrastination.
:::Anyway, {{user|세상에 열린}} is now blocked, and another AC sock has followed. If disruption persists with more autoconfirmed socks than a bump to ECP can be requested at RFP, but otherwise there's nothing more to do here. [[Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126|74.73.224.126]] ([[User talk:74.73.224.126|talk]]) 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Did I do the right thing here? ==
{{atop|OP's queries answered significantly; {{u|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} advised strongly (and has responded with reasonable explanations). Taking the liberty to close this. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Squared.Circle.Boxing&diff=prev&oldid=1171179909]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be [[WP:XRV]] and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, ''[[What Is a Woman?]]'' is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a [[cisgender]] woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with [[WP:POLEMIC]] (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than [[polemic]]s)—{{tq|statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities}}. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Squared.Circle.Boxing&type=block was blocked] by [[User:El_C|El_C]] in October for [[Special:Diff/1115405699|a comment]] that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.{{pb}}So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought {{diff2|1148782539|this addition}} was fine, a sentence added right after {{diff2|1143726370|adding a quote by JK Rowling}} ([[Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights|context on how that's related to those unaware]]). [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] [[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at [[WP:UPNOT]] which explicitly says {{tq|In addition, there is broad agreement that '''you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute''', or which is likely to give widespread offense (''e.g.'' [[Racism|racist ideology]]). Whether serious or [[Internet troll|trolling]], "[[Wikipedia:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "[[Wikipedia:NOT#CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]]" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there '''are''' restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but [[Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate|don't be inconsiderate]]. ''Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.''}} Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:AbuseLog/33583676]]. Also, {{yo|Squared.Circle.Boxing|p=,}} can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named {{np|WanderingWanda}} (who is very much alive, {{transl|he|[[baruch hashem]]}}), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or [[Wanda Maximoff]] or somebody else. -- [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]][[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the [[Where's Waldo?]] series which has a character named ''Wenda''. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>cough* ''[[Where's Wally]]'', I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really {{tq|right after}}. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not {{tq|to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status}}. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''2'']].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|'''''O''''']].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''Boxing'']] 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Squared.Circle.Boxing&users=WanderingWanda&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:These comments [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing&oldid=1115491559#Block] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing&oldid=1115483348#Block] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what [[Special:AbuseLog/33583676|this]] is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''2'']].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|'''''O''''']].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|''Boxing'']] 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} {{replyto|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing&diff=prev&oldid=1058146641] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway. The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour. The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.) Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions]]. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play. Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward. If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|Clovermoss}} you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page. {{pb}}While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is ''per se'' a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered ''far'' more contentious. {{pb}}Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, ''all'' infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate [[WP:POLEMIC]], [[WP:NOTAFORUM]], and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias. {{pb}}Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, [[WP:MfD]] is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically [[Template:User enjoys TV]]. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at [[WP:UPNOT]] here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss🍀]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision. {{pb}}For [[persuasive authority]], I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas. {{pb}}Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am ''highly'' opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not. {{pb}}At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria. {{pb}} Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Highly disrespectful editing behaviour. ==
{{atop|72 hours for 3RR. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 08:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Seasider53}}

Firstly Seasider53 removed what I believe perfectly valid content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=1171085579 here], I restored it once, as I feel its valid content, he removed it a second time, I reverted it on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=1171179184 good faith edit] once more to try and leave it at that. But alas, Seasider53 breaks the [[WP:3RR]] and tag's my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Govvy&diff=prev&oldid=1171181895 uw-3]. Frankly, this behaviour is unacceptable in my opinion. How is adding legitimate correct information to an article regarded as disruptive editing is bizarre. There is frankly nothing wrong with the content, just the behaviour of Seasider in my opinion. I don't want him banned or anything like that, just for someone to tell the guy to have respect for other editors, I've seen it before towards other editors, I just don't think his type of editing practices should be this. P.S. can someone restore the content, Harry Kane the 3rd every English player for [[Bayern Munich]] is noteworthy, [https://sportsbrief.com/football/46452-english-stars-played-bayern-munich-harry-kane-nears-germany-switch/], [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 15:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:I made two reversions, so I don't know how you've come up with a 3RR violation. And I asked for you to explain on the Harry Kane talk page why you think said information is notable, yet you use an edit summary to state “I like it”…? [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Obviously the user is right, they didn't break the 3RR, but did three reverts today. While they didn't touch the article talk page, should Govvy restore the edit and Seasider53 removing, it will really be a violation. [[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|chat]])/([[Special:Contributions/ToadetteEdit|logs]]) 16:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Where are the “three reverts today”? And my edit yesterday wasn’t a reversion. [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
Content dispute in which neither experienced editor has made use of the article talk page. Not an issue for ANI. [[User:Schazjmd|'''Schazjmd''']] [[User talk:Schazjmd|''(talk)'']] 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:Chuachenchie]] ==
{{atop|Final warning given. Will block if they persist. Come back if I miss this and they resume editing. Thanks, [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 06:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
I am [[WP:CIR|concerned]] about the behavior of [[User_talk:Chuachenchie|User:Chuachenchie]], an editor for more than 2 years, who:

# has not provided a single edit summary during their entire Wikipedia tenure despite being asked multiple times to do so (see warnings [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#March_2021|#1]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#re:_Need_for_Edit_summaries_(yet_again)|#2]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Edits_without_confirmation|#3]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Edit_summaries|#4]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Please_add_references_to_your_edits_on_Wikipedia,_and_don't_forget_to_add_edit_summary|#5]]), that is 9k+ edits without a summary.
# failed to provide RS (see warnings [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#January_2021|#1]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Please_stop_adding_unsourced_material_to_List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities_or_restore_unsourced_material|#2]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#November_2021|#3]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#March_2022|#4]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#March_2022_2|#5]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#April_2022|#6]], [[User_talk:Chuachenchie#Please_add_references_to_your_edits_on_Wikipedia,_and_don't_forget_to_add_edit_summary|#7]])
# farmed edit counts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiangong_space_station&diff=prev&oldid=1052607282 #1] and the following 17 (!) edits are just them undoing and redoing the same edit over and over.

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

== Sierra Nevada ==
{{atop|IPA content dispute. Directed likewise by Snow Rise to parties. For those more interested, deeper clarity below by Cullen. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
[[User:Crescent77]] is going against both [[MOS:DIAPHONEMIC]] and [[Help:IPA/English]] itself by reinserting the pronunciation {{IPA|/-nəˈvædə/}} to the article [[Sierra Nevada]], which is covered by the first transcription {{IPA|/nɪˈvædə/}} (see note 21 in [[Help:IPA/English]]). He is telling me to "get consensus" to remove {{IPA|/-nəˈvædə/}} from the article. The consensus has already been reached on [[Help:IPA/English]] to transcribe this [[Weak vowel merger|variable]] vowel with {{angbr IPA|ɪ}} and there is a very lengthy discussion on [[Talk:Sierra Nevada]] (which is irrelevant because [[Help:IPA/English]] takes precedence). The box at the top of [[Help:IPA/English]] says {{tq|Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first.}} I request a revert to my diff.

Diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171193909], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171201445], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171201985], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171202132], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171203181], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171206172], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=1171210466]. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

:Usage with the schwa is included in the reference Sol50500 himself provided, as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references. I'm unclear as to why he is so adamant as to its removal from the article as an alternative transcription of the pronunciation.
:I reference the article's talk page, which indicates I am not alone in my concerns of which he has not made adequate attempts to address; consensus does not seem to be with him. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references}} it is not, not as a ''transcriptional'' alternative. The [[Help:IPA/English]] explicitly says that this kind of variation is covered by the symbol {{angbr IPA|ɪ}} alone. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 19:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Sol, I just digested the entirety of that very long and technically complex discussion (even for someone like myself with a formal, if dated and infrequently used these days, background in phonemics), and there is absolutely no firm consensus as yet that your interpretation is the more valid one. In fact, if anything, the discussion seemed to be leaning towards support for multiple IPA glosses, before it trailed off. Therefor this is very much still a content dispute and not a behavioural issue, and ANI is not the place to resolve any of this. You have five editors contributing there, with an apparent deadlock, insofar as you are very committed to your perspective, Crescent is something like 90% committed to the other option (but slightly open to having their mind changed, I think, as they recognize the technicalities are on the periphery of their wheelhouse), and three editors are in the middle ground and thus far have described only the complexities here, no firm positions on which way to go. {{pb}}Normally under these circumstances, I would suggest you RfA the issue. But the technicalities here are such that I don't see that as a particularly likely solution for ending this particular deadlock. You might consider positing at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics]]: it's slow these days, but not as dead as some WikiProjects. It may take some time to get the numbers you need to form a firm consensus here, but there's really [[WP:NORUSH]]. And honestly, particularly not in this case. I doubt that one reader out of a thousand has enough facility with IPA to be taking their lead for pronunciations from those glosses routinely: most probably only reference the relevant articles when they really need to know how to pronounce a topic they are wholly unfamiliar with, but need to sound informed about--basically we are talking niche within niche within niche need here. {{pb}}The project (nor even the article) is about to fall over this, and honestly, one of you could probably afford to just give way. I doubt that's going to happen, given how far the discussion has already com, but you need to at least understand that you're in a touch position here (needing consensus but lacking the ability to poll the average editor to give cogent feedback to form it) and you're jsut going to have to wait it out, if neither of you can let go. Regardless, there is no behavioural violation here and ANI cannot help you at this juncture. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks for taking the time to look through this and share your views. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::No problem at all: did take my mind back a long time ago to a phonology lab for a moment there, mind you! I wish I could help with the deadlock, but the issue is that I see both arguments as quite valid and I'll have to process the entire discussion at least once more before I feel confident lodging a firm position here. These are close issues and my reading of the technicalities is hindered by the deprivations of time on my adroitness for phonemics! ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::No, as the Help:IPA you reference clearly shows, and has been thoroughly discusssed yet not addressed by yourself in the article talk page, the schwa is acceptable for a weak vowel and is differentiated from the i. You protested by claiming there's a weak vowel merger, which as discussed, many American vernaculars, including some of those in the region in question, do not have. For a more thorough understanding of the ambiguity present in the "i" to speakers of American English, and our desire to include the schwa as is standard, please go to [[International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects]].
:::Once again, your Longman source explicitly includes, as you yourself indicate in the article talk page, the schwa as an IPA alternative in this specific case, yet you are adamant on its completely removal, without adequate justification and with a resistance to the compromise suggested. This makes it seem like you may be veering into [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS&redirect=no WP:RightGreatWrongs] territory. I understand your desire to promote a universal global standard for consistent pronunciation transcriptions, but not all vernaculars readily fit into the simplified IPA format. The issues surrounding this specific symbology are well documented, and the format is still in transition. I'm not understanding why you have such an issue with including both transcriptions, that you would engage in edit warring, and then when called out, elevate it here without any further discussion in the article talk. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}Crescent, I think that's a reasonable perspective, but I'd save it for a forum where it will matter. There's no way even someone completely uninformed about these areas is going to to look at that discussion and say that you are acting against consensus. There is unambiguously no consensus at this moment in time: just a lot of very close (and for most editors, inaccessible) technical distinctions. Continue to butt heads if you must, but here's the long and the short of it: whichever version was there in a long term stable version of the article up until the onset of this debate should stay in the article (or if a new one was inserted between the initial start of this debate three months back and the re-flare up today, that one ''might'' be the new stable version for the time being). Either way, nobody should edit war over it. Keep discussing until someone is convinced (or just simply tires, recognizes the extremely low stakes and gives way), or you get enough input to get a firm consensus. That's just the best that can be done here at the moment. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks again for your input.
:::::I'd suggest the schwa was the long-term stable version, but as I've repeatedly indicated, I'm willing to accept the inclusion of both, as it now stands. [[User:Crescent77|Crescent77]] ([[User talk:Crescent77|talk]]) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
----
On a side note, {{u|Cullen328}}, I assume I cannot have been the only one whose brain registered the words "Sierra Nevada" and "IPA" and momentarily assumed this dispute was about an entirely different subject altogether? ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[Sierra Nevada Brewing Company]] [[India Pale Ale]], I assume. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Good gracious are they proud of that drink there, with a regional fervour usually reserved for a sport franchise elsewhere. Glad you got it, Jim: that close to the border, and they might have tried to spirit you across in the middle of the night otherwise. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 22:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Rocafellla/Continued lack of [[WP:EDITISIS|edit summaries]] ==
{{atop|Warned them fwiw one final time. Come back if they persist once they return to editing. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
*{{user|Rocafellla}}

The above user was [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#User:Rocafellla|brought here in January]] for a severe lack of edit summaries in their many edits, and were warned to start using them or expect a block. After I and {{ping|Roman Reigns Fanboy}} dropped talk page warnings, they literally left [[User talk:Rocafellla|three entire words]] on the subject to shove off the issue and outside [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Rocafellla&namespace=1&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=500 some discussion], not another word of discussion on any talk space since then.

I checked on their record today going through past talk edits for myself and discovered that none of this advisement has been taken to heart; out of the 500 edits I could run on ESS, it came back with only 6% of edits summarized by them, and one of them was literally saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1167459189 "per Netflix site" (along with sourcing some AI SEO crap 'type-what-I'm seeing' a recap of a show trailer)], which is wholly inappropriate for sourcing. It may be time to block this monkish editor who refuses to use any summaries unless literally arm-twisted to do so. They haven't edited in over a week, but their number of edits needs a stronger flag than a brush off with 'ok' or 'got it'. '''[[User:MrSchimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|chatter]])'' 18:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Anonymous [[Thalapathy Vijay]] fanboy making personal attacks ==
{{Atop|reason= IP (evading {{noping|BangaloreNorth}}) blocked 72h.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{ipvandal|185.185.50.174}}

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

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

Clearly shows [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Kaseng55|Kaseng55]] ([[User talk:Kaseng55|talk]]) 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Korisnik User Being ==
{{atop
| status =
| result =
}}

{{resolved}}

{{userlinks|Korisnik User Being}} is making persistent [[WP:NOTFORUM]] posts on [[Talk:Lucy Letby]], despite being warned against doing so in their talkpage. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
: That would be a sock puppet of {{noping|Beaneater00}}. Blocked indefinitely. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Disruption of wrestling [[WP:BLP]]s by South Korean [[WP:LTA]] ==
{{atop|Semi'd by Courcelles. [[User:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 05:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}

My second time here on this issue--[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1166782734#Persistent_disruption_at_multiple_wrestling_WP:BLPs_by_South_Korean_IPs]. Since they change IPs like so much underwear, I'm proposing long term protection for, among others:

*[[Raymond Rougeau]]
*[[Jacques Rougeau]]
*[[Pierre Carl Ouellet]]
*[[Spike Dudley]]
*[[Stevie Richards]]
*[[Bronson Reed]]

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

:We have a useful tool given by the community, [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling]] that seems a little underused. I’ve semied these six and will now log them as enforcement actions under those sanctions. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 05:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|Courcelles}}, thank you. I'm certain we'll add more to the list, but this is an unfortunate and necessary start. Cheers, [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 05:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Aquatic Ambiance ==
{{atop|As requested by the OP. Also, that was not a "threat." Please default to [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Aquatic Ambiance}}
*{{pagelinks|Energy medicine}}
*{{pagelinks|Nature therapy}}

{{u|Aquatic Ambiance}} is edit warring to include fringe material based on sources such as the 'journal' ''Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine'' at [[Energy medicine]] and [[Nature therapy]]. I have reverted them twice, but they have reinstated their edits, and I do not wish to get into an edit war. I have asked that the self revert and make their case on the talk page, but they have refused to do so. I have advised them about the [[WP:CTOP]] rules that apply in this area, and advised them to make their case on the article's talk page, but to no avail. I am obviously [[WP:INVOLVED|INVOLVED]]; could another admin make it clear to them that this is not acceptable conduct? [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 12:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::I genuinely have no clue what's wrong with the scientific journals I used. Otherwise I would have searched for better sources. I thought using scientific journals is what Wikipedia is all about. What am I missing? I'm trying to learn here. Is that not allowed? [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]] ([[User talk:Aquatic Ambiance|talk]]) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Again: this isn't about the content, or the sourcing, we can discuss that at the article's talk page. It's about your conduct in reinstating an edit that you know to be contested, instead of making the case for it on the article talk page. I'm happy for this to be closed without action if you will self-revert and go to the talk page. [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 12:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::So I have to revert my edit because you're threatening me? And not because there's something wrong with the edit itself? I already opened a topic on the talk page. [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]] ([[User talk:Aquatic Ambiance|talk]]) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I have not threatened you - I actually made it clear that I am acting in my capacity as an ordinary editor, not as an administrator - I won't be the one to block you. You have to revert your edit because it has been contested, and the onus is on you to gain consensus for the change, not on others to convince you that it is wrong. It is my view that you are adding pseudoscientific nonsense to our articles, based on unpublished primary studies and in-universe alt med journals; maybe I will be shown to be wrong about that, but you need to remove the contested material until you get consensus for it. [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 12:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Ok I've reverted the page and wait to get more feedback on the help desk. It's all good, but I don't think threatening someone who's still learning is the way to go though. [[User:Aquatic Ambiance|Aquatic Ambiance]] ([[User talk:Aquatic Ambiance|talk]]) 13:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Again, I have not threatened you. I did tell you that I would ask you to be blocked for edit warring if you refused to self-revert - that's not a threat, it's simply laying out the next steps. You have over 4,000 edits, you have been warned about edit warring in the past, and you are aware of the [[WP:CTOP|CTOP]] rules - you can't play the 'still learning the way' card, you need to edit more responsibly. Thank you, however, for finally self-reverting. This report can be closed now. [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 13:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Footballrelated ==

{{user|Footballrelated}} has been blocked three times for making unsourced changes to BLPs (raised at ANI previously) - yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filip_Sachpekidis&diff=1171035846&oldid=1164999562 is still at it]. I suggest an indef. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:An explicit inline citation would be preferable but the change is supported by two references in article, [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ Worldfootball.net] and [https://int.soccerway.com/players/filip-sachpekidis/297031/ Soccerway]. I haven't looked into their other recent contributions, that diff alone is not a blockable offence to me though. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{ec}} The items removed aren't specifically reffed, and while I'm not familiar with worldfootball.net's (the [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/filip-sachpekidis/ first ref on the page]) reliability or practices, they seem to say he's indeed no longer playing for that team - compare their entries for [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/paulo-vinicius/ three] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/georgios-nikas/ current] [https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/david-grof/ players]. If Sachpekidis ''did'' leave the team, then - obviously - it would have been better if Footballrelated said and sourced that in their edit instead of just removing the infobox items and the currently-plays-for statement from the lead, but I honestly can't see how their version of the article so much worse than yours that it merits a block. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::GiantSnowman acts a little ruthless in the pages he "owns". He blocks without hesitation EVEN if the edit is correct.
::My concern is that he can edit the changes himself, yet he doesn't do it.
::I don't think Wikipedia needs an authoritarian figure like him. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That isn't called for. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Robby.is.on|Cryptic}} this is about an editor with a long history of making unsourced edits to BLPs who doesn't seem to give a damn about sourcing or verifiability. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Also Soccerway does not say he has left - WorldFootball (a stats database) does. That is not sufficient sourcing. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::There was already a source in this specific article which comfirms my edit.
::::Most, if not all, of the articles related to footballers have a reference which leads to their profile from a football page, like Soccerway or WorldFootball.
::::Your job is not patrolling and terrorizing editors while you could make the change in this article all by yourself before all this drama occurs. [[Special:Contributions/178.59.44.56|178.59.44.56]] ([[User talk:178.59.44.56|talk]]) 16:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::And neither is that. I get that you're upset, but tone it down. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::At no point, until you read the edits from Robby and Cryptic above suggesting WF, did you suggest that you used WF to make the edit in question. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|you could make the change in this article all by yourself}} That is not how Wikipedia works, Footballrelated. The [[WP:BURDEN]] is on you to make sure the changes you make are verifiable. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::As i said already, footballers articles have almost always a reference which leads to their profile bios, also he doesn't allow transfermarkt references, which are more accurate to the already existing ones.
::::::None of my edits are misleading or vandalism.
::::::GiantSnowman owns many pages which he doesn't edit by himself at all.
::::::He feels the urge to block people, i cannot do anything against it.
::::::It's up to you [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:Verifiability]] is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Many of the changes you make are not verifiable. You have been told so many, many times in recent years, and not just by GS. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've looked at their [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107#User:Footballrelated|prior]] trips [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120#User:Footballrelated, again|to AN/I]]. But what we have right ''now'' is the removal - not addition - of statements to a BLP that, per the refs already in the article, appear no longer to be true. Even if they were only right ''by accident'' this time, that's not blockable. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Fransson&diff=prev&oldid=1171189170 Another unsourced edit yesterday], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sotirios_Kokkinis&diff=prev&oldid=1171037299 another the day before], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vangelis_Kerthi&diff=prev&oldid=1171037020 another], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paraskevas_Doumanis&diff=prev&oldid=1171036868 another]. This is not a standalone or one-off issue. This is somebody who has been blocked THREE times before for these same types of edits. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::'''Support indefinite block''' Fransson's move is supported by the Soccerway reference in the article. The moves of Kokkinis, Kerthi and Ntoumanis are not supported by references in the articles. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::OK, ''those'' are actionable. I'm not going to be the one to block - scroll up a bit and it should be obvious why - but, particularly given the recentness of the three-month-long block for the same behavior, I agree an indef is now warranted. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Fine, you won.
::::::Consider my opinion about giantsnowman, though.
::::::Bye [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]] ([[User talk:Footballrelated|talk]]) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}I've removed the external link to an attack page from FR and blocked indef. Quite enough of that. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 16:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support Community Ban''' - The combination of this editor's history of adding unreliable information to [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] and subsequent personal attacks on editors who caution them and clean up make this editor a net negative who does not appear to be willing to learn. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN:''' Yeah, I'm up for this as well as a failsafe against appeal. [[User:Footballrelated|Footballrelated]]'s racked up ''years'' of warning and multiple blocks over sourcing issues, and no one can claim he hasn't been warned and warned and warned again. It's just that he doesn't give a damn, just refuses to do it, and seems to believe that his edit count immunizes him against bothering. (Why not, after all ... for how many years did that premise suit the likes of Lugnuts just fine?) Toss in his frequent incivilities and that's just the crust on top of the road apple. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Golden Mage, various personal preference cosmetic edits, disregard of [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] and complete lack of communication ==

{{user|Golden Mage}} has repeatedly been asked on their talk page to stop unnecessarily changing between usage of [[MOS:OXFORDCOMMA]]S, changing links against [[WP:NOTBROKEN]], indiscriminately removing red links etc. Instead of addressing the issues or even responding to people raising them, they ignore everyone and continue along the same lines, often making several miniscule edits inserting their preference of oxford commas and changing links. These unproductive edits fill people's watch lists and I'm not convinced Golden Mage is a net positive with their contributions if they refuse to discuss the problem. Pinging @[[User:FutureFlowsLoveYou|FutureFlowsLoveYou]] @[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] and @[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] as others that have also recently brought up these issues as well as @[[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] who created a report on this board about the same editor in January.

The best outcome here would be Golden Mage finally responding and communicating that they understand the issues, if they do not administrator action may be needed. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Stonewalling and POV pushing in the [[Aghlabids]] article ==

Some users, mostly @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] and @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], have been [[WP:STONEWALLING]] the [[Aghlabids]] page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia (as well as most of Southern Italy) is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR]) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1084612896&diffmode=source editing it after a consensus was reached] and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the [[Talk:Aghlabids|talk page]] where I explained why:

:The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "''The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab '''occupation of Sicily''' that was to last more than 250 years and '''raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy.'''''" They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

[https://imgur.com/9pG8l2l This is page 24, that contains both the original map and the text], and [https://imgbb.com/BsFK5qp this is page 12]. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] is using the argument that the OR map it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1150169317&diffmode=source allegedly partially supported by other ones] (''near-identical'' ones), which is [[WP:SYNTH]].
The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. I've already brought this issue to the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|appropriate noticeboard]] some time ago, but it was ignored (you can see the last revision before the topic was deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1153574063 here]), and then I dropped it for a while because work and some personal issues didn't leave me a lot of time for Wikipedia, but since the discussion was reopened by another editor I think it's time to bring it here. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 19:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*The arguments presented by Prazeres and M.Bitton on [[Talk:Aghlabids]] appear to be justifiable inference from cited sources, policy-wise; there may be room for rebuttal with other arguments and sources, but they don't appear to be prima facie egregious OR. A more appropriate response to this dispute would have been to open an RfC and make the case for your preferred map, rather than lobby for a behavioral sanction. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Raided and conquered areas, while in the original map are showed differently, in the one used in the article are all painted the same. That conveys a completely different message. Especially combined with the refusal to explain it better in the description, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAghlabids&diff=prev&oldid=1112296536&diffmode=source this comment] (why refuse to add that single word, and keeping the explanation only inside the less-visible note, otherwise?), it seems to me like a POV-pushing problem as well. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes|Infoboxes should "''summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article''" and should allow the readers to "''identify key facts at a glance''"]], but in this case it tells something else, and there is no intention by the editors to try and fix it. [[User:L2212|L2212]] ([[User talk:L2212|talk]]) 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Roblox888i2|Roblox888i2]] talkpage abuse ==

This user continues to abuse his talkpage after being blocked indefinitely. Do you think an admin should revoke talkpage access? [[User:Filmssssssssssss|𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔]] ([[User talk:Filmssssssssssss|talk]]) 20:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:In the vast majority of cases, if you ignore them, they simply go away. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:User:RussBot]] is malfunctioning ==

Bot is making incorrect edits to hat-notes of people named [[Bob Quinn]] or variant thereof. Bot incorrectly assumes that [[Bob Quinn (disambiguation)]] is the direct dab link but it is not, the correct link is just [[Bob Quinn]], the other is a redir. [[User:Groupthink|Groupthink]] ([[User talk:Groupthink|talk]]) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)