Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Wikihounding by Awshort

    [edit]

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

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

    After my post today, Awshort started Wikihoundingme.

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

    °1

    ° 2

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

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

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

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

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

    Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. Liz Read! Talk! 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. Delectopierre (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.
    But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. Delectopierre (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should spend less energy “confronting” and more energy discussing and trying to learn from more experienced editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to learn when experienced editors engage with me in a helpful and respectful manner. Your comment does not fit that description.
    As an aside, I wasn't aware that non-admin, IP-only editors, who are not involved with the incidents I've reported would be participating in this discussion. Delectopierre (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified Awshort as it still hasn't been done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested for doing so. User:Delectopierre, you should have notified User:Awshort yourself, there are messages instructing editors to do so all over this page including on the edit notice that you see any time you post a comment here. As I said, you are also advised to discuss disputes first with involved editors before posting on a noticeboard. ANI is where you come for urgent, intractable problems, it's the last place you go when other methods of dispute resolution haven't worked. This also looks like a standard content disagreement regarding Taylor Lorenz and the fact that Awshort reverted one of your edits. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz as I noted above, I attempted to discuss their behavior on the article here, and their response was to wikihound me.
    As I said here I don't feel comfortable discussing what feels like and seems to be harrasment, directly with them, as it felt like intimidation to stop confronting them about what I see as bad behavior on the article. I was waiting for a reply to that statement before proceeding.
    Is there really no process that allows for an instance when an editor feels uncomfortable? Delectopierre (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also add that it appears as though this is not the first occurrence of this type of behavior, based on this comment by @Twillisjr. I don't, however, know any of the details. Delectopierre (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-reading your comment, @Liz:
    I think I’ve been unclear. The content dispute is a content dispute. You’re right about that.
    That is NOT why I posted here. I posted here because the content dispute spilled off that article and has now resulted in wikihounding. The wikihounding, specifically, is why I posted here. Delectopierre (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed the discussion with the rationale "Nothing more to do here. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:HOUND." KOLANO12 3 13:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain your rationale? I don’t follow. Delectopierre (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, thank you ActivelyDisinterested for the initial ping and Liz for the follow-up ping. The majority of this is over the Taylor Lorenz article as a whole, but there have been some policy issues sprinkled throughout. Delectopierre anyone can participate in noticeboard discussions whether involved or not, the 'IP-only editor' you referenced has more edits than both of us combined, and registration is not a requirement to edit Wikipedia nor participate in community noticeboards.
    they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior - That isn't accurate since I post on the BLPN often, as well as using it to find articles I can help out on since I mainly focus on editing BLP's. I checked out the BLPN, noticed it was missing a discussion of interest from earlier in the day (Maynard James Keenan) and checked the edit history to see if it was removed for a reason. I saw the previous edit by DP had removed it as well as another discussion so I restored it. That wasn't me 'hounding' them, that was me fixing an error so other discussions could continue. I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well, saw the edit history for this edit with the summary critics don't accuse him of anti-semitism. he is an antisemite, and checked the edit which had been changed to calling the person that. The prior edit had the edit summary of adding back david icke qualifier, so I checked that one as well since I assumed it would be similar. When it was confirmed, I reverted since it seemed a BLP violation as well as WP:LIBEL. Since there was a talk page discussion regarding the prior one, I posted that I had removed it from another article as well, in case it went to a noticeboard both could be noted. It is worth noting that the edit I removed was originally added a few months prior by the same user. I think most editors would have acted in the similar manner regarding the edits and I stand behind them.
    I think Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. is somewhat disingenuous when on their first full day of editing the Lorenz article after being registered since 2018 and mostly inactive they seemed to know enough policies to quote them in their edit summaries (WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE), their post that to BLPN referenced NPOV,  as well as learning other policies that were left on their talk page (CTOP by TheSandDoctor, NPOV by Little Professor).
    And it's hard to reply to the linked conversation above where it's implied I'm hounding in the closing comments with only one side of the story presented.
    Awshort (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well,"
    That is the definition of hounding:
    "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."
    I don't understand how this isn't open and shut. Delectopierre (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The same section that you're quoting also says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. (bold added) Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing related about the other articles they followed me to, and I fail to see how the problems are related. The only common denominator is me. They will, I'm sure, say they're all BLP. Doesn't matter, tons of this encyclopedia is BLP and if Awshort feels I shouldn't be editing any BLP, there are methods of addressing that belief that don't include following me around wikipedia to make sure I don't do anything they disagree with. Delectopierre (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only hounding if they act on it. You need to show at least a few diffs that they are editing on a page you are editing, and they would not have been interested in it otherwise. If they are stalking your history, but do nothing, its technically non-actionable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs are in my original post. Delectopierre (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also going "this editor made problmatic edits, I should check their history to make sure they haven't made more, and fix any others they've made" is most assuredly not hounding. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After a long winded disagreement on a talk page that included them starting multiple edit wars, my view is there are much better ways of addressing this. For example, they could have started a conversation on my talk page.
    Additionally, who is to say which edits are problematic? I view a number of edits Awshort made as problematic, so I disengaged from the conversation rather than continuing to go in circles.
    Lastly, could you help me understand how a non-admin editor checking another editor's history and reverting their edits is not hounding? It seems to fit the definition of hounding.
    Delectopierre (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy. Someone sees you made an edit they consider problematic. They go and check your other edits to see if you made other problematic edits. They revert any problematic edits they find. Being an admin or not has nothing to do with it. If they continually do this over a period of time, then it may be hounding. If they go through it once because they noticed something, it's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thanks. Delectopierre (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After a long winded disagreement on a talk page that included them starting multiple edit wars - Ignoring the dig about 'long winded disagreement' and just pointing out the following since I was accused yet again of something else
      ## 'Attempts to discredit her work'
      1. Inclusion of RollingStone reference and 'attempts to discredit her work' text by DP on Aug 17, 24
      2. FMSky removes on Dec 11 with WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS as reason.
      3. Reverted by DP Dec 13, empty edit summary.
      4. Removed again by FMSky with same edit summary
      5. Reverted by DP with no edit summary, again
      6. FMSky moves text further down based on what the included reference says.
      7. Reverted by DP
      ## 'Doxxing standard part of the reporting process'
      1. Insertion of text about doxxing, 'standard part of the reporting process' by DP Aug 17, 24
      2. Removed in Nov 27 by myself, as it was already included with the same reference earlier in the paragraph.
      3. Reverted shortly after by DP
      4. Removed on Nov 28 with a quote on what the text of the included reference actually stated, which was not what was included.
      ## Podcast
      1. Podcast section added Aug 17 by DP
      2. Removed some of the podcast text that seemed promotional and wasn't supported by the included reference Nov 27
      3. Reverted by DP Nov 27
      4. Removed both the Podcast reinsertion, and the previous reporting texts on Nov 28 with the same reasoning and asked to take it to TP and try to obtain consensus before insertion again.
      ## 'Assaulted'
      1. Harassment section which included 'assaulted' added Aug 17 by DP
      2. Removed the word assaulted from the harassment section on Nov 28 since it was covered in her career section.
      3. Reverted by DP on Dec 3 as WP:OR
      4. Removed per talk, undue, and covered in Career Dec 14
      ## 'Coordinated'
      1. Vegan416 removed the word coordinated under BLP grounds (accusing Tucker Carlson of coordinating attacks) Dec 14
      2. Re-insertion by DP on Dec 24
      3. Removed per WP:SYNTH since the word wasn't in the included reference on Dec 24
    It isn't limited to just this article, though.
      ## 'Anti-Semitic'
      1. Anti-Semitic label of David Icke added on April 9
      2. removed by Zane362 Nov 11
      3. Re-added by DP Dec 26
      4. Removal by myself on Dec 27
    It seems like the very definition of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. This isn't entirely an "I don't like Awshort messing with my edits" issue; this is a "I don't like anyone messing with my edits" issue.
    Coincidentally, its also covered in WP:HOUND at WP:HA#NOT: It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); that is part of what editor contribution histories are for. Editors do not own article content, or their own edits, and any other editor has the right to revert edits as appropriate. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.
    On almost every attempt to edit text inserted by DP, be it by other editors or myself, editors are met with resistance. That includes when their text that was inserted is changed in any manner, including being reworded or moved.
    Awshort (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    @Tamtam90 I have posted an ANI notice on Michael's talk page. Please leave the notice on users' talk page when starting a discussion on ANI next time. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 15:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamtam90:, anything on Wikipedia can be changed at any time by any editor. If it is not acceptable for you to have your translations modified by others, I suggest you not use them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I translated and published my translations in Wikisource, as professional ethnographer. You don't explain the situation, nor the edits of your "protégé": merely reverted my (author's) edits without any consideration. Why not to "change" or "revert" all my edits in Wikisource as well? Please, try it. Or your admin flag doesn't admit such a trick?--Tamtam90 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a needlessly hostile attitude to take.
    Of note, your status as a professional ethnographer does not mean your edits are above reproach. Other people may disagree with your translation, that's normal. You do not own edits here, so changes to your edits may happen. If that means you "stop <your> further work," then so be it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to stick to WP:CIVILITY and avoid casting ASPERSIONS, like baselessly implying that one user is an admin's "protégé". NewBorders (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Willing to give some grace to potential second language and things not coming through as intended @Tamtam90 but either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. falls afoul of edit warring, ownership. WP:EXPERT will be a helpful read, but right now you're closer to a block from mainspace than @Michael Bednarek is if you don't re-assess your conduct. Star Mississippi 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear friends, I published all my translations before on an "outer" site, not here, though I granted with VRTS all rights to use them — without changing — to the community. That's, to say — publish and reproduce them, not to change in any possible manner and without any consideration. Maybe, I missed, but I haven't found such "conditions" (to change one's works in any possible manner) in these rules. --Tamtam90 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Now, if you want to remove your translations, probably nobody will replace them. But you have no more say in edits going forward than anyone else does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you publish anything on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, in anyway. Full stop. You explicitly cannot license contributions to be unalterable. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Original work is original work. Once accepted from an outer source, it cannot be changed and posed as original by anyone. The third column seems to be a healthy solution (for each acceptable derivative, as well) — it's a pity that the opponent doesn't follow his own decision and way anymore. --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't publish anything on Wikipedia, I republish here the texts added to Wikisource. That rule doesn't apply to any authentic translations previously published outside (one may create some derivatives, but not change with them the original). --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The button you hit was "Publish changes", so yes, you published it here under cc-by-sa 4.0. I really think you're setting yourself up for a minor disaster by not understanding what the license you're using means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you post anything on Wikipedia, you have, in fact, published it. And once you have posted/published it here, anyone can change it in any way for any reason at any time. It can be changed, and saying it "cannot be changed" is a violation of Wikipedia's licensing. If you don't want your content edited by others, don't post it here. It's as simple as that. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to your claim, one may change here any text loaded on Wikisource, still labelling that as original (from the Bible or some historical chronicles, from a traveller's notes and so on). However, holding the authorship (demanded by any CC licence), such an editor would violate the very bases of Creative Commons' spirit: who would share freely their works knowing that the latter might be changed at any time and by anyone and still published under their own names? (Under the authors, I mean here not only writers, but scientists, artists, and other professionals as well). There's a clear border between the original and its derivatives. --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue has been poorly explained. The articles in question contain translations that are cited at Wikisource. Changing the translation then results in a false citation. I think it is important to separate the Wikipedia article and the translation document on Wikisource. The wikipedia article can be edited, the wikisource translation should stay intact. The policy question, is how can Wikipedia editors use the Wikisource translation and how do they cite it? Wikisource surely has their own policies. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional column might be a healthy solution. That's not "a one-hit wonder": such approach does work in some pages on the folk songs: The Song of the Volga Boatmen, Kalinka (1860 song), Arirang, and other related articles. --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About "minor disasters": the above-mentioned user undid or "cleant" my changes in three of the last four articles: Das Todaustreiben, Wiegenlied (Des Knaben Wunderhorn), Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli, Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär. How many new contributors, in your opinion, would withstand such "attention"? I'm not a "newb" in Wikipedia, though I have a sense of some prejudice (maybe, implicit). --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An inspection of the edit history of 3 of these 4 articles shows that my edits were substantial improvements; I never touched the 4th, "Wiegenlied" (Des Knaben Wunderhorn). All my edits are intended to collegially improve Wikipedia; I don't think I've ever been accused of prejudice or harassment, and I reject that characterisation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, three. Yes, and certain your improvements made some admins from Wikipedia and Wikisource to intervene, to solve the previous conflict (1, 2) --Tamtam90 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to settle the underlying content disputes, and I was going to confine my comments to the relevant article talk pages, but I have looked at the articles in question, and I want to weigh in briefly in support of Michael Bednarek, who was right to point out the problems with the "translations" that the OP added to these articles. Some of them are pretty dreadful, to be honest, and they reveal a shaky understanding of both German and English. In the OP's version of Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, to give just one example, the third stanza bears no relationship to the meaning of the German original and is only barely intelligible in English, and putting it into a different column and labeling it "poetic" doesn't change that. There are two questions here: (1) Should the poems written by the OP and self-published on Wikisource be reproduced as written if they are quoted on Wikipedia; and (2) Should these poems, given their inaccuracies and other shortcomings, be cited or reproduced in Wikipedia articles as reliable translations of the original texts? The answer to the first question is yes, I think: if they are treated as "published" versions and provided with Wikisource citations, they should be probably be used unchanged (as pointed out above by Tinynanorobots). But the answer to the second question is, in my opinion, a firm no: if the OP will not allow the errors to be corrected, then his versions should not be used at all. The author is free to publish and promote his own poems wherever he likes, but he should not be inserting them into Wikipedia articles and fighting to retain them when other editors have pointed out that they misrepresent the original texts, and he should certainly not be dragging those editors to ANI on spurious charges of vandalism and disruptive editing. Crawdad Blues (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agreed on both points. The translation of Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär turns a poem about someone who wishes they were a bird so that they could fly to their love but cannot, into a poem about someone who once was a bird and is now unable to vomit. Furius (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last comment doesn't need any reply: I only hope its author had no chance to translate anything from medieval poetry. About the second question posed by Crawdad Blues: 1) What do you mean under the "errors"? If you mean the so-called "anachronisms" — that's quite normal, to translate them in a proper way. Note, that all (or almost all) songs of that collection have been recorded before 19-th century, and many of them belong to the folklore of the Middle Ages. If you mean "word for word" translation — that's impossible for "poetical translation" (you might ask any poet-translator). That's why one may add the third column, for "word for word" translation.--Tamtam90 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To Michael Bednarek. You began publicly blame me for my "inaccuracies" and "anachronisms". But what about your own mistakes (assuming that your goal was "word-to-word" translation, not rhyme and metre)? In Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, you translated:

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

    as

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

    instead of

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

    ?

    viel tausendmal

    as

    a thousand times

    instead of

    many thousand times

    ?
    And once again about some possible "harassment": if your wish is only "to collegially improve Wikipedia", why, right after the first our conflict, you again started to hunt after some "mistakes" and "shortages" in the next article created by me, though other songs from the collection still wait their translators (I mean only existing articles and only from the German Wikipedia, compare with those from the sister project).--Tamtam90 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since these translations are cited to Wikisource under the author's name, altering them without the use of [square brackets] is misquoting (violates WP:V) and might be a copyright issue.
    However, I also share Crawdad's and Furius's concerns about the accuracy of these translations. Of the two examples listed directly above as erroneous corrections, in the first case "Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep" is in fact a more accurate translation, while in the second case I agree that "many thousand times" is more accurate.
    I've rewritten the first sample, trying to make it more exact. Compare with entweder... oder.... --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a limit to how much leeway a poetic translation gets; translating "bleib ich allhier" as "I cannot heave"(?!) when the metrically and rhyme-wise equivalent "I cannot leave" is available is way outside those limits. But that's a content issue, not a conduct issue. Toadspike [Talk] 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the two salient points have been made clear: 1) if we are directly quoting a translation from Wikisource, then that quotation cannot be "improved" through editing here; 2) if that translation is perceived as being substandard, then there is no reason why we should be forced to use it - this is not a cite from the Authoritative Translations of German Poetry, but Some Random Dude's Private Effort (no offense).
    Hence, in the cases noted, if there is consensus that it does not do a good job, either remove the translation; provide a literal but more accurate new translation; or provide an altered version that is clearly labeled as being based on the Wikisource text. - In my opinion, parts of the translation are fine (e.g. the female rendering of winter is actually not an unsuitable touch, even if decidedly "poetical"), some rather less so (although "heave" is a typo for "leave" - right? right?). Fixing up those bits with the help of other contributors might provide good results. I hope Tamtam90 would be sensible enough to not fight tooth and claw against such an effort. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elmidae, thanks for some support. Without an additional pronoun ('myself'), 'leave' would be a better choice. As for the gender, I already mentioned — that's not a "poetical whimsy": so depicted the Winter the Germans and their neighbours (the Slavs): 1, 2.--Tamtam90 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The text itself uses masculine gender, so very clearly at the time the poem was written, they didn't, or at the very least the author did not intend that depiction. Whatever - this stuff is for discussion on the article talk page. What needs to be cleared up here is whether you are going to continue to obstruct all attempts to alter the translations according to consensus, because that is going to be a problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is general agreement that decisions about the use of these translations should be discussed on the article talk pages, I will note here that I have removed the disputed translation from Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, leaving in place the more literal version, which seems to me a better choice for an encyclopedia article. I've explained my reasoning on the talk page; other comments are welcome there. Crawdad Blues (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm already pointed at two wrong translations of my opponent. Instead, without any further discussion, you removed my "poetic" version and left his "text" (without proper rhyme and metre, though still with some mistakes). Is that a way of how-to-use talk pages in en-wikipedia? --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is your opponent. Though you are doing a good job demonstrating that you cannot work collaboratively with others. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two "wrong translations" you point out above, the first is not wrong at all. (The adverb doch in the second clause shows that the construction is "although X, nevertheless Y"; your "whether ... or" translation is impossible.) Your second suggestion, however, has already been accepted and added to the article. Another editor saw your comment, agreed with it, and made the change. This is how collaborative editing works: sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't. I explained my reasons for removing your translation from Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär on the article talk page. If you can come up with a compelling argument why it should remain in the article, someone else will probably restore it. The place to do that is the talk page. Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn

    [edit]

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

    You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
    Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.
    I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Wikipedia for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin Ahoy! 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Wikipedia and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin Ahoy! 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin Ahoy! 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin Ahoy! 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this [1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin Ahoy! 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin Ahoy! 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
        Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
        And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I do understand this Wikipedia rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin Ahoy! 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin Ahoy! 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin Ahoy! 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin Ahoy! 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin Ahoy! 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        it was a collective you. Darwin Ahoy! 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        None of this is relevant. We follow sources and MOS:GENDERID. There is obviously no Wikipedia position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've continued to post where? Darwin Ahoy! 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin Ahoy! 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin Ahoy! 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin Ahoy! 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin Ahoy! 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin Ahoy! 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin Ahoy! 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin Ahoy! 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin Ahoy! 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Clarification
    • Hello @Nil Einne - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in my country, to the point of eventually configuring a crime here. Obviously Wikipedia has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
    • As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ILGA Portugal, which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Wikipedia, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
    • The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Wikipedia, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
    • Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Wikipedia. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
    • And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. Darwin Ahoy! 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Community Sanctions

    [edit]

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

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

    Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin Ahoy! 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin Ahoy! 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin Ahoy! 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin Ahoy! 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin Ahoy! 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz Read! Talk!
      @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin Ahoy! 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @DarwIn: you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
    MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago [5], is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP WP:DROPTHESTICK - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of WP:PG, and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
    sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour there would be no mention of WP:NPA. Wikipedia is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Wikipedia that it's culture continues to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Edited to include edit conflict comment. CNC (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places WP:FTN where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for affirming my point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory or is that not the side you were thinking of? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). Nil Einne (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an official pt.wiki community on Telegram where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Wikipedia credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Wikipedia is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a Wikipedia research group that discusses gender, sexuality and race.
    Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space.
    PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. Jardel (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (block discussion in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe meatpuppetry. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you send cordial greetings from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. Jardel (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs [user blocking discussions] in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. Jardel (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jardel You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its members to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. Jardel (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a ptwiki user that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Wikipedia project a sewage (here)/in her UP, thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the block discussion (in portuguese). The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it.

    This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone.

    I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my portuguese talk page (direct url). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Wikipedia due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers". And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user already tried to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, went to Meta-Wiki in an attempt to intervene in the Wikipedia domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. InvictumAlways (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Wikipedia" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Wikipedia, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. Jardel (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    InvictumAlways - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jardel The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, as you said yourself previously. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: [6]. And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supporting both IBAN and TBAN. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
    concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Wikipedia, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Wikipedia follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate WP:OR on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyshifter taking matters from another Wikipedia to seek revenge.

    [edit]
    100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Wikipedia which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this WP:BOOMERANGs on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Wikipedia ANI. Please do not reopen this section. Liz Read! Talk! 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On the 29th of December, User:Skyshifter started an AN/I based on a claim that User:DarwIn, a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination here. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate.

    She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Wikipedia, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn.

    But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log.

    This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Wikipedia, after calling the whole platform a sewage (here and in her UP), casting aspersions over other users and using ducks and meatpuppets to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it here, with all the proofs). The block discussion taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever.

    Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was personal and for revenge. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under pt:WP:NDD, here called WP:ASPERSIONS I think, and disruptive editing/WP:POINT, and in the AN/I above she's commiting WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment.

    Eduardo G.msg-contrib 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eduardo Gottert: You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    '@Nil Einne The evidences are above. I said if you need any further evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is time for a WP:BOOMERANG. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added more evidence and context. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement doesn't even make sense. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can add WP:CIR to the reasons you are blocked then. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I? And where am I in violation of WP:CIR? Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. SilverserenC 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read many of the posts on the Portuguese wiki, and it is pretty clear that the Skyshifter's complaint above is a deliberate expansion of drama from there. The Portugese wiki is not Uganda, people do not get banned there for being Trans, and former admins don't get banned without causing a lot of disruption. It is clear these two users really strongly dislike each other and need to stop interacting in any way.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People obviously doesn't get banned for being trans. She was sysop there, commited some errors, but stayed there even after 5 months of being on estrogen. And the community knew it. What caused her block there was calling the project a sewage and then outbreaking and attacking other users. I suggest they get a two-way IBAN, at least, not the one-way as proposed on the other AN/I. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that unless I'm missing something, the block discussion on the Portugese Wikipedia [7] seems to have been started about 30 minutes before the ANI thread [8]. It has no contributions by DarwIn [9]. It is theoretically possible I guess it somehow factored into the motivation of Skyshifter opening the ANI thread, but this seems extremely unlikely. There's a good chance Skyshifter wasn't even aware of it when opening the thread. In other words, there's no reason to think Skyshifter was even aware they were likely going to be permanently blocked from pt at the time of opening the thread although they did say they weren't going to return. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it here. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see here. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is very blatantly a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log - yes, the editor who has three FAs on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a WP:BOOMERANG inbound. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you aren't asking for any sanctions against Skyshifter, then why did you open this sub-section, just to sling some mud at her? Give it a rest already, you're just creating more drama than is necessary. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the background of this dispute is very relevant. Obviously, neither Skyshifter or Darwin should face any repercussions here for behaviour on pt.wiki, but it isn't possible to understand what is happening here without discussing what happened there. For me, having read what happened over there is the main reason I wouldn't yet TBAN Darwin, and would call for a two-way rather than one way interaction ban.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility in Jeju Air

    [edit]
    I'm going to close this discussion. The editor has been blocked from editing Jeju Air Flight 2216 and its talk page which is where the problems here originated. I think that there has been less than ideal behavior from several editors in this dispute. Right now, Westwind273 has primarily been posting on their own User talk page and expresses the desire to move on from this. They have been instructed not to remove comments from article talk pages. We don't demand apologies from editors we just ask that they stop any disruptive behavior. I think all parties need to stop provoking each other, drop the stick and refocus on editing articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Westwind273 (talk · contribs) was gently told off in Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216#Unneeded airports built in dangerous locations about not making WP:FORUM statements. Instead they WP:BATTLEGROUNDed with editors whom they engaged with in an extremely uncivil manner while making false accusations and engaging in WP:IDNHT. Amazingly following a warning by another user that they would be taken to ANI they started removing their comments without explanation and since then reverted. Regardless, I am posting this to ensure that they take the hint and to demand action, seeing that it is not the first air incident] they have been caught for such WP:NOTHERE behavior. Borgenland (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs: [10] [11] [12] Borgenland (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, user had been reverting their comments in talk without consent of other editors involved. Borgenland (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And left this uncivil note [13] on another Seefooddiet (talk · contribs)’s TP. Borgenland (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my user page even, not my talk page. Strange seefooddiet (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my reflex. Borgenland (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I had the same reaction lol. I instinctually checked my tp and was surprised it was on my user page instead seefooddiet (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems they’re pretending you didn’t tell them off personally [14]. Borgenland (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And more WP:IDNHT after yet another warning on their own TP [15]. Borgenland (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the editor has been removing other peoples' comments' forom Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216, and has been edit-warring four times to attempt to do so. I've given them an only warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A parting aspersion [16]. Borgenland (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And more [17]. Borgenland (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more context, they've engaged in open insults to other people previously.
    [18][19] seefooddiet (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They deleted both these insults after making them to hide evidence. Consistent pattern. seefooddiet (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, there's a discussion on their conduct ongoing on User talk:Westwind273#December 2024. In it, they keep leveling an accusation at me, and deleting my response to the accusation. seefooddiet (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They made another WP:NPA. See [20]. Borgenland (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And doubled down with WP:IDNHT after being warned again: [21] [22] [23] [24]. Borgenland (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has a significant problem with WP:GAME as well, specifically in regards to WP:NOTAFORUM. They profess to know of that, and are likely genuinely aware of it, but the following pattern of talk page comments gives me the impression that they are mostly interested in venting an opinion, with no article improvements suggested: [25] [26] (the one in question here) [27] [28]. These aren't the majority of their talk page comments but are a significant minority. It's only due to WP:AGF that we can assume they are related to improving the articles in question but had this user not had any other edits, these would be promptly removed per NOTAFORUM. This pattern of conduct is problematic because it hinders others' abilities to engage in the threads, especially combined with their unwarranted blaming of others for not magically discerning their intentions, as happened in this incident.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Westwind273 does show a consistent pattern of WP:ABF. I asked them to clarify how these were relevant to the discussion and they demanded to know why I was attacking them. I don't know if administrator action is fully warranted but a 24 hour touch-grass break is probably a good idea in my opinion. guninvalid (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I am surprised that an 18-year old account shows WP:NOTHERE behavior I'd expect to encounter otherwise in newbie accounts. Borgenland (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've effectively said they're ok with being banned. [29][30]. Honestly given the lack of remorse over the behavior and continual lack of understanding of why it was poor, despite numerous people all explaining it over and over, I'd argue some kind of block would be helpful. I'd argue it's a WP:NOTHERE situation; despite their claims of just trying to be a good editor, they keep disruptively engaging with others to the point that it's needlessly distracting, and refuse to modify their behavior when asked to. seefooddiet (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I nearly forgot but could this be a Tyhaliburton sock? I am starting to recall both of them making uncivil and condescending statements. Borgenland (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Block this account indef as NOTHERE 2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported User:Westwind273 to AIV as NOTHERE 2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borgenland: Doubtful, as the user's history stems all the way back to 2006. --MuZemike 17:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've issued a WP:PBLOCK from the accident article and its talk page. This is without prejudice to any other admin taking further action against this editor. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s a sock, bring in a CU clerk 2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A block from a single talk page seems lukewarm to me. They openly insult other people, there's no sign they'll stop doing so in future because they've never acknowledged wrongdoing or expressed regret, and nothing is done. [31][32] seefooddiet (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editorialising

    [edit]

    On the pages Uluru Statement from the Heart and Indigenous Voice to Parliament, User:State Regulatory Authority has made numerous edits editorialising content since 19 December and has not engaged with talk discussions about the need to keep a NPOV. e.g. [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safes007 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This and this aren't great on the face of it. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them a "stop edit-warring" (because that's what it is, among the other issues) final warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn’t the username itself a violation for pretending to be some agency? Borgenland (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say, at a minimum it should be a soft block with a note to pick something else. spryde | talk 17:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that this edit takes the article-space statement from the Indigenous Voice to Parliament article describing a body intended to recognise Indigenous Australians as "the first people of Australia" (quotes in original) and adds a wikilink from 'first people' to the article master race. Surely equating Australia's Indigenous / first people, a historically disempowered and disenfranchised group, with the Nazi concept of Aryan supremacy in article space and within a quotation (thereby assigning this Nazi implication to the Referendum Council being quoted) calls for more than a warning over edit warring? 1.141.198.161 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC) Adding that this edit adds wikilinks that characterise the failure of the referendum to patriotism an opposition to racism, but highly questionable characterisations. This user appears WP:NOTHERE to me. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar edits by IP address 120.18.129.151 which has a block on other pages have also been made. Safes007 (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That smells somewhat of WP:LOUTSOCK, doesn't it? Anyway, given a very stern warning to the user in question here. We'll see how they respond. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The block on other pages is due to a range block, not that particular IP. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    John40332 reported by CurryTime7-24

    [edit]
    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    John40332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Psycho (1960 film) (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be WP:REFSPAM and WP:SPA. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. Further attempts to engage with them at WT:CM resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU, despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep WP:HOUNDING me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from WP:OWN and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam Assume_good_faith on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission.
    You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles.
    You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Wikipedia and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. John40332 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is reliable and listed with other respectable publishers, it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the National Library Collections, WorldCat.org shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he WP:OWN Wikipedia. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what WP:SOURCEDEF suggests doing. John40332 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to Charlie Siem and Sasha Siem. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like WP:REFSPAM. CodeTalker (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to any commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:COIBot has compiled a page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Because it's a valid source according to:
      WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources"
      WP:SOURCEDEF - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work)
      WP:PUBLISHED - "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."

    Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write "kill yourself", I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. John40332 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz Read! Talk! 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and user:CurryTime7-24 makes a fuss about it because of his WP:OWN syndrome and potential WP:COI with his affiliation with Fidelio Music.
    Why are you against a source that complies with WP:RELIABILITY ? John40332 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked WP:RS to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references only to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). CodeTalker (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Wikipedia.
    When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" diff that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Wikipedia, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too.
    When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois diff, which CurryTime decided to remove too.
    I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per WP:RS, if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of WP:HUNT, first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. John40332 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link with the same phrasing as on the other edits where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to kill myself on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. John40332 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 86.21.135.95

    [edit]

    86.21.135.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them a second warning. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor may lack a mechanism to communicative effectively

    [edit]
    Basaatw indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Basaatw generates all of their prolific Talk comments at Talk:2024 United States drone sightings with an LLM. They've indicated [38] this is the only way they are able to communicate and, when probed, seem to have committed [39] to exclusively using the LLM to respond to other editors' questions and comments.

    The issue is that the AI-generated Talk comments are so contorted and unnatural that they have the effect -- and I don't think this is Basaatw's intent -- of diverting all discussion to the unusual writing style of the comments as opposed to the actual content of what Basaatw is trying to express (e.g. [40], [41], etc.).

    As I hinted to Basaatw here [42], if they are unable to communicate using unaided cognition, and the technical adjunct they're using to assist them is also ineffective at communicating in a way in which our OI editors can interact, their contributions are having the effect of being disruptive (and, again, I don't think that's purposeful). We've generally accepted that editors must possess some method "to communicate effectively" as a condition of editing.

    I am WP:INVOLVED in this article so am not a good evaluator of the situation or potential remedies. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy pinging @Anne drew: and @BusterD: whose edits I linked. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I find a little frustrating is not knowing whether these are Basaatw's original thoughts rendered through a large language model (e.g. ChatGPT), or if I'm really just wasting my time conversing with a software program. I'm not against the careful use of LLMs to edit articles or even to contribute to discussions, but if your comments are long and numerous, of questionable quality, and are clearly AI generated, responding to them becomes a waste of editors' time. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a number of good thoughts were used when you posted over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Humans sharing accounts with machines. I haven’t looked at this accused users posts yet, but I think distributive or unproductive editing or correspondence should be handled the same regardless if a LLM was used to assist the user or not. There might be a room for an ounce of extra AGF (but not much) similar to what we might extend to a user who is using a translator because their English isn’t very good. But at the end of the day, using a standard translator or an advanced LLM is not an excuse for being disruptive and this should be treaded as such. TiggerJay (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my goodness, I just took a look --- boy does that ever QUACK like LLM! Such that the responses seem to generally sound apologetic in tone, but but their further edits do not actually correlate to their apology. Looking at this apology they still continued to break references, abit in a different way. At the time of that apology all of the references were good [43] but then after a series of edit, the page was left with 4 broken references. Regardless of the LLM aspects, this is still a disruptive editor. TiggerJay (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this editor really cannot communicate without an LLM then their English is not good enough to write anything in Wikipedia articles, so they should be blocked per WP:CIR. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using LLMs is just the user's problem now. The user's account was created in 2006 but the first edits appear in 2016. The second contribution was used to create Scott Binsack, summarily deleted as promotional by User:DGG; the warning from User:Kudpung is still the top entry on the current User talk:Basaatw. The user's deleted contribs show three deleted drafts. The second of those was Draft:Franklin Boggs, which was deleted by User:JJMC89 for clear copyright violations. The third was Draft:Parsec Incorporated, an admitted COI draft which was speedy deleted as G11 by User:Jimfbleak. These contributions were over four years ago. Seven years ago Basaatw created Sidney Simon (which may also be a COI case) but looks quite notable on my first pass. It's hard to ignore the many revdelled versions (diff) which were apparent copyright violations as well. After a three year inactive period, in October the account came back to make User:Basaatw/sandbox/Jamie Lackey. This last Sunday, the user shows up with their shiny new ChatGPT and since then, that's the only sort of edit they've made. BusterD (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My popup shows this account has made 157 edits since 2006, and my narrative above discounts ~75% of those. BusterD (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what should be done here but I just wanted to mention that the use of LLM is not always be due to poor language skills, there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate. I gather that the editor has not been specific on why they rely on LLM but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet. Regardless of the reason though, if this use of a AI assistance is becoming disruptive, I can see that action might need to be taken. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate" Yes, that's an important reminder. I'm inclined to believe whatever the ultimate resolution is, it impose the lightest impediment on the editor's participation that's possible. Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding that if their original user page is accurate then they are almost certainly a native English speaker in their 70s. Photos of Japan (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've requested on their User talk page that they come and participate in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      they Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi;
      Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. When Chetsford and Liz Read reached out, I came here to engage because I believe in Wikipedia's collaborative spirit.
      I want to clarify my use of tools in contributing to Wikipedia. I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards.
      Editors have raised concerns about my handling of references. While I acknowledge this as an area for improvement, WP:COLLAB reminds us that none of us is perfect. To improve my referencing, I'm reviewing feedback and welcome specific examples of where I can do better.
      I value being part of Wikipedia and contributing to its mission. Being included in this discussion shows how open communication helps us all work better together. I welcome specific feedback about my contributions and am committed to meeting community expectations while fostering a collaborative spirit.
      Best always Randall N. Brock (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please stop using LLMs for your responses. Honestly, it's annoying, to say the least. --MuZemike 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards. Could you explain how you reviewed WP:TOOLS and how it encourages llm use? CMD (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed CBAN on use of certain technological adjuncts by editor

    [edit]

    Noting, as I previously have, that I am INVOLVED, I propose Basaatw be subject to a WP:CBAN on adding content to Wikipedia created by LLMs, NLP pipelines, procedural generators, rule-based chatbots, or similar technological adjuncts, and that this ban extend to include both mainspace articles and Talk pages. Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm at NOTHERE with this person. They are trolling multiple admins. We commonly indef for less than that. BusterD (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree somewhere between NOTHERE and CIR. It doesn't matter how you use the tools, if you're being unconstructive, the LLM is at best just an excuse, which we don't really care much about after multiple attempts have been made to bring correction. It is right up there with bad edits using a mobile device, it can be the reason for the mistake, but that doesn't mean we just let people continue to use that excuse, instead they need to step up with their use of preview/etc., and be responsible for their own actions. TiggerJay (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PBan - WP:NOTHERE behavior, and would also like to call the WP:CIR, if you need LLM to be able to respond, we can't have meaningful positive criticism and learning of community norms. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The problem with LLMs is that they don't understand the rules of Wikipedia. A user who is copy/pasting LLM responses is unlikely to learn the rules of Wikipedia, precisely because the user trusts the LLM to provide adequate answers. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LLMs don't sound like aware intellectuals, they sound like marketing bullshiters. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef WP:NOTHERE at all really. They just have a chatbot putting word-slurry onto our encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocking indef as NOTHERE, given their two new GPT-created threads on Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack (1, 2). Looking at their entire edit history, they clearly not here to create the best online encyclopedia. They were here to create articles about connected subjects; now they're here apparently to calibrate LLMs for talk pages on high visibility articles. They've upgraded to proposing pagespace wordings and giving deadlines. We don't feed trolls; we shouldn't enable trolls using LLMs when the evidence is clear. BusterD (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: 2600:1004:B253:C3D5:0:F:EA83:6701 - POV pushing?

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2600:1004:(continued) has been putting Islamophobic/bigoted comments on multiple talk pages [44] [45], then when confronted, responded with an NPA violation.[46] Was just gonna go home to my computer and give some warnings from Twinkle, but was suggested to bring this up here. First time bringing something up at ANI so sorry if I screwed up. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, the aforementioned IP is clearly NOTHERE and should be dealt as such. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP range User:2600:1004:B253:C3D5:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked for 31 hours. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Historian5328

    [edit]

    I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers to Somali Armed Forces, Somali Navy, etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted.

    In the last couple of days a new user, User:Historian5328 has also started showing this behaviour. But in [47] this edit he's entering fantasy territory, saying the Somali Armed Forces are equipped with the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, which has never been exported beyond the United States Air Force. I would request that any interested administrator consider this account for blocking. Kind regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor clearly has some serious WP:CIR issues, given this WP:MADEUP stuff, and using...let's say non-reliable sources elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that the editor's username is User:Historian5328, not User:Historian 5328 and they were informed of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review User_talk:YZ357980, who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m relatively new to Wikipedia editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Wikipedia editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked. Historian5328 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion continued on user's talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A reminder that the arbitration committee has designated the Horn of Africa a contentious topic, so don’t be afraid to lay down a CT advisory template for either user. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both done - thanks for the reminder. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats of off-wiki action and WP:PA

    [edit]
    It looks like this situation has been resolved. Automelon is warned not to make legal threats or to blank other editor's draft articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Users have traded personal attacks and thinly-veiled legal threats on an (unrelated?) users talk page here and here. Both users appear to be WP:NOTHERE. cyberdog958Talk 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding these issues, my thinly veiled legal threats are mainly a scare tactic. This user is impersonating the creator of the game War Brokers, and is threating to ban a player. We have discovered the identity of the impersonator on the offical War Brokers discord, and request that this account (Joja15) be somehow restricted so that they cannot make false claims and impersonate the real, and legitimate Joja15. Thank you Automelon (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NLT apply to ALL users, including those who fancy that Wikipedia is a proper venue for furthering off-wiki feuds. I strongly recommend you review those policies and comply with them in the future. Ravenswing 02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue has been resolved, with the impersonator revealing himself. Sorry for this strange issue Automelon (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    JoJa15 has been blocked for impersonating someone else's online username (while not another Wikpedian, impersonating someone known primarily by an online handle is still not on). Automelon has been warned not to make legal threats. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Walls of text

    [edit]

    Please block Special:Contributions/2601:647:6510:25D9:D426:7245:BE4D:A179/64 for ad nauseam WP:WALLS at Talk:Jehovah. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As a first measure, I blocked the /64 for 31 hours for disruptive editing. That covers most of the disrupting IPs. Maybe wait a bit before seeing if further measures needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not comfortable at my level of experience blocking a /48. Other admins are welcome to increase the range if they feel it is necessary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP promised to never repent at [48]. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The talkpage will likely need semi-protection, as the individual is changing IPs. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, it seems they are upon a /48 lease. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    tgeorgescu, I don't see that you alerted them to this discussion at ANI. I looked at the talk page for the IP they primarily used and there were warnings but no ANI notice. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Liz, I did inform the IP of this ANI thread, but only once, not in three places. See User talk:2601:647:6510:25D9:D426:7245:BE4D:A179. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for trying. It is admittedly hard to communicate with IP editors whose accounts jump around. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, my two cents were that only the last used IP could be the correct one for issuing such a notification. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any recent edits from the /48 other than from the /64, except a single edit from 2601:647:6510:4ceb:ed9a:4797:9b0a:bd70 about 4.5 days ago. I have no qualms with blocking a /48 if necessary and/or semiprotecting the targetted talkpage where they are being disruptive/evading. But I'd want to see stronger evidence that the /64 block isn't sufficient. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A partial block from that single page for the /48 would work, it is vanishingly unlikely that anyone else on that range would want to edit that one talkpage out of 7 million. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism, sockpuppetry and bad redirects from User:NamayandeBidokht / User:12shahriyari

    [edit]
    Both users cu-blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Despite warnings, this editor is removing sections from village articles and creating a string of redirects (to WP namespace) and continued same behaviour with a different account. I'm reporting here because as well as bans being in order someone will need to fix those redirects. ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And while we are here, can someone also help move back Wikipedia:Bahmanabad-e Jadid back into mainspace. It's blocking me from making that move. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Vofa and removal of sourced information

    [edit]

    This seems to be an ongoing issue.

    Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block.

    Most recent example of removal of sourced information: [49][50][51]

    I checked the source and the information is there on page 7.

    Previous examples include: [52][53]. Also see: Talk:Finns#Vandalism_by_user:Vofa Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph.
    The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ... and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any WP:V or WP:DUE issues.
    I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed source information. The part that starts with The ruling Mongol elites ...
    @Asilvering: from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" [54], is an ongoing concern with Vofa. Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. Vofa (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: This issue is still continuing [55] Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    asilvering, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.
    I did talk about this however [56]. See: User_talk:Vofa#December_2024
    I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement [for these reasons]" that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. Bogazicili (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in Turkmens article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the Merkit tribe which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. Theofunny (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential range block

    [edit]
    Blocked/17. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I am following up on an archived discussion from last month. At the time I suggested that that a single user was seemingly making disruptive edits from a range of similar IPs. A range block (Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16) was identified as a possibility, though with the potential for some collateral damage. The discussion was then ended without follow up. The behavior in question has since continued so I wanted to get an indication one way or the other whether this would be feasible. One of the pages they have started to vandalize will likely have high traffic over the next few months. Noahp2 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Link? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To the archived discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173 under "Cycling through IPs" Noahp2 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having perused the archived ANI I agree that a rangeblock of 222.153.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) might be considered. The block could be limited to one week and might be applied only to article space and template space. Collateral damage should be minor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to do a longer block, either preemptively or later if the 1 week is ineffective? Several of the IPs have been blocked for a week or more and it hasn't changed behavior so far. Noahp2 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    /16 is a very large range, a smaller range would be preferable. Which articles are being edited? I do see a lot of Drag Race articles in the contributions, if so, then 222.153.0.0/17 may be what’s needed, still large but half the size of the /16. The other 222.153.128.0/17 doesn’t seem to have any Drag Race edits. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah those are the ones that I'm concerned with so the smaller range seems fine. Noahp2 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, after hearing the other suggestions I have blocked 222.153.0.0/17 for a month for disruptive editing. Let me know if this is not enough to address the problem. It seems there is a history of blocks of this /17 range, both partial and full, going back to 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Noahp2 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andydor07 seems to be a promotional account connected to James Acho

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    From the first mainspace edit this account made through today, the only article this account has edited is James Acho (aside from 2 edits to Alan Trammell), and the edits are consistently promotional in nature or disruptive. A few examples:

    The rest of their changes are similar and there are many of them. They've ignored several warnings given today. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I undid their edits using Twinkle. We’ll see how long that lasts. DACartman (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that didn't last very long. DACartman (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Handled. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revoke TPA for Itallo Alessandro

    [edit]
    TPA removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Itallo Alessandro (talk · contribs) is indeffed for sockpuppetry and now seems to be copying random articles to their talk page. Seems TPA should be revoked.The sockmaster has also had their TPA revoked. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Wikifascist" & Wikipedia:Casting aspersions

    [edit]

    This one is pretty straightforward. An editor (@Last1in:) has deemed it OK to refer to me as a "wikifascist" on their talk page (User_talk:Last1in#My_ill-considered_comment). A clear case of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, I find this to be extremely offensive. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So apparently the editor has "retired" but is continuing editing using IPs? Anyway placed a warning for personal attacks on Last1in's user talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that seems to be the case. Sorry, I should have mentioned that — it's all around weird. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing, Edit war, Block evasion, Personal attack

    [edit]
    All the IPs who have edited recently have been blocked. See WP:ANEW for more details.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly violating WP:POLICY, including disruptive editing contrary to WP:DE and WP:NPOV, engaging in WP:EDITWAR, evading a block of user:COLTashrif1499 in violation of WP:EVADE, and making personal attacks violating WP:NPA. This IP User was also blocked few months ago for these activities and again doing after block expiration.
    I urge an immediate block of this IP along with an investigation into related accounts or IPs to prevent further misconduct.

    Some examples:

    1. Attacks: HERE and HERE (edit summary)
    2. Disruptive editings & Edit war: contributions (Adding inappropriate words, continuously adding poor images of political and religious places Revision as of 16:02, 3 January 2025) (Here is the version I had updated [57])
    3. User also uses these IPs to support their edits:
      1. 2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      2. 2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      3. 2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
        After block expiration
      4. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      5. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      6. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    — Cerium4B—Talk? • 11:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored this to your revision Cerium4B. This user keeps making noncconstructive edits such as the edit in Khulna Division. Also this IP address keeps doing edit warring. This article needs to be protected against disruptive editing and edit warring. Migfab008 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Migfab008,
    Now check this — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Diddy is based (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user joined 15 minutes ago and reverted an edit on the above topic and commented hate speech.
    (check edit summary)
    I think this is the same user I’ve reported here.
    Please check this report as soon as possible. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s confirmed that Diddy is based (talk · contribs) is 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs)
    They cleared reports involving them — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:76.68.24.171 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result: ). Migfab008 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Liverpoolynwa24 and WP:CIR issues

    [edit]
    Red carded. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Liverpoolynwa24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added plaudits such as "widely regarded as one of the best [position] in the world" to multiple articles about Liverpool F.C. players, copying and pasting sources from the body to make it seem like this is well sourced - the issue is that none of the sources ever say any of these things. Per their talk page, they have repeatedly received warnings (and a previous block) for this, but have continued regardless. They have also removed well sourced categorisations of same on the pages of non-Liverpool players without any edit summary or explanation (which they never leave anyway). They received a block of 1 week from HJ Mitchell in July, but continued immediately (1) after the block.

    Me and several others have left them messages asking them not to do this and explaining the issues with their edits, but have been continually ignored, and the editor has continued (1, 2) to do this in spite of this. Enough is enough at this stage, and WP:CIR applies. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fistagon sock/vandal back again

    [edit]
    Fista-gone again. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Fistagon sock has returned again, this time under the name Diddy is based (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As usual, they have been vandalising numerous articles and leaving their uncivil edit summaries. Could action be taken please and the summaries revdeled? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, he even reverts my first ever report. This makes me angry as well. Block this user indefinitely ASAP. Migfab008 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already banned, this is a sock. Revision deletion  Done. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, Black Kite; I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Migfab008: Take it as a mark that you accurately assessed the situation:) DMacks (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SplinterCell556 is WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure) SplinterCell556 blocked for WP:NOTHERE and trolling. Also clearly using AI in their responses below. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 21:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Perhaps I'm slightly jumping the gun here but I feel this user coming to ANI is already inevitable.

    SplinterCell556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Out of this user's four edits, all have been reverted (full disclosure, two by me). Two of them are bad-faith talk page requests calling the Democrats Marxists and Hilary Clinton a communist, while their mainspace edits involve promoting a ludicrous conspiracy theory and something incomprehensible. In short I have no doubt this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello (music) 13:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've issued a CTOP notice. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns regarding my opinion. It's important for us to maintain a constructive environment and ensure that all contributions adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I appreciate your vigilance in upholding the integrity of the content. If there are specific points or edits you believe need further discussion, I’m open to dialogue and would like to work together to improve Wikipedia! Thank you. SplinterCell556 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SplinterCell556 Please read the notice on your user talk page and be aware that rules are enforced more strictly in this topic area. Be aware that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If you have sources that say Hillary Clinton advocates for abolishing private property ownership(what communism actually is), you can offer them on the article talk page. I know you don't- because she doesn't. Universal health care is not communism(unless the UK, France, and most of the western world is communist) and doesn't even have to involve government provided health care. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. SplinterCell556 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just put this into several AI-generated detectors (GPTZero, Grammarly, Copyleaks). All three suggested it was AI-generated, with GPTZero giving it a 100% chance. — Czello (music) 14:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention, fellow human. I take concerns about AI generated very seriously. It is important to us to ensure that our messages reflect genuine and kind thoughts without AI interference. I will take a closer look at my replies in question and verify their legitimacy. If they are indeed AI-generated, I will work on correcting them and ensuring that any content added aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your diligence in maintaining the quality of our articles!
    AI-generated content may lack the nuanced understanding and contextual awareness that human editors bring. This can lead to the propagation of inaccuracies or misinformation, which undermines Wikipedia’s reliability as a source of information. AI models operate as 'black boxes,' making it difficult to trace how a specific output was derived. This lack of transparency can be problematic in collaborative environments that rely on verifiable and attributable contributions. AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate societal biases present in their training data, leading to skewed or unfair representations of topics. This is particularly concerning in an encyclopedia that aims for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The use of AI-generated content raises questions about copyright, authorship, and accountability. These factors need careful consideration to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
    In light of these issues, it's essential for every wikipedia user to critically assess the impact of AI on their contributions and prioritize human input to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. Thank you, fellow human. SplinterCell556 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: don't think the CTOP notice will be enough. — Czello (music) 15:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that you don't know if you used an AI? That's concerning(and you appeared to use an AI to tell us that) 331dot (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he doesn't know whether he himself is AI. EEng 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've NOTHERE blocked for trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse this. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 An AI detector isn't necessary to know that's AI. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent unsourced/unexplained date changes by 2A02:8070:A283:1C00:0:0:0:0/64

    [edit]
    Date of block expiry changed to later. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2A02:8070:A283:1C00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making unsourced/unexplained date changes, continued after a 1 week block for "date vandalism" on December 24. Examples of unsourced date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They'd already been blocked for a week for the date vandalism, so I just gave them another month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hate Speeches in edit summaries

    [edit]
    Range blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User is using hate speeches in edit summaries. (In Bengali Language) 2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User is related to this case. A range block is needed as soon as possible. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing, Edit war, Block evasion, Personal attack)

    — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Another Alon9393 puppet

    [edit]
    Tgvarrt was, indeed, a sock of Alon9393, and has been blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Greetings. I put two editors on notice a few hours ago to alert you to a puppet of the already blocked user Alon9393, exactly this account alerted by (Redacted), who has created an article and is basing his comment edits on deletion requests. At the moment he only exists in the English edition, but he may make the jump to other editions at any time, specially Spanish edition. Pichu VI (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pichu VI, as stated in multiple places on this page, you must notify a user when starting a discussion about them. I have done this for you. Please note that here on enwiki, sockpuppet accusations belong at WP:SPI, and linking to a user's supposed Twitter account that they haven't linked to on-wiki may be considered a form of WP:OUTING. Additionally, you are going to have to make your case more clear. I do not understand why a user contributing constructivily to various AfDs (a totally normal thing, and they found AfD naturally after one of their articles was nom'ed) and posting a page they made on twitter = sockpuppetry. 2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that the accused sockmaster was blocked for making disruptive AfD votes, but they clearly wanted to leave forever, and the accused sock didn't immediately go to AfD, they only found it because one of their articles was nominated. It's normal for new AfD voters to not know the exact P/G to backup their votes (but thank you to them for trying in good faith). Accused user, see Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD Engagement/HowTo if you'd like to learn about some key notability guidelines to use. In fact, them not using guidelines actually shows that they may be a real new user still learning about everything, not a sock of someone who used to (incorrectly so) reference guidelines. 2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:YZ357980

    [edit]

    I have just rolled back this edit ([64]) which (1) inaccurately introduces an incorrect Somali name into Somali Armed Forces; (2) installed a poor homemade copy of the Armed Forces crest dubious copyright and authenticity into the article, when a PD photo is visible in the infobox image; and (3) violated MOS:INFOBOXFLAG with the infobox.

    I would kindly request any interested administrator to review the very dubious insertions of inflated personnel numbers introduced by this user into various Somali military articles, plus the error ridden and biased edits warned about at the top of the editor's talk page, with a view to a WP:TOPICBAN from African & Middle East military articles, widely construed. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YZ357980 doesn't have a history of communicating with other editors. I have posted to their talk page, encouraging them to come to this discussion but I'm not optimistic that they are even aware that they have a User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given them a final warning and also a chance for them to participate here. If they don't, let's see what they get. Galaxybeing (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility and ABF in contentious topics

    [edit]

    Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:

    Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883

    WP:NPA

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324

    Profanity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966

    Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877

    Unicivil

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441

    Contact on user page attempted

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795

    Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as some diffs from the past few days are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would I be the person to provide you with that further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's for one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
    Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Wikipedia was in response to an administrator’s suggestion[1] that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines.[2] Thank you for your time and input. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lardlegwarmers#c-Liz-20241210000200-Editors_getting_banned_for_being_a_%22dick%22,_editing_Covid-19_articles
    2. ^ "All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/ANI

    Thread on List of Crypids talk page has devolved into an unproductive flame war

    [edit]

    Talk:List of cryptids - Wikipedia

    The thread, List rapidly further degrading initially started out as another attempt to delete the list and similar Cryptozoology pages but has now devolved into toxicity with insults and personal attacks directed at users engaging with the thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk • contribs) 05:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this account, an WP:SPA created in August of 2024 and focused on cryptozoology subjects, is likely one of the cryptozoology-aligned accounts discussed below (for example, the account's first edit is a cryptozoology edit). :bloodofox: (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not entirely focused on cryptozoology, as I have edited topics related to film, music, literature, zoology, video games, extinction, and technology. How is asking for an article to be cited on a zoology article related to cryptozoology? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edelgardvonhresvelg, what action are you seeking here? If you are making a complaint about personal attacks, you must provide evidence/"diffs" of examples of the conduct you are complaining about. Just mentioning a talk page without identifying the editors or edits that are problematic will likely result in no action being taken. You need to present a full case here and if you mention any editor by name, you need to post a notification of this discussion on their User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions of WP:MEATPUPPETry

    [edit]

    Over at cryptozoology and the very questionable list of cryptids, both extremely WP:FRINGE topics strongly linked to for example Young Earth creationism, myself and a few other users find ourselves having to respond to a lot of accounts that either openly or less than openly state that they're members of the article's subject subculture and that, like the subculture's founders, have a strong distaste for experts (here's an example anti-RS/anti-expert comment from today from one such fairly new account, @KanyeWestDropout:).

    One of these editors, Paleface Jack (talk · contribs), has been caught lobbying off site (right here). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety of WP:MEATPUPPETs popping up to WP:Wikilawyer any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference.

    Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles.

    As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics like cryptozoology, utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years.

    As is far too typical in our WP:FRINGE spaces, any action by myself and others introducing WP:RS on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding by WP:RS and WP:NPOV (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "wikifascist", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-term Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long.

    This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site.

    I recommend that Paleface Jack be topic banned for off-site lobbying for meatpuppets, if nothing else, as well as likely associated accounts per WP:MEATPUPPET. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pages KanyeWestDropout (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded WP:RS: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" ([65]). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident.
    That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics.
    Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack (talk • contribs)
    If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. - Bilby (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a case for a {{trout}} for the OP, at the very least. (Trout-erang?) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and practices. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the editor has been been editing since 2013 and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock request to stop ban evasion by Dealer07

    [edit]
    Blocks fall. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Greek vandal User:Dealer07 was blocked for edit-warring over nationality and ethnicity. In the past few hours, five new Greek IPs have been rapidly restoring preferred edits: Special:Contributions/62.74.24.244, Special:Contributions/62.74.24.229, Special:Contributions/62.74.24.251, Special:Contributions/62.74.24.220 and Special:Contributions/62.74.24.207. I propose we engage a rangeblock rather than play whackamole on a series of single IPs. Can we block the range Special:Contributions/62.74.24.0/21? Thanks in advance.

    Note that the range Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F070:E175:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked very recently for the same reasons. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Taboo of archaeologists

    [edit]

    This is about [66] by Jahuah. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol, reporting on me? Jahuah (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. Jahuah (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. Jahuah (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea.
    The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. Jahuah (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? Jahuah (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. Jahuah (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine whatever, I apologize. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple

    — Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    tgeorgescu, this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1267264061"