Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Maliner false information

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114, where I reported User:Maliner's problematic editing which involved spreading false information by using unrelated and dubious sources. User:Inomyabcs very kindly attempted to resolve the situation on the article's talk page, but whilst the discussion continues to happen, Maliner continues to add false information in the article. I don't want to start an edit war again, but it's shocking that action is not being taken against Maliner's edits. It's clear that he isn't open to discussion and does not want to admit that he is connecting two different things to alter the reality of a concept. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone please check the presented sources in article's text, this user's is not following the wikipedia guidelines of reliable sources and pushing his or her own original research. Maliner (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

and may I know who has given you the authority to designate me with the pronoun "he". Maliner (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a different preferred pronoun? It can be a bit tough to tell around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I always use they as a non-specific pronoun, it's how I was brought up. Was always taught to never use a gender specific pronoun unless the usage of that is actually important to the point being made, which it very rarely is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably the best way to go, and I try to do the same, but I am old enough that sometimes I slip into old habits. Always happy to be corrected, though. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is polite to use the user’s preferred pronoun if you know what it is. I installed User:BrandonXLF/ShowUserGender, which shows that next to the username in conversations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(blinks) There aren't many people out there young enough to be raised to use non-specific pronouns; it's a quite recent practice. Calling people what they ask you to call them is the way to go, of course, but the hostility of Maliner's response doesn't precisely allay the worries raised by the OP. (That aside, I'm raising an eyebrow over a newbie editor with just 52 mainspace edits declaring themselves a recent changes patroller.) Ravenswing 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been pretty common in British English, and local varieties under that, for a few centuries. It seems like it's mostly American English and Canadian English that's having a growth period over it. Unless the gender is important to the point, use they as a singular pronoun. Unconnected to self-identification which is where all varieties of English are experiencing a change and growth. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The article referred to apparently (without diffs or anything else) is Barelvi.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like this same fight has been going on for a few weeks: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Maliner_false_info and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Barelvi didn't get any third-party input. JBL (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  And the basis looks very much like a content dispute, with bad faith being assumed by people on both sides. Can't you just talk about the facts of the case (such as whether particular names precede this movement) without making any personal comments about editors? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There's a section at the bottom of Talk:Barelvi (I started it and since I know absolutely nothing about the point at issue, I then walked away) where discussion has been proceeding since 29 November. Not always very civilly, but it is proceeding. Those taking part deserve credit for continuing to talk the issue through. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: @Bbb23: @JayBeeEll: @Phil Bridger: @Yngvadottir: Essentially what is going on here is that Maliner wants to present the Barelvi subsect as being equivalent to, or being the authentic form of, Sunni Islam (known in Arabic as Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah). For an analogy, think of the Church of England and wider Protestantism. The evidence of this can be seen in the talk page where he suggests that the Barelvi article be rename to the latter (which is just the name of Sunni Islam in Arabic). This is a very dishonest approach from Maliner as anyone that can do basic research on such a topic will release that there are a wide variety of movements under Sunni Islam. The Barelvi movement is mostly limited to India and Pakistan, with an extensive diaspora community. However, Maliner adds information to the article using sources which mention the term Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah since he considers it to be the same as the Barelvi movement. This is like an "Our movement is right, all the others are wrong" sort of idea which is dangerous to the neutrality of Wikipedia. SalamAlayka (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This user has again started removing well sourced content from Barelvi. Can admin help in this bad behaviour. Maliner (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maliner: Myself and two other editors have agreed that your paragraph is not relevant and is too generic. The removal of such content is not vandalism, and I urge you to stop this edit war. SalamAlayka (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is still going and you are repeatedly removing the content. This show your bad faith intentions to vandalize Wikipedia. Your actions are under moderation now as you are on ANI now. None of the participants is satisfied with your behavior per talk:Barelvi. Maliner (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Both SalamAlayka and Maliner should make a stronger effort to wp:assume good faith and engage in productive discussion. That said, I agree with SalamAlayka that Maliner is not just wrong, but wrong in a way that if not abandoned will cross to WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. Maliner should understand that, whatever their personal beliefs about this, scholars do consider Wahhabis, Salafis and Deobandis to be Sunni Muslims, and that Wikipedia follows scholarship. We also do not follow the claims of one religious denomination that other denominations are incorrect in their beliefs, and continued addition to articles of content implying this will be considered disruptive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma May I know where I have mentioned my personal beliefs? you both are assuming baseless faith about me without any evidences. What, if I will tell you a that you are a staunch Shia as you have written about Abu Lulu, not only you have written about him but taken it to good article status. You are writing about Shia sect that does not mean that you are Shia. Will you stop making baseless claims now? And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss sectarian biases at all. As far as Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP is concerned you should check the relevant places for reliable sources such as article talk or relevant pages, I am addressing it at relevant place. Maliner (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the following:

  • adding stuff like Bangladesh Islami Front and its students wing Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena have worked to protect the faith and belief of Sunni Sufis in the country and took stands against Deobandi Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh and Salafist Khelafat Majlish, which frames the Barelvi opposition against Deobandis and Salafis as 'protecting faith and belief'
  • replacing Barelvi with Ahle Sunnat (Barelvi) as if Ahl al-Sunna (= Sunni Islam in general) were identical to the Barelvi movement.
  • comments like this, where you say things like If someone considers Wahhabism, Deobandism and Salafi movement under Sunni Islam and correct in their beliefs then why would their speakers are against them like Barelvis, citing a source that in translation says The speakers said that Wahhabism-Shiaism-Salafism, which is a false interpretation of Islam, is contrary to faith and distorts religion [...] The identity and contours of true Islam, i.e. Ahl al-Sunnah, are being endangered and pushed to the face of extinction through Sunni claims despite being followers of null and materialistic doctrines and denying the fundamental aspects of religion, all in an apparent argument that, again, Ahl al-Sunna refers only to Barelvis.
  • your argument at RfD [1] [2] that Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah should redirect to Barelvi because sources indicate that the Barelvis call themselves that way, all the while ignoring that there are several other organizations and movements with that name, and that the expression in fact is, just like Ahl al-Sunna, a synonym for Sunni Islam in general.

  In short, your edits seem to be targeted at making Wikipedia adopt the Barelvi claim that they are on the only or true Ahl al-Sunna and that their opponents are not. In the course of this you are skipping normal WP procedures such as distinguishing between what we say in wiki-voice and what we cover with explicit attribution to partisan sources, as well as the normal considerations regarding primary topic at a venue like WP:RFD. I'm sure that you don't mean it this way, but it is disruptive, and it does need to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma Just shooting limitless arrow in the air will prove your point? You are free to assume whatever rubbish you want to assume regarding me as evidenced above. Need Administrator comment on how the sources presented below fails WP:RS guidelines per Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. In general, the most reliable sources are:

  Peer-reviewed journals

  Books published by university presses

  University-level textbooks

  Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

  Mainstream newspapers

  • • Ahle Sunnat-Energizing Faith in Rough times. Chapter 6, Book-Syncretic Islam: Life and Times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi By Anil Maheshwari, Richa Singh.
    • “In the Path of the Prophet: Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and the Ahl-e Sunnat wa Jamaat Movement in British India, c. 1870-1921” by Usha Sanyal
    • Source relevant to Bangladesh.
    • book by Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan.
    • Moj, Muhammad (1 March 2015).The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-1-78308-446-3. Archived from the original on 7 August 2021. Retrieved 11 December 2022.
    • Dressler, Markus; Geaves, Ron; Klinkhammer, Gritt (2009-06-02). Sufis in Western Society: Global Networking and Locality. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-10574-8.
    • AbiiSulaymiin, AbdulHarnid A.; Aasi, Ghulam-Haider; Blankinship, Khalid; e, Ola Abdel-Kawi and James f i l; Ali, Hassan Elhag; Siddiqui, Dilnawaz A.; Poston, Larry. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 8:3. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).. Maliner (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Admins do not comment on content here, only behavior. They will not give you a ruling in your favor. And frankly, your behavior in ANI is likely to draw unpleasant results. I suggest you drop this and go back to discussing on the article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPvio by User:PhotogenicScientist on Hunter Biden laptop controversy after admin warning

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

After asking an admin for clarifcation, PhotogenicScientist was directly warned: "saying the laptop was Hunter's in Wikivoice is wrong and a BLP problem". Photogenic has now reinserted the unsourced contentious claim. Feoffer (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to remove an editor from a content dispute, isn't the best route to take. Would recommend this report be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Concur with GoodDay here. I'm not saying PhotogenicScientist is right. I'm not saying Feoffer is right. I don't care about the content of the Hunter Biden laptop article at this point. I just want everyone to stop trying to play "gotcha" with people who disagree with them as though getting someone punished because they think something different from you is a good way to solve problems. Stop edit warring, stop trying to play "gotcha" with others, use the talk page etc. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A well attended RFC determined that language was acceptable. That is a clear demonstration, along with the closure review, that the community does not see this as blpvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Though the RFC was closed by a non-admin account, which is probably not a good way for a closure on such a controversial topic. Masem (t) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet there was no consensus to overturn at the review. The way to handle disagreement with a consensus that was upheld at review isn't to then bring an editor filtering the RFC to ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the RfC and the review upholding it at AN seems to be a far bigger issue than who closed it. This is an article that already has wiki-lawyering issues and now an admin is inserting themselves giving warnings for complying with the RfC while also placing doubt on it's validity. That's way outside the norms of this encyclopedia. Slywriter (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Masem is WP:INVOLVED, but contrary to the OP, I don't read his comment as giving anybody a "warning." He was asked his opinion and gave it. That he's an admin is totally irrelevant. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• By my reading, the RFC did not endorse any specific wording; it was solely about the inclusion or exclusion of the word "alleged." At the very least, people reverting to one specific version with the argument that that has consensus need to slow down. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Surely you agree that the edit complained about in the OP, which removed the single word "allegedly", is 100% supported by the RfC, and that editors should remove that word if it is reinstated. Levivich (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but by my reading the edit that sparked the current round of back-and-forth was the revert by Mr Ernie here (as he says below.) That edit absolutely did not reflect the RFC or any consensus reached on talk. Obviously a bold lead rewrite can be reverted for other reasons, but it's important to be clear on that point - edits like that are just all sides revert-warring over aspects of the lead that have no consensus behind them. Like I said on talk, my concern is that if that isn't answered then the RFC can become a Motte-and-bailey situation where the answer to a more narrow RFC question is used to support more sweeping conclusions than there is necessarily a consensus for. (More specifically, can we say X vs. should we say X in the first paragraph of the lead are different questions, and the RFC was very clearly written to ask only the first.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why was it the revert that sparked the current round, and not the edit that was reverted? The outcome of the RfC is that Wikipedia says it's his laptop in wikivoice. We all know how to change that: make a subpage collecting all the best RS and what they say, and post it to the ongoing RFC. Levivich (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the outcome of the RFC is that we cannot imply that it is not his laptop in wikivoice (ie. no saying "his alleged laptop" or anything comparable wording that would cast doubt on it.) That's very different from "we must state that it was his in the first paragraph of the lead." The latter is, obviously, a much stronger statement; given that the RFC for the weaker consensus to avoid implying it was not his laptop was already controversial, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that a consensus requiring that we state it was his laptop in wikivoice in the lead exists. That's the whole reason we're having further discussions for the exact wording; but people who insist that the RFC currently requires that we state that in the lead are mischaracterizing it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What? I don't understand what you're writing. An RfC that comes to consensus to remove the word "allegedly" from "allegedly belonged to" is an RfC that comes to consensus to state "belonged to" in wikivoice. I really don't think this is even an arguable point. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

An editor is being warned for following the outcome of an RfC? That's quite chilling. Slywriter (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Feoffer you seem to seriously misunderstand the role of admins. They aren't "super users" in any matter that comes to content - their opinions hold the same weight as anyone else's. The way admins differ is that they're able to wield special tools to enforce policy. Which is why I explicitly asked @Masem if it would be a violation of policy beforehand, and if there were any actionable roadblocks in place. And nothing in their response seemed to me to point to a bright-line "don't do this for policy reasons." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, I am in disbelief that you opened this thread an hour after the last one (at AN) was withdrawn. And the OP is incredibly misleading. WP:Drop the stick. Levivich (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You should have reported me for this. I'm the one who restored the page to the RFC consensus version - link. Can we please not do this? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC was not about any one particular version, just about whether to use the word "alleged." You shouldn't revert-war back to one version in particular based on the argument that that one version has a consensus, since it does not. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s not how the majority of us have interpreted the close and subsequent clarifications. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your restoration edit, Mr. Ernie. GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the smartest editor in the classroom. Therefore, I don't know what Feoffer is trying to accomplish 'here' or at the related page-in-question, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article as a reader, knowing nothing about the topic and having literally zero emotional investment in the topic.

Sentence 1 featured an unsourced claim that the device belonged to Biden, but Paragraph 2 included a sourced claim that the device might not belong to Biden.

I don't particularly care how that contradiction is resolved, but some resolution is needed -- it's an embarrassment to the project for us to be serving a seemingly-selfcontradictory lede to our readers.

I certainly understand admin fatigue over American politics -- if I came to this article with any preconceived opinions, I wouldn't bother the admin community with this matter. But the current article fails our readers.

While I wasn't part of the Summer 2022 RFC, the non-admin closer has already acknowledged it was a goodfaith badclose, so no one should be citing it as a consensus.

New readers just like me will continue to show up and complain about the article's lede until we can provide our readers with a lede that doesn't appear to contradict itself. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is this? The RfC was closed. It was reviewed at AN and upheld. Any editor or admin who believes this RfC can be be ignored should be topic banned from the area until they acknowledge they will respect RfCs. Anything less is a disrespect to the processes that keep this encyclopedia running. Slywriter (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The nonadmin closer has acknowledged it was a bad close. Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You continue to falsely claim it's "unsourced". There are sources cited in the body. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP requires inline-citation, and a review of RSes shows probabilistic language remains the norm. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, and I've done my best to squeak in a constructive way, I'm not going to keep harping on it. But I can promise new editors will continue to show up to complain about the article quality until the apparently self-contradictory lede issue is resolved one way or the other. Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, recommend this report be closed. It's not accomplishing whatever it was set out to do. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

When paragraph 2 seems to contradict sentence 1 of a BLP, it's a problem that requires the attention of admins. I don't care which way it's resolved, but a resolution is needed. If there's really a consensus for sentence 1, then delete the contradiction in paragraph 2! I'm not a squeaky wheel by nature, I don't care at all whether the laptop is Biden's or not -- I just want to be able to go to Wikipedia and read a consistent story. Right now, the article's wikivoice is schizophrenic -- proclaimin a fact in sentence 1 only to turn around and deny it in paragraph 2. That's a problem, and no amount of handwaving will stem the tide of folks coming to demand a better article that presents a consistent narrative. Feoffer (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The RfC was valid, closed and affirmed at AN. Any confusion in the article is resolved by following the RfCs results. It's not resolved by wiki-lawyering methods to ignore a valid RfC. Slywriter (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Per OP, the underlying issue is not black and white. Instead of accusing OP of wikilawyering, it would be helpful to respond (or not) to OP's detailed concern and rebut it. All views have been aired here at least once. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is 100% clear that you and others are attempting to contravene an RfC by any method possible. The rest is useless wiki-lawyering to further the effort to ignore the RfC and does not deserve a response as ignoring an RfC is the single behavioral issue that should be addressed. Slywriter (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The non-admin closer has already acknowledged the close was in error: there is a de facto consensus that my closure did not correctly reflect the community's sentiments". To the eyes of a new reader with no strong feelings about the topic, paragraph 2 seems to disprove sentence 1. I wasn't the first to point this out, I won't be the last. New people will keep showing up to point this out until it's solved.Feoffer (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Their opinion is irrelevant as the community decided not to overturn the close of the RfC at AN. Any inconsistencies in the article are because of relentless, tendentious, and disruptive editing by those who disagree with the close. So it is solved and anyone claiming otherwise is willfully going against community consensus because they don't like it.Slywriter (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Slywriter here. I would also ask that admins block users Feoffer and JzG who continue to revert to the prior version before the RfC while its being discussed here and on the article talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Feoffer keeps claiming to be neutral about the topic. I'm not getting that impression. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we please have some admin support at this article? We have RFC consensus for a wording that editors like Feoffer and JzG continue to ignore. We are begging for help here. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't this whole happen two years ago? I remember it was on the news a couple of years ago during the election: how is there even anything left to argue about? I feel like there is some threshold at which it becomes a hindrance for the rest of the project. jp×g 11:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the community would like to at least answer why JzG should be editing in an area where they expresses opinion such as Special:Diff/1127019825 and Special:Diff/1127019942 which have no place on any Talk page, much less an AP2 topic. Slywriter (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Comments like that do not help in any way. Admins seem to be going out of their way to avoid this topic, and I don't really blame them. Unfortunately it has led to this massive time sink we've had to deal with the last 3 months. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

As well as edit-warring against consensus Special:Diff/1127018647 and Special:Diff/1126877504. Slywriter (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The page is under 1RR discretionary sanctions, which JzG has breached. He should be reported to WP:AE. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@jpxg: There's renewed attention to the article for various reasons. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's still a political battleground. One side thinks it was a nothingburger, and the other is still claiming it's Proof™ that the current administration is corrupt & should be hauled to jail. It's the new "But her emails" / Benghazi for the times. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that analysis is quite astute, this is indeed the "but her emails" of this election cycle. And so much of the wikidebate about this article, and so much of the article, focuses on a nonissue, whether or not the laptop belonged to him, and as a result the article fails to present a truly NPOV summary of the sources. An NPOV summary of the sources is: Hunter Biden's laptop has nothing incriminating on it. But that gets lost amidst all the argument and edit warring about whether "Hunter Biden's laptop" means the same thing as "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden", or whether "allegedly" means the same as "purportedly" or "claiming to be". Some of us have been missing forests for trees and making truly foolish arguments. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If anyone had the stomach to review the talk page over the past 2+ months, they would find the valid arguments along these lines, but buried under a lot of nonsense. To put it in a nutshell, it's not really even a controversy any more than Benghazi, e.g. is a controversy. It's a false allegation about the contents of the hard drive and various RS reports that investigated the allegation about the files and found nothing there. The problem, however, with "HB's laptop" is that it frames the narrative in such a way as to give undue unsupported weight to the claims that the files themselves are all authentic original HB files. RS don't say they know whether that is true. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. And I forgot to mention in my reply to @JPxG:, the reason it's coming up years later is that Elon Musk released "the Twitter Files," ostensibly to prove that the government suppressed the news about the laptop by strong-arming Twitter into taking the original NY Post story down...

... buuuuuut the files released don't show that. They show that some of Joe Biden's aides asked Twitter to remove Hunter's sex pics/videos from Twitter (which violated Twitter's policies anyway), and that Twitter initially quashed the link to the Post story on their own because they thought it violated their "hacked content" policy. They reversed after 24 hours.

TechDirt has a good summary of the actual files released, and the conspiracy posts around it.

So that's why it's suddenly a big thing right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC was closed and was reaffirmed during the proper review process which includes a review of the close. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:BaldiBasicsFan and User:MariaSantanaSilva on User talk:BaldiBasicsFan

I had removed some talk page discussions from User talk:BaldiBasicsFan because I have concerns about them potentially violating Wikipedia policies:

• [3] - WP:GRAVEDANCING
• [4] & [5] - WP:BLP(?), WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK

I am mainly bringing this here to determine if there are any violations of the cited policies. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would definitely say the first one is GRAVEDANCING and comes off as extremely rude. THe other 2 seem like discussion regarding an article but I'm not entirely sure. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess my question is why did you go straight to AN/I instead of dropping a message on their talk page about it? Maybe dropping them a {{Uw-socialnetwork}} or some sort of nicely worded message to the effect of "you should read WP:GRAVEDANCING?" This really doesn't look like a chronic, intractable behavioral problem if nobody's told them to stop before. (Though the reference to Qualitipedia/reception wikis concerns me, as those are generally full of bad content.) casualdejekyll 23:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, both users contributed to Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki before Miraheze closed them following an RfC to dissolve Qualitipedia. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait Miraheze does RFCs? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. They decided to ban wikis that use opinions such as Terrible TV Shows, etc. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

MESSAGE FROM BALDI: For your concern, this is my thoughts on what I think of this issue. For the Crec issue, I understand why you removed that message because of GRAVEDANCING, but as for the Silva situation, why even just do a report here instead of a message on my talk page like what another user said? Yes the sources are not reliable and I don’t wanna add unreliable sources in the first place, but Silva did give me questions I found interesting. Also I completely lost interest in Qualitipedia when it closed. Yes Blaze Miraheze does do RFCs. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Baldi, we don't want to add unreliable and unverified sources, given I just wanted to help to add reliable and confirmed sources at the pages and I used to edit at Qualitipedia, but I stopped due to QP's closure (mainly the wikis' founder, Grust was not happy with the wikis ended up, mainly with the wikis themselves having many problems), for a person like me who dislikes unconfirmed sources. MariaSantanaSilva (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that I could warn you for this. Also, I wanted admins' perspectives on this situation. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you thought the conversations were a problem, perhaps discussing it with Baldi would have sufficed. Schazjmd (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Erm. Could someone explain to me when GRAVEDANCING became a policy -- hint: it is an essay -- or a valid ground to redact someone's comment from his own talk page, which is not your own? Yes, gravedancing is rude, but if you dared to redact my own comment from my own talk page for just about any reason short of revdel country, I would be ballistic. What the pluperfect hell? Ravenswing 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is not constructive. Essays can describe why certain kinds of edits are disruptive and be referenced as reasons for blocks under the broad category of disruptive editing. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  You can "reference" whatever the heck you want for whatever reason you choose, but that still doesn't validate an essay, nor provide reasons for refactoring someone else's comments on their own talk page, nor constitute non-specious grounds for an ANI complaint. Ravenswing 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think you are using this ANI thread to have an argument about something that isn't relevant or necessary to resolve the issue raised here. I will now withdraw, but I would request you reconsider your approach to this particular discussion. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll have you know that I got blocked for GRAVEDANCING one time. Look at my block log for proof. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try. What you were blocked for was gravedancing on someone else's talk page, after being warned to stop, and after you were previously blocked for harassing the same editor by way of (funny that) repeatedly reverting him on his own talk page. It seems this is a recurring problem with you. Ravenswing 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we not do this? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion - @Ravenswing brings up a completely valid point: what you brought Baldi here for is meaningfully different from what you got blocked for. I think we should move to closing this discussion, because it's pretty clear that if Baldi did break any policies, which it's currently unclear if they did or not, they aren't going to get blocked or anything other than maybe getting a warning. Nothing about this report was an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and the whole situation could have been solved with a friendly talk page message. casualdejekyll 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain a little of how ANI works, TGD. If you file a complaint, your own actions and record are subject to just as much scrutiny ... especially (as in this case) where those actions and omissions of yours appear to be more disruptive than the ones about which you complained. If you invite editors to look at your block log, you ought not be surprised when they actually do so, and examine what happened.

What you do not get to do is declare anything out of bounds to our scrutiny, to exempt yourself from it, or say "Can we not do this?" upon realizing that you've shot yourself in the foot. Ravenswing 01:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It was more the attitude you expressed when you made that comment, and not the statement itself. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You know what I find hilarious about this issue? The messages you reported were from months ago. LOL! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making these kinds of remarks. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur. That sounds rather rude. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing Yes. Baldi did not break any policies. The above user was blocked for doing it on someone else's page. Baldi was simply just responding. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The Grand Delusion Baldi never made those discussions. They simply were just responding to those users who made them. So why are you making the thread about them, when instead you should ping the ones who started those threads, such as Logosfuture2002. They are the one violating the above, not Baldi. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

CartoonnewsCP "Good because he was NOT building an encyclopedia." If that response doesn't sound like gravedancing as well, I don't know what does. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Logos is possibly WP:NOTHERE, though I hadn't looked at their contributions, not Baldi. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's relatively clear that this isn't going anywhere anytime soon, can we get some sort of closure on this? casualdejekyll 14:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. I might have made a mountain out of a molehill with this, and want this to be over with. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes you have. You should be more careful when making threads like these. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:The middle e

• The middle e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account is not that old yet after a few edits has gone on to start and create AfD's. (Special:Contributions/The middle e) This is not normal behaviour for a new account. This feels like someone is socking here. Can an admin have a look. Regards, Govvy (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor is adding {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:The <sup>m</sup>iddle <sup>e</sup>}} to their userpage a typical new editor behaviour. Either they aren't too worried as they haven't got any skeletons in the closet anyway, or they're trying to make it obvious. I hope it's the first one. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is tagging users in ANI and questioning them on their talk page appropriate? I thought sockpuppetry was illegitimate use of multiple accounts, the user doesn't seem to have done anything to arouse suspicion that this is the case, except for being competent. JeffUK (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JeffUK: When mentioning someone here it clearly says to add a notice to their talk page. I didn't see any other relatable accounts to run an SPI. That's why you post a possible WP:DUCK sighting here!! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought I knew who that was, but I was wrong. That doesn't happen so often.  Confirmed to User:Gaois, User:X00y, User:Fingoal, User:Ihearthurling, and User:Litelad. Would be nice if one of them could explain this. There's a lot of overlap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the account is going cold like it's done a runner. @NinjaRobotPirate: Maybe they got scared off?? Govvy (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it happens. You ask what's up, and you get dead air. If nobody responds after a while, I guess we can look at it more closely. Sometimes people accept their own drafts or vote multiple times using socks, but I didn't see any of that in a cursory skim over the edits. If there isn't anything like that, I don't understand why one of the accounts wouldn't just say, "Oops, my bad, yeah, those are all my accounts." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a bit: what if it's a school or library IP? casualdejekyll 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Checkusers can identify those when they resolve the IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's not my account. I've never seen the account before. And it's a lot to take in and then try to respond. I haven't voted multiple times on anything. I rarely even vote once on anything. I don't know how to explain cases of creating the wrong AfD's mentioned above. I'm not involved at AfD. --Gaois (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• These are different editing interests too, unless every sport is the same interest. I'm not even watching the World Cup. --Gaois (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really understand this. But I'll try to explain based on the overlap link and what I see there. Some of the editors included I haven't interacted with and it looks like they're not even interested in the same subject.

From looking at the user on the far right I can see zero overlapping edits if I'm reading it correctly. That's the user who's mentioned. The one with the strange signature. The one interested in the World Cup / starting AfDs. If I take me out of it here it looks clearer. The list is shorter. It’s easier to read. The overlap has decreased and goes out to months. Since I edit widely within the same subject and this subject provides all of the pages, the interests narrow when I'm subtracted.

Similar with second from the left. Zero after zero. There isn't the same editing interest there at all. The overlap there is basically this edit. I rephrased one sentence at the top of a famous person's page because (I think) I thought the phrasing used - "before" and "was" - made it sound awkward or made it sound like it could've happened on the street. It's a person who is known all over the world and who had been on the news that week because of what happened to them. I don't normally edit there.

The fourth user from the right has a lot of ones, so one edit and then nothing else. Many of the pages are (or were) new and I would've edited them, particularly if they were stubs, to include a category or made some minor correction if that's what was needed. I've edited new pages contributed by other users, copyedited and made corrections to their work. I do this particularly if they have maintenance templates on top but not all of them do. I've also done the same with the work of other users who are not mentioned here, tried to help improve that work. This is often when the articles have just appeared, so it can be within hours, a day or two if I'm delayed, a week or two if there isn't much happening or if I'm away. I've looked through contributions of certain users, checking if they have been up to anything new based on their previous contributions (I don't know if it's allowed, but I did it and I probably shouldn't have done it). Not all of these editors are listed here but there is similar overlap of interest because their edits overlap with what I edit. I don't want to drag other users in here so I'll use new articles instead to give context to the quick responses, the ones within hours.

This is a recent example where I thought afterwards that I was too quick. When I noticed there was half an hour's difference (after I edited) I thought straight away I might have caused them to have an edit conflict and I don't want to do that if they're still making the page. I try to wait a few hours if I notice a new page early. This is another one where I was too quick with a second and third edit, with a separate editor who is not named here, but because I happened to notice it I went straight in. I hope I didn't put him off because it looks like he was still working on it the next day, as I can see now in the history. Basically what happened in those cases was they created a page the previous day. That new page showed up later in one of the places that show up new pages so I noticed it. Then I looked at the user’s contributions to see if they had a newer page which wasn't showing up yet. If I found they had another newer one I edited it as well. So I haven't always waited until the next day. Looking at it now I wish I had. Then again it looks like it would've been better to ignore the new pages entirely.

Some look like drafts. I've edited drafts left over by others too. An example where I edited a draft by another user who isn't mentioned here is this attempt at copyedit/improvement. I began editing that draft the same day I noticed it was declined and it was later accepted. It was declined because "Submission is improperly sourced" so it needed citations. I didn't expect my efforts would be enough for it to be accepted but it was. Several days after it was accepted I informed the user who had started it here because it looked like they were trying to get it accepted for a long time (going by the three submission attempts on their talk page), also because some dates were wrong and I wasn't sure if they knew it was accepted. They didn't reply but they later resumed work on the page. I think this is the most recent draft by another user I was involved with. A few of the pages in the overlap look like drafts so I must've given up on them.

This page and its history are an example of one that I would've seen first as a new page. The second edit is by someone not mentioned here. The third edit the same. Then I added a category, hours later, into the following day. Then some cleanup. No further edits. Someone not mentioned here added DEFAULTSORT the next day. Nothing happened for several days then someone else not mentioned here added short description. Nothing more for two weeks then someone not mentioned here added several categories. By the time several users were making more edits weeks had passed.

To take the articles as I see them listed, the top two and number seven are teams and when I'm not looking at new articles that's where I copyedit and include citations. Three, four five and six, eight until around twenty or twenty-two all look like cases of new articles I would've seen. Other teams are included too. Going further down where several hours and even more than half a day have passed, I see more and more new articles edited hours after they appeared. None of them are within half an hour, which I think (hope – don't want to cause edit conflicts that put the user off) is my overall record, from the other day. I mentioned it above, this to make it easier.

The second user from the right has some edits to a few of the same articles but with a narrower range of interest. The only overlap that is close in time looks like the top page, which is a team. Most of my editing, as I said above, is making small improvements to teams and that leads to other pages. It was part of the set of teams on my watchlist so any edit to that page would've attracted my attention.

Ihearthurling: I created the Ihearthurling account which contains so much of the overlap one day when I was bored. This is a stupid excuse. I can see that. I wish I hadn't done it. But I did. It was well-intentioned or at least not intended to cause harm as I'm going to explain below. There were also the following influences: (1) it was the off-season for the teams I usually edit (2) I wanted to edit away from the same teams I usually edit, away from my watchlist, away from the notifications that came every week making me want to check the usual teams (for vandalism or uncited additions) many I had carefully copyedited and was anxious that their overall quality didn't decline any further (3) The watchlist was distracting and irritating me, but I didn't want to give them up completely either because I thought they would be useful next year (3) I wanted to get away from my talk page for similar reasons. That clearly didn't work. I would've been better just emptying my watchlist. Or finding a completely different hobby. There have to be easier things than this.

So to attempt to explain. I'd noticed how poor so many of these other, often intermediate, competitions and the different teams that play in them were. Someone would come along and prod them because of a shortage of citations or because nobody else had shown interest in improving them. This annoyed me because it was a shame to see the work of other users lost just because they hadn't thought to include one citation. Here is an example of an appeal by me to nudge as nicely as possible another editor into including anything that might prevent what they had started the previous day from being deleted. I normally leave those alone. Then I look later and they're gone (if I've been away for a week or more). I thought if I could improve them even slightly they would have a chance of escaping that. I didn't think anyone would notice so I kept going. Over time I kept returning to it. A habit developed of editing. I wanted to make improvements. It wasn't about adding scores to the competition pages. There are others who do this. They do it very well. I don't know where they get their information from. But I was happy to leave them to it. Do they include citations for what they add? Well, not all of them do. So I thought I would try. The same newspapers and websites I normally refer to could be relied on, I thought. Just the basics. The detail of those pages didn't interest me. And when I was there I thought there was no harm in tidying up the existing sections (or making some sections if there were none). I shouldn't have done this. It was the wrong way to go about it.

What I described above should be clear from its history. They're mostly the same type of edits. I didn't give it a lot of thought. I didn't use it to influence AfD outcomes. There isn't any connection to AfD. I don't understand the AfD connection as mentioned here. I can't see any editing overlap with that account. I haven't much interest in AfD at all, unless I notice one involves a page related to the subject I edit and then it comes up as an alert. Even then I'm not much use and stay away. Which makes it even worse that all this is because an AfD was started and created incorrectly. An AfD on a subject I've no interest in, as consistent with my edits.

If I understand correctly this is the outcome entirely of people thinking AFD is being influenced by multiple votes? And that I'm part of this. Does the Editor Interaction Analyser not show these attempts to influence AfD? I can't see them in the overlap. I've spent hours checking. I can't see them linked anywhere here, above. Could someone explain if AfD is supposed to appear in this Editor Interaction Analyser?

If I understand correctly I'm also supposed to have voted multiple times in AFDs. This is disappointing and serious. I can't even see where it's shown that this has happened. I might have done wrong while meaning to do well above but to do wrong and deliberately influence AfDs is even worse.

I definitely haven't set out to vote multiple times at AfD. Or anywhere else. --Gaois (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA in Hunnic topics

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

---

• Recent AN discussion involving Giray Altay.

Giray Altay (talk · contribs) is disrupting Wikipedia in multiple ways:

1. he is WP:STONEWALLING discussions, posting massive WP:WALLSOFTEXT: take these random posts over the last few days for example: [6], [7], [8], [9]
2. he is preventing content from being added or edited for no obvious reason (witness this thread about whether we have to include the name of a scholar proposing an etymology). When information from an additional source is found, he reverts under the pretext that discussion is ongoing [10], then argues that only the scholarly he likes should be included because Also, hate about talking about conflict of interest; and I am not making any accusations, but: Omeljan Pritsak was a disinterested Ukrainian observer; Helfen, Doerfer, and Schramm were all German... [11], and again [12]. He’s gone so far as to accuse me of a personal attack against his favorite scholar because I said that not everyone agrees with him [13], ”because other scholars do not share his basic premise” this is preposterous. It's just a personal attack against Pritsak. [14]. He also stated I want to include reasonable explanations. I try not to be lukewarm; but to be decided. There are cases in which the etymology is actually really doubtful. But in this case, the name is, imo, likely Turkic. [15]
3. he is unfailingly rude and demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and does not WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH: ''It is disputed, just as I said it would be'' but you didn't know it. You know it now. But you should be arguing based on facts not wishful thinking. [16]; Regarding the article, it is very simple: there was some content you wanted to get rid of forever because of some "Pan-Turkism fears" and I prevented you from doing that. [17], are you here to help improve the article or what? By the way, are you interested in Hunnic topic too? How did you find this article? It was created nearly 2 months ago so I wonder [18]; Curiously enough, you are the only editor in Wikipedia, the only page watcher out of 223 (supposing you were watching this page at all) who's jumped in to argue against me. Even more curiously, you jumped in just before @Obenritter made their fourth revert in a suspected edit war. [19][ The way you are trying to hide stuff from this article is so evident, it is ridiculous. The only thing I don't understand is why nobody is saying anything. The guy is literally saying those source are primary, old and misquoted. [20]; However, you seem to wanting at all costs to distort and mix the sources [21]
4. Regarding his assumptions of bad faith, he has twice spuriously reported other editors to WP:AN: [22], [23]
5. he is adding un- and poorly sourced pages full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to Wikipedia, and when asked to provide documentation for his edits states You will never get quotes for them. [24]. Elsewhere he argues I disagree with yours and Sernac's pov. By your logic we should edit all articles of ancient genealogies (such as the Arpad dynasty, the list of Chinese emperors, or of Japanese ones) and remove from them all information based on anachronistic chronicles. [25]. He clearly does not understand our WP:RS policies

It is my belief that Giray Altay qualifies as a WP:SPA. He only edits in the area of Huns and seems to attach everything he can find to them while also championing scholars who connect them to modern Turks. He is disruptive to the project and should be prevented from causing further harm.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear, Borsoka, Erminwin, and Obenritter: as other editors who have interacted with him.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC) @Srnec: forgot you.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

So this was closed just over 1 day ago, with a warning to Giray Altay. How much of this relates to things that have happened since then? --JBL (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe everything in bullet point 2 is since then, as well as various other diffs throughout the report, e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29]. The diffs are generally in reverse chronological order after each bullet point.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This user has reported me after I myself reported them (1). They apparently are not content with how the case ended (2)

Never did they try to constructively edit with me for the sake of Wikipedia, but from the very beginning (2) decided they would be against me.

Not sure about the reason. An admin has suggested "sock-puppet syndrome", but I don't agree with them, because now the accusation has changed in just a few hours. There must be something they don't like with my username and /or topics of interest.

I was just saying to myself: well, maybe I can finally have a constructive, practical discussion with them at Mundus. Sure enough, a moment later I got a message on my talk page notifying me of this discussion.

This is not a "single purpose account". I set tasks for myself. The first was improving the topic of the Huns. Which I just finished. I was now going to focus on 5th-century Germanic figures, inspired by a more practical and collaborative editor (3). However, I was blocked for days to await the response of an ANI case I had to open after Ermenrich tag teamed against me with a bunch of his friends, canvassing and posting on public pages that I am a socket puppet mastermind or something (4, 5). Which happened just a few weeks after Borsoka (the user they just asked support from by pinging them) stalked me to another user page to find support against me (6), after their own AN3 case against me was dismissed (7) and they didn't get it their own way at Samuel Aba upon intervention by the admins. Giray Altay (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• These nationalistic disputes are really tiresome. Firstly DNA evidence points to people having mixed much more in history than the "one-drop" people would have us believe, and secondly etymology is completely different from genetics. Thirdly nobody who actually follows the science and reliable sources cares about such things anyway. Robert Burns summed it up well:

  Oh, would some Power give us the gift
  To see ourselves as others see us"!

  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I just saw JBL's and Ermenrich's replies.

  So, basically, you opened this just because of a discussion at a talk page?

  It's far too easy to take phrases out of context. Let the reader of this go to Mundus and have a look (and, ideally, let them have a look at our previous ANI discussion as well), so they may understand.

  Pritsak is not my "favorite scholar". The issue at Mundus was that Ermenrich, just as they are doing here, started to argue not to reach a sensible answer, but to prove their own conclusion. This is why they first argue against certain content in the article based on their own research and on sensations, on the "feeling" that certain things must exist, somewhere (Pritsak's etymology of Mundus is obviously influenced by his theory of the origin of the Hunnic language. He could have said it was from Latin and meant "pure" [1], he could have said it was from Germanic and meant "hand" or "protection" [2]. I'm sure there are other equally close matches to "Mundus", 3) (though they accuse me of making original research in the talk page 4). They argue for leaving out certain content when it suits them (Giesmus should stay out of the article (edit summary)), but then use the inclusion of such content to support their views ("Giesmus has a Germanic ring to it" is definitely an endorsement of the view that the name is Germanic).

  Though they accuse me of preventing content from being added or edited for no obvious reason, what I did was actually reverting their edits done as discussion, regarding such additions, was going on at the talk page, as stated in the edit summary ('Reverted to original. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page'). They did the same thing at Odoacer, reverting my edits and citing the fact discussion was ongoing at the talk page to justify their action (5). There seems to be a lack of coherence here. Giray Altay (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the records, Giray Altay's above presentation about our discussion with regard to Samuel Aba is not fully inline with the facts. For instance, admins did not intervene in the content debate. Borsoka (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• for the record*
• My bad. I thought that the user who intervened at Samuel Aba was an admin.

Giray Altay (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Giray Altay should be explicitly reminded that talk page discussions, especially on disputed topics, work best if they are sourced. They should then be reminded that they are the only editor who has not provided an independent source to support their assertions at Talk:Mundus (magister militum); the obvious conclusion is that they're running on nothing but WP:OR which renders their snarky "You know it now. But you should be arguing based on facts not wishful thinking" rather funny. Nevertheless, they are a new editor—they've just jumped in at the deep end, and perhaps someone should throw them a life ring, instead of releasing the piranhas (I'd really like to know in what world a four-line paragraph is a wall of text).
• Perhaps it would help both the coherency and concision of their arguments if they had to support every assertion they made (on talk or mainspace) with a source. You know what, that's quite a good idea for a lot of editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• What four line paragraph are you referring to AirshipJungleman29? Did I include something wrong in the diffs? I think you can see that he posts long walls of text as a rule, consisting of several paragraphs. He also needlessly and rudely corrects Borsoka’s English above [30] as well as makes various unfounded accusations against me and Borsoka in his other posts here and generally misapplies and misinterprets Wikipedia policy . I don’t believe that Huns is normally a very high-stress, high-controversy topic, so I don’t really see why people keep saying he’s just started editing in a controversial area: there was little controversy there until he appeared.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ermenrich, I don't generally think that a ten line reply spread across four paragraphs is worthy of the reply "No one is going to join this discussion if you keep posting long WP:WALLSOFTEXT", nor that a fifteen line reply spread across five paragraphs is worthy of citation at ANI.
• "there was little controversy there until he appeared" is a dubious statement considering your assertion on 19 Nov "You're one of a number of a new editors who have suddenly popped up editing Hunnic topics ...The Huns attract quite a bit of attention." and the ongoing thread at WP:AN.
• In all honesty, I would be pretty pissed off if editors started discussing the likelihood I was a sockpuppeteer and which accounts I might be connected to while pinging me in the same discussion. I am not overly impressed, it has to be said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not what happened, AirshipJungleman29. I certainly didn’t, and I discussed the possibility of his being a sock puppet exactly once [31], [32]. Borosika, the only person besides GA to reply, also didn’t ping him [33]. Those three edits are the whole discussion of him being a sock puppet before he reported us to AN for it. So what are you talking about? Edit: forgot that I obliquely asked here as well [34]

As to ten line replies, look at the threads he has! He posts three times more than anyone else and makes it impossible to follow the conversation, as was already noted multiple times during the AN report. Look at talk:Mundus or talk:List of Huns or talk:Odoacer#Removal of content or talk:Attilid dynasty and tell me this is not gross stonewalling and obfuscation.

And there are sock puppets that show up, yes, but they tend to prefer more recent Eurasian history. I cannot ever remember as big a disruption the whole time I’ve been here, and I basically wrote several articles on the Huns here without any controversy whatsoever.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich, You seem to forget [35], written five minutes after pinging them. When there are walls of text, you should cite the policy then and there, not waiting until another convenient time to post it and thus win the current dispute. Finally, I can't reconcile "sockpuppets tend to prefer more recent Eurasian history" (12 Dec) and "this topic is subject to a lot of sock puppetry and nationalist POV pushing" (18 Nov), unless the present tense is far more flexible than previously suspected.

In case I need to reiterate, I think that this editor should be explicitly warned to follow content guidelines, instead of jumping straight to conduct accusations of dubious quality. I think I have said all I need to on this matter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If I pinged them, show a diff please. Otherwise I do not remember doing it and I’m pretty sure I didn’t, AirshipJungleman29. You may have me confused with Erminwin?.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I did indeed; my mistake. Still, judging from the indentation, you had seen Erminwin's ping, and decided to make the sock-like comment anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29, at Mundus, Ermenrich argued based on his own theory, which relied on some Wiktionary's entries. That's not based on sources. But, they said I was making original research.

That is what I meant by ''arguing based on facts not wishful thinking''. They ''later'' did provide some scholar supporting Germanic origin for the name; but they had nothing when they proposed their own etymology. You cannot argue based on a "hunch".

I am arguing based on a source, which is Pritsak. I also told them that I need ''some time to see if I can find some other scholar's opinion'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mundus_(magister_militum)&diff=1126884699&oldid=1126883749 1]. We were still discussing at the talk page, but they nevertheless opened this tread at ANI.

If you look at the many Hun-related articles I created including etymologies, you'll see that I was always cautious and neutral in the recurrent Germanic/Turkic/Iranian proposed origin of Hun names. In this case, I am convinced that Mundus' name (a grandson of Attila) is related to Mundzuk, Attila's father (a relation of names that at least two of the three German scholars endorse). Then, Mundzuk sounds a lot "Altaic" to my ears. Even so, I am willing to keep discussing the matter at the article. I reverted Ermenrich merely because they should wait till conversation is over at the talk page before publishing their preferred version. Notice that I reverted the article to its original form, before either of us edited it. Giray Altay (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I had a "hunch" because I know something about this topic from working on it here for years, and I then backed it up with sources. The fact that you think Pritsak is right does not matter. The fact that you continue to insist that it does shows a clear disregard for WP:TRUTH and WP:RS, something which has not gone away after GA was warned for something completely different before.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

And you seem convinced that the name is of Germanic origin. We were discussing this at the Mundus talk page. What I don't get is, why coming here? As JBL noticed: what has changed since the ANI case involving us was closed the other day? Only Mundus' talk page changed, so the cause of all this must lie there. Giray Altay (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not "convinced" the name has a Germanic etymology - I have no idea. I just know that Pritsak never met a name he didn't think was "Altaic" and other scholars have different ideas, even though the article currently treats Pritsak's proposal as the only one, not even naming him.

I brought this here after I became convinced you were simply going to keep stonewalling to keep alternative suggestions to a Turkic etymology out of the article, with increasingly far-fetched reasoning such as "the scholars have subconscious bias".--Ermenrich (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop taking statements out of context. I said WW2 German scholars ''may'' have a subconscious bias, and most importantly that some readers ''may'' find three German scholars supporting Germanic etymology a clue for conflict of interest. Doesn't mean i believe that. But I also invited you to provide some Germanic etymology proposed by some more modern scholar ideally not German by nationality. Even though I believe the name has Turkic etymology, I am willing to include others etymologies in the article. Just don't publish your preferred version until conversation at the talk page is over.

And you should not claim that I used far-fatched reasoning to put my view into the article, when you are the one who used your own etymologies based on WP:OR and dictionary's entries to push a view at the talk page. Giray Altay (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm taking something out of context when that was your explicit reasoning for not adding it to the page. It's also specious reasoning. If you would stop tit-for-tat-ing and continually bringing up some thing I did/said that you think is just the worst and thus justifies whatever you yourself are doing , I might not have brought this ANI case. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, not a defense.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you have been quoqueing too. I am just trying to answer your points and accusations.

Maybe out of context was not the right way to describe what you did just earlier. But the way you say it (''keep content in the article... with increasingly far-fetched reasoning such as "the scholars have subconscious bias"'), it looks like I actually used that as a chief argument and that I am convinced of it; whereas I merely took note of that as an additional reason why we should try and find more opinions among scholars while we were discussing at the talk page. It also looks like a general statement, whereas my tentative ''observation'' only referred to German scholars writing during WW2.

You OTOH, criticized Pritsak, for example, suggesting that, because he has a certain general view about the ''Huns'' (not even Mundus or Giesmus), we should not trust him in this instance. As if, just because Helfen erroneously rejected any Huns-Xiongnu relation, we should mistrust anything he said about some Hunnish or Xiongnu individuals. Giray Altay (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stating that Pritsak has a view about the Hunnish language that is not the same as a majority of scholars is not criticizing him or saying "we cannot trust him", it is stating a fact which must be reflected in how we present his views in the article. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss article content disputes - you should do that on the article talk pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stating that those scholars are German and Pritsak is not Turk are also facts. It's all about how you interpret facts, whether there is reason to believe they influenced the scholars' comments. Though you now say that your comments on Pritsak don't mean "we mustn't trust him", it seemed to me you implied it at Mundus.

Now I also remember why I stated you made a "personal attack" at Pritsak. Wikipedia itself states that editors should not use a person's affiliation to discredit their views. That type of concept may be applied here. Why discredit Pritsak for his allegedly "discordant" view? Also, this article is about Mundus, not the Hunnic language. Like I said, ''if'' Pritsak's general assessment of Hunnic language is actually discordant, and if we want to consider this deserving removal of Pritsak-backed content from articles, then most of Helfen's statements should be removed from the Huns, since he was proven wrong by following scholars and science regarding the Huns-Xiongnu identification. But of course that would be foolish, because Helfen had his limits and was wrong about the ultimate origin of the Huns, but is nevertheless valuable for many, many explanations and conclusions, even those regarding the arrival of the Huns in Europe and their culture, so pertaining to their origins.

I also don't get how Pritsak's general view would have influenced him to ascribe Turkic etymology, since you yourself said he '''did not''' believe Hunnish was a Turkic language? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mundus_(magister_militum)&diff=1126661769&oldid=1126661713 1] Giray Altay (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stating that a scholar's view is not the academic consensus is not an "affiliation" or a personal attack - wp:no personal attacks is about discussion of other editors, not discussing the prevalence of a scholar's ideas, which we can and must do. Besides that misinterpretation of policy, the rest of your post belongs on an article talk page, not here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who was an active user on this topic, Giray Altay's activity is 50-50 in my opinion. Some good contributions like expanding {{Huns}} and creating articles like Hunnic art but also some unacceptable activities like posting walls of text plus ignoring both editors' concerns and WP rules; e.g. take a look at Talk:List of Huns. Also, this report clearly shows signs of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Posting TLDR content won't help you but they will make your case worse. There is nothing such as winning/losing on WP. You really need to read WP:OWN: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. First, Ermenrich is correct that Giray Altay's edits started off fairly combative when I removed content that was poorly sourced (no page numbers/just generic Google book refs)) and/or included "scholarly opinion" (relayed in peacock fashion) from one work that was over 65 years old on a disputed topic (Odoacer's ethnicity). This editor also outright ignored citation formatting even when asked to adjust their additions accordingly—at first. However, after some bickering back and forth on the talk page of the article and on our respective editor Talk pages, the matter was amicable reconciled. This behavior led me to believe that this editor has very strong opinions and struggles with objectivity. At the same time, Giray Altay did adjust his/her posture in the end. Ermenrich is right to raise a caution flag here for future edits made by this individual, but my opinion is divided since it appears Giray Altay is quite capable of constructive edits, provided some oversight is provided. --Obenritter (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Neither party involved is clean in this. Instead of letting things go, both parties have escalated this. Whether falsely accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet (falsely because the only evidence so far is that they appear to not be a new editor) and then doubling down on it rather than admitting their mistake or falsely accusing other editors of being biased against them due to their ethnicity (taking comments completely out of context to form that opinion) also never admitting their mistake and continuing to openly express it. This has really gone on long enough. In the close of the previous discussion Giray was warned for the majority of the things that were discussed here, and though not specifically mentioned, so were the other editors involved. Anything can become controversial at any point so that isn't evidence of nefarious activity. What this is evidence of is that there are some editors that need to find something else to do for a while and not interact with each other. --ARoseWolf 14:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Allright, I admit my mistake regarding the ethnicity-related accusation, and I apologize. Still, I cannot understand Ermenrich's motivations.

  I don't think that Ermenrich is a bad person or bad editor. I felt sorry for them when they opened this because I thought it might have not ended good for them or somewhat ruined their reputation (it is not irony, I really mean this). They could've at least waited a couple days before coming to the admins again

  I think Ermenrich is right to keep an eye for actual nationalists, socks. etc.. I hope all this doesn't stop them from keep patrolling because it is important. Simply, in this case they are mistaken.

  They are free to keep an eye on my edits; and should they find something that is actually cause of concern for nationalistic or whatever malicious activity, they should report it. But until then, just please stop with accusations. Giray Altay (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fully willing to apologize for voicing my suspicions at Erminwin's talk page and then at AN about GA being a sock, but I don't think that solves the underlying problem here.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a start and a lot more than either of you have been willing to do so far. @Giray, perhaps their motivation is they really believe your comments on talk pages are disruptive. Perhaps they really believe some of the edits you are adding are incorrect. That's why we must have civil and calm discussions without frivolous accusations. This isn't the place to discuss content disputes but in at least a few discussions you felt there was no need to provide verifiable sources. How exactly is Ermenrich or any other editor supposed to keep an eye on edits and verify whether they are properly stated without a reliable source by which to verify it? Can't the both of you see how things can escalate so quickly? A simple misunderstanding can devolve into a battleground full of aspersions and accusations that are not simply policy concerns but are actually damaging to other's experience and the mission of the encyclopedia. Can't you both see your own culpability here? Collaboration is not an option optional. Civility is not an option optional. Assuming good faith from the start and all the way through discussion until solid proof is provided that someone is not acting in good faith is a requirement to keep these issues from happening. It's central to the mission of Wikipedia. If we can not see that this entire episode, all these AN/ANI filings and talk page discussions are a failure on the part of many involved to adhere to that then what further discussion can we have that is not going to turn into a shouting match and eventually wind up back here? We can disagree. We can voice that disagreement. But at no point in our disagreement should aspersions or accusations be the central theme of our side of the discussion and that has happened a few times between the both of you. --ARoseWolf 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Collaboration is not an option. Civility is not an option. – Um, don't you mean "Collaboration is not optional. Civility is not optional."? EEng 07:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, @EEng. Even with all the years I still have not mastered everything about the English language. I do apologize for any confusion and have edited that portion of my comment. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. On a lighter note, I think we can all appreciate the humor of my stating that GA is using the tu quoque fallacy and them responding I think you have been quoqueing too. Et tu, quoque?—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, how is this not disruptive? Giray Altay is reverting any edit I or anyone else makes at Mundus (magister militum), including ones that have nothing to do with the original dispute [36], done with an edit summary that betrays continued assumptions of bad faith: Wikipedia is about reporting the scholars' though, not your own beliefs and disbeliefs and also on the article talk page Your constant edits on Hunnic topics, on articles I created or edited, seem to be aimed at making things ''Germanic'' rather than ''Hunnic''. [37], and You found Krautschik after reading Amory through my section at Ermenwin, which you cannot have read but by stalking since nobody invited you. [38]. These include a NavBox aded by @Mann Mann: [39]], a typographical correction [40], the addition of additional name forms used in the secondary sources [41], and other obvious improvements such as discussing Mundus's birth before we discuss his career [42]. None of these things has anything to do with the etymology of Mundus, which is what we are discussing on the talk page. Now he's even invoking WP:FRINGE [43] for a scholar I did not cite (see talk page "discussion" Talk:Mundus (magister militum)#Mundus or Mundo).

The community can turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior, but it's clear that GA suffers from WP:OWN and is not going to allow any improvements to this article whatsoever, under the excuse that "discussion is ongoing" (about something completely different). He's going to drive good editors away from this topic area with his combative, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You are a liar ! EDIT , or have just made an unintentional false statement. And I have just stopped feeling sorry that all this will ruin your reputation.

You say: reverting any edit I or anyone else makes at Mundus (magister militum), but you and I are the only ones who recently edited at Mundus (!) (1)

And you are the one who keeps pushing their views (2 3 4, 5) though conversation is going on at the talk page (6).

Stop pushing your view, stop bothering the admins, stop thinking that being an older user protects you from sanctions! Giray Altay (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the diffs he provided of my editing (one of which is adding a source to the bibliography? [44]) and calling me a liar prove my point more than it proves GA's.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

To reply to their specific accusation:

A few hours EDIT about one hour after I, by my own initiative, discussed Mundus (and the undue claims that Jordanes saying he was of Attilid origin descended do not mean Mundus was of Attilid origin, which is supported by the vast majority of scholars) at Erminwin's talk page (1), ta-da, Ermenrich popped up at Mundus (2), and started a series of edits culminating in the addition to the article of the fringe theory that Jordanes' words do not refer to biological descent (3) (the one I discussed at Erminwin's), which, after my restoration to the original, since we are still discussing at the talk page, they pushed (4).

Though Ermenrich assumed bad faith from the very first day I met them (5) up to openly identifying me with some sock puppet mastermind (6), they now claim I assume bad faith for noticing that at Odoacer they supported exclusion of multiple sources claiming Hunnic descent for him, but at Mundus they support the addition of a minoritary view whereby Jordanes' words should be upset and misinterpreted to cast doubt on Mundus' Hunnic descent, meanwhile pushing for adding to the article a Germanic etymology of his name and casting doubts on the Turkic/Hunnic ones. They take my observation of facts to be bad faith, whereas their identification of me with some sock puppeteer based on their fantasies must be good faith, I guess? Giray Altay (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Another user actually added a navbox of the Huns to the article, which I removed by mistake, I just realized it now.

But how can someone who accuses my of pushing my view, and implying that my view is pro-Hunnic, reasonably think that I removed a navbox about the Huns from the article to perpetrate my wrongdoing? It makes no sense. Deleted it by mistake while reverting Ermenrich's repeated changes while discussion at talk page is ongoing. Giray Altay (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted my highly controversial edits like this one [45]. You’re so focused on beating me you aren’t even looking at what it is you’re reverting, which is exactly how you reverted Mann Mann’s NavBox.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not focused on beating you, it's just you who make things too complicated. It's very simple: we are discussing, you add content that I see is or may be controversial and/or restore your previous edits, and I revert you.

Just sorry the other user's addition got caught in the mix. I am not focused on anything specific, but actually am losing focus in general because of this ANI section you just opened one day after the last one was closed. So now I have to argue with you here, at Mundus, at my talk page... Giray Altay (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this really something I'm expected to put up with? Constant accusations of bad faith taking over article talk pages? [46], [47], [48], [49]. GA can't even keep these things where they belong, at ANI or on a user talk page. Instead of discussing article content, he makes accusations against me. He can't even justify his own reversions of simple improvements to spelling when asked to, he just says I reverted you because you constantly edit the article, thought we are discussing its content here (see first diff of this reply).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Another nice example of how Giray Altay's imagines a cooperative environment: [50]. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep to apparently digging direction WP:Hounding and tag-teaming Borsoka. You are seemingly trying every possible way to harass me and make me lose time since I prevented you from pushing your views and apparently bullying IP-editors and new users at Samuel Aba. You then got your seemingly preposterous AN3 case declined and now you appear to be sore, we all got this.

Like I said at the List of Huns: be aware that I am saving your diffs and if you keep with your ways I might open some reasonable ANI case one day. Giray Altay (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

All Borsoka did was ask for a source: [51]. --Ermenrich (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not push any view. Our discussions can be read here and also here. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich is laughable that you post here one edit out of dozens. That is what I mean when I talk about your inclination to manipulate edit histories and take statements out of context

@Borsoka, I had already provided them with a link to Samuel Aba's talk page. Why don't you provide them with a link to where you silence an IP-editor trying to make you notice there were mistakes in the article and some valuable information was being left out? And why don't you give them a link to where, in order to keep out that same information, you went as far as declaring a 21-st century editor's commentary a primary source, and rejecting as many as 8 other sources for various excuses?

But perhaps you should first give them a link to how you stalked me to Eminwin's page? Giray Altay (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who has to put with something difficult now?!?!?!? You are doing it all yourself, including this case you opened.

Observing facts is not bad faith. Noticing you popped up at Mundus 1 hour after I mentioned it at Erminwin is a normal reaction. There is some legitimate reason to wonder, as there is legitimate reason to wonder why you support leaving only a Germanic ethnicity for Odoacer and leaving out of the article his proposed Hunnic origin in the face of many scholars supporting Hunnic origin and no specific mention regarding his ethnicity by contemporary primary sources, whereas you push for including a highly debatable and fringe theory discrediting Mundus' Attilid descent despite a contemporary primary source clearly stating that and the vast majority of scholars agreeing with it.

But thinking bad about fellow editors is indeed assuming bad faith (1), as is identifying them with some notorious sock-puppeteer with no evidence whatsoever ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erminwin&diff=1126183626&oldid=1126072483 2]). Giray Altay (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You should stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS for things that were dismissed at AN.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Things already settled EDIT: discussed at ANI, right, like four out of five points in the new case you opened just a day later?

When I say stalking I don't always refer to a wiki policiy. Borsoka did stalk (pursue or approach) me to Erminwin's page. That the admins did not consider it a break of wiki policies for now is another matter. Giray Altay (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Activities that you continue to engage in are not “settled”.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:

This is as far as these two geniuses (who think a Turkish nationalist mastermind criminal would chose a Turkic username; who think a pro-Hunnic/Turkic editor would remove from an article a "Huns" navbox to perpetrate their evil plan) :

By reverting to their preferred version while discussion was ongoing at the talk page, Ermenrich caused me to revert twice (1), 2).

Now, Borsoka has done the same at List of Huns (3), even though conversation was ongoing at the talk page.

If I keep reverting, I could suffer a block due to the 3-revert rule. Meanwhile, they are able to push their views into articles, though discussions at talk pages are ongoing.

I mentioned Tag teaming before and no admin said anything. Now I am thinking about it again and getting more convinced of it. Giray Altay (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we should have to put with either editor creating this battleground mentality any longer. I've looked through the diffs provided. They aren't just minor edits as suggested (spelling, grammar, copy edits and such). Information was added with which @Giray disputes. They rolled back all the edits because others were made between those which they have an issue with. They don't know how to communicate that well being a new-ish editor. @Emenrich, you are responsible for clearly articulating why your edits should be included per WP:ONUS and seek community consensus. You didn't even attempt to before filing this report. Again, both editors are at fault with continuing to escalate this situation taking it to every page they can and continuing the dispute with aspersions, accusations and all-around assumptions of bad faith. This filing appears, by-and-large, to be a revenge filing to begin with. @Giray, I think you should take @Bbb23's words to heart from the other discussion. You were very close to being blocked in that discussion. Likewise, I think @Emenrich should stop making bad faith claims against @Giray and focus on trying to find solutions to the article. If a solution can not be found with @Giray then open a RfC on the article and let the community decide or seek dispute resolution. That's a content issue. Continuing this discussion here is pointless and may end up in both of you getting sanctioned once any admin feels enough is enough. --ARoseWolf 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how you can look at the diffs I provided and conclude they weren’t improvements. Why didn’t GA simply remove the information he didn’t like? It was a single edit out of several. His replies on the article talk page after the block revert are entirely filled with insults and aspersions.

Block us both then if you think that’s what needs to be done. But somebody needs to do something.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, just a member of the community. This will be my last statement here. You can't just pick an edit to revert. If there are other edits in-between you have to revert them all unless someone can point out something I haven't learned yet. I would like to see blocks avoided, bans avoided and for you two to have a proper discussion. Some of your edits are improvements and you both have contributed positive edits on the topic. If you both would focus more on that and less on jumping to conclusions and trying to force your own viewpoints on each other then maybe you could actually get somewhere. But unfortunately its now left up to an admin or community decision. --ARoseWolf 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If GA were collaboratively editing, wouldn’t he use the edit function to change or revert the single sentence I added he didn’t like rather than block reverting? That is specious reasoning. There was no prior discussion of the issue he objected to either, despite his edit summary.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want to make me go retrieve diffs again? I am tired. I posted everything above. I told you I would revert any restoration of your view and other debatable content until we finish discussing at the talk page, and this is what I did.

The reason why I didn't revert edit by edits is the same why I don't provide any more diffs in this reply. Getting tired.

Oh, and if you were "collaboratively editing" we would not be discussing at ANI right now. Giray Altay (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had not immediately accused me of reading something I did not read on another editors talk page and then editing the article despite whatever you two decided there [52] and just blank reverted all of my additions, we could actually have discussed the matter like normal editors and I would not have had anything else to bring to ANI today. I made improvements to the article as a way forward, not touching the issue of Mundus’s etymology, and as a response i got accused of stalking pov pushing and trying to “prove everything is German “ when I had no idea what on earth you were talking about.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that there are other reasons (not just Mundus) that brought you to open this section, which is why your original post includes several points.

While I don't have incontrovertible proof that you read my section at Erminwin's (as I have, say, for Borsoka stalking me to the same place), I have reason to believe you read that section and then went to Mundus. Because at midnight of December 7 I published the aforementioned, long section about Mundus at Erminwin, and at about 1:00 AM of the same day (about one hour later) you published the first of a long series of edits at the Mundus page. Giray Altay (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, Giray's personal attacks need to stop, right now. Calling other editors these two geniuses, and accusing editors of WP:Hounding and tag-teaming Borsoka and stalking are crossing the line. Especially with no diffs to back them up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That usage of the word "geniuses" was a ironic. Sorry it didn't have the desired effect. I apologize.

Proof Borsoka hounded/stalked me: 1, 2.

Some evidence suggesting tag-teaming: 3, 4, 5, 6. Giray Altay (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't "tag team" someone on a user talk page and another editor coming to a discussion about your editing on a user talk page is not hounding...--Ermenrich (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Then what is hounding? Borsoka lost an argument against me, was declined an AN3 case against me, and they popped up at Erminwin's talke page, heretofore never edited by them, just to join you against me, talking about WP:NOTHERE is to be applied or something. Giray Altay (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:HOUNDING. Borsoka came to discuss your edits, the subject of the conversation there, not to to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. For that matter you clearly followed my edits to Erminwin's talk page. I'm not accusing you of hounding, am I?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I only asked GA to provide valid references to verify one of their claims, and finally GA did. This is what GA summarizes above as "Borsoka lost an argument against me". I am convinced that GA's warring mentality and quite obvious PoV pushing behaviour prevent them from adding real value to our project. According to my experiences, this type of editor is sooner or later banned from our community. For the sake of the community, GA should be banned soon. Borsoka (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly Ermenrich, they stalked me to confront my work, causing me distress. I did not follow your edits at Erminwiwn, where you started your long series of unfounded accusations against me 1, but got there after you refused to ping me multiple times at Huns, which you didn't have to, but I asked to do, since I didn't have the Huns page in my watchlist 2. I did check your profile, as it is legit since we were having a discussion, and next day reloaded the last page, namely yours, and found the interesting section Prolific new editor in Hunnic topics. Had you assumed good faith, or at least politeness by pinging an editor or explaining to them they should place the talk page in their watchlist, I would never have gotten to Erminwin.

I wonder how can you explain the fact that 1 hour after I mentioned the page of a barely known 6th-century Gepid general, getting about 5 views a day in normal circumstances, you popped up at that page, starting a series of edits culminating in putting into the article the same fringe theory I mentioned at Erminwin's?

P.S. If you and Borsoka think that by hounding me to all articles I edit and keep bothering admins just to wear me down I'll give up, you are sadly wrong.... On the other hand, I advise you to review your methods, because, imo, sooner or later they will stop giving you older-user-privileges. Giray Altay (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE

Borsoka has just stalked me to another page to confront my edits yet again. This cannot not qualify for WP:Harassing.

It comes after they lost an argument at Samuel Aba, where they pushed their view for a long time, rejecting 4 to 9 sources using various excuses, up to calling a commentary by a 21st-century scholar a "primary source". They did this to keep out of the article certain content, and, as I reviewed the page, I noticed they had already tried to hide such content in the past 2. Their answer to my noticing this was an accusation of being that IP editor...

Borsoka then opened a case at AN3 against me, which was declined.

Meanwhile, they stalked me at the page of a user, Erminwin, which they had never edited before, joining two other users (Ermenrich and the less-involved and probably unwitting Erminwin) in an argument focused against me 3. Ever since then they stalked me purely to confront my edits (no matter what the subject was or their actual opinion on the matter) on several other pages 5, 6, the last time being today, when I woke up with a nice red alert after opening Wikipedia 7.

It is complicated enough to deal with Ermenrich, an individual constantly accusing me from the first day we "met" in Wikipedia (first nationalist, then WP:NOTHERE, then sock-puppetry, now single purpose account). But while I can somehow accept to argue with them (because all this stems from their real concern for nationalists, etc.), I cannot tolerate anymore the practices of Borsoka, who started hounding me and harass me when I begged to differ at Samuel Aba, thwarting their attempt to keep certain content out of the article, and increased the intensity after I caused them to open an AN3 case that was declined. It appears Borsoka's actions are spurred by revenge, rather then an interest in protecting or improving Wikipedia.

If Borsoka doesn't get a sanction, or at least a warning for their conduct, here, I will myself open a new ANI case, since now I have even more diffs to provide. I will not do so for revenge, and I will be sad it's going to cause more time lost for the admins and commentators. But I'll have to do it because, like I said, Borsoka is causing me distress. Giray Altay (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka clearly found out about your edits at List of Huns here. Edit I see this is about Attilid dynasty - Borsoka is there to remove unsourced material. That is not hounding. Simply repeating all your old grievances against me and everyone else is tiring.

Whether you like “dealing with me” and Borsoka, not to mention Erminwin, Kansas Bear, etc, or not, we are the editors who are active in this topic area. You’re either going to have to learn to live with us (and stop accusing us of unfounded claims like tag teaming, trying to make everything German, etc, not to mention generally refusing to allow any edits that cite scholarly reliable sources that don’t support your POV), or you’re going to have to deal with a lot of acrimony here and quite probably eventually get banned. Your choice.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

But accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without any evidence is okay and didn't affect collaboration in any way? Neither did inferring they were a nationalist? You can't make bad faith accusations and then start chastising them when it comes back at you. They do need to work with every editor in the discussion but when you feel as though you can add whatever you want without being challenged and then run to this noticeboard when you are challenged then what do you expect from a new editor that feels they are being ganged up on? You went to their talk page where I was trying to encourage them to stop making their accusations and hopefully start working with you and repeat the same things over and over sabotaging any effort to get them to comply. To me that is hounding. You want them to stop but you don't. --ARoseWolf 13:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Giray Altay you may have not realised but many of your edits have so far mentioned in this discussion and previous discussions. If you look at my user page, you will also realise that members of the Árpád dynasty are within my scope of interest. You are presenting them as Attalids which is quite obviously nonsense original research. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't my topic of interest but if he can provide scholarly sources for what he is adding then it isn't original research. Even if he adds unreliable sources it still isn't original research even though it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Look at what they say: it is preposterous that the Arpads and Attilids (supposed ancestors) are related, but the Attilids ar in my scope of interest. But if it's "obviously nonsense" they are related, how did you find the Attilid dynasty?

And why did you find the Attilid dynasty now , when it was created a month ago? 1

The last time you clang on mirrors you slept and fell Borsoka 2 don't make the same mistakes again. You hounded me? Yes. It's fine. Just admit it and apologize.

@ARoseWolf EXACTLY (!!). See, they have accused me for a combined list of: WP:NOTHERE, sock-puppetry, nationalism, single purpose account, WP:OR. They don't even know what they are talking about. For them, here the purpose is not reach the truth, a sensible conclusion; purpose is proving what they have already decided. Giray Altay (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

They are not old grievances, they are facts, things that happened in the past and were not sanctioned, but keep on happening. How did Borsoka see the Attilid dynasty here? How did they find the argument against me at Erminwin's talk page in the first place?

Do you realize that by constantly supporting Borsoka in the face of incontrovertible evidence showing they stalked will make the readers of this considering tag teaming more and more a possibility? I know that they are closing eyes on you because you are older editors. But I advise against keep pushing it.

Stop bringing the argument's focus elsewhere. I have nothing against any editors; but I tell those who misbehave based on wiki's own policies that they are doing so.

I have reasons to believe that Borsoka stalked me in the first place, and kept on hounding me. In fact, I have evidence for that, and will open a case if they don't desist.

I have also incontrovertible evidence that you made personal attacks and unfair accusations 1, evidence suggesting you stalked me (cf. 2 (read it) and one hour later 3, first of a series leading to this 3), and indications of an apparent failure of assuming good faith from the very beginning 5, 6.

I hope you also remember that you yourself opened this section at ANI, hours after an argument between us at ANI, where you had already made 4 out of 5 of your points, had concluded. Since then, only a discussion at a talk page took place (Mundus), and you yourself stated that's, in synthesis, the reason why you came here. You didn't even attempt to place an edit warring-warning, start a RfC, go to AN3...

You are wasting a lot of the adminss time, my time, and your own time. Giray Altay (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf - you're accusing ME of hounding now? He accused me of lying, repeated the accusation, and I showed it was false on his talk page. I'm not sure how that harms the situation in any way.

You, like Geray Altay, keep bringing up the discussion that Geray Altay might be a sock puppet - which I mentioned at most four times, twice at the previous AN - as though it were a going concern. I have not mentioned it once in this report or elsewhere. This is what I mean about "repeating old grievances."

My report was primarily about what is going on at Mundus (magister militum) right now, and I included previous misconduct to show a pattern. Geray Altay continues to insinuate that I have impure motives (most recently here where he accuses me of wanting to make Mundus "more Germanic" [53]) for wanting to include a sourced and completely inoccuous sentence to the article, namely [54]. He continues to rely on his own WP:OR, saying I will never even consider mentioning in the article that misinterpretation of a primary source and I believe that the theory Jordanes means anything beside what he literally says, is fringe. [55], showing a misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE . He continues to fight editors at List of Huns and Attalid dynasty about his original research based on medieval chronicles.

So, as I say, the community can do nothing, but then this behavior is going to continue. So if you need to ban more than just GA, so be it - I've been here a while and maybe I've seen enough Wikipedia. But something needs to be done, sooner or later.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: yes, it is quite obvious that it is not your topic of interest. GA has not provided a single reliable source to verify their statements that I deleted. Reference to a medieval chronicle claiming that a Hungarian ruler was descended from Attila does not verify any statements about the Hunnic nationality of the Hungarian ruler's descendants. @Giray Altay:, I can imagine that my requests for verification are causing you distress: most of your edits contain original research. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you realize what you just said? Attila was Hun? Correct? And there is a historical chronicle that makes a claim that a Hungarian ruler was a descendant of Atilla, who was a Hun, but you can't see how that claim ties their descendants to the Hunnic people? Do you understand how genetics work? They are just claims and they should be listed as such but several of the claims made on Attilid dynasty are attributed to medieval Hungarian chroniclers yet you haven't removed those. So is it only the ones you like or agree with that can stay? --ARoseWolf 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You need a modern WP:RS that says that so-and-so is a Hun based on a medieval chronicle. As many of these claims are simply made up (the entire connection of the Hungarians to the Huns is disputed/rejected by modern scholars, for instance), we can't rely on medieval primary sources for such a claim.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you show where that is specifically stated in Wikipedia policy? Because if that's the case then we can't use etymological chronicles from the 1800's to make any claim or statement about Native American culture, even eyewitness accounts. Here's a clue, we do, and without a modern source to verify it. In fact, anything that happened before you or I were born would need to be 100% verified by a modern source by what you are saying. This can become such a slippery slope into WP:Recentism where only modern sources can be used and if there are none then the claim can't be stated. History itself would then become only what modern sources say it is. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If we do that anywhere on Wikipedia we're violating policy: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. GA is using the fact that the Arpad dynasty is identified as Hunnic in primary sources to then state that people descended from Arpad are Huns (such as Albert the Bear). This is obvious WP:OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying we should make our own interpretations. In fact, I've stated that if GA cant back up their claims with a source that says exactly what they are claiming then it shouldn't be added. Same for you. The ONUS is on the one wanting to add the information. But summarizing what a source says is not interpretation and we most definitely can use the source itself. Secondary sources are preferred but not required and especially in historical claims. --ARoseWolf 15:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Ancient and medieval sources often contradict each other, or their claims are rejected by modern sources, as is usually the case with the "Hunnic descent" of Arpad. You need a secondary source to interpret them and then sometimes even need to say which secondary source interpreted them which way, because the secondary sources disagree too. This is standard practice on WP when dealing with ancient and medieval topics.

Are you implying that I've been adding things that are unsupported? I'd like to see a diff of that if so.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This has went down a content tangent and I apologize to admins for my part in it. I won't respond to any further comments on content here. If you would like we can discuss content on my talk page. I welcome the discussion. --ARoseWolf 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

O User:ARoseWolf I really appreciate what you're trying to do in this thread, but here you've gone off at a very wrong end. Evaluative claims based only on medieval primary sources without support from modern RS are 100% OR territory. This is precisely what WP:PSTS is all about: articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. Nothing to do with recentism, as an encyclopedia we present the views of modern (20th/21st-century) scholars. We can't take anything written in medieval documents at face value, that's why we have historians (and yes, for better or for worse, history in effect is what modern historians say it is, provided that they too can disagree and that scholarly views evolve). Wikipedia editors are not historians, or at least should put their historians' hat off and their encyclopedists' hat on when editing WP articles. Encyclopedias written by historical scholars may sometimes reach back to primary source material, but with a pseudonymous internet-based project like WP it's essential to the integrity of articles that all claims should be firmly based on secondary and disinterested scholarship. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, I don't know about your general remark, though I can see @ARoseWolf 's point.

However, regarding this specific issue, there are secondary sources linking the Arpads to the Attilids (see Attilid dynasty). Even so, I always, always, always used the caution that x claim is according to Hungarian legend, tradition, etc.

If you look at this and the previous ANI conversations, at Erminwin's talk page, at Borsoka's intervention in those articles, you will see that they are doing this just out of spite. And when you add to this that Borsoka got it wrong twice with me (at AN3 and Samuel Aba's talk page) you will see it is a case of WP:Revenge even more clearly. Giray Altay (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What ARoseWolf is doing is called OR in our community. I can prove with references to reliable sources that Charles III is of German, Hungarian, Russian, etc descent. Could I state that he is German, Hungarian or Russian? Borsoka (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A new example of edit warring (against two editors who are requesting GA to provide sources). [56], [57], [58], [59] GA was already requested to stop edit warring: [60]. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Now Borsoka, your action stems from a WP:Battleground mentality, and is disruptive.

However, this time I actually didn't see Kansas Bear and their strange accusations of not pinging them; as if I had done that on purpose or for some evil intent.

There is not much coherence in putting a "possible original research" template, and the day later delete all disputed entries. how are other editors suppose to help?

And all this, even so they do know very well that all the entries they dispute are legit and belong to the article.

Btw: asking again: how did you guys find the List of Huns? Giray Altay (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I answered your question, but you still have not answered my question: why are you continuing edit warring? [61]. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf thanks for your effort to make them reason but it's no use. An admin mentioned they have WP-sock puppet syndrome; I for myself thought it had to do with my username, but they made me reflect on that and I later apologized.

The reason of Borsoka's actions is, imo, the so-called WP:Revenge, not sure about Ermenrich. They otherwise look like a normal, even good editor (from what I've seen). Maybe they can't cope with having been wrong about me and perhaps should take a pause to calm their nerves. Or maybe there is something in my edits that doesn't fit with their views on the Huns, Attila, Germanic people, etc.

Whatever their reason: they have decided to go all-out against me, no matter what evidence you show them, they will make up a new excuse. There is no coherence, no justice in the way they are acting.

They take words and sentences out of context, mix one article with another, but meanwhile, fail to reply to my diffs proving that at least WP:Hounding and WP:Canvassing have taken place.

Now, regarding the list of Huns: it is just a wiki list, and all entries fit the parameters "Huns or people of Hunnish descent''. Though I don't see any reason why doubting three ancient Hungarian chronicles linking the Hungarian royals to the Attilids, I have always included (for each entry) the caution e.g. Albert the Bear [...] a descendant of the Arpads, themselves of Attilid origin according to Hungarian chronicles/ tradition etc.

Regarding the Attilid dynasty: same; I included in the dynasty certain entries claimed to be Attilids based on later chronicles, such as the Arpads, but always added the appropriated caution(s).

Now, there are not just Hungarian medieval chronicles supporting that the Arpads were Attilids (primary sources) but also secondary sources, modern historians reporting that the ancient chronicles say so and sometimes backing it. Most of the Szekelys, and even of the Hungarians, accept these claims (Arpads'/Abas relation with Attila), which are part of their tradition. Even so, I underscore again, I always used the appropriate caution (this is according to ancient chronicles, tradition, etc.). Giray Altay (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: could you explain why are you continue edit warring (as I demonstrated above) [62]? Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Another new example of edit warring in an other article: [63]. After GA was warned for the second time against edit warring ([64])Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Borsoka, you have not well realized your situation yet. I just provided diffs proving you hounded me multiple times. And the more you two collaborate against me here and elsewhere, whether it is by directly pinging each other or forcing me to revert on different pages your bold removal of content based on excuses (see the OR at the Attilids), the more the readers will see why I mentioned tag-teaming in the first place.

I have still some interest in helping Ermenrich out of the situation they have put themselves in. But tbh I have no interest in correcting you anymore, just hope you get a sanction now so you stop harass me, or else I will open my own case at ANI soon. Giray Altay (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please open a case against me if you think I did something wrong. You have menaced me with taking to ANI several times. Please remember you should also explain your reverts. Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not a menace, it is a promise. I have the diffs proving you stalked me, so why should I let someone who is at fault go on carrying on their business? So you can (seemingly) bully another IP-editor?

However, I also said that, should you be warned by the admins here, or, should somebody find a way to make you stop harassing me and others, then I would not open an ANI case against you and spare everybody a lot of time. Giray Altay (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The third revert [65]. Interestingly GA recommends me to use the Talk page, although I left two Talk page messages before editing the article ([66][67][68][69]). Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In your talk page sections you ask nothing legitimate. You pretend not to see or understand what the article says, just like you pretended not to see what the sources stated at Samuel Aba.

As such is the case, it is impossible discussing with you.. Even so, I replied to you, explaining that what you are claiming makes no sense since the article specifies that the Arpads are descended from Attila ACCORDING TO HUNGARIAN CHRONICLES.

This has not stopped you from reverting again.

Because your purpose is not improving the Attilid dynasty, but harassing me. Giray Altay (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka is keeping on pushing their POV at the Attilid dynasty, which they reached by hounding, making up excuses and pretending not to see what the articles states, similarly to what they did at Samuel Aba 1, 2. Thus, I gave them an edit warring-warning 3, but they keep on pushing their POV, having just reverted again to their disruptive version 4.

I get their plan and I think I might end up blocked if I attempt again to thwart their actions. Can some admin or editor give me license to revert again? Or can anybody go at Attilid dynasty, have a look, and hopefully intervene? Giray Altay (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The fourth revert within about an hour ([70]). As the above text indicates GA thinks that requesting references to reliable sources to verify claims is a form of disruptive editing. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka likewise completed their fourth revert.

But the difference is that I am not harassing anybody, and I am not led by WP:Revenge-mentality. Giray Altay (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

1. No, I have not completed reverts. 2. I am not led by revenge mentality. I am only asking you to verify your edits. 3. I directed you to the article's Talk page for the second time. Why do you ignore my Talk page messages if you are suggesting in edit summaries that I should use the Talk page [71] [72]? Borsoka (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked Giray Altay for one week for disruption, including their inability to edit collaboratively, personal attacks, and WP:IDHT. That doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Ermenrich and Borsoka are blameless, only that I think the principal problem is GA's conduct and their approach to editing Wikipedia when other editors disagree with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User:비씨카드

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

---

Can someone revoke TPA for this user? They've been using it to continue disruptive editing. Sheep (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Meh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Also FYI see the edit history of the user's talk page. Sheep (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry; it's been handled by Legoktm, with TPA turned off. Sarrail (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Zack48588558 - disruptive editing

Zack48588558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Zack48588558 continuously advertises their YouTube page on Effingham County, Illinois, in which it was first reverted here (diff). Then, they self-promo again (diff) which I revert, and then they revert me, removing all the piped links and ruining templates, and again self-promo (redlinking all of them) (diff). I revert this, and they go on my talk page calling what they're doing their "job" while guilt tripping me, saying how hard it is to find a job and trying to find a job for Wikipedia. (diff). --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 02:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

They were blocked by Orangemike --Jayron32 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Mischief by User:Alaa Aly

Per Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Unauthorized_bot_making_WP:NOTBROKEN_edits but this might be quicker.

Alaa Aly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently making one edit every ten seconds with an edit summary saying it’s currently running a bot. Such a bot was not approved (and likely will never be, as the edits violate WP:NOTBROKEN, but that’s a side concern). It should be blocked ASAP, and any unblock should be conditional on the owner agreeing to read and abide by the bot policy. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, they shut it down. A stern talking-to might still be warranted. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@DuncanHill and I have reverted all of their edits. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I revoked ECM for this user, will leave them talk message. They are welcome to request restoration after 500 legitimate edits at WP:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• The same account also added many categories, usually inappropriately, also reverted: example. Certes (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• And just this morning this editor removed an obviously correct category as test/vandalism. This looks like a case of WP:CIR. I would block, but someone with more patience may be able to persuade the user to stop doing things like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• I changed the section title because the bot-editing thing is no longer a problem. No strong opinion on whether NOTTHERE/CIR applies - history looks bad but nothing egregious I would say. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack by user Ethnopunk

Nobody should be allowed to write "you are persisting in your racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic anti-intellectual endeavour" at another editor in good standing. What more needs to be said? Maybe the edit summary "bigot" on this edit. Zero^talk 10:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

An examination of the editors contributions shows that following an attempt to editwar in this content in October during which he reverted Zero twice (breaking 1R in the process) and then myself, the talk page discussion here has descended into WP:BLUDGEONING a POV that at least half a dozen editors disagree with. The editor was let away with a 1R breach and subsequently continues to refuse to engage in a proper talk page discussion. This really needs to stop.Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The content of this user's comments combined with the edit they were trying to force into the article makes me think they have an axe to grind. — Czello 12:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month per WP:NPA. Normal admin action, not AE. --Jayron32 12:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Further attacks, proposing indef

After the report by Zero and subsequent one-month block by Jayron32, the user Ethnopunk continues to engage in some of the strongest personal attacks I've seen on WP in ten years, openly accusing several users of "Holocaust denial" [73] and even of being Nazis [74]. This kind of behaviour in such a sensitive area as ARBPIA makes me question whether this user should be let back. If they are, at the very least a permanent topic-ban from ARBPIA would seem warranted. (As a reminder, today's outbursts are only the culmination of months of edit warring and personal attacks in ARBPIA-related topics. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No objection by me. --Jayron32 17:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User continues with same edits without explanation

Moved from WT:ADMIN (permalink)

User Dogfog567 keeps changing the images without an explanation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia I have already gave him a warning about this and the user has been non responsive. It is getting annoying and I am getting tired of reverting his edits. Putitonamap98 (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98: Dogfog567 has a redlinked talk page. So, no, you have not warned them. Maybe you should consider doing so. Also, you are required to notify them about this discussion here. Please do THAT as well. --Jayron32 12:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at no point has anyone attempted to discuss this with Dogfog567. Canterbury Tail talk 16:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I warned him in an edit summary sorry for not clarifying

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia&action=history Putitonamap98 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98: Edit summaries are not used to communicate with a user. They are used to summarize what you are doing, not to tell other people what they should do. " Provide a damn explanation already" is NOT something you should be typing in an edit summary. You need to communicate with the user, in a clear, calm, and civil manner, on their user talk page, explaining clearly what the issue is, and what they need to do to fix it. Unless and until you, or someone else does that, then no, they have not been warned. Also, you STILL have not notified them of this discussion something you are REQUIRED to do. --Jayron32 15:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked reverts notified the user so yes he has been warned I just left a message on their page. It's just getting really annoying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dogfog567 Putitonamap98 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:CourtneySCalhoun

I have just declined at AfC, and requested speedy on, this promotional draft by CourtneySCalhoun. I was going to post a COI/UPE notice on the user's talk page, but saw that they had made a blanket statement on User:CourtneySCalhoun denying any paid editing. AGF notwithstanding, I find that hard to believe, considering their edit history and who they say they are, and looking at their talk page it seems I'm not the first one. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Tone-policing

I'm starting to reach the end of my patience with Cullen328 (talk · contribs)'s tone-policing with respect to me on Wikipedia's help fora. Over the past year there's been three incidents where he's gotten on my case due to either incautious wording or taking umbrage with specific phraseology I use, and on the second incident I explicitly told him in no uncertain terms to stay off my talk page. Cue today, where I wake up to find he's posted a threat to block me to my talk page. For the history:

• Incident 1 was in June, when Cullen took umbrage to this edit, which centred around a draft that has since been oversighted for privacy reasons (if the diff didn't make that obvious). Cullen objected to my use of the phrase "crystal fucking clear" and my use of the term "doxx" without actually looking at the history of the situation, something which two other administrators criticised him over, with one explicitly calling it "tone policing" and both noting the privacy concerns were very valid and he was being pedantic.
• Incident 2 was in August, where Cullen took umbrage to a new template message I was testing for the repetitive and (IMNSHO) ignorant "company page article" threads that pop up seemingly every few hours at the Teahouse and Help Desk. Cullen hopped into a thread on my talk page started by someone else, which led to a bit of an argument between us that ended when I told them to get off and stay off my talk page. Again, Cullen was criticised here for the tone policing by another administrator. (I haven't used the template message since and actually had it G5'd after that thread to try and avoid further harassment from Cullen.)
• Incident 3 is yesterday/today. Cullen took offence to me describing myself as a "bastard helper from Hell", a phrase which I've consistently used for when I deep-dive into sources as of late, and threatened to indef me if I ever used the phrase again. I should note that of the two times it was used in the past 24h, the first was cordial in tone throughout and the second was demanding an American reviewer because the draft subject was an American. The second OP has yet to respond further, which I can't in all fairness chalk up to the phraseology; about half of AfC/HD threads don't get further input from the original poster and I don't find it entirely impossible they may return at some point later to reply.

Rather than get back into the old rigamarole of having a fruitless argument with Cullen on a page he's explicitly been told to stay off of, I'm bringing it here to see what needs to be done - to myself or to Cullen - to stop this. I'm not going to change my tone to appease his fickle standards more than I already have, and I'm not going to be effectively harangued off of the help fora. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Idk, I just read those and it looks to me like you're burning out on Teahouse and Help Desk. I get it can be a maddening environment--that's why I don't volunteer there--but if you can't respond to folks there without being angry or condescending, without profanity, etc., you should just take a break. Obviously those are areas where patience is a requirement. Again, not really faulting you for losing patience, as I would lose my patience, too, but impatient helpers aren't much help there. I don't see Cullen's comments as tone policing, but rather as enforcing our civility policy and trying to maintain a productive and collegial environment in the new user help areas. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The first incident was after I had spent an entire thread explaining to the person why their page was unacceptable. The second was quickly addressed. The third was self-deprecation. How would any of this be considered "burnout"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The first one had profanity and all caps. The second one was incredibly patronizing/condescending. The third one I get but might be misunderstood as you calling the other person a bastard. I can see (as Jay mentions below) that you have been asked to tone it down by multiple people. That you see this as a problem of tone policing and not a problem of tone suggests to me you're burned out to the point that your perception is clouded. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Is there a reason, Jéské Couriano, that you singled out Cullen's warnings about tone at Wikipedia's help fora, when I can count numerous other people who have warned you for the same sorts of thing going back months; including DGG on 1 November 2020, Mortee on 6 April 2021 with Blaze The Wolf concurring, TechnoTalk on 5 May 2022 and later on 30 June 2022 with 71.228.112.175 concurring, etc. There are a half dozen different people who have told you already that your tone violates WP:CIVIL at the Teahouse and other help fora, and you have ignored all of them. Cullen was hardly the first, or only, person to do so, and I must say I concur with every one of them. I'm surprised you've brought this here, as the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban from all help fora seems very likely, given that you've been told for years, from multiple unrelated people, that your behavior on these fora is unacceptable. --Jayron32 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Mind giving me a diff to when I (Blaze The Wolf) agreed about the tone? I have very poor memory (I have no clue why, I just do). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Here. --Jayron32 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Because I've explicitly told Cullen to stay off my talk page. Also note that all of those warnings you mention pre-date the first incident. I've been trying to keep my nose clean since then. (In hindsight maybe I shouldn't have bothered.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Cullen (and others) that you need to take it down several notches. I enjoy and appreciate BOFH myself but he's not a desirable model for user interaction, even if the users deserve it. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  My point is that you haven't kept your nose clean. A bunch of people, for several years, have told you to improve your tone at the various help fora, and Cullen is just the latest of them. --Jayron32 15:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  And the past few months means nothing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not being incivil sometimes does not cancel out a pattern of incivility. You seem to have a problem with repeatedly being incivil in discussion forums. You don't make the incivility go away just because you had a some intervening posts where you didn't cuss someone out. --Jayron32 16:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with others above - the diffs presented above are clearly taking the wrong tone for the Teahouse, which is supposed to be a welcoming environment. Responses posted to the Teahouse need to be considerate not only of the editor to whom they are being written but also to other passers-by. If I was a new good-faith editor coming to the Teahouse to ask a question about my edits I'd feel very turned off by the messages linked above. Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Jeske can voluntarily agree not to post at the Teahouse. I do not think his comments cause nearly as much angst at AFCHD and honestly it's a style that absolutely draws attention to the issues with sourcing. I would not support sanction beyond the Teahouse. Slywriter (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen's most recent complaint is explicitly about AfC/HD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any sanction at all is necessary here. I think Jeske is receiving a much-needed "wake-up call". It's not entirely Jeske's fault; after all, two admins did agree with him about the "tone policing", so I can understand why Jeske was led astray. Jeske, a tip for the future: if one admin is saying one thing, and two admins are saying another thing, and the one admin had >300 support votes in their RFA while the other had <100 combined, listen to that one admin and not the other two, because that one admin probably has a better handle on what consensus is. It's an unpleasant truth, but not all admins are created equal. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to listen to an administrator who threatens to block me indefinitely, has gotten on my case for good-faith errors not connected to incivility, and refuses to listen to a request to stay off my talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to listen, but the admin can still warn you, and act on those warnings, even if you tell them to stay off your talk page. You can't prevent an admin from sanctioning you by telling them to stay off your talk page, and you've been around long enough to know this. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, are you likewise not inclined to listen to anyone else in this discussion, several who are saying the same things? If what you're seeking in this thread is to demonstrate that complaints about your tone and demeanor -- in areas where calm/welcoming/friendly are especially important -- are unwarranted, you're doing a poor job of it ... never mind your bizarre insistence that telling an admin to stay off your talk page immunizes you against being warned by that admin. Good grief, you were an admin yourself once upon a time. How is it that you don't get these things? Ravenswing 16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument though, Levivich. An admin isn't more likely to be right or wrong than another admin (or in many cases a non-admin) just because they happened to get more support years ago. I have admins and non-admins whose comments I trust more than those of others, but I have no idea and don't care how much support they got at RfA, or whether they succeeded at failed at an ArbCom election, or... There have been ArbCom members who turned out to be terrible, and failed RfAs who had a perfect handle on consensus or ... Heck, I even heard of people who first got an RfA without a single oppose, but failed a second RfA. RfA support is a terrible metric to rank editors or admins by. Fram (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, to each their own. I'm not suggesting it's a fine metric or anything--not like an admin with 201 supports is better than an admin with 200--but when you compare, say, an admin who got 300 supports 5 years ago, and an admin who got 30 supports 15 years ago, the former's opinion (about what is and isn't disruptive) is going to carry a lot more weight with me than the latter. But YMMV. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but whatever personal distaste the OP has for Cullen specifically, Cullen's warnings for civility violations were certainly not the first time he had so been warned. One merely has to look through the talk page to see a years-long history of recidivism despite multiple warnings. If I, as an admin, had seen that number of warnings for the same issue, I too may have left a stern warning with the threat to block for continued problems. Jéské Couriano's objection to being so warned by Cullen is obviated by the fact that they had been so warned multiple times in the past. Cullen's threat was an entirely appropriate one in response to the pattern of behavior shown over so many years, and warned users don't get ban an admin from doing admin work against them just to avoid scrutiny. --Jayron32 16:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to reinforce the fact that you can't ban an Admin from giving you warnings on your talk page. The warning about a block seems appropriate given the number of warnings they've had from others. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I will admit that I had forgotten since August that the OP had told me to stay off their talk page, and for that I apologize. If I see obvious misconduct by this editor in the future, I will just block the editor, and as I wrote on their talk page, they will need to convince another administrator that their misconduct will never happen again. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt you're likely to see that. That I will promise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Block evading, IP hopping, grudge holding, ping abuser

I'm not sure what's going on but someone is hopping blocked IPs pinging people they think are admins (including me) to grind an WP:AXE about some petty dispute. [75] [76] then doing nuisance pings from different IPs after I asked them to stop: [77] [78] [79]. Can someone with advanced IP blocking / rangeblock skills whack this mole and turn off talk page access for the ranges to stop the annoying pings please? I am pinging other folks being repeatedly pinged by this person here so they know about the complaint: @Inexpiable: @TheXuitts: @Eggishorn: @Jayron32: @Mathglot: @Nil Einne: @MelanieN: @Citizensunshine: @QuietMedian: @Politrukki: Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just confirming that Toddst1's account is accurate, at least as far as my own experience is concerned, and that I appreciate Toddst1's ping here, but don't appreciate any of the IP pings being complained about. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Having dug a bit further, it looks like these are ipsocks of indeffed user Defeedme (talk · contribs) who seemed to have this grudge against Sideman, leading to this latest indef for Defeedme. Toddst1 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed and reverted the first one, suspected the editor would be back. Since they don't seem to be giving up maybe preemptively remove talk page access to any IP socks of Defeedme? Alternative could try an edit filter. Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was (apparently inarticulately) suggesting.

In the mean time, I've adjusted my notifications so I get no pings. Not a great solution but works for WP:DENY. Toddst1 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Cyberbot

I don't know exactly what's going on with Cyberbot I. It's just going bonkers here on the WP:RfPP page. It's making changes and then reverting itself -- and it's done it more than 500 times! Is there a discussion about this somewhere else? Also, apologies if this is not the right spot for this sort of thing. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The last time the bot did that was back in April. All it was doing was changing the template {{noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}} and vice versa. No real issues. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See User:Cyberbot I#Snotbot. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Think the confusion is in how the page logs edit history. Cyberbot1 appears to be the only editor if you view history of the main project page. I'm guessing the human edits are on an alternate/ subpage. The time stamps show there are intervening actions happening somewhere. Slywriter (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You would be correct. The actual human edits are at WP:RPP/I, WP:RPP/D, and WP:RPP/E ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@Professor Penguino, Blaze Wolf, and Slywriter: Hello. The requests regarding protection go to the subpages WP:RPP/I for increase, RPP/D for decrease, and RPP/E for edit requests. The main WP:RPP page has nothing but maintenance related stuff, it also has few commented out statements including: DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. The formatting is enforced by Cyberbot. To make changes, please contact Cyberpower678. In short, bot is working as expected. Regarding the venue, it should first go to botop's talkpage, if unanswered there, then on WP:BOTN. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The revisions you linked are from April. Per the current history, though, it's made seven edits today (the same edit-revert thing that's described earlier in this thread). What it looks like it's doing is updating {{noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}} as appropriate (based on whether there's a backlog or not)... that is, something within the remit of its task that it's supposed to be doing. It may be possible to make this automatic (for example, using parser functions or Lua or something on the main page so that it automatically detects the size of the subpages and displays the appropriate template depending on what threshold they're at). But maybe not. Who knows? jp×g 02:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Adminbacklog also adds it to a maintenance category (and the other removes it, duh), which would be impossible without editing the page I think. Fram (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Al-Massae website

The official website of Al-Massae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Massae) redirects to someone selling cosmetics. Al-Massae's web address in a related page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Morocco) is similarly incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.123.48 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I confirmed and removed the domain-squatted url in the Al-Massae infobox. The one in the list does appear to be a news outlet, however, possibly Egyptian, but it would be better if somebody who speaks Arabic can take a look. I am also going to post the list at WP:PNT, since that page also needs other work but there are no Arabic-speaking regulars over there, so that won't solve this problem. Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed The old link at List of newspapers in Morocco ([80]) was indeed pointing to an Egyptian news outlet also called al-Masa' ('The Evening'). I added the correct url ([81], cf. [82]) to both articles. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hate-based Vandalism of John Gaeta page.

Hi, This is John C. Gaeta .. On or about Dec 6 timeframe, my wiki page was severely vandalized with an extreme hate filled screed that attacks myself, my family as well as lgbtq and african americans .. and far worse by specifically labeling me as a member of a hate group (kkk) and much worse. To be clear, this has NEVER ever happened to me before. My new home address was also written into the page which I suspect was a way to physically bring harm to me or my family. I should note that I very recently moved to this new stated address and would assume that the # individuals who may know this info is very narrow. I have past associates who are lgbtq and have real concern that there could be a possible connection there. I have a serious concern for safety now for my family and I. I want to know the IP address or general regional location of the address of the attacker as that may be relevant to mitigating any future harm (virtual or physical). I was informed of an attack by a past colleague who discovered it and worked to repair the page .. Please contact me asap and let me know what can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yensiwtlad (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems the vandalising contributions are coming from an account called "John Geata" (note the misspelling), which seems to be a vandalism only account whi John Gaetach is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Similar edits were made by an IP. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yensiwtlad, I have indefinitely blocked the impersonator/vandal, I have revision deleted the offensive content out of the article's edit history, and I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. If the disruption resumes then, the protection can be extended. I encourage other editors to add this article to their watch lists. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yensiwtlad, we cannot disclose the IP address of a registered account. However, the vandalism started with an unregistered IP edit from 73.70.245.207. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I've emailed the oversight team. — Diannaa (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Good step to take, Diannaa. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yensiwtlad: if you have safety or other real world concerns about something that has happened on Wikipedia, it would be better for you to contact the Wikimedia Foundation who may be able to advise you on whether there's anything that they can help you with. As volunteers we can only really deal with stuff on Wikipedia which includes removing any problematic edits and trying to prevent such edits in the future. Note however, as Cullen328 has said, it is unlikely they will provide the IP of a registered editor except in exceptional circumstances like where there is a court order and in emergencies possibly to law enforcement. Speaking of emergencies, if you believe someone on Wikipedia is threatening physical harm, you can contact emergency@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm for more details. I cannot see the edits given that they've been removed. But as someone who regularly edits at WP:BLPN where we deal with editing concerns that relate to living persons, I will say the posting of malicious misinformation or attacks on people, sometimes with the inappropriate inclusion of personal information, is unfortunately something that does happen way more than I would like on Wikipedia as on a lot of the internet. The normal way we deal with it as volunteers is to remove these postings in a way that almost no one can see it a process which Diannaa started, and then monitor and try and prevent any re-occurrence. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruption on various North Korea-related articles

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

---

See Special:Contributions/!-("AceTheBold!"). User got reverted and put onto WP:AIV by a bot due to their edits to one article to write that North Korea is gay. They then re-instated a new, differently-worded version of this. After their 3rd or so warning, they've stopped doing that, but after stopping this, they decided to leave this unhelpful message on my talk page (the waifu template on my user page is mostly a joke, it says that Wikipe-tan is my waifu) and then made their only ever non-disruptive edit by, dun-dun-dun, adding a template to their user page that says they live on Earth.

IMO, they need to either be given a very final warning or be blocked. They are almost certainly WP:NOTHERE. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

AIV is pretty backlogged right now and no admins seem to be active. I've also been waiting for about an hour on action to be done against another vandal. wizzito | say hello! 02:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: They've "improved" their user page with a new revision that makes my browser lag when I view it. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it's laggin' pretty bad, especially due to the fact that they've added 861,441 bytes onto their userpage in one edit. Don't click it though... it'll only make it lag, again. Just showin' the diff if needed. Sarrail (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I restored to it a less disruptive version that is a bit under 4k bytes. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually not sure if they just don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or something. See here for example: [83]. They've stopped the weird "North Korea is gay" stuff but they now seem to have instead confused their user page for a talk page. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting. #WP:NOTHERE. Sarrail (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

'Kay, they're blocked. I don't see a reason why to continue this discussion, now that they've been blocked indefinitely. Sarrail (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA for vandal

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

---

[84] Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 04:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding

I had an incident of being wikihounded by User:Fdom5997 last year (December 2021, archived here). Specifically, it pertains to me trying to clean up or condense IPA charts of language pages, and their insistent that this is "unnecessary" (and also specially annoying or something?). I brought it here and it was resolved... until today, when they started doing it again. Only 3 incidents at the time of this message, so it's not a big deal yet. But this is a repeat offender, and so I'd rather nip it in the bud than wait. Eievie (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Final warning given — this report alone perhaps warrants a firm reminder to Fdom5997 about discussing changes and not just bluntly reverting constructive edits, but with the history as linked above its somewhat past the point of assuming good faith. If any other admins think this calls for a block/IBAN etc please go ahead — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 06:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not the content of the reverts that bothers me, really; it's that I got multiple rollback pings mere minutes apart. That means Fdom5997 was looking at my contributions listing, specifically looking for stuff to undo. Is there, by chance, a way to stop that specific user from being able to view my contributions page? Eievie (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user AndyFung98

User@AndyFung98 has a pattern of not following the Wikipedia Manual of style when editing in 2022 in South Korean music. They constantly adds new albums in caps format like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_in_South_Korean_music&oldid=1127169135. I would like them to stop doing so but they never reply to any of my messages in their talk page. Please help me get through to them. Lightoil (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Your diff doesn't work, Lightoil. You need to use either the Special:Diff system or a diff url, not a mix of the two. But I can see the user's contributions. I thought at first it might be a case of a user who is not aware they have a talkpage, but no; they have previously edited it, the last time in January 2022. Going by these previous posts, there is a language problem, so perhaps that explains it; they may have difficulty understanding the warnings. I have blocked them from article space, telling them they can be unblocked once they respond and undertake to stop with the ALLCAPS. Bishonen | tålk 10:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC).

• Update: AndyFung98 has been unblocked after promising to stop with the inappropriate capitals. Bishonen | tålk 15:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC).

IP User

At Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council persistently (since 7 December) using talk page as a forum and now making personal attacks. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: You need to provide some specifics (i.e. diffs) as to what edits are problematic rather than asking others to wade through it for you. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but there's a bunch: and repeated, and some under new IPs. [85] [86] [87] [88] Sarrail (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The latest, reverting Sarrail now, repeating the personal attack and ignoring Sarail request to comment here Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Don't forget that posting a notice on the editor's talk page is a requirement, even if they're an IP user. (I've posted it for you now) My personal feeling is that as far as personal attacks go, I'd say "don't feed the trolls" and this user is likely to get bored and go away, but that's IMO. Clearly, you've taken it as an attack, which is your prerogative. There's certainly a case for abusing the talk page as a forum, and probably also evidence WP:NOTHERE based on their soapboxing/POV-pushing/battleground mentality (take your pick), and I'd support a block from an admin as a cooldown period since they are now edit-warring the article talk page to replace their attack. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it's WP:DENY, and WP:3RR. I'll take WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the IP starts firin' up again, a good block may be needed. Sarrail (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:12.247.3.42 is joining in, likely the same editor. I have posted a notice on that talk page as it at least has a record of prior posts. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic pov pushing and vandalism

Lolamelody123456 constantly removes sourced content to push its point of view [89] [90], often secretly by only mentioning one thing they did in their edit summary to cover up the sourced content they removed [91]. This account is editing almost entirely to promote an ethnic point of view without citing any sources [92] [93] [94] [95]. 2A00:23C4:FCA6:A201:6809:8455:43CF:C4E4 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hounding by User:Vlaemink and slow edit warring at "Mulatto"

I think that Vlaemink (talk · contribs) has been WP:HOUNDING me since Dec 1st. On that day, they reverted an edit of mine at Dutch people and also a similar edit at the corresponding German article de:Niederländer. They later said that I had claimed that the Dutch have no common history or culture ("dass die Niederländer keine gemeinsame Geschichte oder Kultur hätten")[96] - which of course I never did. Some hours later they started a slow edit war at Mulatto, a page they had never edited before. At the talk page, they said that they had been reviewing some of my recent edits and made all sorts of unspecific complaints including "to seemingly assume a racist-bias when people do not agree with you" [97]. When I asked them at their German talk page to be more specific, they said they were referring to the statement "If someone wants to claim that anti-racism is a personal bias, they should read WP:NONAZIS" on my (English) user's page[98]. Later, they said, "It is you who has pushed the claim, that mulatto/mulato is offensive across all languages"[99], again something that I never claimed and see as a gross misrepresentation of my view. They also listed all the reverts I made at the lead of Mulatto on my personal talk page, claiming that I had been edit warring and should "try to be more constructive and self-reflective". Also a bit too personal: "As you claim to be a priest, perhaps Luke 6:41 merits some revisiting."[100]. I'm convinced that all my reverts were justified, since I reverted to status quo, once even undoing my own changes[101]. Finally, they complained with an admin[102] about this edit of mine at Canaan, a page they had never edited before, either.

They have also been conducting a slow edit war at Mulatto, making 4 reverts over a period of several days:

• 18:05, 1 Dec[103]
• 14:46, 10 Dec[104], after which I gave them this warning on their talk page and asked an admin about their views on the content question. Please note that I didn’t revert again before a second user had declared their support for my preferred version.
• 9:17, 11 Dec[105]. Because they also grossly misrepresented my position (see above), I sent them this warning.
• 14:28, 12 Dec[106]. Note that they made this revert after they took part in the RfC I had started at Talk:Mulatto#RfC_on_the_addition_of_"in_English"_to_the_lead_section. I will not revert again on Mulatto before this case is decided or archived. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are afraid of hounding, why did you seek him out on the German Wikipedia to talk about the article Mulatto here? And for a slow edit war you need two parties, one of them is you. But you prefer to bang on while an RFC is running about the subject in dispute. The Banner talk 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't talk about the article Mulatto on the German WP, but asked them in polite forms to be more explicit regarding their complaints. Since these complaints were not about content, but about (my) behaviour, I didn't want to do it on the article's talk page. Since they are more active on the German WP, and since I'm a native German speaker, I thought that would be easier for both of us. As mentioned above, they had previously also reverted me on the German WP. True, that an edit war needs two parties, but still I think I had the right to return to status quo. It was me who started the RfC, and I didn't touch the article after starting the RfC. Admittedly, I reverted to status quo (at 09:12, 12 Dec)[107] just before starting the RfC (at 09:14, 12 Dec), and I think that was correct. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this user when made a peculiar edit to Dutch people, deleting a supposedly unreference sentence from the lead which stated the Dutch share a common culture history even though the article touches this in depth. As one often does when noticing a strange edit from an unknown user, I looked into his contributions; which led me to a discussion on Talk:Mulatto, where I commented on the way he communicated with other users, suggesting a less accusative and confronting style might yield better results.

As others have noted, it was Rsk6400 who contacted me on my German talk page; asking me to specify this comment as he felt somewhat uneasy in English. This is what I replied (the translation is my own, but German speakers are free to edit it if they feel it is incorrect):

 Ihr Kommunikationsstil beim englischsprachigen Wikipedia erscheint mir gelegentlich als etwas anklagend und aggressiv, unter anderem weil Sie (soweit ich sagen kann) regelmäßig eine Diskussion anfangen mit dem Zitieren der Wikipedia-Richtlinien. Man ist selbstverständlich frei es so zu machen, aber damit riskiert man auch, dass man für manchen eher rüberkommt als Polizist kommt statt Gesprächspartner. Zudem haben Sie auf Ihre persönliche Seite den Satz „If someone wants to claim that anti-racism is a personal bias, they should read WP:NONAZIS“ geschrieben. Nun, dass würde ich persönlich als konfrontativ empfinden und obwohl Sie es natürlich nicht so meinen, könnte ich mir vorstellen, dass manche Leute diese Aussage als „Also, wenn ich nicht mit Ihnen einverstanden bin, sei ich ein Nazi?“ interpretieren könnten. Natürlich, es gibt Menschen auf Wikipedia, die dem Nationalsozialismus oder völkischen Phantasien zuzustimmen. Ist aber eine kleine Minderheit und diese Figuren werden oft ziemlich schnell demaskiert. Deswegen haben ich auch WP:AGF angedeutet, denn die meiste Benutzer versuchen diese Enzyklopädie besser zu machen als sie sie gefunden haben. Diese Unsicherheit bei der Kommunikation in einer anderen Sprache erkenne ich, vielleicht verschwindet damit auch manchmal die Nuance. Auf Deutsch bei mir schon.
 

 Your style of communicating on the English-language Wikipedia, to me personally, sometimes appears to be somewhat accusative and aggressive, among other things because you (as far as I can tell) regularly start a discussion by quoting Wikipedia guidelines. One is of course free to do so, but by doing so you also risk coming across as a police officer rather than conversational partner. In addition to this, you've included the line „If someone wants to claim that anti-racism is a personal bias, they should read WP:NONAZIS“ on your personal page. Well, this is something I personally would find confrontative and even though you do not mean it in that way, I could imagine that there are people who could interpret this line as „So, if I don't agree with you, that makes me a nazi?“. Of course there are people on Wikipedia who espouse nationalist views or ethno-nationalist fantasies. But this is a very small minority and they are often quickly discovered. That's the reason why I referenced WP:AGF earlier, because most users try to make this encyclopedia better than they found it. This uneasiness when communicating in a second language is something I recognize, maybe it sometimes causes the nuance to disappear. Anyway, this happens to me in German.
 

I think the text speaks for itself and isn't particularly harassing.

Nevertheless since then, it has been Rsk6400 who's been visiting my talk page, telling me to respect WP rules and be more competent. This is part of the pattern I noticed earlier and led me to give him some friendly advice in the first place: Rsk6400 warns and sometimes downright lectures other users about behavior, that he himself shows. In this particular case, it couldn't be more clear as he accuses me of slow edit warring, even though I have reverted the page three times in over 10 days, whereas he himself has reverted that particular page a total of seven (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) times and counting.

That's really all I have to or can say on the matter. Vlaemink (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your translation as perfectly correct. But I didn't start this discussion because of that, but because of the sum of minor aggressions I listed above, including reporting the revert on Canaan (mentioned above) to an admin without even starting a discussion, let alone notifying me, grossly misrepresenting what I said (that's why I mentioned WP:CIR on your talk page) and continuing to edit war even after I started that RfC. I'm still convinced that reverting to status quo is not against the rules if accompanied by constructive behaviour on the talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Robert Richard Torrens

I've entered 3RR territory with an IP who insists on Torrens's "conventional" birthdate. You see, recent researchers (several references) put his DOB at 31 May 1812 while all the great biographies give him 1 July 1814, apparently something to do with being born out of wedlock. Other editors have backed away, but this IP is indefatigable — his latest revision has gone to the extent of deleting not only my carefully worded notes but others' as well. Surprisingly he has left the two links which, if followed, would might have dissuaded him — others of his ilk have deleted that as well. Short of indefinite protection, block or recalling every printing of DNB, what's a good way to dissuade this kind of revisionism ? Doug butler (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) According to my experience: You can give a link to the discussion in your edit summary, e.g. "See Talk:Robert_Richard_Torrens#Year_of_Birth", but basically you have to keep the page on your watchlist and revert when you are convinced that a change is against the sources. 3RR is the red line forbidding more than three reverts in 24 hours, which you didn't even come close to (making 2 reverts in 24 hours). I think you already saw that another editor supported you, reverting the IP again. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Elmenhorster

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

---

Edit-warring across multiple pages, after warnings:

• at Heinrich Reuss: [108] [109] [110] [111]
• at Mikhail Fridman: [112] [113] [114] [115]

Whitewashing antisemitism at multiple articles:

• [116] [117] [118]

combined with Jew-tagging:

• [119]

I opened a thread on the EW noticeboard but unfortunately it has not received administrator attention. I request an indefinite block. It seems likely to me that this IP is the same person, if an administrator with the relevant goggles feels that is relevant. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster persists in edit warring and has apparently also engaged in WP:LOGOUT (see this revert). The editor seems to also acknowledge an extensive history of editing before this account's registration, inclining me to believe they might also be a sock. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I acknowledge it right here, see below. I first edited Wikipedia around 2008 and have probably "Jew-tagged" several hundred Lithuanian Jews, including Littauer of Harvard (imagine that!). Elmenhorster (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

How come it's only you and JBL doing the fact-twisting, name-calling and false reporting? Reuss and Fridman Talk pages are meanwhile alive with actual discussion where I don't appear even remotely as unconstructive as you would like to smear me. Meanwhile your and JBL's name-calling is there for everyone to see. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

False accusation and complete refusal to engage on article Talk page.

Mikhail Fridman edit stands.

Reuss edit stands.

No interest in whitewashing anti-Semitism.

I tag Jews whenever I can as I'm Jewish and Lithuanian Jewish history is a life-long interest. I registered on Wikipedia only to be able to resurface all the Jews I've tagged so that I can come back and read about them again. Yes, really.

Is "Jew-tagging" even a thing? Is it bad? No clue, first time I hear about this. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because you reported but then did not offer much to back up your baseless insinuations? Elmenhorster (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster, if you require more evidence of your misconduct, I invite you to reflect on a few more edits: you accused me and JBL of "strong-arm" "intimidation" for warning you on your talk page with escalating and explanatory templates. This came after you broadcasted dissatisfaction with me on an article talk page–the absolutely incorrect place for that. In your brief time registered, you've done that before. And, even now, you refuse to accept reliable sourcing. Your conduct has gone from what I initially considered a tad misguided to openly malicious. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

And here we have outright apologia for antisemitic conspiracy theories. Outstanding. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just to note that Elmenhorster has been blocked, but only for 31 hours for edit-warring, so this discussion on a much broader behavioral issue should continue despite the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Based on Elmenhorster's admission above, This edit is his, which means 61.102.171.6 was used by him previously to creating an account. There's nothing wrong with an IP creating an account, but that IP address was also edit-warring over issues related to Jewish identity as recently as November 6. This is not a new pattern of behavior. --Jayron32 15:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster has been indefinitely blocked based on CU data by Firefly. It looks like the problem has been solved. Thanks for the digging, Jayron. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Bolivia page needs repair

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

---

Something has happened to the Boliva page. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it looks like a mess.[120]. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino It appears it has now been fixed. I believe it was an issue with the infobox. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Good! Then the matter is resolved. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Heili hei

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

---

Heili hei (talk · contribs · logs)

Starting in May this year, this user has been POV pushing on articles about culture or concepts relating to the East Asian cultural sphere by removing content relating to countries other than China. Here are a few examples of their edits: [121][122][123][124][125][126] It is time to put a stop to this.

I have tried to communicate with them on their talk page, but it seems to be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU with no replies to my messages. (However, it was suspicious that this user would stop editing right after I send a message on their talk page, and resume editing after some time) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Those diffs do suggest there may be a nationalist motive involved, 0xDeadbeef. But it has all been reverted and Heili hei last edited over a month ago. Is there any reason you report them now? Also, I do believe they can hear you, since they engaged you at some length on your own page in May.[127] I suggest this be closed, and you're welcome back if they turn up and resume similar editing. Or come straight to my page, if you prefer. Bishonen | tålk 12:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. I confused November as December. I will close this. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Foul-mouthed member of VRT User:FormalDude

The matter below is beyond just a content dispute. It started with this edit on Kanye West followed by my explanation on talk [128]. This removal was supported by IP 73.239.149.166 and Throast

• [129] 1st revert by FormalDude. He cites Wikipedia:STATUSQUO for the revert but ignores its first exception, doesn't bother to add appropriate inline tags indicating the text is under discussion which is necessary, most importantly ignores Wikipedia:SQS.

• [130] FormalDude follows it 2nd revert. Me and Throast explain to him why his reverts were wrong. He is flippant about the policy requisites and says there is no consensus despite there being three people in agreement (including IP)

• [131] FormalDude adds a more bombastic, vague claim without attribution. Again, its me and Throast along with Ringerfan23 who are don't support this addition by FormalDude.

• [132] 3rd revert FormalDude reverts improvement by Throast saying "attribution not required for established RS"

• [133] 4th revert restores the addition with "One editor saying they don't quite agree is NOT a consensus. Please stop edit warring" which is false because 3 editors including me, Throast, and Ringerfan23 had indicated this shouldn't be added.

In between all this WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour he proceeds to make matters worse.

• [134] I don't have the desire to argue semantics with someone like you. Extremely disrespectful comment. The "someone like you" is clearly intended to belittle Throast. Also shows extremely poor judgement btw. Shows he doesn't care about phrasing and semantics as long as his edits aren't reverted under any circumstances.

• Curiously decides to vote on an AfD I started right after our initial back and forth. Collapses the discussion on his talk when confronted about it calling it "petulance"

• [135] replies to me with Who died and put you in charge?

• [136] Places a {{Uw-ew}} template asking me not edit-war (the page history of the article should be clear as to who is edit-warring).

Imo, FormalDude has displayed extremely belligerent behaviour by continuously reverting any improvements to Kanye West, doesn't have a grasp of relevant policies, disregards consensus, and lacks basic civility. — hako9 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• While I disagreed with FormalDude's initial WP:SQSing here, which I communicated with him both in this edit summary and on his talk page (note that he only made an actual argument for inclusion after his second revert), I think that hako9's subsequent revert probably escalated tensions. That said, a civil consensus-building discussion was taking place at talk until FormalDude insulted at best my experience with the project and at worst my intelligence by implying that I did not know "basic summary style" here, at which point the discussion turned sour. FormalDude's subsequent unilateral decision to add a sentence to the lead during discussion, his multiple reverts to protect his version as written (1, 2), and him accusing me of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing do display a disruptive editing style and lack of civility that is worthy of some sort of sanction in my opinion, if only a formal reprimand by an admin. I'm actually surprised to see that no admin has stepped in to try to mediate the situation considering how prominent the contentious information is. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  In my defense, I made a grand total of 2 reverts to FormalDude's edits, both reverts for different reasons and for different content, and more importantly with consensus. For the first revert, there were 3 editors (me, Throast, and IP 73.239.149.166 in agreement) and for the second revert there were again 3 editors in agreement (me, Throast and Ringerfan23). One would notice from the article's history that all of FormalDude's reversion to mine and Throast's edits were based on the false reasoning that there was no consensus. WP:OWNERSHIP and unilateral editing aside, his comments on his talk page and the article talk page, shows he looks at all this as a battleground. — hako9 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Premature report from content dispute - work this out on the talk page. Consensus and collaboration require everyone to let down their guard and de-escalate tensions, and usually also requires everyone to give a lil something up. Consensus via compromise. If you still find you can’t resolve things, the appropriate process would be an RFC or the WP:DRN. This is the wrong venue for resolving content disputes and I don’t see enough here to call it a clear case for admin action.(Non-administrator comment) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I would have gone for an RFC or DRN if this was a mere content dispute. FormalDude doesn't respect consensus and his over the top and disrespectful comments are a bit much for collaborative editing. — hako9 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Are non-admins allowed to effectively close a discussion by writing in big bold letters that a report is premature? Seems odd to me. It may be your opinion that the report is premature, but it is a behavioral report at its core, so ANI is no doubt the proper venue. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just my opinion of the circumstances as detailed here. I have closed nothing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Shibollethink did nothing of the sort, and that they are a non-admin is irrelevant. They are allowed to express their opinion as much as anyone else can. Lay off. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Formaldude is edit warring here. I disagree with Shibbolethink that this is merely a content dispute. The issue is being worked out on the talk page by other users, from my reading, Formaldude has been not participating in that work except to announce the changes they are making to the text. Announcing a change is not participating in a discussion and is not establishing consensus. We should wait for their response here, but if they continue to try to force their preferred edits into the article before there is consensus on the talk page, I intend to block. They need to stop doing that. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• FormalDude's activities on Black children as alligator bait are also of note - see this edit, this edit, and this edit. (I don't really think these edits rise to a level where we need to go to AN/I over it, but since we're here already they might as well be looked at). casualdejekyll 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Blanket reversions without explanation and uncivil snark seem to be a specialty of his. I acknowledge that edit summaries are not required by policy, but they are nevertheless vital to civil discourse and efficient consensus-building. I don't see any reason why you'd ever refuse someone that simple courtesy. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Clarification of the title of this section. VRT = Volunteer Response Team which until recently was known as OTRS. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• In response to Hako9 and Throast's complaints about my behavior in the dispute, I did not believe I was edit warring because a brief discussion on the talk page did not seem like a clear consensus to me, and seemed to be in-line with our policy on letting the status quo stay in the article while it is disputed. I apologize for any disruption I may have inadvertently caused. Anyone who reads through the dispute at Kanye West will see that civility has not been overwhelming by anyone there. I won't be continuing my participation there in any form. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  The reverts do seem to be a violation of WP:3RR though. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, policy states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (bold mine) There is no similar requirement for those seeking exclusion to achieve consensus. Public-facing article text is to remain silent on a matter while it is still under dispute. --Jayron32 15:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude's tendentious editing with multiple users, other disruptive behavior

I've been perturbed by FormalDude's behavior for some time now.

• Tendentious editing examples:

1. I vote to overturn FormalDude's RfC closure at a close challenge on August 23 at 01:50 UCT. 18 minutes later, FormalDude seemingly went to my contributions page to find this vote I had left at an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies 2 weeks prior; I wasn't very active at the time, so this would've been immediately viewable at the top of my contribs page. FormalDude, of course, votes for the contrary of how I voted.
2. I also update Corey Feldman on August 23; FormalDude removes an entire paragraph of reliably sourced content in that article four days later. (FormalDude's first & only edit to the article).
3. I create a discussion at Talk:Depp v. Heard on August 31, which FormalDude follows me to several hours later (their only edit to that page prior was a minor edit amending the archive period of talk page discussions, which was made 2 months after my first edit to that page).
4. I begin a discussion at Talk:LGB Alliance on October 26, which FormalDude follows me to 24 hours later. Again, this is FormalDude's first & only edit to that article, offering a contrarian perspective to one I offered. At this point, I'd had enough, and challenge them on their tendentious editing behavior. FormalDude responds they had been "watching this page for months" and that they have "zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you", which was so ridiculous I had to post Dr. Evil's Riiiight meme in response.
5. As pointed out above, I'm not the only user FormalDude has exhibited this behavior towards. They are currently engaged in a content dispute at Talk:Kanye_West#Removing_"most_influential"_from_the_lede with several editors. FormalDude follows one of those editors to an AfD discussion that user initiated. Once again, they vote in opposition to that user.

• Other disruptive behavior

Aside from all this, FormalDude has been accused of WP:SUPERVOTING with regards to their closure at this Business Insider RfC, which is the RfC that began this chain of events for me back in August. FormalDude's closure was overturned, and it was later discovered they had voted in favor of Business Insider at a previous RfC. FormalDude has also repeatedly ([137] & [138]) called an IP "fuck-face", even after it was removed as a "personal attack". User also removed a potential suicide note from Talk:Suicide without even leaving the perfunctory "Wiki Cares" notice at the IP's talk page because the message was "borderline" suicidal, despite knowing that Talk:Suicide "is a page that attracts a lot of threats." [139]

There's also this, where FormalDude appears to have reported a user to AN for editing an article in line with RfC consensus. From my reading of that thread, FormalDude tagged the user with a DS notice prior to unilaterally adding a DS notice to the article talk page. When the other user edited to reinstate the RfC-approved version of the article, FormalDude then edit warred against the RfC consensus. FormalDude then brought the issue to AN hoping for a better outcome: a clear cut case of WP:SYSTEMGAMING.

I think a forced time-out is the only thing that will make this user change their persistent, foul-mouthed, months-long disruptive behavior. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• So much incorrect here, I'm not even going to engage it. For context, Homeostasis has been holding a grudge against me that is borderline harassment ever since I filed an ANI report on them over a year ago. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing here is incorrect or misconstrued in any way. All easily provable via the diffs. It was you who called an IP a fuck face. It was you who was accused of supervoting in one of your AfD closures. It was you who demonstrably made the decision to follow multiple users through their contributions page to other RfC/AfD noms. And, for the record, the only reason I'm still aware of your existence is you tendentiously following and harassing me at multiple pages for 4 freaking months. If there's no apology and a guarantee to never engage in this behavior again, you deserve a permanent ban. This is the last thing I will ever say to you directly. Because I'm done. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Homeostasis says they won't talk to me ever again, so can we make that official with a one-way IBAN then? ––FormalDude (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is typical argumentative snark from this user. Rather than engaging, they do this. I've never been more convinced that this user needs a permanent site ban. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not being argumentative, I think a one-way IBAN would help Homestasis get over their obsession with me.

  Rather than address each falsehood Homeostatis07 has leveled against me here, which would result in an equally long wall of text, I will be happy to answer any questions/concerns that editors may have about any of their misleading accusations. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know about anyone else but I'd be interested in your response to accusations of following editors to unrelated disputes. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for context, FormalDude is quick to accuse editors he's been in content disputes with of holding grudges against him. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• • Oppose siteban - siteban is quite a serious remedy and I do not at all see that it is merited here. It looks like the user has already apologized for edit warring and has indicated they will no longer edit on that problem page. A partial block or a topic ban would be merited before a siteban in my view, if that. Andre🚐 03:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

    They apologized for their behavior at the Kanye West talk page, but have in fact been snarky, dismissive, and have in no way addressed their behavior at a multitude of other pages over the past 6+ months. That being said, a site ban is probably excessive. A 30-day ban is probably a better solution to preventing a repeat of their disruptive behavior. And a two-way IBAN is looking pretty damn good at this stage. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support 30-day block Warning for personal attacks and uncivil behavior. A site ban would be overly harsh, but a month blockwarning will get their attention and should prevent future disruption. Calling someone a "fuck-face" is very inappropriate, and the type of snarky comments he's left recently at Talk:Kanye West is the definition of what can make a content dispute toxic and is disruptive to community collaboration. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Yes, I called an IP who had doxed me at an AfD and was spamming my talk page a "fuck-face" (nearly four months ago). It's hard for me to regret that. However I do regret and did apologize for the recent uncivil comment I made at Talk:Kanye West. That is not my standard behavior and I can promise it won't happen again. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll certainly regress on the fuck-face comment and with the recent eye-opener by Loki I'll change my vote to a warning for uncivil behavior. Just please don't continue with that behavior. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Boomerang: I've been involved in some of these disputes and Homeostasis07 has a tendency to cast these same sorts of WP:ASPERSIONS wildly at anyone they disagree with. The interaction checker they link absolutely doesn't show what they think it does (when I look at it I see two users that barely interact at all; here's my own interaction timeline with FormalDude, which is substantially longer), and in many of the situations they themselves link they are as rude or much ruder than FormalDude (so for instance, the time linked above they accuse FormalDude out of nowhere of stalking them, FormalDude denies it, and they link a sarcastic meme in response). Loki (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  The interaction checker link I posted above was to demonstrate that FormalDude was tendentiously following me to an article, and that their edits in response to me were in 3 of the 4 cases I linked to above their first and only edit to said article. Please post a single diff of me being "rude" to FormalDude these past 4 months. I did post a link to the Dr. Evil "Riiight" meme in response to FormalDude incredulously claiming he had been watching one of those pages "for months" and that they have "zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you". Aside from that? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  So first of all, you demand I post a single diff of a thing that you then immediately post a diff of. Also, the thing you're doing right now in this discussion is called WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  For one, you cast unfounded aspersions against me in a baseless MfD nomination of an essay of mine that you were required to redact by an admin which caused you to falsely accuse them of improperly using CheckUser tools on your account. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar: posting a link to an Austin Powers meme is not "rude", and you've cast wild aspersions of my conduct. FormalDude: I did not falsely accuse "an admin" of running the CheckUser tools on me; instead, I requested confirmation that an admin who has recently been admonished by an ArbCom investigation of misusing the CheckUser tools against another user if they'd ever run the CheckUser tools on me, which is a perfectly acceptable question to ask in those circumstances. Especially since that admin has threatened me twice so far. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 05:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• No action - this is some weak sauce nonsense. I see no hounding ([140]) and only mildly rude comments (save for the one directed at the IP). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

UNHRC talk page

I am trying to improve the UNHRC talk page and I have an editor who I have warned to stop reverting my posts. He refuses to2603:8081:6B04:5300:1102:5512:B8A5:136A (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You have never edited the UNHRC page. What is your logged in account? Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

See this above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_User. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing after final warning, inadequate sources at Cancer (astrology)

First 93.182.104.40 (talk · contribs) and then 93.182.104.56 (talk · contribs), which both locate to Turkey, have been adding material to Cancer (astrology) with either inadequate or no sources. Warnings about the sourcing have been given by myself and Some1 (talk · contribs), including a final warning. The editor initially engaged in discussion but after an RFC didn't go his/her way reintroduced his/her preferred version. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In the IP's most recent edits, they added this statement [141] then added this [142] as a reference for it, but the source used doesn't support that statement. Some1 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Peleio Aquiles on Talk:Libs of TikTok

User has frequently sparked edit disputes and talk page wars on this page, going to the point of insulting other editors to a degree. I suggest PBing them from the Libs of TikTok Page to prevent further issues and disputes. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what is happening in the entry. I am not sparking any such disputes; on the contrary, I'm respond to the attempts of another user, Korny O'Near, to remove sourced content from the entry using frankly bad arguments and misrepresenting policy guidelines. Korny O'Near has already been discussed in the Administrator's boards before for his participation in Talk:Libs of TikTok, including for his usage of WP:BLUDGEON, his attempt to overwhelm other editors with replies in the Talk Page of that article, and his attempt to defend the validity of anti-LGBT conspiracy theories such as the groomer slur as directed to LGBT support groups like the Trevor Project. User:Horse Eye's Back was part of those debates; I hope they can confirm what I'm telling about the nature of the debates Korny provokes. Rather than ban me, it's rather Korny who should long have been impeded from editing on LoTT and all other LGBT-themed entries due to both his disruptive editing and baseless insinuations about LGBT people. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In terms of letter there's something to learn from Korny, they are very very good at camping out right on the line without going over it. I do not however suggest that you emulate them in spirit, I think your heart is definitely in the right place and as much as I wish a solution to that page's seemingly intractable problems were that simple Pbing you (or Korny, or both) is not going to prevent further issues and disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"I would stop insulting you if you just agreed with me" is not a great defense, really holds true, although I am not educated on the content details here and so I have no position on who's "right". Equating the phrase "typically moronic and boring" to "criticism", as the editor in question did here, also isn't great. casualdejekyll 18:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion that prompted PerryD to write this thread, is, I think, over now, with Korny finally admitting, after three days of debate, that the description of LoTT as anti-LGBT is now sourced well enough to his satisfaction: [143]. Bear in mind that user Korny already knew there was at least one other reliable source for that description, but decided to provoke the debate anyway -- proof, I think, of his disruptive, WP:BLUDGEONing debate style. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Peleio Aquiles, Wikipedia has very high standards for how we treat each other, much higher than most other websites. If you keep criticizing other users, you will eventually get banned, and I don't think any of us want that to happen. I suggest you give WP:CIVIL a careful read and maybe edit less contentious pages for a while. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by SPECIFICO, and continuation of generally unpleasant editing

SPECIFICO frequently exhibits WP:GAMING-the-system behavior with their edits, and is generally making the AP2 topic area an unpleasant one to edit in. In trying to keep this notice short, I gathered evidence only of behaviors they exhibit which are among the clear examples on that guideline of what not to do:

• Filibustering the consensus-building process by sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected
  • Consensus 1, and their edit against
  • Consensus 2 (RFC), and their edit against, right after the RFC closed.
• Using policies to prove a WP:POINT that they had previously emphatically argued against. Here they argued that 24hr-BRD was needed to prevent certain behaviors allowed by 1RR, and here's an edit where they "insist on their own edits, without due collaboration".
• Always muddying the waters in disputes
  • Encouraging tangents: [144] [145]
  • Not materially addressing issues: [146] [147] [148] [149] [150]
• Often quotes policy in discussion (or edit summaries) without explaining why it's relevant [151] [152]; on the converse, they frequently claim "policy is on my side" without linking to any policy [153] [154] [155].
• Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a to support a view which does not in fact match or comply with policy.
  • Saying I had violated 24-hr BRD with an edit, nearly 2 months after talk page discussion took place.
• WP:STONEWALLING by repeatedly pushing their viewpoints, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution
  • Reverting edits, claiming no consensus.
  • Reverting edits, with insufficient reasoning.
• "Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.
  • Particularly with 1RR/3RR: “ never violates the three-revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.” [156] [157] [158]
  • Another 1RR case – sequentially reverted 3 of my contributions very quickly, after I had made a revert that day: [159] [160] [161]
  • And WP:CIVILITY: Various examples noted by participants of this recent AE thread

If any of the above seem like insufficient examples of this behavior, other examples could be provided.

I’m not the first or only editor to make note of bad behavior by this user; their behavior has been scrutinized multiple times at WP:AE filings, with plenty of admins making mention that their behavior is sub-standard to say the least:

• Poor behavior noted by 2 admins
• 2 other admins
• 1 other admin
• 4 more admins

Personally, I don’t know what should be done about this. I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, and don’t know well how enforcement is handled. What I do know is that this editor is not behaving as is apparently expected of a member of this community, and that they’re causing a lot of contention that might otherwise have been avoided. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. IMHO, this should be procedurally closed. If SPECIFICO's editing is judged to have violated DS it should be at WP:AE. It's not at all clear that it has, though. A content dispute is a content dispute. "Encouraging tangents" or "borderlining" AFAIK, are not policy. SPECIFICO is undoubtedly an opinionated editor and has occasionally been warned as such, but I do not think this report has merit Andre🚐 18:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  I was directed to this noticeboard by an admin after explaining the type of case I was trying to bring. If there's no good noticeboard to call editors out for WP:GAMING, then why is it a behavioral guideline at all? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect to that admin, you also asked them a hypothetical question without details or evidence. And same admin had previously opined that a warning was due on the AE post you linked above. AN/I can be used for clearer-cut cases, which in my opinion, this is not. Andre🚐 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have a recommendation of the correct noticeboard for a filing like this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, short of an AE report, WP:DRN might be a better venue Andre🚐 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Entirely appropriate venue This is certainly not the first, and without action will not be the last, time that Specifico has been brought here for exactly this kind of uncivil behaviour. As Andrevan is not an admin, and was obliged to resign his former privileges in view of the unanimous acceptance of the case for an AE hearing for not dissimilar behaviour on his part, he may not be the best judge of the appropriate venue and whether or not it is merely a content dispute (which is evidently not the case). Cambial — foliar❧ 20:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  My case from 4 years ago is entirely unrelated to this. I have a statement about it here: User:Andrevan/2018 but it is not relevant at all to this Andre🚐 21:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• correct venue, should be addressed by Admins This is a repeated problem over and over and over with SPECIFICO and needs to be appropriately addressed by Admins. WP:CIVIL is a policy. Please enforce it accordingly. Likewise, Cambial, Andre's point stands or falls on its own merits. Keep it civil. Your comment is unwarranted/casting aspersions inappropriately. Buffs (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This entire filing by the OP seems to rest on a claim of stonewalling an RfC, but Specifico is not the only editor to call attention to the just plain bad close it. Even an admin, Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#"Belonged_to", has noted that the finding of that rfc has introduced a blatant contradiction into the article. Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, Zaathras, read the whole case. This is more than just a content dispute over the results of that RFC, and I provided plenty of diffs which cover various content across multiple articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The crux of this is the Hunter Biden laptop article, with meaningless tangents like this and past AE filings sprinkled in. What this is, is throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Zaathras (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I notice it took you only 3 minutes to review the whole case and come to that conclusion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What you think you noticed isn't relevant to me. It takes little time to see that many of the diffs are either to the laptop article, or to events that predate this user's most recent Arbitration Enforcement case of Nov 20, 2022. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, I mean this in good faith and with due respect, but replying to everything in this thread is not going to be conducive to your desired outcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - you're right. With the exception of that last one, I meant to limit myself to replying strictly for clarifications. Not trying to bludgeon the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• This would be a lot easier to read if so many diffs weren't three and four months old. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies if it's difficult to read - like I said, I tried to keep it as short as I could by focusing on what appeared to be clear violations. With regard to the age of some diffs, I've tried not to immediately jump straight to enforcement whenever this behavior was noted. Since it now seems like enforcement is the best option, I've had to search out some old diffs. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of your refs go back to 2020. It looks like you are citing articles that are already cited at an ongoing AE filing of which you are a part and appear to be impatient about closure. It makes no sense to add this in this forum while it is at AE. If you want (although I would advise against it), you can add this to the current AE discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, on second look, it doesn't appear to be open. But, this does seem to repeat stuff, including old stuff that has already been considered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's not forum-shopping per se since no active thread is open, but it's duplicative of the closed AE thread, and I still think AE is the right venue to report DS violations. This page is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." This is obviously not an urgent incident, I think we're obviously being presented with the latter. However if the AE of the similar leads to a warning I don't understand what action is being advocated for here nor do I see anything clearly actionable other than very contentious political argumentation. Andre🚐 22:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the AE thread-in-question wasn't closed. It was archived, with no apparent decision from administrators. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected: in which case I believe that thread should be re-opened so administrators can take a stance on the evidence presented by PhotogenicScientist. Do you agree? Andre🚐 22:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be up to Photo, @Mr Ernie: or any other editor who wishes to reopen it. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think reopening would be prudent. Thryduulf can unarchive or a participating admin can log a warning if they wish. But, the conclusion appears obvious and this has nearly the same effect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we protect some articles during Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Should we protect Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast ?

Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Kherson Oblast was protected per enforcement of WP:ARBEE. Lemonaka (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It is typical for pages not to be preemptively protected just because they are in the news. WP:RFPP for temporary semi-protection if there is persistent vandalism. Andre🚐 03:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Reymundo Hernandez

Can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a feeling Reymundo Hernandez isn't happy about something. Clues: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Looking at their talk page warnings, it could even be they're not here with the best of motives? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah no. I only looked at the very final diff above and that was enough. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that final one should be revdelled. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Done. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What's also amazing is in their entire Wiki career they only had 29 edits (including the deleted ones), but managed 13 threads of messages on their talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Simple Problem Only I.P User:46.218.170.110

46.218.170.110 has only been removing major vital informatiom from articles, more specifically todays FA. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: If you've warned them (and it looks like you have), this should probably be reported to WP:AIV ButlerBlog (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced changes by MoussaCB and IP

• MoussaCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.26.171.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly added the same unsourced stuff to the Algerian Air Force article, despite being warned several times against it: [162], [163], [164]. The same user also edits using an IP address: [165], [166], [167], [168], [169]. MoussaCB and the IP are definitely the same person, as the former has already answered a message left on the latter's talk page. I think a block is warranted at this point. BilletsMauves^€500 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

They really seem to be working in good faith, but I'm afraid WP:CIR seems to be becoming an issue. I'm not sure I'm ready to block yet, but have you tried explaining in some more detail about what is the problem with their edits? Most of the warnings have been either very terse or have been standard templates. Sometimes, new users don't understand such things and need to have their hands held a bit more. --Jayron32 19:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Breaking the rules

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

---

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

Violates project rules, introduces information without sources. Blocked several times for waging wars in the article Ingush people. Tries to enter information from the YouTube channel. Several times the participants warned that these are not Authoritative sources. The participant clearly knows that he violates the rules of the project. I invited him to the article's discussion page, zero reaction continues to wage war. Товболатов (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Pay attention began to insult the administrator and me. Despite the warning from the administrator, the edit wars continue. here--Товболатов (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Ymblanter --Jayron32 19:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Contributions to support Wikipedia.

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

---

Every year you ask me for money and every year I give you all I can afford. I am a senior widow living on Social Security yet I contribute more to you than any other causes but still I have a hard time using Wikipedia because I get a big blurb in front of everything so that I can’t read what I’m looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8482:15C0:9C42:2CB9:9892:2658 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The fundraising ads are created by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by the volunteers who edit Wikipedia and who run this notice board. We very much appreciate your support and hope it continues, but we have no control over the banner ads.--agr (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec) We do not want you to give money if you cannot afford to. We editors have nothing to do with the donation requests, which are from the Foundation collecting the funds. If you create an account, you can disable the donation requests. Otherwise, there is no way to know that the person sitting at the computer has seen a request or donated. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

To restate what people have said above, the big blurb should go away if you create an account. It should be fairly easy for you to create an account but if you run into difficulties, WP:ACC can help get you set up. --Yamla (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't give money--there are plenty of articles that describe how Wikimedia has plenty of $. There are much better causes to support out there. See: (wapo) [170] Edit: that this is still up is commendable. Respect, and a reason why this project is worth not giving up on. I Agree with the poster below who says the best way to contribute is to edit (productively and nondisruptively) as there are MANY articles in need of improvement, sometimes dearly. Those problems can't be fixed with money (money will likely make them worse). 2600:1012:B022:12CF:29E6:2AE2:8933:9FA6 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are on a limited income, there is no need for you to donate. According to Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics, the Wikimedia Foundation has assets of nearly 240 million dollars. A better way for you to help would be to improve some articles. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Y'know, <soapbox> it just feels so wrong for an elderly pensioner to feel conned into donating and having to create an account to suppress the banners. I know, I know, tons of non-profits do it. No need to point me to VPWMF, have read the RFC on banners etc. Just wish we could do better for our less tech-savvy readers </soapbox>. There is no good solution. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is this ANI report about? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Misleading daytime commercials about how you can sponsor a starving Wikipedia editor? It should be closed. 2600:1012:B001:42A6:69F9:216A:3DB2:3299 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Registered users can open Preferences/Banners and click the Fundraising flag to turn it off. There are no downsides to registration. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that this report can be closed as more suited to the helpdesk, I will climb on a soapbox for a minute first. I have seen at first hand elderly relatives on fixed incomes responding to fundraising solicitations from worthy causes, to the point that they were draining their resources to respond to every plea for money. Intentionally or not, fundraising appeals often prey on vulnerable people, and it is familiar and discouraging to see someone who feels compelled to donate. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Granny3isagoodgame

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

---

Hello English wikipedia, his article in Wikipepia in WP:UP, need delete his WP:UP, thanks. СтасС (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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