Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 31 July 2023

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

HazaraHistorian

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

I believe I've given this user more than enough WP:ROPE.

I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" which have led to much of this disruption.

• Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even . Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here . That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian here , trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source , the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara . In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
• Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
• Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

Based on this, I would wager there are probably more edits where they have mixed sources with their own words.

And here are some of their grim remarks (WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS):

• "Why is there an Iranian editing Turkic pages and calling them Persian? Wtf is this Misplaced Pages so biased"

• "So the HistoryOfIran guy removes cited sources but allows un cited sources that say Ghurids were Tajiks 💀💀💀" (spoiler, I have done no such thing, that mention of me was completely random as well, hadn't been in contact with them for some time or done anything controversial in that article, unless reverting random IPs altering/removing sourced info counts)

• "Literally no sources of it saying it’s a Tajik dynasty, please stop disturbing pages and abusing your admin privileges" (spoiler, everything was sourced in the body of the article, which they couldn't even bother to check, or maybe they did see it and WP:JDLI followed)

When I told them (again) to stop attacking me , they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for HazaraHistory to respond to this thread, but I'm not seeing much which inspires confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The book I cited literally mentions some Hazaras being Karluk, it don’t know if you can tell, but Qarluk is Karluk but with a q, without any sources you can see the connection. I also have DNA prove from Vaha duo distancing but idk if Misplaced Pages allows them to be uploaded. He adds that the Ghurid Dynasty is of Tajik origin, which is really disputed and there are many sources that say it is a Turkic Dynasty, I can provide them too. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Another thing is I only have/use 1 IP address, I never used a different ip to make edits. I even didn’t use a different ip when I was banned earlier. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For the Ghaznavid edit I’m not sure if I did anything wrong about the Middle East part, but I’m sure I didn’t do anything wrong with the Karluk part since I cited 2 sources of Ghaznavids being Karluk, if he doesn’t know that it’s clear that Ghaznavids were of Kalruk slave origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes. HazaraHistorian (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Before Bloop was sock blocked, the interaction between them and Hazara was triggering my spidey sense. Dropping the analyzer if helpful to anyone assessing. Note, I'm not saying HIstorian is a sock, I just think there was shenanigans present before Bloop was IDed as a sock. Star Mississippi 20:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  IK bloop, he has a TikTok account that makes racist vidoes against Hazaras, (Redacted). HazaraHistorian (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Today was yet another WP:OR POV addition made by HazaraHistorian, continuing their attempt to connect the Hazaras to certain Turkic groups and vice-versa --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Did you even see the picture? You keep saying tried to connect which is funny. You clearly have no understanding of Hazara tribes and their origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS . I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You advise me not to comment on you but you comment on me HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HoI is commenting on your behavior. And you're doing a great job of demonstrating that your behavior is in conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@HazaraHistorian The matter at hand is whether you understand Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research. Your edits appear to demonstrate that you do not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HazaraHistorian's recent addition of "Origins" to the Ghaznavid article. The talk page discussion received no response, after I quoted from the source they provided(which made no mention of the middle east) and then I provided sources stating unequivocally the origins of Sabuktigin(ie. Ghaznavids). I would have to say HazaraHistorian does not understand original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Uzbek.Patriot101, a blocked user and sock just posted this in response to my ANI thread about their random WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, where they said the following; "I know who HistoryofIran is because I also have another friend who is a editor and wiki editor HazaraHistorian he told me about HistoryofIran.". Uzbek.Patriot101 is also the sock of Darkl1yy, who created the Karakhanid-Samanid war , whose deletion thread HazaraHistorian protested against here in the ANI thread: "Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  sigh We're going to wind up with another WP:CTOP around Turkey eventually... — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The premise of the complaint seems to be that the cited source does not support the claim Hazara's are of Turkic origin. I note the source is 290 pages of dense text. As far as I can tell, most of the editors piling upon the editor don't have a particular expertise in Hazara community or geneology, and are quick to accept that this 290 page volume does not support this claim. The simple solution would be for to a ask User:HazaraHistorian to provide the relevant page for citation. Jagmanst (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not the premise, sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked HazaraHistorian indefinitely. Behavior in the above discussion alone, even without considering the evidence provided by HoI, shows a clear lack of understanding of OR and a similarly clear intent to forge onward regardless. I considered whether it would be more appropriate to call for a topic ban on Turkic history (or equivalent), but upon reviewing their contribution history, it's clear that they are a SPA with respect to this topic (even their username would arguably be a violation of any reasonable topic ban here), have made few if any contributions that would make a case for them as a net-positive as an editor; I don't see how a topic-ban would be worth the bureaucracy in this situation. _signed, Rosguill 03:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 and incivility

Hello. A few days ago, I opened a requested move at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). While I have seen some valid arguments opposing my proposed move to Bill O'Reilly and the idea of it being a primary topic (the only other page that exists under this name is one about an Australian cricketer), one user at the talk page, User:HiLo48, has felt the need to make fun of others who disagree with them, making comments about how they will "mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket," as well as calling those who lack knowledge about cricket "parochial Americans." Personally, I believe this is unacceptable and violates the core policy of WP:CIVILITY, and while I have tried to explain to them that they should be commenting specifically on why the move itself wouldn't work, and not make fun of others who disagree, they seem to be set in their ways about mocking the sentiments of those who disagree with them. I didn't want to take this here, but their comments about how, among other things, American contributors should "learn more about the world outside of borders" seem unnecessarily rude, and they certainly have no place in a page move discussion, regardless of how "ridiculous" it might be to them. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

JeffSpaceman, I'd just rise above HiLo48's potshots, as tedious as they may be. Continuing to engage with this person will waste your time because, unlike you, HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level.

The page move decision will be on consensus, not the volume or tenor or one person's posts.

I'm not an admin; they may decide otherwise. --A. B. 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice -- I think I will take it and stop engaging with them. I am trying to get through to them and assume good faith (as I try to with a lot of people on here), but that clearly just isn't working. Thank you for your kind words. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level." Basically, HiLo48 is behaving like a troll, intentionally trying to provoke you. Please try not to answer in kind, because emotional outbursts never end well in Misplaced Pages. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment JeffSpaceman has also fallen for the classic trap of not checking the archives before proposing a move that has been shot down on multiple occasions. HiLo48 may be slightly glib at talk but the truth is that the American newsreader Bill O'Reilly simply isn't globally relevant enough to make this move. At best he's a washed up former debate partner to Jon Stewart and a generally disgraced journalist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will admit fault at not checking the archives, since I tend to just check whatever is currently on the talk page (something that typically works for me on pages that aren't updated as relatively regularly as O'Reilly's, but clearly didn't work this time). At the same time, I don't believe that HiLo48's snarking is a good way to go about it, since civility is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. Personally, I think that there are better ways of getting the opinion that they hold across (including in ways that other users who have opposed have used as reasoning). JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

While I doubt that this thread will result in any sort of formal action being taken, it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could go to Hilo's talk page and explain why it is not appropriate for them to mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket or refer to other editors as parochial Americans. These are bright-line violations of our civility policy and they clearly run afoul of the collaborative spirit required here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to block people for bludgeoning, incivility, or discrimination based on where someone is from. I don't really see that here, though. I just see someone threatening to do that. If that happens, I'll block or topic ban. I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics, and I think maybe the topic area needs to be cleared out. If anyone is tempted to engage in dramamongering, they should consider this before posting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, are you saying that HiLo48’s comments are OK and that JeffSpaceman is to blame? His proposal, even if ultimately not the best, certainly is within the realm of reasonable. It seems tendered in good faith. His reactions to HiLo48 seem civil. HiLo48’s don’t. As for American politics, I’m sure the majority of Americans would also like the drama dialed down in the U.S.

As for your comment, ”I think maybe the topic area needs to be cleared out” - what are your intentions? A. B. 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. More dramamongering. Did JeffSpaceman threaten to bludgeon or mock anyone? If not, what I wrote probably doesn't apply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: No; but they don't seem too fond of being reminded of their own responsibilities in the area; I imagine it's more satisfying getting one's opponents hung out to dry at ANI. While they can do what they like with AC/DS notices, of course, it's always interesting to see how positive a response is. Or not, as the case might be. SN54129 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, they did snap back on Simonm223's talk page, and I interpreted "I am not going to explain this a second time" as enough of a threat to check whether or not they were an administrator (to see if they would or could follow through on such a threat), but I agree that none of this rises to the level of warranting action. While "parochial" (as in Wiktionary's description, "characterized by an unsophisticated focus on local concerns to the exclusion of wider contexts") is absolutely a correct descriptor for Americans of the belief that their pet newsbarker exceeds in notability a top athlete in a sport of intense popularity pretty well everywhere else on the planet, it's still an insult even if in jest, and Wikipedians should not be throwing it at other Wikipedians for any reason. All of that being said, calling attention to drama is rarely a suitable approach to squelching it. Can we all agree to go do something else? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I will say that I shouldn't have said the "I am not going to explain this a second time." I think I was just angry with what you correctly point out is an insult that should not be used against other users on here. I appreciate your forthright approach here, Ivanvector. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I left Hilo a note and I hope they'll consider it. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here's a question I have to ask though - and I know it's irrelevant to the general policies at a RM discussion, but this sort of thing always bugs me. When someone types "Bill O'Reilly" into Misplaced Pages, looking for the (incredibly famous) cricketer or one of the other people at the dab page - do we really want to say to them "no, the one you're looking for is this guy who if you don't live in the USA you've probably never heard of, and who is best known for inventing sensational news stories and abusing women"? I'd say we probably don't. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"" "I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics" O'Reilly is not particularly relevant to politics, American or otherwise. He is just a former television presenter and a notorious hack writer, whose main claim to fame is a series of scandals concerning non-consensual sex. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I accept the premise. I have no stake in the RM, but you're asserting without proving that the cricketer is more famous than the media personality. Leaving aside any question of morality (e.g. who should be better known), how do we know that? The page views point the other way. The media personality article exists in 32 languages, against 9 for the cricketer. If this speaks to the outsize influence of American media on the rest of the world, then I apologize, but we have to take the world as we find it. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  However, are we a popularity site or a work of reference? As I asked in the RM, should a musical act that lasted all of seven years be the primary topic over a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept, just because of pageviews? Zaathras (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you said it yourself. I don't think anyone would make that argument. If they did, I don't think it would convince many people. The example is inapposite. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Editors are literally making that argument now, to rename the article based only on pageview arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  With Bill O'Reilly yes, we're speaking of two men, one alive, one dead, who lived within a few decades of each other. Pageviews may well be relevant since we can't evaluate lasting importance. Your analogy, involving a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept and a recent rock band, doesn't speak to this issue, and that's what I was responding to. By all means, if Nirvana gets moved on the strength of pageviews I'll reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, in a way we can. The cricketer last played an international match 77 years ago and is still talked about as one of the best players in the second-most popular sport in the world. I'd be very surprised if the "political commentator" that has more pageviews (because controversy and being American) is likely to be remembered 77 years after his last rant on the Internet - wouldn't you? Indeed, if pageviews weren't being taken into account here, I'd say the cricketer should be at the base article name. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ehh we’ll cross that bridge in c. 77 years Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  In 77 years, I hope someone still remembers Bill O'Reilly's exceptional performance in the field of falafel-based sexual harassment. --JBL (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  ...I don't even want to ask. SnowRise 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: Oh, this is so worth knowing about :). See the end of section 78 of the first harassment lawsuit (NSFW) against him. --17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) JBL (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: I'm fairly sure I've heard a number of people making arguments that the programming language should be the primary topic for Java based mostly on page view type arguments. At the very least people have said there is no primary topic. Edit: I initially posted this on my phone so didn't bother to check the history but now I'm not I checked and sure enough it was about 14 months ago that a move was proposed on that premise . True the specific claim of the programming language being the primary topic got FWIW no support (the closer said "Pretty much a snowball close", I don't actually see anyone other than the proposer who supported it). There was however a bit more support there being no primary topic (albeit at least some was abandoned) and you can see the several previous proposals listed in the history which again were mostly of the no primary topic variety but with some the programming language is the primary topic variety. While you might argue the failure of these RMs proves that the community will get it right, I'd argue that the persistence of these good faith but clearly flawed proposals does demonstrate why people tend to get annoyed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 08:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne Yes. An assumption of good faith means that a clearly flawed RM springs from ignorance, not malice. It's an opportunity to educate, not belittle, and the community generally gets move requests right, or at least not wrong. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: I don't disagree on the need to educate. OTOH, it's also true that editors, especially editors with some experience, really need to consider some variant of WP:BEFORE, so when making a proposal that common sense would suggest has surely been made before, really should look into the previous discussions and consider how likely it is is things will be different this time. And if they can't find them, perhaps rather than jumping straight into an RM, first asking hey am I missing something, why are our articles titled this way? More importantly though IMO your earlier comment makes it sounds like such things never happen, no one ever proposes them and they will never pass. In reality we have IMO clear evidence they are at least proposed. And actually I'm fairly sure some cases involving more minor examples have passed. Some of these may have eventually been fixed. Some of them are probably still like that and may one day be fixed but haven't been yet. There's no reason to think the contrary since flawed community decisions happen all the time especially when there is low participation and the significance may not be obvious. Or to put it a different way while HiLo48's comments were IMO way way over the line (as unfortunately they often are) and exceedingly unhelpful, your comments here were IMO far less extreme but at least partly in the same vein. I mean if you want to argue that the Bill O'Reilly case is dissimilar, that's fine you're entitled to make such an argument. But to be so dismissive of the good faith concerns of others as you did above is also unhelpful when experience with Misplaced Pages should tell you even before I provided an IMO reasonably equivalent example that it has happened before, and will happen again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I said my comment is probably irrelevant to policy, I was more theorising about an IAR "what should we do" scenario. Having said that, looking at the RM the status quo is likely to be upheld anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, yes, we do want that. We're not here to judge (and especially not to influence) what are the most likely to be searched topics; our role is, once the most likely topic is reasonably determined, to get the most readers to the information they're looking for with the least amount of effort. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already covers the hypothetical case that Bill O'Reilly the Fox News personality is a much more (like, a lot more) likely topic amongst readers globally than Bill O'Reilly the accomplished cricketer, but that's not the case here. Disregarding the guideline over a morality panic would not be a good use of IAR. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've both disagreed with and defended HiLo48 on and off for about 14 years. It may be cultural for them to have rough-and-tumble conversations, including with friends. I find them to be refreshingly blunt without all of the underlying vitrol and clever wiki-warfare that underlies most of our drama situations. Not saying that that should make anything OK, but it's useful to understand it in that context. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversely, IMHO HiLo48 should also calibrate. Understand that what may be OK routine rough and tumble conversation in other venues might be the equivalent of tossing hand grenades in the Misplaced Pages venue. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

An interesting, unusual dynamic in this dispute: each Bill O'Reilly is very important and noteworthy to a passionate, large group (hundreds of millions). Almost every member of one group has no interest in or even knows of the other Bill O'Reilly. The circles in the Venn Diagram are huge, flamboyantly colored and barely touch, let alone overlap.

--A. B. 22:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that William Joseph O'Reilly is deceased (and therefore incapable of political commentary), obviously the best resolution here would be for Misplaced Pages editors to convince William James O'Reilly Jr. to take up cricket. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How many times does this topic come up? Surely at some point we need to do something. I've dealt with this editor many times and although I can get a little dry in my humour, at least I play the ball and not the man. I find wikipolicy generally settles disputes, not raising one's voice and making discussion so unpleasant that the abuser wins by default.

If we use this sort of procedure to create our encyclopaedia then it shows and well-meaning newbies are scared off. On that point, HiLo seems to take a particular delight in "welcoming" new editors by making comments about their mistakes, often using some sort of passive aggression to boot home the message and making assumptions about motives, if not morals.

I appreciate the sort of wikignome work he does tirelessly and without complaint but perhaps a little more tolerance of fellow editors wouldn't hurt. Can we get a commitment to be nicer, or are we going to be reading the same old anti-American diatribes again and again? Doesn't that come under the heading of racism? Do we tolerate that sort of thing? --Pete (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I said somewhere in the sea of words above that throwing fuel on the fire is a poor way to deal with drama, and calling anything that happened here "racism" is exactly that. It is a very long way off from racism to note the documented tendency of the archetypal American to be disinterested or entirely unaware of the world happening outside of their own borders, as discussed for example in The Hill, The benefits of American disinterest in world affairs; Washington Post, Do Americans care about the rest of the world?; The University of Buffalo, Researcher says Americans are "deluded" regarding what they know about the rest of the world; Pew Research Center, The problem of American exceptionalism; Council on Foreign Relations, Americans lack knowledge of international issues yet consider them important; or Forbes, The American public's indifference to foreign affairs. It is also not racism, and frankly not a personal attack, to challenge an argument on the basis of it being grounded in this noted American parochialism, though as I said using it as an ad hominem crosses a very bright line. That said: calling this incident racism is just inflammatory rhetoric, whether you intended it or not, and not only does it not help to solve anything happening here, it also cheapens genuine discussions about real, systemic, institutionalized oppression. That is in fact an incredibly serious issue, and the term deserves not to be thrown around casually and haphazardly like this. I must also note here that baselessly accusing editors of racism crosses that same very bright line.

As for HiLo48, they're aware of this discussion, and hopefully will absorb the criticism of their approach (although their most recent responses seem to indicate they instead feel justified in their "blunt" approach, which this non-American administrator suggests they should not). If they're also causing problems for new editors I have not seen evidence of it, but if they are they need to knock it off yesterday. Many an editor who felt their collection of contributions outweighed the civility policy have had that opinion noted in their block log. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just sweep it all under the carpet. Again. Until some well-meaning editor runs afoul of some harsh comments. Again.

I chose that word carefully. Here is an extract from WP:NPA:

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

The colour of one's skin or the colour of one's passport; in the eyes of Misplaced Pages it is all one when derogatory remarks are directed against another editor. This is one of our fundamental pillars.

Americans are a diverse bunch. I have many American friends and family and for every one of them who disagrees with my politics there are others who are shoulder to shoulder. Some are insular, some are well-versed in the world, some are this and some are that.

I make the point that Americans who are also Misplaced Pages editors might be reasonably accepted as having views and attitudes that are broader and better-informed than the average. I'll accept that many Americans are insular and ignorant of the wider world. But that is definitely not true of many Americans of my acquaintance and I suggest that American Wikipedians are more open to other views, other eyes, other minds than the mass, simply by being part of the project. There is a degree of self-selection in play.

I am chided for adding fuel to the fire. A valid point, but if so, then just what has HiLo been doing for years and years but just exactly that? There seems to be no capacity for acceptance and repentance and understanding on just how hurtful his remarks might be. Passions rise, discussion becomes inflamed, and we end up dealing with the fire here on a regular basis.

I'm not seeking to raise the temperature here with ill-advised comments. I'm looking to find out the truth and I think a big part of the truth in general Misplaced Pages editing is disruption caused by heated personal attacks. What goes on in this forum is - by definition - out of the main stream of routine editing. Can we at least work towards making Misplaced Pages a safer, more welcoming, cooperative place for editors of all levels of experience and nationality? --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that HiLo’s comments are obnoxious and casually xenophobic, but they barelyrise to the level of offensive conduct. What are we even supposed to do here? Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the long term behaviour. Offensive to other editors, unable to accept there is a problem, unwilling to accept that there is a community setting the standards and enforcing the rules.

We accept all manner of views and reasons for editing and styles of participation. That's fine. His participation is as welcome as anyone else's.

But we can't have someone ignoring one of our basics - WP:NPA - if they also set themselves up as a sort of wikipoliceman as this guy does with his "welcomes" to new editors who offend him for whatever reason.

He's not participating here in this forum because he knows that if he says nothing, it will all go away and he can keep on driving his own bus the same way it's happened dozens of times before. Until it happens again.

I'd like to see a commitment to lift his game, and I'd like to see that backed up by the community of editors who don't want to see the disruptive behaviour continue.

I don't know how that's going to happen, though. Look at his user page. He is one of those people who melts down when shown that the facts contradict their opinions and it is just heartbreaking to see such anguish.

I don't have the deft touch to steer him calmly into safe waters. As a diplomat I make a good hockey player. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo's behavior at the requested move was pretty uncivil. He said that Jeff has a "standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history", as well as is a "parochial American". Directly aimed at Jeff. He called Jeff lacking in knowledge because he's an American. That's a personal attack. HiLo treats the discussion as if having deep knowledge of a subject gives your !vote more weight, and when Iamreallygoodatcheckers said subject knowledge wasn't relevant, he called that "wikilawyering". SWinxy (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48: courtesy break

Before we go running off and closing this thread as no action taken, I want to attest to HiLo's behavior being extremely difficult to work with at WP:ITN. He seems completely incapable of having any sort of civil discussion where he doesn't immediately erupt into bursts of all-caps and shouting. A difference in user conduct is to be expected given differing cultural backgrounds, but some of these diffs go beyond the pale:

You clearly cannot read!!!! My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!! I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. It's pure and blatant US-centrism. - Edit summary: "Stupid argument!!! Can't you read????"

Not another one!!!!! We are getting blurb nominations every few days at present. WE NEED BETTER RULES!!!!!

IT CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!!!! You have been told why. You are asking for the impossible. You are proving nothing with that demand. Read what others say carefully please, think about it, then bugger off!!! - Edit summary reads likewise

WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one.

In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change.

Just a few examples. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s pretty embarrassing conduct that would get a newbie blocked. I think a topic ban from ITN might be necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean yes, ITN/C has its problems. Yes, lots of people don't like ITN and think it ought to be removed from the Main Page. Yes, you can argue there's just as much a civil POV pushing problem going on that page as there is with HiLo's incivility. However, if you look back in history to when he was previously topic banned from ITN for similar comments, this rises to the level of chronic activity. Or is this actually allowable as long as he's telling someone to "bugger off" and not actually calling them a slur? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I read HiLo’s talk page reply anc rant archive userpage and it’s pretty clear that, despite assertions to the contrary, they hold some chauvinistic views towards Americans. Their overall attitude seems combative an incomparable with Misplaced Pages. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip: I looked in the usual places but don't see any record of HiLo48 having been banned from ITN in the past. Do you have a link for that sanction? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Here you go. It was a very long time ago, admittedly, back in 2012 and I had thought it was sooner than that. I'm not certain whether this would lessen the significance of it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing that has changed is he is no longer calling people "fucking morons" so in that sense, this current behavior a significant improvement as it no longer includes direct personal attacks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also found these:

• HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal (ANI October 2011, archived without closure)
• HiLo48 civility (ANI July 2012, ITN topic ban imposed)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/HiLo48 (RFC/U October 2012, closed because HiLo48 refused to participate)
• User:HiLo48 (ANI October 2012, HiLo48's incivility noted as "unnecessary, tiresome and counterproductive" but closed for no admins willing to act after reasonable time)
• HiLo48 block review (ANI February 2013: HiLo48 had been blocked "indefinite (or until this editor demonstrates s/he understands it's not ok to refer to other editors as "nutters" or "fools" per WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE"; indef block endorsed as noted by the closing admin but they reduced it to 7 days anyway))
• Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26 (ANI November 2013, HiLo48 blocked for personal attacks, then unblocked; OOP indeffed)
• HiLo48's incivility (ANI April 2014, closed with no action)
• Personal attacks from HiLo48 (ANI October 2014, closed with no action)

Note that these incidents were all within a span of roughly 3 years between 2011-2014, and their block log also mirrors this period. A common theme in these is a closing admin noting the problematic behaviour but referring the discussion to RFC/U, which was a handy catch-22 as RFC/U would not consider complaints if the user being discussed did not participate, and so in many of these cases action should have been taken but was not. However, there have been no other discussions (other than one which was frivolous, and this one) and no more blocks since December 2014, which suggests either that HiLo48 learned something from being reported so many times, or that the community got tired of reporting an unblockable and having admins pass the buck.

Their recent behaviour at ITN (from WaltCip's diffs) suggests they're returning to their decade-past disruptive outbursts, but it would be a stretch to call this a pattern based on four edits over three months (one of the diffs is a duplicate). I think all that's warranted here is a warning that civility is required regardless of who your opponent is or what you believe their motivations are, and that further incidents will result in blocks. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In general long-term productive editors are given a lot of leeway for obvious bad-faith lashings-out compared to newbies who might get an insta-indef. while in some ways this is understandable (thousands of good edits to one personal attack is a net positive; 100 edits entirely of angry POV warring isn’t) it’s also disturbing that we’re starting to let things like literal vandalism slide from experienced users Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That edit was 7 months ago, but if you wanted to bring it up there's already a thread about that editor on this page. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

…and as you can see it’s closed. I was bringing it up as an example of the abysmal standards we have for behavior from well-established editors. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That example was instantly self-reverted. Do you have other examples? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter that it was self-reverted, in fact that’s basically system gaming because an experienced (or even novice) editor would know there is zero tolerance for vandalism on WP. So vandalism and subsequent “lol just kidding” is still vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This goes back for a while. I only posted those as a current example, but HiLo has recently been posting on and off on ITN for more than a year. This is a sample of some of his behavior and absolutely does not represent the totality of his behavior at ITN/C, which I could certainly compile if I had the time in the day to do so. But if you think a warning - a FIRM warning - will do then so be it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that they keep editing while this discussion continues, but they did not show up here. I am afraid all wishes that they take the criticism onboard are wishful thinking until they show up here and acknowledge the existence of the issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that HiLo48 is watching this. Maybe they're too humiliated to participate? I could sure see why. Their peers are wondering out loud if their future contributions are worth the aggravation of any further bad behaviour.

In any event, if they like editing Misplaced Pages, they should understand that many people are now aware of their negative behaviour and watching. They should understand they've just had their "last bite at the apple" before serious sanctions, even an indefinite block.

They've played their last remaining "but they're a productive editor" pass.

On the plus side, nobody's asking them to do anything exceptional -- just be polite like most everyone else. That's all. They can even secretly despise each one of the 335 million Americas alive on the planet -- they just have to keep it to themselves and treat them like everyone else. A. B. 19:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course he's watching this discussion. He doesn't participate for two reasons:

1. If he doesn't say anything, it will get set aside with no action taken. Like always.

2. He's pants at polite discussion. If someone contradicts him - like with facts and diffs and stuff - he blows up and melts down and lashes out. That sort of behaviour doesn't help when people are discussing his behaviour.

Perhaps he might be induced to make a statement on his talk page or similar protected area where he can feel secure in simply removing responses he feels are upsetting him? -- Pete (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic. It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well that’s… (sunglasses) just not cricket. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I just want to highlight this comment in particular, which was made after most of this ANI discussion. I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans, so they need to defer to people who do know about it. I don't know if this is HiLo's intent, but I read this as saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion or that their input is less valuable on the basis of their nationality, which would be a bright red line on xenophobia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  He didn't say they couldn't participate or that their input is less valuable, just that American editors need to acknowledge their limitations. Like trying to impose the American concept of a "bright red line"; most will recognise this as a gaff, inadvertently proving Hilo's point, but many people around the would would see it as an example of American cultural imperialism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I agree, I would personally not have tried to evoke the silly concept of a "bright red line", which to me evokes thoughts of some recent events that happened on the international stage when America was playing world police. If there is a case to be made against HiLo, this isn't it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  ...What limitations? --Rockstone 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  That most of them don't know about a global sport. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  A global sport that’s only played in the commonwealth because Britain introduced it. Let’s drop the “imperialism” natter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence, and the commonwealth is still all over the world and quite significant; I don't get your point here. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The second part was kind of a response to Hawkeye7, it was admittedly kind of unclear. But I think we’re digressing too much over whether it’s socially acceptable to be ignorant of cricket and not focusing on the fact that this user is frequently uncivil and combative. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Not even sure if I'm posting this comment in the right place with how messy this AN/I is, but purposeful incivility has been an unceasing issue with HiLo48 for years now. As an example to demonstrate this, I recall an interaction with them from nearly four years ago in which they insisted on making all of their comments bolded, uppercase, and with innumerable exclamation marks, was asked kindly to not WP:SHOUT, and responded by specifically stating that they were deliberately being uncivil. I reached out asking that they not be intentionally belligerent, and they responded on my talk with further belligerence, doubled down on their knowing disregard for "precious sensitivities" because shouting (in their opinion) helped them to get what they wanted, and then ignored attempts to close the discussion on my own talk page. And even during (and after) these discussions, it was pointed out by others that this is a longstanding issue with HiLo48's editing. I'm only focusing on such an old example not to dogpile or to focus excessively on old news, but rather to make the point that this not a new problem; it's one that needed correcting a very long time ago, but never was. Comparing how HiLo acted then to how they act today (as seen by the many diffs provided by WaltCip) shows that nothing has changed for the better.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo: How to fix

HiLo hasn't commented; presumably he thinks it's fine to abuse other editors based on nationality.

Because we never do anything about it. --Pete (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I was prepared to say that I too was of two minds on this when reading the initial portion of the thread. On the one hand, context is king, as the old saying goes, and I can see some circumstances in which the comments that are quoted by the OP could be taken in a affable light. But then I actually went and looked at the context. First HiLo apparently said "standard American lack of respect for history" followed up by "That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders" I'm sorry, but how is this not a textbook WP:PA of one of the worst sorts? This is literaly item number one on the list of "types of comments that are never acceptable" (emphasis in original), according to the section of the policy "What is considered to be a personal attack?":

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

This is not sassy "glibness", or blunt straight talk: it's just plain small-minded, bigoted regurgitation of tired stereotypes that serve no function other than to incite outrage in others and signal the speaker's general small-mindedness and willingness to reach for the most offensive representation of another editor's motives: that is a presumption of sheer ignorance on the part of your rhetorical opponent. This kind of behaviour has no place on this project and editors (American or otherwise) are very right to be upset with this and concerned about what it says that we are not nipping this sort of thing in the bud the second the first pair of community eyes falls on it. Do we really not have a single admin here willing to block such a brightline violation of WP:CIV? That surprises me, because there are names attached to mops that I respect in this discussion already. SnowRise 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And let me add that such would be my opinion if I was basing it just upon those comments initially alluded to by the OP. To see it followed by those additional diffs that can only be described as histrionic meltdowns? This seems to be an editor with tonal and self control issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. Indeed, I'm also pretty certain this is not nearly HiLo's first time here when it comes to this kind of thing; I did not participate in previous occasions his conduct was brought here, that I can recall, but I do feel confident in saying I've seen something like "HiLo and civility" in a discussion header here at least a dozen times over the years. Stopping to look at the conduct this time, it's clear why.

I'm not familiar enough with the overall conduct to feel comfortable making a proposal for an appropriate preventative sanction, but if someone else does and it's reasonable, I am prepared to strongly consider support. HiLo could have shown up to defend this cluster of behaviour: their choice not to means I have to assume the pattern will persist if we don't do something. A block, TBANS...something seems called for. We can't let our editors/community members run around making these kinds of comments, stoking nationalistic rhetoric and division, in plain view of everyone. I try to avoid emotive appeals whenever possible, especially in a context like ANI, but honestly, it's an embarrassment that we even have to debate this. If these kinds of comments don't get an administrative or community response, I don't know what the point of having WP:CIV and WP:PA are. I really was starting to feel the community was turning a corner on "popularity armor" when it came to these kinds of issues, but the fact that this hasn't been acted on in the last couple of weeks makes me wonder.

So if an admin is not willing to step in on this on their own onus, let's have an !vote, and we'll see what the community thinks about the idea of casually dismissing another editor by talking about "ignorant/myopic Americans" (or "loud Italians" or "drunken Irish" or "defeatist French" or "violent Africans" or "calculating Asians" or any other easy, stupid, hateful stereotype that we might slot in there). SnowRise 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a random community opinion for you. I don't think much of the idea of casually dismissing an entire race of people in words like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=853625286. This is from an editor who later tried to shoehorn a poor quality source into the Stolen Generations article: ].

Yes, anyone who's been around for a while knows that HiLo and Skyring don't get on. It looks to me like this is dragging on because of Skyring's agitation to get HiLo censured by any means possible. Good on HiLo for not taking the bait.

The notion that Americans have little interest in the world outside their borders is a cheap stereotype but isn't racist. It's well known that Americans are one of the tiniest minnows in international cricket. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to point out the absence of an even vaguely competitive gridiron team in Australia.

But basically we have two editors to contend with here. HiLo is blunt, abrasive and a net positive to Misplaced Pages. Skyring is polite, calm and a net negative to Misplaced Pages. Are we here to build an encylopaedia, or are we here to have a dinner party? Daveosaurus (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a policy, you don't just dismiss with with "are we here to have a dinner party?" and excuse poor behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've heard about Skyring (btw why is his sig "Pete"?)—'s poor behavior, but I have not seen why they are a net negative while HiLo is a net positive. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Some people have too much “fun” creating screwy signatures. Hence why mine has always been the default. Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm more asking why it doesn't violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It pretty clearly does but that’s the least of our concerns here Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Can’t we just censure both for casual racism/xenophobia? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, or if there is no appetite for that for this particular user at this moment in time (which is unfortunate but not entirely unheard of a when a long term editor acts in a thoroughly unacceptable way but makes the conservative tactical choice not to comment here), then the least that should be done is to give a final warning, so the next time it happens, the community's lack of tolerance for any further such is a matter of record. That shouldn't be necessary, mind you, when we are talking about a bigoted screed, but it's better to get half the job done in this thread than nothing at all. (Bearing in mind that I for one would still consider supporting a limited and tailored sanction to get HiLo's attention, but don't get the feeling that's where this is headed). SnowRise 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus above to treat this as a final warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope the closer reaches the same conclusion. I'm still pretty concerned about the milktoast response from the community here, given the specifics of the conduct. SnowRise 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If this is the final warning it must be logged in at the talk page of the user as such. (Not sure why this is final since they have been blocked before, but fine). If it is not logged we will be back here in a couple of months. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, that reasoning is flawed in numerous ways. First off, it's a false choice to suggest we can't address the conduct of both editors in a situation like this. Second, I don't see the value in the suggestion that we should downgrade one editor's clear pattern of abusive language for another--least of all in this kind of area--because it happened to coexist with similar policy violations. Further, as a purely rhetorical/policy matter, it doesn't matter that most Americans take little interest in cricket: the argumentation techniques employed by HiLo here are clearly just stirring the shit: you are meant to comment on the content, the sources, and the policy factors when discussing work on the encyclopedia, not opining on what you perceive to be your rhetorical opponent's failings or gaps in knowledge: even if he had just kept his comments to "Americans know nothing about cricket", that would still be a weak, unconvincing, and problematic discussion style under our policies that should be immediately discouraged. These kinds of comments can do nothing to resolve the content issue and only serve to drag out and personalize things.

But further, and crucially, HiLo went well beyond such unwanted dead-end comments straight into the territory of nationalistic invective. What he said was unambiguously unacceptable: again, it is literally the first, paradigmatic example given at WP:PA for comments that are never acceptable. I don't see the point in arguing whether this is Racist with a capital R; for what it's worth, that's not the first descriptor I would use either (though it's certainly in the same family of observation, make no mistake). It's bigotry, no matter how you slice the rest of the semantic label: the ascribing of supposed personal flaws to a monolithic group. Regardless, it suffices that it is unambiguously against policy, unquestionably a bad faith behaviour, and clearly WP:disruptive. We regularly block on sight new users exhibiting this exact conduct, and I never see any hand-wringing about whether their behaviour was "that bad" when we do.

This combined with the other demonstrations here of a longtime pattern of incivility and losing his cool in a frankly childish manner when confronted with opposition paint the picture of someone who does not respect our community behavioural guidelines, in that the shortfalls between their conduct and what is expected of them has clearly been pointed out to them numerous times. Inaction is clearly enabling this to persist, and the community has recently had declining patience for the "net positive" argument for doing nothing in cases of brightline behavioural issues, for very understandable reasons. If Skyring has done anything nearly as bad as we've seen presented here for HiLo, by all means, let us look at that and consider action there. As to HiLo, I am convinced: this user needs to hear from the community that under no uncertain terms will this trading in comments about the supposed shortcomings of the people of X country be tolerated. It has no place in an open project like this, where inclusion is a mandate and your comments are meant to be avoiding personalizing discussion anyway. SnowRise 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry but it has subsequently emerged he committed a number of atrocious war crimes. By your argument we should overlook the latter because of the former. 1.136.105.123 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC).

I love a good analogy, but it is very easy to slip into reductio ad absurdum with them, as you’ve just proven, IP. — Trey Maturin™ 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclined to agree: an example from such another universe of misdeed that it can only really inflame and muddy the waters. Nevertheless, the underlying point that existed before the IP's hyperbolic example remains: we don't give community members free passes on violations of pillar policies just because they've been here long enough to accrue a body of positive mainspace edits. ...Well, actually, as a community we routinely have in the past, but we shouldn't. SnowRise 21:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Confused Comments

I made the mistake of reading this series of posts, and I either have missed the request for administrative action, or have concluded that there isn't a request for administrative action. This isn't as much of a tentacled monster as the discussion about BHG and her enemies and categories, but it is at least as confusing, because I can't see the call for administrative action. I see that the discussion is mostly about:

• Insults to Americans. (Many Americans ignore national insults.)
• Two people with the same name, a great Australian sportsman, and an American who should be forgotten.
• National differences in sports and in interests in sports.

As soon as User:HiLo48 is mentioned, it seems that the subject gets changed back either to someone else or some other thing about nations.

There are several mostly valid reasons to insult Americans. Ignorance of cricket is not one of them. That sport is international, but is not worldwide. Americans play a different game that has an almost lost common ancestor with cricket, and is also international but not worldwide. It is reasonable to insult an American who is ignorant of another sport of British origin that is worldwide. This month and next, an American who expresses a lack of interest in the worldwide game is probably not so much ignorant as misogynistic.

Is there a request for administrative action, or should this discussion be moved to a subpage or archived or closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How in the world does misogyny come into it??? EEng 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Most American sports fans do not usually follow association football as much as other sports, but will be watching the defending champion United States women's national soccer team in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, unless they don't care for women's sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... about that. As much as I'm a big fan of UConn Huskies women's basketball (about as much as the men's team, this year was a mirror image of the more common outcome for each team), if you want a decent summary of my attitude (which is very representative of Americans) towards women's soccer this should do the trick. I only know anything about it because I heard Sue Bird was on the cover of SI, and... did not know it was the Body Issue (I've never understood the appeal) or that she was married to Megan Rapinoe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is going nowhere except on a grand tour of prejudices and their intersection with sports. Can we just get into the inevitable transphobia and get it over with, or better yet actually discuss the topic at hand? Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a discussion below I think Aaron Liu (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a request to give HiLo a final warning for their insults. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the community has mostly been discussing the side issues, maybe an administrator should give HiLo a final warning as a normal administrative action, and then close this before it becomes another giant squid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest Robert, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. There's no need for some kind of formal "request for administrative action" in order for the community to discuss behavioural issues, and if there was, I would say that it was satisfied by the OPs bringing the matter here in the first place. And while there have been short divergences here and there, the bulk of the above discussion is clearly focused on HiLo's poor record for civility in general and the recent unacceptable PAs in particular: the discussion does not look very "confused" to me at all. further, I think your summary of the conduct a) leaves out a lot of the more problematic language, thereby minimizing the community's concerns, and b) just generally does not align with the rough (if non-unanimous) consensus above that this behaviour is in fact not "reasonable" but rather quite serious violations of policy. It's possible I am misunderstanding you, though, because your comments seem to me to go back and forth on whether this is a serious issue or not.

All that said, while heavily disagreeing with your analysis of the situation, I do find that I am agreement with your suggested course of action. Speaking as one community member (un-involved in the underlying disputes but kinda aghast at the behaviour here and the inaction of multiple admins who watched this unfold) I'd be happier if the community sent a more unified message in the form of a sanction for HiLo (even a slap on the wrist half day block or a narrow TBAN would be something), but it doesn't look like that it is going to happen. An admin issuing a formal warning would certainly be better than nothing--ideally it would be logged/relayed to HiLo via his TP and put in the formal close here. But I think I have to agree that the writing is on the wall here: there's not sufficient community will for a sanction here. That mystifies me, personally, but there's insufficient justification in keeping the discussion open indefinitely if it is not leading to a useful conclusion. So let's hope an admin is willing to make the warning and close the thread. SnowRise 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

User:SnowRise - I wasn't really commenting on the seriousness of the nationalistic attacks by HiLo. I was reading the discussion here in the possibly futile hope that it would enlighten me as to what the offense was. It didn't enlighten me, so I was and still am confused as to what the details of the main issue are, if the main issue is the conduct of HiLo. I will admit that I don't normally get upset by non-Americans who say stupid things about Americans. Either the stupid things are true, or they are not true, and citizens of a big country can ignore stupid comments. I didn't see any specific evidence of a civility problem by HiLo here, although I am aware that there is such a problem. I thought that the discussion here was mostly tangential, which is why I said it was about other things. Maybe I was expected to read several months of archives, but I am not doing that. I didn't see evidence presented here that amounted to a real case against HiLo. Do you want to show me where it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Robert. Like you, I believe it is a dubious use of time to go digging through historical reports for past misdeeds. I do believe that a large and consistent enough pattern of behaviour is worth noting after a time, and I think one exists here, but more to the point, I don't think you need look at anything more than what has already been reported here to be able to appreciate the depth of the problems. That includes some comments that you are clearly aware of but (if I am reading you correctly) are largely dismissing, suggesting the gap between our perspectives is one of philosophy about what is appropriate conduct and speech on this project, rather than a difference in the facts we are working from.

For example, I still feel you are underrating the severity and the damage done by the nationalistic people-bashing comments in question. First off, even if HiLo's comments had been restricted to the message of "you clearly don't know anything about cricket because you are American--therefore get out of my way", that in itself would be a major issue. That's not how we discuss or form consensus on this project, and as someone positioned as an ADR guru on this project, that's something I'm surprised you don't readily agree with me about, and take more seriously. It's a brightline WP:CIR issue when an editor decides to take potshots trying to tear down their rhetorical opposition personally, rather than arguing a priori from the sources, content, and policy.

But HiLo then went far beyond this, beginning to opine more broadly about ignorant Americans with no vision or interest beyond their borders. There is no question that in doing so they leapt straight across any dubious plausible deniability they had for their prejudice and straight into nationalistic WP:PA territory. I respect that you (and probably many of our American editors) have thick enough skin that you can shrug this kind of comment off. That's a character strength. It does not, however, change how unacceptable this kind of comment is, and we don't need you or any one particular American editor to take offense at it before it is a massive problem. Even if the OP had taken no issue with, it would still be a serious violation of core (even pillar) policies, and needing addressing.

Then also in this thread we have a number of diffs of this user losing their ever-loving mind on people in ways that I can only really classify as "TEMPER TANTRUMS, OMG why can't people see what a problem this guy is!!!!!!!!!", to ape the form of these posts. This is somebody who is not exercising the minimum we expect (or at least I thought we expected) for communication in a productive and civil fashion on en.Misplaced Pages. Worse yet, if you look at this editor's user page, you will see that they themselves have documented that these kinds of observations have been incoming for them for years and years, and yet they have dismissed all such efforts at community intervention (regarding what are clear basic competency issues with regard to discussion) as they themselves being harassed by the "niceness police" or "civility police". This is clear WP:IDHT that, from all indicators, has been going on for well over a decade. Their block log further reflects this.

So, this seems to be a community member who has had more than fair warning that they are falling short of community standards, and yet interprets it consistently as whinging from editors who just don't get how important their contributions are and why they can't be expected to adhere to the normal rules, which they consider an unfair burden. Well, respectfully, at least with regard to this recent wave of behaviour, I think they have been let off lightly up until now. This inaction is not helping the situation with this user, and it's not a good look for us to continue to enable the status quo, simply because of the resistance in this space to sanctioning and established user, relative to a new one. From jut the details established in this thread, HiLo's arguments are often not valid policy arguments, and even cross the line into bigoted invective. What is the argument for tolerating any of this, when it could not be more clearly a violation of WP:PA, WP:CIV, and WP:DISRUPTIVE? SnowRise 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

All that said, this is the end of my contributions to this thread: after four sizeable posts, I don't have anything more novel to add, or better ways to say it. And even as an uninvolved party to the underlying dispute, there comes a time where one more comment begins to look out of proportion. Indeed, I'm only adding these last two posts to respond to your inquiry, clearly made in good faith. I recognize there is not an appetite for a sanction here. I'll repeat that this confuses and worries me. But there should be no doubt that the problems here are real and substantial, whatever our collective response to it. SnowRise 09:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise - You refer to me as an ADR guru. What is ADR? Is it Alternative Dispute Resolution? I don't think it has to do with footnotes. When I mediate disputes, I try to encourage the parties to ignore any personal attacks and will collapse them. Sometimes ignoring any unpleasant comments may make it possible to solve a content dispute. But the reason that I am ignoring the "impersonal attacks", that is, attacks on my nation, is mainly that I haven't seen them, and I don't want to see them. So if I am ignoring the attacks, it is because I am ignoring the attacks, not because I don't think that they are serious. I haven't seen them to assess whether they are serious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Even just a warning would be sufficient. A thread like this closing with no action sends a message to contributors (and not incidentally, also to admins) that the community has decided violations like these are tolerable because they are not against an unacceptable target and because nothing was done about it in the past. I for one won't stand by idly if disruption like this continues at WP:ITNC, however. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I come to this thread after I was thinking of leaving a message at HiLo's talkpage (put it at the article talk instead). From being in the same place as HiLo in various corners of Misplaced Pages, I think that HiLo is a generally a well-meaning editor but knows their own mind; does not like being challenged on those well-held beliefs (from big, like injustice, to small, like word placement - the reaction is the same); and does not like the idea that others may perceive them negatively, tending to say it is those others' fault somehow. This last one was very much confirmed for me (though not in a Misplaced Pages context) recently through a discussion about haka, though comments above suggest they've also acknowledged (but relished in) it.
I think that HiLo has got away with such editing attitudes at ITNC, where I see them most, for so long because of how short those discussions last. Regular contributors can expect an erratically-capitalised, strongly-worded, anti-American !vote from HiLo, and possibly some follow-ups if a newbie dare interact with HiLo's comments. But these comments don't warrant response and disappear within a week; they can be easy to ignore (not in the sense of not considering them, if apt, but that they're so routine and fleeting that the fact it's uncooperative no longer affects regulars). Of course, the issue there is that it makes ITNC unwelcoming for newbies, being alarmed both by such comments and the passive attitude towards them. A similar phenomenon may be happening across Misplaced Pages - that users are familiar with HiLo's MO and don't engage with it, thinking trying to fix it would be fruitless and being so accustomed that it has no effect.
This situation could probably continue, even though it requires concessions from the editing community at large to allow HiLo to continue with the absolutism. However, for the benefit of newer editors who are not accustomed and may feel bullied or such when first interacting, I would agree that the community should probably try to address this. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything stopping us from having an admin go to HiLo's talk page, give them a formal final warning, and then just close this? IMO this has been in closing territory for nearly a week Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think that'll fix it. In among it all, HiLo does make useful contributions. The attitude is something deeply entrenched with their editing. I do not think they will be able to immediately change it, certainly not everywhere, and then they'll have gone past their final warning and be gone. Maybe some people want that, but perhaps different steps should be taken. An ITNC TBAN could be useful, or to encourage HiLo to use variations on a standard response in their ITNC !votes. Asking them to drop the all caps would help. Users familiar with HiLo's editing and presence could brainstorm measures to help curb the ... lack of bedside manner, for want of a better short way of describing it. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How about we combine these and give a final warning before TBAN? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that could be recommended. I meant that, in addition, we could find ways to either encourage or enforce better manner, rather than just say "do it or be banned". I'm not sure it would be effective, but worth a try? Though I understand if everyone thinks that's too much effort. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Early on in this discussion, Mackensen left some polite advice on HiLo's talk page to which HiLo responded here.

So far as I know this is his only response to his action and far from expressing regret or remorse at the disruption caused, he blames the targets of his personal attacks as being irrational and ignorant and opinionated. He sees his abuse as serving some sort of corrective purpose because his opinion is always informed, correct, objective, and measured.

His final words on the contributions of other editors are instructive: "I get rather sick of that sort of bullshit."

He has not commented here, he has not made any commitment to improve, he has made no admission of error whatsoever.

This attitude persists through numerous complaints and interactions extending back over a long history here. It is always the other guy, or the entire Misplaced Pages community at fault.

He doubtless views himself as the victim, and the complaint an ANI discussion as weaponising wikiprocedure against his blameless self.

If he says nothing, then nothing will happen to him - except maybe a warning which may be ignore along with all the others over the years - and his behaviour will not change.

It is one thing to offer correction and advice to those in error or ignorance, but to attack other editors on the basis of nationality or political affiliation or any other personal characteristic is a direct breach of one of our fundamental pillars.

I don't think a "final warning" will have any more effect than the numerous prior warnings, some of them given in rather strict and unambiguous terms.

I think that either HiLo should

1. acknowledge the problem, own his behaviour, and make some firm commitment to improve, or
2. a short block would be something that would focus his attention.

It doesn't mean that we don't want him or his contributions are not welcome, just that he needs to accept that making personal attacks on other editors is something that the community views dimly and they must stop. There is no justification for incivility. --Pete (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

If they goes past the final warning to continue their behavior then there will be a block or TBAN, that will get their attention for sure. I don't think we need to go past a final warning right now though. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Civility restriction

I see that HiLo48 (talk · contribs) has refused to make a comment on this ANI or any concessions anywhere else along the same lines, this seems like WP:IDHT behaviour to me. Thus, I am proposing a community civility restriction:

The community authorizes an indefinite civility restriction for HiLo48 (talk · contribs). If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed, and each year thereafter.

--qedk (t 愛 c) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Version 2:

The community authorizes an indefinite civility restriction for HiLo48 (talk · contribs). If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcemention action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

Adding a version 2 based on Cryptic's suggestions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Shifted ad-hoc discussion below (feel free to revert). --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support now that HiLo48 has demonstrated their lack of accountability above below. It never ceases to amaze me how editors with long, well-documented histories of incivility can be so thin-skinned when confronted with fair and valid critiques of their behavior. Don't dish it out if you can't take anything in return. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposer, and the lack of accountability in their latest response. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support because civility restrictions are inherently stupid. The fourth pillar of Misplaced Pages should be non-negotiable. I started out saying that I wasn't persuaded that a case had been against HiLo48. HiLo48 has made the case. At this point I would support a civility block, and would weakly support a ban of an editor who has shown that they plan to continue to blatantly disregard the fourth pillar of Misplaced Pages, but those aren't being discussed (yet). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • • Prefer version 2, which is stronger, to version 1. But the need to impose a civility restriction on HiLo shows that he apparently thinks that civility is for lesser editors. Civility restrictions are stupid because the fourth pillar is a civility rule for all of us. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support though I'm sympathetic to what Robert McClenon said above. Long ago I pleaded to HiLo that "something has to change either your behavior changes, or it doesn't." That much-needed behavioral change never came, and here we are. I don't want to be overly punitive, I just want something binding. A mere reminder that basic civility is not optional has been tried far too many times in the past and met with contempt. As has been pointed out by many throughout this discussion, had a less "established" editor exhibited identical behavior, there'd be no question as to whether a harsher sanction would be in order, be it a block or a topic ban. This civility restriction is a very measured and restrained sanction, which I believe has the potential to be beneficial both for HiLo and for the encyclopedia as a whole. They'll have the ability to continue editing the encyclopedia normally wherever they please, so long as they abide by the basic pillar that one should treat others with respect. So long as they engage in no forms of verbal abuse, be it shouting, insults, or nationalistic or xenophobic remarks — a "restriction" that in reality applies to all editors at all times — they can edit freely. But should this aggressive style of editing continue, and I genuinely wish that it doesn't, I'd push for something more along the lines of a civility block or an ITN/C topic ban.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Everything about HiLo's attitude and incivility is corrosive to discussions at worst, and unhelpful at minimum. HiLo's response absolutely proves that some sanction is needed, and this is worth trying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - with misgivings. Vanilla Wizard makes the point that civility should be a simple measure for most editors. It's not that HiLo struggles with compliance, he doesn't seem to give a toss about it. Making another editor feel small or inadequate is a way of scoring points in editorial discussion. If this measure is to work, HiLo must accept that his behaviour is inappropriate and commit to comply. Otherwise I lean toward Robert McClenon's view, because the only thing that seems to get any concrete acknowledgement from HiLo is concrete action. I would prefer that this editor keep contributing but with some internal daemon saying, "count to ten", "chill, mate", or simply "No". --Pete (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support v2 - as being more likely to be taken seriously. I hope that this turns out to be like travel insurance; I gladly pay for it but pray that it never gets to be used. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I would have been happy with an acknowledgement from HiLo48 that they understand that their behavior was subpar and would try to do better. But given that their only response to this thread was to express contempt for it, I see no choice but some kind of action. I honestly don't understand what HiLo48 is referring to as "loaded, biased, uncivil, tabloid language", but if they are referring to QEDK's very calm and measured proposal, that's even more concerning. Honestly, this should not be a very controversial proposal: EVERYONE is expected to be civil and should be sanctioned if they are not. The fact that HiLo48 objects to this sounds like they are saying they don't want to be required to abide by our civility policy, or don't expect that they will be capable of it. CodeTalker (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support The fact that this restriction is little more than "if you don't follow the rules we already have, you'll be on the naughty step" and HiLo responded as vociferously as they did is more than enough reason to know it's necessary. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. HiLo's first response, after much time to cool down, is still showing hostility. SWinxy (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support v2 SWinxy (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Their comment above shows very clearly their hostility. Their incivility has become a perennial problem, and it's time to do something. JML1148 07:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  And, obviously, Support V2. JML1148 04:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I have the same concerns expressed above by Robert and echoed by others: this is essentially just restatement (indeed, arguably a more milktoast version) of the basic standards of WP:CIV and the normal applicable responses, so in terms of a "sanction" designed to get HiLo to contemplate the mere possibility that there might actually be something even suboptimal in their approach (something HiLo has made abundantly clear they are not prepared to do), this proposal is essentially just air. Nevertheless, this is better than nothing. At least this enters into the record another clear community finding that HiLo's approach to conflict (and their willingness to use Misplaced Pages as platform to vent their feelings of disdain for a particular nationality) is unacceptable. The fact that this discussion has sat here for three weeks, and not a single admin could be arsed to so much as issue a warning, despite clear community consensus from virtually every community member giving feedback that some serious action is needed here (and is probably years overdue) is, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, deeply perplexing to me.

So I don't know what all this proposal changes in terms of genuine restraint, but it seems we un-mopped are to be left holding water here, and this is the best thing we can do to protect the project in the circumstances. If I am perfectly blunt, this is pretty clearly entering into WP:CIR territory (or rather seems to have some time ago): HiLo very unambiguously does not accept this project's civility standards and has, under no uncertain terms, made it clear that they don't care that such standards exist as an expression of collective community will, or how many times the community finds they have breached said community expectations. They expect the community to accommodate them. They aren't the problem: the "civility police" are the problem--"this place" is the problem. Well, bluntly, if they can't soon make a turn around and accept community will that the problem lays with them, it may well soon be time for "this place" to ask them to move along to what they would consider greener pastures, where their surliness, personal attacks, histrionics, and low-key bigotry will be more easily tolerated. SnowRise 22:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support for version 2 as well. I may well need to apologize to another community member who I recently went to the mat with (to use the charming and apropos American colloquialism), on the question of whether these kinds of "presumption against reversal" blocks make sense. But I'm convinced by the arguments below that this proposal lacks value without some extra conditions.

So, mixed feelings or no, I join with the emerging sentiment behind the amended proposal that the community supply of WP:ROPE is up. This user either crawls out of this crevasse themselves, without any more favours, breaks, or extensions of time to internalize and conform with basic community expectations regarding civility and on-topic reason(rather than person)-based arguments... Or we leave them behind, to howl at the cold ice alone about how they always knew they would go down here fighting American small-mindedness and 'niceness' bureaucrats, and it's a glorious, principled, and worthy cause upon which to be exiled. Of course, as has been reflected by an admin below, said user is always free to find common warmth and companionship at one of the many America-reviling and/or free speech absolutist bonfires to be found on the internet, but one way or another, this community is clearly done tolerating certain varieties of disruption from them here. SnowRise 22:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Toothless. We regularly block editors with fewer edits and friends for periods as long or longer than the maximum permitted by this redundant "sanction" for edits less disruptive than he's made. The reason no administrator has been willing to block or even explicitly warn yet is because we don't want to deal with the inevitable "you only blocked me because you're an ignorant American" invective and the just-as-inevitable support from his enablers. Something that might be actually meaningful would be to remove the second-mover advantage: forbid unblocking absent explicit, strong, and unambiguous community consensus to do so. —Cryptic 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would support a proposal with that language. Heck, I'd write it myself, but I'm not sure how it should be phrased. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  "The reason no administrator has been willing to block or even explicitly warn yet is because we don't want to deal with the inevitable 'you only blocked me because you're an ignorant American' invective and the just-as-inevitable support from his enablers."

I'm sorry, but this doesn't go a long way to explaining this strange situation to me. If blocked for such obvious violations of core policies, and a user did launch into such a diatribe, it would very certainly be rejected if part of an unblock request, and would probably ultimately end in talk page access lost for the duration of the block, if pursued for too long. As for the "just-as-inevitable support from his enablers", I see exactly one person opposing the block here (out of dozens otherwise supporting either this particular solution or some sort of action), which is a virtually unheard of ratio of support in a discussion at ANI proposing a sanction for a longterm contributor. I think the community's patience being exhausted is about as uniform in this case as it ever comes. And if a single admin (let alone every single one who has surely seen this discussion) were to avoid taking action on such brightline violations (and clear community consensus on same) just because of the possible blow back from supporters of a justifiably blocked party, that would be a pretty screaming indictment of whether they are keeping faith with the reason they were invested with the tools in the first place. Possibly I can see a few admins basing their choices on such criteria, but it just doesn't do to satisfactorily explain the overall inaction here, which remains perplexing to me in light of community consensus.

" Something that might be actually meaningful would be to remove the second-mover advantage: forbid unblocking absent explicit, strong, and unambiguous community consensus to do so."

Ok....but that would still require a block first, which is the thing that isn't happening in the first instance, and which you have just told us not to expect. Basically you're saying "We're not going to block this user, but hypothetically, if we did, we should be really serious about it." If the original proposal you are criticizing is "toothless" (and honestly, that's probably a fair critique), then this is like giving that toothless mouth a set of dentures made out of jelly gummies: not really solving the underlying issue. Or is the entirety of your commentary above trying to hint at the possibility that there are admins who have historically backed HiLo in these situations? That's really the only thing that I can think of that explains your response and your proposed solution: i.e. no one wants to block and get reversed (or worse, into a wheel war), but if that possibility were no longer likely, they might be willing to? Is that a historical element of this user's conduct and why it hasn't been addressed sooner? If so, I haven't seen any indication of it looking through their block log and history here at ANI. SnowRise 09:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Not so much HiLo48 in particular (though I see elements of it in the February 2013 unblock discussion, which of course was a long time ago), but there's a long, long, history of civility blocks of long-term editors being quickly unilaterally reversed, and so then needing a positive consensus to reinstate - which at that point is unlikely. A block based on a community sanction like the originally-proposed one here would discourage unblocking, yes; but it was also objectionable in that it capped the block length and removed the usual tool of escalating blocks. At that point it was less of a sanction, more of a get-out-of-jail-free card. —Cryptic 23:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'll be perfectly honest with you: I just argued with another community member a few weeks ago that I didn't think these kind of "prior restraint" block conditions, committing us to the idiosyncratic call of one future admin, whose judgment may be off on that particular occasion, were a very good idea. That was after a block that resulted from a previous ANI C-TBAN with similar language to your proposal. But maybe I'm a convert, because seeing the issue from this juncture in time / point in the implementation, and considering the particulars of this situation, I can see the appeal as a backfill to make sure the buck stops here, in terms of timing of the end of the disruption. SnowRise 21:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, perhaps symbolically at this point. But it seems administrators already possess the capacity to do this to any editor found in breach of civility policy. This comes across as "well, we have to do something". Zaathras (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think this can be read as the community licensing purely punitive blocks in specific circumstances as a way to discourage rudeness by a net-positive editor without running them off the site. _signed, Rosguill 03:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Lepricavark. — Moe Epsilon 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support with Cryptic's addition, mostly per Snow Rise. Civility restrictions are often unsuccessful (cf. the current ArbCom case) but it's worth trying. This seems like the only reasonable alternative to an indefinite block, which I doubt is a preferred outcome for anyone who's commented here. — SamX 03:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are a lot of alternatives; it’s not that polarized. I would also support Cryptic addition if I could see the actual wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  @QEDK I'm pretty sure the addition needs to be "only appealable to community consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu: Blocking admins should always be eligible to unblock until and unless the block itself was community-imposed, otherwise it causes a quite weird scenario where an accidental block needs community approval to rescind (for e.g. take the latest Paul August block), which is just not how it's supposed to work. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Huh, guess I support v2 then. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also support V2. When I had first !voted, I failed to see that HiLo has been in and out of AN/I for pretty much identical behavior for over a decade, and was much more inclined to support a very soft sanction as a result since I was under the wrong impression that they're still learning or that they'll outgrow their edginess. I apologize for infantilizing them like that. They've been here since '06, they've been "learning" about WP:CIVIL since I first learned how to do arithmetic as a child. This has gone on for an unreasonably long time. They're not going to change unless the proposal has some teeth.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support V2 based on what I’ve witnessed of HiLo’s conduct at WP:ITN, as well as his behavior below. The Kip (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support V2 because yes, doing something is better than symbolically protest-voting in HiLo’s favor (oppose automatically equals acquittal, remember that) because the current sanctions aren’t good enough. Dronebogus (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support V2 because this editor needs to have a crystal clear understanding that the community appreciates their many positive contributions to building this encyclopedia, but we are thoroughly fed up with both their chronic incivility and their wikilawyering defense of uncivil conduct. The editor is reminded that there are many other websites where incivility, flaming, and attacks against various nationalities are permitted or even welcomed. So, feel free to blow off steam elsewhere, but not on Misplaced Pages. Clean up your userpage. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support V2, though i am appalled at the need for it; we ought to all be on our own civility patrol (of ourselves, not each other) in order to participate in this community. Unfortunately, the fact that this editor seems to view civility as optional means that, despite the large number of useful edits, the community needs to step in and potentially lose the editor and future edits. Happy days, ~ Lindsay 11:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• That post is written is loaded, biased, uncivil, tabloid language, and is a perfect example of the appalling nature of this place. I haven't REFUSED to comment here. I have simply chosen not to. There is a huge difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  What is the difference, in your opinion? --JBL (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  It seems fairly obvious to me that "refused" is far less civil than "chose not to". HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would prefer not to. EEng 01:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's not obvious to me -- see GabberFlasted's comment below, which accords with my experience. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think - and I am open to correction here - that I can translate. By using "refused to make a comment" rather than "chose not to" or "declined to", qedk chose a shade of meaning that HiLo regards as "loaded, biased, uncivil, tabloid language". He is quite correct that there is a distinction, though I would not label it as huge.

  By extension, if a Misplaced Pages editor is using uncivil language here in proposing a civility restriction, then HiLo is exposing the hypocrisy inherent in the system.

  Perhaps we can find an acceptable medium if QEDK were to reframe his comment using the term HiLo proposed and then we can proceed with the core issue which HiLo has, as yet, chosen not to directly acknowledge? --Pete (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  While the terms are subtly different in how they are used (to refuse is to firmly reject or show unwillingness, and to decline is to politely reject or show unwillingness), I feel this is such a small semantic difference that it is a distraction to focus too much on it. Considering the anger with which HiLo phrased their comment above, it's not unfair to say "refused" is probably the more semantically correct term in this instance and I don't feel that QEDK using that term amounts to incivility, certainly not compared to the incivility we're here to discuss. But that's neither here nor there; this is an inconsequential side conversation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that refused is probably a more accurate term, given that it implies some degree of consideration rather than, "I don't feel like it" or "I haven't gotten around to it yet" but I don't think it's a matter of pointless arguing over distractions so much as HiLo struggling to make himself clear in what he feels - with some justification - is a hostile forum.

  God knows that I've butted heads with him countless times and owe him no love beyond that due to any other being but if he has seen fit to make a belated comment it is worth trying to hear what he's trying to say. I think it is a mistake to assume that he is just giving everyone the ups for the pleasure of it.

  But that's probably by the by. Regardless of whether he acknowledges a failing or not, it exists and judging by the comments below, is clear to all. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Truth be told, I actually thought they were referring to the entire thread, which could make sense given that most editors opining were opposed to their behaviour. I am still not fully clear what they were referring to as loaded and biased - but assuming they were referring to my proposal, I atleast have to disagree on the semantics alone, refused is no more uncivil than chose not to, in both cases, you have to be aware of the discussion and make a decision not to opine, maybe they're mistaking refusals as something explicitly stated but that's not how it works, if I refuse to pay my taxes, I'm not announcing to the IRS that I'm not paying it, I'm just not paying it, and "refusing" and "choosing not to" would carry the same weight in that regard. Similarly here, even if the fact is that they chose not to, it carries the same weight as an outright refusal. That said, I really don't want to get into semantics here, the question is about their conduct, it's quite tu quoque to simply drag semantics in here for no reason and I have no desire to derail the discussion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for refactoring the discussion. I'll say no more on this point here. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, not only is the semantic argument over that little piece of phraseology largely irrelevant, I think HiLo's participation (or relative lack thereof) is largely irrelevant. At no time in the numerous attempts at community intervention has HiLo ever indicated an intention to accept, or even try to hear, community feedback--not that I have seen anyway. In fact, their user page has been constructed as a monument to their affirmative declaration of intent to ignore all such attempts. From the evidence present there and here, I don't think we can expect that there was ever any real chance of HiLo being won over by a well-worded, thoughtful, and novel description of our behavioural policies and the reasons behind them. HiLo simply doesn't believe in them and clearly will not change course short of community action to restrain them. At the same time, there is also clear community will that the problematic behaviour cannot be left to slide once again. So I don't think HiLo robbed us or themselves of anything by keeping their head down--and tactically I can understand why it felt to them like their best option, since they cannot countenance the idea of actually restraining their approach consistent with our policies and knew they would only be saying essentially as much to us here, which certainly would not have gone over any better than just staying silent. SnowRise 23:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Even if you have chosen not to comment, it is the opinion of multiple editors that you have repeatedly been WP:UNCIVIL, what do you have to say about their opinions specifically. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @HiLo48: Oxford defines refuse in this context as "indicate or show that one is not willing to do something". Merriam Webster presents a nearly identical definition, as does Cambridge. By your extensive contributions elsewhere concurrent this discussion, without participation here despite a proper ANI alert on your talk page, you have publicly indicate or show that you will not participate here. Therefore, you have refused to comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  On that note, I find it mildly amusing that someone accused of making comments using language that is dismissive of other editors only comment on that thread is to complain about the specific language used to describe their own (lack of) behavior at this thread... Dylnuge 03:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Refusing and choosing not to respond both have an element of agency which indicates the consent of the speaker. Simple inaction which doesn't indicate consent, either refutation or approval, will suffice alone. By acknowledging the conversation you thereby have indicated you grant your own consent in participating within the conversation now. Rather ironic. UnironicEditor (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@QEDK: Regarding: short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses, is that meant to say short time of one week and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses (suggesting a one week minimum), or short time and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses (leaving the minimum duration up to the blocking admin). The latter seems the more likely option. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mako001: The latter, yes. The proposal specifies a maximum duration of one week for the initial offence and an indefinite duration for repeat offences. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Wjemather

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

• Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnsmith2116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wjemather has been unnecessarily undoing good edits from editors (myself and others ) for three years now. Editors have tried reasoning with that person over time, but that person does not want to listen. Several people in private chats have expressed their frustration with that person, simply because they don't know where else to turn to talk of their frustration.

That person's behaviour has not only been unproked, unneeded undoings of valid edits that no one else has ever had a problem with, but hypocritical also; the list is long of the times that that person would spitefully undo the very same type of edits that they themself have done before, throwing logic out the window. In other words, it's okay for themself, but not for others.

One other behaviour that makes that person unreasonable is making things up on the spot: An editor will do a good edit in the traditional way, but then this person in question will undo the edit with the excuse (paraphrasing), "Just because this is the traditional way is not an excuse to keep doing it that way.".

Trying to reason with that person has failed for years with many who have tried.

I've been editing on Misplaced Pages since 2007 and had never had any real problems from an editor until that one. I've been doing the same type of edits in the same way since the beginning, and in early 2020 that person came along and decided to be the first to take their own personal feelings and force feed them onto the Misplaced Pages community with uncalled for retractions that no one else had ever had a problem with. Nitpicking at every single turn, unJusifiably.

Most of that person's edits are undoings,, not additions, meaning the main purpose that person has had over the last three years has been to unneededly undo other people's edits, even when having to make up a reason to do so.

They have already had a series of edit warrings with another editor in the last 48 hours (see Contributions page), and now wants more edit warring. The desire for conflict out of this person is baffling.

Hypocrisy: Other editors have had edits very similar to mine, and this person had NO problem when the others did it, only when it is mine. So at this point, I have to assume it is personal, being done out of spite.

The newest undoing of my edits is one that could have been left alone (and likely WOULD HAVE been left alone had it been anyone else doing it). I do not make unproductive edits. These two upcoming examples in the following links are a new and typical example of this person's unneeded and petty undoings of my edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chronological_list_of_men%27s_major_golf_champions&diff=1166734754&oldid=1166732563

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AThe_Open_champions&diff=1166731289&oldid=1166731031

Simply to spite me, that person went and undid a good edit of mine on a page concerning a topic that they no absolutely nothing about: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2022_State_of_the_Union_Address&type=revision&diff=1063538815&oldid=1063093800

Also last year, that person went back on a previously agreed upon standard for preparing the WGC MATCH Play page, one in which that person had willingly agreed to the year before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2022_WGC-Dell_Technologies_Match_Play&diff=1079435859&oldid=1079434098

It gets worse, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't; If you do an edit one particular way, that person undoes it and criticizes you, but then if you do the edit the opposite way, that person still undoes it and criticizes you.

I would have to go and do weeks' worth of finding and citing all the examples of that person's gross, uncalled for undoings. For now, I will show a few examples of the kinds of edits that no one else ever had a a problem with, but this person is hell bent on interfering with anyway:

Undoing a perfectly good preparation that is done each week on the PGA Tour, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=1141795948&oldid=1141795855

Undoing more preparation that is done as a normal thing in Misplaced Pages, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AThe_Masters_champions&type=revision&diff=1141796145&oldid=1141796054

Other times, that person will try to get a page deleted, because in their OPINION the page was made "too early", something of which no one else has ever been known to complain about in recent years. There are links to show proof of this.

After three years of constant interference of spiteful, uncalled for undoings, we will not tolerate it any longer. I have been on here for sixteen years without serious trouble for 13 of them. Over the last three years, this constant hypocritical and unneeded interference won't be tolerated. Even the simple act of letting that person know, they lash back as if you are wronging them in some way, playing the victim. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is nothing more than a repeat of IncidentArchive1122#User:Wjemather (also related: IncidentArchive1123#User:Nigej). I don't think there is much to add to what was said then by myself, Nigej, Ravenswing and SMcCandlish with regards to these preparation edits – Johnsmith2116 should simply stop doing them. They should also desist from making personal attacks such as those contained in this filing. _wjemather 13:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Johnsmith2116 has repeatedly complained about people reverting his "preparation" edits. Despite receiving little or no support in the previous discussions he simply carries on doing exactly the same as he did before. The simple solution is for Johnsmith2116 to stop doing these "preparation" edits. It's true that for some years editors let these pointless edits go, on the basis that they were harmless enough and with the hope that he might do more useful edits. Personally I support Wjemather in trying to put an end to these "preparation" edits, enough is enough IMO. Nigej (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• There seems to be a rather severe WP:IDHT problem at work with this editor. These weird "preparation" edits are not helpful; they just inject pointless, redundant, and potentially confusing junk into articles that someone has to later clean up (that the someone is sometimes Johnsmith2116 is not particularly relevant). I'm not sure why years of multiple editors objecting to this behavior is not making even the slightest dent in the behavior, but instead causing the editor to double down (now triple) and make like everyone else is being a bad guy. I think perhaps a very narrow topic-ban against performing these unhelpful injections of HTML-commented "either/or" pre-emptive text blobs should be considered. An exception could be made for Johnsmith2116 doing this stuff in their own user-space sandbox, of course. As long as the entire editorial pool isn't subjected to it at article after article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved comment) I've never edited in the affected topic area before, but the sort of "preparation" edits being performed by the filer here do indeed seem pointless at best. This edit in particular actually creates more work, since it takes longer to delete the html comment characters than it does to type *2023 in the first place. I could see making a preparatory edit for something like a table row that requires a lot of formatting, where having a blank ready to go would be genuinely helpful, but not this trivial stuff. Just wait till things happen; Misplaced Pages about it afterward. Folly Mox (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • And edits like this where the two contestants in a match are added as the two possible winners (together with their seedings), seem particularly strange. Nigej (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone never involved in any of this I'd like to chime in. I have sympathy for the experience and can understand some of the frustration @Johnsmith2116 may feel. I would suggest that all involved editors step back from language like "pointless" to describe these edits, and understand that to @Johnsmith2116 they may not seem pointless. People think in different ways, and some people thrive with or even require preparation.

I do believe it is fair to say these edits can create more work for other editors, and similar more factual descriptions, such statements can be a step towards establishing consensus.

All that said, I believe that @Johnsmith2116 would benefit from assuming good faith. These descriptions of other editors' actions or perceived intents can appear uncivil or worse. Beyond the civility issues, this also makes it harder for an editor to influence the broader consensus around the topic. Please consider, even if there was an implied consensus in the past, it's apparent that the consensus has shifted. This discussion is evidence of that. It may be time to find a different way of doing preparation, such as those suggested at WP:HIDDEN, or another tool that may work for you. For the time being, I think voluntarily ceasing these edits could help the situation in some small way. —siroχo 22:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban for Johnsmith2116 on all "preparation" edits, broadly construed, anywhere but in the editor's own sandbox space. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN peron Johnsmith2116 per above. I haven't seen much of their edits, but from what I have seen, there's a clear consensus against them (the edits). XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on Johnsmith2116, "preparation" edits broadly construed, so as to include edits like this from late yesterday where he has added the two golfers in a playoff (hidden) and then makes another edit a few minutes later when the playoff is decided. Nigej (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on Johnsmith2116, "preparation" edits broadly construed. To answer Siroxo's comment for having sympathy over frustration, Johnsmith2116 makes a point of saying that he's been editing for over fifteen years, that he's been having this particular problem for over three years, and he has over 27,000 edits. Especially since we went through this at ANI just four months ago, at some point we expect editors to get it; we should not have to keep teaching a fifteen year veteran how to Wiki.

  "No one complained until that guy did" applies to each and every complaint in the history of the world, so that doesn't do you any favors ... The answer to "But how else can I get this information in?" isn't to come up with some gimmick to do so over the objections of other editors. The answer is "You don't." If you cannot obtain a consensus for these edits, then you don't make them. No one hands out barnstars for being the first person to type in the champion's name in a tournament; this is an encyclopedia, not a race track, nor a competition." Those were my words from the March ANI. Since it is apparent that Johnsmith2116 either doesn't get it or doesn't give a damn, this is the next alternative. Ravenswing 01:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing, I have no quarrel with this action, though I may choose not to weigh in with a !vote. I was mostly raising the context in which I believe this discussion should take place. Please note that my comment is largely in agreement with the consensus in this discussion, with acknowledgement that the consensus has likely shifted over the past 15 years. —siroχo 03:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Quite possibly. But consensus in many areas has shifted over the years, often dramatically. Expecting Misplaced Pages to be frozen in time circa 2007 is wearing blinders at best, and angry rejection of change is poor practice. There are changes of which I approve, ones of which I don't, and like every other editor I have to live with them all whether I do or not. Johnsmith2116 would be far better off learning to do so than to defy them. Ravenswing 03:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think we're in agreement. —siroχo 03:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as a remedy for the difficulty other editors have described facing. Noting also that while I have true sympathy for the frustrations Johnsmith2116 has faced, the approach the editor has taken has been unproductive in achieving consensus. I would hope the editors actions going forward work to remedy that approach, and that the topic ban becomes unnecessary in the future. —siroχo 04:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Johnsmith2116 from making preparation edits (broadly construed) anywhere outside their own sandbox. As noted, the vast majority of these edits serve no purpose or worse, are a hindrance to subsequent editors and occasionally even readers. Johnsmith2116 should also be warned (again) about their conduct, for which they have previously been blocked on multiple occasions. _wjemather 11:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Johnsmith2116 on all "preparation" edits, broadly construed, anywhere but in the editor's own sandbox space. Ultimately there's no such thing as a "preparation edit". You either make the edit, or you don't. I'm sure John is well-meaning with this and believes he's helping, but in the end it just makes the Wiki look messier and creates more work for other editors to clean up. — Czello 11:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN as proposed by Cullen328. This behavior is unacceptable. EggRoll97 06:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

NLT, subject of news article

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Johnson524&diff=prev&oldid=1162386218

https://indyweek.com/news/durham/durham-officials-directed-city-attorney-to-try-to-unmask-anonymous-wikipedia-editors/ SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Just giving that a first glance, should the WMF's Legal group step in here? This looks a lot bigger than a legal threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Legal should absolutely be given a head's up, if they're not already. With that, one wonders if these chowderhead pols have ever heard of the Streisand effect? Ravenswing 22:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a funny one. I am not sure it's a legal threat per se, but I sure don't like it. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am tempted to leave a friendly message saying, in effect, "this is not how talk pages should be used," but I'll wait for the wiser admin heads to decide on a plan of action first. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously we aren't going to dox whoever added the signature... but it does bring up an interesting point. I try to keep my head out of the copyright/fair use whirlpools but can anyone vouch that the file has been properly sourced and that its usage isn't any kind of copyvio? Again, this is more me asking than trying to say it can't possibly be. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The user has replied to to the demands, by putting that file up for deletion. I think the editor might have done this out of fear of the legal repercussions.
I think they cropped it out of a certificate of theirs, which had the mayors sign on it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is my concern, it's tagged and licensed as the uploader's own work, but unless they are indeed the mayor (what a false flag operation that would be) it can't be tagged and released as that. Taking a photo of some media or portion of it doesn't mean it's theirs. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That is my take too, may have been a GF-mistake ("I took a photo of it, so it's my own work"). To have something to compare to, I looked at . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

And if it's a certificate or similar it was taken from, I wouldn't think that's a general public access source so there's no public rights to it. It's similar to someone signing a letter, unless the letter is a matter of public record in a released rights environment it couldn't be used except under non-fair use clauses. Would be interesting to get @Diannaa:'s view on this. Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

According to the news story, the picture came from a playbill at the Durham Performing Arts Center. Assuming that is correct, copyright may be a concern, but it would not be the mayor's to assert. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so it's likely that the copyright resides with DPAC depending on the rights release to them by the mayor giving the letter. Not my area of expertise. All I know is the current licensing on the image is incorrect. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, the Joe Biden sig has a This signature is believed to be ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it falls below the required level of originality for copyright protection both in the United States... template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elaine O'Neal signature.jpg? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that the IW article covers the "story" of the signature in some detail, including "But while it’s illegal to use her signature inappropriately, there’s nothing illegal about posting an image of it on Misplaced Pages." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve sent a message to the WMF just to make them aware. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Would Kimlynn69 ought to be sanctioned for undisclosed WP:COI editing, which they have admitted to themselves? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Per their edithistory , telling them about WP:COI may be the place to start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the signature from the BLP article because of the request from the mayor's representative, and Misplaced Pages:Signatures of living persons. That's an essay that I believe gives good guidance in this circumstance. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think removal of the signature is appropriate. I don't care for bullying a kid who's helping build an encyclopedia. Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Reading between the lines of the news article, I don't get the impression the City Attorney is especially enthusiastic about pursuing this matter. Technically, she reports to City Council as a whole, not just the Mayor. She represents the City, not the Mayor's personal interest.

I see serious Streisand effect issues looming!

--A. B. 20:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"I don’t expect that Misplaced Pages will pay one mind to that letter. And there won't be next steps from my office, because I do not have authorization from the city council to pursue this as a legal matter." Sounds to me like she only wrote the letter to get those people of her back. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The indyweek article was updated. Turns out the WMF never got the letter because it was sent to the wrong address. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm user who uploaded the signature here, Johnson524. While I discussed this to some extent on my talk page, I feel I may have not done a well-enough job on explaining how I got the signature there, so I'll repeat it here now. I did not get the signature from a plaque or anything of that matter, which I believe would violate a few privacy laws, but from a standard 'Welcome to DPAC' pamphlet given out to all of those who go there. On one of the earlier pages of the pamphlet, there is a message from the Mayor of Durham (Elaine O'Neal) also welcoming you, with her signature at the bottom. To repeat, this signature is openly available to the thousands who visit DPAC everyday for plays and performances, and by no means is private anymore, as this message, and accompanying signature, has been reproduced tens of thousands of times. Furthermore, Durham as a city also is by no means small, and hosts a population of about 280,000. Seeing other politician's Misplaced Pages pages, such as the North Carolina governor Roy Cooper's page, have a signature, I believed this one also to be of fair use.

Now though, honestly, I don't care about the signature, this whole thing terrifies me. Like said in that news report, I am 17, and a high schooler. This is way beyond anything I ever expected to happen to me on Misplaced Pages, as I mainly write about Ukraine and dumb songs I like. Of my nearly 3,000 edits on this project, never once have I feared being contacted by city authorities of a place that I don't live in, for something I didn't even know I did wrong. If it ends this whole thing, please, delete the signature, as seeing the text on the bottom of that official letter written about this situation by the City Attorney: " the identity and real name of user "Johnson524"," scares the crap out of me. Thank you @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: for bringing this discussion to my attention. I will be available here to answer anymore questions you may have. Johnson524 (Talk!) 21:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You did absolutely nothing wrong. Citing from the indyweek article:

"Under state law, O’Neal’s facsimile signature is not a public record, says Brooks Fuller, the director of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition at Elon University. But while it’s illegal to use her signature inappropriately, there’s nothing illegal about posting an image of it on Misplaced Pages. The city had no legal basis to ask to take it down, Fuller says—especially because O’Neal already knew where the image came from."

"Rehberg told O’Neal in an email chain obtained by the INDY. 'Given the terms of service for Wiki, and the fact that the User obtained the information from materials that are widely disseminated to the public, there is little legal basis to demand that Wiki reveal the identity of the User or prohibit the upload of a photo of the signature to the Mayor’s Wiki page.'"

It's also pretty clear that the city attorney just did this to get those three politicians off her back:

"I don’t expect that Misplaced Pages will pay one mind to that letter. And there won’t be next steps from my office, because I do not have authorization from the city council to pursue this as a legal matter."

Unfortunately, instead of telling those politicians that there is no legal basis for their demands, she chose to scare the shit out of a few kids to make her own life a little easier. I wonder where lawyers get such a bad rep. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that message, I really did not think I was doing anything wrong when uploading that signature, or else I never would have done it. I updated the signature's license on Commons last night (link here: c:File:Elaine O'Neal signature.jpg#Licensing) to something not CC0 (which I only put originally since I uploaded the file). Are these better from a legal standpoint, if the file is to be kept? Johnson524 (Talk!) 21:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It still states that it's your own work as the source, which is isn't. So that would need rectifying. However ultimately while it's likely legal and fine, I question the value of having it. What encyclopaedic niche does having the signature of some government official fill? But that's a question for the use of signatures in general, I would find it rare for them to be useful. Canterbury Tail talk 21:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a template for signatures: Template:PD-signature (see commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag for more information). However this essay suggests that "If a person (or a representative of) requests that their signature be removed from an article, the signature should be removed". That seems reasonable to me. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am more than OK to see the file be deleted, I just made that edit in case it were to be kept, because at least than it would be better than an incorrect CC0. Johnson524 (Talk!) 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim of potential fraud with the signature is clearly nonsensical if it is openly available on a playbill given to thousands of people (and is much easier to fake with said playbill than with the low quality version used here). I see no reason to remove it at all. Just update the file for what the actual source is. Silverseren 22:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think, from reading the article, that the attorney also knows this is a sham and legally, going nowhere. Correct the sourcing, and if the editor doesnt themselves feel comfortable adding the picture to the article, someone else can do it. Hell, I could, and good luck trying to sue me halfway across the world. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is what I find so irksome about the entire situation -- the talk page post was basically an inane and completely groundless lawyer letter posted to Misplaced Pages. Dumuzid (talk) Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would absolutely be shaken if I'd found it on my talkpage. And I'm older than 17. That said I think "Before reaching out to Wikimedia's general counsel, however, I thought I would first try to resolve this amicably through user channels." was reasonably sincere, and not per se meant to be hostile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It's possible that it was just case of terribly poor judgement. From the article it seems to me like she probably just did all this to get those three politicians off her back and to be able to tell them "I tried". And I wouldn't have an issue with the letter sent to WMF because they know how to deal with this kind of thing, which is something she seems to be aware of: "I don't expect that Misplaced Pages will pay one mind to that letter." But going to a user page saying "hey I am a lawyer ..." is too heavy handed, especially when you know that the demands have no legal basis. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure many of you will be aware, but for those who aren't, this is a common practice in the legal field: sending a formal cease-and-desist nastygram in the expectation that the great majority of recipients will be scared off, even if they don't remotely have a legal leg to stand on. It works altogether too often, especially when some major corporation -- or government -- is secure in the knowledge that they outlawyer the little guy 50:1. Ravenswing 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And the mayor was a judge for over twenty years and served as interim dean of a law school ... -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• This incident should definitely figure prominently in these people's articles. Honestly, the nerve. EEng 08:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, it shouldn't. This is what "Mentioned by media-org" talkpage templates are for. The Signpost will probably mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it should. Mentioned by media-org is for when the media just happens to mention the article for some reason. In this case, the subject of the article did something, which happened to relate to WP, and that's gotten coverage. EEng 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  "gotten coverage" is not good enough per WP:PROPORTION. Including it is WP:NAVELGAZING (that essay is an essay, btw). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was simply pointing out why the Mentioned by media-org template doesn't apply here. Whether including this particular incident is DUE is a question for editorial judgment. EEng 09:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Elaine_O'Neal_(politician)#Including_the_recent_WP-whatever_that_was_in_the_news_in_the_WP-article_text_BRD, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi all, what an interesting few days this has been. I want to start with saying to Johnson524 that you did nothing legally wrong and I am sorry that you have been brought into this rather, um, terrifying argument between adults serving in government. I hope this does not make you feel like you can't continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Your work and contributions are valued! Like you, I started editing Misplaced Pages when I was a high school student (centuries ago). I hope you continue to build up this amazing public resource. I want to introduce myself as one of the users named in the Indy Week article ("Rehberg wrote in the letter that Holsey-Hyman “contends that the allegations are fabricated” and thus seeks to obtain the identity of user Willthacheerleader18, who created Holsey-Hyman’s page and wrote much of its content"). I created the articles for both DeDreana Freeman and Monique Holsey-Hyman (and I never foresaw a situation like this occuring.. I've written dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on people involved in government and politics, and this has never happened to me before). I was contacted this past Friday afternoon by a reporter from Indy Week, who was able to identify me off of Misplaced Pages, and asked for comment, which was my first time hearing of this controversy. I contacted Misplaced Pages's legal team later that day, as the journalist informed me that Councilwomen Freeman and Holsey-Hyman were trying to reveal my identity. This has been a scary time, and I hope our converstations here lead to something productive. I will say that I disagree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, this should absolutely be added to the articles of O'Neal, Freeman, and Holsey-Hyman IMHO. But, seeing as I am one of the editors they are after, I am not going to contribute to adding any more "unflattering" information at this time. I fear social and personal repercussions from these politicians in my community and I do not want to put myself further at risk. I will continue to contribute to conversation and dialogue here, but I will refrain from editing their pages right now. Do we know if the other editor named in the article has been notified? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Mako001, how are you doing with all of this? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Meh, you get that sorta stuff on RC patrol. I hope that she has fun trying to get past a. WMF, and b. My ISP, because neither are likely to comply with that waste of paper. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Theres enough coverage on this to add it, see the T/P of the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm proud to have gotten the first whiff of this lol SWinxy (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Continued disruptive edit requests at Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes

As described in a previous ANI thread, a troll has been using the IP ranges 148.76.224.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 192.208.124.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), as well as 173.19.60.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to post disruptive faux-CIR edit requests on Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), which I've been removing. I haven't looked into it too closely, but there also seem to be some issues with the same IPs adding unsourced content to articles about TV shows. The two ranges geolocate to the same area, and they've both been recently blocked for similar behavior. — SamX 16:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also 173.17.94.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — SamX 04:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

POV edits

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

Portwoman made a change to the lead of Hindu Terrorism, where they removed the word "alleged" and then edit warred over it when I tried to revert to the status quo version.

When asked to explain their rationale, they refused to do so, and instead told me I had no consensus for my version. I found this behaviour weird, and upon checking, came across several problematic edits.

- Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of either Hindutva or Terrorism.

- Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of Terror/Terrorism of any kind.

- Removed a large section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "miscellaneous".

- Removed the same section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "WP:SPAM".

- removed mention of a man converting away from Islam with the edit summary "false: Harilal Gandhi did not reconvert". The source cited in the article clearly mentions the reconversion.

- Removed sourced material and citations and placed citation needed tags in their place without explanation under the edit summary "better source, reliable source tags where needed"

- Removed mention of violence by Muslim Rohingyas with the edit summary "facebook not a reliable source"; The material was cited to the India Today newspaper, not Facebook.

Deleted mention of a radical organisation that targeted atheists (well sourced) as "trimed out the unrelated part". Also removed a statement regarding radicals cited to a spanish website under "no spanish links for inline citations".

The above is limited to what I could find easily; There are over a thousand edits in the two months since they joined. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Blatant POV pushing. Pretty obviously they're not a new editor. Their edits should be carefully reviewed (and probably mostly reverted). --Cavarrone 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Since they seem to have caught a case of ANI flu, I have gone ahead and put a noarchive template for seven days. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding the repeated attempts by User:Portwoman to add defamatory claims about the son of a politician at Bandi Sanjay Kumar, from 22 - 23 July. Highlights:

, adds a subsection titled "Criminal activities", claiming multiple attacks on multiple students by the son

reverts my move of this section about his family to the end, placing it up between the Early life and Career sections

, slaps an edit-warring warning on my talk page with Twinkle

, pads the section out with vague allegations about the subject of the article

, reverts my correction from references that the charges were about a single attack against a single student, with the edit summary "restored content"

, attempts for the second time to semi-protect the article.

The rather WP:UNDUE section about Kumar's son being charged (but not prosecuted) for a fight at college remains up near the top of the article. It's been a busy month for me on that article, having up to now been busy reverting attempts by IPs and a SPA to whitewash Kumar's involvement in a scandal. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Can this please get dealt with, Portwoman is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing shows from List of Warner Bros. Discovery television programs

This user, Special:Contributions/Vidpro23, keeps removing shows from the List of Warner Bros. Discovery television programs. And here is the proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Warner_Bros._Discovery_television_programs&diff=1166566414&oldid=1166338928

Could you please give him a warning about removing shows from that page? AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall, whenever you report someone to ANI, you should notify them of the discusssion on their talk page. No worries, though, I did it for you, but please do so in the future. LilianaUwU 07:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems like they're removing programs that were (and never will be) distributed by WBD because they were clearly made under other ownership such as Discovery and are in library limbo because they were products of their time (i.e. Darcy's Wild Life). It's absurd this 'katamari' article of anything that touches the ownership of WBD exists in the first place and it should clearly be just Warner Bros. Television productions only. I've redirected the section to List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family, and I know nobody who only spends their time editing/warring over these list articles will listen to this at all, but this is a lame report and boy, that empty entire article talk page could do with any kind of discussion before dragging people to ANI needlessly. You know better, Adam, and have been told this so many times, and this edit from @Trivialist: sums up my feelings on this list article. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

User:(Un)Lucky Duke permission gaming the system

(Un)Lucky Duke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per their contributions logs, (Un)Lucky Duke has been WP:PGAME the system by making dummy edits (by adding 1) on their userpage in order to bypass the semi-protected restriction placed on Barbie (film) and in turn making disruptive edits with page breaking (rendering issues) changes, this behaviour is certainly unacceptable, and who knows if they would game EC permission. As per WP:GAMING, "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming" hence any administrator issue them one. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Well, I was going to pblock them from the article, but User:BusterD has upped the protection to ECP, so they can't edit it anyway. As an aside, this is a new editor who appears to be very familiar with wikimarkup and policies from the start, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of our usual suspects. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The collection of user page edits in order to pass semi-protection is clear gaming. Let's see if they become disruptive somewhere else. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Issued a final warning. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • They've just contributed this edit on Ephebophilia calling that certain 'p' word a 'mistaken' term and removing some important contextual terms by moving it into the lede with their version; not reverting because I'm not for getting into minefield articles, but a low-edit account just grabbing for this grenade screams WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW to me. Nate • (chatter) 22:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

    No. No. Indeffed. NOTHERE. Courcelles (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Greenwashing not here

I believe that a NOTHERE block, or an AP2 topic ban, should be considered for the user Greenwashing. I'm WP:INVOLVED (especially given this response to me) so I won't do it myself. All but five of their edits are to Talk:Joe Biden(three of those five are to their user talk page). Their Biden talk page edits are mostly talking points and misinformation by Biden opponents(1, 2, and especially 3 which was debunked here). I don't believe they are here to collaborate with those interested in the Joe Biden article. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen this user pop up on my watchlist feed a lot over the past month or so, and I agree with 331dot. They're mostly engaging in WP:FORUM activities at Talk:Joe Biden. I agree they're not here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 19:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Beat me to it after they suggested you are on drugs. That aside, the continuing efforts to add badly sourced and debunked, negative material to a BLP, even if it is a public figure, is a waste of editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I nearly started this thread myself. They're definitely NOTHERE, starting with the username, which I believe uses the term greenwashing as a pejorative. Good block. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I just looked a sample of his comments at Talk:Joe Biden. In the ones I looked at, he criticizes the lack of attention to Biden's gaffes and contrasted that with our treatment of Donald Trump. Again, it was just a sample, but his comments didn't seem more forum-ish than those of some other regular editors -- just more conservative.

--A. B. 21:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with this take. Just because they are conservative, doesn't mean they should be blocked. However, they need to have a better grasp of what constitutes a reliable source for the purposes of the encyclopedia and avoid personal attacks. Let'srun (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I just finished reading the exchange at Talk:Joe Biden. Just before getting indefinitely blocked, Greenwashing said another editor should avoid hallucinogenic mushrooms -- Did I miss any other comments like that one? I know Greenwashing took plenty of incoming similar fire as well at Talk:Joe Biden -- I'm glad I wasn't in his shoes.

At Talk:Joe Biden, Greenwashing was pushing for coverage in the Joe Biden article of Biden's gaffes as President. The article mentions Biden's gaffes before he became President but none since.

Greenwashing also wanted coverage of Biden's health. Our article talks about his 1988 brain surgery but nothing about his current health.

These are topics of interest for many people and not just right-wing voters in the United States.

There are reliable, neutral sources that can be used to address these topics in several sentences. This would not have to be as lengthy as Greenwashing expected and certainly not speculative or POV as he seemed to want.

If we avoid any coverage of topics like these and indefinitely ban editors who complain (however unartfully), we just feed the narrative that Misplaced Pages is biased.

I make these points here not to get that article changed -- this isn't the venue. I'm not even focused on Greenwashing's block. I just want our editors and admins -- especially our Americans -- to think carefully about our long-term reputation for reliability, neutrality and openness. These are all under pressure here.

I'm not sure we're getting it right.

--A. B. 03:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Also @331dot I looked through the diffs, and I noticed that this article that you have quoted actually supports what he said.
The video accurately represented what Biden said. Biden was delivering remarks at the League of Conservation Voters' annual capitol dinner on June 14, the same day the claim started to spread online. We found the quote in the White House transcript of the remarks.We also found it in a livestream of Biden's remarks posted on YouTube by PBS NewsHour, starting at 12:41 in the video:
IMO looks more like an editor who is going about edits in a rather poor manner, than someone trying to be disruptive. A few warnings or a short term block for incivility might have been instructive in that regard. Definitely uncivil, though an indef for that seems excessive to me. But I'll leave that to judgement of more experienced editors. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(comment in non-admin capacity) Not that the personal attack was okay, but it pales in comparison to the glaring BLP violation about Hillary Clinton in the same diff. An indef was the right call here. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and if they show they understand both WP:NPA and WP:BLP, an unblock can be considered. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 06:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Captain Jack Sparrow I'm aware that those words came out of Biden's mouth, but as the Snopes piece describes he was not referring to a project to build a railroad across an ocean, but to an ocean. Biden has long had a reputation as being gaffe-prone at least partially because of his stutter. There are places to write about every gaffe that Biden makes, but that's not what we do here. 331dot (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

A. B. No, Greenwashing did not want to collaborate about posting information related to Biden's health, they wanted to post typical anti-Biden talking points that he has cognitive issues- comments made by political opponents who have not examined Biden and thus do not meet policy with regards to medical matters. () They also have showed no interest in collaboration about how Biden's gaffes should be discussed, just an interest in posting every terrible thing Biden says or does or is allegedly responsible for even when he isn't(). There are places to post anti-Biden messages, but not on the article talk page of a Misplaced Pages article. They have never proposed an actual edit to make. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Pauseypaul

Pauseypaul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Let's begin this by saying that I do not like to bring this to ANI, I think ANI damages editing relations, but I have been personally threatened for absolutely nothing and it's been continuous. I have no idea why. It's an unusual case, in that there is no content dispute and I did not even address Pauseypaul before they began attacking me. For this reason (and I'm sorry for the length), I'm including the entire series of events.

On Talk:2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, a new user asked that footnotes be removed from results tables so that they could automatically scrape results. This isn't something we should do, but Pauseypaul did so. This isn't the issue. I'll continue, with every single edit, by providing diffs first:

1. – Pauseypaul, after removing footnotes, opens a new talkpage section saying that they have done so. I include this edit in light of their subsequent behaviour; they are already showing a negative attitude and accusing editors of "cherrypicking" by the existence of the notes. The explanation suggests that they have retained the information in a nearby location and done this to match an editing guideline.
2. – Pauseypaul responds to the new user, exhibiting similar negativity about the footnotes
3. – I respond to the new user, telling them that it is unconventional for edits to be made for reasons that do not improve Misplaced Pages, but (and I quote) It's nice that the edits have been helpful
4. – Pauseypaul replies to my comment, insinuating that I was scorning their editing intentions and was impolite.
5. – Pauseypaul separately (I have only seen this now, I had assumed it was a mistake as part of the previous edit) inserts a long line of '=' above my comment... I politely removed it ()
6. – I reply to Pauseypaul, explicitly saying that I did not want to suggest their editing was wrong

And that all seemed like it was over, until another user undid Pauseypaul's removal of the footnotes.

1. – Jkudlick (I will courtesy ping below) criticises Pauseypaul's edit. They are not impolite, but do explicitly tell Pauseypaul that the edit was detrimental to Misplaced Pages and they oppose the negative language Pauseypaul had used – this is worth noting for later relevance.
2. – I reply to Jkudlick, saying that I had thought Pauseypaul had retained the information but, if not, then I agreed with Jkudlick that removing footnotes for a non-WP reason is wrong. I mention that I had not addressed the negative language because of how Pauseypaul had already responded to me.
3. – Jkudlick replies to me, saying that the footnotes have been restored and they just wanted to tell Pauseypaul not to do it again. Jkudlick, again, is not impolite but is dismissive towards the original new user's request (and therefore Pauseypaul's editing).
4. – Pauseypaul replies to Jkudlick. This is where it gets awful. I have no way to describe this comment and Pauseypaul's future ones but hatred. I have no idea how they can hate me from this sequence of interaction, but it is clear they do.
   The comment begins 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, unlike kingsif... as I have noted, Jkudlick was not impolite but definitely showed less tolerance for Pauseypaul's edit than I did. The use of an unusual typeface reads like a change of tone to make a WP:POINT, not that we need this to confirm since they went out of their way to disparage me for no reason.
   You'll see that the comment is not a thank-you note, it is a laundry list of incredibly false, incredibly serious accusations of wrongdoing on my part. Of particular interest is the accusation that I have been Repeatedly jumping into talk-pages that Pauseypaul is involved in; this is, as I recall, our only interaction and I had been editing at that talkpage long before (which Pauseypaul will later acknowledge) - I assume Pauseypaul meant talkpage discussions, but I would hardly call two "repeatedly".
   They accuse me of not only deliberately misgendering them by using "he", but of doing so to amuse myself; the misgendering was unintentional, and I apologise for doing so. The user does not have pronoun preferences indicated and I should not have assumed a masculine username was indicative of pronouns. I am sorry for this error, as I would never want to misgender someone; I am particularly hurt at the spurious accusations of relishing in such behaviour.
5. – I reply to Pauseypaul, linking to WP:NPA.
6. – Pauseypaul replies to me. This comment starts Pot Kettle., trying to compare our comments and supposedly saying that they think I made personal attacks. Interestingly, Pauseypaul asserts that they have a right to reply, despite 1. me never saying they didn't, and 2. them trying to paint my replies to other users as attacks on themself. They explain that they feel my comments (all three of them) were bullying and that my NPA warning shouts 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲, saying that I of 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 them.
   They issue a threat: Please note that I will be making enquiries.
7. – I ping two recently active admins to the discussion. The threat is unacceptable but, as I said, I find ANI a last port of call and there is no actual dispute to resolve. I summarise the situation in the comment.
8. – Victuallers (I will courtesy ping below), one of the admins, comments with a 3O. Unfortunately, Victuallers has (openly) not read all the comments. From their suggestion to edit other articles and their understanding that the discussion header ("Discipline", referring to on-pitch discipline, the footnote Pauseypaul had removed) was a request for user discipline, I think Victuallers didn't actually read any of it and assumed it was a content dispute. I mention this for context.
9. – I reply to Victuallers, noting the mistake. I also note that I have not given a reply to Pauseypaul except to ask them to stop casting aspersions. As you can see, this is true.
10. – Pauseypaul replies to me. They accuse me of "starting it", they mock my attempt at 3O resolution, and they mock my moderation efforts at the talkpage (closing random discussions with WP:NOTAFORUM tags... and therefore simultaneously acknowledging that they know I have been trying to helpfully contribute to random questions at the talkpage for a while. And yet, for no clear reason, they took great offense at me doing the same when they had already replied to a question.

As I said, I have no way to describe Pauseypaul's behaviour except hate. It's a mixture of assuming bad faith from the start and making particularly awful personal attacks towards me because, as they seemed to explain themselves, they think I bullied them. Despite the fact they began the string of hostility before I ever replied to them.

I am sure ANI regulars won't strain to recall this discussion from a few weeks ago; remembering to uphold my own personal standards of polite communication is something very present in my mind at the moment so, truly, if I believed I had been even a bit impolite I would have apologised and tried to resolve the situation. Though Pauseypaul clearly thinks otherwise, I do not see this.

Given that Pauseypaul responded unkindly to me reminding them about NPA, though they did not seem to disagree they had been doing so, I think a more formal warning regarding this may be helpful. (Courtesy pings for @Jkudlick and Victuallers: I do not think they need to contribute, but as their edits have been discussed, they may.) Kingsif (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

In notifying Pauseypaul, I see that we have interacted before: User_talk:Pauseypaul#Players_clubs_"as_of" - in January I left them a long message explaining why I had reverted some of their edits after they had similarly assumed bad faith on my part and mocked my editing. I don't know where the attitude came from there, either, or if they remember that and have held a grudge. Of course, if they did remember it, that's a long friendly message to try and prevent an edit dispute; I think I have actually been more polite than warranted every time I've interacted with Pauseypaul. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Recent Misplaced Pages Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/intervention that Kingsif has been involved in contra to their comment that they don’t like to involve administrators, but in my opinion Kingsif knows how to play the system. And is doing so here.

27 July 2023 – User:Pauseypaul

25 July 2023 – User:Frenchl

25 July 2023 – Civility restriction User:HiLo48

23 July 2023 – User:Frenchl

22 July 2023 – User:Frenchl

21 July 2023 – Reporting user TheMNLRockstar

21 July 2023 – User:Frenchl x2

21 July 2023 – Possibly Confused Comments x4

20 July 2023 – Edit warring ‎User:Kingsif reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: No violation)

19 July 2023 – Personal attacks by User:Kingsif

18 July 2023 – Personal attacks by User:Kingsif x2

7 July 2023 – Vandalism User-reported: franco fanboy

Note: I could keep scrolling but to be perfectly honest I can’t be bothered and there is woman’s world cup football to catch up on.

OK, reading down the ‘complaint from Kingsif’ Not sure why Kingsif noted that Tombuckley1984 is a new Misplaced Pages user asking for help, do Misplaced Pages editors only help old users?

– Is there anyway of ensuring only numbers in the points column for teams. I am using the wikipedia pages for my work fantasy league and google sheets can't transform the data. It would really help me out and make the content more accessible. –

– The clutter has been removed –

– I have removed the untidy and cluttered notes and numbers added to the standing box for Group B. Each Group has their own page with a Discipline box at the bottom for Fair play points and notes. Which are there to help easy understanding of Group stage tiebreakers. –

– It is unhelpful if editors cherry pick one match and is inconsistent with present editing guides after the 2022 FIFA World Cup. –

1. What on earth does this mean?

they are already showing a negative attitude and accusing editors of "cherrypicking" by the existence of the notes.

The explanation suggests that they have retained the information in a nearby location and done this to match an editing guideline.

An editor added notes on one match (i.e. cherry-picking) out of the four that had been played at the time.

B 20 July Australia 1 Republic of Ireland 0 ITV

B 21 July Nigeria 0v Canada 0 BBC 0-0 Draw

A 21 July Philippines v Switzerland 2 ITV

C 21 July Spain 3 v Costa Rica 0 BBC

How does this suggest retaining information in a nearby location. What on earth does this mean? What nearby location? I don’t understand what Kingsif is attempting to suggest here. I simply went to the 2022 World cup page checked if it had numbers in the standing box, it did not, so I took that as my guide. Nothing nefarious.

2.

Pauseypaul responds to the new user, exhibiting similar negativity about the footnotes

Untrue and the perceived negativity is clearly in Kingsif vivid imagination along with the imaginary nearby location from 1.

My actual reply was simply. – The clutter has been removed – How is that exhibiting negativity? It’s simple and polite.

2.

Hi, Tom, this has been removed, but because a recent editing guide recommends so (see below); I feel the need to point out that it's not so (in the nicest way) one guy can scrape information a bit more easily. It's nice that the edits have been helpful to everyone here, but these sorts of requests will typically get you nowhere. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

My Reply

𝐈 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 I did indeed remove it for the reason stated below which I am sure the poster is able to read. If "Tom" or any user wishes to scrape information from Misplaced Pages for their fantasy league that's fine with me & I'm sure "they" are not alone in doing so.

....𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 well I find by being polite on wiki goes a long way and as I also found the clutter irritating was Happy to do a simple spot of Summer cleaning. Pauseypaul (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I felt the tone of Kingsif was harsh and picky and to be totally honest it’s not very well written and could imply he had done the edit and was after glory.

Kingsif had no reason to say (this has been removed) as I had already replied in the positive. I have no idea as to the (recent editing guide) that Kingsif is referring to or what the (see below) comment means.

3.

I respond to the new user, telling them that it is unconventional for edits to be made for reasons that do not improve Misplaced Pages

Kingsif appears confused as to what they just said above, what they said was ( these sorts of requests will typically get you nowhere) which I took to be unhelpful and snippy.

4.

Pauseypaul replies to my comment, insinuating that I was scorning their editing intentions and was impolite.

Again this was my reply

𝐈 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 I did indeed remove it for the reason stated below which I am sure the poster is able to read. If "Tom" or any user wishes to scrape information from Misplaced Pages for their fantasy league that's fine with me & I'm sure "they" are not alone in doing so.

....𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 well I find by being polite on wiki goes a long way and as I also found the clutter irritating was Happy to do a simple spot of Summer cleaning. Pauseypaul (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No replies have been deleted is there a Narnia in the back of their computer because it’s still just the same reply.

5.

Golly gosh I added === so I could separate The Edit to copy to an Email and did not remove it. That’s going to get me sent straight to azkaban prison and the death eaters suck out my very soul! Yes clearly a Misplaced Pages bannable offence that Kingsif feels is vitally important to bring to the attention of Misplaced Pages Administrators.

6.

I reply to Pauseypaul, explicitly saying that I did not want to suggest their editing was wrong

– I don't know why you're taking an attitude, nowhere did I say or even suggest it was wrong - it just rarely happens that "change formatting for non-WP reason" is accepted and Tom shouldn't expect it happen again based on it being done now. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2023 –

Semantics I felt Kingsif was just playing with words and did not bother replying as they clearly were edging for some-sort of verbal conflict.

Another 1.

Jkudlick (I will courtesy ping below) criticises Pauseypaul's edit. They are not impolite, but do explicitly tell Pauseypaul that the edit was detrimental to Misplaced Pages and they oppose the negative language Pauseypaul had used – this is worth noting for later relevance.

This is what Jkudlick in-fact said

– Those "untidy" notes are useful for understanding at a glance why one team is placed higher than another if they have the same number of points, goals against, and goals scored. There is no reason to remove that information until it is no longer relevant; in the case of Group B, it was necessary to indicate on the table why Canada was placed ahead of Nigeria. These tables are transcluded in multiple articles, and the whole point of Misplaced Pages is to make it easier to share information; requiring someone to search amongst multiple articles to find this out is the antithesis of that. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) –

I did not perceive this reply from Jkudlick as criticism, which Kingsif is desperately trying to claim it is. I found the explanation very helpful and polite, especially this bit ( in the case of Group B, it was necessary to indicate on the table why Canada was placed ahead of Nigeria.) Again I can’t see any suggestion in the above any mention of negative language from myself being remarked on by Jkudlick. Kingsif is again trying very hard but I don’t feel Jkudlick comment was anything other than helpful.

Another 2.

I reply to Jkudlick, saying that I had thought Pauseypaul had retained the information but, if not, then I agreed with Jkudlick that removing footnotes for a non-WP reason is wrong. I mention that I had not addressed the negative language because of how Pauseypaul had already responded to me.

This was Kingif actual reply

– Wait, I thought Paul just moved the information below the table, that's what he made it sound like?

I didn't myself say anything about his strange reference to cherry-picking matches based on his response to my comment in the section above, but this indicates he doesn't understand the purpose so I would hope he didn't just remove information he doesn't understand. Yes, if he didn't keep the information accessible that's not okay - especially if he did so just so one guy can scrape information a bit more easily - making Misplaced Pages content worse for a non-Misplaced Pages reason, not understanding that's what you're doing, and having an attitude about it is all not okay. Kingsif (talk) –

Just I feel a lot of waffle from kingsif trying to make themselves justified, shrugs. I do note I have been gendered to Paul from my user-name of Pauseypaul and numerous male inflections, my father may he rest in piece will be pleased he always wanted a son, but alas I have no intention of transitioning any time in the near future!

Still not sure what or where this (retained the information) is that Kingsif is talking about, shrugs. Again implying I have an attitude which I think is in-fact the other way around.

Another 3.

Jkudlick replies to me, saying that the footnotes have been restored and they just wanted to tell Pauseypaul not to do it again. Jkudlick, again, is not impolite but is dismissive towards the original new user's request (and therefore Pauseypaul's editing).

This was Jkudlick actual reply

– The information was actually removed from the Group B table in the template, but was later restored. It's not our problem that someone can't be bothered to type the data themselves for an off-Misplaced Pages purpose rather than scrape it. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) –

As you can clearly read Jkudlick made no mention of me Pauseypaul at all in their reply it is all in kingsif imagination. Kingsif is desperate for someone to back them up it’s quite strange.

Another 4.

Pauseypaul replies to Jkudlick. This is where it gets awful. I have no way to describe this comment and Pauseypaul's future ones but hatred. I have no idea how they can hate me from this sequence of interaction, but it is clear they do.

The comment begins 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, unlike kingsif... as I have noted, Jkudlick was not impolite but definitely showed less tolerance for Pauseypaul's edit than I did. The use of an unusual typeface reads like a change of tone to make a WP:POINT, not that we need this to confirm since they went out of their way to disparage me for no reason.

You'll see that the comment is not a thank-you note, it is a laundry list of incredibly false, incredibly serious accusations of wrongdoing on my part. Of particular interest is the accusation that I have been Repeatedly jumping into talk-pages that Pauseypaul is involved in; this is, as I recall, our only interaction and I had been editing at that talkpage long before (which Pauseypaul will later acknowledge) - I assume Pauseypaul meant talkpage discussions, but I would hardly call two "repeatedly".

They accuse me of not only deliberately misgendering them by using "he", but of doing so to amuse myself; the misgendering was unintentional, and I apologise for doing so. The user does not have pronoun preferences indicated and I should not have assumed a masculine username was indicative of pronouns. I am sorry for this error, as I would never want to misgender someone; I am particularly hurt at the spurious accusations of relishing in such behaviour.

This is now getting very very strange, this is what I actually replied to Jkudlick

– 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, unlike kingsif. Who amuses themselves by repeatedly miss-gendering me nine times in their comment below. Repeatedly jumping into talk-pages I have politely engaged in and attempting to disparage and belittle me which is sad and rather unbecoming of a professional Wikipedian with 50k+ edits under this name. Pauseypaul (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC) –

I can not see any hate in my comment, just a thank you to Jkudlick. And noting the miss-gendering.

This is an absolute load of twaddle from Kingsif (Jkudlick was not impolite but definitely showed less tolerance for Pauseypaul's edit than I did.)

I felt that Jkudlick was polite and helpful no idea what or why Kingsif is trying to say about Jkudlick was acting with (less tolerance) I feel Kingsif is just trying to stir a pot of bother.

Nope not seeing a problem with a bold typeface, I have not used capitals which would be shouting and I had already used it above, as green is strange when your blind to that spectrum of colour. This whole comment from Kingsif is full their ( assuming and imagination ) They have in-fact been on my personal talk page twice before the 2023 Woman’s World cup and jumped into others.

Why is Kingsif apologising to the Administrators' noticeboard for miss-gendering me, surely that should be directed at myself! As for (spurious accusations) nine times is not accidental. This imaginary hurt of kingsif is making my eyes bleed, what a load of Ratners.

Another 5.

OK yep.

Another 6.

– Pauseypaul replies to me. This comment starts Pot Kettle., trying to compare our comments and supposedly saying that they think I made personal attacks. Interestingly, Pauseypaul asserts that they have a right to reply, despite 1. me never saying they didn't, and 2. them trying to paint my replies to other users as attacks on themself. They explain that they feel my comments (all three of them) were bullying and that my NPA warning shouts 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲, saying that I of 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 them.

They issue a threat: Please note that I will be making enquiries. –

This really is like watching a child fall to pieces in the playground, I am amazed what on earth is wrong with my seeking to make enquiries, unlike Kingsif the professional Wikipedian with 50k+ plus edits under their belt, I have no idea of the procedure so made enquiries… how on this soggy day is that a Threat? It’s turning into a strange farce.

Another 7.

Kingsif pings two admins because of the nasty horrid threat, gosh, I’m sorry I’m laughing here.

Another 8.

Makes more assumptions about the admin that replied.

Basically Kingsif was unhappy an admin did not side with them and was unwilling to wait for the other to reply in their favour, threw their toys out a window and started a wasteful time-consuming Administrators' noticeboard complaint.

Basically I have made no threat and any hurt is purely in their mind. Maybe lack of sleep from a little to much early morning television football viewing who knows. But they do love making up Ratners and bending the truth maybe in RL they are a fiction writer LOL.

Asking for a warning to be slapped on myself is a Joke! Pauseypaul (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pauseypaul (and to some extent Kingsif) These loooooooooooong paragraphs are unreadable, please provide a TL;DR of about 500 words so its easier get the gist. Include the diffs of disruption/failure to AGF/ whatever you are accusing of, but dont bother rewriting the whole story. Also just write your response in points, no need to copy the other editors words then respond below. @Pauseypaul I would recommend that you delete your second response, and use special formatting (this is using talk quotes) to differentiate quotes from your own response. As of now I doubt anyone can read either of your responses. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Good freaking grief. It's not so much that no one can read nearly five bloody thousand words -- it's that no one's going to bother. Ravenswing 08:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Having read the original complaint and most of PauseyPaul's response I find myself agreeing that Pauseypaul has an issue with civility and personal attacks. Their response to a complaint that they were acting in an uncivil manner contains sentences such as

Untrue and the perceived negativity is clearly in Kingsif vivid imagination along with the imaginary nearby location from 1.

That’s going to get me sent straight to azkaban prison and the death eaters suck out my very soul!

This imaginary hurt of kingsif is making my eyes bleed, what a load of Ratners.

This really is like watching a child fall to pieces in the playground

Kingsif pings two admins because of the nasty horrid threat, gosh, I’m sorry I’m laughing here.

But they do love making up Ratners and bending the truth maybe in RL they are a fiction writer LOL.

Responding to a complaint that you are being uncivil and attacking other editors with incivility and attacks on other editors really is not a good look. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with 163.1.15.238. Pauseypaul's comments about/to Kingsif are unacceptably hostile and she should dial it back; if she can't learn to communicate in a civil manner with all editors, she'll likely end up here again. (edited to add:) I looked through her contributions, and this attitude seems to be solely directed toward Kingsif, I couldn't find similar conduct toward any other editor. She might consider avoiding Kingsif if she can't rein in whatever negative feelings she has toward him. Schazjmd (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! Well! Sadly my attempt at a little humour failed to break past the wall of blatant unscrupulous manipulation and paranoia in kingsif’s rewording of the events, others thoughts and my imagined hate threats upon them.

I shall return my clown-mask with immediate effect, while they practise my 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞. I’m sure they will wallow in their lukewarm bath filled with pointless barnstar’s and their complete apathy for the truth.

All this for a -66 in good faith edit that I thought was helping.

Clearly their 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 has won you and others approval.

Goodbye, I am just going outside and may be some time.

Pauseypaul (she/her) since 1955 but never a Karen! or a Richard. Pauseypaul (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

To be blunt, do you genuinely feel that the best way to address concerns about over-the-top melodramatic/hostile cracks on your part is in doubling down on the melodrama? (Or, for that matter, that a variation on the hoary old "Canchu take a joke?" is better? While we're talking about blatant manipulation.) Ravenswing 16:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp and Ravenswing: Could I invite you to read through the threads " after the Nigeria Canada Draw" and "Discipline" at the current version of Talk:2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, simply, then? In short, I politely replied to other users regarding an edit and was faced with Pauseypaul throwing every attack in the book at me.
I had only wanted someone else to remind Pauseypaul of WP:NPA because they responded negatively to me linking it; after seeing their reply above, demonstrating that their attitude is to attack me even further, to apparently try and prove I deserve their hate (rather than, IDK, try not to be hateful), I think something much more serious is needed. The combative attitude and blinkered focus on editors, not edits, is not conducive to Misplaced Pages. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is a really stupid dispute based on a small editing mistake that we've wasted far too many words on already, but there's also clearly been incivility here on Pauseypaul's part. Not sure I'd recommend any sanctions but there should be at least some sort of warning. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Pauseypaul's response here is unreadable and is the kind of comment we as a project can frankly do without. @Pauseypaul: please consider this a warning to not engage in personal attacks; comment on the content and not the contributor. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I read through this, and my conclusion would be that the escalation of the dispute on the talk page was silly and should not have escalated; a warning for Pauseypaul would be appropriate. Use better, less offensive phrasing and target content, not editors. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Known Rod

Known Rod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A brand new account who knew how to create a userpage and templates immediately and crash landed into AfD with poor !votes. Anyone familiar with The Office socks to know where to file this one? Thanks! Star Mississippi 15:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the same thing. Certainly seems unusual. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Courcelles blocked them for sockpuppetry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Courcelles for the clean up. Star Mississippi 15:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That user page was a good indicator that trolling would be forthcoming. Courcelles (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As they noted in their appeal, the quote that constitutes their user page is, indeed, taken from my user page (although you may not see it if you go there unless you purge a few times, since I randomly display just one of a set of quotes). Although Known Rod only used that single quote, they left it in {{random item}}, indicating that they're not a super-sophisticated wikieditor. I didn't realize there were The Office socks. I'm reminded of the funniest Office scene ever, in which Jim is essentially a sock of Dwight. But I'd better stop talking about The Office, lest suspicions grow.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm... SnowRise 23:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd certainly say the user deserved to be blocked, as 99 edits in 5 hours 18 minutes works out to about 3 minutes per edit, which is rather hard to beat without automated scripts. Looking at the contributions it does not seem much effort was made besides Template:In Therapy which the user spent a whopping 22 minutes on.

I don't really know much about this area of Misplaced Pages, but is it usual for socks to complain that they are not a sock? I wonder if it is worth unblocking them after a week to see if they continue their editing spree or start making useful contributions. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

All. The. Time. Socks always deny being socks. Courcelles (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it is very common for socks to claim they aren't, when requesting an unblock. It's more common than admitting they are indeed sockpuppet accounts. Of course, sometimes they aren't socks, so this is not entirely unexpected. --Yamla (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact, just about the only instance where they do admit it is when the sockmaster gets blocked, and resorts to talk page taunting about how they're going to keep on socking and no one can stop them, nyah nyah. Ravenswing 12:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I gather from Star's initial comments that we have an LTA who regularly embraces memes associated with The Office? SnowRise 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've definitely run into one, but not frequently enough to remember which drawer to put them in. Sometimes I'm not sure if it's literal socking or random fandom boards (generic, not Wiki version) deciding to troll here. Hiatus is going to have way too many bored folks. Star Mississippi 16:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated additions of NPOV-violating content at Joe Biden

@AidanH123: has repeatedly added NPOV-violating editions to the lead of Joe Biden. The same style of edits have been going on for months. July 2023, June 28, 2023, June 14, 2023, June 9, 2023, March 14, 2023, March 6, 2023, March 1, 2023, and February 3, 2023. Myself and other editors have had to remove this content repeatedly. I've visited Aidan's talk page asking him twice to stop adding content without consensus at Talk:Joe Biden. He has not cooperated and refuses to start a discussion in the talk page. If you look at his contribution history you will see this is one of the few things he does on Misplaced Pages at all. Additionally, he has been warned for NPOV concerns on his talk page by Annh07 for contributions related to Christian Ronaldo. He has not responded to that either.

I'm not one to file many complaints, but I have concerns over pov-pushing and a lack of understanding of behavior norms. And I'm not sure this editor is being successful at building the encyclopedia. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 23:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your report. I've indeffed the user for NOTHERE. Virtually every one of their 561 edits has been reverted or is a personal sandbox edit. It appears the user has been performing nonsense contributions to their sandbox page to gain sufficient edits to pass EC page restrictions. They've been at this game for more than 6 months and I'm not seeing many substantive talk contributions, even to rebut frequent userpage warnings from other editors. I'm not sure why they are here, but it doesn't appear to involve creating an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I only looked at the first linked diff. May I ask what is wrong with it, and why it was reverted, and how it violates NPOV? Perhaps, I'm missing something? Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  There many problems with them that damage the NPOV. For one, he continuously adds content -- such as AKUS and Respect for Marriage Act -- that was removed after discussion in the talk. Furthermore, he introduces content in a tone that is not impartial. It's all POV content characterized in a positive way to Biden. Everytime he does this it disrupts the neutral lead that has been developed through long-term community discussion. On top of that, he refuses to discuss his edits and his long-term edit warring. It's not normal to be dedicating 6 months to adding the exact same content that has been objected to by several different editors. Perhaps it would have been different if he just chose to discuss in the talk page, but that's something he will not do. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 01:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I understand. My initial concern (looking at only the July diff), is that the user was merely adding facts that didn't constitute POV content as far as I can see. Hopefully, others will take a look and chime in. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User Singh62002 Refusing to go to the talk page, and disruptive editing. Page: List of battles involving the Sikh Empire

So user Singh62002 has been in a content dispute. They were attempting to change the First Anglo-Afghan War summary on the page of the list of battles to a "Coalition victory", despite it being very well, and as shown on the First Anglo-Afghan War page itself, an Afghan victory. I attempted to go to the talk page after realizing this will just result in an edit war.

After opening a talk page discussion, they refuse to go there and have since reverted the edit again as seen here in this diff:

I believe it is starting to become disruptive editing on their behalf especially without discussing it, only throwing in their response in the edit summary section rather on the talk page.

This user has also been previously warned by another administrator for doing the edits as shown in this diff here: The template advises them to go to the talk page to discuss their edits, yet they seem to refuse to. Noorullah (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I warned them of the ANI notice in this diff.

The administrator that initially warned them was @Johnuniq. Noorullah (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I issued a partial block to prevent Singh62002 (talk · contribs) from editing articles. They have only ever edited articles and have no talk page contributions. That is not sustainable when disagreements occur. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

IPv6 Editor Submitting Hoax Drafts and Making Unverified Edits

• 2804:3FA8:9B00:26B7:6C33:B49D:88FB:6306 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IPv6 submitted the following one-sentence drafts with no references:

• Draft:China Daylight Time
• Draft:Japan Daylight Time
• Draft:Korea Daylight Time
• Draft:Hong Kong Summer Time

These drafts all made statements about daylight time that were both unreferenced and untrue, and so I have tagged them as hoaxes. The IP also made edits about time in Australia that have been reverted by User:Kiwipete (thanks KP).

I haven't had time to check some of their other edits, but they are probably all vandalism. A range block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon, yes, one of these edits first came to my notice on the Special:PendingChanges page. I then investigated the other edits from the same IP address, and reverted all the other ones as well. However, there are now more new edits which I have also reverted - I just hope I'm not at risk of WP:3RR, can you please advise? I also noted your feedback on the draft articles created by this IP address, all of which have been rejected, and largely for the same reasons I stated - lack of reliable sources. Are there further steps which could/should now be taken? Thanks for your help, Kiwipete (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Kiwipete - One of the exceptions to WP:3RR is reverting blatant vandalism, and it is my opinion that these edits are vandalism, which is why the range needs to be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that.

On 22 July 2023, there was a spree of draft creations from

• 187.36.170.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ,

some of which are being edited now by the 2804 vandal. They are probably the same person. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, Robert McClenon. There seems to be a fairly large overlap in the names of draft articles created. Kiwipete (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Editor frequently misuses ROLLBACK to undo good faith edits.

Editor (not administrator as previously stated) https://en.wikipedia.org/User:TrangaBellam frequently misuses rollback (edit: and restore to previous version) in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Sengol (and also this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_Kup, and possibly others)

See rollbacks (edit: one of these is restore to previous version).

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sengol&oldid=1165491677 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sengol&oldid=1165143945 EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Kup&oldid=1166659637

My edits were purely stylstic: to remove some flamboyant language favored by this editor. For e.g:

"As the Independence of India drew near, Jawaharlal Nehru and other luminaries of the Indian National Congress partook in many religious ceremonies that sought to augur well for the incipient nation and received a multitude of gifts in the process"

I think it is better more succinctly as:

"As the Independence of India drew near, Jawaharlal Nehru and other members of the Indian National Congress took part in many religious ceremonies and received gifts"

EDIT: I want to address claims that this complaint is some sort of machievlian attempt on my part to win some content dispute.

• First, I am owed a presumption of good faith.
• Two, I have no dog in this fight. My edits to the Sengol article in concern are minor unimportant syntax issues, and not in contention in the current version.
• My reason for bringing this is because this editor frequently engages in aggressive content warring, misusing the Roll-back and revert options.
• Also this editor is not alone.It is part of wider culture in Misplaced Pages I have observed as a new user. More established editors (those with fancy user pages) act with immunity and treat articles as their personal fiefdoms. This particular editor couldn't tolerate even a minor simplification their purple prose.
• This is an opportunity for administrators to choose do you want to address this culture of immunity, or do you want to punish those question it.

Jagmanst (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Jagmanst (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the big red notice requiring you to notify TrangaBellam of this?

TrangaBellam isn't an administrator.

This is a content dispute, and does not belong here. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My issue is the misuse of revert power. They also threatened to block me on my talk page, for having edited their wording. I'll look into how to notify them. I don't care about the content. If wikipedia prefers pompous language because an editor insists on it, then so be it. Jagmanst (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no abuse, they have explained what they're doing and why. They did not threaten to block you, because they can't - they're not an administrator. They said they would ask for one if you persisted. Perhaps not the best approach, but not actionable here. Work it out. You're being disagreed with. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The abuse of Rollback: "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes."

How do I work it out, when they keep rollbacking and manually reverting, and using threats? They have not explained anything. Frequent reverts and a threat to report me. Jagmanst (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Jagmanst (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Edited this incident to clarify they issue is the misuse of Rollback (not just edit warring).Jagmanst (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Jagmanst did notify TrangaBellam of this discussion. LilianaUwU 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I haveJagmanst (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Observation. TrangaBellam has participated in discussions at Talk:Sengol. Jagmanst has not. I think that may answer the question of how Jagmanst should work it out. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  The issue is misuse of Rollback. Jagmanst (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  (Also I have participated in discussions, not that it is relevant, actually: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sengol). My only changes after the deletion debate was making the writing better, and it was not disputed by anyone except this one editor who threatened to request to block me today. In fact I got my first thanks on wikipedia for these edits. Jagmanst (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  did not use rollback, so cannot be misuse of rollback. is, I would say, a borderline use of rollback, but nothing to write home about—the edit it reverted was POV-pushing and needed to be reverted, so we're really just nitpicking over the lack of a descriptive edit summary. If you have an issue with a single rollback someone makes, you should take it up with them on their talkpage, not drag them to AN/I. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 04:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Part of the instructions on rollback is that it's allowable to use it if there is explanation given, which may be done on the talk page. I'll grant that it may be a borderline use of rollback but it's certainly not bad faith. I don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes." POV correction is not a valid use. Nor is 'good faith' roll back allowed. Either the rule applies or not. Jagmanst (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be quoting Misplaced Pages:Rollback policy, which is a failed policy proposal from 2008. My and C.Fred's comments are based on WP:ROLLBACKUSE, the actual guideline, under which TrangaBellam's revert was, at worst, a violation so minor that it doesn't matter, and at best not even a violation; one could argue that this was a case "where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". All of that is to say, I would recommend you drop this. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 05:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. thanks for sending me the latest Roll back policy.

  I disagree the roll back merely lacked explanation. It reverted good faith edits including mine, as part of content dispute perhaps.

  "The rollback tool should not usually be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit, nor should it be used in content disputes. However, rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page." Jagmanst (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The path forward is to take the content dispute to the article's talk page. If it was a mistake, the editor who made it will hopefully be willing to restore helpful changes. If it was intentional, you may get the explanation you're looking for. If there's no response, try the user's talk page and then pursue other forms of dispute resolution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see the obvious reasons for their rollbacks or revert to previous version

See revert to previous version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sengol&diff=1165143945&oldid=1164723382

They just undid lot of my cleaning up of language.

Or this bonafide Rollback

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sengol&diff=1165491677&oldid=1165453880

Or this Rollback in which they deleted an entire article practically

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Kup&diff=1166659637&oldid=1166497361 Jagmanst (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"I fail to see the obvious reasons..." – So begin a discussion and WP:NEGOTIATE. Discussion is "not a mere formality, but an integral part" of editing Misplaced Pages. It doesn't appear you've attempted this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

However my complaint is misuse of rollback and reversion to previous version of good faith edits. It was said earlier the rollback etc were obviously clear thing to do. They aren't. I welcome discussion. But the only discussion I received (weeks after my benigm edits to the article) was a threat to block me. Jagmanst (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Jagmanst, is it registering here that almost no one is agreeing with you? If your aim here is to convince people that you are not a tendentious editor out to argue the "I'm right so everyone else must be wrong" side, you are employing a singularly unproductive way of going about it. Ravenswing 12:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The edits of mine in concern were purely stylistic and therefore can't be considered biased. However yes, I do note a pattern of comments of people attacking the complainant rather than addressing the complaint itself. That is more indicative of a culture that permissive of toxic behaviors, and would be consistent with Misplaced Pages's longstanding reputation for exclusion. Jagmanst (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No. What's that indicative of is that you are sounding increasingly shrill and argumentative, that your willful flipping of the metaphoric bird at numerous veteran administrators and editors is a poor look, and that several of us think that's a good deal more toxic a behavior than whether TrangaBellam was more trigger-happy on a couple of rollbacks than was warranted. I would suggest you change your course here at once, save for my conviction that you would reject any such advice out of hand. Ravenswing 16:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing I do concede that I was indeed more trigger-happy on a couple of rollbacks - esp. the one on battle of Kup - than was warranted. That won't be repeated. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the use of "shrill" consistent with WP:NPA? Jagmanst (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Do you find accusing us of permitting toxic behaviors and exclusionism consistent with NPA? Ravenswing 19:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Its pretty bad when an admin doesn't follow WP: NPA. Its worse when their justification is "newbie editor does the same". Besides, pointing out features of toxic cultures is not personal attack on any individual. It is a criticism of a culture. Its quite different from calling someone "shrill". Thanks Jagmanst (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here another Rollback the editor made. Basically killed an entire article without achieving consensus. Again rollback should not be used for POV, or content dispute, but only to remove vandalism and bad faith edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Kup&oldid=1166659637 Jagmanst (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Jagmanst, it is becoming clear that you are trying to use this noticeboard to have someone sanctioned so you can win a content dispute. That is not a wise strategy. Your conduct can be and is being reviewed, and your single-minded behavior here is not doing you any good. Once you post here, you do cannot control the discussion to focus on your preferred issue, and you do not have the right to do so. I strongly advise you to drop this matter and to seek a resolution through Misplaced Pages's normal dispute resolution processes, which involve discussion. Trying to Wikilawyer your perceived opponent into sanctions is only revealing issues with the way you are approaching editing on this very public noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My aim is to show that one editor has a pattern of misuse of roll back and revert to previous version to undo good faith edits. Jagmanst (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Which you keep saying, but have failed to do, and have been advised of that by many editors and administrators. Do you see the problem with that? At this point, this discussion is illustrating an issue with your conduct, a failure to listen to other editors when you are advised that you might be wrong about something. Acroterion (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Attacking the complainant instead of the complaint is not good look. Jagmanst (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not obligated to obey you. If you think otherwise file a complaint. Jagmanst (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst When any editor opens a thread at ANI, their conduct is subject to scrutiny just as much as the conduct of the editor they are reporting is. It is not an attack to make a good-faith observation of problems with your conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The only conduct that has been criticized is the making of this complaint. I am not withdrawing it, nor will be intimidated into doing it. Not when there are administrators taking seriously the merits. Jagmanst (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Jagmanst, as someone with no dog in this fight I would like to tell you that every post you make in this section is making the already low chance that your complaint will be taken seriously even lower. It is also making the chance that you will suffer a WP:BOOMERANG sanction higher. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I do think this one is a problem. TB stubified a (sourced) article, claiming on the talk page that the sources weren't good enough. Another editor quite reasonably restored the material, saying that a large change like this should be discussed first. TB then ignored WP:BRD and rolled the massive change back again. That's not good. However, is it part of a pattern of bad use of rollback? Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  There is a longstanding pattern of misuse of low tier sources to peddle drivel on articles concerning Sikh history. The edits on Battle of Kup had spiralled out of a discussion on User:Abecedare's t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am aware of this, but you don't use rollback to edit-war regardless of whether you believe you are right. That's a no-no. If you are removing sourced material you need to say exactly why you are are doing this on the talk page. The note you did leave on the TP was far too vague; you can't just say these suorces are no good, you need to say why. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Point taken. I have published a detailed evaluation of the sources — almost everything is either from the British Raj era or panned by scholars or trade books or even, SPS. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, here is another example of TB removing sourced material by Rollback, without edit summary nor talk page comment: . I wasn't impressed. Andreas JN466 13:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, that was a mis-click. If I apply rollback, I will always leave a note on t/p.Frankly, given that you believed — and perhaps still believe — that Grabowski, et al were unduly privileged and people like Berendt unfairly classed as the fringe, I do not see why you would take umbrage over the rollback which had removed a criticism of the subject by Grabowski! To summarize, a critical line was proposed by me, you agreed and included it, and I mistakenly rollbacked it. That is not me using rollback to win a content dispute, eh? As is always, the context is important — this could have been a case of tool misuse, if I was using it to tweak the article in my favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  If I apply rollback, I will always leave a note on t/p. I am not so sure that is true. For example, did you do so in this case? I can't see it, and on the face of it, both of these lede wordings reflected views supported by the article's body text. Andreas JN466 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  You did not answer the most important part — when I (mistakenly) rollbacked your edits, did I try to win a content dispute? Or was I effectively undoing my own edit? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  And, Andreas, I won't hear from you on content much less on S. Asian topics. I choose to note that Vanamonde93, a functionary and a long-standing editor in these domains, did the same edit as me noting "Rv unexplained modifications to sourced content". Maybe, we have some clue, that you don't? And maybe, you will also accept that unexplained modifications to sourced content in a highly contentious article equates to bright-line vandalism that needs to be rollbacked? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Woah, no. "Unexplained modifications to sourced content in a highly contentious article" does not equal vandalism per se. Come on, WP:NOTVAND is quite clear. Users may be sanctioned for disruptive editing or edit-warring but even if their edits fall into that category, it is still not vandalism and rollback should not be used in most cases. Just use manual revert and a summary. Black Kite (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I see that Bishonen blocked the editor, in question, for these very edits and categorized the rollbacked edits as opinionated editing which goes counter to sources. I wonder if editing counter to sources can be called vandalism but never mind. I won't be rollbacking anything in future perhaps except total blanking of content or replacement of text with dick-pics. That's my last comment in this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• OP probably needs a boomerang but there doe appear to be legitimate issues with TrangaBellam's conduct here... Their belief that misuse of Rollback isn't misuse unless its used to win a content dispute is disturbing and raised serious questions about whether they currently possess the competence to use that tool. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Which one of the rollbacks is a "misuse" except at the Battle of Kup — the one at the Hindu American Foundation or the one which I categorically said to be a mis-click? I raised the content-dispute-angle to justify that it was indeed a misclick; otherwise, it won't make sense to use the nuclear option on an edit that was actually proposed by me. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia but I believe I am entitled to a presumption of good faith when I made this complaint, which at least some editors find merit. Jagmanst (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel somewhat confident that TrangaBellam's conduct has been satisfactory - their source analysis at Talk:Battle of Kup is quite convincing, although their reverts were questionable, especially with no explanation. Certainly troutable, however they haven't done anything that's sanctionable IMO. Jagmanst, however, definitely needs a boomerang. JML1148 04:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need to sanction an editor who appears to have made all of 264 edits to date. This said, I agree that TB's source analysis at Talk:Battle of Kup is valuable. Andreas JN466 10:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We sanction editors who've made that many edits or less all the time. And indeed, WP:BITE is an important rule. Equally important is the need for newcomers to communicate in a sober and collaborative manner, to learn how Misplaced Pages operates, to listen to the explanations that administrators and fellow editors give, and to avoid reflexive truculence, even if they don't like the answers they receive. The obligations do not flow only in one direction. Ravenswing 01:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it sober and collaborative to call an editor "shrill"? I want to know if that is acceptable conduct that is inclusive, for newbies to emulate?Jagmanst (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Misuse of rollback" at ANI always feels like an easyish "gotcha" when there's not enough evidence/support for real offenses. A way to get some satisfaction against someone you're in a dispute with or a way to get something to stick to an unblockable (not saying Tranga is in this category -- it's just the context for when I see "rollback abuse" come up here). If misuse of rollback is the worst offense you're seeing, it's not really worth bringing here IMO. They could do exactly the same thing using Twinkle or another tool that rolls back without using "rollback". Part of the "anyone can edit" thing means anyone can undo an edit, too. In fact, we tend to make it easier for people who want to restore the status quo than those who want to change something. Trouts for TB for trying to force their changes (using rollback or whatever) at Battle of Kup, and for restoring purple prose in the Sengol article. I can't fault Jagmanst for reading guidance on rollback and thinking it's talking about reverts in general, but now that this mistake is better understood (i.e. "yes, if you make a change someone else can undo it and ask you to argue on the talk page about why it's an improvement"), there's probably nothing else to do here. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldnt consider any misuse of rollback as a sanctionable thing, it is more or less just a de facto single revert. At the same time, the edits that were reverted do seem reasonable; would suggest a trout for both users, this case is going nowhere. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Nuclear_Sergeant

Can someone take a look at this, as well as this and this? They claim not to be a sock, which I have no reason to not believe, but their contributions nonetheless throw up all kinds of red flags for me.

Some select diffs to clarify what I'm talking about here:

Could be just me, but between the constant use of seemingly random emoji, the repeated references to "the admins" and "WP:BITE", and the habit of leaving random comments in strange places for a new user to end up (like the reference desk ), I get the impression that this might be a return customer of some description, and if it's not, the behaviour is still quite clearly disruptive. Best regards, --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Appears to be a WP:NOTHERE editor. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Nuclear Sergeant as NOTHERE. I don't know who they are. Could just be an immature kid, possibly a troll, possibly a sock, but they're not an asset to the project. I haven't blocked the earlier account. They claim they no longer have the password, and there's no e-mail associated with the account so they can't recover it. If another admin thinks User:Unfriendly Aliens should be blocked prophylactically, that's fine. If anyone notices that UA suddenly starts editing again, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Both accounts now blocked based on check-user evidence.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:JArthur1984 Hounding

User:JArthur1984, an editor who seems to solely be adding positive content related to China, got into an edit war with me and others at Qin Gang, then stalked us to Fu Xiaotian where he/she began a similar edit war. I warned the editor about hounding, but they persisted. Can we get admin intervention and possibly a topic ban? NickCT (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the disputed content relating to Fu Xiaotian is being discussed at WP:BLPN. The disputed content (claiming 'forced disappearance') appears not to be supported by the sources cited, and is thus a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that sources claim/suggest a connection between Qin Gang's disappearance from public and Fu Xiaotian's disappearance from public. It's completely natural that an editor interested in one is interested in the other. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Discussing the same subject in two linked articles isn't 'hounding'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Dude reverted Amigao on one page, then moments later, MADE THE SAME REVERT on a seperate page. You'd be crazy to think he wasn't stalking. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

If I want an opinion on whether I'm crazy or not, I'll look for someone qualified to give it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Way to address the point. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

NickCT has just made a gross personal attack on a contributor at WP:BLPN, for no better reason than said contributor pointing out that content needs to be sourced, rather than imagined. Boomerang time, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk)

A gross personal attack? I pointed out that organizations that "disappear" people like it when folks aren't willing recognize that people have been dsiappeared without proper sourcing. NickCT (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever read Law of holes? You probably should... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You should probably just read period. You appreciate the irony in demanding evidence that someone has been "forcibly disappeared", right? The whole point of disappearing people is that you don't leave evidence. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires reliable sources. The absence of evidence for something isn't a reliable source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is going to get circular. I've started an RfC on the topic. We should let that play out. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

An RfC on the content dispute would quite likely be a good idea. There are however behavioural issues that need to be resolved, in my opinion, and they need to be discussed here. Starting, it would seem, with determining whether the 'hounding' claim was justified, and continuing with aspersions being made on a contributor who did nothing beyond pointing out core policy, and an apparent inability to recognise that core policy precludes basing content on lack of evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought I started a conversation about whether the hounding claim was justified.

If went through your contribution history now, and visited all the pages you'd been to in order to enforce a policy, it wouldn't matter whether I was right or wrong about a "core policy". All that would matter was that I was hounding you. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You started a conversation about supposed 'hounding'. So far, you seem not to have convinced anybody that it has taken place. And I sincerely hope you don't since the implications of such a broad interpretation of 'hounding' would be grossly damaging to the project, in my opinion. It is entirely normal and accepted behaviour to look at closely-linked articles when discussing a contentious matter in a specific one, and if doing so one finds the same issue in the linked article, to begin editing there. Not just normal behaviour, but best practice, where WP:BLP or similar core policy is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You say "anybody" you mean two BLP people who were forum shopped?

He didn't look at closely linked articles. He looked at contribution history and you know it. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not hounding this editor. This is an attempt by the editor to turn a content disagreement where the consensus continues to form against the editor's unsourced contentious BLP edits into a series of personal attacks. Those personal attacks first came against me, and now they are coming against others.

@AndyTheGrump refers to the notion of Boomerang and the Law of Holes. Those are apt observations. Early in the content disagreement, the editor who started this topic implied that I was a paid Chinese internet troll, writing, "Some 50 cent army types would argue that "disappearing from public life" is somehow meaningfully different from simply 'disappearing'."

I wanted (and continue to want) to address the unsourced edits without personal contretemps. The editor has not produced a source for his claim. Instead of providing a source, he "warned" me not to hound him. That was nonsensical. Later, I began a topic at the BLP noticeboard, because the editor re-added the unsourced content, and I did not want to violate 3RR and indeed prefer not to have any further one-on-one interaction. My approach is exactly the right approach when continued back-and-forth is non-productive.

I started that BLP noticeboard content topic at 15:06. I did not tag the editor or even identify them by their name. I added a template to the article talk page as required. At 15:58, the editor began this ANI.

The editor is now engaged in other personal attacks against the other editors who disagree with the editor. On the BLP noticeboard, the editor told another person, "I imagine the Stasi would have liked you." On Talk:Fu_Xiaotian, the editor now says that @AndyTheGrump is stalking him.

My editing is compliant with all policies and, as another user points out above, indeed the best practice where BLP or another core policy is inolved. I encourage anyone interested to review the relevant histories and talk topics. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You reverted someone's edit on one page, looked at their contribution history, followed them to another page and reverted them again. That's unambiguous hounding. When I warned you about it, you didn't stop. Instead, when I told you I'd take you ANI you pre-emptively tried to WP:FORUMSHOP on the BLP noticeboard.

I don't know why you think I'm accussing Andy of stalking. I'm accusing you of stalking. NickCT (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy on the WP:BLP noticeboard is not 'forum shopping'. Never. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

From WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. and for such a normal editing practice to become harassment, it must be done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. Many editors, on seeing a questionable edit, will check the contribution history to see if that editor is doing the same thing elsewhere. It's what we do. Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty obviously a content dispute centered around the reading of sources. And edit warring seems like disruptive behavior to me. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You started this thread alleging hounding. Now when editors pointed out that was absolute nonsense, you tell us it's just edit warring. But the editor you're complaining about quickly went to WP:BLPN for help, something you unacceptably claimed was forum shopping when it was nothing of the sort. It was an entirely proper way to seek help in a BLP matter, and indeed almost the antithesis of edit warring. Also per WP:BLPUNDEL, it's is also entirely appropriate to remove and keep out material where there are good faith BLP concerns while checking if there is consensus for inclusion. So from my PoV, the only editor who has been disruptive is you, and it's looking like you may need an indefinite BLP topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 to Schazjmd. I'm one of the many editors who examine contribution histories. For those participating at ANI, I'd say it'd near-to-mandatory if we're going to do our due diligence as to the rights of any dispute. There's a strong correlation between the vehemence to which editors object to this scrutiny and the degree to which there are things in that history said editors don't want the rest of us to see. Ravenswing 04:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've had disagreements with NickCT and tried not to become too affected, but this is becoming difficult to watch. They are very attached to adding "forced" disappearance ahead of or without adequate sources. They threatened to report me after I removed and contested what they wrote at another BLP . At the time I was unsure and thought perhaps they were following procedures, but eventually I realised they had bluffed me into backing down. Then they became defensive over just a tag and compared me to an animal , on top of a couple of aspersions here and there which I've lost track(something like below). Those who follow Qin Gang's story usually also know about the Fu Xiaotian rumor. I chose to steer clear so that Nick wouldn't feel uncomfortable, but unfortunately it appears they have not changed their own ways. CurryCity (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You could have steered clear Curry. Having an editor w/ a history of conflicting wih folks over pro-china edits coming to the aid of another who is now conflicting with folks over CCP apologism probably won't seem super convincing. NickCT (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stayed away, because no one wants to be regarded as a China or CCP sympathiser, but that may not help with the issue here. If you already buy into certain views, even neutral facts and editors could look like pro-CCP/China. CurryCity (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

As others have already pointed, out, this seems like an appropriate use of checking out someone's contributions history. But I also don't understand why we are even assuming that's what happened. This version that people are linking to includes this text "Hong Kong reporter Fu Xiaotian, who also seemed to disappear around the same time.". Any editor with any experience with editing Misplaced Pages should know that if you see a problem in one article, it's quite common that there will be similar problems on other related articles. If I saw a problem on Qin Gan article that I felt needed addressing, I wouldn't need to check out anyone's contribution history to figure the Fu Xiaotian article might have similar problems. I would just read the bloody Qin Gang article and then click the link. Of course, anyone already familiar with the case may not even need to read the article, they might already be well aware of which articles there might be problems. So really I don't understand why the hounding allegation has been raised at all. It's just completely silly when all we seem to have is an editor edited two highly related articles about what is essential the same issue when both the articles and the sources provide the link between these two articles and how the issue may arise in both of them. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the next complaint going to be about how someone is "hounding" because they reverted an edit in Federal prosecution of Donald Trump or Donald Trump and then revert something on the same issue in Walt Nauta a few seconds later? Or heck, is someone going to say that the reason why I edited the thread at BLPN about this issue, checked out Talk:Qin Gang, expressed my deep concerns about NickCT's editing on their talk page and then came to this thread is because I checked out someone's contribution history? Hint: You can believe me or not but the first time I checked out anyone's contribution history in this dispute was checking out NickCT's history for the sole purpose of trying to find a case where they had reverted something in two highly related article to use as an example instead of the Walt Nauta one (but gave up without finding anything). As for how I'm at all four places, well the thread at WP:BLPN where I'm a semi regular as I'm sure several editors can attest to, links to all the other three in some way or the other..... Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually I just remembered that wasn't entirely correct. I did check out NickCT's contributions to ARE before giving them a BLP first alert (as suggested by the edit filter). Also I remember now that something after posting on their talk page but before I noticed this thread mention on BLPN, I did check out NickCT's recent contribution history just to check if they might be still active and so I should hang around for a response or there was no point. However the core is still correct. I became aware of all these related discussions not from anyone's contributions history but from the discussions themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not previously familiar with NickCT, but he's made it 16 years and 18,000 edits with only 2 brief blocks over a decade ago, so I assume he is a generally constructive editor. The battlefield mentality being shown in this thread, though—particularly the above reply to CurryCity, Having an editor w/ a history of conflicting wih folks over pro-china edits coming to the aid of another who is now conflicting with folks over CCP apologism probably won't seem super convincing—and apparent willingness to disregard basic editorial principles to enforce what he perceives to be the truth, makes me think perhaps a topic ban from the Chinese Communist Party, broadly construed, would be the best way forward here. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 04:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed WP:PAID

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

User Acclaim PR has created Draft:Natesha, and everything points towards this being a Public Relations company. An Instagram account with an identical name exists that contains references to Natesha. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have not received money from Natesha. I simply want to create a biographical page for her because she doesn't know how to do it. I majored in journalism and write for fun. I also love music, so I write about a lot artists. I am happy to revise the article as needed. Acclaim PR (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Acclaim PR: Can you explain how it came to be that the Instagram account "@acclaim_pr" has "#Publicity #PR #BrandBldg #ArtistMgmt #ArtistConsulting #CaribbeantEnt #MusicJournalism #MassMedia #PopCultureGuru #TVProd #Writer #MusicEnthusiast" in the bio section, as well as 3 links to Natesha's music? 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Festucalex This would have been more appropriate as a WP:UAA report because the account's name violates the username policy as a promotional username that evidently stands for a marketing group. The Night Watch (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Night Watch: I followed the advice on Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors. I don't have much noticeboard experience, so I just went with it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I wasn't paid. Period! You've got the page deleted. Is there anything else to discuss? Just checking. Acclaim PR (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"All eyes and ears are on the starlet" - This is blatant advertisement. --MuZemike 18:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that this account should be blocked as promotional/implies shared use because the Instagram page indicates that this is a paid marketing and publicity firm. The Night Watch (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

All eyes and ears are on Natesha now, too. --A. B. 19:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There's No Such Thing as Bad Publicity, unless you're on ANI. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• WP:CORPNAME + promotional edits = SPAMU block. As to the possible UPE, WP:COIN is best equipped to look at that.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Block review request

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

Hi. I've been blocked. Could you review my block?

Blocking reason: 17:54, 29 July 2023 Black Kite talk contribs blocked 81.214.107.89 talk from the page Talk:Armenian genocide with an expiration time of 1 year (Disruptive editing: Discussion is allowed; clear genocide denial is not)

The Armenian massacre of 1915 is an internationally recognized and well-documented fact. It was a brutal event that resulted in the death of thousands of Armenians. I acknowledge it and sympathize with the agony of the Armenian people. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose indefinite block on the person involved here, site wide. As this person is editing from an IP address, I propose blocking the IP address for 3 months, site-wide. We don't tolerate genocide denial here and I'm following through on my promise to propose a site-wide block, as per User talk:81.214.107.89. I am not the blocking admin. --23:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamla (talk • contribs)

  Absolutely, flush this one immediately. Site-wide permanent block; no loss at all to the Misplaced Pages community. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• In your first unblock request, you said "I have not denied genocide because there was no genocide". Your statement here seems to contradict that, at least to an extent. So I'll ask: was the violence perpetrated in 1915 by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians a genocide? CityOfSilver 23:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  They quote Bernard Lewis in their second unblock request, referring to him as a "leading US policy advisor". That article says, "Lewis was also known for Armenian genocide denial. His argument that there was no evidence for a deliberate genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people is rejected by mainstream historians." --jpgordon 00:23, 30 July 20:23 (UTC)

  Yes. Violence perpetrated in 1915 resulted in the Armenian massacre. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. The question is about the specific term, genocide. --Yamla (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• You know, "massacre" was the exact word in your original message that struck me as odd. I didn't ask you if you believe there was a "massacre." Why would I? You already said there was. Here's my question again and I'll add emphasis so you don't miss it: was the violence perpetrated in 1915 by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians a genocide? CityOfSilver 01:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver Genocide is a very powerful and legal word. According to the UN definition,

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.— United Nations

All historians including Turkish and Armenian ones agree that the Armenians were subject to mass killings. Almost all Armenian, most Western and minority of Turkish historians agree that the treatment of Armenians fits into this definition. Most Turkish and some Western historians disagree because they state that even though the killings occurred, there was not an intention to destroy the Armenians. They argue that the Ottoman government forcibly displaced the Armenians as a security measure and killings occurred outside the government control.

This is a highly contentious subject and it has caused tensions between Turkey and Armenia. My intention was not to hurt anybody's feeling but I felt that the Turkish perspective was incorrectly covered in the article. Here is an article by the BBC where you can find more information. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Their comments at that talk page seem at odds with what they're saying here. I support the pblock. I'm indifferent on an indef, they're not being unconstructive nor constructive outside that talk page. CLYDE /_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 01:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be explicit: oppose unblock and neutral on indef. CLYDE /_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support site-wide indefinite block: No room for genocide deniers. The IP is clearly trying to play down on the Armenian genocide (or in their own words, "Armenian massacre"). --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, and support a site-wide indef unless the user agrees to a self-imposed topic ban of the Armenian genocide, broadly construed. IP clearly does not adhere to Misplaced Pages policies regarding this topic and the only way to prevent disruption is if they are not allowed to edit on this topic. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, and completely agree with Z1720 suggestion.--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per their 225+ word answer to my yes-or-no question as to whether or not the the Armenian genocide, which happened, happened. I resisted the urge to tell them that literally any answer besides "yes" would mean "no" so maybe this is my fault. But whatever: they apparently could not answer unless they stridently advocated for lying genocide deniers and this extremely sensitive article can't have people like that editing it. CityOfSilver 03:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  @CityOfSilver Here's my question to you: Were, in your view, the internment of Japanese Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide or do you deny it? 81.214.107.89 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Classic whataboutism. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  It was a simple "yes" or "no" question. Maybe you avoided answering it, because you advocate genocide denial. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not gonna entertain this. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support a site-wide ban. We don't need genocidal denial on this site. It runs afoul of WP:NONAZIS -- Rockstone 06:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Well, not really. Holocaust denial is one thing; but you need to remember that Turkey still teaches Armenian genocide denial in its schools. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support a sitewide ban (as weird as it may be for IPs). Just what they said in their first unblock request (I have not denied genocide because there was no genocide.) is enough for me to expand the block to be sitewide. LilianaUwU 07:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock and support a sitewide ban. They have outright denied genocide in their initial unblock request and even when given the opportunity above they deliberately avoided calling it such again. I don't think we need to entertain genocide deniers here. I'd also like to point out to the IP that I warned them that bringing it to ANI would not go well, and so... yeah. — Czello 07:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block seems too dangerous to the integrity of facts. UnironicEditor (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Blocking admin note I pblocked because that talk page was (then) literally the only page they'd ever edited. Black Kite (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Surprised no one has picked up on the “thousands” wording in this appeal, seems clearly chosen to allow multiple interpretations in a sort of “technically it wasn’t a lie” kind of way. —100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  My source for that is the Armenian historian Ronald Grigor Suny, who estimated that 600 thousand Armenians died in his book They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support a sitewide ban for all the reasons stated before by other users.AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock If I could indefinitely block an IP, I'd do it here. There's no place for genocide denial on Misplaced Pages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support sitewide block per the whataboutism shown in this comment. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

IP range

Whilst this IP has only caused issues on the genocide talkpage, the IP range here is Special:Contributions 81.214.104.0/22. Amongst the other contributions from this range are Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Despicable_falsification_of_literature_by_Wikipedia_that_utterly_violates_the_principles_of_academic_integity in the last week from a different IP (almost certainly the same editor), an attempt to declare The Guardian unreliable at RSP, a rant about "ultra-left websites", "No, I don't want to use editor's preferred pronouns", and an attempt to create a page called "Armenian terrorism" by means of a disambiguation page containing four attacks by ASALA and a historical page about a previous conflict (I'd lay a bet that's the same editor again).

There's really nothing useful that has come from this range for months, so blocking just this IP seems pointless. I would suggest blocking the range for a fixed - but extended -period of time. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Wilkja19 adds unsourced information, never communicates

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

wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has never once left an edit summary, nor ever once responded to a message. They add unsourced information, and they misleadingly mark all their edits as minor. Their lack of communication needs to be addressed. 213.86.69.236 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Their lack of edit summaries and misuse of minor edits is concerning, but the not responding to talk pages can be explained by Misplaced Pages:THEYCANTHEARYOU since they use the iOS app. Also, please remember to give them an ANI notice. CLYDE /_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

ClydeFranklin, I have been editing from smartphones for many years, and nobody has ever accused me of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU because I understand that this is a collaborative project, and I have consciously chosen to edit in ways that enhance rather than inhibit collaborative editing. THEYCANTHEARYOU issues are entirely the responsibility of the inept Wikimedia Foundation, whose priorities are seriously misguided. But that does not absolve in any way misconduct by editors who do not discuss or collaborate. Collaborative behvior is necessary to build this encyclopedia. If blocking to get their attention is required, I do not like it, but WMF incompetence and intransigence leaves us with no other option. Providing editing tools that actively impede collaboration is a dereliction of duty on the part of the WMF, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also according to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU new message alerts work fine on the iOS app (and have since June 2022). Dylnuge 19:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Struck. CLYDE /_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify the purpose of this complaint?

Is the unsourced info or lack of communication the wrongdoing? UnironicEditor (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

UnironicEditor, sometimes two types of "wrongdoing", as you put it, can compound the problems and make matters worse. Cullen328 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

wilkja19 has been blocked in the past more than once for lack of communication and adding unsourced content (not sure why they were unblocked). As a user posted on their talk-page back in 2021 which explains the situation very well "The user is obliged to provide sources; that is a core policy. I am challenging what they are adding because their changes are always unexplained, unsourced and falsely marked as minor." This is an issue of long-term abuse as they add unsourced content, make improper edit summaries and never reply on their talk-page. I would support an indef block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

wilkja19's userpage was written by Toyotaboy13, looks like that was their previous account and they were doing exactly the same thing. I wonder how many other accounts they have had. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, I missed that. I definitely support an indef, at the least until they start talking. CLYDE /_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing by certain IPs/ranges on the Gokujō!! Mecha Mote Iinchō article

Hi Misplaced Pages admins,

I just wanted to bring to attention some long-term disruptive editing that has been going on lately on this article:

• Gokujō!! Mecha Mote Iinchō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The disruptive edits consist of repeatedly removing the plot section (example diff) or the infobox (example diff) of the article, or even blanking out almost the entireity of the article (example diff), all without any valid explanation, rationale, or discussion at all. Sometimes they write insufficient reasons in the edit summary, like Park Hye-seok.

It dates as far back as June 2020, and has been coming from the following IP addresses / ranges (sorted by the rate / amount of disruption coming from the IPs):

• 219.254.113.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 17 June 2020 to present
• 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 16 August 2022 to present (partial blocked from editing Riemann hypothesis since 24 July 2023 for persistent addition of unsourced content)
• 218.238.238.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 14 October 2021 to 17 August 2022 (currently blocked 2 years since August 2022)
• 1.210.3.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – was used once in November 2022, blocked 2 weeks back then
• 27.164.230.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – was used once in November 2022, blocked 2 weeks back then
• 24.211.69.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – this IP actually "opposed" / undid these disruptive edits in March 2021, though I'm not sure why this IP was blocked three times in that year.

The reason why I wanted to bring this to attention here is because, as you can see, unlike a good majority of IP-hopping persistent vandalism that occurs on Misplaced Pages where a seemingly infinite supply of vastly different IP addresses and ranges are used which make stopping the vandal difficult, this one only comes from certain and distinct IP addresses / ranges (some of which are static!) above.

The page above was semi-protected three times because of all this disruption, varying from 1 to 3 months in length, which have failed to rectify this issue successfully.

So I think, based on the evidence written above, the most appropriate action to take here would be to do the following:

• Either fully block 219.254.113.34 or partially block it from the Gokujō!! Mecha Mote Iinchō page long-term.
• Lengthen the partial block of 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, and modify it to also include the page above.

I don't think it's necessary to semi-protect the page long-term when 99.9% of the edits are coming from these certain IPs/ranges, which we can block or partially block long-term instead. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: looks like the page has been indefinitely semi-protected by Callanecc (talk · contribs), following a request by another user at WP:RfPP. The 219.254.113.34 IP was also blocked for 1 year earlier on by Callanecc. Oh well, sucks that a page has to be indefinitely semi-protected, locking out potentially hundreds to thousands of anonymous and new editors because an individual or a small number of users thought it would be funny to disruptively delete parts of the article regularly. Worth noting 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 is the only active IP range that hasn't been (partially) blocked here, which is why I thought this would be a piece of cake to deal with by handing out blocks here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Kamtal75

• Kamtal75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FckyouRoxyandMissSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FckyouRoxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 161.98.1.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 161.98.1.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kamtal75 has been editing the William Davis (cardiologist) on IPs and accounts making the same edits since December 2022. This user created two attack accounts against another user who had edited the Davis article, FckyouRoxyandMissSmith and another FckyouRoxy. The accounts were check-user blocked and Kamtal75 was temporally blocked . The same user has also evaded their block by using two IPs 161.98.1.205 and 161.98.1.207 in the past which were also blocked.

I find it odd this user has been given this many chances and was only temporally blocked because check-user results confirmed that they were behind the attack accounts. They didn't just create 1 attack account, they created 2. The same user has been using other IP addresses on the Davis article. Since being unblocked recently, they are now back editing the Davis article on their Kamtal75 account, restoring the same edits.

I believe because of the long-term disruption this user should be indef blocked. From what I can see this is a case of WP:EVADE and WP:NOTHERE. I request admin input on this, thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed. Not acceptable in any way, and their claim that they didn't create the attack accounts was comical. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Merging deleted content

Several years ago, per this discussion, a sub article was deleted. I would like to merge that content into the main article but, not being an admin, I don't have access to the deleted article. Would someone please be kind enough to help me get it? Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Slugger O'Toole User:Slugger O'Toole/History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film. Let me know when you're done with it and I'll delete it again. Make sure you attribute anything that's directly copied. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Thank you! -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Dan Hornsby and Nikki Hornsby disruption / vandalism by IP user(s)

Background

On June 28, 2023, a thread was started on Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1192#Legal threat? about changes made to the Nikki Hornsby article. She's the granddaughter of Dan Hornsby.

Both articles had years of edits by IP users, that start out with 2600:8801:8104:DC00:, but then the following numbers change. The IP user(s) added a lot of content without citations and via copy-paste. There were also unhelpful edits by @FMSky: and IP user 68.7.39.189

• 2600:8801:8104:dc00:4513:e4bb:34f9:34c3 - edits just to Dan and Nikki. one edit to Americana (music)
• 2600:8801:8104:dc00:1109:3ff1:9f90:b385 - just one edit to Nikki's article
• 2600:8801:8104:dc00:607b:2c3b:83cc:fe5d - edits just to Nikki's article
• 68.7.39.189 - all but three edits to Dan and Nikki

There had been years of attempts to clean up the article, but uncited content continued to be added.

Cleanup of articles

On June 28, Chubbles, returned the article to the cleaned past version here and he and I worked on cleaning up the article. It was correct to this version, where all content had a cited source and I found all the reliable sources that I could find on Nikki. I then cleaned up the Dan Hornsby article, with Chubbles starting off with some clean-up. The range of diffs for the article clean-up are here.

Disruptive and incorrect edits

Since then, there have been edits to the articles that are incorrect, as documented

• Talk:Dan Hornsby#Recent changes (July 21, 2023)
• Talk:Dan Hornsby#Recent changes (July 30, 2023)
• Talk:Nikki Hornsby#BLP tag
• Talk:Nikki Hornsby#Recent edits
• Talk:Nikki Hornsby#IP User edits

(I am not proud of the way I handled the potential threat made to a user - followed up by unhelpful comments made to another user. This is the User talk:CaroleHenson#Prodding, etc discussion I had with @Chubbles and Hoary: about that, which resulted me in backing out the unfortunate changes. It also has documentation of the changes made to cleanup the musicians' pages.

Since the changes, as you can see, there have been multiple attempts to add erroneous information or uncited content. Is there something that can be done about this?

Note re: notification of ANI issue: It's tricky because it's a changing IP address. I will post a link to this section on both of the article's talk page, FMSky and 68.7.39.189 and the IP addresses listed above. I think that's the best that I can do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you got something mixed up. These were my edits to that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nikki_Hornsby&diff=1164920673&oldid=1162953780 i just did some basic formatting. How is that "unhelpful" --FMSky (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I am so sorry, FMSky, I should not have included you in that notice. The IP addresses do apply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

alright no worries --FMSky (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Options. I am wondering what the options might be,

• Block IP users for a period of time
• Block IP users with IDs that start out "2600:8801:8104:dc00"
• Check for sockpuppets
• Place a warning on the article talk pages that IP users could be blocked if the disruptive editing continues
• Something else?

I just pulled out the most recent IP addresses. Need more research on the editors of the page?

I updated the background info to show the focus on Dan and Nikki's articles, which is underlined above. –CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The more I think about it, "Place a warning on the article talk pages that IP users could be blocked if the disruptive editing continues" - does not have an immediate punitive action, doesn't involve protecting the article at this point, and overall has the mildest effect. Would that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Ray1983a

Ray1983a (talk · contribs · count)

User is changing release dates on music articles without supplying references to support their claims. The edit summaries left mentions no releases on Saturday's and so on.... and again no reference to support, the user must be guessing that there's no releases. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User wants the reader to search for a source. Left this on my talk Also, anyone can take a look at the sites for charts, and see if an LP entered the charts on say, on 8 May, that the release date is not 8 May. This is just simple logic, and means somebody in the past placed a wrong date on Misplaced Pages. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• I looked at Ray1983a's recent contributions: they are citing BPI and RIAA in the change of dates, so concerns with these sources should be brought to WP:RSN.
• Ray1983a sometimes removes reliable sources when replacing dates with other reliable sources, so if someone reverts this Ray1983a should go to the talk page to discuss the replacement of the source per WP:BRD.
• I did not find diffs where Ray1983a added information without citing it; diffs should be provided if this is happening.
• Ray1983a's comment that "It is common knowledge in the record industry that releases in the UK are released on Mondays and Fridays and in the US on weekdays" (diff) does not comply with citing sources: common knowledge is not justification for changing dates and a source needs to be included when changing the dates.
• Flighttime has reverted some of Ray1983a's changes, which are cited, to versions that are uncited ( ). I suggest that Flighttime check to ensure that if they are reverting a cited edit that they are not reverting to a claim that is not sourced. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sing 2, user:2601:741:C281:1110:D461:2452:82E8:80EC

Hi, this user made some rather ungrammatical edits (wrong tense, run on sentences, overall poor writing, etc) to Sing 2. I corrected them and explained why I had reverted their edit. Quite literally within two minutes, I couldn't fix a spelling error of my own because they were in the process of manually revertin my edit. I sent them a message on their talk page and tried to resolve the issue and reverted back to the way I had it, and also gave them links to the MOS and Teahouse and Sandbox. Again, in less than three minutes they had reverted my edit. To prevent getting involved in an edit war, I stopped trying to fix the issues with the plot summary and brought the issue here since this person clearly is knee-jerk reverting without reading what I sent them or reading the comments on the edit history. Here is the revision page. The top five or six diffs are the ones in question. . This user also is trying to create new articles on false info and has gotten some warnings on that score as well from other users. EEBuchanan (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the point of false information, the IP created a hoax article at Talk:Encanto 2 detailing an imaginary sequel to the film. The page has now been deleted. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

They've tried to create another unscourced article as well. The False Prince and True. I am going to wait another hour or two and then try to correct that Sing 2 article again. If this user reverts it, I will let it sit until an Admin resolves the issue.

EEBuchanan (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: I edited the article one more time, also correcting another IP's edits. We'll see if they revert it quickly this time. EEBuchanan (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE:Another IP, User talk:12.190.236.30 did the reverting this time. As this IP has a lot of old edits but few recent ones, I think this IP is the same user as before using this IP. EEBuchanan (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Based on the manual reverts being done by 2605:A601:AE63:3800:E116:D95:4061:168C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on various Bible Broadcasting Network station articles, I'm pretty sure the person on the range 2605:A601:AE63:3800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is evading the block on 136.34.132.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Both that IP and the range are Google Fiber IPs in Kansas City, and the it appears that there is no interest in recitfying the sourcing issues (which is to say, not sourcing anything) that led to 136.34.132.39 (and 65.28.77.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), both after a previous ANI report) getting blocked. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Move requests

I am not sure if this is the best place to deal with this. However is there a way of putting some move requests on hold while another move request is dealt with? See some discussions at Talk:Charles III, Talk:Elizabeth II, and Talk:George I of Great Britain. PatGallacher (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You probably want to bring it to WP:ANB or WT:RM. ANI handles user conduct issues, which this does not sound like. Dylnuge 22:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Avoid the block of Nguyentrongphu by using 2600:6C44:117C:0:0:0:0:0/46

This user avoided the ban when he used IP addresses to discuss about Holocaust in the article Holocaust. Check his IP range here and what he revealed himself here. He tried to play a game when he forced everyone "My edit request should be a quick fix. If denied, I'm interested to hear a good rationale behind it". @Drmies and Deepfriedokra: Please consider to ban this IP range. We can not leave the Holocaust supporter break the Misplaced Pages policies. 1.53.113.236 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Achar Sva editing restriction violation

• Achar Sva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI discussion permalink
• Logged editing restriction
• Initial notification of editing restriction

Editor Achar Sva has repeatedly violated their community-imposed editing restriction over several months without acknowledging these violations. The editing restriction is copied below:

When Achar Sva removes sourced text from an article (including edits which replace sourced text or move it to another place in the article) and that removal gets reverted, they may not remove it again without gaining consensus for the removal at the article talk page or any other appropriate venue. This restriction may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.

Despite repeated warnings that certain behaviors likely qualified as violations of their editing restrictions (prior warnings I left on Achar Sva's talk page on 28 May: 1 & 2), they again repeated this behavior on at least two occasions in the last two weeks. One occurred on Massacre of the Innocents on 20 July, removing sourced material that they had previously removed and been reverted on; there was no effort by Achar Sva to seek consensus before their reversion. Another violation occurred on Gospel of James on 27 July, reverting material that that was attributed to a source that they had previously altered and been reverted on.

An earlier, previously unnoticed violation occurred on Genesis 1:1 on 3 July, removing sourced material that they had already removed several times (1, 2, 3) and been reverted on by multiple editors (they had also further modified the in-article context of the sourced material in between the initial removals and most recent removal). This is the same article that had resulted in the 28 May warnings; they did not open a discussion or achieve any form of consensus to justify this latent reversion. Achar Sva appears to have no interest in following their editing restriction and has refused to alter their behavior despite repeated efforts to warn them of the potential ramifications of violating the terms of the restriction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Rogue IP user

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

2601:647:5F01:8090:58A9:90CE:B4FA:9C05 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Anonymous user from this IP address is making rants on the page Moveworks, making rants and troll about the company.

He seemed to have made a legal threat here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Moveworks&diff=prev&oldid=1167980807

Kaseng55 (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

He mentioned this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Maybeitsmir&diff=prev&oldid=1167982076

He seems to have a conflict of interest with his former employee. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

1Firang

This editor has recently received an indefinite topic ban on India and Pakistan related topics broadly construed for their edit warring and bludgeoning of discussions in talk pages.

Rather than learn and move on they've taken to carrying on the same sort of behaviour in topics related to Islam as seen in History of slavery in the Muslim world and its talk page, Rape in Islamic law and its talk page and Rape in Afghanistan and its talk page. Their user talk page has multiple warnings from other users about this conduct and it needs to stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanS (talk • contribs) 04:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've not violated my topic ban and after being topic banned, I have been extra careful, asking for inputs at the Teahouse. If I am right, I have not indulged in any disruptive editing after my topic ban. I also have decided to stop editing contentious articles for some time now so that the Islamophiles don't report me here.-1Firang (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Islamophiles? AlanS 05:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The talk page to Rape_in_Islamic_law and the warnings left on your user page tell a very different story to what you just wrote. AlanS 05:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How to shoot yourself in the foot, with just a few words. 1Firang's topic ban clearly needs extending to cover Islam in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards