Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146

WP:BURDEN and removal of uncited content dispute
I reverted this edit by 2603:7000:2101:aa00:d5ae:2d16:b03b:9c46, who then told me on my talk page that I had to provide a reliable source for the content I restored per WP:BURDEN. After some more discussion, I decided to go here because I'm not entirely sure of the best course of action since the IP's only contributions that aren't to my talkpage are removing uncited content, much of which they said was OR     (the one I reverted) ]. ‍ Relativity  01:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My IP address changes all the time, so (as you might have anticipated by my referring to the wp rules), I have edited more than the edits you point to. But I'm unclear what your question is. Whether you have to comply with wp:burden, and what it requires? I've already discussed that with you at length on your talk page. Do you still believe you do not have to do so? And if so, why do you bring that question here? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am bringing it here because I am seeing a lot of content removal from your end, and I just don't know whether to restore it or leave it as be. ‍ Relativity  01:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already discussed this with you at length on your talk page. Citing wp:burden to you. Quoting from wp:burden to you. I'm unclear what your struggle is with, in understanding that per wp:burden you are welcome to restore the uncited material - but with appropriate RS refs. Which you have not added, though you restored the uncited material. Or why you believe that ANI is the appropriate place to discuss it. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright, after seeing your comments, what if I self-revert, but you have to put a copy of the content you removed on that article's talk page and we'll try to find reliable sources for it? (I'll do it if you agree, so I'm just waiting for your response) ‍ Relativity  02:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a requirement of wp:burden, and is not normal at wp. Feel free to self-revert, so you are in compliance with wp:burden. Feel free to restore any such content with RS refs that comply with wp:burden. As the word "burden" implies, there is a burden here - and it is on you, if you wish to restore such content - with appropriate refs. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not normal, but WP:IAR since this would actually help improve Wikipedia and solve this dispute. ‍ Relativity  03:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no dispute here. You're ignoring wp:burden. By insisting that the burden is on others. And bringing your desire that wp:burden would impose burdens on others, in the manner your personally prefer, that is at odds with what the rule clearly says, to a forum that is certainly not a place to bring it and waste the time of others who are trying to address matters of greater moment than your desire to ignore a clear rule. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From an outsider's POV, the best course of action is for someone to remove the restoration per WP:BURDEN as The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and then open a discussion the removed content on the talk page if they want, but the IP is under no obligation to discuss it. JM (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do that. My sincere apologies to the IP user. ‍ Relativity  04:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh and also you can verify it yourself without even needing to discuss it and restore it to the article with verification, because that would satisfy WP:BURDEN. JM (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment. The responsibility to confirm whether the added text is backed by the source rests with @Relativity. However, in instances where the added text lacks citations, someone may choose to either delete the text, request references, or insert a Citation needed template and wait for a couple of weeks. See Verifiability Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 12:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the problem is. I'm just saying that they could find the references and then restore it themselves since it would then satisfy BURDEN and V since it's been verified by the person restoring it. JM (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, completely agree, @JM2023. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to all parties involved that, absent potentially libelous material posted in a BLP, it is almost always better to start by adding a citation needed tag where the content is relatively longstanding, to give fair warning that said content may be removed in the near future. BD2412  T 01:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Long standing or not the original IP editor thought this content was wrong, not just missing a citation. It's not a situation where they were removing all unreferenced text, only select parts. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat by OCTMGH
Legal threat made here. Warned to recant but ignored. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the legal threat is problematic, I will note that this discussion was opened only 9 minutes after the WP:NLT warning was given. I'd allow a bit more time for the user to respond. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They made two further comments on their talk page since the warning even threatening to "deal with it outside Wikipedia" which still feels like a veiled legal threat. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them. Any uninvolved admin may undo the block after the legal threat has been withdrawn. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Gerda Arendt's hooks on DYK
<div class="boilerplate archived archive-top mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0 0.6em; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> The following discussion is closed. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gerda Arendt is currently DYK's most prolific contributor. She has been a well-regarded member of the DYK community for over a decade, and her contributions are very much well-regarded.

However, over the years, several editors have raised concerns about Gerda's hooks. In particular, they have stated that several of the hooks that she has proposed may not meet the DYK criterion on interestingness, whether "interesting to a broad audience", as previously defined, or "likely to be perceived as intriguing or unusual to readers with no special knowledge or interest", as it has been since a 2022 RfC which grew out of a discussion surrounding one of her nominations. These concerns from editors have been backed up by viewership statistics, which show that her role hooks (hooks that are about opera performers performing roles) are generally among our worst-performing hooks in terms of views.

Another issue raised by reviewers and others is her behavior when they deem a hook uninteresting. Despite the fact they are a near-constant in her nominations, Gerda still objects every time this issue is brought up, often resulting in discussions that are longer than the articles nominated. One recent example of this is Anna Nekhames and a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. A second recent example of this is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. There have also been concerns raised by some editors that her actions could violate WP:OWN.

These proposals aim to address the above issues. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 23:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since I commented in this linked thread, I would like to make clear that I regret my tone in retrospect; I could've been more constructive in making my points. I apologize to Gerda as such. I'm not going to "vote" in this thread, but I do think that DYK, like the rest of the site, requires collaboration and consensus—this is not "rules lawyering".<span id="Remsense:1704933779383:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> Remsense  留  00:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was going to say that this drama interests me way more than a thousand of these DYK hooks combined, because I truly learned a lot more about operas from reading through the DYK discussions themselves. So I support no change in order for the drama to keep on giving. Hftf (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Veto over Gerda's hooks
Any editor or reviewer can veto a hook proposed by Gerda, without appeal. Once a hook is vetoed, Gerda must either propose a substantially different hook, or agree to a rewording by a different editor. Any nomination where a suitable hook cannot be agreed upon may be closed as unsuccessful. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 23:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Restrictions on proposing role hooks
Gerda may not propose straight role hooks for DYK. This means that she cannot propose hooks that merely have the formats That [opera performer] performed the role of [role] in [opera]?, That [opera performer] performed the role of [role] in [opera] at the [venue]?, and That [opera performer] performed the role of [role] in [opera], with [person]? Other role hook formats may be permitted on a case-by-case basis. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 23:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Acknowledge that WP has become a really horrible place, filled with more and more self-important Rules-Makers and Enforcers

 * As proposer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This would require broad consensus, and absolutely needs to be done via an RFC. For shame. Remsense  留  00:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I find this all very sad. Not in a "I'm sad this situation has led to this inevitable AN/I discussion" way, but in a "I'm sad that Wikipedia has come to this" way. There are a number of recent threads on this page, and various other noticeboards, that have brought this feelings to the forefront, but this one seems particularly...cruel.-- Ponyo bons mots 00:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Particularly cruel" is an apt description. Is it me, or have things taken a decided turn in the last few months? Dumuzid (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Let's get some perspective here.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 4 : Give Gerda a medal for the joy she brings to WP.
My take. Carlstak (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Let's get some perspective here.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support with the force of one thousand waterfalls. Dumuzid (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support My interest in opera is as deep as Gerda's interest in rock and roll, namely negligible. But I really appreciate her efforts to spread good cheer among editors. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (maybe a barnstar from the community?), always very happy to see people working on DYK! Having opinions on other people's proposed blurbs should invite folks to discuss them with each other and work together, not to go to ANI over such a silliness! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 00:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongest Support possible Gerda is a beacon of light in what can be a dark place. She's, dare I say, precious. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and reverting
@LLC226699 User tends to make unsourced changes or changes with not reliable sources, reverting already reverted edits and other edits multiple times without discussion. Not replying or discussing anything about the subject, and not explaining the reason behind changes. Not responsive in the talk page while being active. Made edits in List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces page. Can you do something about please ? IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range
has been repeatedly removing talk page comments from Talk:WTIC-FM with no explanation, and has despite a. They have also been persistently restoring their (often unsourced) changes to Connecticut road articles. As is required, I have notified the most recent IP,.  WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  23:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oops, they shifted to before I could post.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I blocked 2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 for a week. Next time, please ask for assistance before reverting more than three times. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cinema of Egypt copyvios
I'm not sure where to go with this and the problems seem too deep for me to do it alone, but the Cinema of Egypt article is riddled with direct copyright violations going back months. Crimsonalfred2022 has been adding material since October and much of it appears to be copyright violations based on google translations of the articles used in the reference. I removed this section and this both are word for word what google translate says in the references themselves. I don't know how far back the edits go so I don't know how to make a revdel request for them. There are probably far more instances but this is beyond me to do alone. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just noting that Crimsonalfred2022 was previously notified about copyright policy on 30 October 2023 . (Less urgently, also notified shortly after about copying within Wikipedia, .) R Prazeres (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For complex copyright problems, you can file a report at Copyright problems. Use Template:Copyvio (you will need to subst:). The resulting template will include instructions for filing the report.  -- Whpq (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed the user's additions going back to December 20, as the amount of copyvio is too massive to stand. There's also numerous potentially copyright uploads (around 90 files) added to the Commons, many of which will need to be deleted, so I've posted at their administrator noticeboard that all their uploads need to be checked too. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks after running out of reverts
is making personal attacks here Now I have enough experience to realize your contribution in Wikipedia is just disruptive editing. And I will not waste more time with you here. I'll expand the article and summarize later its content in the lede. And your disruption, as always, will be trivial. It sounds like he is basically announcing his intent to edit-war without further discussion. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not announcing an intent to edit-war without discussion, I stated that I'll expand the article with sources, and then summarise its content in the lede. As for the "disruption", you removed sourced content from the lead section keeping only one of the two academic views on the subject of the article without proper explanation. You have already tried it, unsuccessfully, in several articles before. – Βατο (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have explained everything regarding the content in the talkpage and anyone can see that. But your comment is very much a personal attack and needs to be brought to the community's attention. Khirurg (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The only explanation you gave is this one : The lede should be neutral and not promote one narrative over another. That he was an "Illyrian chieftain" is just one hypothesis. There are others as well. By making "Illyrian" the seventh word in the article, you are promoting one narrative over another. That is the very definition of POV-pushing. which actually is in contradiction with your edit because you removed only one of the two academic views on the subject of the article, and which includes also aspersions of POV pushing when that's not the case at all. – Βατο (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted your edit because I thought it promoted one narrative over another. I stand by that. The issue here is your absolutely uncollaborative and downright contemptuous response. Let me remind you that collaboration is one of the five pillars of wikipedia and is not "optional". Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is your "collaboration"? The removal of one of the two competing academic views on the subject of the article? As per WP:NPOV: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." – Βατο (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, NPOV is not negotiable, and the text I removed was the opposite of NPOV Sirras or Sirrhas (Σίρρας; d. 390 BC) was either an Illyrian chieftain by making the word "Illyrian" the seventh word to appear in the lede, even though all sources state that this individual's ancestry is disputed. But the issue is not the content, but your contemptuous, uncollaborative behavior. There is also the earlier attempt by you to intimidate another editor by placing a bogus 3RR-warring tag on their talkpage, even though the user had only one revert (same as you). The issue here is your behavior, about which you haven't shown the slightest hint of self-reflection. Khirurg (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The description: is what bibliography support. You removed the Illyrian affiliation and kept the Lynkestian one, breaking the WP:Neutral point of view of the lead sentence. The breaking of one of the pillars of Wikipedia, which is a 'non-negotiable' policy, can be labelled as "distruption". – Βατο (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you really believe an admin would "deal with this"? There is nothing an admin can do apart from telling you to open an RfC to sort out your content disputes through community input. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am continuing to discuss in the talkpage, but when one user announces they are done discussing, we have a problem, and admin intervention is necessary. Khirurg (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I completely understand Bato’s frustration here. Khirurg and I are regularly engaged in content disputes across a number of articles revolving around Albanians and Greeks, and he has even followed me around on pages revolving around Albanian articles that have nothing to do with Greece (by that, I mean articles which he has never edited on or shown interest in). There is a lot of back and forth, incivility, bad blood etc, and I think it is double-standards for Khirurg to report another editor for personal attacks. To help paint himself as a victim even though he treats fellow editors with much incivility and disrespect, he also created a | collection of what he calls taunts.
 * I get Bato’s frustration at Khirurg’s history of disruptive behaviour on articles. There is evidence of him reverting me on articles just for the sake of it, such as here, where it was apparent that he didn’t read the source and just RV’ed for the sake of it. After that, I opened up a TP discussion, where he admitted that the source was falsified in the past but he clearly hadn’t checked up until that discussion despite the reverts. Another noteworthy example of Khirurg reverting me without looking at the sources (or intentionally falsifying content, that's the only alternative) can be found here , and I brought it to his attention both in the edit summary and my subsequent comments on the TP . This type of disruptive behaviour can be really obstructive at times and is definitely not done in WP:GOODFAITH, as source falsification and reverting for the sake of reverting are not actions associated with good faith editing. Khirurg would seem to have a natural disposition towards opposing particular editors that they continuously come into conflict with, or opposing content revolving around Albanians - I am not sure why this is, but I completely understand Bato’s frustration. I hope admins are made aware of the type of disruptive behaviour that Khirurg regularly exhibits that would’ve provoked Bato into writing what they did. It’s not even that much of a personal attack, it’s an honest observation of his behaviour on certain articles. Botushali (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:STALK, WP:ASPERSIONS. Nothing new here, just the usual stalking and smearing. 3 kb of text at that. Also pretty rich coming from someone with a 3 month block . Khirurg (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting reaction from someone who is currently reporting another user for personal attacks… Botushali (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally Khirurg got the point and restored one of the two academic views. But how much time was wasted for it? How much discomfort he provoced to other editors? As explained by Botushali above from his own experience, this behavior by Khirurg is not something new. I've experienced it for a long time now. Many of his reverts definitely are not necessary at all. As are the walls of text produced in article's talk pages just for a revert made by him, who often contributes to the article with little or nothing other than the revert itself. Also in this case, at the end of the day, my remark  went as expected. – Βατο (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the disruption by you is far from trivial . This is completely undue in the section heading and there isn't a single wikipedia article where an individual's (disputed) ethnicity is included in the section heading. It is deplorable that every attempt at compromise is derided and mocked, and leads to even more egregious POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about ? No ethnicity is included in that section heading. That section is all about the widely supported theory of the identification of Sirras with the Illyrian chieftain who participated in the Peloponnesian war. You cannot omit the 'Illyrian chieftain' label in the heading of that section, because the entire section is based on that. You see POV where there is no POV at all. But a possible simple solution to your concern is to reword it "as a Chieftain of the Illyrian army", not to completely remove it, because it is an information essential for the description of that section. – Βατο (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not "essential" at all, unless the goal is to push POV. It's possible, but far from certain, that he is the Illyrian chieftain that participated in the Peloponnesian war. The section heading should be neutral, and that's non-negotiable. Whether he is the Illyrian chieftain is to be discussed in the body text, not in the section heading. Unless of course, the goal is to just make the word "Illyrian" as prominent as possible at the expense of neutrality. Khirurg (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The scholars' theory illustrated in that section is "Sirras was the Illyrian chieftain who participated in the Peloponnesian War". You have to find a neutral wording to provide the full description of that theory. If you omit some parts, it is not the scholars' theory. – Βατο (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis of some scholars is that Sirras was possibly the Illyrian chieftain that participated in the Peloponnesian war. Explaining that is what the text of the section is for, not the section heading. I am confident no neutral wikipedia users will back the heading you are proposing. Khirurg (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the hypothesis. If he was not the Illyrian chieftain, there is no historical basis for his participation in that war. I think it's clear. – Βατο (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So "Possible participation in the Peloponnesian War" is a perfectly neutral section heading. Khirurg (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The theory is not about "Possible participation in the Peloponnesian War", but about "Sirras as the presumable chieftain of Illyrians in the Peloponnesian War". You fail to see my point. I asked for other editors' suggestions in the relevant talk page. – Βατο (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not an encyclopedic section heading. Repeating what is in the first sentence in the section heading is not what section headings are for. Khirurg (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Initially your issue was with ethnicity in section heading, then when I explained that it is not about ethnicity you changed your concern to 'hypothetical information', and now you change it to 'unencyclopaedic heading'? Not mentioning the full description of the hypothesis is misleading because there is no historical basis that the subject of the article participated in that war as a chieftain of an army other than Illyrian, the hypothesis is strictly related to that information. Anyway, I don't expect you to change your mind, I am waiting for other editors' thought on the relevant talk page. – Βατο (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruption of articles
This user Any mail have been disrupting and removing sourced contents in articles, he has been warned by many editors but still continue the same thing.examples: removed restored content deleted the article and many more.I hope care will be taken quickly. Yotrages (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * (non-admin comment) This was previously posted on the 7th, but was achieved without comment (See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't notified of this report specifically (only the possibility of being reported here). I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User:PR2021 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r
Persistent addition of unsourced content; too much detail (see ) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please inform the user on their talk page when doing this, I did it for you. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. Replying to you on this one too. Nothing I added is unsourced, for everything I add I make sure to include several local and reputable sources to back up the information given. It may be persistent but that is because you keep removing the information even though it comes from legit sources including the station's website. If you didn't remove the information without asking then it wouldn't be "persistent". PR2021 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You should have put a talk page message up before dragging them to ANI. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 21:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mvcg66b3r: By addition of the unsourced content, do you mean this section: WLII-DT (which you had reverted)? Because it seems well sourced to me.  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring policy, Westall UFO
LuckyLouie & Rjjiii have repeatedly reverted into the article information which is prohibited by OR. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen applied a block to my editing at Westall UFO when constructive Talks were continuing between myself and Rjjiii in response to the needs of policy. This has caused the problems of OR with the article to be maintained within the article. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussions are here, from 3 January 2024 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

LuckyLouie & Rjjiii are now both propounding "Skeptoid" as a source, but I have already indicated ("Dunning investigation/verification" in Talk) the proofs of this reference having obvious errors within it which would discount it's use. Both editors are obviously biased against the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event, as is shown at Talk:Westall UFO. Their position currently therefore isn't Neutral point of view. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. You are simply wrong, and Bishonen was perfectly justified in taking that action. Your talk was not constructive. The neutral point of view is that the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event is impossible, even if we don't know what that rational explanation is. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the first instance and to re-iterate, the problem is OR. You state your opinion I state to you in reply, the problem is OR in the article. That is why I opened the discussion here. What is your response specifically and only, firstly, to the problem that I indicated? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Both editors are obviously biased against the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event is not a violation of NPOV, it is clearly following WP:FRINGE policy. The filer, on the other hand... Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already indicated no-one is propounding a theory, the suggestion of UFO is within the idea of fringe theory, but there aren't any theoreticians present to state theory. This is observable at Talk:Westall UFO 8 January 2024 "Your question necessitates that it is a fringe theory". That is what I found, it isn't my opinion without giving reasons so stating you disgree without discussing the sources isn't a reason, it is just an opinion that you think I am wrong. I would like to be convinced that other editors are correct and I am wrong, but no-one is providing evidence from the sources, which explictly details how I am wrong, in discussion of the sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note: there is an extensive discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard of the issue over which I page-blocked Simpul skitsofreeneea. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC).
 * And Timeline of schizophrenia is a fringe theory, amd I am a fringe theory, for the article and my username to be discussed there under that heading? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What..? I just noticed that Simpul skitsofreeneea has now further forumshopped the Westall UFO issue to WP:NORN. Simpul skitsofreeneea, you are seriously wasting your own time as well as everybody else's. Please stay at one board! (The FTN discussion is by a comfortable margin the oldest.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC).
 * Trying to continue their arguments here, since they're blocked from the article and its talk page, is simply continuing the disruption. Simpul's talk page indicates that they've had issues in multiple topic areas. I think they have good intentions, but their response on their talk page about passive smoking and their comments on Articles for deletion/Timeline of schizophrenia are so idiosyncratic that I question whether they can adapt to Wikipedia's mores. Perhaps there's a language issue? (I linked to pages rather than diffs because Simpul collates multiple edits into a single paragraph with timestamps interspersed.) Schazjmd   (talk)  18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I indicated the topic for discussion. You think the topic is me so the discussion is irrelevant. The topic is OR in the article. I provided the evidence of OR which is observable by reviewing my changes to find the same evidence that I found, or not. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If editors don't think my notice here is possible, which is evidence of OR and this is the opportunity to find the proof that the article does or doesn't contain OR to legitimately close this discussion: I filed this notice, not there is a discussion of whether I am someone who could file the notice, I'll have to proceed to file it to the next process in the dispute. All I ask for is observation of if or not OR exists in the article. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My concerns are shown above in the introductory statements. If editors could respond direcly to those statements then I will receive a response to this notice. That is all. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am stating: prohibited by OR, is the problem, as is observable at the OR noticeboard Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not prohibited by WP:NOR, but your position is prohibited by WP:FRINGE. The reason that it is difficult to find any debunking of your position is simply that reliable sources do not write about such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm re-explaining now the problem of OR: under the section Reports: contains information which is isn't found in the references. That is the problem of OR. I showed this is the case on the Talk page. This means that under Reports is stated details about Westall which have no source to verify is anything at all to do with what happened at Westall. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is language. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is clearly competence, or rather the lack of it. To be blunt, regardless of the ultimate cause, I cannot see how anyone who could post the rambling mess that is Simpul skitsofreeneea's response to my AfD nomination can usefully contribute to a collaborative project. As to whether this is at least in part a language issue, it may possibly be, but it makes no functional difference either way. We cannot be expected to have to wade through rambling walls-of-text comments like that, regardless of why they are written, and it appears that this is Simpul skitsofreeneea's standard form of response to any criticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading the comments regarding Simpul skitsofreeneea's block for disruption at Simple English Wikipedia is worthwhile. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am User: Simpul skitsofreeneea. I opened this discussion because of the problem of OR in the article Westall UFO. If you'd like to turn your attention to the top of the section, you will see the introductory comments on the topic of this discussion. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Within a certain period of time if no-one thinks my statements that there is a policy breach in the Westall UFO article necessitates a response of adherence to policy then I will determine no-one currently participating in the discussion understands the need for policy. You can see I make acusations against Rjjiii in the introductory statememts, but Rjjiii continued to relocate the source for part of the OR problem so that partially exonerates Rjjiii. We could all observe this exonerative situation by the existence of reference 3 in the article of which the route for inlcusion is shown in Talk where-by Rjjiii has indicated the existence of the source. That is indicative of a problem-solution response. Im am currently stating the problem here. The incident is OR as I demonstrated (and re-iterate currently without proof or disproof from reviewing editors) 20:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor has repeatedly tried to use this document as a source: It is a collection of summaries of eyewitness interviews by a 1960s ufologist, compiled by other ufologists. When I asked if they thought it met the guidelines at WP:FRIND, they replied "Succintly, no" followed by 700 barely coherent words arguing for its inclusion. Rjjiii  (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion is OR I indicated the nature, details, places to look to verify the details, to deal with the problem which is filed under this Notice. I request that you notice (you see, you observe, you view, you perceive) what I am stating is the problem.
 * Since you did notice previously I provide this response: That is not true. If you would like to observe "succintly no because there isn't category: physics in the article, if it were that JE McDonald (JEM) or Kirk T McDonald (KTM) had proposed a theory from their scientific positions." is the exact of what was written as a response. Which is the succinct reason, that fringe does not apply (at the 1st paragraph, not the section which you directed me to look at to then indicate whether of not the source could be used under the conditional considerations of that part of policy).
 * I already indicated the problem of stating fringe theory in Talk which is there aren't any theoreticians, the suggestion that theory exists therefore a fringe theory exists would depend on the explicit statement of a theoretical expalantion for something in reality of which the subjet of the theory isn't stated for anything to be a fringe theory within. No one is stating a theory and no-one of any field is stating anything. The source 228 belongs,as I already showed to Kirk T McDonald Professor Emeritus of High Energy Physis University Princeton. That doesn't indicate he is theorizing on the subject. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to help Simpul skitsofreeneea at Talk: Westall UFO (now archived), but they would have none of it. The unrelenting, disruptive combination of WP:IDHT, WP:TE, competency issues, and aspersions (see my post here for additional examples of their personal attacks) indicates that Simpul skitsofreeneea is clearly WP:NOTHERE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE? It's difficult to follow their comments and understand what they are trying to say. I could understand a language barrier but I think it's more the inability for them to understand the policies being explained to them or the willful ignoring of what is being explained. -- A Rose Wolf  21:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to be understanding what everyome is stating that is true. That is because I am stating the problem is OR in various re-iterations in various comments and no-one is responding to my notice. You would also like to enter into discussion of me as the suject. Do you see I filed myself as the problem as incident? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Am I filing some suggestion you cannot understand. The article contains information which isn't observable. I do not see the information in the sources. Does anyone else see the information in the sources? That is why this incident section was begun because I filed incident if I see continuation of the problem is me, without recognition of the possibility that the incident I am filing is true (without any investigation of why false and non verifiable information exists in the article Westall UFO I will have to file every editor present to the next process of dispute. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simpul skitsofreeneea, this noticeboard is for behavioral/conduct issues. When an editor opens a complaint, their conduct is open to review as well. Other editors examine the complaint and its context, which includes your conduct on Wikipedia. Multiple editors have brought different problems with your editing conduct to your attention, but you don't seem to be grasping any of the feedback. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So logially the problem is the Westall article I made edits which were reverted by the editors shown in the 1st statement. What I'm stating is that in all three reverts the editors returned information which is prohibited by OR. That is what I am stating. What is your response to my accusation? Your presumption that all the comments against me have a value which I'm ignoring is simulataneoulsy an ignoring of my comments of "prohoited by OR" is the reality. So you state I should take notice of the feedback, but you or anyone else didn't verfiy the reality of the editorial situation whether or not the two reverting editors should have reverted the information into the article, now to find a block in place (still without investigating whether or not the OR problem exists); what the actual reality of the article is with regards to why I chose to make the changes. In the last revert all I did was remove the parts which were OR, to then be reverted again, then, after a brief discussion, blocked. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Enough of this. I've blocked for multiple reasons. Feel free to pick your favorite. Maybe they can convince another admin that they have a WP:CLUE, but I'm not seeing it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Simpul skitsofreeneea has continued their repetitive ramblings on their talk page, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Car Accident Lawyers
This weird concoction Draft:The Car Accident Lawyers, presumably just ADMASQ, keeps being created by IP users, all sharing the same ISP and creating the same content, so clearly one individual or a small group. I've requested the title to be salted, which should (hopefully) put an end to it, but they're now also spamming AFCHD. Their earlier IPv4 range (47.11.206.1 etc.) has been blocked for a week by. They've now moved to IPv6, with addresses (so far)


 * 2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6
 * 2409:40E1:26:2FA9:D815:28FF:FEB0:DC68
 * 2409:40E1:CD:8728:8080:CFFF:FED9:352F

Could these be blocked as well, please?

(I have notified one, but only one, of the IPs of this discussion, pointless as that probably was.)

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are now also blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove TPA
re: and  I think tpa should be reviewed/revoked.  // Timothy :: talk  06:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That has been done by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That was me. I revoked TPA and then had to respond to something off-Wikipedia. Checking in now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User conduct at Bangladesh genocide RfC and TBAN violation
I would like to know if the conduct of A.Musketeer and myself at Talk:Bangladesh genocide is appropriate or disruptive.
 * 1) A.Musketeer has reverted my attempt to move what I think are pretty obviously !votes from the Discussion section to the Survey section. They didn't respond when I asked why they considered them "comments, not !votes".
 * 2) A.Musketeer has accused me of canvassing by pinging all (unblocked) editors that participated in the last RfC about this article and has placed a canvassing tag on 's !vote. I think that my pings were entirely appropriate and satisfy WP:APPNOTE, which states that I'm allowed to notify [e]ditors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. My pings were neutrally worded, I pinged all participants of the RfC (not a "selective" group), and I just placed my comment at the bottom of the RfC (is there a better location to place it?).
 * 3) A.Musketeer has made a personal attack against me: Your desperation is becoming more and more visible, Malerisch.
 * 4) A.Musketeer has accused me of making passive attempts to besmirch the opposing editors to be Hindu nationalists. A.Musketeer is referring to this comment and the second paragraph of my !vote, in which I quoted news articles and a scholarly journal. What is the correct way to quote these articles, if I did so inappropriately? I have not called any editor a "Hindu nationalist", and I think that I have been entirely civil towards the other editors on the talk page. On the other hand, A.Musketeer has made uncited claims that opposing their position (that Bengali Muslims were not the victims of genocide) is "genocide denial" (1, 2).

Lastly, while this is not directly related to this RfC, I believe that A.Musketeer violated their TBAN from Sheikh Hasina, broadly construed, with this edit to 2024 Bangladeshi general election (Hasina was just re-elected). Malerisch (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, has removed the Discussion header to resolve the first dispute. Pinging  and  about the TBAN. Malerisch (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Malerisch, generally a RfC closer will look at the discussion as well as !votes to gauge the strengths of arguments for and against proposals, so I don't think the placement really mattered too much. For the sake of resolving that specific dispute I decided to be bold and just make everything part of the "survey" section. I hope that is a suitable resolution. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in—I don't have any issue with what you did. I'm aware that closers will read the whole discussion anyway, which is why I didn't force the issue. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to let everyone know: A.Musketeer has been actively vandalizing contents related to the current geopolitical tensions in Bangladesh and Bangladesh Liberation War despite being not from Bangladesh (they contribute mostly in the India-related articles). A.Musketeer has been previously blocked for waging edit-wars and have been community banned from editing contents (TBAN) related to Sheikh Hasina. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

A.Musketeer (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To provide context on the "Hindu nationalist" labelling — User:Wiki.arfazhxss and his sockpuppets, who have the same position in this dispute as Malerisch, have been continuously attacking the opposing editors, (in this case User:Nomian and myself), to be Hindu nationalist/Hindutva/Hindu far-right for pointing out the Bengali Hindus as the target in the genocide. There have been some off-wiki coordination as well to extend the attack. . Malerisch then further provoked the sentiments by quoting certain contents on India's Hindu nationalist politics in the discussion, unrelated to the article, and associating my position with them. He used the same tactic in the RfC by quoting one of those articles and mentioning me and my position in the dispute.
 * On Canvassing: Instead of notifying the editors on their user talk pages, Malerisch placed the comment below that of Lionel Messi Lover who supports Malerisch's position in the RfC and was describing the mention of Bengali Hindus as "misinformation" and "misrepresentation". Unsurprisingly, this resulted in a !vote by Volunteer Marek like this one.
 * I'm not sure how merely talking about a desperation is a personal attack when the user is literally going after every editor who is !voting for the opposite position, even trying to manipulate others to change into their preferred !vote.
 * My comment on genocide denial is misquoted here. I was referring to the general denial of the fact that "Bengali Hindus were targeted in the genocide" without referring to any editor. I had already quoted different sources to support my position. No idea how is that a personal attack and against whom?
 * On TBAN: I was banned from Sheikh Hasina but not Bangladesh in general, neither from Bangladeshi politics. My edit was to add a maintenance template to the article and had nothing to do with Sheikh Hasina. The election is not just about Hasina but also about the election of 299 other constituents. I don't see that as a violation although I'd be happy to revert myself if an admin clarifies otherwise.
 * Considering that wrote Agreed, there seems to be no indication that would disqualify one or the other, and so it’s most logical to leave it as “Bengalis” in the former Discussion section, I can hardly be accused of trying to "manipulate" their opinion when it was always Bengalis—I was just trying to get them to clarify their !vote. I have directly replied to just two other !votes: yours and 74.12.97.59's, which is a far cry from literally going after every editor who is !voting for the opposite position. I only replied to other conversations because I was explicitly pinged by another editor and asked to comment. Malerisch (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A.Musketeer has a long history of going against anyone who opposes their view. Malerisch is not the first editor A.Musketeer attacked, and will not be the last editor. Coordinated efforts of Nomian and A.Musketeer has vandalized ALL the articles on Bangladeshi Liberation War. 103.184.172.37 (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP after an unacceptable personal attack. Doug Weller  talk 14:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, a lot has been going on at a similar page. Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You're repeatedly trying to archive an ongoing thread, I don't know why. These threads have raised concerns about the current state of the article. So archiving these manually, even when the last comment was just 20 days ago, is a disruption in the conversion. Please refrain from doing these. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagging editors just because they were pinged and didn't !vote you want them to, when there is no indication they were pinged because of their views, is kind of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Especially tagging people who had edited in this topic area going back a decade or so. So I think at least on that account User:Malerisch has a point about User:A.Musketeer.  Volunteer Marek  16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A demonstration of the off-wiki coordination is there for everyone to see I guess. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about?  Volunteer Marek   07:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Musketeer is just accusing entire Bangladeshi editors at this point. This editor should be community-banned from ever editing any topic related to Bangladesh. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

TBAN
Can an admin either enforce the TBAN or leave a comment as to why they believe that editing an article that mentions Hasina 24 times (not including references), has Hasina's picture in the infobox, is linked in Template:Sheikh Hasina sidebar, and is being proposed at ITN/C with Hasina's photo and a blurb that names Hasina, doesn't constitute a violation of a TBAN from Sheikh Hasina, broadly construed? Malerisch (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Admins in this forum are taking you seriously, Malerisch 88.239.17.21 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your repeated pushing to enforce a false TBAN wouldn't change the fact that my edit to add a maintenance template had nothing to do with Sheikh Hasina but rather a standard procedure on an article about a nationally significant event in Bangladesh. I would also request the admins to take a closer look at the off-wiki coordination going on by these IP users and new accounts who are following Malerisch's lead in every page related to this dispute. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , it's a clear violation of your topic ban, and if it happens again you'll be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer in a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
I would like to know whether A.Musketeer's edits in a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War Vandalism, Destructive or not.

A.Musketeer is also involved in "User conduct at Bangladesh Genocide Rfc and TBAN". After trying my best to have a discussion with him in the talk page to which he replied with constant whataboutism. So I felt it's pointless to argue further have recorded his vandalism in the article. Please take a look in the article and talk page, you'll understand the situation better.I

Here is the reply i gave in the talk page, here "you" is referring A.Musketeer.


 * == "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ==
 * It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists ." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."
 * You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.
 * The source statement was,
 * "Hindus were targeted the most"
 * Your claim back by source is,
 * "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."
 * I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.
 * You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,
 * "Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions."
 * In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,
 * "“… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80"
 * In The Daily Star archive
 * "Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'."
 * Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.
 * Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43(1) in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314(About 7,370,000 results), Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.(About 2,060,000 results)


 * You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.
 * On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed"                   You've removed 5 Quoted sources (none  original  or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209) which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
 * On your 2nd edit edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed" : You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
 * On your 3rd edit edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" : You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims."                                                                                                                                                                                       with  " The  Pakistani  elite  believed that Hindus were behind  the  revolt  and that as soon as there was a solution to the " Hindu problem"  the  conflict  would  resolve. " And you edit description was NPOV balancing.  You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
 * On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega (description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
 * On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim " "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women. " but the source says " Hindus were targeted the most"  It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women . Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation , which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead  worked on them.  You've reverted my edit saying  "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician."  But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel"  so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.


 * === Others ===
 * You're  misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.
 * You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."
 * Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)
 * 2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.
 * In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
 * Your misinterpreted source  is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salekin.sami36 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Two big rangeblocks requested for Dominican IPs

 * User:Elchezinazo
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Elchezinazo
 * User:Elchezinazo
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Elchezinazo

Elchezinazo was blocked five years ago but has evaded the block with sockpuppets and IPs from the Dominican Republic. Special:Contributions/186.149.133.80 was blocked a week ago along with a raft of socks. Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2D06:3500:3D67:19D1:6B7D:8154 was identified as a problem but was not blocked.

Since then, the Elchezinazo-style of disruption at articles has continued, focused on the music of Barry White. Several /64 ranges are involved so I am asking for larger ranges to be blocked, specifically Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 and Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2C00:0:0:0:0:0/40. Very little collateral damage would result from these large blocks. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated content removal in the article Peranakans
Calling for prompt intervention on the repeated blanking of content (and the repeated addition of a rather comical hatnote "descendants of a country child and a foreigner") by User:Visnu92 in Peranakans, which had been subject to an edit war involving said user and placed on temporary protection. Discussions are ongoing in Talk:Peranakans and the related page move issue, but said user has continued with disruptive behaviour of blanking content after the expiry of page protection. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is a bit annoying to have the page re-blanked despite the ongoing RM. (Courtesy ping to Ymblanter, protecting admin.) CMD (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We probably want to hear from here. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. The article is misleading. As peranakan itself means descendent of local and foreigners. The foreigner can be Arab, Indians, and Portugese . It not Chinese alone. It's look like @HundenvonPenangare biased on this article. This article is under discussion and majority of the people agree that this article should not be on Chinese descendent alone. Visnu92 (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This case is about your repeated massive blanking of content, much of which had been around for years and with sources, and your own edit-warring behaviour that resulted in Peranakans being protected, which you find it fit to resume after protection expired. Where is your claim of bias? Removing sourced content just because you think it's misleading? And should I even begin with your (potentially disparaging) joke of a hatnote "descendants of a country child and a foreigner"?


 * Said user didn't appear to have a basic understanding of what is a "country child". Hilarious. hundenvonPG (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Let it be put on record that in making the claim that I was "biased", Visnu92 deliberately ignored this comment I had made proposing NPOV & consensus moving forward from editors of Singapore, Malaysia & Indonesia.


 * In fact, Visnu92's edit-warring tendencies go back way before this issue, going by his edit history. Treating WP as a battlefield? Said user is simply WP:NOTHERE. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Having participated a little in the surrounding discussions I believe this is too harsh. I think Vishnu92 wants to improve Wikipedia, but struggles to collaborate with others. There has been a bit of a "my way or the highway" approach to this all, and it was very difficult to get Vishnu92 to start discussing things on the talk page. But now that they have stopped edit-warring and started to contribute to the discussion I think we can move forward. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F49D:F12E:294C:7BBE (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While the edit-warring in Peranakans has indeed ceased, Visnu92's past actions indicate persistent edit-warring tendencies & refusal to seek WP:CONS, let alone unexplained edits & zero WP:ES for most parts. Already, said user had been blocked on a separate ocassion for disruptive behaviour, along with a whole list of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing stretching back to at least 2012. Who is to say he won't revert to disruptive behaviour in the future?
 * My two cents: this merry-go-round of disruptive edit-warring & WP:NOTHERE from Visnu92 will persist, unless a more lasting action is taken against such behaviour. My case stands & I leave it to the wisdom of the admins to decide on the next course of action about said user. hundenvonPG (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As an aside, more participation in Talk:Peranakans would be helpful. Nothing (despite the AN/I report) particularly contentious to wade through! CMD (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, second this, any additional input would be much appreciated. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F49D:F12E:294C:7BBE (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct label
Vandalism only account. Please refer to their contrib history. A couple of examples include wherethe have made edits to change the Prime Minister of Australia's name from Albanese to Albasleezy and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_of_Australia&curid=18453&diff=1195124706&oldid=1195124586 the leader of the opposition's name from Peter Dutton to Voldemort. Editor is WP:NOTHERE. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of non-Turkish names by Omnibenevolence
User:Omnibenevolence has been systematically removing the names of places in Turkey in languages other than Turkish (e.g. ), citing MOS:LEADCLUTTER, yet at the same time adding Turkish names to the lead of other articles (e.g. ). Given the contentious status of minority languages in Turkey, I think this raises obvious POV issues, seemingly confirmed by Omnibenevolence describing languages such as Kurdish and Armenian (widely-spoken in parts of Turkey, but politically repressed) as foreign, not important and irrelevant in the above edit summaries, and on his talk page justifying his edits with Turkey is a single country with a single official language. The MOS:LEADCLUTTER excuse is a red herring – MOS:LEADLANG encourages adding relevant local names to the lead, and if the issue is 'clutter' then the guidelines suggest using a footnote, not excising them. The MOS guidelines could perhaps be clearer, but WP:NPOV is crystal.

and tried to talk to them about this at User talk:Semsûrî and I tried at User talk:Omnibenevolence, but unfortunately they are sticking to their guns and edit-warring on individual articles. There are already a lot of articles affected here, and I think admin intervention is needed to nip this in the bud. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that you resorted to ANI immediately after being reasoned with in my talk page and being unable to find a response to both my points and 's shows that you're a bad faith editor. I have only removed foreign names from the lead of cities where said alternative names (be it historical, foreign, etcetera) are expanded upon in their own sections (such as Name, Toponymy, History, Etymology, etcetera). The instances which you've shown as supposedly edit warring are not edit warring, and I refrained from my edits in Bingöl once my edit was reverted twice, and I reverted your edits (based on no consensus and in contradiction with guidelines) where you only cited my talk page in the edit summary. Further, it is ironic that you claim to be worried about my supposed edit warring, then went on to edit war in those very articles you highlighted after writing the ANI here Clearly a hypocritical and problematic user who has difficulties adhering to guidelines.
 * As WP:NCGN holds, alternative names should be either in the lead or in their own sections. There are many such articles that use these justifications to remove names of the city in another language, e.g. the Turkish name of Thessaloniki is omitted from the lead. I already outlined on my talk page that I would remove foreign/historical names of a city in the world if they are already mentioned in another paragraph of the lead or other sections of the article since it clutters (MOS:LEADCLUTTER) the lead. This proves that I'm not POV-pushing, and also this method is more beneficial than a one-off mention in the lead and is in accordance with MOS and naming conventions. 09:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) Calling another editor "bad faith", "hypocritical" and "problematic" are serious personal attacks which should be retracted. Narky Blert (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) I did not have a 'point' against @Joe Roe per se, at least not in the sense that there was any dispute, and I do not appreciate being painted this way in this discussion. I thought (and still do think) that problems exist at a more fundamental level and are related to policy, guidelines and convention, not necessarily editor behavior; and saw Omnibenevolence's edits as unproductive but understandable due to the convoluted and often contradictory nature of these specific guidelines and conventions and also per WP:AGF. This is why I did not open this section. Joe Roe took a different approach (and he can), but that does not mean that I found the edits okay; simply that I think action against individual editors for trying to navigate inconsistently applied, vague and convoluted guidelines and conventions is less productive to the encyclopedia than arguing for changes in these guidelines/conventions.
 * I do, however, find Omnibenevolence's accusations of "bad faith" unacceptable, and I also believe that Joe Roe is being hasty in describing MOS:LEADCLUTTER as a red herring; this argument (though not exactly with the same words) has been used before, it seems, in perfectly good faith. Uness232 (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment; I've filed an SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that Kurds and Kurdistan are designated a contentious topic; I have just given alert to the editor. Armenia is within a scope of two contentious topics, Eastern Europe and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, though I am not sure any of these would apply here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * (A note after archiving:) Omnibenevolence has been blocked as a sockpuppet of as a result of Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User insists on adding unsourced genres
has done this many times and been warned many times, yet he just added an unsourced genre to an album article again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Love_Supreme&diff=prev&oldid=1195120156 ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this is a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU problem, user is on the mobile app, so they (probably) won't see the messages and won't know why they're blocked (if it comes to that). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A lot of those problems have been fixed recently; this is a logged-in user using mobile web, so they should be able to see message alerts. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion for User:Diskos Aleksandrovac 2024
Likely block evasion for "Diskos Aleksandrovac 2024". Please see and review this IP's identical contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonSlushie (talk • contribs)
 * Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

user Flying plants are real and WP:CIR
Batting average on copy edit 'corrections' hovering somewhere around well south of .500, and continuing after receiving a final warning. A lot of gratuitous or arbitrary changes, many of which are backward moves. See my recent edit history of reversions for details. I'll happily provide twenty or more diffs later today, if requested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Boredom889 personal attacks against other editors
Please look at Boredom889's recent comments made against other editors:, , ,. Most, but not all, of these are aimed at, including vandalism of their actual user page. Unsurprisingly, Ayaltimo doesn't seem to have done anything unreasonable. Moreover, Boredom889's latest edit was to vandalize Tomb of Salar and Sangar al-Gawli, somewhat out of the blue, with this comment, which, judging by the article's history, is presumably trying to refer to me.

This seems to have started with them edit-warring a little earlier today, but I haven't looked further back to see if they've been disruptive earlier, apart from some (mostly low-level) warnings on their user talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please stop being a negore, for once, black skin Thats just blatant racism. I do think a block would be good. Also, YIIIIKEESSS Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  16:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of these should go straight to revdel, honestly. And I'll add a link to WP:NORACISTS (while not a policy, still an important thing to have in mind when editing the encyclopedia). Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 16:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * they've been blocked
 * Block log Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, those diffs are outrageous personal attacks. Show them the door, indef User:Boredom889, clearly NOTHERE.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 16:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think we can Assume good Faith with those diff's. Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  16:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about as clear-cut as it gets. Those are personal attacks and hate is disruptive. Blocked indefinitely. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 17:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Should the comments where the blocked user called others by variants of the n-word be revdel? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note I have taken the liberty of removing their talk page access in advance here. I can see where this may go, and there's no going back from those comments anyway so no constructive unblock requests can possibly be forthcoming. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have revision deleted the overtly racist edits that I could find. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Incivility by EEng
I believe that it's necessary to open a thread to report recent incivility by EEng. I came across incivil comments made by them on the 1st January, and left a message on their talk page to that effect (user talk thread: Special:Permalink/1193451579). I have come across further incivil comments they have made since then, so I am now opening a thread on the matter at AN/I as I do not know what else to do, and I do not wish to ignore the incivility.

The initial incivil comments I noticed made by EEng recently were in an AN/I discussion (archived here) regarding a close on Talk:Self-referential humor. They included an aggressive response to (CONSENSUS? Are you fucking kidding? [diff]), as well as attempts to put down editors based on perceived differences in experience (And as an inexperienced editor, you need to stop playing eager beaver and closing discussion's on issues you don't understand. You're not going to get to be an admin this way, trust me. [diff];  Thanks for telling me what ANI is for, editor-with-literally-one-fifteenth-the-experience-I-have! [diff]) and defending their own incivility (No reason [to get aggressive] other than that you're continuing to waste a lot of people's time. [diff]). They also commented in a thread at Wikipedia talk:Closure requests, in which they put down Voorts for requesting a peer review of their close (In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, will you get a clue and stop beating this dead horse? Find something useful to do and stop wasting people's time in your endless search for approbation for what you've been told over and over was a huge boner on your part. [diff]). In addition, they replied in an incivil manner to a message left on their user talk page from regarding talk page reply formatting (Thanks, but with my 33,000 talk-page contributions to your 3,000, I don't need any schooling from you on how to do stuff, nor am I cowed by lame complaints about broken screenreaders from the 1990s. You misrepresented my views and I responded as I saw fit. Don't ever fuck with my posts again. [diff]).

The most recent incivil comments by EEng - and the ones which prompted me to open this thread - were on 's talk page, in a thread regarding (Or, instead of telling 10,000 other editors to do something, you can stop flooding watchlists. Now you've really pissed me off. What the fuck is the urgency of this fiddling with article assessments? [diff]; Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles (i.e. not those who invest their time gnoming template whitespace) do want to see bot edits, because bot edits can and do often screw things up. That's why we turn off suppression of bot edits. [...] If you two did any actual article editing you'd know about subtleties like that. [diff]).

All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 21:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * trying to police cursing on wikipedia isn't going to work out, many have tried in the past.Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  21:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And trying to curse police EEng is about as productive as tilting at windmills. A smart kitten, this won’t boomerang but it also won’t go anywhere; I suggest you withdraw it and save a lot of time. BilledMammal (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is, I can't imagine this sort of incivility being tolerated from an average Wikipedia editor (and almost certainly not a new one). From my perspective, incivility such as this is actively harmful to the project - for one thing, it has the potential to drive away other editors - and failure to take action in response to it risks entrenching a toxic culture. While I appreciate your suggestion,/gen I don't wish to withdraw this filing. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 22:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have policies against personal attacks for a reason. Users shouldn't have a special WP:UNBLOCKABLE status based on their amount of contributions, and asking editors to withdraw their reports because of this only contributes to the issue. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that went an unexpected and novel direction. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (Without deep analysis) @EEng sounds like a very nice person. A definite warning here (if not a block). Struck: controversial statement by me, I'm going to refrain from posting here for a while. Still indicated my vote later in the debate.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely you realize that your facetious remark about EEng is a personal attack. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 04:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lepricavark see user @Cremastras comment before making any more accusations. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cremastra has no more pull here than anyone else. The fact that EEng is here for uncivil ad hominem sarcasm and you think a warning or block is in order and choose to express this with uncivil ad hominem sarcasm is almost unbearably ironic and farcical, so Lepricavark is absolutely correct to call you on it (even if "personal attack" is a stretch; people love to bandy that phrase around, but it has a pretty specific definition which is not the same as "uncivil" or the policies would just be merged).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I see it as a personal attack because is implying that EENg is not, in fact, a very nice person, and that seems like a personal remark. At any rate, it's certainly an interesting choice for an ostensibly brand-new editor to be hanging out at the dramaboards. L EPRICAVARK  ( talk ) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish Did you miss the 'without deep research' portion of my comment? I believed he was another WP:NOTHERE account before checking block logs after making this comment, which should be quite telling of his behavior described here (Cremastra hadn't made a comment before I made mine, I was confused about the length of the thread when I logged back on).
 * As for me being uncivil and 'laughable' I actually published it knowing another edited at ANI had said it, rephrased :
 * What a nice individual. Certainly should be indeffed and email privileges removed. –@Davey2010Talk 20:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC).
 * I suggest you strike your comment, I believe mine still stands as criticising the behaviour that brought this article in the first place, from a unique prospective that this was a new user. An obviously misinformed view, but a view that nonetheless relevant to someone with a long block log. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reply was posted at this users ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yilian_Wong ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comment was about the person. You said nothing about behavior at all. The fact that you didn't do enough research before weighing in makes your comment worse, not better. You are at least the second editor who has criticized EEng for incivility yet doubles down on their own incivility. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am not being incivil in the slightest from my POV, you seem be ignoring points made by me. You say I'm criticising him as a person. No I'm very clearly criticising his comments that were presented here by the user who reported him. Unless you consider comments from EEng such as "Now you've really pissed me off. What the fuck is the urgency of this fiddling with article assessments?" to be, indeed, civil. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You facetiously wrote EEng sounds like a very nice person. That's very clearly criticism of him as a person. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "sounded" based off the comments brought up here. It's criticising the comments as uncivil. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious that swearing isn't the problem here, it's the aggressive attitude. Some kind of response is warranted.🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What we need is some more detailed rules about running these sort of jobs. has done well by marking edits as bot and minor, and including a description of what the bot is doing. I don't want to hide bot edits because I am tracking problems with. (Now resolved - touch wood.) made a pretty reasonable request: given that the issue is pretty insignificant, the daily number of bot edits could be decreased to reduce the pressure on watchlists, and allow for some issues to be resolved with fewer mass reverts. The response from  was unsympathetic, hence EEng escalating. I escalated my own issue when I didn't get the expected response, perhaps unnecessarily. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion can be seen at User talk:Kanashimi/Archive 1 where EEng asks "Please slow it down. No hurry." That is a perfect request. The underlying issue appears to be that Cewbot is updating article talk page headers and apparently there will be around 4 million more just for WPBS. As usual, there are two camps: those who maintain articles and want to see related activity, and those that adjust talk headers. Both groups are important but getting the other side disqualified because they use strong language when faced with waffle is not going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is absurd. EEng's comments can't be waved away. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I don't mean to take a position regarding how fast/slow the bot tasks should run. I opened this thread because of the recent incivility displayed by EEng (not just in the discussion regarding bots), not intending to attempt to disqualify any side in that conversation. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 23:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, that's true, but when the scope of the task is every talk page ever (per community consensus to change the way article assessments work) it's going to be a bit spammy unless you want it to take twenty years. It's already running quite slowly for the scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You were firm but polite. EEng was rude and insulting to two separate editors. Nothing or  said warranted being cursed out or called incompetent. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * While I don't expect it to stick, I've blocked for a period of 72h for a pattern of incivility towards other editors. While individually those replies would at most merit a warning, put together they show a considerable lack of respect towards other editors, as well as a lack of WP:AGF. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 23:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * “While I don't expect it to stick, I've blocked…”
 * Is that a pre-declared block against consensus? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As others have observed before – EEng is unblockable. Someone will likely unblock him shortly for some arcane reason, when, frankly, he should be blocked for several months for his continuous flagrant violations of incivility 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The block was done as an individual admin's action, no consensus is strictly required. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 23:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but, I read you as implying that you thought the block would be found to be against consensus. Now, I read it as being politely tentative, seeing the !votes below showing that it will stick. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * made this comment, asking it be copied over to ANI. I think that's not unreasonable.
 * 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, how nice. He will return to continue to personally attack people based on minor disagreements and none of us will have any recourse because he has a high edit count which means he can say and do things that are blatantly cruel to people, without any regard for the rules 'lesser' accounts are subject to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * EEng has responded further on their talk page, I'm posting this here to clear up any confusion stemming from the previous comment.
 * 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Acting like he doesn't care about blocks shows why, fundamentally, a 72-hour block is insufficient: he won't learn from his behavior, especially since this same behavior would have gotten "lesser" editors permanently blocked a long time ago. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. He continues to stand by his behaviour and dismisses blocks as being from rogue admins. This person is not going to change when he comes back. JM (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The original comment above was edited by the user, and I've brought over the removed and inserted text to reflect the changes. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block with the hope that EEng returns to editing with a more collaborative attitude. Some of the comments are borderline but is way over the WP:NPA line when conversing with bot operators carrying out a task that is supported by the community. EEng, you can do better. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. Given their extensive block log, however, I doubt this'll change their behaviour. Given their response to the block (I always figure that if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously.), I would support extending the block until EEng can make a commitment to be actually civil. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good block. There will be an unblock with a finger wag and we'll be back here again in the circle of EEng, but this conduct has gone beyond their normal level of "I can say what I want, no one will block me." Star   Mississippi  23:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good block. I think Ingenuity makes a reasonable point, and if someone wants to extend the block I would support that as well. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Having had time to think on it, I would also support indef, based mostly on the people opposing such an action. It's fine that GoodDay (to take one example) doesn't mind getting insulted on the regular, but that's not scalable and certainly not the kind of project I want to participate in. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block; propose extension: besides EEng's long pattern of incivility, they have failed to actually commit to following Wikipedia's policies, as noted by Ingenuity above. This is not a minor problem.
 * Either
 * Having had time to think on it, I would also support indef, based mostly on the people opposing such an action. It's fine that GoodDay (to take one example) doesn't mind getting insulted on the regular, but that's not scalable and certainly not the kind of project I want to participate in. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block; propose extension: besides EEng's long pattern of incivility, they have failed to actually commit to following Wikipedia's policies, as noted by Ingenuity above. This is not a minor problem.
 * Either

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Block EEng indefinitely from the project to prevent further attacks, as an extension of this block; or
 * 2) Give EEng I trial run of two months or so (after this block expires). If they can make and uphold a commitment to be civil for that time, well and good. Otherwise, block them indefinitely from the project to prevent further attacks.
 * A Good block...for as long as it lasts and for all the good it will do. "if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job". DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good block, support extension. On top of the incivility, their attitude, especially towards newer editors, shows a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and isn't a productive way to go about. Again, a user's edit count or celebrity shouldn't bring about an "unblockable" status. Letting this slide once again only reinforces the attitude of "they can say whatever they want without risking anything". Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support an indefinite block, with the caveat that "indefinite" doesn't and shouldn't mean "forever". In this case, it should be until EEng shows a willingness to reform, and a genuine, good-faith appeal should be considered by either administrators or the community. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 16:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Extend the block indefinitely. Given EEng's |extensive block log, I do not believe a 72 hour block is enough. Furthermore, their comment that "if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job" suggests that they have no intention of changing their attitude. In fact, I will go as far as to say that I support a site ban; it's no secret that EEng is an "unblockable", and a site ban is really the only solution to dealing with their repeated incivility. SkyWarrior  00:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm meant to comment here given I opened the thread, but for the avoidance of doubt regarding my position, I would support a site ban for the same reasons as SkyWarrior, extend block to indefinite as second choice. Best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 00:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add something more here to properly expand on the reasons for my view/!vote; however (due to my own personal stress levels & general difficulty in being able to put things into words), when I tried, I found that I wasn't able to write much very well right now, for which I apologise.
 * However, I have been reading the comments that have been made while this thread has been open, and I just wanted to note that my position is also per what's been said by Apaugasma, Ivanvector, SergeWoodzing, Thebiguglyalien, Ravenswing & others. At this point, given all of what's been said & what I've read, I believe that a siteban/indef is a measure necessary to prevent further incivility from EEng, and to prevent further harm to the project resulting from such. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cremastra You might want to consider taking a step back from this topic for a few hours. It seems to have been lost on you that when you told EEng to stop being a jerk, you ignored the advice in that very essay to not call people jerks. I think you've made your point, and your comments on EEng's talk page seem to make more heat than light. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support extended block until EEng shows any indication that he understands why these kinds of comments are inappropriate. I do not support a siteban. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block, obviously. EEng is Wikipedia's self-appointed court jester; nobody asked him to be, nobody thinks a court jester is a good idea on a project that values collaboration and civility, and various editors keep asking him to stop, but he won't. He never sees any kind of real consequence other than the occasional definite block that he's more than happy to sit out since it means he never has to modify his behaviour, and there's a small group of editors that cheer him on and always an admin who will invent a rationale to unblock, so why would he ever improve? Nothing will change unless and until EEng sees real consequences, but I've been around long enough to know that enough of his friends will turn up to prevent it from happening, so I'm not about to bother proposing it myself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Supporting EEng, because when you shake Wikipedia up a bit you find that he's one of its most productive, social, and interesting editors. 72 hours has a nice ring to it, and the minutes will go by like seconds. But any more than that has a "Blood in the water, come on, over here over here" feel to it, and Wikipedians should be better than that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And then he'll do it again, and again, and again. He's productive and clearly means well but he also has absolutely no regard to being civil and communicating properly, because this community has let him do whatever he wanted for years without meaningful reprisal, so he has had absolutely no incentive to change anything. Maybe actually hold him accountable for once and he'll change his behavior, or maybe not, but it's better than nothing.
 * There's really no reason to let this stand when this has happened before and he shows no sign it will not happen again. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't spoken personally to EEng yet, but from what I've read, I think it's fair to say he is all of the good things people have to say about him, but at the same time it's also clear he has a pattern of egregious behavior in certain situations that people have a right to be upset about. I agree: I think the behavior should be addressed, but we shouldn't lose sight one way or the other. 72 seems fine for this. Remsense  留  01:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The real problem I have with this thesis is the idea that some editors are irreplaceable, therefore we should tolerate some amount of otherwise unacceptable behavior. That's not a sustainable way to run a project; it's terrible for the retention of newer editors. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing phenonemon that long-established editors considered "productive" bite the newcomers and get away with a lot more despite the fact that they should know the rules better than newcomers. JM (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Being "productive, social and interesting" doesn't grant anyone the right to not follow basic civility like WP:NPA. We don't give rights to Wikipedians based on how "interesting" we find them. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He also wasn't being "productive, social and interesting" when he repeatedly insulted me. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the minutes will go by like seconds, then it needs to be extended, because he'll only have to wait "seconds" to resume the behaviour. JM (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * : -- Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This comment was made in reply to my suggestion,, which they complied with, . Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @EEng I'm going to try and put in my first cents to an ANI discussion here: You and David are two people who think that the bot should be slower for all users, while 3 or 4 other people think that you should just put down the smart watchlist script (which David hasn't replied to; in fact they just left a single comment and then get swept up in this huge discussion... gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber ). There hasn't been anyone else who believes that the bot should slow down for everyone instead of prospective editors filtering it out individually. Not to mention that every comment except maybe the word "gee" was perfectly civil, and I don't see this holier-than-thou attitude you describe when I try to put myself in your shoes. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact I have replied stating that telling us to ignore what the bots do and pretending they're always correct is not an acceptable response. So telling me "just use this script and you can pretend that the bots aren't screwing up all our content while you don't watch" is non-responsive and does not need me to dignify it by a reply.
 * As for "gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber": This sort of language is an uncivil personal attack, at least at the same level at which we are defining EEng's comments on the bot talk page as being an uncivil personal attack. It is ironic seeing such language on a comment thread about incivility on ANI. Retract and apologize, please. (And for your information, I am on a fairly normal Pacific time schedule. As I post this it is currently late afternoon / early evening.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you see gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber as an "uncivil personal attack"? The way I read it, he's saying that he thinks it is going to be shocking for you to wake up to a huge discussion like this out of nowhere. The idea that such a comment is somehow not only an uncivil personal attack, but on the level of Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles... makes no sense to me. JM (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clarifying. Apologies if that offended you, but I don't think it's anywhere near EEng's sudden attacks after three or four civil replies from others.
 * Every single task of Cewbot is approved by community consensus; I don't see why you think that it'd be screwing over articles, especially since the only edits it does in main/talkspace are fixing broken anchors, in which the worst case would either be easily spotted or not affect anything at all. Ordering them to slow it down would not solve any of the problems said. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The other bots that I follow are also approved by community consensus. Often they do good things. Occasionally they do bad things. If unwatched, despite being rare, the bad things pile up. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn’t cleaning them after piling up have the same effect? If it were slower, the bot will only suddenly mass-“attack” pages every, say, half hour, which doesn’t seem like it’ll clean up the watchlist much either. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, "I'm sorry you took it the wrong way but I don't think I did anything wrong" is neither a retraction nor an apology. It was a personal attack on my level of awareness, and you are demonstrating the same sort of insistence that it was somehow a justified personal attack that has already gotten EEng blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you think it's a personal attack, so he can have a better idea of what you have a problem with? JM (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I read "gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber" as implying that David would be surprised when he logged back on (with "his slumber" not referring to his personal mental state, but to literally being afk) to find that a discussion he was involved in had erupted into an AN/I thread. I'm not sure how that's a personal attack. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's how I read it as well, as I said above. I don't see how this can be construed as a personal attack. I've seen admins express surprise at threads exploding before after returning from a short period of inactivity. JM (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant “I’m sorry, I think I shouldn’t have said that. However, I don’t think that was on the same level of frustration or hostility as EEng's comments.” Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Half the time I don't know whether EEng is serious; the other half I don't know if they're kidding.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * EEng's explanation seems fine, and because he thought better of it upon hitting "publish" and has since changed the wording shows awareness of the situation. EEng speaks and writes in honest language, a rare treat on Wikipedia, and asking for full conformity to robothood seems to be more an urge to tame than to let wild things run free. Each person has their own personality (it's literally in the word), and it's from that personality that a volunteer spirit emerges that blends well with the concept and creation of Wikipedia. EEng has contributed much, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Again, editors who have the personality to pile on when they see a wounded creature have their place in Wikipedia as well, but not at the expense of harming the project. 72 hours in the penalty box has its adherents, and maybe next time he'll leave the dog puke on the floor for an extra minute and change the edit that he sensed he should have changed just as he sent it. We've all been there, throw the first stone, whiffleball pitching at the Moon, but please, as Wikipedians, think twice about the tendency to pile on and realize that "assume good faith" goes in all directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "full conformity to robothood" and just having the smallest amount of civility required to work on a project. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Each person has their own personality is not an excuse to insult other people at random. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and extend indefinitely per above, particularly SkyWarrior, C.E., and Cremastra. Also this, where the user states I always figure that if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously. Also, the topic of "unblockables" has come up, I'll say that I think the very existence of unblockables damages the site because of the amount of damage an unblockable user can do, regardless of any of their beneficial actions. I've also had enough of people who refuse to compromise or back down until they've actually been blocked. JM (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, support siteban so that a single admin can't come along and negate all this. JM (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that's a little too harsh. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block, neutral indef per Randy. They seem cooperative to us for the time being, and I don't see much more harm that could be done if the block were temporary instead of indef; though maybe we should extend the block until we sort this out because of EEng's comments, the former of which is apparently what an indef is? Which is why I'm neutral as to indef. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. As someone who is, on a regular basis, accused of being an apologist for EEng, I'm going to (1) say to EEng here that he should get down off his high horse, and not be so full of himself, and while he's at it, try to be kinder to other editors, and (2) tell those who keep thinking that EEng is unblockable because he has enablers to (after looking at his block log, hint, hint) take a look at User talk:Tryptofish, where it emerges that I have been telling EEng this for a very long time. As for all this voting on the block, I'm going to say something that I hope is more nuanced. The block was within process, and it certainly adds to a long list of evidence that EEng is anything but unblockable, but it was also not particularly helpful. These kinds of I'm an administrator, and I'm going to take a stand for civility by adding yet another block to an established editor's block log blocks are, frankly, performative. I haven't got the faintest idea what anyone thinks it's going to "prevent". And this brings me to what I think of those editors who are saying here that the block should be extended to indefinite. I recognize that this is coming from a sincere place, and I get it, that it makes Wikipedia less enjoyable when users feel that they have been disrespected. But it's appropriate to weigh the plusses against the minuses. Language about editors being "net positives" or "net negatives" is kind of yucky, in the way that it reduces real people to mere ratios. But EEng is a net positive (as, alas, he will likely tell you, himself). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * About "if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job", I hope that editors can tell the difference between not caring about Wikipedia, and venting after being blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One reason such language is, as you said, "yucky" is because once we decide a person is a net positive, we're implicitly letting them break the rules just as long as they stay in the black, so to speak. We never have to have such conversations about the many, many premium editors who contribute just as well as the best of EEng while rarely/never causing this kind of drama. When it comes to deciding whether EEng is or is not a net positive, do you take into account how much time is wasted on stuff like this? That he persists in calling other users assholes or whatever takes away from his status as a net positive. That those users frequently start threads like this, ones that always stretch on for miles and never accomplish anything conclusive, also takes away from his status as a net positive, doesn't it? It would be so, so easy for him to contribute to this website while not violating policy so much and so often that he instigates the creation of timesinks like this all the time. Countless editors do just that. The fact that he refuses contributes to the very widespread belief that he does more harm than good, and his most ardent supporters really ought to agree on that.
 * For that matter, shouldn't apologists/"apologists" like you want him to be blocked indefinitely? He'd be able to get an indef reversed in 30 seconds because all he'd need to do is bang out a quick note explaining what he did wrong and promising not to do it again. Then he'd join the ranks of editors who make as many positive contributions as he does without ever dealing with threads like this. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 02:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel that your reply to me is glib. When I pointed out the flaws in calling an editor a net positive or negative, I was clearly talking about how we shouldn't reduce real people, with all their complexities, to a simple ratio. That you would try to turn that into what you said here shows that you ignored what I actually said. And I find that your reference to what almost amounts to "people like you" frankly insulting, which is a strange way to stand up for civility. Of course I don't want him to be indeffed. That should be obvious. You are of course talking about a real problem, insofar as the time wasted by ANI threads like this one. This is why I acknowledged the sincerity of editors who feel hurt by things EEng has said; it's also why I said that the block was unhelpful. I wrote WP:DEFARGE about this sort of thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (googles ""define glib" just so I'm sure) No, I promise you, I truly meant what I said. I know you don't want EEng indeffed and I never said any different. What I'm saying is, I'm genuinely bewildered by that. I believe he'd file a successful appeal so fast he wouldn't even have to wait out the 68 or so hours he's got left on this block. You want EEng to keep editing here. You want his undeniably good contributions to continue. If he gets indeffed, you'll get what you want and as a bonus, the community won't have to endure threads like this any more. How on earth is this not a worthy outcome? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 03:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Re City of Silver's shouldn't apologists/"apologists" like you want him to be blocked indefinitely?: Some people have the integrity/stubbornness (call it what you will) to refuse to apologize when they don't believe they are in the wrong. I strongly suspect that EEng is in this camp, and that if this block is made indefinite (on the principle that the integrity of the encyclopedia requires an apology) there is a good chance that it will become permanent, because if you force it to become a test of wills then that's what it will become.
 * The question you need to be asking yourself is, would you rather participate in a project where some otherwise-productive people who occasionally get frustrated and use mild intemperate language get de facto permablocked in this way, and the only long-term participants are the few genuine saints who never get frustrated and those other people willing to make an insincere apology, or a project where some people evade "punishment" by being allowed to continue to participate after such outbursts? Keep in mind also that blocks are only supposed to be used to protect the integrity of the project, not to punish the deserving. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that describing rhetoric like "you two fucking geniuses" as "mild intemperate language" is completely apart from reality. That isn't exactly a response to your question (after all, as you said it's one that I should be asking myself, and I'm not up for the ten millionth debate about how hostile EEng's remarks are or are not) but if you don't know where I'd stand on this, say so and I'll explicitly tell.
 * I actually agree that your question holds a lot of validity but that would be tied up in EEng's response to it, not mine. "Is the community really at risk of losing you entirely if your behavior is restricted how the people complaining about you want it to be?" I genuinely, sincerely don't believe he'd leave here. At the risk of being a pest, I'd like to know why you think differently. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 03:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe that describing it as anything more than "mild intemperate language" is completely apart from reality. But you're welcome to your beliefs, as long as acting on them does not damage the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I didn't find EEng's comments particularly offensive. Frustrated, perhaps.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1704709905386:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  10:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Same here. I think this is rather subcultural. Lots of us use such langage all the time in daily life, and others think it's beyond the pale. While I've learned to hardly ever do it myself on here (because the community leans in a disapproving direction on this), it was a learning curve. And it necessarily had to be, because the community standards in this regard have palpably shifted slowly over time. Even in the early 2010s, this ANI probably would have closed quickly with a bunch of eye-rolling about over-sensitivity. We swore at each other a lot more back then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish I disagree. We all use language in different places as context demands. That's normal. EEng has edited here for over fifteen years. He's decided that this is how he speaks on Wikipedia. In 2006, my own use of Fuck you toward another user, on this very noticeboard, led to immediate pushback, although then, as now, people were prepared to defend it. It's here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive136. That was a long time ago, but I note four things: (1) Reading the whole discussion from the vantage point of 2024, I'm embarrassed; (2) I never did that again; (3) I apologized to the person I attacked; and (4) even then, the project was grappling with the problem of senior editors who overstep reasonable limits. The arguments defending the latter haven't really changed much over time. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that fuck you is very different from what happened in this case. I'm not supporting the language used but it was different. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and users have gotten way with "fuck you" in recent memory anyway. "You two fucking geniuses" is clearly not civil, but it's kind of a sitcom-style "antagonistic humor" approach suggesting the writer thinks the recipients are doing something boneheaded and means to get that point across. In a previous era it might have come out as "you two knuckleheads". Constructive? No. Likely to offend? Yes. An actual ? No. If had been something much more direct like "you two fucking morons" I would agree that it was one (see the subthread below about City of Silver for an personal attack about someone's mental capacities, which was doubled-down on). Something like "you two need to go fuck yourselves" would be in the middle (being neither a sarcasto-humorous jibe nor a personal attack but just raw hostility). I have several more issues with the pillorying here, aside from this WP:CIVIL != WP:NPA one:
 * EEng has had several years now of incident-free editing (nothing of note since 2021), but this is being treated as if he was in here and sanctioned just last week. If someone has a comparatively minor melt-down every few, that is generally something the community can live with.
 * His ANI trackrecord has been distorted/exaggerated, since being brought to ANI but not sanctioned in a proceeding is not evidence of wrongdoing. (EEng has been sanctioned before, but not every noticeboarding shows consensus that he was in the wrong.) Nor does the community intend to use evidence from a long time ago as a permanent "scarlet letter" in behaviorial-lapse matters like this. (It's actually pertinent when there's a WP:NOTHERE problem, like pushing a fringe or neo-Nazi or other "warp the content to my PoV" agenda; people with civility issues tend to improve over time even if still suffering an occasional lapse, but someone who is here to promote a conspiracy theory or whatever is never going to "improve" even if they futz around quasi-productively in some other topics for a while as a smokescreen before returning to their real purpose.)
 * The fact that some people have a rather irrational overreaction to "strong language" automatically inspires a hangin' judge reaction from them: they are both more likely to comment and much more likely to favor excessive sanctions than someone not triggered by those particular text strings; this is a strong selection bias, the already observable one that anyone in favor of a negative action is more likely to comment here than someone who is not.
 * EEng has difficulty resisting the urge to try to be funny, often in a sarcastic direction (sometimes in ways that take multiple reads to get the full point), and also has a tendency toward deflection as self-defense; these habits are frequently misinterpreted as recalitrance, lack of understanding, or dismissiveness, and there is a great deal of that misinterpretation and outright recasting of his comments to mean whatever the angry respondent here wishes they meant (more on that below). There is a big difference between implication and inference, but it is being ignored with impunity in this thread.
 * It is not possible for someone to simultaneously be an "unblockable" that admins and old hands are supposedly protecting at all costs (i.e. someone we should dogpile on) and yet also have a non-trivial block and other sanctions log (i.e. someone we should dogpile on). That's cognitively dissonant bullshit and just a means of trying to reach a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" result. (I guess now I'll be put up for a ban too, for daring to use a "swear-word" in the course of being critical of some people's arguments.)
 * Below, EEng's own statements are being mis-cast, with the claim that he "requested" an indef; what he really indicated was that he was sorry for the community trouble he'd caused, and that it would be more productive to block him than continue debating it in ANI, and that he'd make an unblock request after some time had passed. This is by no means a "just block me forever, I quit" statement, and shows precisely the contrition and reflection that various parties in here claim he does not show.
 * This is by no means the only time his comments in this very proceeding have been badly distorted with the sole aim of banning a long-term and highly productive editor simply for not having offended someone and not having abased himself in a way that precisely satisfies the disapproving party. Just one of over a dozen examples: "the incivility which he has outright told us he has no intentions to stop". That's distortion that verges on blatant fabrication.
 * So, no, I'm not on board with this at all. I repeat: we need to retain editors who are generally productive, not chase them away just to make a point and smooth someone's feathers. If I ran to ANI every time someone offended me, I'd do little but be complaining in ANI every other day. "Someone was mean to me and made me out to look like I was doing something foolish or disruptive" does not equate to "someone needs to be banned" (even if their implication was wrong, which is not at all proven here). Cf. my actual ANI activity of late, where I have reported patently NOTHERE parties and got them indeffed, but also gone out of my way to retain a confused and often small-time disruptive noob because they have potential, and to retain but topic-restrict a CoI/SPA despite his BLP problems about one subject, because he has reasonable input into another – despite (and this is important here) him being grossly uncivil to several parties in the course of that (even implying two of them were cultists or cult apologists for not letting him get his way without RS in material about cults); I supported retaining him because he showed contrition and understanding why this was no okay (as EEng has done here).  Above it was said that "The arguments defending ... senior editors who overstep reasonable limits ... haven't really changed much over time" [since the 2000s]. I have to suggest that this is strong evidence of community consensus in favor of retaining generally productive editors even if they screw up from time to time. We do sometimes eventually ban such people anyway, but only when the problems they cause finally come to outweigh the good they do, i.e. when they become a net negative. EEng has not. The cases I can think of were people who were clearly becoming more and more frustrated with everyone around them, getting in increasing numbers of conflicts with increasingly battlegroundy results. That's not happening here. EEng just popped off in way that has actually become decreasingly characteristic of him over the years.  If EEng "goes after" the same editors again, different story. If his behavior escalates into a string of additional and worsening incivility towards other parties, different story. If after another three entire years he slips up again and uses some swear words and sarcasm toward someone, we can look at it again, but it's probably also not going to be something ban-worthy. No one has to have  behavior here. This is a huge project full of very different people, and getting along as well as we're  able is a means to an end; getting along flawlessly all the time is not the end itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC); rev'd 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * blocks are only supposed to be used to protect the integrity of the project, not to punish the deserving Exactly. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any block here is prevantative, not punitive. It would prevent the user from engaging in the incivility which he has outright told us he has no intentions to stop. That would be an indef for any new user. My account is 11 months old, I'm sure I would be indeffed for saying what he's saying about this block if I was ever blocked. JM (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Good block as a start; however, the situation indicates further action is needed. This is not an isolated incident, and EEng said it all himself: ...if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. If an editor here sixteen days declared that their motivation here was to go against Wikipedia principles and policy, and that being blocked was a badge of honor, they'd be indeffed as NOTHERE in short order. While there can be some leeway and understanding for an editor here nearly sixteen years, I don't think that applies when incivility is the standard pattern and not an out-of-character outburst. There are calls above for a siteban; it is difficult to disagree with those. Unblockables aren't as unblockable as they used to be. For years I've seen incivility used as a way for editors to get what they want by intimidating others into submission. Civility is a pillar, not some obscure guideline. While perfection is not expected, these principles ought to be held in high regard. For an editor to openly declare that it shouldn't apply to them speaks for itself. --Sable232 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support extending block to indefinite and the word "extending" feels inapt because it would get lifted earlier than the end of the 72-hour block. Levy an indef, let EEng complete the extremely simple task of appealing via WP:NICETRY, and reap the undeniable benefits of his good work without having to deal with complaints like this over and over. His defenders should be chomping at the bit to get him indeffed because a successful appeal would require he finally stop doing the stuff that gets him dragged here all the time and of course they all would want that, right? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 02:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have a real problem with the net positive / net negative lens. It's always cast as "net positive to the project", which elides that someone out there, not the project in the aggregate, but a real live editor, is experiencing the negative aspect of someone's behavior. This isn't exactly "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", but it came to mind. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe the word jabberwocky sums up this comment well. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot believe I'm getting dogpiled by this guy's supporters. What a world. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 04:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize how dysfunctional Wikipedia can be until becoming a frequent editor. JM (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to copy the edit summary for City of Silver's comment above in full here: is this the new thing? Being gentle on the noticeboard and saving the actual nastiness for the edit summary? Fine, I'll do that, and I'll even ping you because I'm not a coward like you. Would the person reading this out loud for User:The Blade of the Northern Lights please tell them they shouldn't get mad at me because I can read and they can't? But City of Silver wants EEng indeffed for being uncivil. Yes,, Wikipedia is very dysfunctional. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 04:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You forgot to copypaste Blade's remark to me and its accompanying edit summary. It'll help your case because an administrator appearing from out of nowhere to insult me like that is nothing compared to how I replied, right? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 04:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blade's edit summary expressed confusion at what you were trying to say. I do not believe it was uncivil. Pointedness is not the same as incivility. You responded by calling him a coward and saying that he can't read. Those are both obvious personal attacks. I am not interested in arguing with you, and I do not expect that you will reconsider your choice of words. But I do suspect that most open-minded observers will be able to detect the inconsistency between your !vote for an indef and your own incivility. As for your complaint about an administrator appearing from out of nowhere to reply to you (and not, as you mistakenly claim, to insult you), this is a public noticeboard. Do you expect some kind of advance notice before people respond to your comments? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 05:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked why you didn't include the text of the reply User:The Blade of the Northern Lights left me and its accompanying edit summary but maybe I was in the wrong for doing that since I knew. If you reproduced their claim that my message is akin to "Jabberwocky", a literary work that our article describes as "a nonsense poem", you then claiming that was merely them speaking pointedly and not a violation of NPA would look awfully silly. Really: I absolutely believe this because I can think of literally no other reason for you to exclude what they said about my message, which was "I believe the word jabberwocky sums up this comment well."
 * Let me be clear: My words regarding Blade's lack of literacy and bravery are me speaking with pointedness, nothing more. If you're complying with our guideline asking editors to assume good faith, you can't read what I just said and still believe it was a personal attack. It's good that you're "not interested in arguing" with me because Blade's reply and edit summary were insults, you wrongly said they weren't, I've now corrected you twice, and this approach from you means we're both good to let my correction of your mistake stand. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 05:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blade criticized your comment by implying that it was nonsensical. You attacked Blade personally by calling him a coward who cannot read. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 06:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have this exactly backwards. User:The Blade of the Northern Lights violated NPA by calling my comment nonsense and hiding an even harsher personal attack in the edit summary. I replied to that with pointedness, not a personal attack, by calling Blade "a coward who cannot read" and explaining how I'd deduced that. Let's keep going back and forth on this, though. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 06:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would laugh, but you seem to be serious. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 07:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * And where did I say I was a supporter of anyone here? I was reading this discussion and saw a comment that made absolutely no sense, if I was supporting or opposing an unblock for EEng I'd have said so. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I interpret the following as personal attacks:
 * Your claim that you "believe the word jabberwocky sums up this comment well" regarding my message
 * Your edit summary on that message that said "What in god's name is this trying to say?"
 * Your claim that my message "made absolutely no sense."
 * Please retract all of them. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 06:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are all characterizations of a comment, not attacks aimed at the person who made the comment. Getting your feelings hurt because your writing undergoes criticism is not the same thing as being personally attacked. If it were, all reviewers at Did You Know and Good Articles would be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now tried, on three occasions, to parse your original comment. As best I can follow the train of thought, EEng's supporters should be pushing for EEng to be indefinitely blocked so he can be unblocked. I entirely fail to see the logic, and have no compunction about saying so. Any comments about my reading comprehension are misguided at best, I have records of all my reading assessments from a very young age and I'm definitively not on the illiterate side of the bell curve. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 06:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When I first saw your comment (and before anyone replied) I considered striking it as likely to produce more heat than light, but figured I'd just get reverted anyway and let it stand. In the cool light of reason, do you think an unadorned comment asking City of Silver to further explain what they meant would have been the better choice? Mackensen (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse block, oppose further action – I don't think EEng should be indeffed for this, but I also don't think we should just roll over every time he offends someone. If he won't learn to take a break when he gets upset, we'll give him one. 72 hours is good this time. – bradv  02:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and I would be open to supporting editing restrictions to curb the unwarranted aggression shown in the OP's quoted comments. In that most recent quoted situation, I can't find any conceivable reason to escalate the situation.
 * The bot was making edits within policy and with an explicit consensus at BRfA.
 * The bot operator Kanashimi paused operations less than a half hour after EEng's message.
 * Kanashimi and Qwerfjkl quickly worked—exceedingly kindly, as far as I can see!—to find a solution for EEng's original problem (watchlist flooding) without slowing the approved task to a glacial pace.
 * Kanashimi and Qwerfjkl didn't assume any knowledge on EEng's part, which was part of EEng's problem... but that was also probably the correct way to approach the situation, as who would assume that the random person they are messaging spent 45 years as a computer scientist?
 * The thing that stands out to me after reading that discussion is if EEng had practiced the most basic form of WP:AGF, we wouldn't be here right now. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Put down the pitchforks and take a deep breath. So much for EEng being an unblockable. This thread quickly devolved into a mob out for blood. The 72-hour block was reasonable. Let EEng serve out the block and then go back to being a productive editor. When he messes up again, give him another short block. We do not need to be indeffing valuable contributors for occasionally stepping out of line. As for the suggestion that EEng gets away with comments that would get a new editor blocked, please note this snide personal jab from, who is a very new editor, at the beginning of this thread. Nobody seems to care about that. I guess it's okay for a new editor to be uncivil as long as they are attacking one of the so-called unblockables. How about if everyone calms down and quits trying to run off a net-positive editor who has already been punished? This sort of mob mentality has no place on Wikipedia. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 04:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well put, I agree with this. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Something additional beyond the 72 hours will probably be needed to effect a genuine course change, but let's not have a lynch mob. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can understand where @Lepricavarks viewpoint since he joined later in the thread, but my comment was the 3rd comment made on this thread. No I wasn't aware it would get this much attention until I saw his account age (4 years). The comment was made before they were blocked and I honestly thought he wouldn't be blocked (rather warned) and so I decided to confirm the comments itself were incivil (to me) and that @A smart kitten wasn't trying to police 'swearing' as someone else claimed, and as such warranted some sort of action. I don't know how that is a personal attack ?(context applied)
 * ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I think you know which part of your comment was a personal attack. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 09:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 'You know which part' no I don't please elaborate on how the (short) statement can be classified as a WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS violation? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. The heat here is now far exceeding the light. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! ~Awilley (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing further needed Wikipedia is supposed to favor inclusivity yet struggles to cope with the fact that EEng occasionally expresses himself forcefully. If contributors are unable to cope with that, short blocks can be used. Jumping to indef in a situation like this is totally inappropriate. It would better if people were to focus on the underlying issue (mass adjustment of article talk page headers) but ANI is not the right place for that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that no further action is needed, but really? Acting like punishing very blatant personal attacks is against inclusivity? What?? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral regarding the indef, but I am not neutral regarding this message. If inclusivity is to be a criterion for evaluating the block imposed on the user, then this is some next level doublespeak, coming from an admin no less. The user has a history of personal attacks and hostility, a pretty extensive block log linked to said behaviour, but according to you he should not be further blocked because we are supposed to favour inclusivity? In the name of inclusivity we are expected to allow a person to get away with behaviour that clearly makes other users feel unincluded? We have two dozen people right here finding his attitude toward other users block worthy (whether temp or indef), which evidently points to "inclusivity" being at odds with the editor's conduct. Ostalgia (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Observation I find hyperbolic metaphors to actual physical violence such as "pitchforks" and "mobs" and especially "lynch mob" to be deeply unhelpful here. Nobody is proposing to stab EEng with the sharpened tines of a hay rake. Nobody is proposing to tie a noose around EEng's neck and string him up from the tree in the town square, with a postcard photographer documenting the atrocity. We are debating what the appropriate sanction ought to be for an editor who has been blocked, by my count, 17 times. Although I am not supporting an indefinite block myself at this time, supporting that is not an outlandish stance to take since EEng has a long well-documented history of failing to keep their "angry court jester" persona under control. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I understand your discomfort with the imagery, I do believe it is appropriate to regard the above as a mob. And this bothers me because I have seen what wikimobs are capable of. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it makes sense that I am more alarmed by this than you are. You are one of our most popular admins, and it is unlikely that the community will ever turn on you like this. I, on the other hand, am a gnome who mostly keeps to myself. The type of editing I do does not necessitate cultivating Wiki-friendships, and I doubt if anyone here would notice or care if I simply disappeared one day. The only people who might feel any emotion in regard to me are the ones who might be hanging onto a grudge over all an old dispute; I've expressed strong opinions on Wiki matters enough times that I've probably acquired a few enemies over the years. While I try to avoid running afoul of WP:CIVIL, if I were ever to slip up and find myself the subject of a thread here, it is quite possible that some old enemies would show up to get their pound of flesh. And who would speak for me? Probably nobody. I think that's a sufficiently good reason for me to speak up when I see a mob forming against someone else. Everyone keeps saying that EEng's friends will turn up to get him out of this block, and maybe that's why so many editors have cast their lot against him. But so far almost nobody is speaking for him, and I think someone with his record of service deserves a little more dignity than this. Pardon my ramblings, but hopefully now you can understand why I take this so seriously. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 09:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a useful and appropriate metaphor to a certain extent. The group building up a head of steam partially from it's own posts while talking about the harshest penalties that can possibly be given here.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Youse all have good points. I agree with Lepricavark and North8000 that "mob" in the sense of "mob rule" is an apt metaphor here, especially given all the blatant distortions of EEng's own statements and of the facts of his block log and ANI history (a great deal of which was nonsense at best) to just reach to a heavyhanded result. But Cullen328 is right to criticize use of "lynch mob", and I'll go further: "Lynching" and "lynch mob" usually refer specifically to white-supremacist organized murders of African-Americans (broader use in reference to other mob killings is attested but rare, and rarer in later material), so this is basically a slight variant on the Godwin's law principle of not trivializing atrocities to make a rhetorical point about someone you disagree with on a website.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I picked too strong of a term.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * endorse block. oppose indef. an indef is overkill. if he continues this after the block, though, i'd be more inclined to indef. ltb d l (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * forget i said anything. ltb d l (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Block seems reasonable enough, oppose any extension, indef or ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and suggest indef - It was a while ago, but I was absolutely astonished to see what this user gets away with in the order of incivility, belligerent sarcasm, swearwords and insults, incorrigilby. Just look at the habitually highhanded way the user has reacted on h own talk page to this short block! Looks like a person who considers h-self flawless. Many many active users have been blocked indefinitely for being obviously and intentionally offensive, but in my 14 years of contributing I have never seen anybody come close to this one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I disagree with the last part of your last sentence. There are at least a dozen admins and high level editors - maybe several dozen - that engage in similar behavior with little to no consequences because of status. — A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  16:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support extending block to indefinite Per Ivanvector and SergeWoodzing. I have been following ANI for a very, very long time and again and again I have found it disappointing how EEng got away with atrocious behaviour. Has an other editor ever received that many blocks without getting indeffed? As IvanVector wrote: EEng is Wikipedia's self-appointed court jester; nobody asked him to be, nobody thinks a court jester is a good idea on a project that values collaboration and civility, and various editors keep asking him to stop, but he won't. He never sees any kind of real consequence other than the occasional definite block that he's more than happy to sit out since it means he never has to modify his behaviour, and there's a small group of editors that cheer him on and always an admin who will invent a rationale to unblock, so why would he ever improve? Nothing will change unless and until EEng sees real consequences, […]. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Has an other editor ever received that many blocks without getting indeffed?" According to my back of a fag-packet calculations, /  was blocked over 50 times before the final, Arbcom-enforced one. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I was sure that question had a positive answer but couldn't be bothered to do the research. I now see that there's another case of a user having been blocked more times being discussed at WP:AN. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Having a court jester is a good thing, using it as an excuse to insult other editors is doing an awful job at it. Methinks the community should appoint a new jester. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block (thanks for that Isabelle) and support extending to indefinite. Every time a user leaves the project because they're done with all the aggression and disrespect, done with the everyday and almost casual rudeness, done with caring for the project and honestly not knowing anymore why they ever bothered in the first place, WP is potentially losing an expert scholar, a great writer, a diligent editor, an untiring admin. I sincerely believe that if civility would ever be taken seriously, WP would soon become twice the resource it is, both in terms of quality and scope.The tragedy of WP is that it is stuck in the late 90s or early 00s internet culture which it sprang from, where a certain amount of flaming and hostility was just part of the deal for everyone. The concept that a text-only medium requires constant self-moderation, that it demands a conscious attempt to 'be nice' (even if one doesn't feel that way), was something foreign and new, and ultimately not appealing to the free-wheeling community that created the internet. Times have changed, and WP has changed too, but not enough. It has not changed in one of the most crucial ways it should have: we're still chasing away thousands of users every year simply by being invariably and unnecessarily rude to them. It almost seems as if only people with an amazing and at times inexplicable ability to put up with all the rudeness are actually able to stay on here.I don't know if this is what Star Mississippi meant, but it seems right that EEng's usual attitude is "I can say what I want, no one will block me", but that the conduct shown here (especially in their reaction to the block) has gone even beyond that. From these two geniuses showed up to high-handedly smirk to each other and So while some might think me uncivil, at least I'm not uncivil and clueless -- a deadly combination over being lectured by a couple of script kiddies and a block only requires that one trigger-happy admin get high and mighty over something that others aren't exercised about to It's an interesting exercise to count up how many of the admins who've blocked me are no longer admins, EEng has taken to being utterly unapologetic in their lack of civility. They seem to believe they have a right to be uncivil, and that most anyone who has ever had tried to curb that right (and a great many have tried), must have themselves been in the wrong, somehow. Why anyone should expect such a deep-seated attitude to just disappear after 72 hours is beyond me.Sure, nothing about that long-term attitude is too different from –say– a few weeks ago, and there was no 'mob' at ANI then, so this must all be some blown-up drama over a few unfortunate comments, right? That's absolutely the feeling I get when seeing an ANI header called 'Incivility by EEng'. My gut reaction is 'not again', 'this will never work'. And that indeed was the tendency of many early comments, before it completely turned towards the natural counterpart 'but if it will never work, then that in itself is a problem'. At this point we seem to have reached the final act, where the 'mob' has gone home, where good sense prevails again, and where everyone decides they have something better to do. We know we will end up here again, but that's okay, probably will just be the occasion for another batch of new-ish editors to learn that we don't indef block for this.I get all of that, and I agree, except for that one part 'we don't indef block for this'. I think we should, and if we would, this thread and its very type would not exist. Casual and habitual rudeness and aggression should always be met with an indef WP:CIV block. And that's undeniably what we've got here. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support community ban; I endorsed the block in an earlier comment, and since EEng has plainly stated he intends to wait it out and not learn anything, it should be made indefinite. By his own comments in response to the block it's clear that EEng views chronic and occasionally severe incivility as necessary to edit Wikipedia and views the block as an administrator overstepping their authority, when in fact neither is true: the block is a consequence of his own actions and nothing more. It should be made indefinite until he acknowledges that, and the community should accept EEng's next appeal rather than the decision being up to a single admin driving by. Wikipedia's founding principle is "anyone can edit", not "anyone can edit who can put up with occasional abuse from editors who deem themselves superior". Whatever it is that EEng does when he's not making stupid jokes and telling people off, if it's so important somebody else will do it without their behaviour having to be scrutinized and defended all the time. Of the billion-plus edits to Wikipedia, a tiny, tiny fraction necessitate reports to this noticeboard; it is not anybody's "job" to get themselves blocked ever, let alone as many times as EEng has. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban. What’s wrong with the block? According to Civility, Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. They’ve caused significant disruption to the close review and pain to the discussion on the bot, what more is there to warrant a ban? How about we just follow the “trial run” suggestion above and block them whenever they do an incivility? Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason for a ban, and the only reason, is because it requires appeal to the community. We already block them when they "do an incivility", the existence of this thread shows that it isn't working. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th, in addition to several blocks for other reasons. I do not believe Cremastra's "trial run" suggestion above will work, given the extensive block log and previous ANI threads on this user. SkyWarrior  15:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A "trial run" would work with an editor who has been uncivil and wants to reform, but needs help and a gentle hand. EEng doesn't think he's done anything wrong, so a trial run is pointless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression is that it also requires time before the first appeal. Or have I confused it with arbitration? Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, no. By policy, the difference between blocks and bans is that blocks are enacted by individual administrators and can be reversed by any other administrator (with discussion and agreement) while bans are enacted by community consensus and require community consensus to modify or remove. There is grey area in the interpretation of both policies, and significant overlap, but a ban doesn't come with an automatic moratorium on appeals unless one is explicitly written into it, and you're right that that's a common feature of arbitration bans. Technically any restriction that results from this discussion is a ban by policy, but we probably won't call it that, it'll probably be something like a "community indefinite block" which is not actually defined by policy. Of course this is all academic and we're not supposed to be a bureaucracy; the crux of my argument is that the block should be made so that it does not expire and can't be reversed until EEng convinces the community that they will do better and not need to be blocked again, however we actually describe it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indef. Surely we're past the "one more chance" stage. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments - it’s not lost on me (and probably many other non-admins and regular editors) that:
 * if we carried on this way (even just sporadically), we’d be in much bigger trouble.
 * if we come here seeking redress and it involves an admin or high level editor, we’re likely going to be made to regret it — better to just hunker down or step away for awhile.
 * for someone who’s supposed to be a positive contributor, this thread alone sure is sucking up a lot of time
 * 45 years as a high level engineer: so what. Maybe some of the rest of us have also done important things but we don’t play the big shot card
 * I don’t understand why this person can’t just be nice like other people — I’ve had a dog vomit on my rug, too. I just cleaned it up. I didn’t take it out on other people.
 * Either acknowledge this behavior is within bounds for some people or go long - several months. 72 hours is just a pointless token in this case apparently to be worn as a badge of righteous honor.

This will be an interesting test for the WP:ANI community. In the meantime, I’m headed back to the engine room. — A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  14:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support extending block to indefinite per Ivanvector and others. I get the whole blocks-are-not-supposed-to-be-punitive line, but in this case a block is necessary to preserve the right of editors to do their work here without being personally attacked. Notwithstanding the good content work and excellent commitment he's given to the project in the past, EEng sadly has IMHO a bit of a longstanding attitude that WP is his personal fiefdom and that his edicts on various topics are to be followed immediately, with the "transgressor" being treated to a barrage of insults if they don't immediately acquiesce. This latest case is just one such - EEng unloading on an editor for doing something they were allowed to do, and on the basis of a "flooded" watchlist which it was well within his own power to configure and sort out by himself. This followed by a hunkering down to wait out the 72 hours and asserting that being blocked is part of doing a good job on the project. I'll obviously caveat this with the usual "indefinite does not mean infinite" line, and as such I'd favour a simple indefinite block rather than a community ban at this point, which would probably be much harder to undo. If, and hopefully when, EEng can satisfy the community that he has a plan for conducting himself in a manner markedly different from that which he has been doing, then an unblock could be granted. A simple 72-hours and a slap on the wrist doesn't seem to cut the mustard here though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block, and if a longer absence from the site is needed, I'm not against it. As someone whose primary interactions with the user in question are on this venue, where disciplinary action is routinely given, I find making light of cases by adding jokes or unrelated images highly disrespectful to the process, and I'm certain that if any other user tried to do what EEng has been doing for years, they'd be blocked within hours. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * By the way, I don’t mind humor - more would be good as long as it’s the right Kind. Humor’s not the important issue here.  A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite block. EEng still has the option to reapply per the normal process if he can drop his sense of entitlement at the door and just try to get along with the rest of us. We're all making that effort -- he can, too, if he wants. -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  23:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break (EEng)

 * Support indef or siteban. If there has ever been a block that would improve Wikipedia's "collaborative environment", it would be this one. This is a user who not only ignores Wikipedia's expectations regarding conduct but actively flouts them for his own amusement and has done so for many years. It's difficult to tell exactly how many times EEng's behavior has been brought up at ANI, as he's edited the ANI page 6,761 times. As far as I can tell, these are the previous times we've had this discussion at ANI:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive844
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132
 * In most cases, it's agreed that there's a problem but that "sanctions are unnecessary". This is not counting all of the times he's caused problems that were not escalated to ANI. Either we come back here and have the same discussion again, or it stops now. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the reply from EEng on the long evidence list above: Aaron Liu (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Ok, they've just written another letter: Aaron Liu (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support extending block to indef: We indef newbies for a hundredth the number of offenses EEng has committed. For all the positive edits he's made, anyone care to guess how many other editors have been driven away because of his invective?  The time for leniency is long past.  Whether it's because he's temperamentally unstable, or he just doesn't give a damn about the rules, we can't tolerate someone who's likely been brought to ANI more times than any other recent editor.  Just look at this thread: how much positive work to Wikipedia taken away from each and every one of us does this represent?  Either CIVIL and NPA mean something or they do not, but if the purpose of blocks is to prevent further disruption, sheesh.  What are we waiting for?   Ravenswing      16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the community is incapable of coming to a decision on this matter. The next step will likely be Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support block, and support extending to an indefinite block or siteban. On reviewing the diffs and long history of uncivil behavior, my thoughts are per as expressed by Thebiguglyalien and Ravenswing. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 16:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose block, oppose extension, siteban etc and whatever else the civility police decides is right this week. Rationale: there is incivility all over the fucking place, but rare is the block imposed if it's sufficiently passive-aggressive.  ——Serial  16:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What’s passive-aggressive? Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Serial, I'm not sure what you consider passive-aggressive, but active aggression like do not even attempt to patronise me or unnecessary sneers like Poor judgment there, City coming from you in this very thread surely aren't any better? Someone should argue the oppose side here, but if it's going to consist of shifting the blame on some unidentified group of passive aggressive others (the famous Civility Police, not just any other cabal) and vindicating the right to be 'actively' aggressive (let's say it for added emphasis, fucking aggressive), that's painfully unconvincing. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not going to assume bad faith, but I think the “this is a mob” line being pushed by a few editors here is not correct criticism of what’s happenning here, and it could have the effect of causing other editors to back down from endorsing or advocating for a preventative indef block or siteban. What’s clear is that the user has been blocked or brought to ANI a ridiculous amount of times, and has not ever changed his behaviour, and with this most recent block, has said things like a block only requires that one trigger-happy admin get high and mighty over something that others aren't exercised about and It's an interesting exercise to count up how many of the admins who've blocked me are no longer admins and if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously. It's not being a mob to say that this calls for an indef or siteban, as I already said above. JM (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose extension of block. The size of this thread vs the seriousness of the supposed infraction that started it is ridiculous. Even in this thread we've had far worse incivility with none of the perpetrators even blocked yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which editors do you have in mind? Also, the length of the discussion comes from its contentiousness, not from the seriousness or lack thereof of any infractions. JM (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose suggestion of ban, indef, or anything beyond the block thats already been given. Mostly on is he wrong tho? grounds, but also because this is only getting attention because of the person and not because of the action. If anybody who didnt have so many fans that go looking for problems had said these things they would have been left alone on a user talk page. AFAICT the person supposedly attacked so badly that the attack merits a site ban hasnt even said a word about it. Seriously, youre going to ban somebody who obviously edits in good faith and does a ton of positive work because they got in to a tiff at a user talk page? When that user hasnt even complained?  nableezy  - 18:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're opposed because 1) you agree with his incivility and thus support the thing he was blocked for, and 2) think that because he's supposedly unpopular, we should ignore support for extensions? JM (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Id appreciate if the incivility of misrepresenting my position were taken more seriously than intemperate words. One of those is more corrosive to an encyclopedia than the other.  nableezy  - 18:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No misrepresentation, let alone incivility, just a request for clarification; and I think to call it incivil misrepresentation may be bad faith, and I don't think that my comment in any way is worse than Eeng's incivility. Of course, you are free to open a new section to find out if people agree, but I don't think its worthwhile. JM (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely misrepresentation. I agreed with EEng's point, not his incivility, and I think the points correctness and the response to the initial request does factor in to how severe I think the incivility should be treated. You did indeed misrepresent my point, but I am not assuming you did so out of bad faith or incompetence or any other reason at all. I am just saying that what I wrote is not what you said I wrote, and I find that to be more insidious to the goal of making an encyclopedia. But, also, you can stop bludgeoning this discussion.  nableezy  - 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is bludgeoning, as my comments are not a huge amount of the discussion, nor have I responded to most of the people I disagree with, nor have I made the same argument many times to many people. I also don't think asking if my interpretation is correct is misrepresenting, if anything it's trying to avoid misrepresentation. JM (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The leading question in which you distort my position entirely is yes misrepresentation.  nableezy  - 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Voorts has said words about it. The Cewbot escalation isn’t the only problem. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That happened here. And was presumably dealt with here then. If not, running it back here seems like trying to get a second shot at a sanction.  nableezy  - 18:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Voorts appears to still be "frustrated about the outcome" of an RFC where their bad close was reverted, ignoring the messages from the multiple people who reverted it (including EEng) and casting about for anyone else who will reassure them that their bad close was not bad. So I think there might be reason for not taking their opinion here as that of a neutral observer. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I closed a discussion (not an RfC) on an insignificant page over an insignificant issue. Editors involved came to my talk page asking me to overturn my close. I declined and asked them to take it to AN for a close review.
 * Two weeks later another editor (who was also involved in the discussion and had !voted) decided to take things into their own hands and unilaterally overturn my close. I restored the close and asked them to follow process. EEng (who had participated in past discussions on the issue) then unilaterally overturned my close, insulting my intelligence and competence as he did so. I asked EEng to be polite, and he continued to insult me. I then asked for a neutral close review at Wikipedia talk:Closure requests, where EEng then followed me and continued to cast aspersions and insult me. As I explained in that thread, I've been open to and asked for a proper close review from the beginning, hence my "frustration". voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * False. I did not !vote in that discussion, nor did anyone else, because it wasn't a proposal or a poll or an RFC or the kind of discussion where people !vote, and thus it wasn't the kind of discussion that needed to be closed, which is why your close was wrong and was undone. You were wrong, you were reverted, get over it, or at least stop misrepresenting what happened. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to mention that a close was requested by one of the participants in the discussion and that I didn't just waltz in and close a random discussion. Other than use of "!vote", what exactly did I get wrong in my description above that is relevant to this AN/I thread about EEng's behavior? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeated sealioning makes me want to curse, but I won't, because then a bunch of people will call for me to be site banned. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm defending myself against false accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that. &mdash; MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you replied to Levivich in the wrong thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take that response as either implying that I'm misrepresenting things ("They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions.") or that my request that you follow the only procedure with some form of community consensus that we have for overturning a close or for a peer review of my close were somehow "frivolous and time-wasting". As I said above, I've asked people to take this to AN for a close review from the outset, you overturned my close and then we tried discussing it, and EEng was disparaging and insulting at AN/I and CR. I'm not sure what I'm misrepresenting here. If, as you've suggested many times, my close was bad (and looking at the state of the discussion now, it still seems to be "ILIKEIT" vs. "IDONTLIKEIT"), AN would have promptly overturned it and we could've avoided a whole lot of needless drama. My asking for a neutral, constructive peer review (which, as you'll see at the CR thread, I have yet to receive) is so that I can learn how to be a better discussion closer, not so that I can point to a positive peer review of my close and say "I told you so." voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite repeated sealioning, I am not going to take the bait and lose my shit, because then people will judge me for it as if I'm the problem. Instead, I'll just assume you were somehow genuinely confused and did not realize that the part that you misrepresented is the part that I quoted and then rebutted with a link. I hope that clears things up for you. Levivich (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you guys take this elsewhere? Maybe take it to that close review? Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We're done. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 72 hour block; Strongly oppose any extension of the block, or a ban. Speaking as someone who has been insulted by EEng  (a long time ago – he has almost certainly forgotten about it) I think the suggestions for an indeff or a community ban are massively out of proportion. So he is sometimes rude, and  the quality of his ‘humour’ may best be described as ….variable….This does not constitute major disruption to the project.Procedural objection: Since EEng is currently blocked, he cannot answer any of the arguments which are being made against him.  Surely the block should be amended to allow him to defend himself here? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * EEng has access to their talk page, where they have been posting replies to some of the comments left here. I've copied a couple of them over to this thread when asked to, which is standard procedure. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I don’t think that is an effective solution to the problem created by the block. My personal view on this is that the current situation is so unfair that any decision reached on the basis of the current procedure should automatically be overturned. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it warrants overturning any decision that could be made, I agree to amend the block to allow EEng to talk here for the purposes of this discussion, and hopefully have it as a precedent for people not able to participate in a discussion about their block. (This doesn't change my support of an indefinite block, by the way) Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not actually possible - blocked editors can edit only their own talk page unless that is also turned off. There is no way to enable them to edit other pages other than lifting the block entirely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But couldn't EEng be unblocked solely in order to post on this page (and their user page and talk page, I guess)? I believe I've seen this happen here before, and we are among other things talking about a site ban. I tend to agree with Sweet6970, even if I don't see it quite in those legal/procedural terms. I am certain EEng would not post anywhere else but here for the duration of the block or until this has been resolved. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sluzzelin. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef block or site ban I don't have any problem with the original block, but there is absolutely nothing here warranting such a punitive action. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite: just in case you missed it (it's a large thread after all), much of the current concern seems to be spurred by the way EEng reacted to the initial block on their talk, e.g., which I would describe as 'doubling down' and 'deflecting'. Of course, reasonable minds may differ. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse current block, oppose indef or site ban. Instead I propose EEng be punished by having to implement automatic archiving of their talkpage. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that's a result I could get behind! >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse current block, Oppose indef, per Black Kite, David Eppstein, Boing, and others. The current block is appropriate, but additional sanctions at this point would be punitive. I do, however, encourage EEng to absorb the wise comments from Tryptofish above. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, JoJo. At this point, it really looks to me like this ANI discussion is turning into a stew of every angry and ill-conceived thought that anyone can think of. I'm frankly worried that some admin will get the very bad idea of acting on the many calls for an indef, and enact it without doing the necessary analysis first. For starters, it's worth looking at EEng's talk page, where he has made some comments that have not been copied here, that are worth considering for context. Others have said here at ANI that EEng's personality is such that, if indeffed, he will refuse to appeal, and I believe that this is true, so we would simply lose him as an editor. I also see a number of editors saying, reasonably, that we should steer clear of language about mobs and pitchforks and the like. I agree. But I will say that a lot of editors need to calm down about this. Whenever there's a dispute, one like this or one of any other nature, the best thing to do is to see if there's a way to WP:DEESCALATE the conflict. Wouldn't it be better, instead of all the arguing here, for editors to get back to productive content editing? This discussion has stopped being one where a reasoned decision about whether or not to extend the block can be made in a thoughtful way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I struck one sentence, because EEng just said otherwise on his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Observation: I think I see more support now for a long or indefinite block than your position, User:Tryptofish. Maybe that'll change if the discussion stays open. -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:VOTE, which is why I urge any admin who is thinking of enacting an indef on the basis of counting votes, to think twice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I'm familiar with WP:VOTE. That, of course, works both ways. I was responding to your comment:
 * "Wouldn't it be better, instead of all the arguing here, for editors to get back to productive content editing? This discussion has stopped being one where a reasoned decision about whether or not to extend the block can be made in a thoughtful way."
 * - A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  21:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I had misunderstood your comment to mean that because of the numerical count, an indef ought to follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse current block, oppose indef EEng does have a point that the length of their block log is misleading, and I am uneasy about handing out an indef for incivility on the back of this incident. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indef per EEng (obviously, I am invovled here). I was going to support a civility ban and was about to post the following, which I'll reproduce here: has said some of what I intended to say. Nobody should have to be afraid of abuse, insults, assumptions of bad faith, or incivility, and then be told that complaining about it will likely boomerang back to you. If these are truly random outbursts from EEng, as some have asserted in this thread, and if, on balance, he is a net good to the project, catching a block once in a while for incivility will give him time to cool down, rethinkthings, and protect other editors who have to put up with his behavior. I think a siteban/indef here is based on pretty weak evidence; I agree with EEng that some of his past blocks were not justifiable and that some of the ANI threads opened above hardly show misbehavior on his part. However, I note that many of the editors calling for those outcomes are newer editors, whereas older editors have defended EEng or even tried to explain away his misconduct as just being a part of his personality. As  has argued, this probably represents a cultural shift between generations of internet users. However, I also believe that if EEng had behaved this way in any other volunteer organization (or in his workplace), he would have been booted long ago. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and we should treat each other with collegiality and respect. Civility is not just a policy: it's a core pillar of the Wikipedia community. We should act like it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to say I'm greatly encouraged by the most recent post by, following the "quiet time on the train"... Per EEng's own comments there, and my earlier comment above, I'm not at this point changing my opinion that it's best for us to have an "indefinite but not infinite" block at this moment in time, but it sounds like when EEng is ready to come back in however many weeks or months, they will be able to put in an unblock request with the necessary level of introspection and promising to do better, in which case I should hopefully be able to support unblocking unreservedly and we can all put the fun back into fun editing. Cheers, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just coming here to comment on that same post, and I'm glad that you said that, thanks. And I want to say, very seriously, to all the editors (not you) who have posted hyperbolic statements about EEng having made it clear that he doesn't care what the community thinks, and so forth, that you have been piling on without regard for reality. Anyone who has been around the project for long has a pretty clear picture of what the typical indeffed editor sounds like. And the most central component of that is self-awareness, self-reflection, which is usually sorely lacking in the indeffed. But I think that anyone with a pulse can see, in EEng's comments copied to here, that he is genuinely self-reflecting. I hope to see similar self-awareness in those who criticize him. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indef - no real argument has been adequately made against the "if this was a newbie" point because it's true; no leeway would have been granted to a newcomer if they had done the same as EEng had; they'd be thrown under the figurative prison. I continue to maintain that this two-tiered system of justice on Wikipedia is faulty in that it directly punishes newbies who know no better and often times come from an internet background where, since people aren't doing what we at the Wikimedia Project are doing, have less need to be civil and as such tend to be a little more rowdy (not defending them, but that is a point that needs to be made). If any group of people deserves punishment for this type of stuff, its elite editors who should know better.I'm going to say it; the reason why we give this much leeway to experienced editors in the form of shorter block times, higher standards for blocking, unblocking after an apology, etc. is because its a way of removing responsibility on other elite editors, not only in that they can imitate the behavior of bad elite editors, but also in that whenever any of their wiki-friends are violating the rules, they won't be forced to hold them responsible (y'know, like actual friend should have the balls to do) and just ignore it. It's a primal instinct that, like many traits humans gained in the savannah, runs into serious issues once you start scaling away from intimate familial groups to systems of tens of thousands of people. — Knightof  theswords  23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why so many people trumpet the 'if this was a newbie' argument as if there is no conceivable counterargument. Why doesn't it make sense that a newbie would be shown less patience than an editor with a documented history of positive contributions over many years? One person has earned a measure of goodwill and the other has not. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are missing a lot of nuance there. Experienced editors who, despite the things they do wrong, also do a lot to improve content and to help other editors, have something to offer on the plus side of the ledger that new editors do not. That doesn't mean that they are being held to a different standard. And the way that you imply that, because of what you see as a problem in general, we should sanction a specific person, sounds like collective punishment. If you think that EEng's wiki-friends don't tell him that he needs to do things better, that we just agree with everything he does to protect ourselves, then you are unaware of what I've been telling him for years. But I agree with you that we should be careful not to judge new editors too quickly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the latter editor, via virtue of having more experience, should have a better grasp on the rules of Wikipedia than a newcomer who doesn't even know of the project space. If a scientist spouts verifiable nonsense, you don't defend him because "well, he's contributed so much to his field;" you rightfully criticize him to a greater degree than most average joes who at the very least are comparatively scientifically illiterate. People state the EEng is a magnificent contributor, but I'm sure that whatever work he does will be fulfilled by another editor, unless maybe in a very obscure area. Coverage of obscure topics is an issue on Wikipedia is a real issue, one that can be solved by welcoming more editors, and EEng's repeated wiki-agism (that he is far from the only one on this site projecting) is one of the biggest turn-offs to would-be Wikipedians, and as such I firmly maintain that when it comes to perennially disruptive editors like him, more damage is done in regards to the lost potential editors, users who become frightened of speaking up on this site after being relentlessly bullied, and those who just leave the project out of exhaustion when we keep them.
 * Also, one more thing, and this doesn't apply to EEng, but a lot of this rhetoric about "they've been such a productive editor" will be used to defend users who haven't seriously edited in years, or essentially busted their asses off for adminship and have subsequently coasted off that role since while not even really exercising the rights and duties that come with admin status. — Knightof  theswords  00:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I see a question to me in there. But I would caution against using one editor to make a point about other editors. And I think the caricature of experienced editors is just a caricature. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * People state the EEng is a magnificent contributor, but I'm sure that whatever work he does will be fulfilled by another editor. That's not a particularly safe assumption. As for the assertion repeated numerous times in this thread about EEng causing the loss of potential editors, I've yet to actually see any evidence of him driving specific editors away. That kind of claim is difficult to disprove (and thus very convenient for rhetorical purposes), but it should not be made unless you intend to prove it. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. The longer an editor has been here and the more edits they have, the better they should know the rules. Even if the "net positive" is considered, that should balance it out, considering civility is one of only five pillars of Wikipedia. I also dislike the "net positive" argument so many people have made here, because the good does not wash out the bad. It's hard to say just how many new and experienced editors are discouraged from improving the encylcopedia because of incivility from established editors, and it's even worse when no one does anything about it, thereby showing such discouraging actions are condoned by the editing community. JM (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef. I was going to stay out of this, but some of the ridiculous calls for indef above have inspired me to shoot my mouth off. Worse stuff than EEng's "incivility" has been said to me, both by newbies and by experienced editors, in my years here, and I've been able to take it without asking for anyone to be blocked (for that reason). Perhaps that's because I became inured to such on Usenet, or maybe I'm just thick-skinned. I have a few ideas about the psychology of the rabid "burn the witch" crowd here, but I'd better keep them to myself lest I too arouse their ire. (Sentence struck after Cullen's comment below.) Deor (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I too oppose an indef in this case but rhetoric like when applied to your colleagues is ill-advised and deeply unhelpful. Please reconsider. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef. This has become a sprawling discussion, with at least 2 offshoots, so I'm not even sure I'm putting this in the right place. And I see that EEng himself is now advocating indef. I do take civility seriously, as not only a stated requirement for editing here but a necessary lubricant in a very large and very diverse group of participants. But different editors will naturally have different notions about what incivility looks like. I share the perception that some have expressed here that EEng's comments were not egregiously uncivil. For one thing, I don't see him assuming bad faith: it is important to recognize that things intended in good faith can nonetheless be wrong (such as a bad close followed by a refusal to self-revert) or have regrettable consequences (such as massive automated editing of article talk pages). Pointing out these problems is not inherently uncivil. For another, in my personal gut-level perception of incivility, snideness and arguments about being old-fashioned ("90s internet culture" or something like that) are worse than direct statements. (And I'm sorry, but using this discussion to excoriate the blocked editor for (a) sometimes adding humorous asides at AN/I and (b) having a long talk page feels to me like kicking the man when he's down. Civility should arise from respect, not be a pro forma exercise. So I find those parts of the discussion disappointing, thereby illustrating the differences within our community.) On balance, therefore, I'm going to stick to my guns: let the block run, the length is reasonable, and let EEng archive his talk page after that in whatever way he then wishes, and/or take his wikibreak if he still wants one. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * as I've seen elsewhere in this thread that my observations about Wikipedia's roots in 90s internet culture have not always been received as I intended them, let me take this opportunity to clarify. I was strictly talking about Wikipedia, not about EEng or any other user (FWIW, I was an internet user in the 90s myself). I was part of an argument why I think civility in general should be more strictly enforced in a 2020s context where people's online lives are often as or more important than their offline lives, and where we are working together online to maintain one of the world's most used sources of information. It was a build-up on general principles which I thought might explain my position on this specific case, i.e. that we need to make it clear that we expect more from EEng, not because of the egregiousness of his own violations, but because we need to start expecting more from each other here in general.Also please note that this is about the habitually and self-assuredly uncivil way in which EEng points out problems, not about pointing out problems with other editors per se as being inherently uncivil, nor about those problems not being important or even worse than EEng's incivility. We need to expect more from each other, but that won't work if we can't talk about one editor's problems without invoking problems with other editors as somehow in defense of the first editor. If everyone starts pointing fingers at each other, it's just going to be one big circle without beginning or end. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block, oppose indef EEng was out of line, and the block was warranted though it would have been preferable to discuss it here for more than an hour and a half first. He knows he was out of line, has had some introspection, and apologized and expressed regret for his uncivil tone. That covers pretty much all the bases we ask for in a good unblock request, and while I think the enforced 72-hour wikibreak is good for him an indef would be wildly disproportionate. Enforcing civility is hard and enwiki has never really found a way that works, but an indef or community ban like some have proposed is not at all what we typically do for this level of incivility. We should put the pitchforks away, let the block expire, and move on. Instead I'll leave off with some words of wisdom: The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indefinite block. No opinion on original block but this discussion appears to be getting ridiculously out of proportion. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * EEng often annoys me with his flippancy and arrogance, but to say this warrants more than a 72 hour block is bizarre. Sense of proportion, please, everyone.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block because EEng was clearly out of line. Oppose indef because unlike many members of our substantial cadre of long-term productive editors who cannot remain collegial, EEng is genuinely capable of recognizing that he has been out of line (as he has now done), and also, he does not usually bear a grudge; meaning this isn't going to turn into a years-long blood feud. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose pursuing this any further. It is very difficult to tell someone that they are behaving in a stupid way without telling them they are stupid, and that is the line that EEng crosses a bit too often. But without robust opposition, really stupid things happen. Do we want an environment where irresponsible, incompetent acts go unchallenged because the challengers have all been blocked, bogged off to do something more rewarding instead, or are too scared to say just how silly the situation is? In contrast, it's much easier to wait until someone loses their cool and then drag them off to ANI than to communicate properly, including backing down on mistakes. Collaborative editing in a healthy environment needs not only civility, but also communication, appreciation that different people express themselves differently, and a willingness to listen to another's viewpoint. Those with whom EEng has crossed swords are often as lacking in the last three as EEng is in the first. We can all learn... Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef I know I'm probably coming here at the end of this but I thought it important to give this discussion time to develop and see EEng's reaction to all of it. I think his first responses were more or less instinct. But his last was very contrite and I think it reflects the real EEng and I believe we should give him that benefit. That's not to take away from those his actions and words affected. Make no doubt, I agree they had grievances and cause to bring this discussion. I am a firm believer in civility in every interaction. There is never a good enough excuse for incivility and I chastise myself when I haven't met that standard. There is no one that can possibly be harder on me than me. Most might not even think that some of what I consider incivility on my part and in my own interactions is actually that but I have a higher view of WP:CIVIL and I take it very serious. From what I read EEng recognizes and acknowledges his incivility and genuinely does not want to take up more of the projects time on it. I think, after his 72 hour block which I agree with, he will give himself time to evaluate and make adjustments to the way he deals with others. I think he will take the words of others he respects to heart and I think this process, however laborious, has been good for EEng and really all of us to pause and evaluate our own actions. I believe we should leave it there and move forward. -- A Rose Wolf  12:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef. Earlier, I would have supported an indef; I got the sense that EEng (and others) felt the rules didn’t apply to him, so this would keep happening. I no longer get that impression. I appreciate EEng’s recent messages and willingness to archive his talk page, and I acknowledge that his block/ANI record looks worse than it actually is. As others have said, I think the volume and energy of this ANI thread is enough of a signal that the rules do apply! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef block per the evidence given by EEng. Essentially, this block was okay and has since had community consensus behind it. A lot of other blocks of EEng didn't - including one I recall describing as a "piss poor block". So looking at EEng's block log is misleading. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've said this before, but we need to be able to edit block logs to erase various kinds of sysop asshattery.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you can - see this test log where I've hidden the most recent entry. However, getting a consensus to do this for a real sysop action is mighty difficult to impossible, unless perhaps it's a block performed by a compromised account. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, people should be able to review them and make their own opinions on them, and decide whether it was "sysop asshattery" or not. Being able to hide blocks without consensus would be much more problematic. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 14:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I think we should not find new ways of hiding sysop asshattery. If a block was inappropriate it is normally noted in the log entry for the unblock; users who look only at the length of a block log and not at the actual entries are the problem we can't solve. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, some of us edit under our real names. WP:BLPDEL is policy and block logs aren't an exception.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I genuinely do not understand why choosing to edit under your real name would be an exemption to accountability, or how WP:BLPDEL (a policy about biographical material, not about on-wiki actions) is relevant here. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 15:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A block log is information about a (presumably) living person, and as we are seeing in this thread, errors in that information and in the interpretation of that information can and do lead to measurable harm to the subject. However I agree that editing under one's real name is irrelevant: every account has a real person behind it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tbh I hadn't really considered that, but you're right. I suppose if there was a way to expunge a block entry from a user's block log but keep it as a redacted entry in the sysop's log of actions, then it would address the problem of inappropriate entries but not at the expense of admin accountability. I have no idea about what would be required technically. I can't see 's test redaction, I just get a database error on the link and also when I try to view any log for User:ThisIsaTest, but I can see it in Ritchie's log . Maybe we already can do this and all that's missing is consensus. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also wasn't aware that was possible for Block logs, until now. I did my own testing, and if we just revdel the edit summary but not the performer or target then we can have the log entry stay, redact the block reason, and admins can still see the redaction with an opportunity to add an explanatory note in the RevDel log. Per WP:REVDEL, it actually is mentioned in policy how we should use it. Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the creation, move, and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or ArbCom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool . It might be useful to add something to this page encouraging use of it as I just described to strike a balance between expunging and accountability, when community consensus exists. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think expanding the scope of log revdels to get rid of actions we don't "like" is not advisable. It runs counter to our general principle of transparency, it can create issues and confusion down the line (consensus can change, and a block that seems redaction-worthy today might not seem redaction-worthy in a decade), and it creates unnecessary procedural overhead (i.e. having to hold mini-RFCs whenever someone thinks a block was bad and needs to be sent down the memory hole).
 * That said, I do understand the desire of blockees to not have their logs "stained" by bad actions, but we already have procedures to mitigate that. For blocks that are lifted because they lack merit, admins can and should write descriptive and clear unblock summaries, ideally with links to relevant discussions. For blocks that have already expired and were found to be inappropriate after the fact, WP:AMENDLOG outlines that Very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, if the original block has expired. Granted, we don't exercise that option often (and perhaps we should do so more frequently), but it is there, and it seems preferable to redacting logs outright. That option should, in my opinion, be reserved for scenarios where the log entry itself contains actually harmful material that can't be dealt with through amendment, e.g. grossly inappropriate attack usernames on the part of the blockee. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with this. I'll add that, if an admin blocks a user, and another admin deletes the block log, how can we be sure the first admin was the one who did the "bad action"? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because deleting stuff from a block log would only be done after a community block review or an Arbcom decision.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that while I really am sympathetic to the desire to correct bad blocks, I'm not really on board with the BLPDEL equivalence. Would we consider the phrase "$Subject once edit-warred on Wikipedia" added to a mainspace BLP worthy of revdel? I'm fairly sure most people's answer would be "no". If we do hold that any inaccurate claim of Wikipedia misconduct is grounds for revdel, then we'd have to constantly delete half of ANI's history: I don't see a meaningful substantive difference between an admin erroneously asserting some sort of policy violation in a block summary, and anyone asserting the same on a talk page or noticeboard. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference is that if you complain about EEng on AN/I, he can reply. He can't reply on his block log.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can easily think of scenarios where they wouldn't be able to respond because they don't actually see the edit in question, even if they have the technical ability to do so. But that's neither here nor there. As noted above, unblock summaries and WP:AMENDLOG already allow for that sort of corrective response, though not by EEng himself. I suppose I just fail to see how "block review ends in redacting log wholesale" is preferable to "community block review ends in one second block (or an unblock) clearly labeling the block as bad while leaving the actual record intact", but I can see significant downsides to log redaction in cases like these.
 * In any case, I think it might make sense to move this discussion to WT:REVDEL instead, so as to not clog up this already-lengthy thread. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with moving it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI (and for the benefit of people reading the thread), I’ve filed T354663 regarding the error when attempting to view the logs. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 16:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So, just to make sure I have this straight: on a technical level we can fix people's block logs without compromising sysop accountability, but on a policy level we're constrained by a conflict between WP:BLPDEL and WP:REVDEL?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef/ban. EEng's a long-term highly constructive editor. Everyone's temper gets lost once in a while. I tend to agree with EEng's general take on the bot matter; running a bot is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right, and no one has a right to do it nor a right to keep doing it in a way that has negative consequences that can be mitigated by changing the bot code or behavior. Using the word "fucking" isn't automatically a civility problem, and even using it in a way that does seem to be a civility problem doesn't make it a personal attack. Some of the "experience-ist" comments were not well-phrased, but the underlying points in them are largely valid. It is  a constructive approach to take a lecturing attitude toward more experienced editors as if they're cluebags; it really is  constructive to post blather and argumentation that wastes other editors' time; and so on. I don't mean this in a "let him be as incivil as he wants" way. He's already gotten a block for it, and a lot of pillorying, and is on notice that tolerance of further behavior like this is not exactly going to be very high. But we need to be keeping editors, not getting rid of them.  Elemimele above is exactly right: "It is very difficult to tell someone that they are behaving in a stupid way without telling them they are stupid, and that is the line that EEng crosses a bit too often. But without robust opposition, really stupid things happen." This is something I deal with on a regular basis, and the fact of the matter is that no one likes being told they're doing a wrong thing, but they need to be told anyway, if they are. Not everyone (including me) have fantastic skills in that kind of communication. But that does not make them a net liability to the project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - My yard stick on these matters goes as such. They (any editor) can insult or personally attack me all they like. As long as they aren't edit warring or causing vandalism? I'm likely not going to seek a block or ban. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You must be aware that other editors may feel differently about being insulted and attacked, and that the fourth of the five pillars is civility. JM (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already stated why I'm opposing. PS - I already mentioned earlier, that if the community can't decide on whether an editor should be site-banned or not? The next step will likely be Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First block was fine, Oppose indef. Comments like "Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses..." are clearly over the line, but not so bad as to warrant an indef. As to EEng catching an indef for a "pattern" of incivility, particularly re: the long list of ANI cases someone pasted above... I was under the impression those cases were all closed, with their discussion points discussed, and the warnings and sanctions (or lack thereof) enforced. Why bring them up en masse, unless in every single one there was some reminder that "if this behavior continues..."? It looks like the most recent one that resulted in ANY action toward EEng was in 2021, where they were blocked for a week. If an editor was blocked for a week in 2021, and has been editing prolifically without catching sanctions for 3 years... then it seems the block has served its purpose, yeah? Why bring it up as a reason to impose a harsher sanction than the current behavior warrants? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indef Carrite (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good Block, Oppose Indef, Oppose Ban - The subject is not a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I support Isabelle Belato's 72-hour block, oppose extension to indef per Johnuniq. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC).
 * Endorse block and Support indef block as a preventative measure. As I see it, we will never know how many Wikipedia editors have been driven away by this person. I have carefully read this lengthy post, and find this editor leaves me with a sensation of incredulity. The massive block log combined with the proudly defiant initial Talk page response to this latest block are more than enough evidence for me. The opposes here are unconvincing. An indef is a proper, measured, and overdue step, in my view. We either believe in the fourth of the Five pillars, or not. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "As I see it, we will never know how many Wikipedia editors have been driven away by this person." I must confess, I don't know of any editors who have been driven away because of EEng. Can you name one or two? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and Support indef block as a preventative measure. As I see it, we will never know how many Wikipedia editors have been driven away by this person. I have carefully read this lengthy post, and find this editor leaves me with a sensation of incredulity. The massive block log combined with the proudly defiant initial Talk page response to this latest block are more than enough evidence for me. The opposes here are unconvincing. An indef is a proper, measured, and overdue step, in my view. We either believe in the fourth of the Five pillars, or not. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "As I see it, we will never know how many Wikipedia editors have been driven away by this person." I must confess, I don't know of any editors who have been driven away because of EEng. Can you name one or two? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse Block and Support indef : I probably made this very apparent in my previous statements, but the statements made by him that brought this ANI are so completely and utterly unacceptable. We should not anyone satisfying the status of WP:UNBLOCKABLES, with people claiming 'well he is a prolific editor, stop mobbing him' when we do not know how many editors they have put off the project by his actions, no matter the intention behind them. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and support self-requested indef, simply because EEng himself thinks it's a good idea. I'm disappointed to see the "net positive" argument coming up here again; WP:CIVILITY is a fundamental requirement and not something that can be bargained away by making any number of constructive edits. It was true of BrownHairedGirl and it's equally true of EEng. Hopefully EEng will come back with an unblock request that convinces us he can and will stay civil in future. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see EEng's comment below in which they wrote No, I don't want to be indeffed. (I'd link the diff, but it's not available.) L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 12:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose indef, Oppose ban I see no reason for this either and it seems to be complete over reaction and pile on for absolutely no reason. No wikipedia people have been driven away by EEng. Nobody has been driven away by bad words at any time in the history of mankind. Such things do no happen. EEng is a solid long-term productive editor, who has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia and will no doubt will do more good work in the future, and he is not going to be sacrified for some supposed "bad words". How thin does people skin really need to get?   scope_creep Talk  12:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indef, oppose ban I can't believe that people are actually saying this editor apologized. Reaffirming your actions while accusing people of something you yourself are guilty of is not a sign of remorse. I would normally disagree with an indef, but this editor has a history of not giving a crap about blocks, so this should give them some time to think about their actions.
 * Industrial Insect (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Incivility by City of Silver
As part of the above thread, posted a comment that was accompanied by this edit summary: Is this the new thing? Being gentle on the noticeboard and saving the actual nastiness for the edit summary? Fine, I'll do that, and I'll even ping you because I'm not a coward like you. Would the person reading this out loud for User:The Blade of the Northern Lights please tell them they shouldn't get mad at me because I can read and they can't? This edit summary contains two clear personal attacks: CoS calls Blade a 'coward' and claims that he cannot read. After I pointed out this incivility, CoS responded first with a whataboutism and then by doubling down on the incivility, stating that My words regarding Blade's lack of literacy and bravery are me speaking with pointedness, nothing more. CoS has further sought to justify their behavior by misidentifying criticism of their comments as 'personal attacks'. I believe that CoS's behavior warrants at least a 24-hour block. Failure to take appropriate action will send the message that it is okay to make personal attacks as long as one does so under the guise of opposing incivility by others. If incivility is truly as big of a concern as so many editors above have asserted, then it is imperative that we not allow an editor to engage in blatant personal attacks directly under our noses. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 06:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you've copypasted my words but not the comment and edit summary that I called into question. I believe anyone responding to this, admin or anyone else, won't get the full picture without those two things so please copypaste them in their entirety. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 06:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit summary CityofSilver was replying to seems to be by The Blade of the Northern Lights (here), which refers to a comment made by CityofSilver. —El Millo (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have tried this whataboutism tactic multiple times. If you wish for everyone to read the comment/editsum from Blade that prompted you to abandon your commitment to civility so quickly after you !voted to indef EEng, then you are welcome to copypaste them yourself. But I will have no part in facilitating your red herring. has cogently explained above why Blade's words do not constitute personal attacks, although I doubt you will listen to him. While EEng is guilty of his own incivility, I am not going to stand idly by while one of the editors who seeks to run him out of the community demonstrates that this really isn't about civility at all. Shame on you for seeking the indef of a fellow editor while simultaneously behaving the exact same way. Given that you continue to double-down on your own personal attacks, you should be blocked. L EPRICAVARK  ( talk ) 07:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Referring to a single negative response as getting dogpiled is absurd. When someone questions what you're trying to say, that might be because your comment was unclear. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, whatever was directed at me isn't worth blocking over. Obviously I don't think what I said is personally attacking anyone, and I thought the response was a bit of an overreaction, but blocking will just turn the heat up even higher (as pretty much all incivility blocks do). And for comments that are pretty low on the scale of things I take personally. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 07:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's very magnanimous of you, but I can't help but wonder what message is being sent to EEng here. As momentum gathers to run him out of town, another editor makes a comment of comparable incivility and then doubles-down repeatedly right under everyone's noses, and the best that can be mustered is a collective 'meh'. I agree that civility blocks often turn up the heat unnecessarily, but we also crossed that threshold with the EEng block. It would seem that either civility matters or it doesn't, but here the community seems to be saying that sometimes we care and sometimes a few cheap shots are okay. Perhaps the moral of the story is that if I want to get someone blocked, I should just keep calling them an unblockable until the community becomes filled with righteous indignation. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 09:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Come on, if EEng can be blocked for incivility, then so can City of Silver.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 12:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of can, but of should. Either way, I've warned the user and asked them to withdraw their personal attack. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support 24-hour block of CityofSilver per Lepricavark. Clear personal attacks, and no indication whatsoever of withdrawing them. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support warning, block if not withdrawn Let's not use incivility as an excuse for more incivility. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose block for the kind offer to tutor someone they consider illiterate (and because they've had a clean block record since joining, which is commendable and shows that they have a habit of wikilearning without needing to be punished). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ????? ltb d l (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out quite a few times on this noticeboard how EEng and editors like him repeatedly getting away with their holier-than-thou unpleasantness encourages other editors to do the same, and then those other editors get blocked. Here we're about to see another example of it. We can't and shouldn't hold any editor accountable for the actions of others, but I've also said before that it would be nice if EEng would care enough to do better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * EEng is in fact currently blocked, with a high probability that the block will be escalated to an indef. So no, this is not an example of the scenario you have described. If this thread is really about incivility, why is it taking so long to block City of Silver after they doubled down repeatedly on blatant personal attacks? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support block CityofSilvers should not be incivil in an attempt to prove incivility, or think it's OK to do so. Poor judgment there, City.  ——Serial  16:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you oppose the block above for incivility despite that user having many previous blocks that didn't work, but support this block for incivility despite having no previous blocks? JM (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support equal-term block to EEng, whatever that turns out to be, for being far more incivil, equally unapologetic, and calling for an indef of EEng for incivility, all in the same thread. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you type and bold the wrong username? Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they're saying that they think this user's block should be equal to the other block. JM (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, my near-native English delinquency :) Well, while it does seem on the same level as the comments on Cewbot, it shouldn’t be of equal magnitude because City didn’t do uncivil responses on a closure review or any other incidents in the past. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I haven't seen EEng baying for indef blocks or bans in the same thread as committing the same sort of infraction that is supposedly ban-worthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * City of Silver was incivil to me, as well, and appears to have doubled down. I certainly won't oppose a block of equal length to EEng's block, but what I really want to do is to call for deescalation, in lieu of boomeranging. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that this discussion would quiet down, but, Tryptofish, how's that working out for you? EEng has posted on his talk page in what I find to be a convincing way, that he realizes his mistakes, takes responsibility, and sincerely wants to fix things. I haven't seen any comparable self-awareness from City of Silver. So I support a 72-hour block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment You don't get to say how important civility is, and then in the next breath call another editor illiterate and a coward. That's a clear, blatant personal attack and it also isn't the first time or even the second that CoS has been called out for insulting edit summaries, and a brief glance at his user talkpage shows a bunch of other examples of weirdly aggressive edit summaries that seem completely unprovoked. A 72-hour block would be well deserved, and I would endorse it if another admin issued one. I considered doing it myself, but it seems like that would needlessly escalate the drama at this point instead of deescalating. I'd rather give CoS the chance to review his own conduct and hopefully apologize, like EEng has done. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose any blocks, as editor has a block-free record. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What bearing is that supposed to have? If anything they should have one instead of getting off scott-free. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't endorsed the other editor's block, nor supported any site-ban. They can both throw personal attacks at me & I still wouldn't call for a block or ban. As long as neither editor is 'edit-warring', then I'm likely not going to complain. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, it was a bit tone-deaf, but a trouting is probably a better recourse. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per David Eppstein. This edit summary was much less civil and much less justified than EEng's comments; while hypocrisy per se isn't a good reason for a block, it certainly seems relevant that CoS should be blocked according to the standards they support. --JBL (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I concur with David Eppstein's views on blocking and length thereof and the hypocrisy-related reason for it. There's a big difference between EEng saying things like "you fucking geniuses", implying they're doing something stupid (which everyone does from time to time), versus CoS directly calling someone a coward and an illiterate. I would have let the second part slide in its original wording, as then-interpretable as a suggestion that they're having momentary reading-comprehension issues with regard to particular material, which again everyone does from time to time. But CoS came back with an unmistakable "lack of literacy" accusation, so we're done here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose no need for any block to protect the project or stop disruption. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Similar incivility by ASmallMapleLeaf
We have a second case of "another editor makes a comment of comparable incivility and then doubles-down repeatedly right under everyone's noses", as someone put it above. Up near the very top of the EEng megathread, popped off with this personal attack:


 * (Without deep analysis) @EEng sounds like a very nice person. A definite warning here (if not a block). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Leprickvark called it out as one, and ASmallMapleLeaf's response was to claim this was an "accusation" by Leprickavark (plus some strange reference to Cremastra's viewpoint).

I also I called it out as at least uncivil and hypocritical: EEng was brought here for attacky ad hominem sarcasm, and ASmallMapleLeaf responded with their own attacky ad hominem sarcasm in the course of asking for a warning or block for EEng. WP:BOOMERANG clearly applies.

Then it got much worse, with ASmallMapleLeaf (hereafter ASML) doubling down and using ridiculous deflection techniques to try to make excuses and even blame-shift onto other editors. I don't think this should slide, because the longer it goes on the more recalcitrant ASmallMapleLeaf becomes and the more divorced they get from understanding WP:CIVIL policy. I had actually suggested early on that maybe ASmallMapleLeaf didn't really intend a personal attack, but their own vociferous defense of their supposed right to make one, pretending it is "criticizing the behavior", proves otherwise.


 * ASML's first line of "defense" is this (put into boldface and italics as if talking to an idiot): Did you miss the 'without deep research' portion of my comment?
 * No one missed it, and it's damning not exculpatory. It basically resolves to 'I popped off with uncivil sarcasm about someone (ANIed for uncivil sarcasm) before I even had any idea what I was talking about.' ASML should have looked into the matter first and posted later if at all.
 * Next in ASML's same response was: I believed he [EEng] was another WP:NOTHERE account ...
 * That by definition means ASML was assuming bad faith about another editor.
 * Followed by: ... before checking block logs after making this comment, which should be quite telling of his behavior described here.
 * Detailed analysis above of EEng's block log and ANI records shows numerous bad blocks and a lot of threads in which EEng's name was mentioned without any consensus of wrongdoing. So, ASML didn't actually check the blog log and related material, they glanced at it, noticed it was detailed without looking the details, and leapt to a bad-faith assumption again.
 * The next block of defensive material from ASML starts with: As for me being uncivil and 'laughable'
 * The word "laughable" appears nowhere in the entire EEng mega-thread except ASML's own post. ASML is just making stuff up to engage in playing-the-victim antics.
 * Next: I actually published it [ASML's attack] knowing another edit[or] at ANI had said it (followed by a quote from an old ANI about some other editor).
 * This is the worst sort of excuse-making and blame-shifting of all time, directly equivalent to the schoolyard monkey-see-monkey-do "reasoning" of 'I smacked Jenny in the face cuz I saw Bobby do it'. No one ever gets a free pass on such grounds.
 * ASML also pinged the poster of that attack and the editor they attacked (rather than linking to the old ANI discussion in which the post appeared), as if to draw them back in to generate noise to distract away from ASML's own behavior.
 * ASML next turns censorious: I suggest you strike your comment.
 * No one is going to strike a comment that correctly calls out counter-to-policy behavior just because the poorly behaving party feels sore about being criticized for it.
 * ASML continues with I believe mine [comment] still stands as criticising the behaviour that brought this [action] in the first place ...
 * As Lepricavark quickly pointed out, ASML criticized no behavior at all, and was pure name-calling of another editor as "[not] a very nice person" through sarcastic reversal. It's an ad hominem personal attack about the person not commentary on behavior.
 * Here's a real doozy: ... from a unique prospective [sic] that this was a new user.
 * So, ASML's actual intent was to verbally attack EEng ASML thought EEng was a noob. ASML is clearly someone either unaware of the WP:BITE principle or actively defying it, and it's arguably blockworthy on its own.
 * An obviously misinformed view, but a view that [is] nonetheless relevant ...
 * Self-contradictory hand-waving.
 * ... to someone with a long block log.
 * Again, ASML is blindly assuming that long log = rationale to attack and pile on, without any regard to the facts behind any blocks.
 * After all that nonsense was refuted, ASML came back with: Yeah, I am not being incivil in the slightest from my POV ...
 * This is the WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactic combined with the invincible ignorance fallacy.
 * ... you seem be ignoring points made by me.
 * ASML made no points of any kind, only really poor attempts at dodging.
 * You say I'm criticising him as a person. No I'm very clearly criticising his comments that were presented here by the user who reported him.
 * More ICANTHEARYOU and attempts to shift blame onto someone else.
 * This is followed by: based off the comments brought up here. It's criticising the comments as uncivil
 * More ICANTHEARYOU repetition of the false claim of criticing behavior/comments instead of the person, again on the excuse of what someoene else did.
 * ASML also tried to use EEng's own "you've really pissed me off" and "What the fuck is the urgency" original comments as excuses for ASML's behavior (which they are not and could never be, no matter what EEng said), but these are not even the EEng comments that the community considers to have been transgressive. (The first is an expression of frustration, at being treated like an idiot who doesn't know how the watchlist works by the bot operator, and the second is a completely valid question that simply had an unnecessary and heat-raising word in it; the reason EEng is at ANI is the "you two fucking geniuses" comment, which is not actually any worse that ASML's "sounds like a very nice person" sarcasm). That ASML doesn't even understand this much of what is going on is troubling, and suggests their only reason for participation in this proceeding is an excuse to attack someone.

The above pile of "Not Me" blame-shifting needs to be shut down firmly, and it being ongoing rather than old news suggests a block. "I am not being incivil in the slightest" is not a sensible position to take when multiple editors are telling you otherwise, and trying to make it seem like everyone else's fault but the poster's is. Nor is declaring an intent to verbally attack noobs, to seek blocks/warnings based on no actual examination of the history or other efforts to find out what's going on, or to tell everyone that you can't understand the difference between an ad hominem attack and a behavioral critique. If ASmallMapleLeaf really doesn't understand (which is entremely unlikely), they need to be brought to understand quickly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: Something I didn't catch until just now: ASML's account was registered only a week ago, with a total of 85 edits (far too many of them at noticeboards), yet ASML knows all about WP jargon like "checking block logs" and "strike that comment" (and WP:ROPE, and WP:UNBLOCKABLE and 1RR and 0RR , and "This looks like a content dispute" , and "IP editor" , and NOTHERE ), makes arguments about civility and NPA policy (albeit incorrect ones), has a prejudice against new users, cites old ANI discussions, claims "I have spectated ANI for a long time as a pastime" , when actually editing content is drawn to subjects surrounded by heated controversy (Palestine, Somalia, Syria, states with limited recognition, hotbeds of armed conflict), uses the old-fashioned template , tries to engage in non-admin closures , cites WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS and WP:BATTLEGROUND by shortcut and threatens people with blocks , and so on. This is all very "interesting".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, another editor attempted to raise concerns at ASML's talk page and was reverted with an invitation to bring it to ANI. Personally, I'd support a NOTHERE indef unless ASML can demonstrate that they are not just here for the controversy. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 12:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Re ASML's "You are free to bring this issue up at ANI" flippancy: "Be careful what you wish for." This is now at least three editors objecting to ASML's attack on EEng.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Be careful what you wish for": I don't find that a pleasant, SMcCandlish. A hint of grave dancing, even. Please be at least civil, I already stated I don't want to engage here anymore. Il accept an indef if it's there is a solid consensuses my actions were wrong. I am here to build a encyclopedia, and so il leave if I'm agreed not to be good at it. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I was not seeking an indef, but the same sort of short-term block EEng already received and which is likely for City of Silver for the same kind of reason. I generally don't seek an indef unless someone is clearly a vandal, noxious PoV pusher, spammer, or other person here to abuse the site for unencyclopedic purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Them having less-than-100-edits, with all that, is why they didn't get a warning like City of Silver. And while I learned that fact from you, you are not responsible for my action, and are of course free to speak at their defense on their talk page. But a tit-for-tat block didn't make sense to me. Please no more comments on the now-closed thread/s. El_C 19:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As an aside.... EEng's talk page size (again)
As a complete aside, could we get consensus that EEng's talk page is generally too large and we should take community action to archive it down to 75k per WP:TALKCOND "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext or has numerous resolved or stale discussions". I mentioned this previously at ANI and we all had a good chuckle over EEng's talk page being visible from space, but it's not being regularly archived enough to be a manageable size. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's not. WP:OWNTALK gives users wide discretion over the archiving of their talk page, and there is far more harm in discussing EEng's archiving habits than there is in EEng's archiving habits. —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, the size makes it cumbersome and difficult to read on a smartphone. The guidelines state, "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier.". Putting up artificial barriers to non-desktop editors makes communication and collaboration harder, not easier. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It works perfectly well on smartphones unless you use the "mobile" interface, which indeed is making it harder to communicate. Hooray for User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/unmobilePlus.js and the adaptive skins (Monobook), which make it easy to read Wikipedia on smartphones. I don't think we should use the brokenness of the "mobile" interface as an argument for doing anything other than fixing the "mobile" interface. —Kusma (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "It works perfectly well on smartphones" Not using the Desktop interface on Safari under iOS, in my opinion - it is still common to get "This page reloaded because a problem repeatedly occurred" messages. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I am currently on a fiber-optic broadband connection, and EEng's talk page has a noticeable wait time before it's usable to me. Admittedly this is partly because my gadgets make it slower; but it's really the only page for which that's true. I suggest that if a personal talk page is slower to load than ANI, some recalibration is needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not just smartphones. On this desktop, it froze the page for several seconds trying to load, and then several seconds again when I scrolled to the bottom to read the section about this ANI. It's beyond ridiculous how large the page is, and it needs archived whether EEng wants it or not. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't being long as hell the whole point of EEng's talk page?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, He says " Welcome to "the only man-made talk page that can be seen from space."" But if people are struggling to read it, that's real problem and not really acceptable as it makes it hard to collaborate. Doug Weller  talk 14:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jokes shouldn't take longer to load than to laugh at, it's more than time to find a better court jester. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 16:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't really care what OWNTALK says, having a talk page that is ~1MB is inconsiderate toward a large number of our users: I've had trouble loading it myself on dozens of occasions. I've told him to archive it at multiple points when it got particularly obnoxious, (and to be fair, he did undertake to do so ). I do wish he'd set up a bot, but as is evidenced above, EEng doesn't love being told what to do. And I say that as someone who tremendously appreciates what he brings to the project. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment, and edit conflict ) same
 * i tried loading his user and talk pages on every possible layout/device combination i have (mobile and desktop on mobile and desktop, plus mobile app), and every possible option gave all three of my devices (good strong phone, weak work pc, currently-not-very-built-but-still-decently-strong gaming pc) a separate cardiac heart attack. the speed at which it loads doesn't matter that much in my opinion, just the fact that three separate devices struggled to load it in the first place
 * while it is pretty funny, i do support trimming it down a bit so it's at most visible from atop the world's shortest dinaric  cogsan (nag me)  (stalk me) 13:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm running on a rather ancient laptop right now because of a failure on my daily driver, I think it's a Pentium Core Duo 2 with 4GB RAM. It can run Windows 10 but it cannot load EEng's talk page. In the past I've been in trouble here for starting a thread about EEng and then being unable to notify him because the page would not load, again using a bog-standard desktop browser. It's too long. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You sort of wonder if that's the point of it, now: that he maintains such a giant talk page to deliberately make it difficult to communicate directly with him.   Ravenswing     16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Try not to cast aspertions on someone who can't respond (or anyone, for that matter).<span id="Qwerfjkl:1704731214373:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  16:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The last time I brought it up (the last time I couldn't edit it) he said that he manually archives it periodically but it had been a while. While he does seem to be proud of its size, I've never seen anything to suggest he's keeping it large to prevent people from editing, and I expect he'd gladly prune it if someone asked him to. I also agree that casting aspersions in a discussion about civility is, well, a choice, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * People have been asking him to prune it for quite some time now, for the good it's done. I don't think "gladly" is so much a question as "if at all."   Ravenswing      22:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Enforce an archive bot - I mostly don't like to suggest controlling any editors' talkpage. But, I am a believer in them having an archive bot, so such talkpages don't make it near impossible to communicate directly with an editor. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ...As a complete aside, could we get consensus that EEng's talk page is generally too large What Ritchie333 really means is, there's no way I could get a consensus to even propose this usually, but now the guy's on the ropes, I can put the boot in. Nice one.  ——Serial  16:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, please WP:AGF, especially since it's not the first time this talk page issue is discussed. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not even attempt to patronise me, and meanwhile, go throw your accusations of ABF elsewhere in the above thread—where it's actually needed.  ——Serial  17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies if this came out as patronizing, or personal in any way. I feel like it's just a healthy reminder for everyone to not immediately jump to bad-faith interpretations. Happy editing, Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't at all patronizing. What Ritchie333 really means is, there's no way I could get a consensus to even propose this usually, but now the guy's on the ropes, I can put the boot in. Nice one is plainly assuming bad faith. There was no problem with someone calling it out. JM (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And, luckily enough, a perfect representation of the facts: there is absolutely no tangible connection with any of EEng's behavioral issues and the length of their talk page; thus there was absolutely no pertinent reason for raising the issue. If anything, I would classify it as having an element of WP:GRAVEDANCING. It was wholly irrelevant and unnecessary, so why raise it when his critics are gathered in the same room? (Hypothetical question: no unconvincing reply is necessary nor a convincing one possible.)  ——Serial  18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And what’s wrong with that? If you’re saying that ANI is the room of EEng critics, then obviously something’s going on. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * there is absolutely no tangible connection with any of EEng's behavioral issues
 * I disagree. For one, it demonstrates that EEng values getting his own laughs over community norms. For another, it's impacting users ability to view the conversation about this ANI on his Talk page, so they can make up their own minds. The extreme size of that page is directly related to these behavioral issues under discussion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your point of it being relevant to the topic, I also understand how it could've been interpreted as an attempt to attack EEng from another angle by splitting off in a new discussion, although I don't believe this was the actual intention. But yes, both should be analyzed together, and the talk page issue is more of a symptom of the greater issues at hand. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I mean at all. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Enforce an archive bot, I usually prefer to enforce WP:OWNTALK and let users decide how they use their talk page, however if it gets to the point that it impedes on communication by making it difficult, or nearly impossible, then I do feel we should enforce an archive bot. We're concerned about those with less than decent internet connections elsewhere, why not here? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 17:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, with regard to Eeng's TP. I'm still trying to figure out where I land on the broader issues of Eeng's conduct above: I am trying to thread the needle between the fact that I can't turn a blind eye to some of the conduct reported and my belief that Eeng is one of the more uniquely valuable people within our community culture.  But I am unequivocal in my support for mandating archiving of his talk page.  It's an issue about which I've raised my own concerns with him before (and he did at the time engage in some clean-up at that time, it is worth noting), but there needs to be a simple longterm solution.  Let's be honest: the only reason that WP:OWNTALK reads as it does with regard to talk page length is because no one else (to my knowledge) has ever pushed the community's patience on the matter a fraction as far as Eeng.  More to the point, within WP:OWNTALK (well before the language granting user's significant autonomy in maintaining their talk page, comes this overarching proviso: "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier." Clearly Eeng's approach to archive his TP runs very much in the opposite direction.  This is an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue, plain and simple: those expressing that the page loads fine on this or that niche piece of hardware are either missing a very obvious point or feigning being obtuse about it; an user's talk page should be accessible for it's intended purposes (discussions and notices in service of the project, not lively discussion and an art project to thumb one's nose at conformity) for the average user, not the one who has cracked the code on just the right software and hardware, in conjunction with TB/s bandwdith. For that matter, I know for a fact that I have loaded that talk page on at least five different operating systems, at least as many distinct browsers, and on hardware ranging from high-end to aging, inclusive of PCs and phones, and I can tell you there are always issues: it's merely a matter of whether it is bad or worse.  When you consider that a non-trivial number of processes require users to add notifications to Eeng's talk page, it is clearly unreasonable to allow the equivalent of an (illustrated) Tolstoy novel to stay live in that space.  Personally, I think it would be ludicrous if we would have to make an overt change to OWNTALK to set a firm upper threshold just to wrangle one user's run-away conduct in this regard, but if that's what we have to do, let's do it.  In a way, this whole issue is a microcosm of Eeng's issues (and I say this as someone who can't help but respect and like the guy to an extent that belies the number of times I've found myself debating basic canons of editor behaviour with him): in testing the limits of individual user conduct (be it with the length of the talk page, or off-colour humour, or "bad words", or sheer bluntness) in ways that he seems to regard as taking a stance against pressure towards conformity, he often fails to realize that he is generating pressure to tighten those very same restrictions, for everyone.  It's a difficult position for me, because I think we could use more users with some of Eeng's qualities, but I also think we need Eeng himself to be just a tad less Eeng.  Helpful commentary, I know...  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 17:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Add a firm statement to WP:OWNTALK that pages reaching 100K raw byte size (I'm feeling generous, & there are all those Xmas/NY greetings) should be archived or otherwise reduced. I may say more generally that I'm rather astonished by the different treatment of EEng here, compared to two other much ruder & aggressive (imo) long-term editors currently higher up the page. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WTF??
 * I archive my talk page regularly and quarterly and it still regularly reaches roughly that size.
 * That is not a problematic size. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Calm down! Well, 150K or 200K, whatever. Personally, I like to keep mine less than 80K. It's not just the actual number of bytes, but the sheer hassle of finding a section on a long page, if you want to return to it. Until you just archived it (from 110K to 15K) that was inconvenient on your talk, not that I ever look at it normally. Talking of which, this page here is over 500K, which is a complete pain. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As someone who personally likes to archive much more often (at like 40k byte size), I agree that 100k isn't a problematic size and that users should have some amount of leeway in their archiving (although it starts to be too much when a non-negligible portion of users have difficulties accessing it, but that's way over 100k). Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Enforce an archive bot per above. If a talk page is too large to use, it needs to be reduced to a useable size. JM (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose any action. Users should be free to determine the archiving policies of their own messages. We should not be the thought police, going into others' emails and telling them what to keep and what to put on a back shelf. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What's your solution if I want to post on EEng's talk page and get a Safari iOS error, "This page cannot be loaded because a problem repeatedly occurred?" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with thought police, and everything to do with purposefully allowing the page to drag down people's browsers when they try to interact with EEng. The limit to freedom is when it starts affecting the community, and this negatively affects the community's ability to communicate with EEng on his talk page, or even just to view the discussion occurring there. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If your browser cannot handle a 1 Mb file, you need a better browser. That is tiny compared to most files that browsers routinely handle. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * from my limited knowledge on html5, it's a certain amount of raw text, but some of that text asks to load external things like images, gifs, funny borders, or different fonts and text sizes, resulting in a bit more than 1mb of data having to be loaded. add any wacky gadgets you might have that have to be loaded all the time, and it's a lot for a lot of devices to juggle around at once
 * if a talk page gives so many people so much trouble, it might be something to worry about  cogsan (nag me)  (stalk me) 19:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Loading a 1 Mb image is not at all the same as loading a 1 Mb talk page with tens of thousands of HTML elements. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1Mb is the text size, but EEng's talk page is full of media and CSS hacks. I don't know how to reliably measure a web page's memory imprint, but when I loaded a separate Firefox process and loaded just the talk page, it reported memory usage a bit over 300Mb. Besides, telling people that they need newer equipment to edit flies in the face of Wikipedia's "free encyclopedia for everyone" mission. Many users access and/or edit Wikipedia from connections like dialup or slow mobile networks or underfunded shared library systems that many of us would have considered painfully slow 25 years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * More to the point, people increasingly only use smartphones and tablets over laptops and desktops, with substantially less computing power, and since they “just work” for pretty much everything in the modern world, anything that has a performance impact is problematic and should be corrected. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do know how to measure a page's footprint, and 300Mb is about right. For reference, this is about the same memory usage as a tab with a facebook feed in it on my PC. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * checked on my good pc, 446 mb on my end
 * for context, pizza tower is a 257.71 mb pile of files  cogsan (nag me)  (stalk me) 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there might be something wrong with your configurations? I just checked on my end, and it's only 120mb. Pizza Tower, in comparison, is 20 mb - I'm running standard Firefox. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * must be my gadgets then, because i use a few of those
 * and as it turns out, 446 was lowballing it, i haven't seen anything under 500 now. god i wish i could blame chrome
 * as for pizza tower, i meant all the steam files for it, not the act of running the game itself, which is a lot less than that at any given time  cogsan (nag me)  (stalk me) 23:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually misunderstood in a totally different way, and assumed you were referring to the Pizza Tower article… BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought you meant the article and I was really, really confused Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 23:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a devout patron of c:Commons:Convenient Discussions, when I open that talk page, it loads for so darn long I have to manually disable it and edit the page text like a caveman. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My Chrome browser (which is up to date) actually froze momentarily and asked if I wanted to kill the page. It finished loading after another two minutes with Convenient Discussions. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What a shitty non-response. Try actually listening to people who are having problems on multiple different platforms, instead of just dismissing the issue out of hand. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Erm, could you tune it down a bit? Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but an admin giving a snarky you need a better browser response in the face of all these reports is incredibly condescending. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Both you and David could've done better here: incivility is not an excuse for incivility. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 23:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support archiving. WP:UOWN gives a lot of leeway to users in their own userspace, but it also says: "pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user." I imagine we'd look similarly dimly on an editor who through code or script partially disabled access to their talk page. Talk pages exist to facilitate communication. If you start a formal proposal to change UOWN, will you ping me? Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Through email, EEng has asked me to temp-unblock him so that he can archive his talk page himself rather than getting it done badly by someone else. But since the triggering incident for this thread (a discussion of Cewbot's behavior) also involved me, I think I am too WP:INVOLVED to do that. Maybe someone else could? Alternatively, we could close this sub-thread as moot: either he eventually gets unblocked (after which he has promised to archive) or he isn't in which case there is no good reason to demand archiving. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are too involved to do that. EEng should be able to figure out how to set up an auto-archiving bot for a single run and then remove the code, and only needs to edit his talk page to do that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The only person that request should be directed to is .  nableezy  - 19:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support archiving. WP:UOWN is not a suicide pact. We've always decided the limits of user preferences are drawn when it inhibits collaboration and discussion (hence where we've blocked users for their signatures.) Eeng is intelligent enough to have figured out this is an issue; he just doesn't care. If he doesn't want to be treated like a child, any time before now would have been the opportunity to show it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not helpful. I just knew that someone would eventually propose this, but I didn't expect it to be someone I respect as much as I respect Ritchie. If we're going to make this requirement, let's make it a requirement for every user talk page of this length. But if it's going to be done just to EEng, it reeks of punishment-because-we-can. It's just escalating an ANI thread that is far past its sell-by date. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what other user talk pages are of this length? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you pinged me, I should post in reply, but I think it's best if I do not name anyone. But I've seen some. (And since I have this opportunity, I'll also say, facetiously, that the length of the ANI thread is getting pretty close.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. EEng is the only one I've seen so I was just curious. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother counting but the database report says there are like 100 user talk pages longer than EEng's (many are subpages). Levivich (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the non-subpages are inactive user talk pages that have been piling up newsletters, some of which blocked. I don't know if there's any other "legitimate" user talk page longer than EEng's. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * None larger from what I can see, but some that are just as large. I'm fine with imposing a hard limit on other users. I simply wasn't aware of other users. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 00:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * currently, this thread has around 4 less comments than their talk page has threads
 * that's kind of scary  cogsan (nag me)  (stalk me) 23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not helpful regardless of Ritchie's intentions in filing this, it seems awfully opportunistic to seize a moment when EEng is already under siege to raise this perennial complaint again. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We cannot enforce user talk page archiving vi ANI pique, if you change this sort of thing then there should be a discussion held at WP:TPG or the village pump about a policy enactment. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not helpful due to timing, per Tryptofish. Remsense  留  02:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Zaathras; if this an issue we should impose a general solution and not dog pile on EEng while he’s in the dog house - it feels a little too close to WP:GRAVEDANCING to me, even though that was obviously not the intention. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Zaathras and BilledMammal, either we decide on a standard for everyone or we don't. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 02:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support/Enforce Those citing OWNTALK should note it states "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively." This has come up much more recently than the 2021 report opened above. EENG has been fully aware their talkpage causes issues for others for years, and citing laziness at this point is entirely risible. Leaving an easiliy resolved problem like that around for years is an active choice, yet EEng has specifically asked others not to expect "miracles" regarding the talkpage. With a few lines of code, the miracle can happen. Quite happy for this to be a general rule at whatever point between the 100k suggested above and the current causing my browser to lag. We already split out large discussions from village pumps into their own subpages, the concept being proposed is not novel. CMD (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For the avoidance of doubt, noting here too that I oppose this. Under the present circumstances, the proposal leaves a bad taste in my mouth, though I understand it was put forward with good intentions. EEng's talk page being unusually long has nothing to do with the reasons for his block. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Consider postponing action on this until EEng is unblocked in the future. User talk:EEng is a problem and needs fixing but there's no rush to resolve this issue. After EEng is back with us, revisit the issue. Any action should be generic and not just apply to EEng's page. I know this 286 kB version of User:Aman.kumar.goel's talk page was a problem until an admin told him to downsize it. Perhaps an RfC elsewhere rather than here. -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  03:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this pointless WP:GRAVEDANCING. Ritchie is generally a sensible editor, but I'll note that no attempt was made to ask EEng to archive his page before bringing it here trying to have a community-based sanction placed to force him to do so. At User talk:EEng he did mention that he opened this sub-discussion after doing so, and EEng immediately said he was willing to archive it once his block expires (or if he were to be unblocked temporarily, which is unlikely to happen). In the above-linked thread of this same thing happening 3 years ago, Ritchie again went to ANI to force the issue before trying to just ask EEng, and EEng immediately agreed to archive. Unless he refuses to once unblocked, this discussion is moot. Sometimes I think we need something like WP:BEFORE but for the dramaboards. It would only need one sentence, something like "Hey, have you tried talking to them first?". The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Civility restriction for EEng
How about this? (Copied verbatim from WP:EDR)

An indef or community ban doesn't seem likely to gain consensus based on my quick reading of the discussion, but the doubling down after the block and the litany of ANI threads listed by Thebiguglyalien indicates that there's clearly a long-term pattern that one 72-hour block is unlikely to solve. This proposal would prevent the sort of unilateral single-admin unblocks that supporters of a CBAN have cited as a reason for supporting a ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callitropsis (talk • contribs)
 * Support as proposer, reluctantly. This seems like the sort of unhappy compromise that's likely to just kick things further down the road, but it's binding and splits the difference between those calling for a CBAN and those who say that a 72-hour block is sufficient. To paraphrase Robert McClenon in a previous thread, I personally think civility restrictions are kind of ridiculous because, in theory, everyone is required to follow WP:CIVIL, but from an outsider's view this entire situation also seems kind of ridiculous so maybe it's par for the course. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 20:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as a good compromise. A 72-hour block isn't enough to address chronic behavior, but I understand why people wouldn't want an indefinite block either. This seems like a way to let him help around productively while keeping an eye on the civility issue. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing to Oppose as I've been convinced by some commenters below. The point is that it's a pretty toothless proposal, which basically amounts to the status quo of "breaking rules has consequences". Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per ChaoticEnby. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ChaoticEnby and EEng. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. This !vote should not be construed as dropping my support for an indef block or a siteban. JM (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support worth trying something, since the status quo clearly ain't doing the trick. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I'll support this, too. I can see ways this might turn wrong (does it really make sense to talk about repeat offenses? and I worry about people baiting him), but I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good enough. Having this hang over his head might help EEng do better. I'll also say that it might be productive to consider partial bans from places where he pretty much always shoots himself in the foot. For example, he attracts a lot of ill will from his quasi-humorous posts on ANI and other dramaboards. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to move to oppose, but given EEng's self-requested indef (so to speak), I no longer see this as such a good idea. I also agree with some comments below, about how these restrictions can be problematic. But I still want to leave this on the table, at least, for consideration when he gets "back". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as a new-ish user, in case my perspective is helpful. I don't think a restriction that says "the rules apply to you" is ridiculous; it's a way to assuage our concerns that they don't! Many of us seem to feel that EEng is held to lower standards than other editors. The first two replies seemed to suggest we shouldn't bother complaining about him. Wikipedia is very intimidating; it feels like there are a million rules and quasi-rule essays and unwritten expectations. I'm nervous about even posting here, because I worry I'm expected to have X edits or Y Good Articles first! I've found the expectations of Civility, Assuming Good Faith, and encouraging Boldness to be crucial in getting me over these hurdles, and I think people are right to worry that an implicit norm of "If you're popular/funny/productive enough, you can insult and disdain people" will scare away new editors, like me. We should reject that idea explicitly. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as a way to keep EEng's positive contributions while mitigating the incivility concerns. Setting this restriction will show if EEng can still contribute long-term without being uncivil, while also saving time and discussion if he is uncivil again in the future, with the course of action for such a situation already set in place. —El Millo (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Context The user himself has stated the following on his talk page (see the comment reposted above by Aaron Liu): I think at this point it's best I get the indefinite block. JM (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't see the need for "compromise," and there is nothing in this measure that an admin cannot already do, at will, without our input or leave. We have had a long history to show us that, ultimately, not only does EEng not give a damn what we think in re: civility, but he's said as much outright.   Ravenswing      22:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Copied from his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Copied from his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Ravenswing. I don't think this proposed sanction is very meaningful. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that "civility parole" (as it used to be called when it was in vogue in the mid to late 00s) is bullshit and has consistently proven ineffective. It didn't work with Giano, TRM, Betacommand, BrownHairedGirl or anyone else that I can recall. All it does is create ongoing resentment with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their head indefinitely, while giving others an excuse to needle/provoke them and block when they snip back (which gets used as further evidence to avoid removing the restriction). Block him if the incivility is causing disruption, ask him to tone it down if it isn't, but this sort of half measure isn't going to work. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Wordsmith. These measures don't work and are easily gamed. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are two types of compromises: those that make everyone happier and those that makes everyone angrier. This definitely fits into the latter for reasons brilliantly explained by above. Not to hate on the proposers, however, this is more of a mock-up solution masquerading as a real one; it will essentially just worsen the issue by creating unneeded angst while incentivizing the unscrupulous to bait them. Literally just indeff as stated in my !vote above; that's objectively the easiest and logical solution to this. —  Knightof  theswords  23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as redundant. There is already such a civility restriction that applies to all editors, and to say that EEng has already committed repeat offenses would be an understatement. Measures like these imply that incivility is a privilege that we're taking away.  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stupid. As a senior editor, EEng should know that WP:CIV exists, and that they need to follow it as a core Wikipedia policy. From memory, there was an AN/I thread a while ago about EEgn's incivility. They should be well aware that their incivility is a problem, but has not taken any steps towards resolving it. A harsher restriction is required in this case. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 (EEng)

 * The bot issue needs to be decided via RFC, because it's a sitewide issue that does not affect just one user, and it should not be argued (with escalating vehemence) on usertalk (or on ANI). Unless the protestors decide to drop the issue or have found a resolution, an RFC should be opened. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion currently at WT:TPG. And I agree that ANI is not the right way to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That discussion is not about the bot. it's about user talkpage size. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m confused, what is the bot? Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One proposal is to have an existing archival bot template applied to pages like EEng's that are excessively large, if the user does not agree to archive it themselves. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but wouldn't that be the same as "about user talkpage size"? Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The bot issue is Cewbot. Well documented in the threads above. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * RfCs should only be used when there’s no consensus in a regular discussion. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, given that the "regular discussion" attempt with the bot operators in question led to this ANI mess, and the botops did not (that I know of at this point) change what the bot is doing, that seems ripe for an RfC after all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true, Aaron Liu. Issues that are negatively affecting every user's watchlist should be handled via a Centralized Discussion RFC, so that all users can see it and weigh in. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support EEng. This is absurd. EEng has a certain sense of humour that might offend those without one. It's a welcome and age-old contribution to places that sometimes take themselves too seriously on en.WP. EEng is deeply knowledgeable in matters like style—I say that even if I don't always agree with him. I urge admins to close this thread now. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides of the argument, but I definitely agree that this ANI discussion has become unproductive. As this discussion, ironically, accumulates more and more arbitrary breaks, to where it resembles a certain user talk page, as just above, I link to another discussion that was already linked but has been lost in the tl;dr, and as editors continue to demand an indef, apparently unaware that, fully a day ago, EEng posted on his talk page, and I think it's been copied over to the tl;dr here, that he is self-requesting an indef, this whole mess here had become a time sink. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling people targeted by such incivility "those without a sense of humour" is not a good take. I also don't think the admins should be urged to close the thread when there's no consensus, possibly unless it's because Eeng has been given the indef that he himself has requested; in that case. JM (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In a reversal of the trend that I perceived in the early stages of this thread, it has become apparent that the community as a whole is not persuaded toward a consensus in support of an indef block. We can continue to leave this megathread open to generate heat despite the ever-diminishing odds of any kind of consensus, or we can close it down and let EEng serve out the block (which, despite all the dire predictions, was never actually lifted). L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Last I heard, Eeng explicitly wanted an indef. JM (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He (assuming that’s the correct pronoun) said that he prefers the indef over a civility restriction that puts a target on his back. You can’t use such words in lieu of an argument. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. With the civility restriction off the table, we should not assume that EEng wishes to be indeffed, especially as that there is not developing consensus in favor of that outcome. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is completely important: prefers the indef over a civility restriction that puts a target on his back – That's very, very different from the claim made above, at least twice by two different people, that he "requested an indef". That's a serious distortion, but it could easily affect the outcome here by encouraging people to post bogus "Indef because he wants it anyway" !votes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Serious distortion? One can wikilawyer over the meaning of the way that he said it, but here is the actual diff of what he said: . He actually never said the he "would prefer" an indef over the restriction. What he said was that it "will be more effective". Oh, and all that was also copied over to here at ANI, but apparently has also gotten lost in the tl;dr. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point. So, he said that this has wasted everyone’s time So I think at this point it's best I get the indefinite block and then said that an indef would be more effective than a civility restriction for reasons I’ve said above, and then prepares for a wikibreak in case he gets blocked.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is starting to seem as though some of the most vocal detractors here are determined to have EEng gone by any means necessary. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since we can resolve this by waiting... one day for the block to run out. If EEng still wants an indef, he can clarify tomorrow. And if he does request one, does our consensus over whether to grant it even matter? Would an admin actually refuse his request because we didn't push hard enough for it? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the problem isn't that he's a court jester, it's that he's doing an awful job at it. There's got to be better humor out there than basic insults, just maybe. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am actually pleasantly surprised that the block still stands, I thought EEng is unblockable (I remember last time I said something about EEng's behavior at ANI, I got a reply from a third party which I read as I should be blocked and not EEng). Anyway, we are not going for an indef, and I personally would have difficulties fully supporting indef at this point. However, a hypothetical situation when a user has a hundred of three day to a week blocks for incivility and apparently considers them "badges of honor" is also not acceptable. What I would like to see as an outcome of this discussion is a logged warning that further violations will be met with escalating blocks. This is what we would expect from every non-unblockable user. And then, if this continues, may be after two or three iterations naturally come to an indef. Or may be it stops, which would be the best outcome of the whole exercise.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure "Unblockables" even exist still (if they ever did). I can think of at least a dozen editors who have consistently been called Unblockable over the last ~15 years. Most of them have been blocked or banned indefinitely, and the rest have all faced serious sanctions of various types. What I do know is that when a thread is opened about a veteran editor, someone immediately saying that they're WP:UNBLOCKABLE so nothing will come of it is the quickest way to get a mob calling for blood over a minor infraction. It is incredibly unhelpful to those trying to resolve a dispute, since it just creates instant hostility. As for calling them "badges of honor", a number of those blocks were reviewed and shown to be blatantly unjustified and even abusive blocks. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We have to assume that the project has a number of abusive administrators (some of them also holding advanced permissions and being arbitrators), but their abusiveness and lack of judgement only show up when they interact with EEng. Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume that you mean that sarcastically. Personally, I don't think it's constructive to characterize this sort of thing as abusive, but rather, to say that, from time to time, bad blocks occur (and are usually corrected) but not just of EEng, and that sometimes a block just isn't helpful. As I've said earlier in this tl;dr, the 72-hour block here was an example of such an unhelpful block, because its primary effect was to escalate, instead of deescalate, this situation, in a somewhat performative demonstration of "virtue", and it doubtless led to the incredible length of this tl;dr at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that EEng has taken away something positive from this 'performative demonstration', and if so, it absolutely was helpful. Not enjoyable, indeed even crappy, but helpful. In some cases, escalation actually is the way to go, as it was here. Sometimes people need very, very large and stinking ANI threads about them to realize that they're doing something wrong. If so, why not, isn't this better than permanently losing an editor because they never got to realize that? No one is truly unblockable indeed, and that's precisely why we needed this and the virtuous admin who had the guts to set it in motion. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a very creative way to justify something crappy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm aside, a quick spot check turns up this indef block per WP:NOTHERE (actually 3 entries in the block log because talkpage and email were removed with no explanation), where the blocking admin eventually conceded to being high on cold medicine at the time and apologized, receiving a logged warning. There's also this one, which was blatantly an WP:INVOLVED block by someone who completely failed to understand the blocking policy, and wasn't even uncivil. This was also unanimously considered a bad block, WP:INVOLVED and withdrawn by the blocking admin. I've only checked a few, but sometimes blocks do just actually end up being bad ones. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I have seen a performance of EEng, for which pretty much any other user would have been blocked, and they have not ever received a warning. Even in this thread, even though we have a majority of users support the block but there is a significant minority who do not. This always happens when a user consistently probes the bright lines. Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wordsmith was quite right in observing that when a thread is opened about a veteran editor, someone immediately saying that they're WP:UNBLOCKABLE so nothing will come of it is the quickest way to get a mob calling for blood over a minor infraction. That's exactly what happened here. Just get a few relatively inexperienced editors and tell them about a veteran editor who gets a little too brusque from time to time, and *presto* you'll have a mob in no time flat. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So true. WP:CESSPIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Easy to paint everyone who doesn't have tens of thousands of edits as "inexperienced" rather than argue on policy, I thought this kind of status didn't matter? Also if it's "a mob" against EEng, should we also call "a mob" people coming to defend EEng from any potential consequences? I don't think either wording is really correct. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You make some valid points there. I should not have agreed with the use of the word "mob". At the same time, some of us have not been defending EEng from any potential consequences. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, I was taking the extremes on both side for the comparison, but you make a good point. Not everyone who is against indef wants to see get him away with nothing either. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * People who lack experience tend to undervalue experience. Which is probably why they see no harm in hastily !voting to run a veteran editor off the site without thinking about it too deeply. Also, I've seen very few individuals in this thread arguing for zero sanctions, so I have no idea why you think taking an inapplicable opposite extreme is in any way helpful. Lastly, I've seen plenty of mobs on here before, and this was definitely one of them. I've no interest in listening to you tell me that my own battle scars are somehow misleading or inaccurate, so don't even try. So, to sum up, I respectfully disagree with Tryptofish. I think you, Chaotic Enby, did not make any valid points. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to see if we can come to a reasonable middle here. I really think the bottom line is that everyone here is a real person, and real people are complicated. EEng has flaws, and he admits that, but he also is someone who really is a valuable member of the editing community. Long-time editors don't have a monopoly on being right, but with experience comes more of a feeling for what does or does not work at this very peculiar online community. New editors deserve respect, but they should also be willing to listen and learn. It does nobody any good to reduce other editors to caricatures. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As an experienced editor, you should know that flauting "experience" or "battle scars" as you call it as a way to win arguments is pretty much considered bad form. Also, I've never said that your edit count was misleading or inaccurate, only that it isn't an automatic win in arguments. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't recall bringing up my edit count. Methinks you have created a caricature of me in your mind, and that's what you are arguing against. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I've already linked to it in this very long ANI thread, but there's a wonderful essay (because I wrote it!) at WP:DEFARGE, that I think is worth reading for anyone interested in these kinds of problems with ANI discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "People who lack experience tend to undervalue experience.":
 * Our policies and guidelines make no consideration for experience beyond 500 edits. I've been here since 2005 but that doesn't give me special status as a "veteran editor". It's not for me to look down on an inexperienced editor.
 * Experienced editors, if anything, should be more diplomatic and collegial.
 * Wikipedia is not Twitter, Reddit or Fight Club.
 * I have less respect for editors that don't regulate their emotions sufficiently to be civil. My reaction is, "what's wrong with this person?"
 * Some rude editors may only act this way on Wikipedia or social media; those that also do this in real life are living needlessly difficult personal and professional lives.
 * Most importantly, we're experiencing difficulty recruiting and retaining new editors so rudeness has implications for our mission. Rudeness is bad for business. ("WP:BADBUSINESS") -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  00:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All of that has essentially nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish: yes, that essay (WP:DEFARGE) seems to represent just about the opposite of view of the one indicated by Cullen328 above when he said that analogies with lynch mobs are not helpful. The problem with it as I see it is precisely that it is a caricature. Just because a large group of editor show up on ANI voicing a similar opinion X does not necessarily mean that they are performatively seeking approval as members of a group supporting X to make them feel good about themselves. Maybe (or maybe not, yet maybe) they are voicing the same opinion because it is accurate and valid. It's too easy to call a group of editors a 'mob' just because you happen to disagree with them.To be sure, the mob-like behavior does exist, and individual editors can and do often pile on without the necessary consideration. But editors who do that should be individually called out on it. To dismiss a well-considered view just because it happens to be the same view argued in a large number of comments above would be deeply dishonest. That still holds true if some of those previous comments were pile-ons.Did you consider that by accusing other editors en masse of the behavior described in the essay, with its talk of performative protestations of outrage, of making yourself feel good about being on the right "side", of assuaging their own dissatisfaction with their lives by reveling in the mockery of others, etc., you are in fact engaging in personal attacks?I believe there's a lot of value in having an essay about the pile-on phenomenon, but this one is assuming way too much about groups of editors to be of any value in confronting an individual editor with pile-on behavior. Basically, pile-ons can perfectly happen without a 'mob' being present, and only very rarely does a whole thread only consist of pile-ons without any substance whatsoever. To assume that every huge thread in the 'cesspit' must be a 'mob' having its way is to fundamentally misunderstand the actual causes of such threads, and to unnecessarily berate its participants. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are defending everything that I find disturbing about these aspects of Wiki-culture, but if you want to write a different essay, go right ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cewbot is kinda annoying though huh? Sure glad we decided to edit five million talkpages to wrap a bunch of pointless content assessment stuff inside an extra template.I'm not really struggling with ignoring it, but I only watchlist like six hundred pages. If people with bigger watchlists want it to slow down, it should. It's not like the current WikiProject talkpage banners are breaking anything, nor will they be in four years from now if Cewbot has to run at a rate that's more comfortable for people with long watchlists. Folly Mox (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Since people seem to be wondering: No, I don't want to be indeffed. I just thought it would be better for everyone than all that fighting. I very much appreciate all those who took the trouble to look under the surface and see what's really going on. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. Does anyone know where the code is for the version of One-Click Archiver that lets you check boxes on multiple sections of a talk page and then archive all those sections in a single go?
 * WP:ARCHIVE led me to WP:OCA which mentions User:Enterprisey/archiver with "Click to select multiple sections for archiving." Happy clicking! Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure
Any chance of this report being closed soon? If it gets any longer, a committee of editors will be required to make a decision. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The thread is longer than Hamlet and nearly as dramatic (though not anywhere near as scintillating). Should only one editor close it now, especially given the last comments were only a few hours ago? Sincerely, Novo Tape My Talk Page  16:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There really isn't much left to discuss. The 72 hour block is overwhelmingly endorsed, there's clearly no consensus for an indef. It would be purely punitive at this point anyway, since the block has already expired and there's no disruption. Somebody should put this topic out of its misery before it becomes longer than EEng's talkpage. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I got ya! El_C 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Since I was unable to participate in the discussion except by standing on tippy-toe and shouting through the bars of my holding cell, I would like to exercise a modest right of reply by addressing a few of the assertions made at one point or another.
 * , you said that not only does EEng not give a damn what we think in re: civility, but he's said as much outright . Where did I say that? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. I've signed these requests individually so that the response to each one can be posted immediately below it.
 * , you posted a list of ANI threads about me, claiming that In most cases, it's agreed that there's a problem but that "sanctions are unnecessary" . Since you will have reviewed all those threads before making that claim, it won't be hard for you to list here the "most" of them in which it was "agreed that there was a problem". ("Most" probably means, say, 67%, but I'll settle for 50%.) <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , you informed everyone that This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th . Could you please specify (by date) those 11 civility blocks? In the interests of transparency, don't forget to distinguish the block marked "joke block", those which were overturned by the community or withdrawn by the blocking admin with an apology, or for which the blocking admin was warned that further similar blocks would lead to a desysopping -- that kind of thing. Thanks! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. You don't know how much I've missed all of you!
 * As a counter-point, one block of EEng was described as "This is hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could we just let this go already? You were blocked for incivility, and calling out people in this discussion does not sound like the block has changed your attitude at all. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (nods in agreement)   Ravenswing     15:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You,, would obviously "nod in agreement", since I've caught you out in a falsehood and you'd rather that just slipped under the radar. Let me quote from WP:No personal attacks:
 * some types of comments are never acceptable ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links
 * I'll give you 24 hours to back up your outrageous claim (detailed in the first bullet above), after which I will call you out as a blatant liar -- which would not be a personal attack, but rather an accusation about personal behavior accompanied by serious evidence i.e. this very discussion.See, there are all kinds of incivility. One is the incivility of using strong, even intemperate language to get the attention of someone who's just not paying attention the effect what they're doing is having on other editors. Another is the incivility of misrepresenting facts, events, and others' positions. As pointed out in the midst of this clusterfuck, One of those is more corrosive to an encyclopedia than the other, and should be taken as or more seriously than the other. I'll leave it to you to decide which one is which. You're not getting away with this one. Put up or shut up. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, sometimes being right isnt enough. Sometimes perception >> reality. Youre smart enough to know when, just annoyed enough not to care. But sometimes, shutting up and letting the archive stay archived is the move to make.  nableezy  - 16:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry, I'll do that -- just as soon as the 24 hours is up, at which point everyone will know whether Ravenswing is the upstanding seeker of truth and civility he/she portrays himself/herself as, or just a liar. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, since Ravenswing has (wisely) decided not to comment on this, may I direct you to "I always figure that if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously." I would consider that someone who does not care about civility. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good try. But saying I stand by something someone says is inappropriate doesn't mean that I don't care about appropriateness, merely that there's a lack of concord on what constitutes appropriateness. And when I later change my mind and agree that I was out of line, that shows even more that I care about what's appropriate.
 * As for I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job, the meaning of that has been explained that several times, but for the record I'll do it again. First, as someone said long ago:
 * In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate".
 * ... and as I said in the context of this particular incident:
 * When I said If I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job, I mean that pushing back on overzealous admins (a tiny percentage of all admins, I rush to say) is a duty that all of us little people should take seriously, and if that means getting blocked once in a while by an admin who can't tolerate criticism, so be it.
 * I'm not saying that the present case is such a one, of course, but that's beside the point to the general principle that it's the duty of the governed to stand up abuse by the governors. We all have our roles here at Wikipedia, and that's one of mine. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Industrial Insect replied for me, but: (1) I'm not sure where you got the notion that I need to account to you for anything whatsoever, let alone upon demand. Disabuse yourself of that idea.  Wikipedia is not an elementary school playground.  (2)  You do know that every time you pick a fight with another editor, you reinforce the conviction that every single person above who advocated you being indeffed was justified.  There's a wide swathe of edgelords like Lugnuts and MickMcNees who, in their own time, believed they were invulnerable to the community's ire, and they could therefore do whatever the hell they wanted.  Eventually, they were proven wrong.   Ravenswing      17:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That was a poor response. When you make a specific claim against a specific person, you have a responsibility to defend that claim when called upon to do so. While I think it was very unwise of EEng to pursue this any further (seriously dude, why?), your statement that Wikipedia is not an elementary school playground unwittingly also applies to the problem of unsubstantiated accusations. No response at all would have been significantly better than doubling down. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 18:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? To set the record straight. Don't worry, as far as I'm concerned we're done (unless Thebiguglyalien and SkyWarrior respond to back up their allegations, which they won't, since they can't). Thanks for your courageous and intelligent defense over the past days, BTW. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, right, whatever.
 * I'm not sure where you got the notion that I need to account to you for anything whatsoever – Well, no you don't, it's true, unless you want to be called out as a liar. So I guess we can cut the 24 hours short right now, and get to the bottom line: You're a liar, and this discussion proves it. I'll put in playground vernacular, since playgrounds are on your mind: Liar, liar, pants on fire! (Optional added line: Hanging from a telephone wire!)
 * every time you pick a fight with another editor, you reinforce the conviction [blah blah blah blah blah] – You picked the fight by being careless with the truth while trying to put my head on the chopping block. And the conviction I'm reinforcing is that people like you need to watch their step, because the next time something like this happens there will be calls for liars to get blocked.
 * If you think I'm anything like Lugnuts, then you really are unclear on the concept. MickMcNees I never heard of.
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I absolutely agree with you that making these allegations and refusing to back them up isn't respectful, you don't have to go to that level of vernacular, even if you're on the right side of this argument. I understand that it is part of your humor, but the current situation (like often on WP:CESSPIT) is a bit tense and it might not help with it - like everything else, humor really depends on the context and (especially) on having a receptive audience. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would think you'd be complimenting me on keeping my sense of humor when dealing with someone who called (as is still calling) for me to get a lethal injection. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What happened? Sorry if I missed something, that conversation got a bit too long with all the subthreads... (I'll be glad if you have a link to the relevant part!) But again, "when they go low, we go high" is often a good thing to live by. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. On the internet, no one can hear your tone of voice. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case that's a lucky thing, believe you me. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While it's absolutely true that EEng has no right to demand anything from you, and the way it was done wasn't very respectful, it's still true that making allegations against someone and refusing to give evidence is poor form. At this point, as the main discussion has closed, both of you dropping the metaphorical WP:STICK would be the best to avoid another flare-up of the cesspit. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. Sorry for dragging on this debate longer than it needed be. Sorry to User:EEng, too. I'm sure Ravenswing and the other users would be fine with apologizing too if you asked them politely and respectfully. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already tried that, actually, complete with ping. Ravenswing just ignored it. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually, please do not drag the other users who accused you into this. Just leave them be... bad advice on my part. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, my comment was a reply to the one by Ravenswing! Anyway, I agree that politeness and respect go a long way, and I'm hoping we can all move past these stressful few days! Happy editing, Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I figured I needed to apologize anyways. A big thanks to you, your comment probably stopped me from making anymore frustrated edits. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Have a nice and peaceful day! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, well, just to get in the spirit of things, I'm issuing a general apology as well. And amnesty. I've recalled the killer drones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I lost my chance to respond politely to too.   ——Serial  15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Take some advice from an old editor & shut down this post-close discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, at this point everyone can see what's going on, so as soon as Thebiguglyalien and SkyWarrior have had time to not respond, we'll be all done here. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can understand the desire for "setting the record straight", but at this point, it would be better to leave the record wherever it is, for an uninvolved admin to close this again (without waiting for anyone to respond or not), and for us all to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikaviani using pan-Iranian rhetoric and Iranian nationalism
This user has made some comments about Azerbaijanis which have a strong pan-Iranian rhetoric. The removing of sourced material that also doesn’t fit, these views of his is a perfect example. I would like to know the opinions of fellow editors on this matter. Altynordu (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Altynordu
Another classical case of a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE user editing in Azerbaijan/Armenia/Iran related articles.

Since 20 February 2023‎ (yes, almost a year), they have been edit warring at Arkhalig through IPs and this account, trying to add the unsourced "Azerbaijani" into the caption of a random dancer

Because of their edits there, I just told them that they were not allowed to edit in articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the editing area is under a community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, and their number of edits was below the threshold for editing in the area. This led to an angry rant and attack; "...It’s clear you have certain nationalistic, personal biases and iranist views so don’t come here talking about edit warring which you also have been a part in. The 2 editors who have changed it from Azerbaijani dancer to 19th century dancer is you an Iranian and KhndzorUtogh an Armenian what a coincidence don’t you think? When trying to spread facts instead of some delusion which you two are doing I get shut down. But I can also rapport you for the same reason." --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Casually decided to left out the part where I said: “I’m not talking about Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict as stated in the page about community imposed restrictions. “Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan,” Where does me clarifying the ethnicity of the dancer fit into any three of these categories.” Altynordu (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I left "..." to indicate there was info before that, it was obviously left out to only highlight the attack. Arkhalig is a traditional dress worn by both Armenians and Azeris, fits with "ethnic relations" pretty well, but I'm not sure what this has to do with your conduct. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No it doesn’t. Ethnic relations is the study of social, political and economic relations between ethnicities. Not cultural as in the sharing of a clothing piece. You seem to be misinformed. Altynordu (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure a clothing shared by two ethnic groups fits well under "ethnic relations". And you need to stop being condescending towards other people, telling them that they are "misinformed", "do me a favour and read up on history" and so on. It can't be right that you can't make a single comment without taking at least some sort of dig at someone. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone can be misinformed. No one in the world knows exactly everything. Why do you think I’m attacking you when I’m not. And no you can go to the wiki page about ethnic relations and see for yourself as I said in my previous reply it’s the study of social, political and economic relations between ethnicities. Not cultural ones. Altynordu (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but keep it to yourself, no one is interested in hearing what you think about others. And "ethnic relations" does not mean study of social, political and economic relations between ethnicities..(the article you're referring to Sociology of race and ethnic relations...another thing). Also, WP:GS/AA says broadly construed. The fact Altynordu tries to justify their actions further show that they are WP:NOTHERE. I fail to see how they're a networth to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So I can’t call out someone if they’re spreading misinformation? I don’t think anything about you I just said you were misinformed. Why are you trying to make it to something bigger than it is. And ethnic relations means exactly what I said in my previous reply you can even google it. And the article I referred to is sociology of race and Ethnic relations. Instead of admitting that you are wrong you keep attacking me, but I don’t see the point in arguing with you if you want to take every little word I say as an insult then you do you. I’m not trying to be insulting or disrespectful. I’m just trying to make the page more informative and clear Altynordu (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the WP:GS/AA issue and the potential IP socking, Altynordu's edits on Arkhalig are clearly disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support indef block per the evidence presented. Assuming bad faith, personal attacks, edit warring, original research. JM (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indef block as WP:NOTHERE. Editor tried to misrepresent what their own source says about Persian language too. . ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support indef based on personal attacks. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Where did I misrepresent anything? I didn’t even edit the article I only suggested a change on the talk. It’s clear Wikipedia has a problem with Persians who follow a pan Iranist and even straight up blind nationalistic rethoric trying to shut down anything that doesn’t fit their narrative. Altynordu (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this above comment of yours, which enlights very well the kind of editor you are, ignoring what reliable sources say when they don't fit with your POV and label it as pan iranism ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources? Obviously you pick and choose on what reliable sources say. I quoted a reliable source to you according to the origins of Azerbaijanis and you straight up ignored them and kept insisting on that they are Iranians. Isn’t that following a pan iranist rhetoric. And we know from samples that Iranian Azerbaijanis cluster closer with Georgians than they do to other Iranians. But that doesn’t make them Georgian. Let me give you an example should we stop calling Iranians, Iranian. Since modern day Persians share very low genetic affinity with the indo aryans who conquered Iran and spread their language. Persians on average have about 0-10% actual indo-European steppe derived dna. Now tell me in which world doesn’t your comments promote pan Iranian ideas? And very dubious ones at that considering Azerbaijanis have more Turkic dna than Persians actually have Iranian. Altynordu (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to continue the same irrelevant discussion, you're in such a hurry to prove that Persians are not iranians that you keep reading just what fits with your POV, the study you're referring to (about Iranians and Georgians) is just based on mtDNA (which comes to an individual from his/her mother only). Besides, Frye and de Panhol are prominent expert sources about he Middle East, they cannot be challenged by non expert sources (or old sources) like Chursin or Kaser.
 * This disruptive behaviour, along with personal attacks towards me and other editors clearly makes you a WP:NOTHERE editor. I'll let admins decide as to how to handle this case, it's not my call. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  09:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Where am I in an hurry to do anything. I just used your logic against you. I guess we should call Persians Iranian people with Elamite origin by your standards I’m showing how flawed your logic is. And being an expert in history doesn’t make you an expert in genetics I suggest you go read up on the dna of these people before making such ridiculous statements as you were in the comments I responded to. And I have not personally attacked any editor except you. Since you used a pan Iranist rhetoric when talking about a Turkic people. Altynordu (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Best to just ignore Altnynordu, it’s not worth it. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support indef; WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS user per the evidence up above and them trying to justify it. More personal attacks here, and then they have the audacity to claim that they're the one being attacked afterwards . --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re trying to much it’s kind of embarrassing, listing the same two comments again and again. Altynordu (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support block (indef or otherwise). WP:NOTHERE, based on their responses. Note that they've also filed what looks like a frivolous ANI report below . R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked per consensus above. I will close the other report also. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for handling this. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA EC gaming?
User:FoodforLLMs, created on 12 Oct, gnomed 500 edits followed by a launch on 13 Dec into more serious editing on pages on such as the Axis of Resistance and others related to Hamas & Israel (interspersed with ongoing minor editing elsewhere). Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Although I did take it upon myself to fix a lot of articles missing short description in the transport space, you can take a look at my contributions and see that I had a lot of other contributions of varying length and complexity.
 * You can also take a look at my latest contributions and see many different subjects, including ones that do not relate to history, current events or the Israeli-Arab conflict FoodforLLMs (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty clear WP:PGAMEing. I've revoked their extended-confirmed permission, which they may re-request at WP:PERM/EC after making 500 non-trivial edits. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If adding a short description is considered a worthless change in the eyes of the administration, then who is going to add descriptions to all these articles?
 * In my mind it both helps the UX by helping users search, it's a non trivial change because it requires adding 5-6 words which need some thinking, and it aligns with WP:NNH.
 * However, I accept your decision and I will re-request EC in the future FoodforLLMs (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned this at the appeal thread on AN, but I should say it here as well. It's chickenshit for us to say that editing certain articles is restricted to users who have 30 days of editing and 500 edits... then when they do that (at a significant investment of time and effort) we say "Nuh uh uh that doesn't count" and become upset and offended and throw a hissy fit and accuse them of some vague malfeasance. They did what we told them to do — have an account for 30 days and make 500 edits! We can't get mad at them for failing to realize that this was a lie and there was a secret additional requirement. If we told them to do something stupid, that is our fault, and we should stop telling them that, and we should instead make a rule that says you have to apply for XC and then an administrator grants it. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with JPxG here. It would be one thing if FoodforLLMs was adding and then deleting short descriptions and then reverting and re-reverting those edits until reaching 500 edits.  But it seems like FoodforLLMs added genuine short descriptions, which we presumably want added to our articles.  If we want short descriptions included in our articles, then adding them is not gaming the system.  If we want the 500 article threshold to exclude additions of short descriptions then we should amend the requirements to say so. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, it's almost as if this were one of a significant number of very obvious and inevitable knock-on effects of the very broad and far-reaching policy language that ArbCom created out of whole cloth in the 'non-ECEs are not welcome on CTOP talk pages" decision, where said complications and consequences of such a massive change to our standards for participation in the project should have been considered and vetted by the community at large (over as long a period of time as it took to get the standard right), as opposed to by just twelve editors making an ad-hoc decision by themselves under a much shorter time constraint. Which in turn almost makes one think that the Committee went far, far beyond their traditional remit of reviewing particularly difficult cases or applying additional restraints for discrete topic areas, and straight into the business of declaring policy by fiat for the entire project.  Which  almost  makes one think that the community at large is well overdue to mobilize to put some much more concretely defined guard rails in place to contain the Committee's ever-sprawling, increasingly limitless perception of its own purview, in order to prevent these kinds of oversteps.


 * And look, I'm sorry for the passive aggressive tone there--I know it's not typically the most helpful method to express concern on an issue like this. And I do appreciate that these steps (ill-advised and beyond the traditional remit of the Committee as I believe them to be) were taken in good faith.  But I remain genuinely mystified as to how the current version of that body thought that this kind of all-encompassing decision (which can only be accurately described as WP:Policy creation from the top, in contravention of this project's most basic rules and oldest cultural values with regard to how consensus is formed) was within their remit, and why the community has not moved to walk back this decision and remind ArbCom of its place within our institutional order.


 * Is it that it's coming at a time of particular exhaustion, disengagement, and even nihilism about our systems by large swaths of our veteran editor base? Is it that this is actually a change which folds neatly into beliefs about restricting editing to registered users, and a minority (but still significant chunk) of editors actually like the sound of these changes enough that they are willing to turn a blind eye to ArbCom flexing new muscles, by expanding its scope arguably more than it has in any previous case?  Or is it that we already let the situation get so far out of control that no one knows quite how to bring ArbCom to heel as a procedural matter?  Or am I simply somewhere near the extremes when it comes to concerns generated by this decision?


 * Honestly, I'm really open to perspectives on this one, because I've been checked out for a few months and when I learned about this decision, I just felt it was wrong on so many levels--pertaining both to how the decision was made and the obvious implications (if not longterm infeasability) of the decision itself, and I am really surprised by the lack of agitation against it. If I'm more on the peripheries of this one than I'd expect to be, I'd like to know.  And if I'm not, I'd like to talk with anyone who's interested about how we re-conceptualize our institutional order, to put some brakes on ArbCom's currently unfettered growth in authority.  Because this feels as much like a watershed moment for that question as any since I joined the project. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard agree. Actually, I think this is how I got most of my first 500 edits. Originally, I was doing edits that took ages (for example, translating articles) and quickly realized that this clearly wasn't what wikipedia actually "wanted" of me, since I could not possibly make 10 or 20 of those kinds of edits a day. If we don't want minor edits like short descriptions being counted towards extended confirmed, we should significantly reduce the number of edits required. And we certainly shouldn't be removing ec permissions from people who see the game for what it is and play it by its rules. -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of you. Things like this are ripe for abuse. JM (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jumping in a bit late here to point out that ARBECR is a poor example of the Committee creating policy by fiat. In fact the extended-confirmed userright and protection level evolved over quite a long time, starting from an administrative page-level sanction applied to a single article because of rampant sockpuppetry; that was in 2012. In 2015 a community discussion led to the 30/500 restriction being applied to topics related to Gamergate, and later that year Arbcom adopted the same restriction for ARBPIA after a lengthy case with many participants, because of the extremely toxic editing environment in that topic. EC wasn't coded into the software until a year after that, and only after more lengthy community discussions. The only thing Arbcom really did by creating ARBECR is adopt a sanction already in widespread use in the community as an available arbitration remedy, and that's well within their authority. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Meaning no disrespect Ivan, I nevertheless think that you're missing the forest for the trees here and failing to recognize the particular reasons why this particular ArbCom action was so bold and so far beyond any other superficially similar creation of general sanctions. Yes, EC is an old tool, and yes it has received the benefit of community vetting.  For use with regard to mainspace edits in discrete topic areas, not the banning of all new users from every CTOP article talk page.  That's tens  (if not hundreds) of thousands of high traffic articles which are now reserved as the exclusive purview of the veteran editor, not just with regard to editing said articles, but indeed discussing and providing feedback on their content.  That's rather a sledgehammer approach in my book, but putting aside the advisability of the change, the more important point is that is a use of EC that community never approved (nor even broadly contemplated when institutionalizing EC as a technical feature, as far as I have ever seen.  It is not just orders of magnitude above any other action the Committee has ever taken in terms of users impacted, it is categorically different in respect to how it has restricted access to and participation in our consensus process for some of the most heavily engaged with articles on the project.  The implications are frankly staggering with regard to onboarding and retention of new editors (at a time when we should be seeking to ease the barrier of entry, not make the potential longterm editor inclined to see the project as inhospitable), not to mention the potential to jam up our process pages (I've seen the phrase "EC gaming" more in the past two months than all the previous years you reference above that EC has existed as a concept) or exacerbate many areas already prone to being our worst echo chambers.Might the community have endorsed the changes ArbCom imposed upon the entire project here, had they been WP:PROPOSED at say the Village Pump?  Personally, I strongly doubt it, but at the same time, it's not impossible.  However, all of that is irrelevant to the ultimate concern I am trying to voice here: this was not ArbCom's choice to make, in my opinion. Or if it was, it's all the more cause to take a beat and consider how we counterbalance a body of a dozen editors with the apparent ability to pass what can only realistically be called a major policy on it's own, and the willingness to do so without first consulting the community.  The changes here were profound, and the implications (both the intended ones and the inevitable knock-on effects and complications) should have been vetted by the community at a considered pace.  ArbCom was designed to address intractable disputes through discrete cases, not set project-wide guidelines for engagement.  I stand by the assessment that this is a problem that can only grow from here if we don't find a way to better define the Committee's role and the outer edges of its remit. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * None taken, I appreciate the discussion. I do think you've misinterpreted the evolution of ARBECR, though. When what later became ARBECR was first applied to ARBPIA (as a sanction under WP:ARBPIA3) part of the purpose in fact was editor retention. The argument then was that the topic had become so toxic that it was a barrier to entry in and of itself: well-meaning new users were going there to edit in good faith and faced so much abuse that they never edited again, or ended up blocked because they had no previous experience with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes and civility culture. Keeping new users from going straight there and instead expecting them to gain some experience editing less contentious topics was seen as a good thing. It was expected that by doing so, more editors would decide to stick around. Of course the primary purpose was countering rampant sockpuppetry, and besides I have no idea how we would go about measuring retention with and without the restriction, and I'm sure it is true that some potential editors decided not to bother, unfortunately.
 * Also, unless I'm mistaken, ARBECR is not a general remedy for all CTOPS subjects, but only for those specific topics where Arbcom has specifically approved its use on a case-by-case basis. Arbcom also clarified quite recently that non-EC users are permitted to participate on CTOPS talk pages by making edit requests. But I do fully agree with you that the accusations of "EC gaming" are getting out of hand: it was never the intent of the restriction for anyone to police new users' contributions to dictate what's acceptable and what isn't. It's a simple threshold on purpose and was always intended to be granted automatically and permanently, just like autoconfirmation. Nobody's EC permission should be revoked ever, unless it's because they're being blocked for sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also noteworthy that, out of the two other topics for which ARBECR-style remedies are enforced, one of them, Armenia-Azerbaijan, was actually authorized by unanimous approval of editors in that area and at ANI (WP:GS/AA), not ARBCOM. In my experience working with that sanction authorization, the existing community of active editors is generally quite supportive of the 500/30 restriction. signed,Rosguill talk 15:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended towards anyone, but editors who don't edit these topics just don't understand. Spend six months trying to improve a high profile article in an ECR CTOP and you'll get it. I think that's why most regulars support ECR while non-regulars are more skeptical of it. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this the second time in a week that someone (a different user) edits got discounted as "trivial", got accused of gaming ECR and brought to ANI, only to have others reviewing the edits and deemed them to be not trivial? <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 22:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Was it the same user bringing it to ANI? JM (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it was a different case that was closed last week. But this is an observation that applying an overly broad definition of gaming might become an unfortunate trend. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 22:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus

 * Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute
 * Move review/Log/2023 December (review of the above)
 * Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute
 * Move review/Log/2023 December (review of the above)
 * Move review/Log/2023 December (review of the above)

The user @NoonIcarus continues to be involved in move wars (1, 2). Also he continues to drive-by tag for NPOV disputes claiming that "... the article relies heavily on papers that reflect mostly the authors point of view, instead of a mainstream one." (1, 2) In both, when offered to add the sources of information he considers missing he declined.

He was notified that the simple opinion that an article is not neutral because it does not include enough mainstream references (who dets that?, see WP:Verifiability, not truth) is not enough to justify adding tags recklessly.

Even though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lima_Consensus&oldid=1193428623#:~:text=I%27d%20like%20to%20note%20that%20NoonIcarus%20has%20supported%20expanded%20topic%20bans%20on%20users%20for%20performing%20disruptive%20edits%20on%20articles%20they%20were%20not%20previously%20involved%20with%2C%20similar%20to%20NoonIcarus%27%20own%20behavior%20in%20this%20case. he has been warned multiple times] and finding that their problems continue, his purpose is not to build an encyclopedia. Ultranuevo (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On a review of the above and recent contributions, this does not appear to me to meet the level of needing admin intervention. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree, I may not have long-standing problems with NoonIcarus, but they do swith other Wikipedians. Ultranuevo (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ultranuevo's main point of contention is the following: I recently added the tags at the Lima Consensus (economy) and Plan Verde articles.
 * In the case of the former, editors had already expressed issues and the article is currently subject to an AfD, and I have already given reasons for the tags in both talk pages. Ultranuevo has repeatedly removed the cleanup tag, and I have warned them about edit warring: --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend you to read WP:NPOV dispute. Ultranuevo (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfamiliar with the above issues, but following the recent closure of an RM NoonIcarus vigorously (around 19 comments) opposed as consensus to move, NoonIcarus is now edit warring in a recreation of parts of that article at the previous title they preferred. CMD (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could NoonIcarus explain why yesterday (6 jan) they reverted a dozens edits that updated links to 'Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute' because of a RM this is seems like wp:pointy behaviour—blindlynx 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I corrected the spelling of NoonIcarus in the header of this report and added some links. (Note the capitalized letter 'I' in the middle of the user's name). NoonIcarus has made a large number of reverts on a variety of articles during January 6. Evidently not everyone agrees with him that Guayana Esequiba (which was turned into a redirect by the outcome of the move discussion) deserves to be recreated as a separate article. It would be better for NoonIcarus to undo these changes until such time as agreement has been reached on a split. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, although since the closer has commented that the closing statement did not necessarily endorse a split, I could start one formally to clarify the community's position on this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, kind regards. That is simply because the dispute is not the same as the region, and the edits massively removed any mention of the term. The main link has remained in several articles when aprropriate, such as South American territorial disputes and List of territorial disputes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reverts you made don't support this, a good number of them are about the dispute and not the region for example, , . Further it doesn't seems that 'Guayana Esequiba' is an neutral term for a region in others (]).  I agree that 'Guayana Esequiba' is appropriate in some cases such as  but there don't seem to be to many of these cases, but without a separate article it's largely an academic point—blindlynx 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example is this revert by NoonIcarus. It is not justifiable as the sentence is referring more to the border dispute, not the proposed state of Guayana Esequiba. It is unfair to the other editor. SOUTHCOM (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

La Salida
Moderated discussion of the article on La Salida, a Venezuelan opposition movement, had been open at DRN between User:WMrapids and User:NoonIcarus. The discussion had not been making much progress, but was still open. I have closed the mediation as failed because DRN does not handle any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or any conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping with mediation; it seems that we have reached an agreement and I don't think we could have done it without your help.--WMrapids (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal
Starting off, I'm going to be completely transparent here and note that NoonIcarus and I have had our differences; they have reported me here three times before on WP:ANI, with the first incident being completely understandable (my behavior was inappropriate) and I have done my best to be accountable and improve my conduct. Also for transparency sake, I advised to make their own determination of NoonIcarus' behavior in this edit as I have been avoiding escalation with this user for months.

NoonIcarus is very skilled at gaming the system with civil point of view pushing, often stonewalling, bad faith negotiating and participating in other disruptive behavior. Instead of attempting to achieve consensus and engaging in healthy discussions, they treat the project as a high school debate forum, bogging down almost every discussion with bludgeoning and battleground behavior, proving that NoonIcarus is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia as they have a "[g]eneral pattern of disruptive behavior", have been "[t]reating editing as a battleground", have engaged in "[d]ishonest and gaming behaviors", have "[l]ittle or no interest in working collaboratively" and have held a "[l]ong-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia". I will outline each of these behaviors in sections below.

Background: Interactions with NoonIcarus began in the move discussion on 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, my first large heated discussion on the project. The user commented in the move discussion about a previous move discussion on Operation Gideon (2020). In this discussion, I questioned why NoonIcarus made the comparison and began to review Operation Gideon (2020) and other Venezuelan articles. NoonIcarus then began to accuse me of attempting to make a point when I proposed move requests for 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and Operation Gideon (2020) in good faith. From there, edit conflicts have only escalated with the user.

Activism/Advocacy: While this description may be controversial given the topic of NoonIcarus' first ANI report on me, I will stand by this assessment. They began editing on English Wikipedia by expanding the Protests against Nicolás Maduro article. This strong POV of NoonIcarus is raised by multiple users in a previous WP:ANI report, "Jamez42's repeated block deletions", noting that Jamez42 was NoonIcarus' previous username. As I began to interact more with NoonIcarus over the past few months, I noticed their personal participation in the protests against the Maduro government. So, noticing their editing and history on the project, I asked the user about this; they were present at many Venezuelan opposition protests taking hundreds of photos within their first month on Wikipedia and were personally beside prominent opposition figures during future protests, including Miguel Pizarro and Juan Requesens. This activist approach appears to motivate NoonIcarus' edits on the project, which is completely inappropriate as it leads to disruptive disputes with other editors, evidenced by the multiple raised concerns from users that have now spanned for over four years without improved behavior.

Bad POV: One of the first issues I noticed with NoonIcarus' edits was their inappropriate or questionable removal of information from the project. This seems to align with the "Bad POV" behavior of activist users who participate in "[r]emoval of information contrary to what the activists know is 'right,'" which perfectly describes NoonIcarus' behavior in multiple edits.

In the collapsible boxes below, we can review how NoonIcarus' edits are consistent with conduct performed by advocacy and Bad POV users.

During our discussion on Operation Gideon (2020), NoonIcarus directed me to WP:VENRS while attempting to support the use of sources. Upon recognizing that the sources they provided were opposed to the Maduro government, a position aligned with NoonIcarus' editing behavior, I raised concerns. At the time of being directed to WP:VENRS, NoonIcarus had provided the majority of the essay's content. Using this edit, NoonIcarus did not only use it to justify the ownership of information on a single article, they used it in ownership of nearly all Venezuelan topics. NoonIcarus not only did this with WP:VENRS, they did this with WP:RSP as well; this was apparently mentioned in a deprecated source's article itself (which was appropriately deprecated), though I will not mention this due to its doxxing concerns. So this activist behavior was not only noticed by users, but outside of the project as well, showing the gravity of NoonIcarus' edits.

With this ownership behavior after becoming an apparent arbiter on Venezuelan sources, NoonIcarus, according to WP:ADVICEPAGE, "wrongly used [VENRS] as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope", beginning to delete content that did not align with their point of view through literally hundreds of edits. Recognizing that NoonIcarus' behavior was inappropriate, I opened a request for comment to discuss the WP:VENRS essay's use (Important note: One will notice throughout this proposal that I have attempted to promote inclusion of other users through negotiation processes multiple times due to NoonIcarus' stonewalling, including with RfCs, third opinions and the more recent dispute resolution noticeboard request). As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is unknown how much or what particular information was removed in the hundreds of inappropriate WP:VENRS edits NoonIcarus made.

While NoonIcarus would target sources supposedly supportive of the Maduro government, they would vehemently oppose any sources they used being identified as aligning with the Venezuelan opposition. This occurred on the "Political stance sections" in the VENRS discussion page, which has been stonewalled since August 2023. On Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Nacional (Venezuela) and El Pitazo, NoonIcarus removed information about such sources being described as "opposition" and instead promoted that they were "independent". It was explained multiple times that sources can be both "opposition" and "independent", though this was ignored. (WP:BADPOV)

After reviewing NoonIcarus' apparent activist editing behavior, it is clear that they are disruptive to the Wikipedia Project regarding political topics. Reviewing signs of disruptive editing, we can see that they have engaged in...

Tendentious editing: NoonIcarus clearly has "a pattern of editing that is partisan." As mentioned by UltraNuevo, NoonIcarus has engaged in "an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources" when it does not align with their point of view. Their ownership of Venezuelan articles and their related sources, as noted above, shows that NoonIcarus is attempting to right great wrongs through their apparent activism.
 * Repeating penalized edits: As we can see from the 2020 report, "Jamez42's repeated block deletions", NoonIcarus has continued the same behavior that they were previously blocked for.
 * Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others: As noted above regarding sources described as being "opposition sources", where NoonIcarus removed cited additions on multiple occasions, alongside UltraNuevo's concerns about removing academic sources.
 * Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This was actually discussed in another ANI report on NoonIcarus from 2018 titled "Political advocacy by Jamez42 / Susmuffin", where NoonIcarus provided undue importance of the history of tear gas usage by Venezuelan authorities in the El Paraíso stampede; this material is still included in the article at the moment. While this was reported by an IP user and paid advocacy is not confirmed, it is confirmed that NoonIcarus has been described as an advocacy user for years now.
 * Not accepting independent input and refusal to "get the point": It is apparent that NoonIcarus disputes independent input; we can note that "no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose." This has occurred on multiple occasions with NoonIcarus. Regarding La Patilla, a Venezuelan opposition source that aligns with NoonIcarus' apparent point of view, they quickly disputed its designation as being an unreliable source. This also occurred following the supported move of Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, a topic they are still included in edit warring.
 * Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging", drive-by tagging and over tagging: NoonIcarus has surgically used tags to civilly promote their point of view. I have discussed this before where I outlined how: "'[In] this edit here where attribution is crystal clear (despite MOS:CLAIM wording), ... the Venezuelanalysis source and information was removed anyway [by NoonIcarus]. Even more egregious are these edits; the user removes the Venezuelanalysis source for an attributed statement and then in a subsequent edit, the user removes the attributed statement from the article entirely, saying it was 'unsourced' (even though they removed the source).'" and I have raised this concern before; on Operation Gideon (2020) (see here), ZunZuneo (see here) while it occurred again recently on Plan Verde (see here). NoonIcarus also overtagged both Venezuelan opposition and the Guarimba articles (WP:BADPOV), including others. NoonIcarus will see information that does not agree with their point of view (BADPOV), tag it without discussion and then removes the information they don't agree with (usually after no user notices or discusses the tag).
 * Drive away productive contributors: As mentioned above, NoonIcarus has engaged in ownership behavior regarding Venezuelan articles. This has likely prevented new users from participating in Venezuelan topics, which can arguably be recognized as a contentious topic and has limited participation. Since this behavior has occurred for years, the number of users repelled and subsequently the damage to neutrality regarding Venezuelan topics may be high.
 * Inappropriate usage of "Stable version": It is noted that "It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. ... Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning." NoonIcarus has done this on multiple occasions to maintain their preferred version of an article.
 * Point illustrating: This has been more apparent recently and is why this report exists; the Lima Consensus (economy) article. One instance of point illustrating is when "someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion". Prior to this, NoonIcarus was last involved in Peru-related articles back in April 2023 when our first interactions began. Though the Lima Consensus article is not my "favorite article", it is one I created and |NoonIcarus went out of their way to delete it, apparently attempting to make things personal and upset me. They had previously proposed the deletion of one article I created only two days after it was created as well, ignoring standards of attempting to fix it first. This is simple battleground behavior, which can also be explained in the bludgeoning edits below.
 * Bludgeoning: While this proposal itself is fairly lengthy itself (all of this did not happen overnight), NoonIcarus' bludgeoning behavior is clear through their consistent badgering. As noted in the "Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others" section, the user has made extraordinary demands regarding the inclusion of material related to sources. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the La Salida article, where NoonIcarus described the goal of the campaign using a Venezuelan opposition politician's quote without proper attribution, writing that the goal "was to 'find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro'", parroting Venezuelan opposition talking points creating false neutrality by watering down the language in support of the opposition. When I read about this history of La Salida, I provided independent, reliable sources that said the objective of La Salida was plainly to "remove Maduro", according to those sources. NoonIcarus consistently removed this information (WP:BADPOV) and engaged in bad faith negotiations, badgering me for a month by first saying it was not neutral (WP:BADPOV), moving the goalposts multiple times using their stable argument, then stating that a "compromise" was to describe the goal as "civil disobedience" (this was not mentioned in any source), then demanded "mainstream sources" instead of academic sources, then dismissed the sources as unreliable due to "covering the Venezuelan opposition in a negative tone", then inaccurately said the goal was to end the Bolivarian Revolution, etc. The continuous sealioning discussions and stonewalling my edits through edit warring (yes, I acknowledge it takes to users) are clearly disruptive as they badgered with more demands. Ultimately, their ownership behavior became clear in the La Salida discussion with two ultimatums of false choices they placed upon me; NoonIcarus saying "This can be a neutral way to express the peaceful purpose of the campaign ... If this isn't a good option, the original and last stable version should be restored" and the projection-like statement of "You should be open to work with others to find solutions, but if that's not the case, no changes will come out of it." As with other bludgeoning civil POV pushing that NoonIcarus has engaged in, this example shows how the user will "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view" while they also attempt to "argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral." This discussion is currently in dispute resolution after I made a request to solve the disagreement.

Recommendation: While I have done my best to maintain good faith in NoonIcarus' behavior hoping that we could collaborate, attempting to make any edits on the project for the past eight months has been a personal hell. Looking at the previous sanctions placed against NoonIcarus, I would recommend a topic ban on political articles for one year at a minimum since they did not remedy their behavior following previous sanctions. A topic ban appears to have been supported by multiple users in the the previous discussion and a ban of equal length as their previous sanction is suitable. Personally, I am hesitant to make this recommendation since NoonIcarus forgave my inexcusable behavior in the past, though after recently discovering that this is not new behavior and has been detrimental to multiple users in the past, I am hopeful that a break will be healthy for NoonIcarus and have positive results for them and other users going forward.--WMrapids (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely going to have to condense this WP:WALLOFTEXT if anyone is going to act on your recommendation. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the wall of text, but much of the context was necessary especially since NoonIcarus is a skillful civil POV pusher. I’m not accustomed to providing ANI reports and as I mentioned, I was hesitant to make any recommendation at all. But this opinion changed quickly once they began personally targeting articles I created for no apparent reason and then reverting hours of edits I carefully performed regarding the Essequibo; note NoonIcarus' inappropriate behavior related to this above.
 * Overall, NoonIcarus has demonstrated time and time again that their modus operandi is death by a thousand cuts, so I felt like the thousand cuts had to be shown to those reviewing this incident for them to fully grasp what is actually going on. Sorry if this is a long response itself, but do you have a recommendation on how to condense this for readability sake? Thanks for providing an honest assessment of my recommendation. WMrapids (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I was planning to start a own thread about WMrapids' content blanking at Guayana Esequiba and aspersions casting, which is a behavior that precisely has already denounced at ANI before: User:WMrapids (blanking), User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, but here we are. Previous discussions include but are not limited to WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS, WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS, WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda, WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition, WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba, Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, Talk:La Salida, Dispute resolution noticeboard, and User talk:NoonIcarus#Advocacy?, among others.

As the user themselves concede, they have shifted from editing mostly about politics in Peru to Venezuela after a move discussion, doing massive and drastic changes in articles such as Operation Gideon (2020), Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Rupununi uprising, Venezuelan opposition and Guarimba. It's not the first time that WMrapids delves into edit history that spans years to find specific instances of wrongdoing about editors that they disagree with. A few weeks ago, in November, they left a long-winded at 's talk page User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120, incidentally also accusing her of ownership in Venezuelan articles. Her response probably can offer good context of the situation: (#Followup: intimidation, COI, and BLP concerns). Before that, they accused new editor of being a SPA over disagreements about Peruvian topics: ANI#User:Elelch, and all of this is without mentioning the block for edit warring about Peruvian topics the Spanish Wikipedia last year. It's one thing to have editorial differences with other editors, especially in a topic so controversial like politics, and another one entirely different is having a systemic or long term abuse.

It seems that when I dispute changes it is disruptive editing and ownership, but when I discuss the edits or explain the opposition to the changes it is sealioning, stonewalling, badgering and bludgeoning (this last one is ironic due to the length of the message above, and they themselves have been warned against it in related RfCs). By this point they probably have accused me of everything in the book, even after the last time I tried extending an olive branch, which leads back to the aspersions issues I have mentioned before,

I'd be happy to answer to any related questions or concerns. There is simply too much information that is being oversimplified, but in the meantime I would highly recommend to mind a boomerang and analyze WMrapids' own behavior which, as I mentioned, is not limited to Venezuelan topics but Peruvian ones as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I would like to warn about potential canvassing at Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, as well as the rest of the editors pinged above and below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The user NoonIcarus seems to have a lead editor approach and has almost been policing articles related to the Venezuelan-Guyana territorial dispute and related topics. Their contribution history shows an excessive amount of reverts against WMrapids which are hard to defend. Regarding articles related to Guyana in particular, there has been a significant amount of Venezuelan POV edits across the English and especially the Spanish Wikipedia that were overlooked by NoonIcarus but could have used his/her/their expertise. I questioned to myself why NoonIcarus did not see nor address some of the blatant vandalism and POV edits at the Spanish Wikipedia that remained there for months and even years. I'm not going to directly make claims or accusations here; I want to believe NoonIcarus has good will and look forward to working with them. We need the Venezuelan perspective and I hope NoonIcarus can be that person. We all have work to do in keeping our biases in check. WMrapids seems to be making great contributions and I think NoonIcarus should, at the very least, ease up on the policing of WMrapids' contributions. SOUTHCOM (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Can I help responding to specific cases? I can recall that not long ago I denounced an user precisely for edit warring and POV pushing in related articles (es:3RR#Guayana Esequiba), who I see you have interacted with in the past and used to place Venezuelan flags and changing the content of infoboxes of disputed cities an regions. It should be noted that this was the same reason why the es:Guayana Esequiba article in Spanish is currently fully protected.


 * I can also point out to my contributions to the 2023 Venezuelan referendum article, which aimed to justify the annexation of the region, both in English and in Spanish, expanding on the referendum's low turnout, the doubts about the official results and the actions taken afterwards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NoonIcarus, I was going to not reply in order to avoid bludgeoning, but your misrepresentations of your actions are just too blatant for me to ignore, so I'll try to keep it to a small list.
 * Yes, I have been involved in my fair share of inappropriate interactions in the past and this was disclosed in my first statement, but I have been doing my best to improve. The same cannot be said on your part and this can be clearly demonstrated in your editing history. Controversial topics are new to me (since around the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, actually), while you began your editing in a controversial topic (Protests against Nicolás Maduro), have been involved in controversial political topics for almost ten years now and you still haven't rectified your edit warring/advocacy editing since sanctions were last placed on you four years ago . You definitely should be held to a higher standard and you are not meeting it.
 * Speaking of those specific sanctions, the ANI report opened after wrote:  This simple explanation, along with some other information, was enough for  and  to immediately support a topic ban on you. Well, even this specific behavior never changed and you continued to edit war on the same United States involvement in regime change article  and United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, removing information that was properly sourced.
 * While recognizing this is not Spanish Wikipedia, and  note that you have been engaged in edit warring on that project as well. This also occurred with the Guarimba article where I attempted to work with you and even admitted my own faults in our discussion thinking we were heading in the right direction. Then you began edit warring on the Spanish Guarimba article, falsely claiming that my addition was "original research" ("Investigación original") not once, but twice, before placing similar material back supporting your preferred version. (WP:Bad POV)
 * Finally, your misrepresentations and outright falsehoods need to stop. Regarding ANI#User:Elelch, they were warned about using IP socks and socks were a big problem in Peru articles for awhile. Yes, I was blocked on Spanish Wikipedia as I was new to controversial editing, but you were blocked for an even more prolonged period of time (initially 6 months, down to 2 months) for ownership behavior. As for the "olive branch" you extended to me; you inexplicably nominated an article I created for deletion the next day, though I still replied with skeptical hope. That hope has since been lost until there has been some concrete changes on your part.
 * Overall, I believe that people are redeemable and am hoping that a topic ban on political articles for NoonIcarus, though significant but not permanent, will be a motivation to improve their behavior on Wikipedia. They are a knowledgeable user, but they need to use their experience in a positive manner and not for civil POV pushing. WMrapids (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban on political topics (1 year): As proposer. Please see initial rationale and reply.--WMrapids (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the broad topic-ban that is proposed here. The above wall of text demonstrates that the filing editor can write a wall of text.  After two days, I have not seen the case that NoonIcarus should be topic-banned.  Some sort of sanction is probably in order on one or both editors, but the case for a broad topic-ban has not been made.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Weird IP issue
This user has been changing categorization of animated films to CGI-animated. They have been doing this to about 20 different articles. Would an admin please advise? NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 23:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They just came off a block by for these same edits.--  Ponyo bons mots 23:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The IP editor responded on their talk page, so I have started a new discussion at and advised them to obtain consensus for their mass edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —  Newslinger   talk   23:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:HOUNDING
has been inserting unnecessary, trivial, and deliberately unconstructive edits on pages out of bad-faith on pages by singling out ones I've contributed to and edit-warring them in. On 25 December and 26 December, they restored WP:BOOSTER material I removed then moved onto pages I either recently edited, substantially contributed to, or promoted to GA Status, starting with the judge Elizabeth Branch then John Hart Ely, Dumas Malone, Quintin Johnstone and Joshua Katz, and continued with my more recent pages (all listed on their user log). These pages are wholly unrelated to the pages they've previously edited except the fact that they are the ones I've substantially contributed to.

User:Summerdays1 has made it clear that his edits are meant to be obstructive and in bad-faith. After reaching out on my talk page, he left a message that he later covertly deleted and followed it up:



Then they've reached out to editors to WP:CANVASS, and the messages show the same pattern. First to Rrsimone, then to admin Favonian:

User:Summerdays1 has not gone out to try and reach any sort of consensus on the pages I contributed to nor even to try to build a consensus on the pages regarding higher education. I've reverted some of these edits; as of today, they have reverted them back. They aren't here to improve articles and no longer here to build an encyclopedia. GuardianH (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, I previously warned User:Summerdays1 about edit-warring, but they promptly removed that notice today from their talk page. GuardianH (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a repost from my previous message, which got archived, since problems persist. GuardianH (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Arguably just | this message alone deserves a block of some length. Then there's the blatant canvassing. Summerdays1 clearly deserves some form of block. On the other hand, I am sceptical of the WP:HOUNDING claims. The supposed WP:BOOSTER material that Summerdays1 re-added doesn't seem to actually be booster material at all. The claim, The institution has been ranked 200–300 in the world as one of the best universities, doesn't appear to be BOOSTER. Bar the first sentence in the Yale edit, the content appears to be acceptable. The rest of the edits listed as supposed hounding all seem to be good-faith minor edits that generally make sense. Unless I'm missing something obvious, GuardianH's edits seem to be plain bad faith. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @JML1148 Summerdays1 said pretty explicitly that I damage this site and it has to end and that I will wreak holy havoc on any academic article. It's hard to see these edits under innocuous summaries as something other than with the aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress (WP:HOUNDING) to provoke a response from me, making them in bad-faith. Why else would they go from singer and songwriters to higher education and legal academics? GuardianH's edits seem to be plain bad faith - I don't see how my edits are bad-faith when I have no agenda against universities in cleaning up boosterism. GuardianH (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Summerdays1 said pretty explicitly that I damage this site and it has to end and that I will wreak holy havoc on any academic article. I'm not denying that Summerdays1's conduct has been unacceptable, they clearly need to be punished for their blatant violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:CIV. Why else would they go from singer and songwriters to higher education and legal academics? People are allowed to change what articles they edit. Even if they are choosing to solely edit articles that you have had been substantially involved in, the edits in question appear to minor copyedits that appear to be generally positive changes, such as fixing minor grammatical mistakes and clearer language. As I have previously said, I don't see any evidence of Summerdays1 re-adding booster content or hounding you. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @JML1148 Sorry, I was being unclear. A lot of the edits are were not constructive and added, rather than removed, errors:
 * Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes
 * Erroneous material
 * Readded boosterism
 * These edits made the quality of writing in the article worse and were made without knowledge of citation placements, code format, etc., which is especially frustrating for the articles I worked to write and promote to GA status. Basically, when they said that I damage this site and it has to end and then went and undid/reverted my edits on articles — thats bad-faith editing with the intent to hound. GuardianH (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I must apologise. There are some actual improvements in the series of edits, however many of them contain obvious spelling mistakes and downgrades to the article. On face value, they seem relatively normal edits, but on a more thorough read, it's rather obvious that they are subversive minor edits that, on a cursory read - like I initially did - appear innocent. Indeed, all of the articles that they have done this to are ones that you have extensively edited. Separate from all of these issues, Summerdays1 appears to be practising a unique type of WP:ICHY, that comes down to, 'ignore the problem and it will eventually go away'. They removed Liz's comment asking them to comment on this page. I believe an indef ban on Summerdays1 is the best option. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. I, of course, support your view. GuardianH (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've taken this out of the archives since problems persist. This is the second time I've had to take it out from being archived by the bot; it would be good if an admin could deal with the issue as it's been a while now. GuardianH (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I just picked through most of a dozen of the problem links provided, and found that some of his editing is a bit of a problem, the booster stuff, some external websites that don't belong, but I think the reason that this is getting archived, twice now, is that you are overstating the problem. This seems to be a personality issue as much as an editing issue.  For instance, in the claim "Arguably just this message alone deserves a block of some length. " you give a bad link.  I go down to the last part that has his comments and don't see anything block worth at the end of the page.  Frankly, he IS making some mistakes (nothing drastic, but they are editing mistakes, not behavior mistakes).  You guys aren't doing a great job explaining it to a new user either.  I'm not prepared to do anything at this stage, except advise you guys to be just a little more patient and explain why he is wrong.  You seem to be right on the merits, but wrong on the delivery with a new user.  I'm not ready to block someone because they are mistaken.  And, you might also try to pull back just a bit and listen.  They are telling you some worthwhile things, although not very eloquently, and on the whole, they are more "correct" than you are here. There is a lot of leeway in editing, but there are some guidelines we try to stick to, to keep articles from sounding like booster pages, for instance.  We don't claim a school is a "top school", for instance.  We *might* say "$x school was ranked by Time Magazine as the #1 school for music(source)".  We use top quality sources, and use THEIR VOICE, not our voice.  We don't make the claim.... we just document the fact that the source made the claim.  These are all fixable errors.  Now lets go edit and let this be archived. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown What we discussed was that the edits weren't mistakes — they were deliberate and unconstructive, based on what Summerdays1 said themself. Apologies for the bad links, I've re-organized them below:
 * 2 violations of WP:CANVASS
 * Intent to WP:HOUND
 * Removal of edit warring notice
 * Removal of ANI notice
 * Second removal of ANI notice placed by @Liz
 * Possible personal attack (taunting me on my talk page)
 * Personal attack (Apparently you won't listen to me so I'll find an admin. You are a "wrecking ball"; You damage this site and it has to end)
 * I have already listed some of his edits in my previous message — they proceeded to go on pages I've worked on and either reverted my edits or continued to make edits out of bad-faith that downgraded the articles. This is not to say that all of the edits made were totally unconstructive, but most were. A list of those are too extensive to place in the thread but here's a list of those edits.
 * Me and @JML1148 discussed that the above constitutes disruptive behavior. It warrants a block, especially also given that they've ignored all the warnings. GuardianH (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When a user is personally attacking editors and removes invitations to explain themselves, I'm not going to be a little more patient and explain why he is wrong. It's clear they have absolutely no intention to work constructively, and should be sanctioned like any other editor in the same position would be. JML1148 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean. Not every heated exchange is a personal attack.  If he called you a "fucktard", then yes, that would obviously cross the line, but I wouldn't normally block someone for that exchange.  He's frustrated, and while his tone isn't particularly helpful, you are overstating it.  At worst, it is a bit uncivil.  This is why no one has bothered to opine here. In your second link, you didn't offer a chance to discuss, you called him to ANI, and every editor has the right to remove notifications on their own talk page, so he did nothing wrong by removing it, so yes, you are crying wolf. Everyone needs to dial it back, like I said earlier.  I don't have anything to add, I'm not going to keep saying the same thing over and over, I'm not a magic 8 ball, you aren't going to get a different answer. Dennis Brown 2&cent; 09:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown I can't agree with what you just said. Heated exchanges do not justify canvassing; heated exchanges do not justify hounding; and it certainly doesn't give a pass for disruptive behavior. Heated exchanges can be acceptable, but only when both editors involved can be assumed to be editing in good faith and constructively, which isn't the case here. I think your reasoning gives a pass to Civil POV pushing — that is, an editor who deliberately makes unconstructive edits out of bad-faith is acceptable so long as they give the appearance of civility, or just enough uncivility keep the face of it.
 * But, frankly, this wolf comes as a wolf. The reason I listed the removal of the notices is not because it's prohibited (it isn't), but because it's another case of the editor showing no intention to work constructively like @JML1148 pointed out. See also . This is why I didn't offer a chance to discuss: because they left personal attacks, showed their intent to hound my edits, canvassed two users, and did go to revert and make unconstructive changes to pages I've improved. I don't want to have a discussion with someone with that behavior — who would?
 * If you're not going to give a different answer, would you at least be willing to look it over if the hounding/canvassing/edit-warring/etc. continues? Because now the onus is on me to be civil with an editor who isn't — to be constructive to an editor who isn't — on the pages I've worked to improve, to an editor who isn't trying to improve them. GuardianH (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) GuardianH (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is "You damage this site and it has to end," and "You are a wrecking ball," not a personal attack? This wasn't a 'heated exchange', as you put it, it was one editor personally attacking another. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Afghan.Records
Talk page is full of warnings by different users, which they don't seem to have paid much attention too, as their edits really haven't changed. If you click here and Ctrl + F "reverted", you'll see a lot of yellow on your screen.

They just recently made more disruption at Pashtuns. They made a edit under the edit summary "Added some more crucial information about the origin if Khalaj" - except they forgot to mention the part where they removed sourced info about scholarship currently considering the Hephthalites to have been Turks. Another edit just right afterwards, where they added the info "This believe has been further supported by The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 which attests the Bactrian tribes to be ancestors of Pashtuns." And suspiciously with no page, so I did a quick Ctrl + F on that source (page 771), and it did not fully support what Afghan.Records added; "The Panjshir then provided a route to the Paropamisadae mountains and to Kabul. The district of this route was Fo-li-shi-sa-t'angna, i.e., *Parshistan. Its inhabitants were probably the Parsii and Parsietae tribesmen - possibly Pashtuns." No mention of Bactrians, and it only says "possibly". Didn't check the rest of the info added, nor the two other edits, they might pose the same issues. EDIT: Their response to this ANI report makes it hard to have WP:GF imo, the evidence is literally right here; "Previously forgot to add the page of one of the 4 sources. Now fixed, if you have any objections go to talk page. Also, accusing me of miss representing sources is a claim and shows one inability to read properly without being biased."

So in other words, they tried to push the same stuff about the Khalaj (minimizing Turkic connection, increasing Iranian/Bactrian connection) when they first started editing and edit warring at Khalji dynasty back in April 2023 (down below), which led to their block. See also

And there was also these episodes;

They're also edit warring by adding non-WP:RS, completely ignoring WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:AGEMATTERS. It seems those rules only count when it's information that Afghan.Records doesn't agree with it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Another citation wrongly used again
 * 2) On 24 June where they randomly commented on others background and tried to back up their own statement with badly cited non-WP:RS
 * 3) On 13 September at Ghurid dynasty they added (cherry-picked) a bunch of non-expert and non-WP:RS citations to push an Afghan/Pashtun origin, completely ignoring the current scholarly consensus mentioned in the article.
 * 4) On 29 November and 10 December, they randomly removed sourced info at Ghilji, no edit summary either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * More source misrepresentation, relying on a WP:PRIMARY source again and which states no such thing . --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They're now trying to pov push the Bactrians as "Afghan" (unsourced and not even remotely backed by scholarship) . This is blatant WP:TENDENTIOUS, can admin action please get taken? This user is obviously unable to edit neutrally, I fail to how see they're a networth to this site. Also, they randomly accused someone of nationalism and racism just for reverting them... HistoryofIran (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And now they're edit warring (again) and ironically accusing me of pov pushing . HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They've now violated WP:3RR and this talk section demonstrates clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE issues (including more random WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA) . HistoryofIran (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone has hacked my main account User:Shaan Sengupta
Someone may have logged into my main account User:Shaan Sengupta. He/She is doing disruptive edits with my username. I want my old account to be blocked immediately and transform all my credits to this account. I was an extended confirmed user. Thank you User:Shaan Sengupta 2.0 Shaan Sengupta 2.0 (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A bad try at trying to get me blocked by any means. Can we get this impersonator blocked asap? This should be termed as the worst try.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 07:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @El C it seems you are active right now. The impersonator has even signed with link to my account. Can you please block him asap.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 07:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @DMacks Thank you so much. This was a big try. I believe this was in response to my frequent filings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007 where I have got the socks blocked.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 07:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, was preoccupied elsewhere, but glad it got quickly resolved, Shaan Sengupta. El_C 07:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @DMacks @El C Although blocked shall I file SPI to see if this was a try by that person only?  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 07:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the details to answer that conclusively. Wouldn't hurt, though. El_C 07:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think would be better if I go to the talk page of the CU involved in the case because I actually have two suspected cases. Thanks for the block and the advice to both of you.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 07:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am also not familiar with that sock-drawer or this topic-area generally. From their behavior, it's clear they are NOTHERE and are a sock of someone, so I could act directly on that. So I agree it's a good idea to follow up by filing it somewhere if you have an idea who's behind it, and it's up to you where to start that. DMacks (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * CU already matched and tagged it. DMacks (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just wrote a long request at my talk page pinging every Admin/CU involved with those socks only to see after submitting that this has already been done by Spicy.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 08:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Atmospherpolyphonic
Would an uninvolved admin please have a look here and help, if possible. This user had a rough start at an AFD with an article about which they're passionate, and as a result of bludgeoning and battleground behavior, I removed their access to edit the discussion and the article. They remain free to edit any other part of the project. They have raised some concerns about another editor and I directed them to file a report (personally, I see no merit but always happy for others to weigh in), but instead they've moved the bludgeoning to their Talk where they are relitigating the same issues with a side of WP:RGW. tried to help them, but I think we're at a standstill here. I now view myself too Involved to take further action, so leaving it to the community. Thank you. Star  Mississippi  01:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The AFD in question is Articles for deletion/Indie soul. I'm at a complete loss on how to help them. Every time I try to explain policy or proper conduct, they change the subject and complain about a litany of other things or editors. They refuse to stop cast aspersions. It's hard to get them to stay on topic for more than a single comment. Sergecross73   msg me  01:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is with soetermans he did not genuinely try to help. He is the problem. You are not involved and did nothing but respectful and thoughtful communication. You did nothing wrong but for not equally apply rules late in the process.  Tt was a reasonable stance to stop me from using the talk page but Soetermans should have been warned a week ago. And for him to drop in the continued polite insults at after the ban. His behavior should have been acknowledge and corrected by literally any other person than the first commenter. @Sergecross73 also did not perpetuate any overtly ill behavior and did try to offer assistance. It was just failure to address the other behavior while focused on mine.  There is no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS&redirect=no occurring in the article. There is no topical righting happening. The inferences occurring are to the wronging in the omnipresent of the actual happenings.Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However you stating that @Soetermans "tried to help" is quite questionable. Given that he started the proceedings, the actions he took and the language he used. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do acknowledge and appreciate you doing this on behalf of a salient article and important subject and because of being made aware of the issues I raised wether you agreed or not. I in no way view your interventions with any malicious or unreasonableness. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Noting that I closed that AfD as draftify. El_C 02:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sergecross73   msg me  02:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that is a perfectly fine solution regarding the article itself. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad you (both) agree! El_C 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also like my ban lifted on the draft portion so I can continue to improve it as was all I was working on in the first place. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you try editing it? Because those partial blocks shouldn't affect your ability to do that. El_C 02:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @El C my p-block may have transferred with the page move. I have no objection to this appeal however. Star   Mississippi  02:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's how it works. Anyone? Anyway, I declined the unblock request contingent on the draft passing the WP:AFC process back to the WP:MAINSPACE. El_C 02:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether it's how it should work, but when I went into Twinkle, it showed @Atmospherpolyphonic as blocked from the draft. I have unblocked them from there so you may edit the Draft directly. I can't seem to block them from the now non existent mainspace article either manually or through Twinkle but I am going to take it on good faith that you won't abuse this @Atmospherpolyphonic Star   Mississippi  02:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will not. My only goal was translating a genre paper I was assigned on "Indie-soul" into a competent wiki article after having noticed there wasn't one up. We got assigned a research paper for one class and then were asked to do wikipedia assignments by another. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing in outside editors to deal with the actual article related matters. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes the block carried over and I can't continue to improve the draft. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @El C.
 * As I noted on their talk, I leave e@Atmospherpolyphonic's appeal to an uninvolved admin. I have made recommendations for how they should proceed but believe an independent set of eyes is what they deserve. @Atmospherpolyphonic thank you for your measured input here. Star   Mississippi  02:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-opened

 * It is 4:07 (in the AM) here and if needed I'll reply in more detail tomorrow. I just saw this:

"Professor *******, I believe I have found my topic for my last semester thesis and for consideration by JIPEL. It would be entitled. “Indie Soul...How a white man from the Netherlands told me Black Culture was made up.”  -Systemic Modern Day Bias in Music.

I have stumbled upon it by accident. I recently began editing on wikipedia as per our class assignment from Dr. ********. Within almost my first interactions I had a subject flagged for what I was told by a user “I made it up” and “that doesn't exist.” Then when that was turned down immediately he again attempted to delete it for not being an important subject.

What started off as a polite interaction quickly turned in to some very inflammatory and coded language. It reminded me of your lecture on the 'studio system economic exploit of the underprivileged '

Almost in lockstep with the original flagger a systemic group of “authoritives” stepped in and saw I, the ‘new’ editor, as the disruptor and failed to acknowledge the flaggers behavior and unjust treatment and applications. They used existing rules to point to the deficits in my behavior while not applying to the establish presenter. My continued requests for comment on that portion of it led to me being labeled a 'bludgeoner' and being blocked from editing on the topic.

I think it will make an excellent paper in comparing and contrasting the black artist movements messages of the 60-70’s that were covered in last semesters class.

I will be able to adhere to the proscribed quote and interview portion by using the message board portions of the conversations in the openings.

I would also like permission to include a duet 'thought piece” portion as part of the submission and would need permission to increase the page count, as I want to submit it at my internship this summer at the magazine. I think it would be well received by ********** and. Professor ********** has said she thinks it’s a great idea and will submit it to her editor at ********."


 * I have repeatedly asked Atmospherpolyphonic to stop bringing race into it. I haven't said anything about my ethnicity and haven't asked about theirs, nor have I made a comments about theirs. The article in question, when I originally requested a speedy deletion, looked like this, but apparently Atmospherpolyphonic is of the opinion it is highly important to American Black culture. I did a WP:BEFORE check, couldn't find reliable sources
 * Atmosphere Polyphonic on their part made comments about music from the Netherlands for which they received a final warning. Now a threat to be featured in scholarly research where I'm described as "a white man from the Netherlands". After already being asked and warned several times to stop this. This is racist behaviour. Pinging in case they missed the comment on their talk page.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise for putting this below the closed discussion, but I'm on my phone which is about to die. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting I'm seeing this as I'm about to log off for the evening. No objection to this sub section, nor it being reopened if that's better. Star   Mississippi  03:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed you failed to cite the comment in full as well as the commentary around it of a lack of faith in neutrality and fairness(which is why Mississippi put this here)...as well as a time stamp denoting it occurred before this noticeboard discussion ever took place, and on my own talk page responding to the other two parties on this. "I have figured out how to get another significant source for whomever takes over the editing of the page and found a better forum for my voice. Wish me luck."  Also of note, there is no threat or racism on my behalf and that is indeed exactly what I am doing in my academic career precisely because of this incident.


 * I am multicultural and have no issue with any cultural groups of people and would never presume to know about another culture. I would have the self awareness to ask many questions. I also have no interest in continuing to litigate for a solution that everyone (besides you) is happy with. And all of this could have been avoided with a more thoughtful choice in your interactions, particularly after I raised some concerns and questions. I have repeatedly asked you for a cultural sensitivity and thoughtfulness. Discussing an article dealing with cultures you are unfamiliar only becomes relevant when you aren't not doing so. It seems like you assume your demands should be fulfilled while ignoring others peoples you deem less.


 * Why are you so determined to erase something you now should know is everywhere and could read the importance of it to another community. Why don't you just say you made a presumptive mistake, due to a lack of awareness, and you were wrong and move on, and didn't mean to be insensitive? Not once has that happened. That is the biggest question here.

If this is reopened I would ask that administrators conduct a thorough examination of SOETERMANS pejorative uses of WP:COMPETANCE WP:SOAPBOX WP:RIGHTOFWRONGS along with the lack of adherence to wiki policies in relation to speedy deletes and AFDs with particular difference/communication/mentorship of new users is examined closely. An advanced user (15+years) should be held to a very high standard and should not be using that knowledge carelessly or with malice against inexperienced community members. I apologize for having to respond. You have dragged all these people into this and are taking away from societally additive activities. I was, and am, done with dealing with this individual. He seems unsatisfied with the draft conclusion. Which raises more question about why he is so determined for this to disappear. AND you appear to have continued to edit for 34 more min(at this point) so maybe your phone didn't die? I will let another editor deal with you having called me a racistNo_personal_attacks, blankety, in front of everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmospherpolyphonic (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also after some further research into what exactly is going on and having felt things were "off" this whole time. I have noticed a number of occurrences in which SERGE AND SOETERMANS have interacted on their talk pages, articles, and appear to be very closely connected in some manor or have some type of relationship. This seems to fall into an undisclosed WP:COI meat in relation to him "happening" to immediately jump in and being the first voter/commenter? Who offered blanket support?

Soetermans was additionally previously banned for WP:COI "Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

"This arbitration case, for which you were named as a party, has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Please note that you are named in the following remedies: 6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months. 8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines. For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)"

He also received rebuke for similar article treatment behavior. "Don't remove entire sections from articles, don't make drastic changes without prior talk page discussion (unless they can be construed as "bold editing" as per Wiki rules) and provide better edit messages than "Nuked" without any further explanation. Reading your user page it's painfully obvious you know all about Wikipedia rules so there's no excuse for you to act this way. Since this is your first obvious malicious edit I won't report you to the vandalism board. This is concerning this edit in particular, which is unacceptable behavior from a paid community member. 2804:431:F705:AE3E:A62:66FF:FE99:6A71 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)" He Also has posted very insensitive comments to talk pages “Have you tried talking to a family member or a friend about your feelings and situation? There is also professional help."

More Pejorative and insensitive comments "Why are you so upset with another editor for such a long time? You remind me of an xkcd cartoon: "someone is wrong on the internet". Regardless, there is also a longer even an indefinite edit protection possible. Your threats aren't exactly intimidating. And why the message every time? Why not be original, creative at least? The "you are a d0rk and watch p0rns" looks like something a very young person would write, including changing the letter o to the number 0. In your message here, you've changed o to ø. It's not as edgy as you think it is. Imagine being a dork and watching pornography! My heavens! What would the neighbours think? Lasty, have you tried finding another hobby? A cooking class maybe? Why not go on a long hike for a change. Have you tried meditation? Or masturbation even? Maybe that will help you release some frustration. In the end, you're just wasting your own time. I hope the best for you! Enjoy life! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And a number of comments that seem to center around other peoples cultures.

Since I am not familiar with these things, and was able to find this in a very rudimentary way. I am quite certain an admin user will find more such behaviors. [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmospherpolyphonic (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Atmospherpolyphonic, you need to be more mindful about signing your user name plus timestamp to every comment. The format of this subsection is already rather unconventional, so unsigned comments make it damn near unreadable (to tell who is saying what when). I've already signed your user name for you three times on your talk page, and I see the same thing happening here, but ultimately it's your responsibility (i.e. an essential component of requiered competence). Thanks. El_C 06:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * copy Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * So the WP:ADHOMINEM continues, great., can't we just cut to the chase here? They have shown zero intentions of changing their tune. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also like to remind everyone involved issued a final warning earlier this week, but that didn't stop them from [this. [[User:Soetermans| soetermans ]]. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My brief reading of this is that Atmospherpolyphonic could quite easily have been blocked for their persistent (and baseless) accusations of racism against Soetermans during the AfD, but were given a second chance. However, I am pretty sure that threatening to write a thesis on that same baseless claim is well over the line here.  My inclination is that enough is enough now, but I will wait for others to comment. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you need to not be brief. Because that is not the situation. The chase is his Speedy was proven faulty. His AFD was lacking in procedure and advised behavior. The first commenter and +1supporter who is suppose to be unbiased, I have now found 100's and 100's if not 1000's of overlapping comments and discussion between the two of them and instances of them working together going back 8 years. And I provided factual instances of his behavior towards people and his previous warnings and year long suspension for behaviors that correlate to this situation. SO my original assessment that it didn't seem right, that rules were not followed, the supposedly unbiased party was not treating us equally and was failing to correct him after he said some very suspect comments to me and the talk pages, and that the AFD appeared to be a show trial have proven to be right on the nose.  I may have erred in my understanding of how to do something properly, and even in saying something before I found all the evidence. But every single thing I have said I have found further evidence of. WHICH I SHOULDNT HAVE NEEDED BECAUSE ALL I WAS DOING WAS A ASSIGNED SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT. Just a guy minding his business and having someone calling the cops because I was watering my lawn. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And doing a thesis isn't a threat. That is a factual thing that has occurred because of what I am viewing as an unjust situation and I have now submitted and is hopefully now happening. If that is threatening it would only be because someone has done something they are embarrassed of. I would be delighted to have my thoughts and comments included in someones thesis. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet none of that - none of it - justifies your persistent attacks on him. Where did he specifically say "Black Culture was made up"? Let's be clear here - if you repeatedly, and baselessly, accuse someone of racism here, you get blocked. Now, you could withdraw everything you've said above (you can strike it out by using and tags at either end), concentrate on editing the draft article as you were asked to, and stay well away from Soetermans; or the only alternative is that you are blocked.  It is your choice. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I AM VERY HAPPY TO EDIT. That is what I had been doing and moved on and this had been closed. SOETERMANS then reopened it after I had had ZERO further interaction once Mississippi gracefully realized that something wasn't right and needed outside opinion. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, he reopened it (quite rightly) after he noticed your posting about this thesis. So, again, where did he say "Black culture is made up"? Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And in response to your question after him being told that indie soul was an actual thing and had a large african-american community component he stated "that I made up the word" and speedy deleted when even a simple google returns like several million mentions. Fortunately GB immediately rejected that and said no indication that the user made the term up. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And this is an example of my thoughtful initial interactions. That then resulted in him aFding the article 15 minutes later. After being up for less than an hour.
 * I will add the sources, sorry for working in a backwards method, I just realized there hadnt been any work done in the area and was doing so. I have sources for all. Will address now. As far as Every Noise All At Once. It is probably the most authoritative database of music in the world actually. It is a AI based database that a guy(Glenn McDonald) developed many years ago to Map music and music styles. Spotify hired him and bought the database and it is one of three prongs of everything that spotify does for suggesting similar music. He was just fired last month but for the past many years he has run Spotifys music catalog. He is considered the peimenatie voice on music genre and connective sounds. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * I didn't realize that this would at all be controversial/contested because it was quite widespread and normal to me. My apologies. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * If you are interested in music sound history and or music genres his book is amazing. Its called you have not yet heard your favourite song
 * Hey, Im not trying to get in an argument here, I just sent you a couple articles quickly in our side chat. An admin already removed the speedy deletion and you seem to have added it again. This is 100% a music genre did you not google it? I am not sure why this seems adversarial, that was not my intention at all.
 * I have no natural inclination to fight with anyone and have had mostly a great experience with all the other editors except for the two parties that I now realize where tag teaming me in a way that didnt make sense....because it wasn't actually impartial. And that the neutral party was failing to acknowledge that in the context someone quoting SoapBox, RighterofWrongs, and Competence at me were inherently problematic language. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So, in the end, he didn't say "Black Culture is made up", he said you'd invented the "indie soul" music term. Correct? Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe he used phrases like Black American Music or American black music. And what I kept saying is that the subject matter and interactions and I were being treated with Systemic bias which I at first stated I thought was completely unintentional but felt funny. And tried to get a pause and acknowledgement that maybe there could be some cultural differences and misunderstandings at issue. And was told basically to shut up and this isn't the place for righter of wrongs and soapbox. That is when things really got wonky. Zero "seeking to understand" or acknowledgement or second thought from an advanced user and a completely disregard of the fact I was pointing out the lack of cultural sensitivity when much was needed.  He was the only one who has said the term race or racist. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please show the diffs. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about you apologize for what should now be very clear was very offensive language to a new community member just trying to edit an article for school. If you didn't mean to do that, that should be very easy. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My illustrative points were Satire because I was in shock at the lack of awareness and equally applied commentary. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't work like that. And now you're claiming "I believe he used phrases like Black American Music or American black music.", again without any proof to where he actually did that. You are lying persistently and I am running out of patience. This is your last chance. Strike out all the false statements you've made about the other editor, or I will block you. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not lying? Have you not looked at the talk page and the edit page. I literally am copying and pasting quotes?
 * "And in order to assist in your zealous concern of a proliferation of music genres I found a very alarming grouping of Dutch music misdeeds you may be more familiar with and in need of your mighty Afd wand. They seem to have had more than 20 minutes to exist and be improved and I thought I would alert you to the nefarious presence to alleviate what I know will be anguish.
 * Whereas this subject...that you twice stated that I made up...has copious media coverage, writings, films decades of traditions, 10'000's of artists, and is currently in the top 20 genres listened to on Spotify. But we both know it "doesn't exist" has already entered a review process. We have to keep an eye on black people and their "music."
 * Nederpop
 * Jumpstyle
 * Tumba (music)
 * Mainstream hardcore
 * Dutch jazz
 * Indorock
 * Dutch hip hop
 * Rock music in the Netherlands
 * I will check in on them to see how your AFD's are going...we can't have too much dutchness running rampant on our spaces, you know? Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "No, I have no issue with the Netherlands, love it, been there many times. The issue is someone from the Netherlands, tried to speedy delete(got insta-rejected) then immediately AFD something that was less than an hour old. Accused me of "making up something" twice, didn't do his own research, didn't follow wiki guidelines, quoted "Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or the place for your to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." and WP:COMPETENCE (all in contrivance of the stated wiki policies including. Do not use in a dispute with a writer" and not one person has acknowledged so, issued a warning, questioned it. It was
 * I provided a list of Netherlands music genres that arent AFD and have been on for years to point out a Satire(which by its nature is directed at people with more power), and witty I might add casting light on the double standard. It would be hilarious if it wasn't true. Then has the audacity to try and come up with different sets of other rules to put something down.
 * To be taking place on a topic about a genre that was a catalyst and that is heavily tied in to the social justice and the African American experience." Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realize that Ive been doing this for like two weeks and basically the entirety of my experience has been dealing with this in a way that is has clearly not been very equitable. I am doing my best to explain. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * """Thank you for your thoughtful response. I was not borderline saying it I was trying to say it without saying it in an inflammatory way that the music genre is African American derived and it is unsurprising that a white person in the Netherlands would not be aware. The frustration lies in the fact that it is such a pervasive term and genre that a google search will return 1000's of artist who call them selves indie soul or soul pop and 10x100's of references to artists being so at every notable music publication. It would equivalent to someone trying to speedy delete an article on Highlife which is like the most popular music in the entire Africa continent. And given Racial bias on Wikipedia it seemed like a classic example of that when I only was doing it because I noticed a shocking absence. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And. What would have been appreciated was his assistance in correcting an error in application. Rather than him not following wiki's own step by step method and instructions for suggesting deletes and then turning around and try to use different wiki rules against the article. If there is this level of pushback against a very mainstream topic on music that happens to derive and be more reflective of black cultures, imagine if it was something less pervasive, that white people have no context of. There was simply no reason to push deletion so readily while he knew I was in the middle(literally) of doing exactly what I was suppose to. And then him not following the basic steps that wiki lays out to handle something an editor finds and then saying things that he hadnt research that were entirely a personal perspective and opinion. The double standards of the situation and behavior on a black topic was jarring as an early article experience. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You really need to cool it with the unnecessary racial assumptions. You are not helping your case at all. We're talking about a musical genre. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or the place for your to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Instead, try to find WP:THREE reliable sources that speak of 'indie soul' in detail. Articles, think pieces, scientific research, newspapers, magazines, you name it, that actually discuss it, so not in a passing mention. Don't bring race into it, don't say others need to use Google, don't copy-paste dozens of random links that just mention it, stop WP: CANVASSING. Find three sources. soetermans. """ Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything I am saying is reflective and accurate. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Soetermans >> ""A PBS series that describes itself as "Indie Soul Journeys is a television music docuseries devoted to the personal inspirational and musical stories of independent soul, R&B, and urban alternative artists who are still following Black American Music traditions in the modern musical era. might definitely have the title 'indie soul'". But again does not somehow mean it is its own musical genre.>>
 * --- Literally the PBS series episode was titled " Profile of Eric Roberson, the "King of Independent Soul Music."" https://www.pbs.org/show/indie-soul-journeys/#:~:text=Nicknamed%20the%20%22King%20of%20Independent,for%20international%20Indie%20Soul%20success. So he tells me it doesnt exist when the name of the series is Indie Soul. The guy identifies as the King Of Indie Soul. The title of the episode and description refer to it. But his comment is that doesnt mean it exists. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said. I'm direct quoting from a pretty good memory as best as I can search for what I am referring to. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't say I didn't give you every chance. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that was a lie, in other words. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you stop with the unnecessary usage bold text? It makes more difficult to read. Thanks. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, tag teaming? Which other editor are you talking about? So much for WP:AGF. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please present the diff where I said that. You went through my edit history, when did I use those words? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything I am saying is reflective and accurate., would you be so kind to take action? Thank you. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything I am saying is reflective and accurate., would you be so kind to take action? Thank you. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Frenchl

 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143

This is a long-term disruptive editor - their talk page is littered with warnings, template or otherwise, for disruptive editing, and their conduct has been raised twice before at ANI.

They have an apparent current obsession with editing French footballers, in the context of nationality, making edits like this and this, often 'supported' by questionable sources, adding inappropriate nationality categories to people with acquired citizenship or those with citizenship through descent.

So, in the Vandam example, he is a French footballer who also has (apparently) Ghanaian citizenship, as his parents are from the country. It is right to call him a 'French footballer' - it is incorrect to describe him as a 'Ghanaian footballer', even though he is a footballer with Ghanaian citizenship.

Out of a soccer context, it would be like calling Steven Seagal a 'Russian actor' or 'Serbian martial artist' because he also has those citizenships. I hope that makes sense!

The issue has been raised multiple times, by multiple editors - see User talk:Frenchl and User talk:Frenchl and User talk:Frenchl, all to no avail.

I therefore propose a topic ban for Frenchl, construed widely, related to the addition, removal, or amendment of wording or categories related to nationality or citizenship. GiantSnowman 20:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you serious ? Vandam is Ghanaian since 1988, French since 2000, how can you say he is not Ghanaian ? Frenchl (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While he has both nationalities, he was born and lives in France and plays for French teams. In any case, this is a content dispute and appears to have been discussed several times already, and it is best to focus on the behavioral issue than on the content issue itself, even though both are still obviously linked. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He was born Ghanaian, became French 12 years later. Invisibilising his Ghanaian nationality is discriminatory and that's not how WP:FOOTY works at all. Frenchl (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I expect an apology from Giantsnowman. His behaviour as an administrator has been problematic for a very long time. Frenchl (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You should not expect one, because he is absolutely correct, as any persual of your talk page will indicate - you have been here 6 months, and there are a dozen or more issues there on issues with your nationality editing - this has been problematic for a significant length of time, and you need to stop doing it. In the July 2023 ANI report linked above you only escaped a sanction because you stopped being disruptive, and now you are doing it again. My constructive advice to you would be to stop edits that impinge on the nationalities of players (and anyone else, especially BLPs), and get on with something more useful. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet Frenchl persists in making these edits. GiantSnowman 21:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support such a ban. My repeated attempts to undo the damage they did after a mass removal of nationality categories and attempts at a discussion about nationality categories resulted in them bringing me to ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143) over it?! Mason (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also is it possible for someone to close that discussion? Mason (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more than closed, it's archived. JM (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's helpful/reassuring Mason (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Frenchl has been here for 6 months and has more than seven thousand edits already? That is impressive! I think we need to get reassurances from that they will try their best in reading and applying the consensus policy in their edits and discussions. Maybe some sort of probation for 6 months before imposing a topic ban or block? Regards,  Thinker78  (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Category changes are pretty quick to implement. Personally, I don't think that reassurance about consensus will solve the incivility issue. Mason (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a very similar rule of thumb in dealing with dual-citizenship in ice hockey bios: that what a player chooses, which national teams he plays for, where he lives and (potentially) where he votes are the determining factors. We could just as well say to you that "invisibling" (WHT?) this player's French nationality is discriminatory.   Ravenswing      00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So why is Sebastian Ylönen categorized as a Finnish ice hockey player ? Frenchl (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article describes him as French, but he is categorized as both a French and Finnish player. Which should probably be the case in all cases of multiple citizenship like this, as it would be better than the status quo. But if it's done against consensus, then I suppose it would be considered problematic (hence this ANI?) JM (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a proof from Ghanaian government that Jerry Van Dam, whose nickname, by the way, is Ghanaboy, and who holidays in Ghana every summer, had a postal address in Nsawam, Ghana, in 2012: (p.1362)
 * What's more, when he started playing football, he was only a Ghanaian footballer, having only acquired French nationality at the age of 12. Frenchl (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing with you that he's Ghanian, you don't have to prove anything to me. But you yourself say he has (acquired) French nationality. Maybe your issue is that he's not ethnically French, but I would assume that the categories refer to legal nationality i.e., citizenship, not ethnicity. Given he is legally of both Ghanian and French citizenship, he would be in both categories if we are to follow Ylönen as a standard. But I that's a content issue, not an ANI issue. JM (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am referring solely to legal nationality as defined by the United Nations, I'm not interested in ethnicity here. Although on social networks, in his bio, the player first uses the Ghanaian flag and only then the French flag, I don't have a problem with the fact that he's only described as French in the text. It's the absence of his Ghanaian nationality in the categories that bothers me. There may be some subjectivity in the text, but the categories have to be objective, I think. Frenchl (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are getting distracted here - this is not a content issue, it's a behaviour issue. The fact that Frenchl continues to argue here speaks volumes. GiantSnowman 18:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The content isn't important, the issue is how they are going about making changes to the content. They have been entirely unresponsive to the behavior issues being raised. Mason (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Giantsnowman, I'd like to remind you that you opened this discussion because of a content issue. You're the one highlighting the case of Jerry Van Dam, comparing him to Steven Seagal when they're obviously opposites (Seagal became Serbian in 2016, Van Dam is Ghanaian from birth). You're an admonished administrator, the least you could do is set an example and admit that you made an error in judgement.
 * Mason, you accused me of wikilawering and being pedantic for asking you to respect Wikipedia's rules on categorisation, which you blatantly ignored. The behavior issues are not on my side. Frenchl (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Frenchl for overall disruptive editing, includng civility, WP:IDHT, and WP:NOTHERE. Looking at this ANI thread, the past two threads on ANI, and this user's talk page, it's obvious they are way more of a WP:TIMESINK than they are a benefit. If another admin disagrees, they are more than welcome to unblock without discussing me and then deal with this user going foward. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I was coming here to note his condescending talk page post they left me. A good block. GiantSnowman 18:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI they've now blanked their talk page, including the ban notice Mason (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jauerback I humbly request you review your block, maybe at least turn it into a month-long block with a 6 month probation. I don't know how often do you come by an editor that makes 7,000 non-automated edits in 6 months after starting their account. As a non-administrator, to me it seems a pretty good achievement and I think that the guy has a lot of potential for Wikipedia if they can edit with less undue disruption. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem, though, and I think at least several admins would agree, is that this editor has spent the last seven months editing incredibly aggressively, making mass edits, often against consensus, and has shown very, very little contrition or even willingness to listen when made aware of the disruption their work has caused. It's not that all of their edits are bad. It's that almost all of their comments, retorts, reactions, and complaints are condescending, rude, uncivil, and/or dismissive. If an editor makes 7,000 edits in six months and falls afoul of some rule or practice that lands them here, but all the while shows an understanding of what they've done wrong, you'd be making a solid point. But this editor has done just the opposite. I strongly support the block. Anwegmann (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite - we're not talking about 7,000 good edits, but we are talking about 6 months of disruption. GiantSnowman 09:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to point out even you who has criticized the editor plenty had asked for topic ban not for indefinite block, if I am not mistaken. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This indefinite block is spot-on and, to the opposite of Thinker78's position above, I humbly request the blocking administrator leave it exactly as is. Quality over quantity, and the editor has exhibited a wide catalogue of disruptive behaviours in that six months. Daniel (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, "indefinite" does not mean "infinite". Modifing this block to a month (or any other specific timeframe for that matter) just means that Frnechl can wait it out, and when the block expires, they can pick up from where they left off. Rinse and repeat, the cycle continues and nothing changes. Frenchl is more than able to post an unblock on their talk page, so there's no need for you to appeal on their behalf. If they wish to edit again, an indefnite block at least forces them to reflect and to then make a convincing case to someone else that they have learned from their mistakes. If another admin chooses to unblock after that, then that's fine with me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand but even though some people are blocked indefinitely, I have seen also blocks of progressive duration. First one day, then 1 week and so on. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I addressed why I didn't do this in my explanation above. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Battleground behaviour / edit warring by Elanoraga
readded a collage image to the infobox here with the edit summary: This is just your opinion and a lot of effort has been put into this picture. It will not be given up easily. Let the edit war begin. [emphasis added]

I reverted their initial recent edit here with the edit summary: Gain consensus at TP for changing lead image and adding a collage (WP:ONUS). There is an open TP discussion here from October, where they sought to add a different collage here.

They have made no post to the TP about their recent edit. This is an article actively watched by some experienced editors. Their edit summary evidences that they are knowingly and willfully initiating an edit war. Their language suggests they are not the novice editor they would otherwise appear to be with only 51 edits. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I replied to you months ago but you didn't. And it's also a World War Zero Collage pictures may definitely be required in such big wars. Please leave me alone let me do my job. I help with pictures in wars like this. I don't post bad pictures anyway, they are all very beautiful, I put a lot of effort into them. Elanoraga (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as much as I realize that effort makes one feel like their work should be featured, it's always best to ask on the talk page before to have a consensus. In any case, please discuss this on the talk page before adding it back, that part is a content dispute. It feels like the main thing Cinderella157 brought up here is that you willingly start an edit war with a battleground mentality instead of working with other editors to gain consensus. While I agree that the picture is a welcome addition, this behavior is not justified. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 16:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting, from a commons perspective, these collages do not cite their originals. It's imperative that we be able to verify the licensing of the them for this derivative-work, and it's not very collegial (to put it mildly) to take full credit rather than giving some to those who actually made those paintings and photos. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I left some notes on your commons user-talk page. It's important to get those issues resolved, or your collages might wind up getting deleted altogether (rather than just an editorial decision about what best to display on a wikipedia article). DMacks (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I just started Wikipedia and I am someone who is very interested in military history. I looked at a lot of big wars in the world. All of them had collage pictures. The Crimean War can almost be called the World War Zero. My goal is not evil or vandalism. I just want to improve. I want to post more beautiful pictures, I'm trying to find all the pictures that can be posted, but for some reason I think they don't like it or they say it's unnecessary or introvement, no, I don't think it's unnecessary. Please give me confirmation I swear collage pictures it looks better like this than in one pictures in like this war pages. By the way I'm Turkish that's why im very interested in Ottoman military history and that's why i improve some pictures. My aim is never evil but I have only one wish please do not remove this picture. Elanoraga (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that you're not evil or a vandal or anything, but Wikipedia, like everything, has a learning curve. You shouldn't see this as an attack on your collages or on your will to help, but as an invitation to continue while learning the rules of how to properly add things to an article (in this case, cite the works used in the collage, discuss it on the talk page to see if everyone is on board, and listen to the points they make if some people do not agree with it). Happy editing, Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay topic can be closed the picture has even been removed the war page. I'm sorry for everything that happened have a nice day all Elanoraga (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the topic is not about including the picture or not. The topic is about being ready to start an edit war over it, which is what we want you to learn not to do from this interaction. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 18:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason i say this is because i posted a college picture again months ago but he removed it directly. I tried to talk to Cinderella but he didn't get back to me (2 month ago) but anyways. I think I will never be able to post pictures on that page again. And they won't let me do it and that's why i gave up my only goal was to improve the picture Elanoraga (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "they won't let you", it's just that, if someone removes something someone else added, the next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. I invite you to read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to learn more about how it works! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will talk to them about this issue for the last time. If there is no decision, I will give up. Thank you all. Elanoraga (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Darryl Kerrigan
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

René Lévesque
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

The King in Yellow
 * 1)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:René Lévesque;
 * 2) Talk:René Lévesque;
 * 3) Wikipedia_talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Diff of ANI notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

This editor is currently subject an unrelated topic ban for gender and sexuality articles, and a general anti-Bludgeon restriction following edit-warring in March 2023. Following the close of an RfC and subsequent discussions at René Lévesque they have been engaging in similar behaviour, including violating WP:3RR with diffs 4-6. Similar behaviour seems to have occurred at The King in Yellow where they referred to other editors as self-appointed RoboCops or content high priests, while jumping into edit war there. They are generally disruptive. Sadly, I think they are generally here to try to make a better encyclopedia but the above is making it harder not easier to resolve content disputes and obtain consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You seem to be the one edit-warring, while Newimpartial is trying to mediate the issue and trying to implement the talk page consensus. Silver  seren C 20:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this 'report' belongs at the WP:AN/EW page. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have warned all three users for edit warring. They are lucky not to have been blocked. As it stands, the Newimpartial version is the stable version, and any editor seeking to diverge from that should seek consensus on the talk page. However, that does not excuse Newimpartial's constant reverting. I also think Newimpartial's repeated edit summary that their version/edits are as per the RFC is simply not correct and somewhat misleading/mistaken - the RFC close at Talk:René Lévesque specifically states that "Just to be clear: the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 21:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The closer also said, However, in this discussion I can't find a consensus that would let me choose between "Canadian" and "Canadian Québécois". In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. The closer then edited the lead sentence to establish the version to which I reverted. So I don't see how I could be mistaken in identifying the version the RfC closer put in place - explaining their reasoning in the RfC close - as per the RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And that justifies your edit warring how...? GiantSnowman 21:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * GS, I reveted to the version put forward as part of the close of an RfC without violating 3RR in face of WP:TAGTEAM editing. Restoring a version produced by a formal process without violating 3RR and while participating constructively on Talk isn't normally considered "bad behaviour", is it? Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree you didn't violate 3RR itself, edit warring is broader than it, and repeated reverts on the course of several days while a discussion is still ongoing fall under this broader category. In this case, to quote the RfC closure, the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided. Editors are at liberty to continue to debate this point. I hope it isn't necessary to have another RfC about it, though. In other words, it would've been ideal to discuss on the talk page whether "Canadian Québécois" or "Canadian" should be the final wording, and that discussion appears to still be ongoing. Neither you nor the users on the other side of the edit war should've kept reverting each other, until the discussion could come to a close. It's only a few days, after all, and helps everyone be cool with each other! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Being on the side that sticks at the end doesn't justify edit warring to get there. Correctness doesn't justify behavior. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bingo. WP:3RRNO does not apply here. GiantSnowman 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Govvy
I am really fed-up with these guys posting to my talk page, User:Profavi1 and User:TheOneSome1, can someone please tell them to leave me alone please. Thank you. And I am pretty sure TheOneSome1, who just started editing in January appears to be a sock, knows too much for a new editor. Govvy (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In their first edit, TheOneSome1 claims to be Bedriczwaleta, an LTA. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was focused (at least what I believe) in sending the message. I could send an email to that user, but what happened happened and can't be reverted. At least I won't cry if things happen. TheOneSome1 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you sent an email to Profavi1. Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  20:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you failed to give a notice to either, I have given the alert to TheOneSome1, but when going to Profavi1's page, it seems they were blocked from editing your talk page. Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  19:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just saw that block now, my frustration is making me negligent, as for TheOneSome, I looked at the contrib history, saw the account was created beginning of Jan and knew about increased protection, page moving, so that didn't sit right with me. :/ Govvy (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The situation only began because you made a grammatical mistake in your edits to Timo Werner, stubbornly insisted it was correct, and engaged in an edit war, then proceeded to insult me about my education!
 * 2) I have already been blocked from your talk page for a week as a result, and the situation is resolved; why are you escalating it further pointlessly? Profavi1 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've blocked, based on their declaration that they are an LTA. Whether they're Bedriczwaleta or not I don't know, but if that's what they assert then I am happy to act on that basis - will request global lock. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * goodjob.jpg Nice! Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  20:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that there were mistakes on the first global lock request, so I'm requesting global lock for TheOneSome1 again. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I'd agree with the OP's complaint against Profavi1, but this is a bit more complicated. Govvy, if you're going to leave up accusations such as I don't trust you, as you appear to be a suck puppet, it seems unfair to deny the other editor a chance to respond. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I missed the second ping in the middle of that comment. My apologies. L EPRICAVARK  ( talk ) 22:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said ProFavi is a sock, I only refer to TheOneSome1 as a sock. As for ProFavi, people can put all sorts of boxes in their user-space, he has one saying he went to Oxford Uni, but based on the way he writes, and posts, I felt I didn't believe that he went. That's just my feeling, he tells me I made a grammatical mistake, but there is no mistake in my editing in a grammatical sense. People seem to be following some weird MOS and not considering the sentence structure when they simply put in the extra loan in the prose. :/ Besides, I think the admins have done a fair job here, I don't think this needs to be pushed anywhere else. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TheOneSome1 has been dealt with; I suggest Govvy and Profavi1 agree not to interact with one another before a formal interaction ban is introduced. GiantSnowman 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Govvy, I haven't look at your interactions with ProFavi at all, but a random thought: going to Oxford and making grammatical mistakes are not mutually exclusive. I don't imagine that their geology, mathematics or biochemistry programmes involve much discussion of the finer points of encyclopedic writing. Implying dishonesty without stronger evidence than that is not really civil. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And going to Oxford and being correct about grammar, as ProFavi was, is even more common. Everyone has the right to say that another editor shouldn't post anything other than required messages on their talk page, so he was rightly blocked from your talk page before this report was even raised, but you, Govvy, should make sure that you are on firm ground yourself before presuming to lecture other people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Profavi1 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * More crucially, I didn't make a grammatical mistake! Profavi1 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Teleoid disruption on John A. McDougall
Teleoid is disrupting the John A. McDougall article and talk-page. This issue has been going on for nearly 4 days. This type of WP:POV behaviour is disrupting and has spilled out onto talk-pages and other noticeboards.


 * Teloid has been repeatedly removed sources critical of McDougall's diet from the article using edit summaries claiming "malicious arguments" have been used, , ,
 * See diffs above, white-washing attempts have included removing mention of "fad diet" from the article multiple times.
 * User filed a false complaint at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard claiming incorrectly that a reliable nutritional textbook did not list of McDougall diet as a fad. After they were proven wrong about this, they quickly dropped that route and started trying to remove other critical sources.
 * After this failed the user added unreliable content.
 * User has a history of removing old comments from talk-pages, example
 * User has a poor understanding about medical consensus with strong opinions about this fad diet, claiming it has saved lives
 * User ignores WP:MEDRS, WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV
 * User has canvassed off-site on a forum asking for people to help them edit the article

There is a long disruptive pattern here of deletions and reversions from this user. I do not believe this behaviour is good-faith, if you check the history of the article you can see this has been going on for days now as on the talk-page. This is not a one off event. Multiple users have reached out to this user to explain policy but they ignore all advice. I suggest a topic ban from editing John A. McDougall or more broadly anything related to diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Teleoid's edit warring and battleground attitude is certainly growing tiresome, as this thread, as well as Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents above, demonstrate.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to address this:
 * Teloid has been repeatedly removed sources critical of McDougall's diet from the article using edit summaries claiming "malicious arguments" have been used [228], [229], [230], [231]
 * Agreed.


 * That's highly opinionated and charged language, I disagree.

'':User filed a false complaint at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard [232] claiming incorrectly that a reliable nutritional textbook did not list of McDougall diet as a fad. After they were proven wrong about this, they quickly dropped that route and started trying to remove other critical sources [233] [234].''
 * The complaint was real. Then I was outnumbered and removed what was questionable in my best opinion, not out of desire to destroy an article or white-wash.


 * I disagree strongly.


 * I correct to clarify what I mean to say yes, not aware it's against the rules. Not hiding anything.


 * I'm merely questioning, and yes this particular diet has saved lives of people I know personally but I'm not posting this on the article, so taken out of context.


 * I disagree and can say the same about you.


 * I have no clue what this is about.
 * I think Psychologist Guy hates McDougall, and by extension hates me for agreeing with McDougall. He uses generalisations about "dangers" of the diet and the few weak sources he managed to scramble himself (including one textbook, which barely mentions the man in some table, while actually allowing that his diet might be completely acceptable, i.e. not to be necessarily avoided). So - slight misrepresentation there!
 * My opinion is that the page is lopsided and defamatory. It's completely out of balance.
 * Again, I apologise for getting my point in a clumsy manner, I'm not good at this wikipedia business, but the person above is giving me a crash course, so thanks for that. Teleoid (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I apologise for getting my point in a clumsy manner, I'm not good at this wikipedia business, but the person above is giving me a crash course, so thanks for that. Teleoid (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. From what I've seen described here and the other ANI thread Ponyo mentioned, this looks like a pretty clear case of an editor being a time sink not only for the community, but especially for those editing in the topic. I do think we need to be more mindful of how damaging editors with an ax-grinding attitude like this can be, especially when experienced editors are stuck having to manage that behavior (and how that affects editor retention/morale). If this continues, it's just going to inflame things even more.
 * I think the main question here is how wide the ban should be. Is it just for McDougall, or a wider area that would deal with fad diets? Others who have been dealing with this would have a better guage on what the best scope is. A broader ban might be more helpful from what I've seen. KoA (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing the comment above I think Psychologist Guy hates McDougall just after I posted, that's pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about Psychologist Guy. When I see editors engaging in tactics like that on top of what I already addressed, I feel like we're reaching WP:NOTHERE overall instead of just nuances of a topic ban. KoA (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I really feel I'm being targeted by @Psychologist Guy ever since he was aiding harrassment towards me by @Hemiauchenia which ended up on this very noticeboard, he was right by his side every step of the way, spilling half truths and distorting everything I say, quietly supporting me being called trash and worse.
 * It's not right to have these self-appointed gatekeepers who bully newcomers or question their dogmatic attitudes.
 * I don't even care so much about the article as much as I'm appaled by the level of discrimination against the subject.
 * It's lopsided and prejudiced, so at least you can make it neutral. Teleoid (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban, per KoA. I'll also point out that this is something that could reasonably be dealt with at AE, if the discussion here falls into the pattern of what often happens at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban per KoA. Classic battleground stuff. As for the scope of such a ban, I'd say diet in general: if Teleoid wants to contribute, they need to learn how to work collaboratively, and that would be best done somewhere where they don't feel the need to right great wrongs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban, absolutely. Suggested scope: plant-based diets, broadly construed. It should have stopped here. Instead, there was this and this and edit warring and restoring a fringe source  and simply refusing to get the point . I think it's premature to speak of WP:NOTHERE; it rather seems to be a typical case of a new user who doesn't understand why their favorite POV is being 'discrimated against' because they do not understand how we evaluate sources. Teleoid should know that they are under the obligation to learn how we evaluate sources, by reading our policy pages but especially also by listening to other users. Evidently, it's best for everyone that they learn this in non-controversial subject areas. Apart from the TBan, I would advise them to stay away from anything that falls under Contentious topics. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on diets and nutrition, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban per KoA and Cullen328, broadly construed. User seems unable to edit in this topic area without vilifying other editors. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 04:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indef. This comment, even after all that has happened, gives no confidence a TBAN will be enough to prevent further problems. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have given Teleoid a 72 hour block for that personal attack. Discussion of other sanctions can continue. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban, this has been going on too long already. I think an indef block is probably over the top at this point, but it would be easy enough to apply afterwards if disruption moves elsewhere. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Request REVDEL
I'm logging off but saw that a REVDEL/Oversight is needed for this. Not sure what the right forum is, but figured someone who can act is watching here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been suppressed. Nothing to see here, literally. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Since the edit was ultimately supressed, you should read the instructions in WP:Oversight and specially the warnings in WP:Requests for oversight, in case you come across something like that again. Specifically, requests for oversight should never be made in public and care should be taken to not bring attention to said edits.
 * Basically, as is mentioned at the bottom of WP:RFO, you revert the post(and revdel if you are a non-oversight admin) and if doing so won't draw more attention to whatever it is, and then you email the oversight team about it.
 * That said, speaking from experience, the oversight team does appreciate people for pointing out things like whatever that was (didn't see it), just be sure to not point it out in public next time :s.
 * – 2804:F14:80CF:A701:1C07:696E:B108:ACC5 (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone seems to have handled this. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 08:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

High-volume unhelpful short descriptions by 110.34.27.228


This editor has been warned numerous times to stop adding unhelpful short descriptions to articles, and has continued to do so in large volumes without acknowledging any warnings. Examples include (and 50+ more identical edits to articles of the form "Religious freedom in ___"), or  (and several more identical edits to articles of the form "Tourism in ___"). "Overview of " is never a constructive short description, and while they have been told to stop adding such short descriptions several times they continue to do so. I am not sure how to get this point across to them. Tollens (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User talk:110.34.27.228. El_C 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

86.19.222.221 reported by Danners430 - repeatedly removing sourced content in articles and ignoring talk page warnings
The IP editor is consistently removing sourced information from British Rail Class 730 and Alstom Aventra, and giving no citation in to verify the information removal.

Diffs:



The editor has been warned multiple times on their talk page about this behaviour, but they have not responded or acknowledged at all, and have instead continued until today to make these edits. In fact, when I went to get diffs for the warnings on the talk page, I realised that each and every warning relates to these two pages... Should action be taken here? Danners430 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User talk:86.19.222.221. El_C 13:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Edits with unsubstantiated claims
has been making multiple edits, adding claims that lack sources or references, which are later reverted by other users and then undone by the IP user. As an example, they've made edits on, which were partially reverted due to being unsubstantiated and then changed back to the original without reason.

This behaviour is recurring, as well as an instance of removing topically relevant content, for which they were warned twice on their talk page.

Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - this IP was already twice blocked for socking by @Drmies, and had TPA removed (maybe that's why they don't reply on their TP? I don't know if it expires with the block, although in this case it's beside the point as they don't care for the warnings at all, as their editing shows). Its latest block ended about a month ago, and it seems to have picked up right where it left off, with an additional case of casting aspersions to top it off. After the inevitable re-block someone will likely have to undo the unsourced changes and the removal of sourced content, but I'm not jumping in that area. Ostalgia (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits for LGBT in Russia were undone because the article substantiates that the new morality laws allows for jail time for the rest of Russia under laws against promotion of LGBT identity and anti-transgender laws while the Chechnya area allows for de facto execution. As for undoing edits by unscrupulous IPs in Capital punishment in the UAE, I was undoing a well known blocked User:Rayanmou07 who has been using ip alts to parrot his actions that got him banned. That "behavior" as you call it is perfectly legit and within Wikipedia guidelines, as undoing sockpuppets edits is permitted. As for you Drunk Experiter, you only existed in 2019 and have been lurking and making few edits until this incident so your edit behaviors of just happening to obsess about the same topics as the blocked user and his ips that I've have undone is more worrying than my edits. These accusations you have made are at best baseless and at worst jarring misuse of incident reporting which was something Rayanmou07 did as well when he didn't get his way. I'm not saying you are him, but you do seem to act like him. Can we throw out this stupid bogus allegation now? 216.164.254.3 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh come on IP, it's kind of sad that you'd point at User:Rayanmou07 and call them "well known [and] blocked"; they're just a bit of a troll, while you have been whining about how unfair the world is since 2014. Isn't it time to grow out of that kind of behavior? Drmies (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

LTA and trolling from HaughtonBrit (accusing unblocked users as sockpuppets in his edit summaries, misuse of WP:DENY)
To make a very, very, very long story short as I've been dealing with this user since October 2021 and his sockpuppets since December 2022, this user as of April 2023 has been using a combination of sockpuppet accounts, IPs that geolocate to Pittsburgh or Pennslyvania, as well as a wide variety of proxies to block evade ever since his account Javerine was blocked-. His modus operandi is to steamroll a religious nationalist agenda on Wikipedia and he'll brutally, incessantly, unrelentingly harass and intimidate users he percieves as a threat to his agenda as well as pushing tendentious edits particuarly in military related pages that his co-religionists were involved in.

Also see some of this user's IP block logs since April 2023- nad.

He has crossed the line again by calling an ublocked user a sockpuppet in his edit summaries with this IP range-. This is unacceptable, he was previously trying to post on an admin's talk page with a sock account trying to get this account blocked earlier as well-. This is flagrant harassement and Wikipedia should ban the IP range for harassment and block evasion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Suthasianhistorian8 is the one falsely calling me sock of HaughtonBrit. You can investigate and it will be proven without any benefit of doubt that users Leviathan12 and Monabhaii are none other than socks of KamalAfghan01. Same interest in articles that were vandalized by socks of KamalAfghan01. Quick check will prove it. Suthasianhistorian8 is quite familiar with these socks and deliberately trying to prevent from this findings. This user needs to stop his harassment of other users. 2601:547:B00:CD18:346B:4FFA:4E40:834D (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop accusing other people without proof. If you have evidence of any socking activity, filing it to WP:SPI will be the best to clear it up, instead of repeatedly accusing the editors without bringing any evidence. Previous investigations for context: Sockpuppet investigations/Kamal Afghan01, Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did and see what this user Suthasianhistorian8 did. To prevent sock investigation, he deleted my request and falsely accusing. 2601:547:B00:D373:613C:D03A:DCD9:EE6A (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely unbelievable that this immature troll gets to disrupt Wikipedia for weeks on end without any consequences. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * funny how an immature user calls other immature. Preventing an investigation of suspected sock accounts speaks for itself.2601:547:B00:D373:78E2:D552:EDCE:D74C (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, both of you, just let admins, CheckUsers and SPI clerks sort this out instead of going into petty fighting. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 17:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

,, I saw you two at the SPI--can you have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I blocked a /64 range for, basically, harassment and disruption that seems to me to be consistent with the BritHaughton socks, but that's about all I can do right now. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent block evasion, disruption by Cliff Cash vandal

 * 
 * 
 * 

Most recent blocked account appears to be. More blocks and perhaps page protection for Wiley Cash, as well as speedy deletion of Draft:Roger Cash and Draft:Kristen Hanby for obvious reasons. Once socking is established, general reversions per WP:REVERTBAN. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User:WacoBell, chronic disruptive editing
Seeking Administrator intervention against the user WacoBell. This user previously used the account Sirhewlett and the IP address 100.14.8.37.

Clearly this user shows no interest in changing their disruptive behaviour, request indefinite block be reinstated and extended to the IP address associated with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Trying to keep it concise, user under previous account and IP made large scale disruptive edits for a number of months from late 2022 to early 2023, receiving a number of warnings in the process as seen on the user talk page.
 * User received 24 hour block for disruptive editing as a result of a report I made.
 * User around the time of increased observation by myself on their Sirhewlett account, created the WacoBell account and when caught and reported received an indefinite ban for sockpuppetry.
 * User proceeded to make numerous appeals on their talk page, the latest in December, all of which were declined.
 * Despite in their appeals stating how terrible they felt and promising to change their ways, they engaged in deliberate block-evasion via IP address to continue disruptively editing on at least one known occassion.
 * User was unblocked by appeal to ArbCom on 6th January. User immediately reverted back to previous disruptive behaviour, making edits to the Rhett & Link and Smosh where they inserted statements regarding the nature of Mythical Entertainment's involvement with Smosh that were not backed up by the source they claimed supported it (namely turning the source statement of "as minority shareholders, Rhett & Link will remain involved with Smosh in an advisory capacity" into "only allowed to intervene in financial situations").
 * I placed a warning on their page yesterday, but they have clearly taken no notice, their most recent edit today to edit an article under BLP rules to declare a band in the past tense (implying having broken up) with no source to support this change. while instead article is still at present sourced to support an on-hiatus status.
 * , you unblocked on behalf of ArbCom. I ran a quick CU and it's all over the place in a few ways. I have no doubt there's a ton of logged-out editing, but I'd like for another CU to have a look., I know you looked at this one too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree there is logged out editing going on. Maxim (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing involving that going on. I am not the only one using this IP address. And for the record, there was no disruptive editing going on, I have only edited Smosh and Rhett and Link with a reliable source, please close this down. WacoBell (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of all "their most recent edit today to edit an article under BLP rules to declare a band in the past tense (implying having broken up) with no source to support this change.[277 ] while instead article is still at present sourced to support an on-hiatus status." When the years active section says 1993-2023, they never once said (on hiatus),that is my bad. WacoBell (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have taken notice of the warning, I just did not answer until today. WacoBell (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rambling Rambler I did say that I would change, and I have tried my best to do exactly that, please do not reinstate the block. When I said I would do better, I meant it, give me six months, and I will prove exactly that. WacoBell (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just break down how you're admitting to using that IP that was used for disruptive editing, that you had six months while banned to change your behaviour so clearly six more isn't going to make a difference, and that it's frankly ridiculous to accept that you didn't see the sourced lead saying the band was still around when the infobox you're claiming as a reason to change the page is further down the page, but I think the most pertinent piece of evidence about your lack of contrition is that while you're now here and on your talkpage apologising profusely you've changed your userpage to read:
 * I'm wrong, i haven't done anything wrong, but that doesn't make me less wrong. (emphasis mine) Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I said I was wrong for causing trouble with the Sirhewlett WacoBell TRANSITION, not the IP used, once again, I am not the only one using that IP. WacoBell (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * and another thing. i am semi-retiring for about six months, i wish not to cause any trouble and get blocked again, please read my profile again, also, the I'm wrong bit was a joke. my apologies. WacoBell (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite all this claiming to wanting to learn their lesson and now claiming they're "temporarily retired" they are now continuing their behaviour again, this time with no source adding in a claimed birth date for a living musician.Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a source, please let me know if this is wrong, and I will take myself out of the situation starting now.. https://gingerroot.fandom.com/wiki/Cameron_Lew WacoBell (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @WacoBell, fandom is not a reliable source. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then, see you soon. My apologies. WacoBell (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Further update: WacoBell has now just tried to submit an already existing article they copy and pasted into their sandbox and then pass off as a new article with the only difference being an unnecessary, unsourced infobox. The only reason I can surmise they did this is they thought they'd copied it from a different wikipedia site. Can an admin please deal with this as a matter of urgency at this point.

Creating my user page
Hi, so I'm trying to create my user page but my username that got accepted when I made my account is the reason I can't make it? (User:(゜-゜)) Is there any way I can create it? The block linked me to this noticeboard. (゜-゜) (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I suspect this is something to do with the title blacklist; I created an empty page at that title. See if you can edit it and let me know what happens. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 08:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish people would just stop being so "creative". Drmies (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - names like this should be banned, makes it impossible to easily refer to/ping other editors. Pointless. GiantSnowman 14:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman See WP:Username policy section WP:NOEMOJI - 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. GiantSnowman 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Mrsecurity39 392
Another classical case of a user making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits in Azerbaijan/Iran/Central Asia/Turkic related articles.

If this user was more active (they have 107 edits since 17 January 2022, a lot of which have gotten reverted ), they would have been taken to WP:ANI long ago;


 * 1) WP:SYNTH at Hunnic language
 * 2) Long term edit warring and pov pushing at Luandi throughout several months in 2022, removing sourced info about a possible Iranian connection
 * 3) Pov pushing at Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, trying to minimize the Azerbaijani role in the event, which was reverted by another user
 * 4) Pov pushing at Jie people, changing "other authors have proposed a Turkic language" to "most authors have proposed a Turkic language", despite only one citation being cited and other cited citations saying otherwise..
 * 5) WP:SYNTH at Safavid Iran    and Turco-Persian tradition  (none of the cited sources mention anything "Turko-Persian"), not to mention altering sourced info (removing "Turkified" in the Safavid Iran article)

Random personal attacks;
 * 1) Go ahead, lying and being dishonest is not w good trait to have, but I, can't say I'm shocked.
 * 2) This is the second time Ermwin don't fabricate information that ISN'T there, just for your own COI and or political goals.
 * 3) .....that you're using to fabricate information that ISN'T there, just for your own COI and or political goals.

Based on this, I fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * the sources are there and can be checked you stating that I would be lying about the context of the sources is false, which is a form of lying as I told you afterwards you can check the sources for yourself (while I also cited pages), once Again you or anyone for that matter can check the sources (the ones you attempted to remove during an edit war).
 * You trying to bring up unrelated events (and take them out of context) is a dishonest trait. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about you try to prove me wrong, instead of keep attacking me? I haven't accused you of anything, did you even read what WP:SYNTH means? HistoryofIran (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can admit, name calling isn't a healthy good way of discourse (or for that matter accusing people of lying about sources that they post which is something you did).
 * But you're not exactly proving me wrong now by nitpicking & Pov pushing by spreading accusations based on things deliberately taken out of context, it's more the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * prove you wrong on what exactly? Have I randomly insulted you by calling you a liar after you claimed I was posting sources that don't back up what I edited, even after posting page citations?
 * I could've refrained from saying you lied and were being dishonest, but to claim I provide sources that don't back up my edits (when they did) is lying and had you known and still claimed I lied that would make someone dishonest.
 * Now I can apologise for calling you dishonest, however it is a lie that the sources I used don't back up the edit. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is just a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND at this rate too. Let's see what the two cited citations say (can't even quote the remaining two because you provided no page, so much for backing up your edit). I'm not going to continue discussing with you further, as it's clearly not helpful. I'll wait for an admin verdict. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified."
 * "The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified."

User:بوكوس edit-warring with disruptive/nonsensical edits
This user has been edit-warring to introduce obviously incorrect changes to Battle of Hattin and Siege of Jerusalem (1187)  that are WP:OR at best and WP:HOAX at worst. (i.e. Adding Almohads to the infobox, a northwest African empire irrelevant to these battles, with zero evidence of this in reliable sources.) They've been warned multiple times but are of course continuing to edit-war, even after the last warning, and have not responded or communicated in any other way.

Moreover, all of their edit summaries have been nonsensical garbles: this, which they've repeated again and again in both English and Arabic (e.g., , ). It might be an attempt to describe their sources in the edit summary, but it's not understandable and it would be unhelpful even if it was.

They edit-warred a couple of months ago at Almoravid dynasty in a similar way. They were warned back then too. R Prazeres (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeffed.. POV warrior, bad sources, etc. Doug Weller  talk 11:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour trying to censor free source code and free information in external links
Licit edits of Internet_security and Browser_security regarding Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) as a vulnerability and that included external links to free source code, free technical explanations and security vulnerability analysis have been repeatedly censored by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrOllie in a disruptive manner and without valid reasons.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_security&action=edit&undoafter=1195601169&undo=1195603779 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_security&action=edit&undoafter=1195810810&undo=1195826735 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_security&action=edit&undoafter=1195592326&undo=1195603699 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_security&action=edit&undoafter=1195817202&undo=1195826589 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.54.130.184 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Removing linkspam disguised as a reference is not 'censorship'. You'll have to find somewhere else to promote your 'unofficial WebKit CORS vulnerability patch'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the IP opening this thread twice, but they snuck it back in after I stepped away from the computer., I'm considering converting your pblock of Special:contributions/109.54.128.0/20 to a sitewide block. Any objections? --Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, I already told them I would if they didn't knock it off. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

IP hopping at Murder on the Dancefloor
The IP range 92.40.196.0/22 has been causing problems at Murder on the Dancefloor, specifically 92.40.196.246 and 92.40.196.238. Could someone please take care of this? ResPM (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a partial block from the page to the range's existing partial block, and reset the timer to 6 months. Since they were adding snippets of song lyrics I have also revdeleted their edits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User is now adding unsourced information to articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked a smaller range sitewide. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

New WP:NOTHERE novelty account
<ul><li></li></ul> Not much else to say here, should probably nip this one in the bud.<span id="Remsense:1705369594963:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Remsense  诉  01:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Similar naming pattern to User:Dylan Florida's numerous socks. Zaathras (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Man clearly isn't familiar with this website if he thinks ivy leaguers are a rarity. Mach61 (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, or a Harvard graduate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)