Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

I know, I know, we all thought we were done here, but LB is posting childish attacks on his userpage [1] apparently thinking he is very clever to be posting the names backwards. He clearly has a serious issue with knowing when to drop the stick. This immature foolishness needs to stop. I don't think simply undoing the edits is sufficient, this is a deliberate, malicious provocation right after a thread about his uncivil behavior was just closed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just ignore it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy for you to say, you got "godfather of trolls" on his list of dicks. Top billing even. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how about you just ignore it. Since you're complimenting AndyTheGrump on his "top billing", you're clearly not offended in the slightest. Suggest you find someone else to interact with, for a year or several. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, simple, policy forbids this kind of content anywhere, specifically on user pages. There's no reason to be doing this and nothing good can possibly come of it. It is indefensible. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSS, you complain that Lightburst needs to drop the stick, but it looks to me like you are the editor who needs to do just that. I saw the user page edit, was mildly puzzled by it, but didn't understand the meaning (spell the usernames backwards) until you explained it here. After you posted this and this on Lightburst's talk, you did the opposite and kept watching, looking for something to raise here at ANI. You should unwatch, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've arrived at a conclusion not in evidence. I was not looking for something to raise here at ANI and I don't think shooting the messenger is an appropiate response to trolling. You don't seem to have considered other possibilities, including a third party letting me know my name was being dragged into user space trolling. I didn't expect this, or want it. I never would've imagined that he would actually be this infantile and I don't want anything to do with him, but he keeps bringing my name back up. He's not a victim here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's truly indefensible is the conduct of Wikipediocracy users these past 8 months. The guideline you cite says "statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". The list was related to Wikipedia, in that it relates to the conduct of Wikipedia users on WPO, who have acted in disruptive and hounding behavior. If you don't like Lightburst, simply stop interacting with them. Remove their userpage and talk page from your watchlist. Simple enough solution, instead of dragging them to ANI yet again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? it’s in some kind of complicated indecipherable code. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Floq removed the userpage content that has been objected to here. I agree with that, and I think it solves the problem. I hope that we can all more on, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're just going to let trolling pass from someone who was just at ANI for their ridiculous behavior because one of the targets of the trolling happen to notice they were being accused of trolling/being a dick? Seems totally reasonable. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you see it, then don't feed the troll. (And, strictly speaking, you didn't just "happen to notice".) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does how I became aware of trolling make it not trolling? Is this a special rule just for me or does everyone now need to explain how they baecame aware that their name was being besmirched by a troll? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t appear that the community is going to be able to resolve this matter. Perhaps it’s time to refer the matter to Arbcom, including WPO’s influence regarding the entire mess. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post the same. I don't know the full history here but this seems like an longstanding, intractable dispute between groups of multiple users. It's clearly not suddenly going to be resolved in this ANI thread, especially given the off-wiki element. Pinguinn 🐧 00:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no off-wiki element to LB openly trolling other users on his WP userpage. It's obvious, childish, malicious trolling. Usually that gets a person a block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know how that could work in practice. As much as I appreciate ArbCom for their help in regards to another issue I was involved with earlier this year, I concur with the user who suggested in the last ANI thread that the Trust & Safety team may be the more appropriate venue for this now. There are at least 1-way interaction bans that should be issued against several of the users who have been hounding and gaslighting Lightburst this past year... if not outright site-bans. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been frequently remarked here, in relation to other topics, nobody needs to obtain consensus or consent here at ANI to start an ArbCom case on anything. The same applies to contacting Trust and Safety. My only advice to anyone proposing to do either would be to take into consideration that their own behaviour is also certain to receive scrutiny. And in particular, that the repeated use of noticeboards etc to make allegations about alleged improper behaviour, unaccompanied by evidence to actually back it up, even after it has repeatedly been requested, has real potential to rebound. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the full image, but the userpage diff provided is surely an evidence of unacceptable behavior (uhh, crossing the red line?). If someone can point me out where users are "hounding" LB (as Homeostasis07 said) that'd help me. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such evidence cannot be linked on a public forum like ANI. For instance, AndyTheGrump accused me in the previous ANI of an "utterly evidence-free attempt to link me with imaginary doxxing on WPO." I was indeed doxed by a certain user on Wikipediocracy, who not-so-cleverly repeatedly misspelled my username as "homostasis" when posting what they thought were my personal details. I'm not homosexual, but I have LGBTQ+ friends and family members, so I consider the repeated intentional "misspelling" of my name to be a derogatory slur. But I can't provide a link to those WPO posts without one of the WPO regulars accusing me of doxing them. That's a fairly typical example of WPO harassment, obfuscation, and gaslighting that users here have been dealing with. And it needs to stop. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess ANI thread isn't doing the job anytime soon then. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can find no evidence whatsoever that anyone was 'doxxed' on Wikipediocracy under the misspelled name 'homostasis' I am going to formally request that Homeostasis07 provide evidence of such supposed 'doxxing' by email to a member of ArbCom. Pick any ArbCom member you like. Just ask that they confirm or deny such evidence exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object! Not to all the hot air being blown in this thread, but to my old nicely-organized userpage being turned into a chaotic mess! Images? On the side??? Put them in the centre, like a normal person! Lightburst, you can do better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Htap T - Soldier troll"?

More baseless guilt by association bullshit that lacks any merit. This is the third time in a week that LB has called me a troll. ATG got a block for less than this last time. Do we have different standards for different editors depending on whether there has been pile ons regarding civility in the past? TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if Wikipedia users weren't associating with WPO users provably guilty of wrongdoing, it would be much easier to dispel any talk of "guilt by association". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take your gaslighting and excusing bad behaviour elsewhere. I'm not interested in it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, as an admin completely uninvolved in whatever off-wiki drama keeps getting alluded to here, do we have an editor (i.e. Lightburst) who, while in a dispute with a number of other editors, posted their names under the not-so-cleverly concealed header "dicks" and proceeded to label them as trolls on their user page? And most of you in this thread are, like, ok with that? If I had seen that post before I saw this thread, I would have blocked for 48 hours. Is Lightburst an exception to our policies regarding civility? Because whatever is happening (vague hand wave) over there is one thing, but this is unacceptable behaviour here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So if Editor X trolls Editor Y on WPO, that's OK, but if Editor Y then trolls Editor X on Wikipedia, that's not OK? Levivich (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are incidences of trolling happening off-wiki involving Wikipedia editors, then evidence can be provided to Arbcom. Accusations of such behaviour are not carte blanche to violate our policies here. Are you suggesting that anyone who is in an off-wiki dispute, whether it be WPO or otherwise, can host personal attacks on their talk page regarding active editors on this project? -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "if," we are all 100% sure that trolling is happening on WPO, because it's public. You can go verify that for yourself if you want. Evidence has been provided not only to arbcom, but also posted on wiki. When WPO trolls Editor X, I wouldn't characterize Editor x as "in an off-wiki dispute." Levivich (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPO doesn't have any policies against trolling WP editors, there's nothing we can do about that. But WP does have policies against trolling and LB knows that, so what he did was wrong, and he knows that as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPO may not have policies, but Wikipedia does. Our policy on off-wiki attacks states that personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it and that Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process. So I'm not sure there's strictly nothing we can do about the former. We can and should do something about the off-wiki behavior as much as we can and should do something about the on-wiki behavior. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what LB did was still wrong and he knows that, which is why this report was initiated in the first place. And as you correctly point out and quote, we do have a policy, and there is a process to follow, but for some reason, LB chose not to use that process, and instead, engaged in the same behavior as his tormentors, which can now be used against him as admissible evidence. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that LightBurst hasn't even seen fit to come here and apologise for his behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda easy to tell this 2nd ANI thread is not going to resolve the dispute. Even if this ANI is closed, the same issue would fire up some time later and get taken to ANI again. Where are we heading with this? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the result (or, more likely, lack thereof) of this discussion, I may file at RFAR. Sincerely, Dilettante 02:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are supposed to be preventative. Perhaps a block on LB’s account until they commit to cease the personal attacks? Could be over and done in minutes. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LB is provably not the user responsible for personal attacks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits to his user page are concerning and could be considered PAs. I can’t speak to the harassment on WPO, but I take you at your word that it’s happening. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A block of LB would prevent further trolling. TarnishedPath^talk 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to fly to Arbcom, isn't it? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something going to ArbCom doesn't prevent the community from taking any action. Stating that it should be only handled by ArbCom may be a stalling tactic especially in the absence of an actual case. Even if a request is made to ArbCom for a case, there is no guarantee they will take it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning left-and-right here, after taking a look through the mentioned WPO threads about LB and Homeostasis (and WPO site admin's "comments" on it), and examining how the thing in the thread has gone so far. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you and that stuff may result in a ArbCom case, however there is zero excuse for LB's wilful trolling. It's simply not justified. TarnishedPath^talk 04:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start this thread as an intentional prelude to an ArbCom case, I expected an admin would see this childish trolling and issue a block of some sort, as it usual when someone with LB's level of experience suddenly just starts out-and-out trolling. Since that doesn't seem to be forthcoming I do think this may be a case of the community not being able to handle certain issues and it may be time for a case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that that nobody in any of these comments is expressing surprise or puzzlement that LB made a "list of dicks" using an infantile secret code. Nobody seems to think this is out-of-character and the account may be compromised, they are just finding other excuses for it. It says something that this is the case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out somewhere (maybe the previous section would have been better? maybe this section but not as a reply to JSS? too many choices too late in the day on a Friday) that the list has been off the page for a full day now. Not all policy violations require a block. Some of them can be smoothed over by removing the problem, letting tempers simmer down, and seeing if it recurs. Removal instead of blocking is not condoning or "finding excuses for it". I do not condone LB's post, nor their attacks on several WPians whose only "crime" is being a WPO member. That can't continue. But I can give afford to give some small amount of grace to someone who is being harassed by other WPO members, and see if just removing the list works first. LB has not edited WP since then. let's see what happens. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you but also WP:ANIFLU is a thing when one knows they have just done something monumentally stupid and out-of-bounds. That's worth considering. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are about as far away from AGF as it is possible to get right now, beeblebrox.--Licks-rocks (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, LB hasn't moved an inch since this thread fired up, and this is just turning into a battleground of WPO and anti-WPO. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's the old tactic when for those who find themselves defending the indefensible, broaden the discussion with vague assertions to muddy the waters until everyone is distracted from the issue. SerialNumber54129 14:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I blame LB for hiding/waiting it out, he obviously knew what he did was completely indefensible, but that if he shut up others would defend it anyway, but other than the topic ban for HS I don't really see any admin actions forthcoming, so yeah, it could probably be closed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways: you've been talking about this guy on two different websites on like a daily basis, now you're complaining that he's withdrawn. It seems nothing will stop you. Would you please take your proverbial foot off of his neck and give it a rest. Maybe just one week without commenting on any website about what Lightburst is doing on Wikipedia, please. Levivich (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nuisance ping. Please, somebody close this thread. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer need to self-dox in order to expose doxing on Wikipediocracy, so am happy to proceed. The WPO user I referred to as "the dancing guy" here is the WPO member "Midsize Jake". For the purposes of this public thread, I will not post a direct link to their doxing in WPO's private forum. However, I sufficiently agitated their ego in the preceding link that they owned up to doxing me on the public forum here. The response is full of the usual WPO snark, but the user says "That's me, I think." and "All this nonsense about "continents" is just [Homeostasis07] not knowing the difference between an island and a continent." ArbCom know where I live. It's clearly a direct response to what I wrote here, and an admission to doxing by Midsize Jake.

The entire website is being used to dox and harass multiple Wikipedia users. One need look no further than their home page to see evidence of that. The last 3 "news" articles they posted dox and insult three different long-time Wikipedia users: [7], [8] & [9]. So between me being doxed and the very public doxing on their homepage, the claims that doxing doesn't take place on WPO are patently false.

Although the claim that users cannot delete, edit, move, or in any way modify their posts is true, this does not mean that posts written on WPO can't be deleted, edited, moved, or in any way modified. The forum was created using the phpBB script, so has the exact same tools used on every other phpBB forum created since 2000. This official phpBB support document for forum creators clearly states that admins/moderators can indeed delete, edit, move and modify posts.

As I'm sure you're all aware by now, in their attempt to discredit my claims of being doxed and harassed on the site, a Wikipediocracy user has created a public thread about me, where they post links to my other social media accounts, along with a ton of harassment and insults. I thank @AlphaBetaGamma: above for advising me to protect my Twitter account, but the babies can have that bottle. In addition to this, there are multiple threads on WPO that are being used to coordinate and insult dozens of Wikipedia users. In addition to the one about me, there is also one on Lightburst that has been used for almost a year to coordinate harassment of that user, as well as "News from ANI", where vested users can look up what's being said about them on ANI so can dog-pile on any discussion about them. More to come. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Homeostasis07! When you refer to "WPO's private forum", are you admitting to having an account over there? And when you link to this post by "Midsize Jake", which I had thought to be a joke—guess the joke's on me—are you admitting to being Carrie Ann Inaba? Because otherwise, you're still not providing evidence of doxing (I believe you mean outing), rather to the contrary. Have you sent ArbCom the private evidence that you assert exists? ... Also, don't Wikipedians have the right to know when they're being talked about at AN/I? (If by "them" you mean WPO as a whole, that would make for a shorter thread than the "News from ANI" one; the forum doesn't often come up on this noticeboard, it's not that interesting or urgent.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is a comically inept attempt to prove doxxing. Here's is the text of the entire post:

"That's me, I think. This sort of thing has been a problem ever since I won Dancing With the Stars with my partner, Doja Cat (T-H-L). And I didn't dox her here, I doxed her on my first appearance on the show (that's "Dancing With the Stars," folks, in case y'all missed it the first time) when I discovered that Homeostasis07 is, in fact, Carrie Ann Inaba (T-H-L).

All this nonsense about "continents" is just Carrie Ann not knowing the difference between an island and a continent. I wouldn't worry about it."

So, 100% not an actual confession to doxxing.

20+ Wikipedians have endorsed banning Homeostasis07 from discussing WPO already, this just adds fuel to that fire, rather than proving any sort of confession to doxxing them. I don't know if Homeostasis07 thinks enough people are afraid to even read WPO that this wouldn't be fact-checked, or if this is some bizzare backwards trolling, or what, but clearly this needs to stop. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that Midsize Jake posted "an admission to doxing" in the thread linked [10] is absurd beyond belief. The comments are clearly and unequivocally intended as a joking response to WP:ANI drama. And isn't 'doxxing'. Not unless Homeostasis07 Jake really won Dancing With the Stars alongside Doja Cat, and unless Homeostasis07 really is Carrie Ann Inaba. Absolutely no evidence has been offered to support Homeostasis07's claim that Jake (or anyone else on WPO) had attempted to dox him "earlier this year". Just look at the date stamps for the two posts. [11] As for the waffle about phpBB support, this is an utter non sequitur, given that one can say the same about any data saved in a digital format, anywhere. Homeostasis07 previously claimed to have saved evidence regarding such alleged material "on webcite". [12] No links to such material have been provided, leaving us with nothing but pure conspiracy theories to support the evidence-free claims of doxxing by WPO that led to a later WPO response. The only think that can be verified with regard to this alleged 'doxxing' is that after Homeostasis07 made a claim for which no evidence had been provided, WPO responded - by noting the lack of evidence, and by taking the piss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me having an account on WPO is irrelevant. Are you suggesting I post on a website that doxes Wikipedia users to inform them that they're being talked about at AN/I? You, Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways and AndyTheGrump seem perfectly aware of this discussion, and immediately available to jump to WPO's defense. With regards to the text quoted from Midsize Jake's post, as pointed out above, the text relating to Doja Cat and Carrie Ann Inaba is just sarcastic nonsense. For one, I see no evidence of Doja Cat ever being on Dancing With the Stars, but Midsize Jake makes specific mention of me residing on an island, which is true, and would only be known to the doxer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Midsize Jake makes specific mention of me residing on an island"? Nope. Jake makes a rather lame joke about Ms Inaba "not knowing the difference between an island and a continent". Interpreting that as 'doxxing', or even as evidence that Jake has the slightest clue where Homeostasis07 lives is pure paranoia. Or at least, that's how it seems to this island-dweller. I suspect that most island dwellers (9% of the worlds population, according to Google) would think the same. Along with the in-continent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any worth in continuing to engage Homeo directly. They are clearly either trolling or just lying, badly. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are probably right. Nobody is going to take this nonsense seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGF please. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you get booted off ArbCom for sharing private ArbCom info on WPO? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this strange claim that Carrie Ann Inaba is somehow known for confusing continents with islands, I see no evidence of that. What I see instead is me saying that the doxer linked me to the wrong continent, no information about me residing on an island being publicly available anywhere else, Midsize Jake publicly stating in reference to me being doxed that I reside on an island, and a bunch of WPO defenders rushing to the website's defense while ignoring the multitude of other evidence linked above of other Wikipedia users being very publicly doxed on the website. I don't know what AndyTheGrump, Beeblebrox and Yngvadottir think they're doing here, but their true intentions are blatantly transparent. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or..... Midsize Jake invented an absurdist DWTS alter ego to fit the description of the "dancing man" figure you claimed tried to dox you, syncretized you with DWTS judge Carrie Ann Inaba, and incorporated the detail of her being born on an island into your narrative about the doxing being "off by a continent".

If you really have all that evidence of deleted posts doxing you, what's stopping you from scribbling out any personal info in those screenshots and uploading them here? JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your description doesn't really make much sense to me. An "absurdist DWTS alter ego" based on a Dancing with the Stars judge who was born on an island off a continent to "fit the description of the 'dancing man' figure" I described previously... well, that just seems like a reach. And I seriously doubt any uploaded screengrabs with redacted information would last very long if hosted on-site. And externally-hosted URLS would probably last a lot less. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it just me, or did AndyTheGrump just refer to me as an "in-continent" above, i.e., incontinent, when they were blocked for a week back in July by ArbCom for personal attacks? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just you. And I have never been blocked by ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

....Midsize Jake jokes that Carrie Ann Inaba doesn't know the difference between a continent and an island, possibly a reference to her being born on an island that is technically not on the same continent as the country it is part of. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would give my first born pet for this entire LOOONG discussion to be closed. But there are several outstanding proposals that have to be closed first. I urge editors to not respond defensively and just let this conversation sputter out from exhaustion. Don't allow yourself to be provoked, that doesn't end well for anyone. Find an article to edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be fine with me. Like I said above, I'd be happy to never again talk about Wikipediocracy on-site after this, so me being topic-banned from discussing that website is no skin off my nose. Just Step Sideways/Beeblebrox made an interesting point above though, many of the supports above said they were waiting for links. Now that they have been provided, it's only courteous to ping them to review. I know I don't watchlist high-traffic pages like ANI, so out of courtesy: @Star Mississippi: @Lepricavark: @Lulfas: @Malcolmxl5: @Lavalizard101: @Black Kite: @Licks-rocks: @AirshipJungleman29: @CoffeeCrumbs: @Sir MemeGod: @Jéské Couriano: @Rsjaffe: @Alalch E.: I don't care if you change your votes or not, and completely understand if you don't want to be involved any further, but thought you'd appreciate the ping. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a bunch of people who already support sanctions against you for refusing to drop the stick to a thread in which you are once again refusing to drop the stick is certainly a choice. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I write to raise concerns regarding the recent conduct of FlightTime towards other editors. I have not had a great deal of involvement with them, but I believe their behaviour to be unwelcoming, rude and incompatible with AGF. My goal in raising this incident is that it will prompt FlightTime to review and change their behaviour.

Specifically, this editor continues to revert others (often in the name of vandalism), but refuses to engage with the other editors when they ask for an explanation. The reverts are sometimes justified, but the general dismissive attitude towards other editors contributions - in my view - is not. I first noticed this conduct regarding the Eddie Van Halen article, but a cursory review of their edit history shows this was not an isolated event (the additional examples below are by no means exhaustive):

On 13th October, FlightTime reverted 2 ([1] [2]) edits by Cebran2003 to Eddie Van Halen and left a warning on their talk page. They then proceeded to report them to ANI for edit-warring (a report they later withdrew). When the user responded, they said "Then please use edit summaries, tell us what the hell you're doing". FlightTime did not respond further, or restore the original pages but proceeded to remove the note I placed on their talk page about biting newcomers (which they are, of course, entitled to do - but this is a common theme).

On 18th October, FlightTime removed 178.232.112.187's comments on Talk:Ghurid dynasty. The IP user followed up on their FlightTime's talkpage, these comments were also promptly removed.

On 17th August, FlightTime reverted GeoWriter's contributions to Obsidian as OR. Valid or not, when the user discussed it on FlightTime's talk page, they removed the comment with the note "ty tldr just reverted your edit, didn't ask for a class".

On 1st August, FlightTime reverted SeanMatton's contributions to Tim Chapman ([1] [2]) branding them as a "Vandal" and reporting them to ANI for vandalism. SeanMatton commented on FlightTime's talk page to query the reversions, but their comments were removed.

I can relate to sometimes editing or reverting too quickly, but the correct thing to do is to acknowledge you were wrong and apologise. FlightTime is a long term contributor and has clearly committed a lot of the project, but I struggle to believe their general incivility and refusal to engage or explain their reverts is acceptable - especially given their elevated status as a member of VRT.

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today they rolled back in one go (just as twice within minutes five days ago), concurrently, my 100-byte (this time) initial contribution on a second article and a 137-byte contribution by someone else in the same paragraph. "Unsourced" was the one-word explanation. (I am relieved not to have been criticized again today, having in truth been a little late in furnishing a directly to-the-point citation.) Cebran2003 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they are less responsive about and more hasty about wholesale rollbacks than might be readily inferred from @OXYLYPSE's and my comments above. Five days ago, I chanced to guess wrong what content required speedy citing in their view; the reversion of this wrong guess constituted the entire difference between rollback 1 and rollback 2 (timed a few minutes apart). In fact, I have yet to receive from that person any indication of what they wanted cited (though I appear to have wound up guessing correctly a day or so later). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately not bothering to try to justify their call for citations with respect to my contribution of today, that person actually rolled back only the following where my 100 bytes were concerned. I had noticed an improbable statement characterizing two boys, two years apart in age, as being concurrently in a single grade in elementary school. I tracked down which of the two later reported (in an interview) having been in that grade at the relevant time. I corrected accordingly. I then deleted a dead link (for that interview), possibly thus setting the person off (unless I had already done so with only the correction). As I was preparing to carry over a good link from a related article to today's, the person took the opportunity to roll me back. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cebran2003 Hey Cebran. I get you're trying to thoroughly explain the situation here, but try not to excessively comment here on this thread as it might be disruptive. Doing so can bloat a lot of text on screen and deter possible contributors with this giant wall of info. Thanks. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was only to cover the main points. I already considered myself done, and now in view of Toby's feedback I am declaring myself done, with thanks all around. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of trolling explaining all, apology accepted. (I have yet to interact at all with FlightTime's talk, and my edit from yesterday actually included the citation from the outset rather than *the latter's* following by some minutes.) (Pardon the grammar, what with the occasional lapses like that.) All good now. Cebran2003 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cebran2003:, Thank you. Stop by my talk anytime. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring attention to Cebran's talk page, specifically the alert I gave them here. Although that section is generally pretty weird, I'll specifically refer to this one sentence, I do love a good fi- er, challenge (Edit: Removed [48]), referring to this thread.

1. I don't know what they mean by "fi-er". Is this censored or something? Is this a WP:PA?

2. The fact they refer to this as a "challenge" makes me concerned about the possibility of some WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Could this be some WP:BOOMERANG situation? The amount of comments Cebran has published also makes me concerned about WP:BLUDGEONING, especially considering I've already warned them about bludgeoning here. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above has been shocking, to say the least. There was an earlier warning about something else, but I have seen no previous one about bludgeoning. I have not engaged at all in bludgeoning, battling, or PA; nothing that I have written (not gratuitously but in response to some intense criticism) appears to me to lend itself to boomerang. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see (another element of) what you did there. Your link to the bludgeoning article was meant to serve as a warning. I didn't notice the link at all before, but I will have a look at the article now. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiToby I'm glad you brought up Battleground.

It states "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. [...] Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia."

Would you care to explain how FlightTime's diffs I've linked in the original post and below demonstrate that, or are you just here to rip into Cebran2003 for being overly verbose and passionate about the article they (were) contributing to?

If you too cannot see the problem with FlightTime's behaviour, well, you're clearly ready for adminship with the old boys.

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On "being overly verbose and passionate about the article": I resemble that ... portrayal, of course without at all resenting the characterization put in question form. Thank you. Cebran2003 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toby’s alert on my talk page: "There is currently a discussion at [ANI] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [this very one]. Thank you."

That looks like the simplest of boilerplate, not like something to which a provider of alerts would want later to draw attention at all, let alone concerning which they would encourage (or themselves draw) specifically so much as one inference. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with FlightTime is I think he's usually right on the merits, but isn't very good at communicating this with people who don't understand Wikipedia policies, leading to all sorts of unnecessary conflict. Usually it's because somebody's added unsourced content, or has rejigged some minor part in the article against consensus. All in all I can't say it's more than a mild annoyance. However, if people can find a lot of hard evidence of WP:BITEing, as opposed to minor bits and bobs, we can revisit this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to everyone involved, at the time I thought the article(s) and my talk were being trolled, I was obviously wrong and thought I fixed everything, again wrong. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to look again at those edits on Eddie Van Halen, and I think I might roll them all back. It's perfectly understandable why User:FlightTime reverted some of them. Those edits were unverified and totally unexplained (how is it that his place of birth was moved from Amsterdam to Nijmegen), and contained a number of errors of various kinds. Asking editors to a. explain and b. verify is fine, and this response Cebran is not. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanx for cleaning up Van Halen. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies has made a series of absolutely incorrect comments (with one notable exception) just above. Eddie was indeed born in Amsterdam. Correction of my small error on that narrow subject apart, by no means does anything warrant rolling back, particularly for real en masse, my edits of the past week. Cebran2003 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, between Alex's 1953 birth and some time after Eddie's 1955 birth, their parents moved the family as so constituted from Amsterdam to Nijmegen. A previous editor had called Amsterdam Eddie's birthplace through what I thought until this evening to have been an understandable error. A certain Jakarta Post piece might well have been misread by that person to bring on the error if there was one, given what I saw of the interplay between source and body text citing it. To repeat, in the form in which I left them, my edits were almost uniformly accurate and were otherwise appropriate. Cebran2003 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am mystified about how the impulse to engage in gratuitous and unfounded rollbacks has spread with respect to this article. Someone else repeated FlightTime's second rollback (of my nine initial EVH edits) six days ago, and now Drmies has set out to join the club (evidently with respect to dozens more). It is not supposed to occur at all, right? Cebran2003 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And somehow "tell us what the hell you're doing" is acceptable? - OXYLYPSE (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed proceeding to carry out a (3000-byte) gratuitous and unfounded rollback of their own (before functionally disappearing, that is, reverting another 500+ bytes, potentially and counting, in a trio of additional edit variants), Drmies cited as authoritative a NYT article to which I lack access: Farber, Jim (October 7, 2020). "Eddie Van Halen, 65, Rock Original With Lightning in His Fingers, Dies". Perhaps the specific detail purportedly in the article was present and correct, but again I have been questioning whether it was both. With due allowance for the subset of tweaks by Drmies that may have been good, obviously (and not only in terms of slashed word count) the article is markedly poorer overall for their several unilateral acts of owning it. Cebran2003 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That NYT article states Edward Lodewijk Van Halen was born on Jan. 26, 1955, in Amsterdam to Jan and Eugenia (Beers) Van Halen. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, thank you. Partly given the two-fold improper because anachronistic surname prefix capitalization, the correctness of the location statement did remain in momentary doubt. (Perhaps the style manual's mandating such an ahistorical rendering is well and good, but this treatment is sure glaring now.) Cebran2003 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly enlightening is this gem, a key element of that absurd 3000-byte rollback: "an editorial note on Dutch last names or whatever is unnecessary, etc. etc." This was characterized by Drmies as unexplained and not a good edit. The note was in fact, as I had explained in the immediately previous history entry, inserted by me to replace a hatnote (not mine, of course) that was failing -- and has *resumed* post-massive-rollback its failure -- to do the matter justice. (I did not know, and indeed have yet to explore, how to tailor a hatnote; replacing it was evidently the best move for the time being.) Et cetera indeed. Cebran2003 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it was from (as can be readily seen by anyone troubling to "View history" for the EVH article) the Jakarta Post article that I found documentation of the two overseas stays of about half a dozen years each (1943-49 in Indonesia, afterward in the Netherlands) that in both cases preceded Eddie's birth (the latter stay destined to continue until the 1962 move to the US). Cebran2003 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cebran2003: All this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The actual issue being large-scale and gratuitous and at best uncertainly founded rollbacks, rather than the initial and long-gone misunderstanding between the two of us, FlightTime, evidently the discussion does continue to belong here. Maybe a new topic is called for, partly to ease your understandably possibly desired distancing from it? Cebran2003 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having inspired through one of their deletions an improbable find that finally furnishes an irrefutably authoritative data point (potentially so for the body of the EVH article itself), Drmies does merit a little bit of credit. Amsterdam it was, as noted in a citation (thoughtfully left intact though now uninvoked at all) for which Drmies opted to delete the invocation. Substituting for said active online Dutch source the access-impaired NYT article would not have been my choice, but where there's a will to set even one element of the record straight, I must acknowledge there being a way. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, in the article history Drmies has also opined, "'settled' in Nijmegen is a bit of an exaggeration"; what is interesting here is the evidence of their having imputed the wording to me, when in fact I had simply left that word intact in formulating my fairly extensive edit about the family's time in the Netherlands (relegated at this moment to "coverage" in a single sentence). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can be as verbose as you like, Cebran2003, but "The Dutch prefix 'van' was capitalized by the boys’ parents during the family’s immigration" is not verified by this, of course, and there's no racism "because of their mother's ancestry" after they moved to the US in this source, and who knows what a "a welcome expanded role" is; it's not in here. So I'll just let your edits speak for themselves. I'd like to think of "not verified by sources" as irrefutable authoritative data points. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My inference as to who did the capitalizing was nevertheless an extremely strong one, in light of its evidently not being the immigration authorities despite the common myth (refutation of which I duly sourced) about that. The matter of racism (actually alluded to in the title and content of the NBC News piece -- identified just above by Drmies as "this source" -- and probably touched on by Eddie, although I am not in the mood to check just now) "because of their mother's ancestry" was, again, not my wording. It is the slash-and-burn substitute for a strategy on the part of Drmies that speaks for itself, just as throughout this discussion; no failing or failure of mine does so in any meaningful way. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone capitalized the prefix. It was not the immigration authorities, again despite the canard about its having supposedly been those officials so acting for many new arrivals. It was very probably none other than EVH's and AVH's parents in the course of immigration, possibly as shown in the ship's manifest or if not probably quite shortly after arrival. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Cebran2003, you said, "Drmies shows 'worrisome' signs of meriting a strong fate." Did you put a hit out on me or something? I don't believe in fate, by the way, but I do believe that editors on this collaborative project should not make ridiculous and vaguely violent threats. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant nothing more than meriting some admin sanctions. Ill will on my part? Well, no. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the comments made just above by Drmies about those second and third sources are plenty revelatory, about the commentator of course, in and of themselves. The NYT source, yet again, was not mine, merely because it was in place when I began my very first edit. It did not become mine on account of my having occasion to cite it in an additional location in the body text. With respect to Eddie's help with Beat It, his doing more than providing the solo was explicitly and enthusiastically welcomed by MJ; I suspect that Drmies didn't deign to give that article a look. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to reflecting on another's possible practices of sourcing inadequacy, the standpoint held by the occasional content-editing critic, including of my own words in particular, is far from authoritative among data points. To review how I used the relevant phrase in particular, the Dutch document is irrefutably authoritative, whereas the content produced by the NYT (currently cited in the body text, substituted for a cite of the Dutch document) has less than a 100% accuracy record and is, moreover, not all that readily accessible. Nothing is apt to impress less than wrenching phrases far, far away from the context of their previous usage. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborativeness is, though, staying put as where I am at. Bludgeoning activity, oddly imputed by implication to me by someone else here, is evidently where others (whose espousal of collaborativeness may at times be in question) are to be found. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be honest, that's a lot of words that hurt my brain (WP:WALLOFTEXT). TheWikiToby (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying: you got the wrong number. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To express it more simply (though not in comparison to my one-liner just above, of course), as Toby has implicitly advised … Collaborativeness is always my intention, and I usually act accordingly. Meanwhile, despite their first mention here of collaborativeness, Drmies is the one to have been doing all the bludgeoning and little else, leaving me to do little else than to fend off a few of their repeated personal attacks (or to point out some of the damage done through their rollover). Cebran2003 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very happily indeed, the collateral damage from the precipitous rollback by Drmies of my every word for the EVH article has chanced to be startlingly minor. The improper restoration of an unknown infobox parameter bearing on a radio station, coincidentally removed by someone else on the 14th of this month, was inevitably achieved through the resorting by Drmies to a revision-in-spirit-and-effect-of-rollback going pretty far back. (No wonder 3000+ bytes, about 5% of the article word count, got slashed in one fell swoop, scarcely fathomable though it has been up to now why such a large number, never mind percentage, of words.) Cebran2003 (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yet more has been lost from the article, by implication as well as in words. "Eddie cited [an Alex-and-others-accompanying musical] performance when he was in the fourth grade as key to his desire to become a professional musician"; citation currently in effect, one dead link, restored by Drmies. Someone else's allusion to school segregation (documented as having been mentioned by Eddie in the interview, definitively in effect in the school district, likely in effect even in the elementary schools), a topic that I had not introduced but only added some comments about, is gone. Mention of his mother's being Eurasian, likewise not made initially by me, is gone. And that is only what I see to be changed down through the "early life" section, which chances to be as far down through the article as I had made it when FlightTime and I had our minor and fleeting dust-up. Cebran2003 (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 So you accept there is a problem with FlightTime's conduct that leads to "conflict", even if right "on merit"?

I do particularly appreciate how FlightTime was active but did not respond to this noticeboard, even after a request from Liz, however then musters up a brief response a mere six minutes after your comment of support. Intriguing indeed. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that multiple administrators have come to support FlightTime's conduct (love an old boys club!), I'll just leave these here and withdraw at this time:

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58] OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are free to remove comments from their own talk pages - see WP:OWNTALK. Daniel (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the liberty of replying concurrently on behalf of @OXYLYPSE and in my own name, I thank Daniel but add moreover that thread-launcher @OXYLYPSE has not placed this discussion in their talk and that I have nothing to gain from removing and indeed zero incentive to remove anything related from my talk as it now stands. (FlightTime and I have, again, resolved our own differences, as of some hours past.) Cebran2003 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(A handful of misplaced words there have wound up duly eaten and removed; apologies to anyone who may have taken them for anything bad, on account of poor phrasing and/or on account of being unexpectedly in the audience.) Cebran2003 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, please feel free to weigh in on this rollback issue now brought more acutely into focus. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel My original post covered how editors are permitted to manage their talk page, had you cared to read it before you hastily replied to defend. The issue here is the pattern of making a revert and then either refusing to engage or engaging in an uncivil manner when queried upon it, a point you said "no thanks" when asked to consider.

So far @Liz seems to be the only administrator that has been willing to consider that behaviour a problem. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to speculate why that is.

This whole thing is a farce and has been successfully derailed by the old timers turning it into a content dispute.

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to give Daniel himself as well as Toby the benefit of the doubt. And now I will move on to @Liz ... Hers is a familiar name that I fondly remember from a probably related conversation. So, @Liz, I certainly hope that you will "feel free to weigh in on this rollback issue now brought more [and more] acutely into focus" (if I may repeat myself in this way). Cebran2003 (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the esteemed user whose latest revision (the edit immediately preceding my first-ever contribution to the EVH article) was what Drmies chanced to restore, @Hipal too may care to share their thoughts on the matter. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies forecasted: "I think I might roll them all back"; I am getting myself to give FlightTime too the benefit of the doubt, with respect to their thanks for this, as I choose not to believe that they noticed in saying thanks the scale of that late-breaking rollback. So, all is still good with them as well. Cebran2003 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder for Toby: to love a good challenge is to love meeting same, not to go on offense. (Please bear with and consider even closely reading the scantly break-graced wall of text to follow.)

It is remarkable that last evening’s rollback inflicted on that oddly salient EVH article by Drmies has yet to be touched at all. Here is why.

In the sharpest of contrasts to my editing perspective and conduct that one can imagine, Drmies has engaged throughout this discussion in nothing but attack against me, casting the essence of shade on my abilities — including to write sentences that make sense.

I would never have imagined falling victim, on this platform and especially here in the ANI, to a gratuitous and groundless and one-sided and deeply personal flame war. And yet it has just happened.

As you will surely infer, I am particularly puzzled about how and why, having already contributed content to a fairly broad variety of other Wikipedia articles, I suddenly find myself under sustained heavy fire over an article about EVH in particular. Cebran2003 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see myself mentioned here. But after reviewing this complaint, I'm completely lost on what is occurring here and what the problem is. The complaint started to be about FlightTime and now I see objections to Drmies. But the discussion is all over the map and I think it should probably be closed as there is no singular and clear goal being sought. Feel free to open a new discussion on a specific subject that you feel warrants review. But continuing to post your unhappiness about other editors and to vent is unlikely to lead to any changes and might just reflect poorly on you. If you have issues with a specific editor, I recommend discussing the problem with them on their User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, at just about the time that FlightTime was apologizing for his incivility of a week ago (and I was promptly accepting the apology), Drmies took up the attack, literally, and not only flamed me far more viciously and more repeatedly (without actually inviting any of the explanations that Drmies declared my having never provided) but in the first moments of their opening flame incident rolled back -- with no little collateral damage to the material -- my 3000-byte contribution to date (5% of the word count) for an article that Drmies claims as some de facto owner (despite having evidently added no content in connection with or after the massive rollover). Cebran2003 (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback, not rollover; sounds like another Freudian slip on my part. In any event, please note that Drmies is obviously unapproachable by me on their User talk page, and that I previously tried running by FlightTime (fences mended, clearly) the idea of starting a new thread from which they could readily bow out if they chose. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me take a different approach. You have explained your dismay at Drmies' edits and approach towards you, Cebran2003, but what do you expect will happen from this ANI complaint? What proposal do you have to make? If this complaint is just serving to air your disagreement without you having an achievable goal, then this complaint should probably be closed before there is any blowback on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that the absurd rollback be reversed, and that any undoing of the reversal be impeded to whatever extent may be feasible. Just to be clear, I have no personal stake in the article and am intending to walk away; its recent degradation by Drmies is the only matter that still concerns me, as a matter of principle (although I continue to think that any admin sanctions that can be brought to bear should be brought to bear). Cebran2003 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken for myself only in offering up the proposal above. @OXYLYPSE, who launched the thread and just paved the way for me to reach out directly to you, @Liz, may have a broader one to make here. Cebran2003 (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe SheriffIsInTown, a user on Pakistani Wikipedia has been constantly POV pushing against Imran Khan and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), figures in Pakistan’s political crisis. Not only this, but he has constantly used aggressive language in user discussions. Firstly, he recently put false information on Imran Khan’s BLP article that was not supported by any of the 3 citations he gave and likely citation bombed to make it seem like a proper piece of information. Secondly, he cited an opinion piece for 2 paragraphs of information on Imran Khan’s page without even mentioning it was an opinion piece. Thirdly, he discusses in a debate style, often with WP:IDHT. He has threatened to “take it to the next level” and uses language like “before you open your mouth” with me. He has accused me of writing for the Tehreek-e-Insaf party and has accused me of portraying Imran Khan as suffering which I simply did not do. He appears to purposely prolongs debates and ignores points while POV pushing against Khan and PTI. I am not worried about his language, but he is an editor of 10 years and he is still engaging in actions like adding false negative info to a high-priority page like Imran Khan. He has been accused of bullying by Saad Ali Khan Pakistan in the past here, here and here, and you may see his edit history and talk page for his constant agitation to other Pakistani users and POV pushing against Imran Khan.

For context, the political crisis in Pakistan involved the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf running as Independent candidates due to legal issues, and all news reports termed PTI (Imran Khan's party) the biggest party in the February 2024 elections. For an example of his POV pushing, Sheriff has seemingly tried every attempt to remove PTI's presence in election pages by removing Imran Khan from the Infobox and reducing the number of seats from 93 to 39 on the 2024 Pakistani general election because of technicalities, completely ignoring the de-facto situation. He also has removed the PTI flag from the 2024 Sindh provincial election despite every other Pakistani election page including political party flags in the place of leader images. There are many examples of his anti-PTI and anti-Khan POV pushing, including attempting to conceal negative information about Asif Ali Zardari, a political rival of Imran Khan's. I believe Sheriff's editing pattern follows WP:CPUSH and WP:POV WARRIOR. Titan2456 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the first example (the one linked in "false information"), and I agree that this is a misuse of the sources. This could easily have been a mistake and I wouldn't conclude from this edit alone that anything untoward is occurring, I'm just stating it so no one else has to duplicate the work. The statement added to the article is However, his critics contend that his struggle is driven by personal ambitions and self-interest. It is sourced to three sources. In the Guardian and ST articles I didn't find anything similar. The BBC has His opponents say that all his policies while in power were only about his own ego and whimsy. When in power, they say, he spent more time hounding his opponents than he did running the country. I don't think "driven by personal ambitions and self-interest" is a good reflection of that statement, but given the three articles I've read, I can easily believe it to be a true and verifiable statement about what Khan's critics say about him in general. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering That's exactly what happened, and I explained it here in my second-to-last comment in that discussion. I believe there's an ulterior motive at play, aimed at tarnishing my reputation as we approach the admin election, in which I'm a candidate. Some individuals have started making accusations like POV pushing, but in reality, I'm the one striving to maintain NPOV, and I can provide examples to prove this, if needed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context. Do you have a comment on this diff? (The second example in the original post.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff, it may be good to lower your tonnage or bring in a third party voice. The talk page appears to show that, so you're probably fine here. OP needs to also understand that adding content without a source, regardless if others do it or not, is easily ready to be reverted. To Sheriff, WP:AGF, they seem new and likely need assistance. To OP read up on WP:BATTLEGROUND and maybe move on to something else in the project. (non-admin comment) Conyo14 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14 I've actually been quite patient with OP, as they tend to exhibit a sense of ownership over all PTI-related articles. Much of their content is heavily promotional towards PTI, which is why I felt the need to step in to maintain balance. They argue over images and challenge every change made to content they've introduced. They demonstrate a pattern of WP:IDHT behavior, repeatedly making the same points in discussions without relenting from their viewpoint. One example is when they insisted that sources weren't necessary in certain cases, only backing down after @CNMall41 intervened. Frankly, a WP:BOOMERANG should be issued against them, as they are often the ones pushing a biased POV in most situations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see quite the opposite that you have a sense of ownership over all PTI-related articles, especially election ones and viciously trying to erase signs of PTI, converting them to Independents. You can check my edit history I have never threatened Sheriff while he has constantly used intimidation tactics with me and other users. Sheriff also only backed down after @Borgenland intervened removing the not cited information of Sheriffs. And just saying, Sheriff’s behavior has been everything but patient. Titan2456 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request administrators to take serious action against Sheriff. Because of people like him, editors get dishearten when they work hard to edit and people like him revert or remove edit by a single click. I have seen in Indian election articles that even before election they add party lists and candidates in their constituency pages before polls so that after results it would be easy for them to edit and complete articles but when I started adding candidates names in constituency pages like NA-1 Chitral, he started reverting my edits without telling me. It was decided by the editors that in light of Media PTI backed Independents will be shown separated instead of showing with other independents because PTI backed independent candidates got party ticket and support from PTI but he still imposed his rule in all constituency pages. I support taking action against vandalism but imposing your order like you own this site is insane and bullying which is not good. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I acknowledge that Sheriff has been hauled here multiple times but based on my personal experience I do not believe that said user is acting out of malice. As for the revert I do not recall that specific incident but I acknowledge making multiple reverts in Pakistani politics primarily on copy-editing and ensuring statements are watertight with citations. In fact, Sheriff has been helpful in helping me kick out a WP:SOAPBOX hyper-partisan PTI editor who turned out to be an LTA sock who kept bludgeoning me and the 2024 Pakistani general election with a non-credible source and resorted to vile WP:IDNHT, WP:NPA and WP:CIR attacks. Borgenland (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase § List of antisemitic incidents in the United States and related articles

 – Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of antisemitic incidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Intermittent vandalism and aggressive participation (e.g. repeated personal attacks) by an non-EC user, who has refused to stop after being politely told several times that they were violating the WP:ARBECR by involving themselves in Israeli-Palestinian conflict-associated editing.

Examples of the said user’s ECR violations: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII.

Also this by another non-EC user.

P.S. In the content of the article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times while “Gaza” 3 times. It has basically intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Steven1991 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To provide more context, within the past several days this user has made multiple attempts at trying to prevent other users from engaging with the page: 1, 2 , this just appears to be a latest attempt.

They were told by an admin, Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where WP:ONUS applies, especially given that there are WP:BLP concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history ... On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit

They were also told, In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (three in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to ... show more good faith at the talkpage, and make sure you understand WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME; your hands are far from clean here

On the article's talk page they began spamming (1, 2, 3, 4) me with alerts regarding ECR, when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR applying to the article, and were told (1, 2), You know they're already aware of ECR, they were aware before you started alerting them.They're allowed to edit this article, just not be involved in WP:PIA. Now stop harassing them by spamming alerts at them. You've been told before not to do this with other users ... I already pointed out that they are allowed to edit this page as antisemitism as a whole is unrelated to WP:PIA & just because some aspects under ECR are included in the article, does not mean the entire article is under ECR.     Now please, leave them alone, stop aggressively trying to kick them off the page, & focus on content Wikipedious1 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of your last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which you’re not supposed to have got involved in the first place.

III.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries you didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address your “concerns” so as to de-escalate for any disputes the sake of de-escalation.

IV.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from you/other users concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.

V.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by you at any point of time. You do not appear to have shown any signs of improving your manner in your correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.

IV.) It is not “spamming” when you appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. They are reminders – gentle reminders. I advise you to follow the WP:AGF and avoid mischaracterising my actions as anything “malicious” unfriendly when what I desire is respect.
You were asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in your replies to my polite and humble messages. You don’t appear to have apologised to me either despite your claim of having “reformed”.
Rather than listen, you appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process. Steven1991 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first point is the only one that seems reasonable to me, I did make edits and discussion regarding protests related to WP:PIA, which may be incorrect, however I have refrained from discussing the conflict, or taking a side, other than describing what I perceived to be Biden's side in the conflict (this was relevant to a disputed incident in the article). In other words I made edits and discussions about protests, and a public figure's opinions (Biden's), only when it was relevant to specific incidents on the list that were in contention. I do not believe the entire article is related to WP:PIA, however, and I would dispute that, and I would guess that that is not the consensus among the editors. I want to point out that I have refrained from editing the page until a consensus to the current impasse is reached. I also think it's strange that I was blocked for making improper edit summaries (including what you're referring to, I don't understand why you're still bringing that up or presenting it as an ongoing issue when it has been settled), which means an admin or admins saw my edits, and decided that I hadn't broken any rules other than making improper edit summaries and not properly discussing my edits. It just seems strange that only within the past <24 hours it appears to have become a problem, when I was blocked on the 12th of October. For any admins my question would be why no one seemed to have caught this additional, earlier breach.

You don’t appear to have apologised to me either. I referred to you as the "Steven Entity" several times in 2 separate occasions, once on your talk page and once on the article's talk page, separated by the IIRC 48 hours of my block period. I thought it was all in good humor especially as a newer Wikipedia user who has not really engaged in discussion on an article talk page before, but since engaging with other editors I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor and not to seriously hurt other's feelings -- is an impediment to civility and consensus, and I have shed the earlier immaturity. I also noticed that you did not tell me to not refer to you in this way, so I thought it was okay to do so. In day to day civil discussion, as an example, I would expect someone to correct me immediately if I were to misgender them or mispronounce their name - in this situation I was only told by other members not to refer to you in this way, and you did not remark on it until after I already agreed to stop referring to you in this way. While it seems that this has been a major slight to you -- which is fine, you are of course allowed to feel that way -- I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me, in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute rather than something you believe at a genuine level would allow for more meaningful contribution to the article. Though these points do not take away from the fact that my nickname for you was wrong. I do want to apologize to you for referring to you in this way on 2 separate occasions, and I do want to point out that I did agree to not refer to you in this way, and I have not done so since, I also want to thank you for improving my netiquette and my ability to use Wikipedia through engaging in our dispute. I'll repost this to your talk page as well, though I do question why you're bringing it up on this page and what relevance it has here, as well as what relevance some of these matters that appear to be settled have to this request for protection. Wikipedious1 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor

It is not just a nickname. Calling a living person an “entity” is a form of dehumanisation. It’s not an isolated incident. It happened repeatedly. My perception of it being in violation of the WP:NPA is thus legitimate.

While it seems that this has been a major slight to you

Still, you do not appear to be acknowledging that it is inherently wrong. It is not my subjective perception but an objective fact that it is under no circumstances acceptable to be doing what you seem to have ultimately shown the slightest bit of willingness to somehow feel apologetic for.

I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me

Still, you are casting aspersions on me. I am sorry to say that you haven’t appeared to show the willingness to acknowledge that what has been done is inherently wrong under literally all circumstances in daily life.

in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute

Because the issue has continued. I have been pretty patient, polite and humble throughout the process, but what did I get in return? It is hard to describe, isn’t it? Steven1991 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V.) Your quoted user has apparently NEVER never been involved in the editing of that article at any point of time, not least the period 1 September~19 October 2024. The user is a disinterested party who made a highly subjective judgment based on very limited information and he has no administrative powers on the site and who’s supposed not to get involved either.

when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR

It does not require any participant’s “agreement”. It is a site-wide rule applicable to every individual participating in Wikipedia’s editing activities. You were reminded by other users of such requirements in some of the entries pertaining to the discussion as well, which you don’t appear to have followed.Steven1991 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to see if protection is necessary. I could see protecting at EC level as related content for a limited time, like a year or so. But there needs to be diffs showing that more than a couple non-WP:XC users are engaging the topic area on that page. Sorry, the above is just too lengthy and disorganized for me to easily parse, so I suggest compiling the evidence concisely, with diffs alongside names and dates. Thank you. El_C 18:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Regarding non-WP:XC user participation, this and this user were also participating substantially in the article concerned and had made been making a significant input touching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are not supposed to have engaged in the first place until they have acquired an XR status, but such a site-wide rule has seemed to be ignored by them since they started their participation in the article concerned. The former non-XC user even posted about the matter associated with the article concerned on different Talk pages, which is not supposed to have been done, despite being reminded by an uninvolved admin to stay away from the topic area.Steven1991 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if it's just a couple of users, then it's more of an WP:AE/WP:ANI matter, but otherwise falling short of applying ARBECR (it'd be different if it was a primary article, but not for related content). Anyway, if those two users repeat the violations, they should be dealt with by warnings/blocking rather than protecting the page for everyone else. I'll leave this open for a while more, in case you have more evidence to submit that shows there being more than two non-XC users violating the remedy. Also, no links to talk pages or contribs, WP:DIFFs only, please. El_C 19:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your clarification. Steven1991 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El C hello I'm finding this user is using this event to harass me at this point by repeatedly linking events in unrelated discussions with admins such as this. I didn't want to make this post a mess but it seems it's beyond that point, the user Steven1991 has been engaging in mass edits on this page as detailed heavily here by SerialNumber54129, a large part of the editing included the continuous addition of articles related to Israeli-Palestinian which many of us have been arguing aren't related to the topic of the page. Regardless of the relevance it's hard to argue to the page being locked down and several contributing members being locked out if a single user is the one pushing for entries that force it to be locked down.

Sorry for the long posting I don't want to drag out this request any further but feel input is only fair if I'm being dragged into the comments. Galdrack (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of any of that and even now still largely am, Galdrack, but as mentioned this board is for brief requests that are live usually for a day at most (you need only look at any other request to see that). So this would be a matter better suited for WP:ANI, but I'll still ping the blocking and unblocking admins @Cullen328 and Zzuuzz: here. But this request will likely be archived by the end of day, probably without additional (protection) action. If you do submit such a report to ANI, you can cite the following permalink for this request up to this point. Sorry, I'm writing in haste right now, but I hope the matter gets resolved soon. Feel free to WP:PING me to any further submissions regarding this, but I'm not sure I'm be able to commit to a deep dive here, if that is what's warranted (which looks like it may well). Thanks you. El_C 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to stress that the user apparently engaged in forum shopping by posting about this matter on different Talk pages, which is not supposed to have been done, as it’d draw disinterested parties (those never having edited the article concerned) into the dispute who may make uninformed comments due to lack of perfect information (already happening), which would have a significant impact on my engagement and the process’ fairness. It’s rather me who feel harassed by what the user above is doing, not mentioning that the user had been advised repeatedly by another admin to stay away from this topic area, which the user doesn’t appear to have followed. Steven1991 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mass edits

I was correcting grammatical mistakes. Words that got removed were largely presented with strikethrough. Would you please assume good faith avoid mischaracterising legitimate acts to try to get someone sanctioned over any disagreements? Steven1991 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please use Template:tq instead of Template:blockquote when you're quoting other editors on talk pages? This is really hard to follow. -- asilvering (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above conversation moved from WP:RFPP. Section header copied from the original report reason. Any comments with a timestamp before this timestamp are from earlier discussion on WP:RFPP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly troublesome. Steven1991 already has opened another thread about these very things at WP:AN, where participation is ongoing. Now they've started yet another thread, with even more aspersions and battleground behavior. The two threads need to be merged (that one moved here, or this one moved there), and Steven1991 needs either a TBAN from antisemitism, broadly construed, or an indef. Enough already with the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and the WP:FORUMSHOPPING to get other editors sanctioned. Grandpallama (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start another thread. It is the admin moving one thread from another part of Wikipedia (application for article extended protection) over here. They are separate requests. It is not “battleground behaviour” to request extended protection for an article, nor is it such for responding to users replying to my post. Would you please look at it carefully before making accusations against me? I am not the one casting aspersions for pointing out instances of suspected WP:NPA violations of another user in an editing process in which you are not involved.Steven1991 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the admin moving one thread Which you initiated. Stop falsely claiming you didn't start another thread. Grandpallama (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, because they are of different nature. You are not a party to the issue, I don’t see why you seem to be going after me making a series of allegations to which the admin has already clarified that it is not the case? Steven1991 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It requires evidence to make an article extended protection request, so there would unavoidably be overlap in content, I do not see where the issue lies in? Steven1991 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any problems with initiating a process when a user repeatedly engaged in suspcted WP:NPA violations. Steven1991 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Steven was not the OP here at ANI. As mentioned, this was refactored by Daniel Quinlan, who said: Any comments with a timestamp before this [22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)] are from earlier discussion on WP:RFPP. Accordingly, this is my first comment in this ANI thread, all my comments above were at the RfPP request (permalink again). While I did propose opening an ANI report, I was unaware that there was one at AN. And that suggestion was (mainly) made to another user, rather than Steven, in fairness. El_C 00:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, El_C, I understand that this started at RFPP. But they opened that request and started a thread there despite knowing a thread (opened by them) about this topic was already at WP:AN. Despite more than one editor at AN telling them that there were problems with their claims about ARBECR, they opened the RFPP thread, anyway. That's straight up forum shopping to eliminate the ability of Wikipedious1 to edit the article in question. Grandpallama (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said, they are separate requests of different nature. As you are not involved in the editing process of the article, there are technicalities that you may not be fully aware of, so I would say that it does not sound good to make such a judgment based on pretty limited information available to you.Steven1991 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, forum shopping by way of RfPP. Sorry, Grandpallama, I misread. El_C 01:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making accusations without clear evidence, which may be considered a WP:NPA violation. Steven1991 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an accusation, I just misunderstood what he said. El_C 01:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the evidence was provided above. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally one-sided. Steven1991 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds it highly questionable that an editor who themselves was violating ARBECR [78] less than a month ago [79] [80] [81] after I'd warned them to cut it out which they acknowledged by deletion [82] is now the one leading complaints against other editors? This doesn't mean it's acceptable for any other editors to violate ARBECR, but it does make me wonder if Steven1991 might also be part of the problem even if they're now allowed to edit A-I content. Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't mean it's acceptable for any other editors to violate ARBECR

Please focus on that user rather than me. It would be great not to cast aspersions on a complainant over past events when entirely different cases are involved. Steven1991 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every party is under similar scrutiny, be they the filer or user/s whom they are reporting. You are not really in the position to dictate to reviewers what to comment on. El_C 01:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, though I would be happy to know how some of users commenting on this thread have a stake in this case. They appear to be disinterested parties who may not have perfect information of the series of events surrounding a particular article in which they may have never participated. I am simply not in full knowledge of the most complicated part of the rules as I wasn’t active again on Wikipedia until summer this year, but I have the impression that some of the allegations made by them against me may constitute WP:NPA violations. I cannot say for sure, but would like to know more about the technicalities. Steven1991 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a standard part of ANI that the behaviour of all editors involved in a dispute is considered. But this is even more so in an CTOP case. Also I already provided 3 examples of where you violated ARBECR after an explicit warning that you needed to stop, so it's no an aspersion to say you did so. But more examples [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand, though I am not the one doing it right now. Steven1991 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In case there's some confusion over why I feel this is relevant, as I said it's less than a month ago. While definitely any editor who is violating ARBECR needs to stop, I think it's fair to question whether an editor who less than a month ago was doing the same thing and should have already well known by the time that it wasn't acceptable, is engaged in battleground behaviour since it's a fair question to ask why they suddenly feel it's a problem when less than a month ago they thought it was okay for them to do the same thing. Nil Einne (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

battleground behaviour

How? By discussing personal attacks that I have endured from another user? Are we not allowed to be upset with personal attacks and raising concern over it via appropriate avenues? Steven1991 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I made no comment until now about the personal attacks. I don't think they were acceptable, in fact if Wikipedious1 hadn't said that the entity comment was an extremely poor attempt at humour which they seem to recognise they shouldn't try again, I'd be supporting an indef. But personal attacks aren't the only issue you raised.

You made a big deal over them violating ARBECR after being told to stop. You're even asking for the entire article to be protected. All of these are perfectly reasonable. However, when they're coming from an editor who was themselves doing the same thing, then yes, it's also IMO reasonable to ask why this editor is now suddenly so worried about complying with ARBECR when it's an editor they are in disagreement with and when they didn't seem to care less than a month ago. If you'd just been given a CTOP alert with no followup we could conclude perhaps you simply didn't understand. Likewise if if it had been several months or longer, perhaps they'd come to better appreciate why it matters based on their experience.

But I gave a specific warning where I explained it a bit more detailed and highlighted examples where IMO you'd violated ARBECR. You deleted my comment as allowed to but it means we can assume you read it and had no further questions. But then you seemed to continue with this behaviour. I did not pay any attention so didn't notice this at the time.

I first became aware that your ARBECR violations continued about 2 weeks ago when there was a thread discussing your behaviour. I noticed you'd gain EC so there was no longer any concerns over ARBECR. I did a quick check and it looked liked you'd stayed away from problem area even when editing articles where it might come up (primarily anti-Semitism ones) after my warning before you gained EC which was only ~5 days or so from my warning. So started to comment that since you did seem to be learning (as you'd stopped after I asked you to) perhaps it's fine for editors to just let it be now that they'd explained their concern .

However I dislike making mistakes so double checked before posting and then found edits that seemed to be continued violations. By that stage since you'd well gained EC and from my quick judgment even if we subtracted your violations, I didn't see much point discussing it further. But also the comment I'd planned to post defending you was not true so I didn't post it. It's only when I saw this thread where you are making a big deal over ARBECR that my concerns were again raised for the reasons stated.

As largely an aside, I read about but didn't check the AN thread until just earlier. Even having read it I still feel my comment is more appropriate here than in the other thread even if there were more editing discussing concerns over you there. As stated, I don't feel the ARBECR violations before you gained EC are by themselves such a big deal hence why I didn't post over them before, it's only when we get the dichotomy of you making a big deal over ARBECR that they start to become a concern and that's mostly in this thread. And you started them both (even if this one not originally in ANI). Anyway I think I've said enough.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you seem to be right for most parts of your reply.

However, when they're coming from an editor who was themselves doing the same thing, then yes, it's also IMO reasonable to ask why this editor is now suddenly so worried about complying with ARBECR

However, I cannot agree with the above as I don’t see any correlations. I am not “worried about” the quoted issue. I don’t need to “worry about” an issue in order to bring it to the attention of the responsible personnel. An ill-defined “worry” is not a prerequisite for regulatory matter to be discussed. Logically, it in no ways prevents me from doing so and I struggle to understand why it would be such an issue. It appears to be made up for the sake of discrediting me and trivialising the nature of the matter. Steven1991 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit (cited above by the OP) is not an ARBECR violation. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where you are making a big deal over ARBECR that my concerns were again raised for the reasons stated

What do you mean by “making a big deal” ? Because the original post (before being moved here) was exactly related to an article extended protection request, which would not have even been considered by the admin team if it had not been tangentially related to ECR violations. As such, it had to be brought up to satisfy the handling personnel that there is a such need. I do not see how this would have constituted what you referred to as “making a big deal” ?

You seem to have ignored the other examples being provided in my replies above. Steven1991 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still not a violation to the remedy, which might suggest a more scattershot approach to evidence. Which would be problematic. El_C 02:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expound more on Steven's scattershot, or scattergun, approach, please see these linked remarks that I think touch very precisely to the same troubling issues many editors are seeing from Steven over a period of time

They [Steven1991] have a somewhat scattergun approach. As noted above, they opened a WP:AN thread on other editors (one of which they never even notified), attempted to remove one of his editorial opponents through a possibly retaliatory SPI—having already been found to have socked themselves!—canvassed, attempted to protect the article in their favour, bludgeoned the article talk page (over 70 comments in the last week, twice that of the next editor), where it has been suggested that there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own.

There is a certain tendency towards battlefield editing, WP:OWNership of the article, walls of text, and a passive aggressive treatment of other editors, combined with the attempted weaponisation of several of our administative processes. Considering their block log—which I wouldn't usually raise, glass houses, etc, but three in a month, all very recognizably involving Disruptive editing edit warring, deceptive summaries, battleground territory—something needs to change, and fast. I suggested yesterday that they might find another, less controversial area to edit, and they agreed. Twice. It is a shame, perhaps, that they have not yet done so.

Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. May I ask why you issued me an “apology” on my Talk page if you somehow seem to believe that I am the only person in the wrong? Steven1991 (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of your last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which you’re not supposed to have got involved in the first place.

II.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries you didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address your “concerns” for the sake of de-escalation.

III.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from you/other users concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.

IV.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by you at any point of time. You do not appear to have shown signs of improving your manner in your correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.

V.) It is not “spamming” when you appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. They are reminders – gentle reminders. I advise you to follow the WP:AGF and avoid mischaracterising my actions as anything unfriendly when what I desire is respect.

VI.) You were asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in your replies to my polite and humble messages.

VII.) Rather than listen, you appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process, so I would appreciate if you can stop insisting that I am in the wrong.

Steven1991 (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Steven1991, please stop with the line breaks. Just use the threaded discussion like everyone else. El_C 02:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. Steven1991 (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an instruction, Steven. El_C 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Steven1991 (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another baseless accusation. M.Bitton (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you can avoid using charged words or judgmental language that may constitute the type of accusation that you allege me to have made. Steven1991 (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is baseless. Because, again, it does not violate the remedy. That's not a charged word in this instance. You cannot deflect from criticism by way of hypersensitivity. El_C 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn’t. I am simply stating my perception. It may be right, it may be wrong. It is hard to tell. But what is the fact is that the user as mentioned in my #1 post engaged in several suspected WP:NPA violations which I am entitled to point out and seek appropriate assistance. Nothing beyond that. I would leave it here as I have basically put forward all my points. Thank you so much for your attention. Steven1991 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like semantics. In any case, if your evidence was compiled more clearly and without redundancies, it'd likely receive more pointed attention from reviewers. El_C 02:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the content of the article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times while “Gaza” 3 times. How is the article not intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Steven1991 (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that they've seemingly developed a pattern of accusing users they disagree with of sockpuppetry.

First attempt: @Wellington Bay, @Insanityclown1, & @Wikipedious1

Second attempt: @Grandpallama & @M.Bitton Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an investigation into a regulatory matter is both a user right and an ordinary procedure. It is not an act of accusation when a person perceives the existence of suspicions warranting attention. I would appreciate if no mischaracterisation is done. Steven1991 (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven1991, glancing through this complaint, it does seem like you are repeating yourself here. To get back to the original complaint of yours, what remedy are you seeking? I like to hear what the purpose of the filing is when I am weighing the evidence presented. Also, as a general rule, unless a lot of editors join in the discussion, I've found that the longer a complaint on ANI is, the less likely it is that action will be taken. Just something to keep in mind for future ANI posts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, as it is the decision of another admin to move my article extended protection request from one section of Wikipedia over here, I am not sure what the best course of action would be. I was not active on Wikipedia again until this summer, so there are still a great deal of rules and technicalities I am not sure about. Steven1991 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]