Fort Towson

[Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.]

I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from this comment by Asparagusus on my talk page.

Also, Graham Beards implied here that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.

I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. Here he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as "brilliant". Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think.

Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in one case, cryptically said, "I'm not going to directly respond to your question." when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.

Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. Here is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.

So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.

I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per WP:USERTALKSTOP. If User:Fabrickator had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux, I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not "formally" respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to avoid interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).

I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:

• Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.
• Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.

If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a "confession of fault".

• There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'
• Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.

For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban.

We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be "participating" in editing or commenting on the same article.

Respectfully, Fabrickator (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. Fabrickator (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.

And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? Polar Apposite (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite, this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old.

An admin should close this. TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's "stale" is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. Polar Apposite (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite we're supposed to WP:AGF, not WP:ABF. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. TarnishedPath^talk 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly in conversations.

In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. TarnishedPath^talk 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the "voluntary iban" (which was effectively "completed" by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. Fabrickator (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.

If things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

[Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.]

I'll reply to myself to avoid "bludgeoning" anyone :)

331dot told me on my talk page that, "It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)".

Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.

I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.

I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of this Wikipedia page which says,

"This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances."

I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some "frenemy"-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.

@Nil Einne I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote,

"A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough."

Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [1], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @Fabrickator 's reversion here of this other good edit of mine to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no "reverted" tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, "revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both "Filipino" and "Filipina" are acceptable forms when used with "mother"; remove extraneous space at end of line". Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see my comments on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that "Filipina" is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore "Filipino" is more encyclopedic. I also argued that "Filipina" is confusing, because then what does "Filipino" mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.

To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag here. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted here by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, "Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source". To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me here (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an "extraneous space".

Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.

@CoffeeCrumbs You wrote,"Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally" First, whether I have a history of "bludgeoning conversations" at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? "Flooding" is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, "flooding" seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)

You wrote, "They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly in conversations." Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.

You wrote, "In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud." Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that "every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud"? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.

@The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I did what I was told to do. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it "badly-formatted"? Cheers. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to read all of that. TarnishedPath^talk 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to WP:BLUDGEON while ignoring WP:AGF, I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at MOS:PHIL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

First, whether I have a history of "bludgeoning conversations" at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?

I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the "diffs" if it matters to you

Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his "talk" page, so the fact that I made posts to his "talk" page is not per se an issue.

Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. Fabrickator (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but I still want a permanent interaction ban, ideally one way. Polar Apposite (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies or demanding things, especially not a one-way interaction ban. You really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this before it turns into a boomerang in the form of a motion from an uninvolved editor. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by User:Graham Beards in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. Fabrickator (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for being so reasonable. I think you might want to consider at least acknowledging that you were wrong in thinking that he was bowing out, and maybe apologize to him (optionally). Polar Apposite (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop this, right now. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Polar Apposite, no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm appending this to the end, like Fabrickator did with his comment. I'm also omitting all pings. Hoping not to be accused of "bludgeoning".

  Although it is true that "I've been busy with some things in real life", as I said above, it's also true that I was quite discouraged by the hostility that I've experienced on Wikpedia, and that my fellow editors seemed not to care about what Fabrickator (and some other editors, but that's another matter) had done to me. That's maybe *why* I busied myself with real life matters for a month or so. So calling the matter "stale" because I took a month break is not appropriate, I think.

  Did I do something wrong that can't be said out loud? Why are so many people being so hostile to me? I feel like people don't care or even would be glad to see stop copyediting Wikipedia.

  Why should Fabrickator continue to get away with wasting my time and worse, reverting my good edits, just because I got in trouble long ago as a newbie, in an unrelated matter? How long am I supposed to be punished for that? Didn't I pay my debt to Wikipedia by being blocked, so to speak?

  And anyway, shouldn't we be prioritizing the project? Good edits are good edits, regardless of who does them, or even why, right? And there's also the time wasted by third parties who undo Fabrickator's reversions of my good edits, which has happened in two out of the four cases. Polar Apposite (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  You've not provided any additional evidence or reasoning with this comment. What is the point of this? You've just repeated yourself. Stop now before this becomes a motion about you. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was told [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&diff=prev&oldid=1214804087 here]: "Shorter is always better. If you feel that you have something new which will positively contribute to a discussion, you should do so. If you have been warned against excessively posting, though, consider whether you need to post it."

  What I posted was shorter. I felt that I had something new that would be a positive contribution. I considered whether I needed to post it (and concluded that I did). I did exactly what I was I told to do. Polar Apposite (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, you really didn't. You posted another evidence-free diatribe. This is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a pertinent portion of the discussion with Graham Beards, in which I described Graham's proposal as a way of "graciously bowing out" of the dispute. Fairly shortly after posting this message, I received a thanks from Graham. It would be pretty juvenile to go around parading the fact of having received a "thanks" from somebody, but it is significant here because it seriously contrasts with Polar's interpretation of the situation. Fabrickator (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Polar Apposite... Before this thread gets closed down, I feel "inspired" to come back to the discussion you and I were having several weeks ago regarding the length of the sigmoid colon.

I realize this is very much a sore spot for you, but I felt it showed that you had a blind spot with regard to editing Wikipedia. In this discussion, you expressed doubt about information in the article indicating the length of the sigmoid colon was 35-40 cm., based on your belief that this length was not plausible. The question I asked you was how you would advise an editor asking you this same question, but that had seemed to get you all riled up.

I'm here now, and I'm again asking this question. Seriously, if it's not apparent which Wikipedia principle(s) should inform you on how to resolve this concern, then that casts doubt as to whether your continued editing of WP is appropriate. Fabrickator (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd drop this attempt at discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You wrote, "I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies [...]". Did I actually get blamed for accepting an apology? That would be Kafkaesque". Polar Apposite (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It often takes two to tango. TarnishedPath^talk 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of editors here like to speak in riddles, I see. Polar Apposite (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not a riddle. It's a common saying where I'm from. TarnishedPath^talk 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it does kind of sound like a riddle. I like riddles! Fabrickator (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

This user has taken ownership of FSO Polonez. While their English is limited that is easily fixed. However, they also insist on uploading a loooong list of how many cars were exported to each country, which I consider WP:CRUFT. More problematic, they've also uploaded dozens of copyvio images to the Commons and insist on placing them in the article. I started a deletion request at Commons, but it moves slowly and the user also has problems with WP:CIVIL in my estimation.

Requests to heed WP:BRD are ignored, their only response so far was Please find something else to do. I spend my time and knowledge to do something good for Wikipedia and people which want draw knowledge. If you have problem with that, report it to administration and continuing to restore their edits. So here we are.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User continues to edit-war and is immune to reason. YBSOne (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And still edit warring past final warning. Warned by 4 users. YBSOne (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• 158.223.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I previously raised concerns on 18 March 2024, and the WP:DISRUPTIVE editing is continuing.

The very latest example is yet another modification of a direct quotation (Special:Diff/1215894901.) I tried pointing that out the last time it happened (see User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#HGV20) but whether the editor just ignored it or just flat out doesn't understand is difficult to say. Their English comprehension seems limited; a number of haphazard edits (like Special:Diff/1213373005, Special:Diff/1215867316, Special:Diff/1215727741, [2]) make it look like that they don't understand what was written before or the effects of their own changes.

Combined with their talk page interactions (including on User_talk:158.223.122.211) my impression is that they tend to miss the point a whole lot and are quite oblivious to it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

194.66.191.22 (HOPEFULLY I DON'T MESS UP AND POST ALL OF HIS USER TALK PAGE MESSAGES AGAIN) has been vandalising over a 20 year period, and it even shows the old block notices! I'd like this IP to be perma-blocked. Waylon (was) (here) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't permanently block IPs. That IP is registered to a college in the UK, as noted on their talk page. We tend to get intermittent disruptive edits from schools (as well as public libraries, Dunkin Donuts wifi, etc.) and it's not uncommon for elementary and high school IPs to be blocked for long periods of time because of this, but I would be hesitant about placing a lengthy block on a post-secondary institution over occasional vandal edits, as there's a chance that the students might be able to contribute something of value someday. Spicy (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Last edits were from February 1, so there's nothing actionable here at all, and they had already been warned for those edits, so your re-warning was pointless. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• 2804:14C:128:270D:0:0:0:475 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Kingsman (franchise) (diff): vandalism after final warning. Repeated disruptive changes to content and removal of formatting across a variety of articles. Majority of edits have been reverted. The IP has also repeatedly performed such disruptive behaviors on the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One and Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two articles, among many other franchise-related tables. This is getting quite annoying to revert each time they return and they ignore any warnings given, and have edited as such through different IPs. The reach of their edits is problematic, though individual page protection for every article may be too extreme. I previously took this issue to AIV though they recommend I bring it here instead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Zack097 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Noticed a few additions of categories which were not supported by article contents. User has a history of adding poorly or unsourced content, with numerous level 4 warnings. Some examples include [3], [4], and [5].--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This user has done almost nothing constructive in the many years since they created the account. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page Final Fantasy XVI can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning Fixer332 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fixer332 The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be AIV. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

8diq (talk · contribs · count) has

• repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite MOS:IRELEV and other editors' warnings on their talk page
  • first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards
• posted copyrighted materials on articles and cross-wiki-uploaded copyrighted images to Commons tagged as "own work"
• not even one edit that is not reverted

Northern Moonlight 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am asking for User:Fred Zepelin to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.

During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[6] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[7]

Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[8] and template-warned me inappropriately.[9]

I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[10], citing WP:USERTALKSTOP[11] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [12] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[13] BBQboffin (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Which they immediately reverted and apologized for (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? Nate • (chatter) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged "whitewashing" - no. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"I forgot" is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting "Knock off the whitewashing" and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't "self-resolve" a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting WP:USERTALKSTOP with another editor[14], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[15]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary on their self-revert, "forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page," gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? City of Silver 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. City of Silver 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is not a result I want for anyone as "chilling" an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. Nate • (chatter) 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was completely frivolous (but put it more profanely) and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an "easily solvable" issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[1]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing X-Men related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in List of X-Men members talk page. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of ownership of content of the List of X-Men members page by @Hotwiki. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to Personal attack by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.

• 1: (WP:OWN, WP:RS) @Hotwiki sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[16] on the basis of "This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue." but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in Talk:List of X-Men members. He reverted the edit[17] done by @Tomahawk1221 on the basis of "Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source". He reverted the edits[18][19] having the same information (some more addition) done by @Ringardiumleviossa and @Lipshiz on the basis of "Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source". But when some of the information were removed[20] by @Sewnbegun on the basis of "Removing unreferenced content", he reverted[21] them on the basis of "Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission." I don't get why many editors need reference as per reliable sources for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[22] on the basis of "these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?" Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis WP:RS - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[23] on the basis of No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted.
  • 1.2: Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[24] by @Sookenon.
• 2: (WP:OWN, MOS:GRAMMAR) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[25] an edit done by @Khajidha to the previous version. Another similar edit[26] (on the basis of "Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.") was reverted[27] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?". Lastly, he kept reverting[28][29][30][31] changes regarding some sentences in Subtitute X-Men teams section and only stopped until these edits[32][33] were made on the basis of "Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it" and "Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)" respectively.
• 3: (WP:OWN) One of the most interesting edit was done here[34] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "No need to state the obvious". He later himself made an edit[35] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of "fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as "Muir Island X-Men" thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute".
• 4: (WP:OWN, WP:CON) @Hotwiki made this edit[36] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of "Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well" but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.
• 5: (WP:OWN, WP:OVERCITE) An IP user added[37] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit[38] on the basis of "Not all of those months are referenced." I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[39] of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill.
• 6: (WP:OWN, WP:RS) @Hotwiki agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @Sewnbegun added[40][41][42] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[43] whole by him on the basis of "Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters". The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these "sourced reverted names" were the only names not picked by from Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members. which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] if you have time.
• 7: (WP:OWN, WP:CON) @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits[60][61] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of "Revert unnecessary changing of order" and "Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes." This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[62] but it was again reverted[63] on the basis of "Still no talkpage consensus" but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).
  • 7.2: I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes "as per talk page", but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of Hotwiki as the same situation as above happened in this discussion Dark X-Men (2023) & Woofer. 2 were in favour (@Storm1221 and @Hotwiki) and 1 against (ToshiroIto7). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teedbunny (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You must notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I already did. Thank you! Teedbunny (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

See it again please. Teedbunny (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Uh, I already did. Therefore the reference. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? Teedbunny (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. Remsense诉 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. Hotwiki (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa and this is how User:Sewnbegun was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly User:Ringardiumleviossa, User:Sewnbegun and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. Hotwiki (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added "names" in the article ([64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]) it was from the article proposal of User:Ringardiumleviossa in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? Hotwiki (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for #5 (An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of "Not all of those months are referenced." I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. Hotwiki (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for #7. ( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of "Revert unnecessary changing of order" and "Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes." This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of "Still no talkpage consensus" but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against). How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.Hotwiki (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for #4 (4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of "Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well" but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[80] Hotwiki (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for 3 (One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "No need to state the obvious". He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of "fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as "Muir Island X-Men" thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute".) I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. Hotwiki (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, one more thing. List of X-Men members is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Teedbunny: how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards @Sewnbegun: especially if you read the talkpage of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said " I just didn't see it as a consensus yet" because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over Dark X-Men (2023) & Woofer here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[81][82][83] were kept being done as per this discussion. Teedbunny (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. Teedbunny (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. Hotwiki (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding "references" to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. Hotwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. Teedbunny (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. Teedbunny (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. Hotwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is that article a prime example of why WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a real X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia.

In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight WP:OWN leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this very long report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than WP:OWN, which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in good faith, and so this situation seems like a good candidate for dispute resolution, not administrative intervention. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. Teedbunny (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with per talk page is well within WP:BRD. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, consensus is not a vote count. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.

• Along with WP:OWN @Hotwiki has also possibly broken these:
  • WP:RS for point 1.
    • Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis WP:RS - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[84].
  • MOS:GRAMMAR for point 2.
  • WP:CON for points 4 (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and 7.
    • While for point 7 why reverts[85][86][87] were made on the basis of this discussion even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions?
  • WP:OWN leading indirect WP:OVERCITE for point 5 which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).

Teedbunny (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points...

• Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of WP:RS. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be avoiding the WP:OVERCITE you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one.
• Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to support the MOS, and were therefore justified.
• Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of WP:BRD.
• Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways.
• Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to why the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to WP:NODEADLINE, which is a policy-based argument of "Let's wait and see before we add it." I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that was against consensus, one violation seven months ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption.

Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try talking to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following WP:DR. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a WP:BOOMERANG if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. Teedbunny (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to second EducatedRedneck that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. Q ^{T C} 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it is disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is "stable" or that someone didn't ask for consensus in advance. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should not be based on comic book references per WP:PRIMARY policy #5: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, do the list of X-Men members need more reliable secondary sources? Teedbunny (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from Central Asia and other related pages. TheLastUbykh (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [88] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read WP:VANDAL, and to discuss the matter on the article talk page, apparently to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part.

This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele.

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. " TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at Talk:Central Asia, then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at User talk:Mann Mann, then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at WP:AIV and User talk: Michael D. Turnbull. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, "warnings" in edit summaries are meaningless.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.

And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I did leave a message to his username talk page. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And I did that after reading your first post. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The OP had discussed this topic earlier at the help desk, and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of vandalism against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as this one as well as this one, they were concerned about possible original research and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.

this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along.

anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. TheLastUbykh (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity.

again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim.

shahnameh is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is "paris is the capital of France" in the current mainstream Academic consensus. TheLastUbykh (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You're proving my point. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [89]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. WP:OUCH? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My reverts on Central Asia were justified. In the first revert, I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[90][91] In the second revert, my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to Talk:Central Asia, but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[92] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[93][94][95] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[96] and targeting me.[97] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your contributions show some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, your report and your comments are just WP:BOOMERANG. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[98] that you discovered me. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack. I let other editors reach a consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Anant-morgan continues making personal attacks following a block [99]. Please remove talk page access. JimRenge (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that Are you restarted or something? isn't what A-m meant. Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Molarinoye09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting Take That related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to WP:NSONG, or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles here, and here, they revert back and sometimes respond with "Don't do something bad." or "leave this article alone!" and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating "This is an article, not a redirect." which also suggests WP:OWN issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have continued to ignore them as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they "would not be blocked" when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. This, created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

...aaand within 35 minutes of You and Me (Take That single) being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with Draft:You and Me (Take That song) (09:59). Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for Wonderland. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.

Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed "The Beatles" to "One Direction", replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.

As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. Tedster41 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This emerges from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and use of the |result= in {{infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhus%27_invasion_of_the_Peloponnese&oldid=1128963126&diff=cur (inserting anachronistic infobox flags)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sparta&diff=1215622745&oldid=1092629126 (inserting fictional and anachronistic infobox flags)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215737268&oldid=1208663331&title=Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars (misunderstanding the article; inserting more flags)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&diff=1216054692&oldid=1213019550 (restoring partially previously reverted edits that misunderstand the article – noting that Asiagenes and not Africanus was the main Roman commander – are inconsistent with use of |result=)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ecbatana&oldid=1199556869&diff=cur (misusing |result=)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_campaigns_in_Germania_(12_BC_%E2%80%93_AD_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1215919875 (misusing |result=)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Actium&diff=prev&oldid=1216062151 (misusing |result= along with unsourced additions)

There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:

This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done., I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice.

There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on Emrah's talk page yesterday where he simply responded with a curt Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at Roman–Seleucid war). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra WP:COMMUNICATE, and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Ifly6 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Its the same behavior of refusing to read what WP:MOS says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either WP:ICANTHEARYOU or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: "I changed it, it fine now.".--Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at WP:AIV but rebuffed.

Logo examples: [100] [101] [102]

Reversions of my removal of said logos: [103] [104] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

More sourceless logos: [105] [106] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's WP:NOTHERE. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of those logos can be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sak7340 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Mohammed Zubair (journalist) and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a WP:EWN report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [107] and myself [108]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. Ravensfire (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [109] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've increased to indefinite. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)