The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
THe first diff is just loaded with personal attacks. The second one is just inappropriate talk page behavior of changing their comments after they had already been replied to. The user also seems to be following one of the users around since they had no business commenting on that section on Deb's talk page. ―Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Edited to add, I’d never heard of Dr. Pierce before 20 minutes ago, but this account was so clearly here to push an agenda against her, plus the personal attacks being so flagrant, this was absolutely an influence we are better off without.Courcelles (talk)20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I came across the recent edits atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasindu Kumara (this one and prior), and it appears that one network is masquerading as several users (Mike Douglas, Don Omar, unsigned comments). As I'm not absolutely certain, I have not taken action of any kind, but I felt I should bring this up somewhere and felt this was likely the most appropriate place because multiple accounts are not involved. Any advice would be appreciated!Jguglielmin (talk)06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's possible that these sock IPs belong to the creator of that article,පසිඳු කාවින්ද. Why? Minutes after the article was nominated at AfD, IP112.134.166.186 (talk·contribs) showed up and was clearly opposed to the AfD. I'm guessing the only way they could show up at the AfD with that speed is if they received a notification or are tracking the page they recently created. The other two IPs I mentioned above geolocate to the exact same location as the first IP, and I have lots of suspicions. — Nythar (💬-❄️)07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I have checked the discussion and found that all comments made by those IP's are vaild, can you advise me the reason for revert? Only registered user can contribute to wikipedia or?— Precedingunsigned comment added byපසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk •contribs)07:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The IPs were impersonating multiple editors. You consider that to be valid? And why are the three IPs and yourself editing together so conveniently? — Nythar (💬-❄️)07:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I am a wikipedia user for more than 10 years and created more than 500 articles for Sinhala wikipeida and made over 50,000 edits. In Sri Lanka, there are lot of people who are not registered but contributed to Sinhala wikipedia. You are saying that IP's are allowed read but not allowed to edit or comment for good reason?— Precedingunsigned comment added byපසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk •contribs)07:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Using three IPs to impersonate other users and sway the result of a discussion is a blockable offense. This has nothing to do with your other contributions.Nythar (💬-❄️)08:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aggressive, NotHere behavior by Haris Murtaza 2002
I think a block is warranted. Their edit summaries are full of personal attacks and they are edit warring over an image which is worse than the one currently in the article. ―Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I've indef'd from that article due to long term disruptive editing and edit warring. I only see the one personal attack, which although not great, will hopefully be a one-off.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Yep I see that now. I mistook another user's uncivil edit summary for one of theirs. Frankly I think they should just be full indef'd since they only seem to be here to change the image to his own (crappy, highly saturated, tilted) image, but we'll see. ―Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Noting that Elbrusoid1507 has counter-filed against WikiEditor1234567123 below; these two discussions are concerning the same page and the same two editors, and should both be had here. I have notified Elbrusoid1507 ofWP:CTOP and intend to intervene if either editor makes any further disruptive edits (n.b., Elbrusoid1507 has yet to provide any substantive evidence of WikiEdtor engaging in disruption at this page).signed,Rosguilltalk18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill I added 3 sources for the translation of Vladikavkaz in Ingush (which were removed by Elbrusoid1507) which the Russian page Vladikavkaz also contains. Nobody has an issue with Russian page containing Ingush translation for except Elbrusoid1507 who removed text and sources there too. It also looks like Elbrusoid1507 hasn't been able to provide any substantive evidence of me engaging in disruption at the page. I will be waiting for your response to this conflict as Elbrusoid1507 is now adding ossetian translation of city Nazran inNazran which doesn't have any basis for it and is quite same as me adding Ingush translation ofChicago orMadrid.WikiEditor1234567123 (talk)15:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Prior to this comment, I already issued a topic-ban against Elbrusoid1507 from ethnic minorities of Russia and the former USSR for the edit-warring atNazran that you are identifying here, so this issue has been resolved. N.b., Elbrusoid's Ossetian translations, both atNazran and atCaucasus appear to contradict the spellings used on Ossetian Wikipedia (although the reason for the sanction is strictly the edit warring to reinstate content without a source, it is possible that Ossetian Wikipedia is wrong or that this is a dialect difference).signed,Rosguilltalk16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I only saw the topic-ban after I made the comment so I didn't know. I'm not familiar with the Ossetian translations so I can't really say anything about Elbrusoid1507's Ossetian translation of Nazran. Nevertheless thank you for resolving the issue.WikiEditor1234567123 (talk)16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I would like to point out that you didn't alert the user about CTfor the first time using{{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template since the user didn't ever receive CT or DS alert before that, neither used logged warning before you sanctioned the user, based on the user's talk page history. If you aren't aware of the new CT procedures, different from the old DS system, theCT awareness policy requires user to be first alerted with that templatebefore using{{Contentious topics/alert}} on any subsequent alerts. --Stylez995 (talk)07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed that subtlety in the new alerts and had assumed that there was still the single alert notification that was used under the DS system. Logged warnings, meanwhile, are not required as a precursor to sanctions.signed,Rosguilltalk14:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Admins makes mistakes, like everyone else, including me. I know logged warnings isn't required prior to sanctioning.@Rosguill: Since the user didn't receive any prior CT or DS alerts, straight{{Contentious topics/alert}} to the user could be considered invalid, and thus yoursanction could be considered invalid since the user isn't considered aware of the CT. Once{{Contentious topics/alert/first}} has been placed on any topic area on the user's talk page, then that alert becomes valid, and subsequent alerts using{{Contentious topics/alert}} template will be valid. I would advise you to retract your sanction to avoid having trouble with the ArbCom, and place{{Contentious topics/alert/first}} instead. --Stylez995 (talk)07:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I think this would make a bureaucratic mountain out of a molehill, and believe that the sanction is appropriate (alternatively, I could block them as NOTHERE as a regular admin action, which would have been my recourse to prevent disruption in the alternate universe where CTOP/DS doesn't exist). If ARBCOM sees it necessary to vacate the sanction due to procedural problems, I have no problem with them doing so. But absent a request from ARBCOM, I think that either rescinding the sanction without action or rescinding the sanction and imposing a block would be more deleterious to the encyclopedia than the status quo.signed,Rosguilltalk16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I see your sanction is otherwise appropriate to prevent their continued disruptive behaviour on encyclopedia, given their contribution history. --Stylez995 (talk)18:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Less than 20 edits, all problematic. Including blanking a suer page not their own. Cut the Gordian Knot of bureaucracy and just indef. We're better off without this person coming back.Courcelles (talk)18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
For the last few years, most of Karagory's activity has been centered around removing a description of former Trump administration trade advisorPeter Navarro's economic views as fringe. That is quite well sourced, so they have not met with any success, and most people don't bother to respond to their points on the talk page any more - most of which consist of adding quotes and links to news articles about trade policy that don't even mention Navarro or his views.[7][8] Karagory seems to be unable to understand that these articles are irrelevant, though it has been explained to them several times.[9][10]
They have also taken to edit warring to prevent the archiving of these talk page sections (which have not been commented on in years) because Karagory claims that they are all active discussions.[11][12][13][14][15] Karagory's refusal toWP:DROPTHESTICK has been disruptive for some time, but this rejection of talk page archiving seems over the top to me.
It is my belief that Karagory isWP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and is either unable (WP:CIR) or unwilling (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) to understand that consensus has long been against them. I'm not sure if a block or a topic ban from politics is needed here, but I believe that something needs to be done. -MrOllie (talk)17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This “incident” is not urgent. Will the editor please explain how this “incident” is urgent?
The editor did not attempt to use Dispute Resolution. Will the editor please explain why Dispute Resolution was not tried?
The editor claims that “most of Karagory’s activity”; what does the editor mean by “most”? My activity has included all kinds of articles. The editor is falsely trying to portray my motives as being something other than positive.
The editor claims "so they have not met with any success"; that is not accurate. My discussion has added two references to the claim of "fringe". Why does the editor not mention that?— Precedingunsigned comment added byKaragory (talk •contribs)23:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The editor claims “most of which consist of adding quotes and links to news articles about trade policy that don't even mention Navarro”; again, what does the editor mean by “most”? They have included articles mentioning Mr. Navarro and the editor summarily deletes them. I think this would be better handle by Dispute Resolution.
I have added to the discussion new/updated references of February 13, 2023, May 20, 2022, October, 2022, and multiple others that the editor has archived.
The editor claims “this rejection of talk page archiving seems over the top to me”; the editor never discussed, only archived without discussing. Will the editor please explain why discussion did not take place first? Or now?
The editor claims “They have also taken to edit warring“; this is not the case. If editor believed that Edit Warring was taking place, why did not the editor bring that up in discussion?
If the editor claims “I'm not sure if a block or a topic ban from politics is needed here”; then why does the editor suggest it here?
I believe the healthy discussion that I added to the lead of the article that ended with better and more accurate referencing, was a big positive to the article.
In conclusion, I am bringing up recent, and I believe relevant, references for discussion. I do not understand why the editor wants this to stop, and archive anything that the editor disagrees with?Karagory (talk)23:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Since I am being accused of lying here, I will simply note that Karagory's response here illustrates demonstrates the comprehension issues quite well. I encourage everyone reviewing this to take a brief look atTalk:Peter_Navarro, that talk page'shistory, andTalk:Peter Navarro/Archive 2. I know it looks long, but I doubt you'll have to read more than a little to see that my summary is accurate.MrOllie (talk)14:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Karagory, your remarks above, includingthe editor is falsely trying to portray my motives,Why does the editor claim falsehoods?, andthis is not the case, can all be reasonably interpreted as you accusing MrOllie of lying.JoJo Anthrax (talk)15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
That certainly was not my intention. I apologize to MrOllie. I do not wish to speak to the editor's motives. I only wish to ensure that my intentions are not inaccurately portrayed. Again, I am sorry for misspeaking.Karagory (talk)16:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The editor's remarks do not specifically refute my claims. The editor only speaks in lofty prose and does not give details. Again, the editor is refusing to engage meaningful discussion. How about agreeing to archive everything but the last one or two calendar years of discussion?Karagory (talk)14:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
90 days is the generally accepted timeframe for archiving. I cannot fathom a 2-year limit on archiving for this page. If discussions have ended, they do not need to remain on the talk page. Just drop the stick, please. —The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
A reliable source for... how long WP should wait before archiving talk page discussion that has gone inactive? That's not going to exist. And since you are aware of the contentious topics procedure, I am going to hereby ban you from the page ofPeter Navarro, the associated talk page, and from making any edits about Navarro anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This restriction is indefinite, but may be lifted by any uninvolved administrator in one year. The direct reason for this sanction is the clear inability to drop the stick, as well as a two year history of attempted ownership of the article.Courcelles (talk)18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Persistently changing content to false figures to a geography wikipedia article
OP, you have failed to notifyಹುಲಿ (talk·contribs) of this discussion, even though the red notice on top of this page clearly requires you to do so. Please remember this next time, as it is very important that any users you report here know that you have done so and that they can respond or appeal. Regards,User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me |Contributions).00:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Dronebogus and involved NAC closures
This is a messy discussion with quite a gradation of proposals, but there's still consensus in several places. Editors are more-or-less unanimous that some sort of topic ban is needed to deal with Dronebogus's inappropriate closures, and the general sentiment is that this should be indefinite. There's a fair amount of disagreement about whether it should cover all closures or just XfD closures: some argue that the disruption has so far been limited to XfD and/or that his talk-page closures have been constructive, while others argue that someone who can't be trusted to close XfDs can't be trusted to close anything else. Neither is an unreasonable argument, so given the numerical split there's not a consensus for the harsher total closure ban. There's pretty clearly consensus against the original proposal here, a total XfD ban. I do see a rough consensus, though, for an indefinite ban from MfD. There's substantial support for this sanction (including from Dronebogus himself), and most opposers don't really engage with the supporters' evidence regarding incivility, ragpicking, and a "general combative attitude"—or with the fact that Droneboguswas warned for MfD-related disruption almost a year ago. A couple of editors supported a narrower ban merely on MfDnominations, but that suggestion didn't pick up much traction.
In summary:
Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from closing any XfD discussion.
These restrictions will be logged atWP:EDR; they may be appealed atWP:AN after a reasonable time (6–12 months has been suggested). Further disruption in other areas of the encyclopedia will likely be met with further sanctions. Extraordinary Writ (talk)07:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unfortunately, even afterUser:Dronebogus hadmade a promise to me he would not make this mistake again, today he hasclosed a formal process in which he hasalready !voted. He has an unfortunate habit of closing discussions in which he has already made assertions (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8). He sometimes clerks various discussions, even when such clerking is not necessary and is quite unwelcome (9,10). After today's transgression I have lost my willingness to look the other way.
First of all, I amhighly involved here, so assume that my testimony comes from a position of bias and not of objectivity.
Second, I can attest to Dronebogus's behavior atWP:MFD among other venues being a combination of overzealous, offputting, and at times just downrightcombative. Beyond the six closures that BusterD mentioned, he has a high tendency toeditorialize during discussions and closures. I've also been disturbed at his tendency to trawl throughlong-dead userspace looking for items to delete, effectively pillorying users who have long since been blocked for years, declaring such items useless or stupid, thenquickly retracting if consensus heads in the other direction. Some argue that he has been doing Wikipedia a service, but to me, it creates a chilling atmosphere atWP:MFD. He also has not followedWP:BEFORE when initiating MFD's, in one notable examplehe dropped a welcome template on a user's talk page and thennominated their user page for deletion a day afterward.
I cannot ask for them to be blocked, because I know that at times I have been acting as an opposing force. But I find the behavior nonetheless to be as intolerable as BusterD does, and I think something needs to be done. This is getting to be a recurring issue. --⛵WaltClipper-(talk)19:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that there are issues with Dronebogus' conduct, especially in deletion discussions.
A lot of their speedy closures are full of insults and not done in accordance with policy. Here[16] for example they speedy close a discussion on the basis that the creator is a "probable sockpuppet" (not that they've been blocked as a sockpuppet, but on the basis that dronebogus is accusing them of being a sockpuppet), and that it was a "frivolous renomination" (regarding a discussion from three years ago, that closed as no consensus). Here[17] they speedy keep an article on the basis that it passesWikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and is therefore presumed notable. Apresumption of notability does not mean a topic is 100% guaranteed to get an article, and a closer does not get to just declare something notable.
Their responses to discussions are often filled with over-the-top, aggressive language which does nothing to further the discussion and just inflames tensions and insults the people who created the articles, e.g. "this useless article"[18] "We really need to gut Wikipedia of these"[19] "Wikipedia is not supercruftipedia"[20] "failed draft"[21].
There are a lot of comments that don't align with policy "list that should be a category"[22] (WP:NOTDUP). Articles shouldn't exist even if the topic is notable if they could be redirected elsewhere[23]? What on earth is an "obvious article" and how does that tie into content or deletion policies[24]? Claiming that a page used for a rewrite (and therefore required for attribution) should be speedy deleted under a non-existent speedy deletion criteria[25]?
Their interactions with other editors are often uncivil, containing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. "Don’t bother arguing with DF, they vote “keep” on almostevery deletion discussion they participate in, especially useless lists."[26], "Not an argument"[27]. Here they claim that notifying people who participated in a previous discussion would be "borderline canvassing" because they claim the previou discussion was "vote-bombed into oblivion by generic “support per above”" comments by people who just happened to disagree with Dronebogus[28].
You seem to have an amazing amount of knowledge of microscopic details of my editing history for an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. You are also digging up things from the beginning of last year I would never say now and making ad hominem attacks. Also, how is “not an argument” a personal attack? Deletion discussions are not votes!Dronebogus (talk)00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
You see, this is the central issue, and why I proposed a limited duration ban on all XfD. I believe User:Dronebogus can learn to assume good faith, but so far he's resisting. He goes right for casting aspersions against an IP editor who shows up with diffs. Instead of working with the evidence, he goes straight for the personal attack. With a possible community ban under discussion. Not the smartest card to play just now.BusterD (talk)01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict after edit conflict after edit conflictfor an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. Dronebogus, when you find you've dug yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is tostop digging. Going after the messenger will not help your case. This is the sort of behavior that is leading to your imminent sanctions.⛵WaltClipper-(talk)01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
But don’t you find it even alittle bit odd that some random user, with barely any history, shows up with a small essay’s worth of intricate information?Dronebogus (talk)01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, he turns this away from his responsibility and towards mine. I'm losing my good faith here, so I'm signing off for a while.BusterD (talk)01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@BusterD: The problem is that Dronebogus is right. That comment wasn't constructive and was passive aggressive at best, and at worst poking a bear so you can complain when it swipes at you. This is a formal discussion about a user's conduct, elbow nudges to someone else sayingGet a load of this guy amirite? are unhelpful and fairly rude. I'm curious what response, if any, youwanted from DB when you made that comment.GabberFlasted (talk)11:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
BusterD, I understand your perspective here, and it's very frustrating when someone else like Dronebogus isn't heeding your advice. But your comment really was unconstructive. Advice like when to take a wikibreak may be true, but it almost always will be ignored if coming from someone the user has clashed with before. Better to let the facts show themselves and have either someone who often agrees with the user, or is entirely uninvolved, provide that advice. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
1) This was certainly an unusually reactive response coming from me. I myself immediately stepped back from keyboard after I made the comment. Without prompting. 2) User:Dronebogus's edits have drawn my close attention before. A further reading ofWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned will show it's Dronebogus's frequent incivility andWP:Ragpicking which first drew my (and other editors') attention. The involved closings are just the most obvious policy violations I demonstrated in my evidence above (still unrefuted). Involved closings demonstrate battleground and failure to understand or adhere to deletion policy. In my OP, I did not expect a broad discussion about every breach of protocol and decorum which I have seen from Dronebogus. I intentionally kept the scope narrow. 3) I was not myself a regular contributor to MfD until comparatively recently, when I noticed the frequent ragpicking for which Dronebogus was warned in the past and continues to a leading nominator and commenter. 4) In this very process Dronebogus demonstrates his bad habit to personalize the discussion, pointing fingers everywhere but at themselves, ignoring the issues, the policy, the behavior. His immediately commenting on the editor (not the edits) is what set me off.BusterD (talk)18:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
5) Dronebogus's response to my evidence is "...I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this..." This is an unimpressive response from a user with exactly one talk archive page. An administrator noticed repeated bad behavior, interacted with them on the subject quite a bit, extracted a pledge not to let it happen again, then noticed the breach of policy again three months later. What is an admin supposed to do? "I forgot" is ridiculous. So far no admission of responsibility for their repeated violation of policy even after multiple warnings, only anger, denial, bargaining and depression. Still waiting on acceptance. And that, I'll concede, is absolutely infuriating to the admin. So I said something sub-optimal, then adjusted my behavior and took a break.BusterD (talk)18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I’ve violated policy, okay? I admit it. I fully, completely, sincerely admit it and would like you to leave me alone now.Dronebogus (talk)21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: It took BusterD starting this ANI for you to finally understand that, since you weren't showing signs of understanding or recollection on your talk page (and if you had, the ANI almost certainly wouldn't have begun), so if you frame his words on this page as him disturbing your peace—if he had not done that, you would not have been in position to finally understand and say "I've violated policy"... so... BusterD is good, no? Forest, trees... BusterD is doing his best to deal with something that you are originally responsible for, in order to make the situation bearable for everybody. He doesn't have toWP:SATISFY you in the process, measuring every word perfectly, just like you were not required to act perfectly. Note here that the MfD that is the most proximate background thing to this ANI has now been reclosed by an (especially experienced) uninvolved administrator as 'keep', when you who had !voted delete closed it as 'no consensus' (nearer to your position); the discussion hadn't changed in the meantime. Would you notice howincredibly tolerantly andmildly editors expressed their concerns to you on your talk page: (1) avoiding disagreement regarding the merits by not even telling you that the close isbasically wrong (when I'm positive that they knew, just like I knew when I saw your close, that it's not the best reading of consensus, and not just bad as an involved close), (2) not demanding that you yourself undo it, (3) not threatening deletion review if you don't—at least not directly. Almost nothing was asked from you but simply to engage in the conversation. And you responded withPlease do not use my talk page as a general discussion page. No one asked you to be perfect, so don't ask BusterD to be perfect. The most critical element here, the real point of failure, isyour talk page. I'm saying this as a friend ...and someone with some very relevant experience in this area. I felt a need to tell you this. I hope you'll think about it. Cheers. —Alalch E.22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
That wall of text doesn’t justify that BusterD is essentially being given a “two wrongs make a right (especially if the second one is from an admin)” pass here.Dronebogus (talk)00:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
As an administrator of English Wikipedia, my actions are always subject to community review and I encourage others to offer me direct feedback, including those with whom I disagree. Community trust is my only armor. If Dronebogus wants to start a separate thread on this page or at AN, I welcome the chance to see critique of my actions. This thread is about Dronebogus's behavior and conduct.BusterD (talk)02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I have interacted with you before in deletion discussions, but I'm on a dynamic IP range shared by a lot of people. I don't see the ad homien attacks here? “not an argument” isn't a personal attack, but I think it is an uncivil way of interacting with a newbie in their first ever deletion discussion after they had put a lot of effort into improving the article - you could have spent some time explaining what the issue with their comment actually was, rather than just dismissing it off hand as worthless.
My fundamental issue with your contributions to deletion discussions (and honestly discussions more generally) is that rather than explaining things politely in terms of policy you leave rather unpleasant comments full of rude language. Rather than focusing on "these templates are unused and for a constructed language that isn't widely used" why do you need to insult the people who made the templates and who speak the language "no-one needs to know you can communicate in a conlang nobody’s heard of."[32]. Why was leaving a comment like that nessasary? What did it add to the conversation?192.76.8.84 (talk)01:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
It’s technically an ad hominem to bring up my edit count, but I’ll drop that since I was just frustrated and not really thinking whether it made a useful point. As for the comments issue, I guess I really did not think my tone was crossing the line into “rude”. When I think of incivility, I think pure insults like “you are an ass hat”, not harsh language like “this is useless”. In fact I’m usually at the brunt of such language from established users who are angry with me so I’m just assuming it’s normal.Dronebogus (talk)01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not an ad honimem (technically or in any other sense) to point out that you have content in your own userspace that resembles the type of content you have nominated for deletion.LEPRICAVARK (talk)01:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Just to be a pedant, that's exactly what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is any argument that tries to derive a conclusion based on traits of the speaker. There's even a name for this type of ad hominem:tu quoque.Thebiguglyalien(talk)15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Tu quoque attempts todiscredit an opponent's argument by pointing out behavior or statements that are contradictory to what they are arguing. That isn't applicable here because Dronebogus is not arguing right now that there needs to be tighter standards on userspace or Wikispace content, which is an argument which may have some merit independent of this discussion, nor is the discussion about the validity of that argument. The discussion is about his behavior and his conduct. --⛵WaltClipper-(talk)15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Community ban of User:Dronebogus from XfD
I believe that Dronebogus can be a useful contributor, but he continues to act as if a trusted servant while not earning the responsibility. I recommend a lengthy community ban from XfD procedures.
I appreciate Dronebogus engaging and admitting their part in this. For my part I am concerned about any clerking-type behaviors from this user, like hattings and closings of any kind (which have previously and may next be seen by others asattempting to "win" discussions). I'm happy with whatever remedy the community decides. I suggest the community establish a duration, not a permaban. For the record and Dronebogus: this the first time in my 17+ year wikicareer I've proposed a ban of any kind.BusterD (talk)00:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Should I just retire? I seem to be a net negative to the project and my only constructive edits are just gnoming somebody else can pick up.Dronebogus (talk)01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I ask myself the same question every day. Seriously. And then I log in and start to work. Willingness is our only useful contribution. Everything else is just work anyone could do.BusterD (talk)01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Find something of interest to contribute by building. Improving Wikipedia by going through other peoples work desks and calling attention to what they shouldn’t be doing (ie MfD) requires more delicacy and less enthusiasm than seems to be your style.SmokeyJoe (talk)01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Try diversifying. There are many types of activities. You don't know what you could be good at, and start enjoying, until you try. —Alalch E.01:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you really think threatening a ragequit -- as opposed to, y'know, conceding that the presenters here have a point, and that you resolve to do better -- is going to help you here? Ravenswing02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: it's ok,this is just Wikipedia. I have a little experience with you, and you seem to be a good editor. This will likely result in a topic ban that will have quite a limited impact on your contributions overall. But, I can't blame you for retiring if you do. This isn't always a fun place to be, but I hope you don't retire because of this discussion because I believe you are a net positive here. :)Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk02:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment from Dronebogus I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this and would like to apologize sincerely. As most of the inappropriate closures have been in MfD I would like to request an MfD topic ban in exchange for being allowed to still participate in AfD on the condition that I do not close any discussion I have already participated in or any discussion that has not run for at least 7 days. I enjoy AfD a lot but MfD has mostly lead to endless clashing with other users.Dronebogus (talk)20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose complete XfD ban,Support MfD ban and a ban from closing any XfD. I suggest it's better to go some time not closing anything, Dronebogus, and then perhaps appeal that part at a suitable future time.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)21:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Boing (reasoning is just the clearcut evidence by OP) - that is, a full TBAN from MfD, and another TBAN from closing any XfD - with a clear note that if it ends up having to be enforced by a full namespace ban, it will be.Nosebagbear (talk)21:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Boing, but broadly construed I'd also be on board with an MfD ban broadly construed (including talk pages and so forth), and a ban from XfD closures as BSZ suggested. I think that would address the immediate issue. I agree too with BSZ that a CBAN isn't necessary.⛵WaltClipper-(talk)21:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose cban as excessive,Support Xfd tban, an Mfd ban would just allow the problem to spread elsewhere. // Timothy :: talk22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Involved closures are a big no-no. My first choice would be a complete ban from closing discussions (not just XFDs), appealable after 12 months; second choice is Boing's remedy.—S MarshallT/C23:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Support XFD ban as outlined by BusterD. I don't think the issues here are restricted just to MFD or closures, there's an extreme amount of battleground mentality, a lack of civility, a sometimes sketchy understanding of policy and procedure and a tendency to resort to insulting or belittling language that doesn't usefully contribute to the discussion. My experience has been that rather than plainly explaining "this should be deleted because it clearly doesn't meet WP:FOO" Dronebogus will instead go on a snarky rant about how terrible and awful something is.192.76.8.84 (talk)00:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
12 month ban from closing discussions. Dronebogus is an over-eager closer, often making mistakes such as involved closes. His closes are not a net positive contribution, due to them needing careful review and possible rectification. I haven’t seen or considered evidence that normal XfD participation is a problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk)01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support XFD ban as proposed by BusterD. I was prepared to support Boing's limited tban until I saw the list of diffs compiled by the IP. The problems go beyond MFD.LEPRICAVARK (talk)01:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support 12-month ban from closing (anything, not just XFDs). For me, this is essentially about the closes. The nominations and general XfD participation are not something that needs this type of response. —Alalch E.01:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Concur with SmokeyJoe with the caveat that the ban is indefinite and can be appealed in 12 months. I've seen the diffs by IP. There is a problem withWP:IDONTLIKEIT and uncivil language that Dronebogus frequently uses, but I prefer that Dronebogus given a second chance and eventually improve.MarioJump83 (talk)02:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closingany involved discussion - this user has shown they can't use adequate judgment on closing a discussion in which they are involved (that should rarely be done anyway). That's why I'm supporting a indefinite ban from closing involved ones. Furthermore, there seems to be a specific issue with XfD's, which is why I'm supporting a time limited tban on closing those; it hasn't really been proven that they can't close uninvolved discussions. I don't think it's appropriate to ban them from participating in XfD's in general, I wouldoppose such a ban.Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@WaltCip: SeeWikipedia:Closing discussions#Wikipedia:Closing discussions and the note ("In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion. ..."). There are discussions that may need closing, which are pretty weakly addressed by the NAC essay, because use of administrative tools is generally not required in those processes. Furthermore,WP:MERGECLOSE expressly allows for involved closures of merger discussions. NAC doesn't interact with that page in a particularly relevant manner, for example. —Alalch E.13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose full MfD topic ban or WP namespace block as excessivepunishment. The only problem I can see is involved closing, soSupport closing ban (maybe temporary). IMHO, Dronebogus performs very useful function on MfD by bringing here some old forgotten trash, litter and shit.a!rado🦈 (C✙T)05:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Why is it useful? If everyone has forgotten about those pages anyway, then taking them to MfD serves very little useful purpose. It's merely a diversion from more important things such as improving pages that people actually look at.LEPRICAVARK (talk)16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
It's useful because Wikipedia is not a webhost, so this old forgotten garbage has no right to lie in userspace for ages. Also, since most (if not all) pages discussed at MfD aren't pages that readers actually look at, what's the difference what to discuss here? MfD is already not about improving articles, with Dronebogus's noms or without.a!rado🦈 (C✙T)18:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, one might argue that much of what goes on at MFD is not all that important and that digging through what you so delicately term theold forgotten garbage is essentially a waste of time.LEPRICAVARK (talk)22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment - I really think calls to simply block from closing discussions miss the point that has been made by the above posted diffs. This is not an issue that is limited just to closing MfDs, this is a general behavioral issue that permeates his interactions on XfD as a whole. There's a recurring pattern here of jumping into an over-the-top response to an item he deems undesirable, then quickly retracting when challenged on it, without actually preventing those future aggressive responses that are causing issues in the first place. The fact that people feel some of the items deserved to be deleted anyway doesn't and shouldn't excuse combative behavior. Moreover, it's not punitive because the effort is to reduce further disruption in those areas. --⛵WaltClipper-(talk)12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I don’t believe I’ve actually been adequately warned that my behavior at AfD is unacceptable. The IP is dredging up WikiDrama from ages ago, and most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable. (I.e. they don’t dump on anyone).Dronebogus (talk)13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any quantity of warnings would be adequate given that you tend to repeat the same problematic behaviorsafter being warned. Moreover, the diffs from the IP are hardly ancient history. Yes, people can change over the space of a couple years, but there's no evidence that you have changed. As for your final point,most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable, all I can do is shake my head.LEPRICAVARK (talk)16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
That last part was bad phrasing. I meant something like “less unreasonable”. But my point still stands:can you point to any specific warning I was given about AfD?Dronebogus (talk)21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
If bycertain things you mean making INVOLVED closes, then no, you should not expect to still be getting the benefit of the doubt about that.LEPRICAVARK (talk)22:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I meant the bit about not recalling the exact details of the above warning above, which was summarily dismissed as invalid.Dronebogus (talk)00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
How about the part where Dronebogus was warned by the community last year at ANI, yet later continued to do the exact things they were warned about? Does he get the benefit of the doubt for forgetting he was warned? How about my warning in December he was violating deletion policy? Does he get any benefit for forgetting that? We're not required to keep every promise we make, but we are still responsible when we continue to violate policy after multiple warnings (as he's so confessed here in this thread). Not recalling the exact details doesn't get one off the hook for making the mistakes which were already pointed out multiple times. I'm not seeing any real admission of responsibility from Dronebogus (though I do see them continuing topersonalize replies in this thread). I see no pledge he'll improve his ways in the slightest. I'm going to leaveone more diff, a quite recent edit by Dronebogus in which he reverts my good faith comment in a formal procedure because he just doesn't like my edit summary. This is a much larger problem than closings, it's really about his poor memory, his poor judgement, IDONTHEARYOU and IAR. He just doesn't think there are consequences to bad action. Perhaps he's right.BusterD (talk)17:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Goodness gracious, that diff is such an awful bit of dreadful clerking. I'm becoming convinced that even an XfD tban will be woefully inadequate because this editor simply does not get it. So much evidence of completely abysmal behavior, but the community keeps trying to water down the sanctions as if we won't be back here in a few months.LEPRICAVARK (talk)21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The reason they’re “watering down” sanctions is because they understand sanctions are not meant to be punitive. All the complaints have been about XfD (mostly MfD) and improper thread closures, therefore all the recommended sanctions are about trying to prevent misbehavior in those areas.Dronebogus (talk)22:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I evenliterally asked to be sanctioned, and agreed with a proposed sanction that wasstricter than my own. I never want to touch MfD again and while I’d obviouslyprefer a more lenient topic ban I’ll accept anything (within sanity) that the community agrees upon.Dronebogus (talk)22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support MfD ban as their excessiveWP:RAGPICKING and general combative attitude has been a problem at MfD for some time. Alsosupport ban on closing discussions. I do not think a full ban on participation in any XfD is yet necessary however.--Pawnkingthree (talk)14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support a topic ban from closing XfDs and from initiating MfDs, which seem to cover the actual issues. We do not need to waste time forming a consensus about a deleted page no one remembered. Participation in XfD welcome as that doesn't seem to be an issue.StarMississippi16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose broad participation ban The breadth of a proposed ban fromXfD procedures is murky and unclear to me so excuse me if this wasn't actually on the table. I can't speak to the minutiae of specific restrictions on closing or initiating of specific deletion discussions but I don't see a good justification for banning Dronebogus fromall participation. It seems that the closings are the brunt of the problems here, so let's address that, right?GabberFlasted (talk)16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
No comment on XfDs, butoppose any restriction on closing or hatting talk page sections, where Dronebogus has done valuable work keeping things on track. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me;19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support XFD ban. A Dronebogus close is generally not a net gain, and as demonstrated by the above discussions and diffs, there's a general lack of evidence-based reasoning versus editorializing, which is the last thing deletion processes need more of.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support XfD ban as first choice, second choice would be ban from MfD and closing discussions anywhere. The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, and lack of accepting responsibility are too much. Forgetting that you promised not to continue doing something you already know is against policy is an unconvincing excuse. I'm also at a loss as to why anybody would go hunting through Zordrac's userspace for ancient relics to try to wipe away, or well regarded essays likeWP:BLUESKY and picking through random peoples' userboxen for offensive or even just pointless things (while having a ridiculous number of useless ones on their own page).The WordsmithTalk to me20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I did, you just don't want to accept it (part of the problem). Incivility,[33][34] inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, etc. This one you closed after 3 days[35], these after just two hours.[36][37] for reasons that were completely invalid. Even if they were valid, that's not a good NAC.The WordsmithTalk to me21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, Is this not a sufficient reason? Also, the Wordsmith said XfD, then specifically MfD. There is no mention of AfD. An XfD ban would include AfD anyway.X750.Spin a yarn?Articles I've screwed over?21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose XFD ban and MFD ban -Supportban on closing XFD discussions. The narrowest possible ban is usually the best, and from what I can see above, most of the ire and concern here is about dronebogus closing things out of turn or in ways others find disagreeable. Why would that not be the obvious choice to ban? Bans are preventative, not punitive. I have seen valuable closes from this user in other namespaces, and have not yet seen any evidence of problems in their conduct in other namespaces, so I wouldn't support any broader sanctions. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The thing is that someone who shouldn't be closing XfDs shouldn't be closinganything. Of all the kinds of things that need closing, XfD is the easiest, because XfD closers are choosing from a menu of options and have lots of precedent to work with. It's arguable that RM is also easy but I wouldn't say it's as easy as XfD. Talk page disputes can be treacherous, if they get as far as needing a formal close; they need to be read with care, close attention and a decent knowledge of policy and procedure. And to my eye, DRVs, MRs and RfCs are clearly far more advanced than XfDs.—S MarshallT/C22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support XfD/closure ban Overzealous closing/deleting seems to be a recurring issue with this editor, especially the combative tendency to "tell off" editors with the hat summary. Admittedly I'm INVOLVED with a CoI, given my interactions with them, and I'll grant that my talk-page brainstorming in that case was excessive. However, it's not just me, it's consistent across the board, even where there's far less of a rationale. Policing of userspace & RAGPICKING also seems to be problematic; there are cases where deletion is appropriate, but controversial/irrelevant content that takes up little server space is usually not worth the time & effort to deal with. Overall, there's an attitude of "if I disagree with this, close/delete it" which is an abuse of process. You're supposed to let editors operate naturally, and only intervene when it becomes necessary, not as a first response. That's why a ban in this area is justified, not necessarily infinite, but I'll let the admins decide.Xcalibur (talk)03:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
You are already under scrutiny for threads where multiple users agree my hatting/deletion was actually justified. I’d warn aboutWP:BOOMERANGS but you are already here a few threads up.Dronebogus (talk)15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support XfD closure ban as first choice (and probably best to include a hatting ban to sort issues there too). Indefinitely applied, which means it’s at least 6 months until an request to lift. After that it’s a complete ban if the problems resurface. -SchroCat (talk)17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support MfDand closing bans, per Pawnkingthree. Community members who don't respect the community need to be helped along the correct path; this seems to be the way. Happy days ~LindsayHello18:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment – Perhaps there is a certain irony that this case, in which one of the main issues is poor judgment or inappropriate actions in closing discussions, will be difficult to close, because of the compound responses, some of which start withOppose because they oppose the most restrictive of sanctions, but when they are read, they are seen to support some lesser sanction.Robert McClenon (talk)18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion. Closing discussions requires the right temperament and there's enough evidence presented here to justify a ban. Dronebogus can channel that energy elsewhere. -Nemov (talk)18:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support ban on closing discussions in any namespace (i.e. even including things like hatting talk page discussions, not just XFDs), but do not support a general XfD ban (although would strongly urge Dronebogus to reassess their conduct). Put bluntly, the user's temperament is not good for closing discussions. Even when theresult is uncontroversial, Dronebogus cannot resist the urge to kick sand in the "wrong" side and talk about just how wrong / stupid / biased they are.Even when this is correct, this isn't generally a helpful way to close matters, and should only be invokedwhen relevant. (Hell, even if it's a troll, seeWP:DFTT, insulting them is just what they want.) I mentioned this on his talk page where there was an AFD he closed as by "WP:SNOW" when this was wholly unnecessary and there was notable good-faith opposition - again, the close was fine, but it was just a normal close, not a SNOW-close. This message was ignored (as has others complaining about Dronebogus's closes), so perhaps a sanction is required to get the message across.SnowFire (talk)04:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Ignoring the messages is really the part that gets me, because while he's quick to declare that he violated policy now that he's been brought to ANI, he was certainly not willing to do so previously when the warnings were coming in piecemeal. Collaboration involves working with individuals, not just bowing only to the process when it gets to that point. --⛵WaltClipper-(talk)13:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support ban on closing discussions - The main problem seems to be with discussion closures, so this remedy seems best suited for the job. -Indy beetle (talk)09:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Section break
Comment - I am willing to relent from my previous call to have DB topic-banned from MfD. Those who have examined my contribution history versus his would probably be able to see the partisanship between our two positions, and so it doesn't seem right for me to remove his voice from the picture entirely. Furthermore, it seems to be a major escalation when the collaborative philosophy of Wikipedia encouragesde-escalation. So here's mycompromise proposal:
Dronebogus is to accept a mandatory ban from MfD or XfD closures, as indicated by the above consensus, appealable after 6 months time. He also should accept a voluntary/self-imposed restriction onuncivil and combative behavior. This relies heavily on him exercisingcareful judgment on what statements he makes in reference to content put up for MfD, as well as his responses to other users who are examining his behavior. Lastly, he should also be encouraged - but not obligated - to dial back on "finding trash" for MfD. I'm not obliging this because it's clear he has a particular viewpoint on the matter, and there are others do agree with him. But it is a hot topic, and I feel there are other areas of Wikipedia where he can add value.
I am perfectly fine with not closing any MfDs or AfDs again, with a very narrow exception for patent nonsense rationales or similar blatantly invalid rationales like “I hate this” that can be procedurally speedy kept.Dronebogus (talk)15:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Or, if it's patent nonsense or blatantly invalid, you could alsohold back and allow an editor whose judgment the community trusts to put the hat on it. Just a thought.—S MarshallT/C15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed withS Marshall. There are plenty of administrators who cycle through MfD (ScottyWong andSalvio giuliano are among those) and your focus should be on attempting to rehabilitate yourself first prior to diving back into closures, since it is evident that your closures - however much they may have seemed appropriate - are the source of many of the grievances brought against you. It is only fair to make it a total restriction for now. Wikipedia can press on without your closures for the time being. --⛵WaltClipper-(talk)15:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I have already stated my position clearly; it is a retreat from the total ban that I advocated for previously. Under these circumstances, the closure ban is not negotiable. --⛵WaltClipper-(talk)16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Righting all of the Wikipedia's wrongs doesn't rest on your shoulders. If there is a bad afd out there, then someone will get to it.ValarianB (talk)19:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
No exceptions. Very few XfDs need rapid closing, and where they do an administrator is likely needed to respond to the disruptive editing.SmokeyJoe (talk)11:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please EC protect these articles ASAP. There's some LTA type of vandalism / POV-pushing edits going on here. Looks like multiple autoconfirmed SPA accounts have been created to vandalise these pages.
Please blockKpvmay (talk·contribs) from editing these 3 pages. As he repeatedly adds cast names of those characters in bothKumkum Bhagya andKundali Bhagya who doesn't have appearance of even 1 sec in both series. Also he often adds unofficial character name in Filmography section ofParas Kalnawat instead of official one according to official promo and all reliably linked sources. His edits has been reverted by several other editors too quoting same reasons. But he reverts back according to his own edits again and again. So it's my request to administrators to block him from editing these 3 pages. Links are given below:[44][45][46][47][48]Pri2000 (talk)10:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The linked range from London was blocked in January, but just popped up again. Nothing but vandalism from this person, changing to wrong songs in albums.[49][50] Time for time-out.Binksternet (talk)15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Good evening, I would like to inform the Administrators noticeboard about recurring incidents regarding deeply racist edits of an IP-range to the wikipedia pages of belgian airports.
Latest edits, which made me come to the ANI, include the following: -Brussels Airport, IP: 94.109.73.126, date: 14.03.2023 Edit summary: "Can the Romanians stay out of Belgium please? It will increase theft and vandalism by those gangsters and it is better without them. Romanians, go home now!!" Page difference: User removed content stating the opening of new scheduled routes between Brussels and Brasov and Bucharest (both in Romania), respectively.
-Brussels South Charleroi Airport, IP: 94.109.73.126, date: 14.03.2023 Edit summary: None Page difference: User added "(Couscous Airlines)" next to TuiFly Belgium in the airlines and destinations table, drawing a connection to the destinations TuiFly Belgium serves from Charleroi Airport, which are all in Tunesia or Algeria, therefore targeting Ethno-passengers and immigrants.
Further example: Edit summary: "Romania ends collaboration with Brussels; Romanians can steal in their own country", IP: 2a02:1811:b731:a200:64f0:c65b:e91d:3f53, old page id: 1119046188
The following has been the most extreme edit and respective edit summary, though.
Edit summary:"If Romanians are raping my people, they do not deserve my country. Romanians are uneducated and here to overpopulate our country. And no Kebab, Turks are motherfucka"
This is severely uncivilistic behaviour, and the grossest you can do to break WP:NORACISTS, insulting multiple people. A talk page note was afterwards added by another user.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:94.109.235.89
In September of 2022, these racist edits peaked, with there being multiple per week. Therefore I was even more surprised to see that the racist vandal now has returned, with me having hoped that he would have stopped forever.
Latest Ip has been warned on respective talk page.
I will be pleasantly surprised if you can have a look and take countermeasures.
Der HON. I have blocked the first two IPs you mentioned. Please provide a link to any other article where disruptive edit summaries have been left.Cullen328 (talk)00:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The racist editor seems to be belgian or more precisely from Brussels as the only pages he keeps targeting are the ones of the two major Brussels Airports, namely Zaventem and Charleroi.
DFlhb has already done a great job finding all the other IPs from over the time, I've got nothing to add.
Will notify you if there'll be new appearances, hoping that it won't be needed anymore.
Threatening behaviour and attempts at intimidation by user Kautilya3
Nothing to see here. Kautilya3's conduct does not warrant any sanction and the underlying content dispute can be discussed elsewhere.Salviogiuliano19:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a dispute going on regarding the Amritpal Singh (activist) article. I have posted the issue to the DRN (dispute resolution noticeboard) as we have been unable to come to an understanding and another editor, specifically @Kautilya3, has left an unwarranted ARBIPA discretionary sanctions warning on my talk page, accusing me ofWP:SOAPBOXing, how can this be viewed as anything other than at a threat and attempt at intimidation of another user who they are in disagreement of? Why should I be issued at warning like this just because I followed Wikipedia policy and guideline when I called out an article for bias and balance issues, and took it to the DRN when a conclusion was unable to be reached? Why am I being threatened of punishment and loss of editing privileges solely for that? This strongly comes across as an attempt to censor me for not agreeing with their narrative. Does this user have the power to say who can edit articles in this topic and take it away from them at will once they no longer like or agree with the edits of that particular user? This is egregious conduct.ThethPunjabi (talk)19:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment - That "ARBIPA discretionary alert was not "unwarranted" because it is just a notification that you are editing in a controversial area. Read the notice again, it is clear that it does not concern "any issues with your contributions". You askhere that "How is Baaz News "not reliable"?" despite it is obvious as 2+2=4 that its an unreliable pro-Khalistani source. You should listen to experienced editors and slow down with your edits to controversial subjects for now.Capitals00 (talk)19:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
He made this comment specifically directed at me: "ThethPunjabi, you have been previously notified about the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions (nowadays called "contentious topics" sanctions). Your inability to understand and apply Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources, WP:SOAPBOXing discussions like "Very clear pro-Indian government narrative bias etc. are borerdering in disruptive conduct in contentious areas. If you go down this route, you are going to be liable to discretionanray sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 2:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Also, I have used Baaz News sources before on draft articles me and Kautilya3 both worked on together, specificallyDraft:Waris Panjab De and he never raised any question of the reliability of Baaz News then and only questioned the source when it was cited by me in Amritpal Singh's article, when he personally disagreed with its view. So the media outlet was good enough to be cited before but now suddenly it is not? Makes no sense.ThethPunjabi (talk)19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't see what is wrong with that comment. It is merely highlighting what you should avoid repeating.
I understand but please read the message he wrote personally for me. I feel like I am being targeted by a more experienced editor because he disagrees with my view in an ongoing content dispute.ThethPunjabi (talk)19:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
ThethPunjabi,Baaz News is a substack newsletters with 2,000 subscribers. It is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. What part ofWP:RS does it satisfy? In a Contentious Topic area, you areexpected to be conversant with policies and make at least a minimum effort to understand them when they are pointed out to you. Over and out. --Kautilya3 (talk)19:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and the article you want to cite is authored by the "spokesperson and legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada"! No a scholar, not a journalst, ot a commetator, but alawyer representing an organisation. --Kautilya3 (talk)19:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jadamondo (talk·contribs) appears to have previously created an article about himself which was speedy deleted in 2021. Jadamondo has recently made a series of unsourced, POV edits to articles about opponents of a particular political party –[51][52][53] – which would suggest an undisclosed conflict of interest and/or paid editing. Additionally, Jadamondo has been warned on multiple occasions (including by myself) not to add unsourced content –[54][55][56] – but has continued to do so and blanks talk page messages rather than responding. All of this suggests an editor who isWP:NOTHERE.ITBF (talk)13:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I've left a CTOP warning on BLP's, but quite honestly, looking more, I'm seeing a solid case for a NOTHERE block rather than spending more time following the CTOP protocols.Courcelles (talk)13:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Well now you have. In case you failed to read the context the matter was closed. Side note I have made many other contributions valid and full of citation. I had not completed the citations and will endeavour to do so in the future, should I choose to re-ad them. I also ask that this threat kindly be deleted after we reach a resolve as to protect my personal identity.Jadamondo (talk)13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Jadamondo, you've now blanked this discussion a 2nd time,[57] which included deleting a comment on a different thread. Why are you doing this? There doesn't appear to be any personal/sensitive information in this discussion I can see. If an admin consents to this I'll drop this, but I can't see the justification for this removal. —Czello14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
HJM didn't agree to assist blanking this thread. As per others, can I ask why you want to blank this discussion?TailsWx14:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Whilst they were generous in redacting personal info, I wish to erase anything that may have even an inkling to it and resign from wikki.Jadamondo (talk)14:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand that you plan to resign from Wikipedia, but we need to have a discussion prior, because of the problematic edits you've caused (which was brought up by ITBF.) But I can say this: more blanking, more problems, more discussing, and a likely block. :(TailsWx15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Basically everything you do and every edit you make on wikipedia is publicly logged and recorded forever. Accounts cannot be deleted, and edits/log entries are not hidden because a user regrets making them. The edits you have made and pages you have created will be viewable by everyone forever - you agreed to this via the terms of service when you submitted those edits. I do not see any reason at all in policy or otherwise to delete this discussion or to cover up the fact that you have been adding unsourced, potentially libellous/defamatory material to articles on Australian politicians/political groups in edits such as[59].192.76.8.84 (talk)15:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: The OP diffs I think make a strong case for NOTHERE. Their edits to BLPs are unacceptable. Finally Jadamondo responses show they are either not willing to edit within Wikipedia guidelines and policy and make a block probably necessary at least until they are able to articulate and accept the reasons for the block and agree to cease. // Timothy :: talk15:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They also repeatedly tried to create an article forCoinDCX Exchange/CoinDCX (a topic which was earlier already a target of a UPE blocked editor,User:Nikhilaug; I don't think they are socks, but it shows that CoinDCX is trying to get an article by paying editors).
They have had different questions and warnings about paid editing and COI edits in the past, but always denied having any connection to the subjects they write about. But this charade has gone on long enough now.Fram (talk)09:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I've salted all the titles (except the one Jim got); the original title was salted before the version with a curly apostrophe was moved there. I've also deleted the draft under G4 and salted that.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?13:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Climbing" article clogged with irrelevant information
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I didn't realize that this had already been or was in the process of being taken care of by administrators when I posted the above. --Marchjuly (talk)09:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite multiple warnings,Sensris continues with disruptive editing in Indian cinema-related articles. They were previously blocked for 72 hours in August 2022 for poorly sourced edits. I cannot show all of the diffs as some have been revdel'd due to copyright violations.
Another copyright violation from today - their edit[78] copied a paragraph from the source[79] starting with "Suman started his cinema journey at the age of 20". It's not that big (then again, neither is the article) but despite the warnings, this editor isn't changing their ways and is taking the easy way of copy-paste.Ravensfire (talk)23:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The userDotacal only seems to be here toright great wrongs based on their edits. They seem to disregard previous consensus (or even the lack of previous consensus) and seem to only want to right what they see as great wrongs. On their talk page, in response to something regarding changing CCP to CPC they stated "Hi SilverStar, if you agree with me that we should be using CPC instead of CCP, then I don't understand why you would want consistent use of it. There will never be consensus on this issue, it still should be changed. It shouldn't have been CCP to begin with." They also seem to have an issue withWP:IDHT as on their talk page, they replaced Slaversteven's comment aboutWP:DUMB and also a contentious topic notification with "I don't care about you or whatever you just posted!". ―Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
(ec) I've indef'ed them forWP:NOTHERE. I'm also convinced this is a sock of another editor, with the very first edit they made: [[81]]. "I wanted to discuss this again because the Communist Party of China should be used as the title instead of the Chinese Communist Party..." (my emphasis)RickinBaltimore (talk)20:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am bringing this to ANI as I'mWP:INVOLVED and it would be improper for me to use any admin tools.
This relates mostly to tendentious editing at the articlePicts. Some background information is necessary as it may be difficult for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand why consensus is so resolutely against the subject of this filing.Picts gets a lot of attention from novice editors who find the Hollywood depiction of hairy, tattooed, Scottish barbarians running around the hills naked appealing (whatever floats your boat...). The trouble is the Picts were a real people that have only really been understood in the last couple of decades in which a wealth of peer-reviewed material and scholarly works have appeared. I have edited the page for the past 14 years or so and, while certainly not a professional, I'm reasonably familiar with the current academic literature.
Most of these novice editors with romantic notions are unproblematic. They make a few edits about long-debunked origin myths and, when they realise they are out of their depth, go away again. Some stay and learn. Some turn into valuable long-term editors. A small minority are problematic.
LightProof1995 (talk·contribs) found the article in February 2023 and proceeded to add large amounts of text, mostly copied and pasted from other articles, mostly irrelevant, and most definitely againstWP:OR,WP:SYNTH andWP:PRIMARY[82]. These edits were correctly reverted by a long time page watcher,Mutt Lunker (talk·contribs). LightProof1995 then engaged in an edit war[83][84][85][86][87] whileWP:BLUDGEONing their position onTalk:Picts. This earned them a partial block[88]. After the block expired, LightProof1995 immediately reverted the article to their preferred version[89].
Having failed to get the consensus they wanted, LightProof1995 then took their case toWP:DRN in an attempt to bypass consensus, apparently misunderstanding the nature of dispute resolution. This failed as moderated discussion was never going to achieve the result they wanted. LightProof1995 has now taken their case toWP:NORN and has attempted to canvas an admin,Salvio giuliano (talk·contribs), whom they believe is sympathetic to their cause, attempting to frame Mutt Lunker for supposed hidden insults made against Salvio.
In addition to the issues outlined above, LightProof1995 has problems in identifying reliable sources. They also appear to copy and paste references they haven't read to support their position in the apparent hope that nobody will check them.[90] is one example... I can dig out more if it is deemed necessary. They are unable to understand why anachronistic sources are inappropriate[91]. They are unable to understand that translations of Latin texts from two thousand years ago are sometimes only approximate, and that you need to use a reliable secondary source (for subjects like this, if it's not in a current, university-level textbook, forget it). I view this as a definite case ofWP:CIR. It gets tiring arguing subtleties of academic consensus with editors who are coming from a position like this[92].
Having gone through their editing history only today, I am concerned that this is a problem that is going to just keep on keeping on. LightProof1995 has been editing for a year. They mostly trouble themselves with vital article categorisation which is reasonably harmless. They have, however, been brought here before for their attempts to insert conspiracy theories relating to reincarnation and transgenderism[93] into articles. They've filed here themselves, which is definitely worth a read[94]
My proposal is for at least an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed, on Picts. I worry that this is not enough and that past editing behaviour indicates that an indefinite site ban will be necessary.CatfishJim and the soapdish00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
So many things here are hyperbole.
For one thing, I copied text from only one article, thewoad article to Picts, because I wanted toWP:ATTRIBUTE it.
It was all relevant to the Picts; you can still go read it and see why.
For another, I didn't do this because I have some "Hollywood" idea of the Picts; I simply saw the information about the Picts on the woad article and felt it should also be on the Picts article.
My edits were called contentious, even vandalism, even when they clearly weren't, as admitted by Salvio on Mutt's talk page.
I wasn't "attempting to frame" Mutt. Mutt's comments to Salvio speak for themselves.
I went toWP:DRN because that's where we are supposed to go with disputes.
I went toWP:ORN because that failed, even though from the beginning I've insisted on talking about thecontent, both there and on theTalk:Picts page.
I am disappointed you did this, Catfish Jim. I thought we were actually getting somewhere.
I don't have $101 to buy the Fraser book source, nor do I have a car to go to my local library, unfortunately. Thank you for clarifying exactly what he says about Caesar, as I was unable to verify.
My work on the vitals lists, such as the Earth science list[1] or the Plants list[2], I hope would be enough to show I absolutely don't deserve an indefinite site ban, like omg.
Here's a couple of other edits I'm particularly proud of:[3][4]
and here's some draft articles I've created by identfying issues on the Vitals lists:[5][6]
How is this translation from the University of Chicago library not a reliable source/translation?[7]
"Carved with iron" clearly has nothing to do with paint; I'm sorry.
The ANI I filed last year was against @Tgeorgescu, who as you can see on my Talk page, has now called me a friend. The ANI was withdrawn, with no consequence, because I was inexperienced. The reincarnation and transgender stuff has nothing to do with the Picts, and to bring it up to me just seems like you're digging for personal reasons to have me blocked, forever.
Pretty clear based off of what you have brought forward that a TBAN is in order, especially now that the user is saying that this clearly civil response is not civil.LegalSmeagolian (talk)17:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried to mediate the dispute about thePicts atthe Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I will comment briefly. LightProof95 said that he wanted to discuss article content, which is the purpose of DRN, but his posts also complained about conduct by other editors. In particular, he continues to complain that he was templated for vandalism by another editor, but that editor was already rebuked for using an inappropriate template. He also seems to be trying to stir up a feud between two users over what he sees as hidden insults, that are sufficiently well hidden that I can't find them. Trying to stir up quarrels between two other editors isnot here to improve the encyclopedia. When I asked for a summary, he made a statement that was too long. He also tied together multiple academic sources to reach his own conclusion, which issynthesis amounting tooriginal research, a subtle violation of the original research policy, but a violation nonetheless. When all of the other editors said that the DRN thread could be closed, he asked to leave it open, so that all of the editors could discuss article content. I still don't know whyUser:LightProof1995 asked me to leave a thread open when the other editors had said to close it. This is an editor who means well, but doesn't understand multiple Wikipedia policies includingsynthesis. Unfortunately, I think some sanction is necessary.Robert McClenon (talk)05:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to mediate our dispute. Why would you comment here on my comments about other editors’ conduct, but not their comments about mine? Especially when you already admitted there I was the one who focused on content the most?
Also, why would you complain about the length of my statements, when those of the editors were almost twice as long? And none of us hit the word count limit?
Salvio agreed Mutt’s statements toward them wereinsults, and I point out they were hidden well, but still visible. It just irked me to think they possibly went by unnoticed. Salvio said they noticed, but they also have thick skin, so they walked away. That was all I needed from Salvio; as long as Salvio is fine with leaving that conversation as it is, I am too. I never asked for Mutt to be sanctioned or anything like that; I only asked for advice on where I should go next, sinceWP:DRN failed.
I stated my reasoning for wanting to leave the dispute open because I was hoping you’d comment on the content; it was very disheartening to put all this effort into it just to hear you say our statements were too long. I also stated I wanted it left open because I wasn’t sure where to go next; you advisedWP:ORN andWP:RfC, so thank you for that. This was my firstWP:DRN and it makes me sad it ended in failure when it was where I was supposed to go?LightProof1995 (talk)05:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This is one of those times it's useful to invoke the old chestnutWP:WINARS. TheWoad article is not great. Yes, it's in the popular imagination that ancient Britons painted themselves with woad and, through some circular reasoning (via Pliny and best guesses), some old sources mistranslate Julius Caesar as having said it was used. Pliny also does not name woad, but rather describes a plant that is similar to plantago. The two species are in no way similar. I am a professional plant scientist IRL specialising in various species including plantago... Plant taxonomy has come on a bit in the intervening two thousand years or so, but this is not a mistake Pliny would have made. At some point in the early modern era, some amateur historian must have made the link with woad based on its use in the dye industry, but I digress... this is an excellent example of original research, one reason I don't edit much in my professional subject.
(As an aside there has been some "experimental archaeology" that has demonstrated woad's unsuitability as a tattoo ink. LightProof1995 inadvertently included reference to this work (which is not from an RS) but clearly changed their mind as it did not support their position[95])
Yes, academic books are expensive. One reason I suspected you were using references that you hadn't read was that you used one from a far more expensive book (one that I put off buying for several years due to the cost) to back up a position that was in direct opposition from what the author is talking about. It is a rule of thumb (one so obvious that we probably don't have a written policy on it) that you absolutely should not use references you have never seen, no matter how sure you are that it must say what you want it to say.CatfishJim and the soapdish08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
No no no. I didn’t inadvertently include that reference; I included it on purpose!! I’m well aware woad doesn’t work great with tattooing and that’s why I added it. Pliny only said it looks like a plantago; I think they were talking about the leaves, since those are what is used from woad to make indigo dye. I only removed that reference because Mutt said I’d added too much stuff that “wasn’t relevant”; to argue that it should’ve been left to make my case only shows why I added it in the first place. (Thank you for finally delving into what I said though. Now maybe we’re actually getting somewhere!! :) )LightProof1995 (talk)11:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Jim’s and Robert’s assessments and my impression was also that this is largely a CIR issue.
That it is this alone is somewhat strained by Lightproof’s venture into an unwarranted interpretation of a fairly straightforward dialogue between myself and Salvio. (In summary, this was my agreement that my choice of a vandalism warning to Lightproof was not appropriate but that I felt, rightly or wrongly, that Salvio’s characterisation of my own edit, as disruptive and potentially worthy of a block, was harsh.) Lightproof’s purported uncovering of some hidden insult therein and a novel interpretation of their subsequent dialogue with Salvio, to claim the latter's agreement that there was such a covert insult, seems to surpass a mere competence issue. A retraction would be appreciated.Mutt Lunker (talk)12:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that your comments were not insults and do not think I implied they were when discussing them with Lightproof. Other than that, as I told him on my talk page, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic matter and can't tell whether he's pushing some sort of crankery or not, but in reading this discussion, my feeling is that this is one of those cases where consensus is firmly against him. Lightproof, my advice would be to let it go and walk away from this topic area, while you can still do it voluntarily... Because the way this discussion is trending, at the moment you are very likely to end up with some restriction. — Salviogiuliano12:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree with Mutt’s assessment of their comments to Salvio, i.e. that they accused Salvio of being too harsh toward them. I suppose I found Mutt’s tone potentially insulting, but tone is difficult to read over text, so I can understand saying that’s an insult is a mischaracterization and retract that statement, and apologize for the mischaracterization. I hope this doesn’t affect the Picts ORN because to me it seems the consensus against me is only from editors who have worked on that page for years and may be feeling I’m trying to put forward some “Hollywood” interpretation of the Picts as potentially others have in the past, when in reality I’m just trying to put accurate and relevant information on the Picts page.LightProof1995 (talk)13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, likely sanctions would be an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. This means banned not just from editingPicts, but from all involvement in any article or discussion relating to the subject. SeeWP:TBAN. Yes, this would affect the ORN.CatfishJim and the soapdish14:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Well then obviously we should wait for the ORN to resolve, or just go ahead and do a RfC, unless I'm not being banned, which I assume is still on the table, since no admins from this noticeboard are saying I should be banned from anything. You can't just make exaggerated claims against editors you disagree with, dig for personal reasons to have them blocked, and expect that to make the content dispute go away -- even if they do get banned.LightProof1995 (talk)14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The ORN thread isn't going to resolve anything, as it stands. It lacks any clear statement as to what the proposed content actually is, and instead seems to expect people to read through past discussions to find out what this is all about.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Do you think I should edit it, or should we go with RfC? The proposed content are the statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts". Maybe putting that short statement/summary of a sentence would help?LightProof1995 (talk)14:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You are suggesting that Wikipedia usesstatements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts"? If that isn't WP:OR, then nothing is...AndyTheGrump (talk)15:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but I respectfully disagree about it being OR. Even Britannica's entry on the Picts states the etymology of Picts may be due to them painting themselves.[96]LightProof1995 (talk)15:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Britannica says nothing whatsoever about Caesar or Pliny. Instead, it states that "The Picts were first noticed in AD 297..."AndyTheGrump (talk)15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is a short entry. And yes, the term Picts came about 100-200 years after Caesar and Pliny. However, I don't want to say that Caesar and Pliny were talking about the Picts. I want to say they were talking about the Celtic Britons they encountered (who were painted), and thismay be the reason for why, eventually, northern inhabitants of the British Isles the Romans were unable to conquer were termed "Picts" by the Romans.LightProof1995 (talk)15:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the above responses, it appears that LightProof1995 is entirely incapable of understanding elementary Wikipedia policy regarding original research. Under these circumstances, a topic ban would seem inadequate, and merely move the issue elsewhere. I'm thus inclined to agree with Catfish Jim that in indefinite block may be necessary, per WP:CIR.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I cite a couple of sources, Gillian and Van Der Veen, at ORN that say what I say. I can’t believe anyone would consider to block me from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, over this or anything else I’ve done.LightProof1995 (talk)15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote. Regardless of what sources may or may not say on this specific topic, this level of inability to engage in rational dialogue (i.e. giving a straight answer to a simple question when asked, rather than three posts later) is incompatible with contributing to Wikipedia.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that is insanely harsh and will obviously appeal any blocks toward me. My edits over the past year (please view the edits I said I'm particularly proud of, above) stand for themselves. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "simple question... three posts later". From your Talk page, it seems you are quite combative with everyone and everything, possibly because you want to live up to your username, which is fine, but leave me alone.LightProof1995 (talk)16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
No, the source references numerous other studies as well as notes that "The sample was composed of 28 students in the second year of a visual graphic arts school." so I don't think it is reflective of all artists everywhere.LegalSmeagolian (talk)18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I mean, a sample of art students' opinions on which steps constitute the creative process, is better than the opinion of one person? It's a start?LightProof1995 (talk)18:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I cite a couple of sources, Gillian and Van Der Veen, at ORN that say what I say Which part of "what you say", exactly, is supported by these sources? I can't see that Gillian says anything about Picts painting their bodies, and nothing about the etymology, but as I have read the article pretty quickly and on a tablet, I may have missed it. Could you provide a page number? The same applies to Van der Veen et al, who afaict don't mention the Picts. Are you certain that you aren't assuming that when they talk about "Britons", you interpret that as "Picts"? That would be a textbook example of original reseach. --bonadeacontributionstalk16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply :) Van Der Veen cites Caesar and painting. Gillian cites a source, Chadwick, on page 279, titled "The name Pict" (1958), as applying to "people of Britain, and especially north Britain, make use of a plant... which they inserted into their wounds... producing an indelibly dyed scar". Gillian also cites Caesar, Pliny, and Claudian on this same page. I list more sources than just these two at ORN, so I wasn't relying on these two alone for my claims, I just said them here as a couple of examples of reliable sources.LightProof1995 (talk)16:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A reliable source that says nothing directly relevant to the topic is not a useful source. And extrapolating fromthe title of an article used as a reference is almost a new level of original research. Have you in fact read Chadwick's article? If so, what does she actually say? Gillian says nothing about the etymology of the name "pict", and it's already been explained, repeatedly, that what Pliny and G I Cæsar wrote can't be used since they never wrote about the Picts. --bonadeacontributionstalk17:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, I use more than just these two sources at ORN. I only listed these two here because of time. I was kinda proud I was able to use just these two to back my statements by using the name of a source, but I digress... Also, I'll state again, Pliny and Caesar's comments were about Celtic Britons, but Picts are Celtic Britons.LightProof1995 (talk)18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said they were. Pliny's statement would apply to all Celtic Britons, including the northern tribes that came to be known as "Picts."LightProof1995 (talk)18:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok so can you provide a source that says 'Pliny's statement would apply to all Celtic Britons, including the northern tribes that came to be known as "Picts."' or is that just your belief and hence not appropriate for wikipedia?LegalSmeagolian (talk)18:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This is where I disagree. There is no source from Pliny where he says "Picts" because the term arose after his time. However, as background information on the etymology of "Picts", Pliny's comments about Celtic Britons are sensible, maybe even necessary, to include.LightProof1995 (talk)18:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, do you have a reliable source saying that Pliny's comments contributed to the etymology of the term? What you are doing is synthesizing information from various sources to conduct original research.LegalSmeagolian (talk)18:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
If I bother to find a source for you (did you see the Keys source at ORN?), are you going to change your vote about blocking me...?LightProof1995 (talk)18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
If you find a reliable source stating what you claim, that would likely resolve the whole issue, so yes, at least in regards to the Pict topic area.LegalSmeagolian (talk)19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You appear to be misrepresenting the source, the source text is "Now an independent researcher and writer, he is working on gravitation and cosmology and on topics in early European history and language." Working on =/= expertise extends to, in fact "independent researcher and writer" speaks against that expertise being recognized.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
That source does not state your claim. The only mention of Pliny is "According to the first-century Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder, the plant was called glastum in Gaul. This name corresponds to the Old Irish adjective glas, meaning ‘blue’ or ‘green’. The word comes from a Proto-Indo-European root with the meaning of ‘bright’, or ‘shining’, and is ultimately cognate with English words such as ‘glass’, ‘glisten’ and ‘galaxy’. The woad-plant itself was called glasen in Old Irish." - and apparently this source isn't from a historian, it is from a physicist, suggesting it is not reliable.LegalSmeagolian (talk)19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
no admins from this noticeboard are saying I should be banned from anything.
You might want to check your sources. I would also suggest you avoid trying to portray this as some sort of personal vendetta on my part.CatfishJim and the soapdish16:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I was wrong to take your attempt at having me blocked from Wikipedia forever as personal. My apologies :) I'm not sure which admin you're referring to.LightProof1995 (talk)16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I've struck out all instances where I've said "insult" :) Sorry I found your tone condescending at first; surely my interpretation only stemmed from our content dispute.LightProof1995 (talk)14:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Lol. I only replaced with other words so the sentences still made sense, but I guess I can just have it be struck out, if that would be an olive branch for you :)LightProof1995 (talk)16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support topic ban on picts, broadly defined. I'm afraid LP1995's responses in this thread don't inspire any confidence in their ability to understand what original research is and why we can't add it to Wikipedia articles. It looks like they have been doing similar things in articles on transgender topics and on reincarnation but perhaps not quite to the level that calls for a topic ban. --bonadeacontributionstalk17:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Ugh. Don't bring the sex stuff into this please. I don't even edit articles in regards to those. I just don't stand for transphobia and have tried my best to reduce transphobia, even though it is such a sensitive topic.LightProof1995 (talk)18:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You literally believe that people experiencing gender dysphoria are reincarnations of people of other genders in a past life. I do not think you can get much more fringe than that.LegalSmeagolian (talk)18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support topic ban on Picts and the GENSEX topic area. The editor should be aware that any disruptive editing about reincarnation will likely result in a sitewide indefinite block.Cullen328 (talk)18:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't you think to call my statements OR given the Gillian and Van Der Veen sources, is a bit on-the-nose? Especially when I have more sources at ORN? For complete non-OR, I can agree we should view the Chadwick source, and we also need consensus on whether or not the Keys source is reliable. I thought, since it is in the Wikipedia Library, that makes it a reliable source. Is that inaccurate?LightProof1995 (talk)18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It's Carr. Her name is Gilly Carr and it is usual to use a surname for an academic author. Your use of her paper isWP:SYNTH as you're combining a statement made by her that does not mention picts with the title of a cited article (that I believe you haven't read) to support this statement:the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves.CatfishJim and the soapdish18:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You haven't read it but thought to use it? Whatever Chadwick says, it is a very old paper and would not be usable in this instance perWP:RSAGE.CatfishJim and the soapdish18:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The Chadwick source is embedded within the Carr source. Since Carr verified it, and I verified Carr, doesn't it follow the information I added is sourced? It was already on thewoad page.LightProof1995 (talk)19:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
(multiple ec)argh. I made the same error re Carr's name. That is embarrassing! LightProof1995, Carr and Van der Veen do not support your claim re the origin of the term "pict". Your statements are absolutely OR.
It is a basic principle that we don't go searching for sources that say what we believe is true. Another basic principle is that a reliable source isn't automatically relevant. And it should be blindingly obvious that you can't cite sources you haven't read. Chadwick's essay doesn't support your claim, btw. --bonadeacontributionstalk19:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
How aboutMartin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020? How are we supposed to provide sources without looking for them, lol. Also, surely Chadwick's essay sayssomething about the etymology of "Picts", since the name of the source is "The name Pict". Could you kindly provide what they say? Thanks :)LightProof1995 (talk)19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
All his academic work (and presumably his doctorate) is in particle physics. He appears to be a retired physicist who has taken up writing about early Europe as a hobby.BubbaJoe123456 (talk)19:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
That's what I thoughtMartin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020 was, plus the url I'm not sure what else I could do to point this source to you?LightProof1995 (talk)19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You are proposing we use a source which claims that the Picts were from Ireland? Wouldn't that require a drastic rewrite of the entire article?[99]AndyTheGrump (talk)19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Dang, wait a second, you're right, I didn't catch that... Okay, he's obviously bonkers and we shouldn't use this source. I am sad.LightProof1995 (talk)19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
How are we supposed to provide sources without looking for them, lol. We are supposed to look for the most reliable sources and report what they say. What you look very much like you are doing is deciding what you want to say, and looking for the sources which are closest to supporting that. This distinction is very basic and fundamental to the way that Wikipedia works.Caeciliusinhorto (talk)19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I can agree with this since the 2020 source ended up being completely idiotic. Of course, if y'all ban me forever, teaching me this now solves nothing...LightProof1995 (talk)19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how a 1958 paper is too old for content about a group of people that lived 2nd-7th centuries A.D.? Because new research studies arrive at new conclusions. Catfish Jim addressed this in the very first post in this thread. --bonadeacontributionstalk19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support site ban. I also have strong CIR concerns about LightProof, after having interacted with him through the Vital Articles project.These CIR issues extend to both conduct and content.
Example: in October 2022, we (WikiProject Vital Articles) tried to bringLand to GA-class, and LP1995 joined us. We reached a point where people kept changing headers and moving material around, which made it hard to keep track of anything and make any progress, so Ichanged the headings to be closer to both the pre-edit-war status quo, and to a similar featured article,Sea. LightProof's next edit?Changing the headings again, with a nonsensical justification based on "rules" which were a misinterpretation of what I'd previously said on the talk page (and which I'd never stated as "rules" anyway); when he should have used the talk page to propose further changes. After that, I decided to stop editing that article altogether and took it off my watchlist since I'd rather edit articles alone than deal with CIR (sorryCactiStaccingCrane,that was the real reason why, not lack of time/motivation).
I said CIR also extends into content issues, so here's an example of that:Talk:Land/Archive_1#Climate here, LightProof argues that“Climate” refers to the air and is not physical science. As stated in the section, it can be considered a layer of land. This is nonsense, and is based on a massive misinterpretation of the UN source, which talks about land as anecosystem. And physical science obviously includes the Earth sciences. This is obviously far from the only instance of misinterpretation of sources, but as you can tell, no diff I could provide would be "damning" on its own.
But the diffs provided in the OP are IMO more damning, since they show that LP1995 doesn't understandWP:BRD (at DNR, LP1995 even said thatWP:BRD is completely optional, which is... wow), tried to push changes through, and then presented arguments for inclusion which did not address counterarguments, effectively arguing "past" all others. It's interesting that at DNR, Ceoil also mentions taking an article off their watchlist due to LP1995... And yes, it is "disruptive" to edit war to keep SYNTH in an article.
I don't think a topic ban would be enough, and it feels very bizarre to react to CIR with a TBAN. CIR, by definition, affects everything.DFlhb (talk)19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
What??? Eventually we decided on the Talk page "Climate" could go under "Physical science". I only felt it wouldn't because climate is air, and is nottangible, although I realized later it can still fall under the "Physical sciences" as part of the "Earth sciences". BRD says it is optional. I'm sorry you felt you couldn't edit with me, I did not know.LightProof1995 (talk)19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Itis optional in the sense that there are plenty of alternatives, includingWP:Bold-refine, or simply skipping the "BR" part and trying to obtain consensus before making an edit, if one knows it'll be controversial. It'snot optional in the sense that would allow edit warring to add stuff to an article. All our policies are against that.DFlhb (talk)19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Bold-refine is what I was using, along with Talk Pages. Sorry again you didn't feel you could work with me. I made a discussion on the Talk:Land page about the headers when we did this; I thought that was what we are supposed to do.LightProof1995 (talk)20:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support topic bans on ancient British history, broadly construed, and GENSEX. Maybe also art, broadly construed. The many above exchanges convince me that LightProof1995 is not capable of basing their edits on competent use of reliable sources in these areas. —David Eppstein (talk)20:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Indefinite site ban proposal
Proposal Indefinite full site ban. Interaction in this filing has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of WP policy, a disregard for consensus and collaborative editing and a lack of understanding of how to identify and use reliable sources.CatfishJim and the soapdish19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support site ban based on LightProof1995's endless failure-to-get-it responses here. The latest (as of now...) being to cite a source (evidently not the first), which LightProof1995 quite obviously hadn't read (see 'bonkers' comments above). A monumental time sink, and one we can manage well enough without.AndyTheGrump (talk)19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I only didn't read it entirely because there was pressure here to find a source quickly. By admitting it's wrong, isn't that progress?LightProof1995 (talk)19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
My main goal is to get the Reincarnation page to Vital-3 and to discuss/cite this source:
Pehlivanova, M., Janke, M. J., Lee, J., & Tucker, J. B. (2018). Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(4), 380–389.https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1523266because I believe this would save the lives of trans people and make the world a better place.
If you are a Wikipedian, you are aware of the fact that you are intelligent.
This means you have the capacity to understand that reincarnation is real, as scientifically proven by Dr. Ian Stevenson and others.
The source I list above simply states that the past-life memories of children with gender dysphoria tend to be of the opposite sex. When I read that, I was floored at just how well that explains stories of gender dysphoria in children.
Yes, this is WP:FRINGE, but that just means it isn't accepted by the majority. It doesn't mean it's wrong.
Even if reincarnation is real, I have no idea how you think actual physical memories (memories exist and are accessible only through the brain) would transfer from one body to another. Even if I stretch my imagination, I can only imagine a person's consciousness travelling at best, because technically we don't loose our consciousnesses even if our brain cells are replaced, so one could argue that consciousness has the capability of travelling from one place to another. However, no memories would be carried with it because memories exist physically within our brains. The idea you're trying to insert is simply much too fringe. I don't think you should make it a "goal" to insert these ideas into articles.Nythar (💬-❄️)19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
If I explain the science to you, do you promise not to ban me? Also, goal is probably not the right word. This is just something I wanted to see the most, along with improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.LightProof1995 (talk)19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support. This whole thread is an enormous waste of time amply demonstrating the LightProof simply does not get it. When topic bans are being proposed for areas as broad and diverse as British history, GENSEX, and art, that's a sign that the disruption is not going to be limited to a single topic area which can be effectively addressed by a topic ban – and frankly, nothing about their contribution history suggests that the benefit to Wikipedia of a complicated set of topic bans outweighs the cost.Caeciliusinhorto (talk)20:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support. This thread, that at DRN and at the Picts talk page serve only to demonstrate that this editor rebuffs, as a matter of routine, the succession of careful explanations from a troupe of other editors as to how their latest killer source patently does not support their latest assertion/unfounded but deeply-held belief. It’s plain that they are impervious to appreciation of OR or SYNTH, whether that is inability to or disdain for. Everyone, and that has been everyone, is wrong and they are right and in most cases, everyone is mean, even though you might need to read between the lines to spot it. This editor can not be trusted to use sources competently to contribute material, as much outside of this topic as within it. Sources are to be used to provide a gloss to what they just "know".Mutt Lunker (talk)21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutral as to asite ban. I really don't like the idea of banning an editor for eccentric views. I really don't like the idea of banning an editor in part for their religious views, and beliefs about the nature of the human soul and life after death are very much the area of religion. However, this seems to be an editor whose eccentric views result in their taking interpretations of Wikipedia policy, in particular as to what isoriginal research, that are inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, so that the editor is a time sink, and tried to start a quarrel between two other editors over a hidden insult that might not have existed. I don't like the editor of banning an editor for eccentric views, but I can't justify allowing the continued disruption. I am not sure what the editor's views are about art, buttopic-bans on ancient British history,reincarnation, andtransgender is all over the map. I don't like any possible result.Robert McClenon (talk)21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I have apologized for the mischaracterization of Mutt's comments to Salvio, and stated surely my interpretation stemmed from our content dispute, and how Mutt had treated me. Even now, I've given Mutt an olive branch and retracted my statements, they still came in here to diss me as much as possible. Thank you for this neutral vote and your opinion :)LightProof1995 (talk)22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support site ban If you will need at least 3 topic bans to edit here, that's a sign you're not really a net positive to the project.RickinBaltimore (talk)01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Support site ban after first wanting to just TBan more digging into this user has convinced me that they lack the understanding of the reliable source policy, as well as the ability to actually check sources. Hence, I don't think they can constructively contribute to WP.
Support. The competence issues already in question could potentially be reduced through increased familiarity with Wikipedia norms, but theWP:NOTHERE on display in the statements below seals it for me. —David Eppstein (talk)17:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Support I believe I’ve interacted with this user in the aforementioned trans reincarnation area and just want to emphasize my support for this ban for completely obvious reasons.Dronebogus (talk)01:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment The user also participate inWikipedia:Vital articles project a lot, almost to the point of obsession. I don't find that their mindset helps a ton in the improvement of Vital articles given they only care about the list, not the articles themselves. To others, it might be helpful to see LightProof's activity in the project to make your own judgement. I have no comment on LightProof themselves.CactiStaccingCrane (talk)02:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
If you don’t see any essential work being done then anything productive they do there is outweighed by their massive disruption elsewhere.Dronebogus (talk)07:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Final statement
Clearly it does not matter how many reliable, verified, and academic sources that say what I say I find. Everyone here is keen to argue with me because bandwagoning and arguing are fun and easy, while being a voice of reason is difficult and not as fun. Go ahead and block me. I will appeal it when all of our heads are cooled. I'm confident anyone who comes back to this in a month or so will be shocked at just how argumentative everyone was towards me, especially the unjust accusations ofWP:SYNTH andWP:OR for apparentlyall edits I've ever made, even when I provided plenty of reliable sources justifying my claims completely in regards to this dispute (not the Counihan one).LightProof1995 (talk)19:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I counted, I think, around 13 editors all basically sayiing the same thing to you. No one has said they share your view. Doesn't that tell you something? To put it down tobandwaagoning and arguing are fun and easy really does shout out that you shouldn't be here.DeCausa (talk)20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I see. You need to think through what all these people are saying to you. As to why they are saying it...Occam's razor: probably because they are right.DeCausa (talk)20:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It feels like they are saying I'm just difficult to work with, even when I follow policies such as Talk Pages and DRN. It feels like even though I've been editing for a year, there are still some things I don't understand about editing Wikipedia, e.g. best practices for searching and using reliable sources. I'm not disagreeing with regards to this and am willing to work on being a better editor, although that's obviously not going to matter since it seems I'm about to be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. Your viewpoint matters to me.LightProof1995 (talk)20:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You've spent this thread fighting tooth and nail claiming the opposite: that you understand policy and that you're edits comply with policy and everyon else has got it wrong. That's why you're heading for an indef. You need to convince everyone that you understand you got it wrong...and you're not saying it just to avoid the indef. Btw, being indeffed may not be such a bad thing for you. You can come back from an indef (and people often do). It doesn't mean gone for good. It can give you time to understand what people have said and understand policy more throughly.DeCausa (talk)20:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks :) Yes, I agree. I don't mind the indef, even if it's a site ban, because I know you're right, it doesn't have to be forever. And even if it was forever I wouldn't mind. I for sure made a lot of edits that made Wikipedia a better source of information this past year, and that is enough to console me. My edits with jps onReincarnation were the most important, and occurred a long time ago.
If y'all decide to only do a partial ban on Picts and GENSEX (not that I feel GENSEX ban is necessary), I will only work on the Vitals lists and my draft articles. I won't even editArt even though I don't see any issues with the Steps section I added.
If I'm banned across the entire site, I have a life to live, I can go live it :)
When I'm gone, I'd still like to know on my Talk Page about the Chadwick source, and if the Keys source is good as a secondary source that makes synthesis for my Picts claims.
I'd also like to say one more time, I did mostly join Wikipedia because I felthad to, tosave lives. If the viewpoint of "Oh, a majority of trans people were just the opposite sex in a past life" was more common, who knows how many lives would be saved? Both suicide-wise from trans people who felt they didn't understand themselves otherwise, but also by potentially preventing hate crimes against them? By getting rid of the "Criticism" section on Reincarnation, and putting this viewpoint out there and being banned for it, I've felt I've done my part :)LightProof1995 (talk)21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Wait, you're here in Wikipedia to advance the belief that trans people are reincarnations of dead people of the opposite sex?DeCausa (talk)21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
To advance it as much as I could without violating Wikipedia's policies such asWP:NPOV orWP:UNDUE, yes, along with improving Wikipedia in general as an encyclopedia. That's why they are recommending a GENSEX ban too, even though this was about the Picts.LightProof1995 (talk)21:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this, I will explain my thoughts because you’re being kind and I have nothing to lose. When it’s up to you to save lives, it’s like a weight is placed upon you until you do so. This led me to create my account even though it felt more bonkers than Counihan. Of course, I stayed at Wikipedia because I enjoyed building an encyclopedia, and there is a lot of work to do, a lot of misinformation out there. Did that lift the weight? Not quite. I was able to get consensus for a header at Reincarnation called “Reincarnation and science”. Before it said “Criticism” so this was a huge win for us. I tried to include the Childhood gender nonconformity source, but of course it was reverted. I was told to try theChildhood gender nonconformity page, this also failed. That pretty much lifted the weight, because there wasn’t more I could do. By writing what I did on my User page two days ago, that was even more putting this out there. Do I want to cuss out Mutt for treating me like shite the entire time they’ve known me? Sure, but maybe it was all meant to be, maybe since I’m getting attention here and my User Page is getting attention, maybe that was what needed to happen so someone who needed to see it would see it here. By blocking me for it, it will lift the weight completely, forever :) (right?)LightProof1995 (talk)00:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Wait, so you're telling me that your only reason for editing Wikipedia is to enhance anagenda, obviously waving it to the crowd on youruserpage, and doubling down on it? If you thought this would help your CIR case, then I have to tell you that it is not helping at all, my friend. Cheers!Fakescientist800000:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely per the aboveWP:NOTHERE statement of intent to draw attention to their case through bludgeoning here. This does not supersede the ongoing community discussion of topic- and/or site bans.signed,Rosguilltalk00:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I have offered mentorship to LightProof1995. I have no idea if I can correct all issues that were displayed here but I'm up for a challenge.CatfishJim and the soapdish18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I think your wasting your time (having been burned like this before and eventually getting dragged into an arbcom leading to their siteban). Most mentorships work, but in some cases there is no point. I doubt LP1995 has any interest in Wikipedia except pushing their own fringe theories. They clearly have no interest in the spirit of our policies, except in understanding how to circumvent them.Ceoil (talk)01:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Second that. This user was… well,kind of out there to say the least. They literally stated that they wereWP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to rightWP:GREATWRONGS by pushing incredibly strangeWP:FRINGE theories about transgender reincarnation in hopes that it would stop hate crimes by appealing to religious people who believe in that stuff. In summary:What.Dronebogus (talk)01:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
In addition to everything, that agenda is, unfortunately, theologically confused. The supposedly religious people who commit hate crimes against transgender people are nominally Christians. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. Christians, including those who corrupt the faith by being hateful, believe that we only go around once in life, and then we go on to the judgment of God. The real difference between Christian beliefs and Buddhist beliefs is not in ethics, but about the soul. So the whole thing is silly.Robert McClenon (talk)18:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a incredibly short time Trigarta has disruptedKambojas in various ways, in which I had to step in various times. They have spammed the article with loads of non-WP:RS (and sometimesWP:VER and misquoting sourced material too, and even plagiarism) citations into the article, which I had to revert[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108]. I asked them VARIOUS times to look into our guidelines, such asWP:RS,WP:SPS and whatnot, to no avail however. I even had to take it toWP:RSN[109], because they simply didn't want to listen. There, they gave me the impression that they cared more about "winning" the argument than actually improving our Wiki articles, by first trying to dismiss my argument by claiming the publisher of the source is in fact academic[110], and when I demonstrated that it wasn't[111], they contradicted themselves by basically saying the equivalent of "why does it matter anyways"[112]
Now they have started pushing their own personal opinion into the article[113]. Here they treat a theory[a] by a historian (Etienne Lamotte) as a fact, that the Kambojas are in fact the same as theAśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani.
They do this by adding more information about the Aśvaka/Aśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani from a UNESCO source which simply quotes the ancient historiansArrian andQuintus Curtius Rufus, however, neither of those two historians actually mention the Kambojas, they mention the Aśvaka/Aśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani, who in the UNESCO source are ironically treated as a separate people than the Kambojas, who appear later in the source. In other words, Trigarta went on to treat a theory as a fact, and by using a source which is literally against that theory a that. Heck, the vast majority ofWP:RS doesn't mention that the Kambojas and Aśvaka/Aśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani were one people (including the latest major work about them[114], i.e. it isWP:UNDUE), but that's another story. My issue here is that Trigarta heavily lacksWP:CIR, being unable/refusing again and again to learn of our guidelines.
Mind you, they are not that new here either, they have been heavily editing articles such asHistory of Punjab,Punjab,Yaudheya since January, all articles which I suspect have received the same (if not worse treatment) as the Kambojas, and thus I think those should be reverted back as well.
All of my edits have been made in good faith to help improve the Kamboja page, nothing bad has been done on purpose.
---------
They themslves have been the one making disruptive edits and doesn't followWikipedia:Neutral point of view and doesnt provide their own source whilst giving all sides theirWikipedia:Due weight. For example the most recent edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kambojas&oldid=1144962407 where he removes my edit for no reason even though I had provided a valid reason to include it, 'Undone due to relevence of prev mention to Assaknois being related to the Kambojas, also rewritten a quoted phrase as requested on talk. Retain WP:Neutral Point of View and provide your sources which describe the Assaknois as not being Kambojas whilst following WP:Verifiability'.
They state that there is no mention of the Kambojas being related to the Assakanois in the source however that was not my intention as the text previously describes the possible relation and this was simply for historical purposes and not to support the theory. (They still have not provided their sources and due weight to show they were not related, which i have asked for previously).
------------
They simply remove my edits e.g. under the connotation of implications from resources that they were not Kambojas, for example on his talk pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryofIran#Recent_removal_of_edit. He states here 'if a book talks about the Kambojas, and don't mention the events of Alexander (or vice versa), then they obviously do not consider the Kambojas and Assakenoi to be the same' which goes against wikiepedias rule onWikipedia:Verifiability which states that 'Its content is determined by previous published information rather than editors beliefs, opinions or experiences', in their case the belief and opinion that no mention = doesn't believe the theory/idea.
------------
Most if not all of my sources have been added under the assumption that they have beenWikipedia:Reliable sources and most have been created by a historian that isSubject-matter expert (except from my addition of Paul Crystal who I had assumed was) which is what they are referring to by 'I even had to take it to WP:RSN', in which in the thread my reasonings for him being reliable were listed and wasnt just a blind addition.Trigarta (talk)16:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to Trigarta that's not a violation ofWikipedia:Verifiability, which he literally quotes yet still doesn't understand? I'm tired of this persistentWP:CIR behaviour. Not even gonna bother adressing the rest of the nonsense. I sincerely hope an admin will take a look at this, I feel like many of my ANI reports in this year or two have been left in the dark, including my two other ones. --HistoryofIran (talk)16:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Trigarta has now resorted to disrupting another article;Gandhara, first removing around 13,856 bytes[115][116] and now 21,000 bytes[117] justifying it as "clean up" despite the fact that they can barely write something without heavily close paragraphing, can't differentiate between what isWP:RS and what isn't, includes their pov in their additions, and so on. --HistoryofIran (talk)18:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
1) Not point of view pushing. Folllowing a zoroastrianism practice doesn't mean they outright followed zoroastriansm. Your own source says 'connects' and from this possible connections it has been drawn. Your source doesn't outright say they followed zoroastrianism. Read it again 2) Your sources mention that they are mentioned in sanskrit and pali texts so there is no issue there. 3)The Indian lands would be the Indo-aryan lands, doesn't need to be a 1:1 replica as that would be plagiarism.
There was nothing inherently wrong with my edits on Gandhara, the page was extremely, cluttered, unorganised and unsourced/poorly sourced and I simply started undoing this. You're reaching to find anything now which is pathetic. They only requested that the edits be made in small chunks since it was a big edit, they didn't have an issue with what I removed.Trigarta (talk)22:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, your edits at Gandhara were so obviously good that they got reverted by two other users. It's far from a 1:1 replica and you're the last one who should lecture people on plagiarism. It literally says that scholarship acknowledges that they were Zoroastrians, how more literal do you want it? Never once do they state that it's a speculation of any kind, as you have made it out to be. For that and the rest of your nonsensical claims, everyone can view the quotes here to see that you are clearly wrong andWP:POVushing[120]. This is starting to look likeWP:NOTHERE behaviour,can an admin please step in before they do more damage? --HistoryofIran (talk)22:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
'Scholars have long (see, e.g., Kuhn; Charpentier, pp. 145f.; etc.) connected this practice with the Avestan Vīdēvdād. 14.5f. (and with Herodotus 1.140.3, where the same is said about the mágoi), and the conclusion has been drawn that the Kambojas were Mazdayasnians.'
No where here does it say certainly that they were zoroastrians. It bases its conclusion on a 'connection' to 'avestan videvdad' and 'the killing of animals' which doesn't mean they followed the religion, just a certain act. The phrasing doesn't indicate definiteness and it states 'scholarS' but only names Ernst kuhn? Confidence of a theory doesn't = definiteness of a theory.Trigarta (talk)22:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm speechless, if this is not a demonstration ofWP:POV and/orWP:CIR then I don't know what is. You literally (unknowingly?) admitted to adding your own words into the article, even trying to justify it. For some reason Trigarta didn't quote the other citation either, probably because they couldn't make stuff up about it like the other; "This alone suffices to show that they were Zoroastrians, acting in accord with precepts formulated in Vd. XIV.5-6." --HistoryofIran (talk)22:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
coming from the same person that that wasnt followingWikipedia:Verifiability and completely made up an assumption from absolutely nothing. This is notWikipedia:POV, what POV am I pushing? I'm simply making sure you're folllowingWikipedia:Verifiability. This text shows their iranian affinities but it doesn't show they practiced zoroastrianism. Its like saying fasting in Ramadan and only doing that is enough to be a Muslim when that isn't the case. The text bases its conclusion on a mere 'connection' your source POV pushes, especially how it shuts down the indo-aryan linguistic affinities of the Kambojas as a simple 'complication in the matter' and fails to maintain a neutral point of view.Trigarta (talk)00:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
So those scholarly sources are pov pushing because they don't support your personal feelings...? That is literal the epitome ofWP:POV. At this rate I think not only your edits across those afromentioned articles should be reverted, but that you also should be blocked. And learn whatWikipedia:Verifiability means, please. --HistoryofIran (talk)00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
No, has nothing to do with my feelings, I'm simply identifying that your source doesn't provide Fair weight, many scholars have suggested indo-aryan affinities of the Kambojas linguistics however your source doesn't mainting a neutral point of view and shuts it down as simply a complicated matter in this argument and nothing else. Youre the one Pov pushing. Espcially with how you removed the full edit rather than leaving the sanskrit, pali and indo aryan additions. If I were to be blocked, you should toTrigarta (talk)01:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
So because the two sources doesnt suggest those fictional Indo-Aryan affinities which you have provided noWP:RS of, let alone demonstrated that it'sWP:DUE (it's not, surprise[121]), their statement about the Kambojas being Zoroastrian (which is a religion, i.e. nothing to do with ethnicity nor language) is not valid and gives you the green light to include your personal words into it? This is some next level mental gymnastics, just like the rest of your claims. --HistoryofIran (talk)01:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Your source literally does mention it but shuts it down due to and I quote '... shows the influence of some middle-indo-aryan language, is an unnecessary complication..'. Your ignorance andWikipedia:POVPUSHING is remarkable and has been displayed throughout including most recently. It would be unfair for me to be punished (in which I haven't done anything wrong and my edits have been made in good faith) and especially only me as history of Iran breaks multiple guidelinesTrigarta (talk)11:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This is clearly going nowhere. It's impossible to discuss with this user due to the zealous amount of mental gymnastics they are making, which I consider no different than a heavy lack ofWP:CIR. This is by no means meant as an attack, the comments and edits speak for themselves, and anyone is welcome to prove me wrong. The fact they keep doubling down on their WP:POV and their ignorance of our guidelines and sourced material is not a good sign. I have been here long enough to know that these type of users always end up getting indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk)01:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I'dsupport a topic-ban from Iranian articles, broadly construed, due to the repeated mischaracterization of sources (I'm simply identifying that your source doesn't provide Fair weight) andinsults (Your ignorance and Wikipedia:POVPUSHING is remarkable) directed towards HistoryofIran.
Thanks for your comment. While I certainly would be relieved if they were topic-banned from Iranian topics, I unfortunately don't think that fellow editors in India-related articles will. All of Trigarta's edits are in India-related articles, including the Kambojas-who despite being an Iranian people, only appear in Indian sources. Even now Trigarta is still edit warring atGandhara, attempting to remove 13k bytes of info[122][123], despite being told to properly explain themselves in the talk page (where they are now beefing with another editor, randomly accusing them of"constant neglect of Wikipedia guidelines"). Heck, Trigarta even technically violatedWP:3RR in the Gandhara article, attempting to remove more or less the same info, albeit over a 24-period (only because they weren't reverted right away); this is their full revert history at Gandhara[124][125][126][127][128].--HistoryofIran (talk)00:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support for topic-ban on Trigarta from articles related to history of Indian subcontinent too, keeping in view the recent disruption they have caused atGandhara,Punjab andHistory of Punjab by either adding poorly sourced content and source appropriating or mass deleting various sections.--Sutyarashi (talk)03:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Provide your evidence and reasoning. I sure hope the other case with you gets resolved and the fair punishment is placed on you which another user has also experiencedTrigarta (talk)09:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This is clearly a behavioral issue, not just a content dispute as the longwinding discussion above might suggest. @Trigarta simply fails to understandWP:CONSENSUS when they initiate massive changes toGandhara for theseventh time and still believe their preferred version is protected from reverting whenmultiple editors have substantial issues with these changes (seethis edit summary). Atemporary block is definitely warranted to preclude further disruption. The idea that they expect editors to be "punished" for disagreeing with them makes me a bit pessimistic about their capability for introspection, but let's give them the benefit of a doubt and see what happens after the block expires. –Austronesier (talk)10:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Indef'd. There are serious concerns with this user's editing and their responses here don't give me confidence that that will change. I'm happy for any admin to unblock if they can assuage the concerns raised here, or with an unblock with restrictions.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?10:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Notes
^"Furthermore, Kamboja is regularly mentioned as the "homeland of horses" (asvanam oyatanam), and it was this well-established reputation whichpossibly earned the horse-breeders of Bajaur and Swat the epithet of Aspasioi (from Old Persian aspa) and Assakenoi (from Sanskrit aśva "horse")." - page 100,History of Indian Buddhism, Etienne Lamotte
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've sadly reached an impasse with BlazeWolf. I spent a significant amount of time contributing to a discussion on the Teahouse. Theysummarily removed my entire input, and issued me with a rather nonsensical template which is clearly meant for warning people about forum style debate on articles talk pages, not areas of Wikipedia specifically designed for discussion of questions that can obviously drift toward the open nature.
details if needed
They have been pretty evasive with their reasoning ever since, despite my efforts to draw out some specifics and build common ground. They've variously claimed the posts were off topic, rants, and contained vague accusations. They clearly disagree with my points, but pressing him for a policy I had supposedly actually broken, all he has suggested is NOTFORUM.
He has never really engaged on my take on that, namely my posts were entirely about the topic, he has simply just kept repeating his view they weren't, in slightly different forms. He gave me one specific example of a vague accusation, but can't or won't tell me which policy this violates either.
It is quite depressing that he doesn't seem to even see the irony in my central point being that Wikipedia has probably been losing editors since 2007 because much of the original traditions of Wikipedia. Namely polite, positive, human interactions working toward solutions and seeing every edit as a possible future editor until they categorically prove they're not (by repeatedly violating a specific policy you can clearly articulate to them in detail so there is no confusion or lingering ill feeling), are being replaced by this exact sort of impersonal, impatient, not remotely constructive reactions to editors who are all too often quickly divided into two camps, HERE or NOTHERE.
I get the distinct impression all they want is for me and my posts to go away and he thought a couple of button clicks and a few cursory words might achieve that goal. And perhaps this approach has served him well before, but the fact I didn't just accept being rudely shoved off of a debate I have strong views on, perhaps took them by surprise, leading to this unconstructive impasse.
If he could be politely asked to either give specific reasons for his removal that make perfect sense to all involved, and if they're not forthcoming, allow me to restore my posts, that would be fine with me. I bear him no ill will, I see this as a systemic issue with how Wikipedia operates these days. It reminded me why I left over a decade ago (one of the first of what proved to be quite the exodus).DearWikiMyFreindIsGone (talk)22:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Editors who create accounts are expected to be here to improve the project, whether it be through article creation, sourcing, vandal fighting or just the occasional grammar correction. Creating a new account just to moan about how much you hate the project is pretty soapboxy behaviour. We havegadflies who also improve articles, we don't need ones who don't.--Ponyobons mots22:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mikemaccana - violation of 1RR on blockchain article Solana:
Mikemaccana blocked 1 week for personal attacks and harassment with TPA removed by Acroterion.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:4 20 March 2023 (UTC) AND Topic banned: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies-- Deepfriedokra (talk)17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mikemaccana is in violation of the 1RR in place on all cryptocurrency related articles (seeWP:GS/Crypto#1RR). I placed a notification about the GS on their talk page a few weeks ago - though the 1RR doesn't actually require notification.This is the edit they're reverting to, this isrevert #1 andrevert #2. Related talk page discussion isTalk:Solana_(blockchain_platform)#Number_of_developers. Discussion is minimal, but is 2 to 1 against Mikemaccana's edit. For background, this is an editor who has returned recently after a 13 year absence and now edits primarily about the Solana blockchain, and their user page carries a COI notice about Solana. Since this is a community authorized GS, I wasn't sure if this belongs here, or AE, or at the 3RR noticeboard. Please advise if I should take this somewhere else. -MrOllie (talk)22:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The information was re-added with a note (and links to two wikipedia pages) politely explaining why blockchains are developer platforms. I also added a note on @MrOllie' talk page explaining the same.
I do not know what the 'signature' is here, I normally expect a signature to be an item at the bottom of an article or the digital signing of a document hash with a private key. I added a link to others to help others know the users involved, and see you talk page where I originally raised the matter of your recent edits.Mikemaccana (talk)22:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Since my edits were also to let others know I am accusing you of violating wp:1rr and wp:etiquette I have added a separate item to this noticeboard as it seems you would prefer the discussion happens elsewhere outside of this item.Mikemaccana (talk)23:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Acroterion for joining the conversation. Are you an arbitrator? I'm not sure how this process works.
I don't edit Wikipedia very frequently, so I appreciate wikipedia may have a different definition of vandalism than the common one. Given that information was provided toMrOllie explaining how the referenced information was relevant to the topic, and he responded by simply deleting the information, I'm not sure what else to call this behaviour. Looking athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions @MrOllie's behaviour could be considered a lack of good faith, etiquette, civility, not open to compromise, not willing to discuss on talk pages, and failure to discuss.Mikemaccana (talk)22:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mikemaccana For an definition of vandalism on wikipedia, seeWikipedia:Vandalism. MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious, and they clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.
Acroterion is an administrator, not an arbitrator. This board is for dealing with user conduct issues, not for resolving disputes over content.
You have been edit warring in a topic under community sanctions, while talk page discussion is ongoing and while having a COI, and have now filed a ridiculous retaliatory thread full of nonsense claims. I would advise you to take a step back here.192.76.8.84 (talk)23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
> MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious
I'm not sure how you can know this.
> They clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.
The reason the content was re added was specifically provided to @MrOllie -
My message in edit history: "Undo removal of developer statistics - as discussed in the Talk page blockchains are developer platforms - see the [blockchain] and [Decentralized_application] pages for details on this topic. The amount of developers is a a clearly notable aspect of any developer platform"
My message on MrOllie's page: "You recently removed developer stats for the Solana blockchain. As mentioned in the edit history when this information was re-added, the majority of modern blockchains are platforms for distributed applications - a blockchain being popular with developers is indeed a notable aspect of the blockchain. See Blockchain and Decentralized_application for more on this topic. Note I did not raise the importance flags re: Melania Trump. However I did remove the information per the flag"
I'm not sure how you can know this.WP:AGF. Our default position is we assume an edit was made in good faith unless evidence is presented otherwise. You have provided no evidence that this is anything other than a disagreement over whether this belongs in the article.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the reason MrOllie gave for removing the content, the important thing is that he provided a reasonable explanation regarding the relevance of the material and standard of sourcing - the edit, therefore, cannot possibly be vandalism.
Please be constructive and polite in your engagement with others. Indeed, so please stop accusing other people of vandalism and improper etiquette without evidence.192.76.8.84 (talk)00:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
We don't resolve content disputes here, we deal with problematic behavior, which in this case appears to be yours. MrOllie isn't a vandal, and thinking you're right isn't an excuse for edit-warring.Please work this out o the talkpage, and I strongly advise you to withdraw the accusations of vandalism here.Acroterion(talk)23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@mrollie's behaviour in refusing to discuss changes, in a way that harms wikipedia's output and actively engages in conflict-based behavior to a user that simply explained:
1. Why some content was relevant to the topic
2. that a third user had marked somethin as being irrelevant
> 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.Mikemaccana (talk)00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Since you insist on doubling down with assumptions of bad faith here at ANI, you're blocked for a little while. If you resume personal attacks of this kind, the next block will be longer. Learn to use talkpages to discuss disagreements, using published sources, and stop treating other editors as opponents.Acroterion(talk)00:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Addressing @mrollie's response to my statements he has violated 1RR and WP:etiquette:
> WP:1RR is 1 Revert per 24 hours
@mrollie OK. I didn't know that. Happy to learn, as I only reverted your work once today with an explanation before you began the edit war.
> The claim of "Violations of WP:Etiquette" and failure to discuss has no actual evidence attached to it
Yes it does. Repeating:
> As discussed in the comments in that section, information originally considered to be off-topic by @MrOllie was re-added, with a polite explanation about how the information is relevant to the topic at hand, with two links to very well-referenced wikipedia articles proving this point. In addition @MrOllie was also contacted on his personal talk page with the same information. In response Mr Ollie simply removed the developer usag stats a second time without engaging in further discussion.
Your actions in this matter are very clearly a violation of good faith, etiquette, civility, being open to compromise, and being willing to discuss - you didn't attempt to respond to the reasoning given to you in two places - the edit history and your personal talk page - about how the information you deleted was relevant. Instead you just reverted the changes.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMikemaccana (talk •contribs)23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
You need to provide evidence in the form ofWP:DIFFS to support your claims that MrOllie violatedWP:Etiquette. You cannot just vaguely handwave "I left messages on the talk page prior to reverting, soWP:Etiquette violation". Where did he violate the policy? What did he say that was uncivil? Where was he impolite? Bear in mind that talk page discussions can take a long time, you are expected to give other participants a reasonable time to respond to questions.192.76.8.84 (talk)00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I see this user has been blocked, but I'll state here anyway that whatever response he is referring to here was not written by me.MrOllie (talk)02:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
D. Scot Miller (User:Afrosurreal, User:2600:1700:cf90:ed80:e01b:5252:7a0c:5c88)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In 2018, started rewriting theAfro-Surrealism article to be all about himself and his work[130], without independent reliable sources.
Removes mention of other authors that don't seem to suit his preferences[131],[132],[133],[134] with an especial attention to suppressing mention of Rochelle Spencer[135],[136], another academic and author in the subject area.
Weird "lecturing" in edit summaries that have nothing to do with the edit made[138]
Repeatedly suppresses mention of Afrosurreal Writer's Workshop, with a false claim that WP itself has determined that it doesn't matter, and he claims to be personally representing "The Afrosurreal Arts Movement"[139],[140]
Attacks at least two living persons by name (Spencer, and another writer named Sumiko Saulson) on the talk page with unsupported accusations of real-world wrongdoing[141].
I believe this is across thelibel line, and the edit should beWP:REVDELed underWP:BLP policy.
In same edit, he engaged in more self-promotion, and denigrated another editor (me) simply for not being enough of a subject-matter expert to suit him, and not promoting who he wants to promote. Also made it very, very clear he is just here to go after his off-site ideological enemies, that he aims to 'right great wrongs', and that he thinks it's okay to edit the article tosuit his own viewpoint above all else. He also accused me of being a shill for Spencer (whom, in reality, I have never met nor had any other form of communication with).
For my part, I've notified several wikiprojects (African Disapora, Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy) and the article's talk page about what a total trainwreck the article has become, and also posted links to various sources that might be used in improving it (sources that Miller has attacked without any independent reliable-source evidence to back him). I have no deep involvement in the topic area (I've only done some minor cleanup editing, and some incidental looking around for additional source material). I was just rather shocked at the degree to which this page has been aggressively dominated by a single voice. I left the user aTemplate:uw-coi[143], before he just used the article talk page for more self-promotion (and attacks). I also added aTemplate:COI to the article itself.
I suggest that User:Afrosurreal needs to be topic-banned, if not just indefinitedly blocked asnot here to actually work on an encyclopedia. He's treating this article as if it's his personal blog, and has aWP:BATTLEGROUND approach toward other editors and indeed other off-site writers, as if the entire topic belongs to him globally. One guy who wrote a newspaper op-ed doesn't get to determine what credence Wikipedia gives to that writer or any other writer, or view they write about; independent sources do that.
Extra credit to D. Scot for informing our readers[144] that his own "famous" manifestolists ten tenants that Afro-Surrealism follows. I guess he was manifesting in an apartment building or something.EEng11:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aggressive behavior ofUser:Hotwiki towards other editors
I think admins should take a look onUser:Hotwiki's editing behavior, especially towards other editors. I stumbled upon their edit-war withUser:FrostFleece regardingGMA Network shows supposed airing of their shows in 4k format and in 5.1 surround sound. Since the Philippines had yet to broadcast in full digital and most of the major TV stations are still airing in analog, FrostFleece's edits are valid. Even the programs that the network upload in their official YouTube channel are not in 4k format or 5.1 surround sound.Hotwiki reverted back FrostFleece's edits (seehere,here andhere) and posted a fourth level warning on FrostFleece's talk page. When ForstFleece replied on Hotwiki's talk page explaining their edits, Hotwiki replied aggressively and even threaten FrostFleece that they will report them to administrators (seePicture and audio format of LIVE broadcasts on GMA Network).
I myself have encountered Hotwiki's behavior whenever I edit the24 Oras andSaksi articles. They may also have violatedWP:OWN on these articles since whenever other editors add content on the mentioned articles, they will revert them immediately and tag them "unreferenced". -WayKurat (talk)01:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Replying to reinforce this topic regardingUser:Hotwiki who only greeted me with unfriendly remarks and ashower of warnings.
This all began when I started editing on theEat Bulaga! article as I noticed the particular detail standing out. Just recently, areversion ofUser:Blakegripling_ph's revision on theEat Bulaga! article revealsUser:Hotwiki's intent on maintaining their edit with their summary highlighted here:
It stems from this articlehere (which is frequently cited byUser:Hotwiki) describing howGMA Network is investing to upgrade their programs to full 4K format. However, this user is greatly misinformed since it doesn't state here which shows are produced in 4K; nowhere in the article also mentions anything about 5.1 surround sound. This user also cannot provide additional references and clearly made assumptions from the said news article.
Furthermore to refute their claim,TAPE Inc.(Eat Bulaga! producer) is a separate entity and a long-timeblocktimer on GMA Network (seenews article) and does not produce the show forNetflix; similar to the aforementioned news programs:24 Oras andSaksi.
I would also like to share that this issue is also spread out across mostGMA drama series articles withUser:Hotwiki behind changing the parameters of multiple shows also without references. Any efforts on improving these pages are considered futile due to this user's aggressive and persistent revision.FrostFleece (talk)06:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Also this was written in my talk page "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly. Your talk page shows it all". How is that not a personal attack? I did discuss toUser:FrostFleece in a civil way, about posting a reference, which he/she failed to do so.TheHotwiki (talk)08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@WayKurat: yes, I do revert unreferenced edits immediately as those articles are in my watchlist. Is there a problem with that? Seeing your edit history, you do the same, though most of your reverts are unexplained which are seen in your contributions page[148].User:FrostFleece made changes to at least five Wikipedia articles without posting a reference, and I checked the user's edit history, the user did not post any reference to all of his/her edits.TheHotwiki (talk)08:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Expounding that statement:
"You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly." - I simply described your frequent threats to block me from editing as seen on mytalk page.
"Your talk page shows it all." - describing your disposition when dealing with other editors.
Taking offense is not the same as a personal attack and I am sorry if those statements did offend you, but let it be known I have never meant it in any way a form as an attack on you.
It's simple. Provide and present references that proves the GMA content are in 4K and 5.1 sound. Please stop relying on that godforsaken article that does not back your claim at all.
I admit, it is tough finding a source that specifically details the show or channel specifications, but that information is readily available publicly sinceGMA Network is broadcasted across the country.I have no place to lie about it here on Wikipedia.
Please also do your due diligence instead of keeping on harassing editors for a reference you so much crave about.
@Hotwiki: Yes, I revert edits, but the edits I revert are mostly obvious vandalism. FrostFleece already provided an explanation on why they did the revisions, and still you acted aggressive towards them. I also didn't saw any personal attacks against you on their reply.
Also, have you watched GMA Network's over-the-air broadcasts or even watch their shows on YouTube? The signal is obviously not in HD, let alone, in 4k. It's only on 16:9 480p. The source that you keep on bringing up only mentions that GMA is capable of producing shows in 4k. Only a few stations in Metro Manila airs content in HD. -WayKurat (talk)12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
GMA Network only started broadcasting their shows in widescreen in broadcast television, this year, but their shows have been filmed with wide-screen ratio since 2014 and this is evident from online videos (YouTube/Netflix/Viu) that they uploaded throughout the years. Recent shows likeI Left My Heart in Sorsogon,First Lady and First Lady are indeed filmed with 4K cameras, as 4K resolution is a standard requirement for content being streamed in Netflix[149] and GMA shows are available for streaming in Netflix. Shows being streamed in Netflix also uses 5.1 surround sound, not stereo. A 2019 article from GMA Network which was posted in Saksi, Eat Bulaga and several articles backed up the 4k claim. So please, provide a reliable source when you make an edit and claim that GMA doesn't use 4k cameras and 5.1 stereo for their shows. Thank you.TheHotwiki (talk)13:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say they are not using 4k capable cameras. I'm telling you that they are NOT broadcasting in 4k and in 5.1 surround sound. Just because some of their shows are on Netflix does not mean that ALL of their shows are recorded on what format you are claiming. Heck, Eat Bulaga, Saksi and 24 Oras are not even in Netflix. You are just assuming them. I'm throwing the question back to you. Do you have a primary source that says that all of their shows are being shown over-the-air in 4k 5.1 surround sound? -WayKurat (talk)14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Where is your source@WayKurat:? If we are gonna drastically change audio format and picture format for 5 shows, we should able to back up that with a reliable source which@FrostFleece: failed to do so.TheHotwiki (talk)14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Stop asking me and other editors on our sources. It's obvious that you only based your assumptions on that GMA article and you won't let anyone remove it unless they provide their "sources". That's the problem on your editing behavior, you remove or revert back the edits of other editors if they edit your work but when questioned on this, you keep on asking "where is your source?". This is borderlineWP:OWN. -WayKurat (talk)15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Changing content without adding a reliable source is a valid reason to revert someone's edit. Now since you and@FrostFleece: failed to provide a reference, how about you both just let it go?TheHotwiki (talk)16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't get the attitude, @Hotwiki, after all these replies.
We are going around in circles and instead of trying to help finding common ground, you are simply telling us to let it go? Do you mean let it go and let you keep your edits? Sure, but please provide correct sources too if you are all about the references.
@WayKurat and I have provided and explained in sheer detail but you choose to stick with your logic and fail to see our point. We are not wasting our time and efforts here for no reason. So please, don't tell us to just "let it go." Would you like it if I were to tell you the same?
I invite you to please reread our counter-arguments once more and you are very much welcome to do so. This would be my final response until someone steps in to help resolve this issue.Adios for now and all the best for this discussion.FrostFleece (talk)18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not just gonna let this slide one bit this time. This attitude of yours has been going on for years now. Look what have you done to the24 Oras andSaksi articles. For comparison, look at this version of the Saksi articlefrom 2017 andfrom today. You removed most of the content there that the show's history section now has gaps in it, compared toTV Patrol's article. And the references used in the "anchors" section are just clips from YouTube when the anchor appeared in that newscast. Maybe you should stopowning articles and let other editors edit them. -WayKurat (talk)23:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
You are over-generalizing these information! I have a phone right now that can also shoot in 4K but that doesn't mean everything I shoot is 4K.Your NETFLIX logic is flawed.
We arenot contesting the fact that GMA can shoot 4K format right now. The problem is thatnot all shows are released in 4K and 5.1. The keyword here isreleased. Just because Netflixrequires 4K cameras, it doesn't mean all GMA shows are released in 4K. If you go to Netflix right now, you'll be surprised to see that the specifications for shows likeI Left My Heart in Sorsogon is still in 1080p, and in Stereo! (linkedhere) Technically, no 4K or 5.1 release yet, unless you provide hardcore references.
@Hotwiki: You too need references. In the absence of any reliable source showing what format the program is in (which is different from what format the producer is capable of making) we should not specify any format.Phil Bridger (talk)18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: There is a reference for the 4k resolution claim which was already added to this articleSaksi. Looking at the access date of the reference, its been in the article since 2021. As for surround sound,FrostFleece (talk·contribs) just posted a link above that shows of GMA Network utilizes 5.1 surround sound.TheHotwiki (talk)19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
That is precisely a link that shows that the producer is capable of making programs in this format, not that any particular show utilises this.Phil Bridger (talk)19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's 3 more articles that says the network in discussion uses 4K cameras.[150][151][152] The first link is for the network's Public Affairs department. The second link specifically mentioned a 2020 drama series. These articles are from 2020. I just don't understand the need to cherry pick which shows are using "4k resolution camera/4k picture format", when these articles exists. Meanwhile there are still no reference, that certain shows are only in lower resolution.TheHotwiki (talk)19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what sources might say about the network's capabilities when they don't say that these capabilities are being used for particular programs. And we don't need a reference to simply leave out the format when there is no such source.Phil Bridger (talk)20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
It's more likely that these shows aren't broadcasting in 4k at all, but mainly in1080i or1080p. Hotwiki, you would easily be able to find out what format a show broadcasts through a technical tool which would show its true format, and the only regular 4k broadcasts are usually special events, not a Filipino lunchtime variety show being broadcast every weekday (and often to an audience that has absolutely no need for 4k). Also, just because it's being recorded on 4k equipment doesn't mean it goes out in 4k; more likely it's being downscaled to a regular 1080i/p system for graphics and network output like we do in the United States for sports broadcasts). Netflix doesn't have a 4k requirement, and you need sourcing to show it, which just doesn't exist. So it's time to stop,now.Nate•(chatter)20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Hotwiki is showing theirWP:OWN tendencies again. I just re-added the content they removed from theSaksi article that were removed in 2020 but they keep on removing them because according to them, it's unreferenced and "trivial". The removed content were mostly the show's history between 2002 and 2011 and if you read the overview section before I re-added the history section, it's missing a significant chunk of the newscast's history. This thread also mentions a couple of instances when Hotwiki violatedWP:OWN. Can someone please review the article first and issue warnings to Hotwiki for edit warring? -WayKurat (talk)11:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Chiming in again after some statements.
@WayKurat, I'm afraid I have to back @Hotwiki on this one upon review of thediffs but I think there are some information worth reviewing. I agree that some parts are way too trivial but I believe can be rewritten to be deemed an acceptable entry. The article has a talk page and I invite all of us concerned to discuss further from there.
But still, @Hotwiki, though I appreciate and respect your contributions and your incredibly proactive editing, we need to always have a healthy discussion instead of swooping in with the reverts and dealing with us and other editors in an unfriendly manner. What's the use ofcitation needed or othertags anddiscussion pages if you always take matters on your hands? It's good to be bold to delete some information, as said in the article, but not overly bold that discourages other contributors from providing insights.FrostFleece (talk)13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@WayKurat: you are using this opportunity as a way to revert back a version ofSaksi (an article that used to have plenty of unreferenced claims and trivial stuff), that has been removed years ago. How is "graphics change" important to the article? Trivial uncited information like Catchphrases is unnecessary. Myself removing uncited and trivial content IS NOT me owning the article as if its my own.— Precedingunsigned comment added byHotwiki (talk •contribs)
An IP user with 6 edits, reverted an old version from 2020 in this article,Saksi.[153] No one is still adding sources to the reverted back uncited claims. Could the administrators look into this? The article is now (once again) full of uncited and trivial claims because@WayKurat: claimed that the article used to be a mess when the uncited and trivial claims were removed, yet for years it was removed just fine.TheHotwiki (talk)10:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you should try looking into theTV Patrol article. It contains uncited and trivial claims similar on what you have removed in theSaksi article. Instead of helping out in finding sources in the History/Overview section, you just removed a lot of content, some of them were written way back in 2007, skipping the show's history from 2004 to 2011. You also addedthat "Interim anchors" section, which only uses video clips from GMA News' official YouTube channel as primary source. The videos are not even about the subject being cited, it's just news clips when the interim anchor delivers the news. How can you call that a proper source? Also, withcomments like this to other editors, no wonder no one bothers to revert your edits. -WayKurat (talk)12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
In other news, I discovered something. @Hotwiki, you have plenty of edits on the page ofThe Wall Philippines but you haven't questioned once regarding the audio format of the show nor asked for references. You did not even try to change it. Why, @Hotwiki?
I was surprised that the show was stated in its actual audio format, although yes, it is "unreferenced" as you would love to put it; though, I am not debating the credibility of the parameter but instead the seemingly bias approach towards other articles and editors. Although you might say you have missed it, sure; but I highly doubt it since you are pretty much eagle-eyed and active on GMA-related articles.FrostFleece (talk)13:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm seeing way too much edit warring (across multiple articles) and way too little talk page discussion in general, although by now it appears to have all subsided. If Hotwiki, WayKurat, and FrostFleece can find an article talk page or content noticeboard to settle the format dispute (or alternativelyWP:DROPTHESTICK), I think this could be closed with warnings to Hotwiki toWP:AGF and avoid edit warring.signed,Rosguilltalk22:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Rosguill, Hotwiki has been warned several times about edit warring and this behavior since at least 2017 (I checked their User talk Archives11 and12). I'm not sure adding any warnings above that would solve anything. --Lenticel(talk)01:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
They were blocked for the 2017 incident butI'm not seeing any problems since then--the warning from 2018 seems to have been posted tendentiously.oh wait there are other warnings from that year too. Hm.signed,Rosguilltalk01:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
If you check their user talk page, there are instances that other users are complainingUser:Hotwiki forowning articles. Maybe admins can check this as well as this has been going on since 2017. It just really escalated with this incident involvingUser:FrostFleece. -WayKurat (talk)04:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I think part of my initial reluctance to impose a block is due to the fact that I find WayKurat's edit-warring andWP:POINT-y reversion to a diff from 2020 atSaksi to be equally sanction worthy (and yes, they have a similar history of 5+-year-old blocks for edit warring). In the absence of an ongoing edit war, I don't think blocking WayKurat will accomplish anything, but am loathe to reward brinksmanship at ANI. I think that the separate concern of Hotwiki veering into OR (vis-a-vis video formats) is more singularly sanctionable, but I'd like to see a response from Hotwiki regarding that charge and what they would intend to do moving forward before taking action as an admin . That having been said, failure to address this concern (specifically addressing the points made in Nate's comment and Phil Bridger's last comment) is problematic, so a sanction will be warranted if Hotwiki does not respond to it. PingingHotwiki, per that last sentence.signed,Rosguilltalk17:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I already stopped edit warring/arguing about 4K once Phil Bridger/Nate both commented about the picture format. And you can see in the history page of the articles,that I didn't restore it to 4K, as I already dropped this issue right after their comment. I blanked the audio format per the suggestion of Phil Bridger. I can work well with other editors as I have never resorted to personal attacks especially in this issue. This issue escalated due to my reluctance of the articles being backed up with references (when there was none when things were being changed/removed). I'm sorry for all the inconvenience I made.TheHotwiki (talk)17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll reiterate my support for closing this with a warning: it seems clear from the above responses that disruption related to the immediate dispute between Hotwiki, FrostFleece, and others is at an end and Hotwiki is backing away from their prior problematic editing. A formal warning that further disruption will result in a block should be all that is needed as a preventative measure.signed,Rosguilltalk22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with a formal warning and closing this thread perWP:STICK. Hopefully this will no longer be an issue in the future but in case edit warring becomes an issue again, I suggest a stronger intervention. --Lenticel(talk)04:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
WIth all due respect toHotwiki and their contributions, It is unlikely that this editor is will be open to settle matters in talk pages or even recognize insights from other editors. I am also unsure how I (or other editors) can arrive at a conclusion withHotwiki independently in the future without the intervention of administrators.
To summarize again this user's actions:
- Misuse ofWP:PRIMARY across multiple articles, (where plenty are still left unedited due to their behavior.)
- Lack ofWP:AGF, (ex. presenting a barrage of warnings on mytalk page.)
As a newcomer, I apologize for my oversight on the guidelines onedit-warring on which I ceased from the moment this case was discussed and eventually raised here. All I wanted was a civil discussion from the start.
Once again, this will be my final response, simply finalizing my points to help the admins concerned and to also help avoid prolonging this any further.
I already dropped this issue the other day. The audio format for the Tv show articles were blanked and@FrostFleece: thanked my edits for it, as seen in my notifications. I didn't know I am up for a "block", when I already stopped edit warring days ago.TheHotwiki (talk)17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
CrashLandingNew
TheUser:CrashLandingNew started a series of disruptive edits on various article by mass deleting sourced material, which he insisted that it was"pseudo-history", all while without bothering to check the references.
Afterwards, he turned to personal attacks[157]Removing all the ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a sock
On other pages he kept removing properly cited material all while claimingsource does not mention that
OnHyder Ali;[158], removing citations while saying it to be unsourced[159], again calling a sock[160]
Afterwards, he breachedWP:3RR,[161] while calling me vandal,[162] and[163], all while adding material for which cited references don't corroborate or are repeated afterwards.Sutyarashi (talk)
I would like to draw the attention of the admins towards the history of all the pages mentioned here by the the User. They all have been recently re-writtenrecently by him/her with a clear bias to push one POV. What we are seeing is a pushing of complete pseudo history with selective citation of sources to suit one's agenda. He wants to push Jat origin of many Subcontinent based Muslim dynasties and has even tried to push offbeat narrative about origins of some famous historical figures. I repeat, just check the history of these pages and see how unchecked rewriting of history was tried.CrashLandingNew (talk)16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
That is no excuse for deleting sourced content... why not discuss the bias of the sources in the talk pages before blanking huge sections of the article?LegalSmeagolian (talk)16:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
If a user adds something on a page using selective sources without discussing, which completely changes article's existing narrative, shouldn't that be deleted until a consensus is reached? Plz go through the history of all these pages. He has completely changed what was written on them. There are these historical figures with different origin theories and he comes out of nowhere to push the ones he prefers.CrashLandingNew (talk)17:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Both of these editors have been edit warring over at least 3 different articles. All without either of them using an article talk page. Perhaps the admins should block them both. --Kansas Bear (talk)17:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I have not engaged in any war here. Plz go through the history of these pages. I even adjusted his changes only to keep what was written originally.CrashLandingNew (talk)17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment It does appear thatUser:Sutyarashi has made significant changes to a number of articles, and then when those changes were reverted, instead of doing the correct thing perWP:BRD and starting a discussion on the various talk pages, has reverted again. I have no idea who is "right" here, but continued reverting is not a good idea, and I would suggest that the articles be restored to thestatus quo before the major changes started, and a discussion started about each one.Black Kite (talk)18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I did requested him multiple times to use talkpage[164][165][166] a d then even started discussion on respective pages, but he keeps repeating that this was pseudo history, without mentioning that whether there was even problem with cited sources.Sutyarashi (talk)15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
As observed above you have made significant changes to a number of articles without discussing. You can't add something to a page without discussing and then expect it not to be removed without discussion when you didn't use the 'Talk page' option yourself in the first place. You have been engaged on all the talk pages where you initiated the communication and discussion.CrashLandingNew (talk)17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Black Kite Sutyarashi has done the same to my additions also. He made a slight discussion on the talk page however when I gave my reasonings for each of his issues he still isn't satisfied and reverts all my edits. Glad to see im not the only one complaining about this. Has no admin resolved this yet?Trigarta (talk)17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Your “additions” (removal of 21k bytes of info) atGandhara were also reverted by two other users. And would have been reverted by me as well, since they’re disruptive.HistoryofIran (talk)17:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Revertes for further explanation and to do them in sections
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You forgot to do the mandatory notification. In fact, you didn't raise the issue with the user at all. Additionally, that editor hasn't edited in months, with the vast majority of their edits in 2021. This seems to be a pointless report. --Yamla (talk)11:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
(ec) The user hasn't edited since December, and that was their only edit since October of 2021. Additionally, their edits do not appear to have been reverted. Finally, you MUST notify RG72 of this ANI discussion on their talk page as it says when you edit.RickinBaltimore (talk)11:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aspersions by Bon courage
Bon_courage has been making bunch of changes to the page onEMDR that I view as non-neutral. I object to those changes, so after a talk page discussion and this discussion over at FTN, I started an RFC on the talk page to see if there was consensus for them. (Then after it became clear from the first day's !votes that the original phrasing of the question wasn't what was actually being voted on, I rebooted the RFC rather than trying to fix the question in the middle.)
Bon_courage has nowsuggestedtwice that I should be TBAN'd or blocked for using ordinary Wikipedia processes. (And this is in addition to a whole lot ofWP:BLUDGEONING.) This is a pretty clearWP:ASPERSION and a complete failure toWP:AGF. All I'm requesting here is an official warning to knock it off andWP:AGF.
(E 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC): Relevant note: I withdrew the second RFC after consensus was quickly apparent that it was also premature. Still trying to resolve this content dispute on the talk page.)
I took a look at the various linked discussions, and it looks to me like most editors are, at least in large part, agreeing with Bon courage and disagreeing with LokiTheLiar about the content issue, and there seem to be a significant number of complaints about how Loki has been trying to handle the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk)20:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you may be overweighting BC's own comments here. BC commentsa lot (hence why I also accused them ofWP:BLUDGEONING up above) but as far as I can tell the only objection other editors have had to my conduct here is that my RFC questions were poorly framed. (My answer to that is that I've been trying to ask people what a better question would be and nobody's wanted to clarify.) And many of them did at least disagree with BC on the conduct dispute. Firefangledfathers, Darknipples, Bakkster_Man and Cedar777 all raised some kind of objection to BC's changes.
Furthermore, whether or not BC's changes have consensus that doesn't give him the right to threaten me for opening an RFC.Loki (talk)20:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEONING isn't a simple matter of number of comments. Almost all of your comments are very aggressive while many of mine are just things like "could you please clarify that?"Loki (talk)21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest aWP:BOOMERANG should probably find the OP. This appears to be an attempt to preempt an ANI filing on them self afterBon courage observed this would likely end up at ANI. Combined with theWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments that consistently misrepresent what the article says in Wikivoice ([167][168][169][170][171]) as well as the repeated arguments that anything that works better than literal nothing cannot possibly be pseudoscience, I think they could use some time away from this topic. Also, a quick look at thetalk page history would suggest that claims of BLUDGEONING fit better on the OP as well.MrOllie (talk)20:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
So, first of all, that comment about this ending up at ANI is a third example of BC'sWP:ASPERSIONS, thank you for finding it. Second, I've been trying to avoid making this about the content dispute but I also feel like my characterization of Bon_courage's edits as "calling EMDR pseudoscientific or ineffective" in Wikivoice is accurate and I've given evidence for such. As for theWP:BLUDGEONING accusation, I agree I've been talking a lot but talking a lot is not the same as bludgeoning. BC's comments have been much more aggressive than mine and he's especially been making a habit of responding to everyone who disagrees with him with a counterargument. Which is the definition of bludgeoning.Loki (talk)21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to join in a talk-page RFC where neither option offered is optimal, but is certainly troubling that one has to drill down in to the article toEye movement desensitization and reprocessing#Effectiveness to discover how really vague and weak the lead is. In other words, perhaps someone should bludgeon to get that lead to be more reflective of the actual state of affairs with this particular bit of (increasingly popular) pseudoscience.SandyGeorgia (Talk)21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
We're getting into the underlying content dispute here, which I wanted to avoid, but in brief: Many edits to that section were made recently, and those edits are some of those that I object to. This dispute is not just about the lead but about the general weight of the evidence for EMDR and whether some academic books and articles that describe it as "pseudoscientific" outweigh a lot of meta-analyses that find it effective and many professional recommendations.Loki (talk)21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll avoid then the usual disclaimers about the usefulness of meta-analyses here (garbage in = garbage out, and if they are looking at a lot of small or low-quality studies, and finding "low" evidence ... ok then, the lead is obscuring that wobblyness). This underlying content dispute may be partly due to someone's POV coming in as being in favor of what they label aseffective, when that "effectiveness" is not at all well established in MEDRS literature. I suspect that is the underlying frustration here that has perhaps led to some impatience.SandyGeorgia (Talk)21:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I think I can tell you exactly what the underlying frustration is (andBon_courage should feel free to correct me on this if I've described his position incorrectly): I think that the sources that endorse EMDR or establish the effectiveness of EMDR contradict the sources that call it pseudoscientific: i.e. if the APA or the WHO or the NHS endorse a treatment that implicitly means they think it's not pseudoscientific. Which means I think that, since there are a lot more sources that call it effective than that call it pseudoscientific, the sources that do call it pseudoscientific should not be given muchWP:WEIGHT.
BC, as far as I can tell, does not think that scientific studies proving effectiveness or professional organizations endorsing it bear either way on the question of whether it's pseudoscience. This means that BC thinks the sources that call it pseudoscience have a lot ofWP:WEIGHT, since there are very few sources that explicitly say EMDR is not pseudoscientific in those words.Loki (talk)21:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
As I and others have repeatedly explained, you're just wrong about this (and it isWP:OR in any case). The APA endorses various pseudosciences. My frustration is that you won't follow (or even read) the strong sources on this topic,Bon courage (talk)21:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Loki, it sounds like you're relying on a tally of sources rather than quality of sources or an evaluation of the evidence those sources present (for example, when they say "low" we don't go "high"). Yes, many orgs endorse pseudoscience; sometimes they even do it because <gasp> it saves them money! Anyway, I'm not here to engage the content dispute, rather to say I can see why it has become frustrating.SandyGeorgia (Talk)23:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I also feel like while neither side is reallyweak quality-wise, the "effectiveness" sources are still better, FWIW. I feel like it's an "academic consensus vs. academic critics" situation. But otherwise, understandable.Loki (talk)00:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that both you and Bon courage are heading out onto theWP:BATTLEGROUND, both of you should take a step back from the article and the talk page... Lets let some other editors sort this one out. Yes Bon courage is casting aspersions, but you aren't exactly being the paradigm of civility either and escalating this to ANI was probably a bad idea.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Y'know, that's fair. My frustration here is that from my point-of-view Ihave attempted to get off theWP:BATTLEGROUND several times by trying to offer some sort of compromise, and that it feels like when I do this BC is failing to assume good faith, assuming I have some kind of sinister motive, and treating me as some kind of obstacle. Which is to say, my intent of going to ANI for a warning was to attempt to get off theWP:BATTLEGROUND and I'm not sure what the appropriate solution is at this point.Loki (talk)21:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The solution is toaccept that Wikipedia is going to reflect what reliable sources say, not what you think differently. This is the foundation of NPOV and it is not up for discussion.Bon courage (talk)21:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I am trying very hard to make Wikipedia reflect what the reliable sources say, and I think if youWP:AGF'd that I'm trying to do that (regardless of whether you think I'm succeeding) we would have a much more productive situation here.Loki (talk)17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Your problem is not a lack of "good faith". It's that you're fundamentally wrong about how policy applies, and so loudly it's causing disruption.Bon courage (talk)17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the appropriate solution is at this point. I believe,Loki, the appropriate steps at this point are for you to withdraw this unwise ANI report,drop the stickhere,here, andhere, and agree to stay far away from all things related toEMDR for a few months. Before aWP:BOOMERANG is delivered it might be best for you to voluntarily walk away from this increasingly unproductive and disruptive situation.JoJo Anthrax (talk)16:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll offer to Bon courage the advice that it's best not to comment about supporting a ban or block for someone when discussing content; make that warning on the user's talk page, or not at all. But this is a situation where a loss of patience with Loki seems understandable, and I don't think there's anything actionable against Bon courage. --Tryptofish (talk)21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This is sage and true, my patience is definitely wearing thin for reasons which should be apparent. I'll confine any such future such comments to Loki's User Talk Page.Bon courage (talk)21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I plan to comment here but due to obligations IRL, I don’t expect to have an opportunity to do so for several days.Cedar777 (talk)14:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Multiple edit reversions of good edits & lying about facts
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
UserThroast immediately reverted my valid edits tothis page. Editor did not first initiate conversation with me to discuss, as would be expected if they are acting in good faith. The edits are pretty simple, they were both fully cited using reliable sources, and more than one.
The first edit was in thePhilanthropy section where I added one brief paragraph detailing the Dog For Dog charity
the second was under "Legal issues" where I added one paragraph detailing prominent legal battle information and recent activity regarding a legal outcome
WHY THIS DOES BELONG ON THE ANI NOTICEBOARD:I won't waste everyone's time replying to every accusation (below) by those who are defending Throast's inappropriate deletion of my edits, because those are all just noisy attempts to discredit me quickly so valid, unbiased admins might actually listen. Let me explainwhy this is an ANI matter.
This is an ANI matter becauseThroast and the other editors rising to his defence (now and every time in the past there were issues with edits onthis page are trying to discredit me quickly so nobody else will look deeper into what I'm saying.
Throast is just one of many in a meat puppet editor ring, probably including a few editors here who are defending him likeAroseWolf,Ravenswing and others who haven't yet joined this fray, all of whom have been violating Wikipedia policies onthis page since 2021.Why? Because the subject is embroiled in several legal battles that began in 2021 withthis guy. The page has been vandalized since then, instructed/guided byEthan Klein/h3h3Productions with Throast leading the work to:
remove positive content and emphasize negative content
remove good citations, supporting accurate edits
lie about his edits to disguise his destruction of this page
attack every new editor to the page to discredit them and justify deleting their edits
Other editors' work to contribute valid, balanced information to the page have been rejected completely even though many over the past couple of years have offered good edits as well. The only edits that have been allowed to stand are those done by this meat puppet farm, and they are smart. Many of them only interact on talk pages and defend each other that way. But looking into the editors on that page who have not yet been banned or scared away, they all have too many pages in common to be random unassociated editors, likethese three. Throast and his fellow meat puppets are very good editors, and mask their true purpose very well. Most other editors who tried to get involved or were asked to look at this have backed off because it's ugly.
All it takes is a look at the page history, the editor interaction history, and if you really want to see the juicy stuff, watch some of Klein's YouTube videos where he talks about the vandalism to the Kavanaugh page at length in several video likehere,here,here, andhere.
If this is what Wikipedia has become, and nobody on the ANI board will properly investigate it, then it's a shame because when words become weopons and theBLP rules are nothing more than meaningless typing on a page, it discredits everything in wikipedia and all the good work that honest editors have done. I hope someone who is really completely unbiased will please take a closer look at all of this, as ugly and messy as it is, and finally do what's right. Why am I wasting my time on this? I like to right wrongs. And this is just wrong. Thank you to anyone else willing to do what's right.Dourriga169 (talk)19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
In reading history, this editor is not following community guidelines and is violatingWP:NPOV andWP:POV railroad. All their reversions happen instantly after another editor tries to edit the article and their comments about the reversions are untrue. Thank you for looking at this as it is not right.Dourriga169 (talk)01:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dourriga169: I have done so on your behalf. Please remember that it is vitally important to notify subjects of any thread you post here, so that they know that you have done so and that they can respond or appeal. Regards,User:TheDragonFire300.
Hang on. He made ONE edit, affecting SOME of your changes, with the edit summary "rv: promotional tone, no unresolved legal disputes," in an article where he's made over 200 edits going back to 2021, and that you touched for the first time a few hours ago. You have made no attempt to contact him, no attempt to discuss your issues on the article's talk page, and you are badly misinformed if you're under the impression thatWP:AGF requires him to gain your approval in advance of changing any of your edits.Any editor in good standing has the right to edit, change or revert your edits, with or without warning, and language to that effect presuming your agreement to this is at the bottom of every editing screen as a precondition of making those edits. Throast is certainly active on that article, but heck, just having counted, there are over sixty articles on which I have fifty or more edits; it happens.
As it happens, taking a look at your respective talk pages, your only interaction is him sending a mild warning toyour talk page about misleading edit summaries. At the top ofthis page is the tag "This page is for discussion ofurgent incidents andchronic, intractable behavioral problems." Would you care to tell us what you feel raises this single interaction to the "chronic, intractable" level, or what about it is "urgent?" Ravenswing03:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the above observations by Ravenswing, I'd also suggest the OP reviewWP:BRD andWP:ONUS to appreciate that the burden is actually much more upon them in this context (and as the party advocating for novel content that has been challenged) to secure a consensus for inclusion: far from new additions being presumed beneficial, there must in fact be positive consensus that such material agrees with core content policies, as explored through specific dispute resolution procedures where editorial differences of opinion exist. None of those processes seem to have been attempted here, even to the extent of the natural starting point of a talk page thread, and I almost NAC'd this discussion as procedural matter, but for the fact that the OP may have follow up inquiries about establishing consensus. But short of that, I would urge they retract this thread, reach out on the talk page, and be much more wary about escalating to ANI short of longterm, protracted disputes not amenable to other dispute resolution tools, in the future.SnowRise let's rap05:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The editor is welcome to discuss the issue with me, either on the article talk page or on their user talk page, where I left a message elaborating on my editright after reverting. I did this to initiate a productive discussion and to prevent the kind ofedit warring the editor has now resorted to.Ryan Kavanaugh is on my watchlist because I've edited ita lot, whichRavenswing accurately notes. I've been especially motivated to keep the article in line with ourNPOV policy because its subject has threatened editors with legal action and paid to have both flattering information included and unflattering information excluded from the article in the past. All of this is documented at ANI, SPA, and the article talk page.Throast{{ping}} me! (talk |contribs)11:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
(nods) I also concur on the objection you left on Dourriga169's talk page: that it's a matter of routine for them to use "Clean up/copyedit" as an edit summary forevery edit they make, including adding new text to articles. This is, as you correctly pointed out, quite misleading, and they need to stop doing that at once. Ravenswing14:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You have made some personal attacks in this section and accusations both hereand at your talk without providing evidence. If you believe two editors are colluding, you need to be prepared to back it up with diffs. More than one editordoes often end up on the same talk or user talk pages when they both see the same edit and they both feel is problematic. Please try toassume good faith. Please don't accuse people of lying if the actual issue could be a simple misunderstanding. We understand you are frustrated, butYou are both a discredit to Wikipeia doesn't actually help your cause.Valereee (talk)18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
What utter nonsense. I haveRyan Kavanaugh on my watchlist, as well. I've made very few if any edits to the article but I have been involved in discussions. Throast and I haven't always agreed, especially with their approach, but I generally find their position, with regard to content, to line up with policy and maintaining a NPOV on the article. I have been accused of colluding with Throast and others on the article in the past which is absurd. This claim is no different. If the OP had clear evidence they would have presented it but two editors agreeing is not collusion. --ARoseWolf20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
ARoseWolf has it exactly right: what utter nonsense. I recognize your lack of experience on Wikipedia, Dourriga169 -- someone whodid have experience with noticeboards would know that I've been pretty active at ANI for a couple years now -- but that's zero excuse for yourlack of good faith towards other editors. As other editors here have, I've looked into the dispute YOU posted here and came to my own conclusions ... a fresh conclusion being that your prompt assumption that no editors could agree that you're the one in the wrong without collusion between them is a very bad look. (Did youtruly think that everyone would just agree with you, without actually looking into the facts of the dispute?)
I expect animmediate retraction of your hostile and unfounded accusation, and a prompt apology for the same. With that, the degree to which you're lashing out[172] from what started out as a mild template warning is not only bordering on hysteria, but a very bad look in of itself. Ravenswing20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Throast, you are sadly not telling the truth. You're really defending your ownership of that page, and the wikipedia guidelines clearly state that nobody owns any page.Dourriga169 (talk)16:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
It sure seems odd how many people are so interested in Throast's innocence, when he's clearly aWikibully and has many friends coming to his/its/her defense (not sure which pronoun to use, I thought I saw they/them/it but that might be someone else.Dourriga169 (talk)
On Wikipedia, when several editors agree on something and nobody seems to agree with you, we call that "consensus." Cheers.Dumuzid (talk)16:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dourriga169, I don't know whether the edits should have been retained or not. What I'm still not sure, despite an editor asking about it above, is why this is an ANI matter. Where is the talk page discussion on the content and behaviour demonstrating it was no longer a content issue?
I would also like to know your actual evidence of collusion that you accuse Ravenswing and Throast of above. If you can provide the two, then we have an ANI case that editors will review much more seriously. If you can't provide both, then you've just accused editors without basis, and would advise an apology before digging the hole deeper.Nosebagbear (talk)19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dourriga169: you made your first two edits to your User/User Talk namespaces in October 2022 and made 7 mainspace edits that day.
Your next 500 (exactly if my counts are correct) mainspace edits were done between March 16 2023 (last Thursday!) and your opening of this thread, with as far as I can tell almost every single one of them with the summaryClean up/copyedit even on edits up to +3,702 characters in size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you effectively have less than a week of editing experience under your belt. Between your talk page and this thread it seems you somehow already believe that you have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies than any number of more experienced editors, and have suggested that anyone disagreeing is part of Throast's personal friend group working to discredit their detractors. I really want to suggest in a neutral tone that you seriously reconsider how you perceive the other editors of WP and I hope how I framed this shows how this thread looks from the outside.
As a final aside (and not an attack), it's generally considered derogatory to use "it" as a pronoun when referring to people. Referring to someone you don't know well as they/them/their is almostalways acceptable as far as I've seen.GabberFlasted (talk)14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I saw they/them/it somewhere along my travels, if it's wrong, I'm not sure why anyone would be offended as the whole pronoun thing is an attempt to be respectful rather than the other way around. sorry if you didn't see it originally that was, as was intended.Dourriga169 (talk)19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Dourriga, it's a complicated issue, but 'it' is not acceptable unless a person has clearly indicated that's what they prefer for themselves, and I literally don't recall anyone ever requesting that. OTOH, here on Wikipedia, because in many cases we don't know a person's gender, they/them is not offensive to most people.Valereee (talk)19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
To be fair to Dourriga169, and purely on this one topic ~ i'm making no judgements about anything else in this thread ~ pronouns can be awkward and i can easily see how one could use "it" thinking of referring to the account rather than realising we look at each other as people here. Indeed, without looking i wouldn't like to assert that when i began i didn't make that error. Senza other pronoun issues, i wouldn't push this as a further reason to look poorly on Dourriga. Happy days, ~LindsayHello17:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I've added an update to explain further why this does belong on the ANI noticeboard, for anyone looking or most recent information, please go see:WHY THIS DOES BELONG ON THE ANI NOTICEBOARD: above. Thanks.Dourriga169 (talk)19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Enough. Indeff'd for making repeated personal attacks and unsupported accusations after having been warned by multiple editors.Valereee (talk)19:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original research performed upon the Bible
This is about[173]. I'm not seeking sanctions against that editor, just someone to explain him nicely that his own analysis of the Bible is unwanted, according toWP:OR andWP:RSPSCRIPTURE.
I mean: how hard is for admin to leave a message at his talk page, and say "Yes, I'm an admin, and we mean it!"? I believe that more user education prevents harsher measures.tgeorgescu (talk)00:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The entire page has been deleted under the pretense that there is a copyright violation, but the editor who deleted it (WikiWikiWayne) has not provided any documentation or explanation for the alleged copyright violation. I restored the page to the previous edit (inadvertently deleting the copyvio tepmlate that was added), andopened up a discussion on the talk page to try to resolve the issue without edit warring. WikiWikiWayne reverted my edit without discussing on the talk page, so I undid that reversion and leftan additional message on their own talk page -- again, to try to resolve the issue without reverting to edit warring. I was not warned at any point in this process that I had removed a copyvio template, nor that this was disallowed. In fact, I was trying to communicate about the issue to both better understand Wiki policy around copyright and to avoid an edit war, but I was being ignored.
I apologize for removing the template. It was inadvertent, and I was unaware that it was disallowed. I am still concerned that this action is an abuse of the copyright infringement procedure as a way to vandalize the page.WikiWikiWayne did not provide any documentation substantiating the claim that there was a copyright violation, and after two days and dozens of messages, they still have not even explained whose copyright has allegedly been infringed. I'm really just trying to protect the page from vandalism, and have been trying to go through the proper channels and communicate rather than edit war. I really don't know what else I'm supposed to do here.Combefere❯❯❯Talk02:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi S, I only tagged one vio in the lead. I reported it per the copyvio template instructions. I provided the URL to the copied headline with my report. The small, obvious vio is still there 14 hours later.{{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}03:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Stifle – I followed the template instructions in good faith for substituting the copyvio template. I did not tag the whole page. The lead was clear of vios, so I only tagged the body, which had a copy/paste vio in the sentences I spot checked. It woulda been crazy to set more than one set of tags as the output is massive. I set the tags 14 hours ago, IIRC. I had just tightened up the lead when I found several vios in the body. To my horror I was soon mortified when I look up and there's now a vio in the lead from the same editor causing most of the vios in the article. So, I surgically tagged that vio. Thirteen hours later, that one sentence vio remains. Can we take everybody seriously that is accusing me of malicious tagging, when they cannot recover one single sentence? The lead ishere and it is 95% copied from the headline of the inline ref hanging on it. This is sucking on my time. Take care always. Cheers!{{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}03:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
You've failed to identify which sentence is a copyright violation and from where the infringed content came. We've asked numerous times at this point.Philipnelson99 (talk)03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Minutes ago, I have directly and explicitly requested that you to stop stalking me. Yes, I feel that you are stalking me, and your recent edit history confirms it. What purpose does your comment serve in the matter here? Stay away from me, please. I don't stalk your edits. I'm not telling you what to do, other than to cease your obsession with me. Thanks.{{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}03:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you asked me to leave you alone. I am not singling you out, I'm just trying to make sure that other editors know that you have been repeatedly asked to explain the alleged copyright violations and have not done so. I won't comment any further on this matter. Any admins who take a look at this, please review the edit history over atTalk:Killing of Tyre Nichols as its relevant to all of this and the many repeated attempts to understand the copyvios thatWikiWikiWayne says they identified.Philipnelson99 (talk)03:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
WikiWikiWayne Thank you for finally at least providing a source! However, I am not seeing what you are seeing. Here is a link to acopyvio comparison of the lede you provided and the article you claim has been copied. Copyvio finds only 9.9% similarity, with violation unlikely. Some of the "copied" content that vio finds is:
"Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man"
"Second-degree murder
"Aggravated kidnapping"
"Tenessee Bureau of Investigation"
"extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating" (direct quote from autopsy)
"opened a civil rights investigation"
"aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct, and official oppression"
You can't seriously be contending that the presence of these proper nouns, direct quotes, and specific legal terms constitutes copyright infringement, can you? Could you elaborate on what in this lede you think violates copyright? You seem to be under the impression that there is some obvious and egregious plagiarism here... nobody else seems to be seeing it. Why don't you do us all a favor and point it out for us? Thanks!Combefere❯❯❯Talk04:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There's some pretty severe copyvio in the page history that needs cleaning up, e.g. this edit from two days ago[174] is a direct copy paste from the source.192.76.8.84 (talk)10:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Philipnelson99 Fair enough, I didn't put too much effort into background research there, I basically just looked at the first "big" edit I came across and compared the added text to the source. It may or may not need cleaning from the page history, one of our copyright knowledgeable admins are probably in the best place to say.192.76.8.84 (talk)15:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Note the parallel discussionWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols,_copyvio?. No significant copyright violations have been identified after review by several editors, with a single, now-fixed instance of copyvio committed by WikiWikiWayne of all people. I have blocked WikiWikiWayne indefinitely forWP:GAMEing and personal attacks (with the AGF understanding that the erratic editing behavior is the product of off-wiki stressors and that a successful unblock request will be forthcoming once things calm down), and lifted Combefree's partial block.signed,Rosguilltalk19:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Briefly, on March 14 at 17:40HJ Mitchell blocked WWW for 48h for violating 3RR "after explicit warning and while lecturing others on BRD" atWikipedia:Drafts. WWW lashed out post-block to such an extent that on March 15 at 12:00 HJ opened a thread atWP:AN (see link above) for a block review. Simultaneously with the opening of the thread (I hadn't seen it) I revoked TPA because of WWW's latest screed attacking HJ and just about everyone involved. Because of an e-mail WWW sent me (and I believe he had e-mailed others although I never saw them) I later disabled e-mail access.
You can read the thread, but the consensus was that the block was deserved. Many thought I should have extended it because of WWW's post-block comments, but I didn't think that was right and said so, as did HJ.
After the block expired, WWW posted to the thread, which was still open, repeating much of what he had said while he was blocked, although with less heat.
On March 17 at 00:57Rosguill closed the thread saying "Block endorsed as lenient, closing this before WikiWikiWayne manages to talk their way into a longer block." Seven minutes later, WWW archived the thread. I unarchived it and warned him on his Talk page. Today, he reverted me re-archiving the thread. For some background and links, see Rosguill's Talk page.
I wasn't sure what action to take, if any, and I asked Rosguill about it, but then WWW responded to my warning on his Talk page and to my comments on Rosguill's Talk page. On Rosguill's Talk page, he accused me and Rosguill of defamation. On his own Talk page, he said the comments by editors at the AN thread defamed him and that his archiving it "mitigat[ed] the damage". He then accused me bullying him, attacking him, and defaming him.
WWW has clearly decided not to let go of his anger at the block and others' comments. More important, he is taking ill-advised actions and making comments that are borderline legal threats and personal attacks against anyone who does something he doesn't like. For those reasons, I propose blocking him. Whether it should be indefinite or of a limited duration I leave to others to decide. Even if WWW is indefinitely blocked, I want to make it clear that I at least am not proposing a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk)14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I think a block at this point would only escalate the situation, but I wouldstrongly urge WWW to go and find an article to edit and let this episode fade into history. If he does that, this will all be forgotten in a few weeks, but continuing to escalate is unlikely to end well.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been loosely following this drama as I was briefly involved in the initial dispute that led to Wayne's block.@WikiWikiWayne: I say this as someone who doesn't want to lose you from the project. When the initial dispute took place you very graciously apologised to me twice,[175][176] and I know that this project is better with you here. However, what could have been a small blip that was forgotten about has unfortunately spiralled, and I don't think either of us want you to be indeff'd. After Bbb23 warned you about self-archiving the AN post, you chose to do it again, and have continued reacting with hostility towards him. I'm writing this out to ask you to act quickly and decisively to 1) unarchive the AN post yourself and 2) retract everything you've said post-block to Bbb23 and Rosguill. I think you are clearly facing a potential indef here, which would be a real shame given than you previously had an entirely clean block record. It's for these reasons I think you should work quickly to undo these errors, then hopefully the community will agree to draw a line under this and we can move on. —Czello14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure blocking WWW temporarily is going to solve anything and will likely just make him more angry. I do think accusing other editors of defamation and bullying is uncalled for, especially when the first block was absolutely in line with policy. I think if we all just let this go away, then it will likely no longer be a problem. Like @HJ Mitchell said, let WWW go find an article to edit and the problem will be gone in a bit.Philipnelson99 (talk)14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Cullen328 Sorry to drag you into this again, but could you have a word with Wayne? I've already done so, basically saying what Harry already has in this thread - find an article to improve and forget about this. As for what action to take, I would suggestignoring it. Is Wayne archiving a closed thread on AN actually harming or damaging Wikipedia?Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
There's an incongruence in WWW's behavior at AN--on the one hand, they assert that editors there defamed them and moved to remove the discussion from the board. On the other hand, their very actions only drew more attention to, and gave more validity to, the criticisms of their behavior at AN. Personally, I don't care what WWW has alleged about me, and would prefer to see this whole situation fade into memory. If their dramaboard antics continue to a degree that is disruptive to other editors, however, I think a timed partial-block from WP-space would be warranted.signed,Rosguilltalk17:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I hate to be critical, but I think the archiving was at least ignorable. It was closed, everyone was done talking about it, and it was ready to be moved on from. Archiving it off AN hardly erased the record, and everyone could have easily walked away from it. As much as I thought the initial block was good, reverting an archival unless someone wanted to say more wasn't needful. Let's let WWW stop being drug to AN/ANI unless there's a good future reason, and not whether the closed thread that's over stays on AN for 5 more minutes or 5 more days?Courcelles (talk)17:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
WWW was only brought to AN again after he accused other editors of defamation. It wasn'tjust about the archival of the previous thread. I think if left alone, WWW will return to constructive editing but I just wanted to point out that the archival was not the sole reason for the creation of this entry at AN.Philipnelson99 (talk)17:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
No, not the only issue, but it was the proximate cause. WWW clearly felt his name didn't need to be on AN anymore, and had that been allowed to stand, the rest of it likely doesn't happen. All that said, WWW? Take a breath. Don't accuse folks of defamation. That's not an argument that's going to go anywhere you want.Courcelles (talk)18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree that it would have been better to just leave the archiving or maybe just post to WWW's talk page and tell them they really shouldn't do that. While I don't think highly involved editors should be archiving threads, in the end the harm is very small when another uninvolved editor has already closed the thread. If you disagree with the closure itself then sure feel free to unarchive and post accordingly but otherwise just leave it be if it's a one time thing. That also means I think it's better to just leave it be now notably there's actually no reason to unarchive the thread any more, the existence of this thread means that if we were to consider further sanctions for WWW, it's better discussed here than there anyway. (And I don't think this is rewarding bad behaviour since we're discussing and thinking about that thread when we'd be forgetting by now were it not for that bad behaviour.) Note that none of this excuses what WWW said and did in response, nor what lead up to it. They should consider that if they keep repeating such behaviour, it's going to end up in escalating blocks. As others have said, their behaviour is particularly flawed since as per my earlier point, they've effectively drawn more attention to something we'd have forgotten about sooner were it not for their actions.Nil Einne (talk)13:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
To speak up on WWWayne's behalf, he seems a great editor who cares deeply about Wikipedia and cherishes his own substantial role in it. ANI is sometimes a cruel taskmaster, but sometimes like a children's party. Dibs on the vegan ice cream!Randy Kryn (talk)13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an editor whose thin skin causes them to think that they are being bullied or personally attacked when there is no such aggression.Robert McClenon (talk)05:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Update: Rosguill hasblocked WikiWikiWayne indefinitely for WP:GAMEing and personal attacks (with the AGF understanding that the erratic editing behavior is the product of off-wiki stressors and that a successful unblock request will be forthcoming once things calm down).starship.paint (exalt)02:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: - thank you for speaking up for WWW. Perhaps you could chat with him about such messages like[178]As written, I feel that I am being personally attacked. Please self revert anything that could make me feel attacked, broadly construed. I tried to give some advice to WWW but it was not received well.starship.paint (exalt)02:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP has been warned repeatedly for the on-again off-again disruptive edits. IP never leaves edit summaries and constantly introduces false categories ([179][180], unsourced edits ([181][182][183] and non-notable redlinks to disambiguation pages ([184][185][186]).
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you please have a look at this user's contributions and decide a block is required please? This user has persistently uploaded non-free files in violation of Wikipedia'slicensing policy. This account is 8 months old and seems to me asvandalism. This user does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and seem to lack the competence to edit here appropriately. I think temporarily blocking would be necessary. Yours sincerely,1394ochi (talk)18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chronic addition of unsourced /WP:OR by Donmccullen
Donmccullen (talk·contribs) was blocked by@TheresNoTime: last year for "Persistent addition of unsourced content." Since the block expired, the editor is making almost exclusively unsourced edits, but more problematic, making edits based on their experience:WP:ISAWIT orWP:IHEARDIT.
P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor's attention; in 17 years and 3700 edits they've never responded to the multiple concerns brought up at their user talk.Valereee (talk)15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
User: Thesaurabhsaha
Thesaurabhsaha threatened me on my talk page. They were very uncivil and i had no involvement in the conflict they are describing. They called me a terror and threatened severe action.Nagol0929 (talk)13:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I thinkthis is the one referred to. To me it looks like two fairly inexperienced editors having a content dispute, not sure this 'threat' is clear enough to be actionable. Definitely rude, though.Valereee (talk)15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, I did see that, but evidently didn't make the connection! I agree —@Nagol0929 andThesaurabhsaha: I'd strongly recommend either finding something away from each other to edit,taking a step away from Wikipedia for a bit, or reviewing other methods ofdispute resolution. Disputes like this which end up at ANI have a habit of resulting in editors talking themselves into blocks —TheresNoTime (talk • they/them)15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Despite several reverts and warnings, non-constructive editing has been done so far. Like, changing content according to their own will, not following the standard manual of style, remove portions from a page, editing per their own point of views and personal analyzing the guidelines. They've been making disruptive edits especially onKundali Bhagya. Some of the diffs from Kundali Bhagya's page which are absolute unconstructive and needless,[198][199][200][201][202].ManaliJain (talk)05:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
ManaliJain, this complaint is unclear. Specifically, what is disruptive in those diffs listed. Assume that I and most others here on theEnglish Wikipedia are unfamiliar with this Hindi-language TV show to tell what's what.El_C09:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@El C: Alright, so the mentioned editor changes content onKundali Bhagya per their own will; is mergingKumkum Bhagya's content, mostly unrelated, with the other mentioned page; changing the style and format of the page unconstructively. The user has been reverted and warned numerous times, but no positive or constructive attempt from their side.ManaliJain (talk)10:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
What is thisper their own will you keep mentioning? You wrote the aboveper your own will; this comment of mine has also been addedper my own will. I realize it's a language barrier, but it's a rather confusing phrasing. Anyway, yes, I saw that their talk page has many unreplied warnings—though the latest were all from you—but as far as the diffs you've listed, I still am unable to immediately tell what's what. So I suppose I'll leave it to someone else, maybe they can parse it better than me.El_C10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there's been a communication barrier. While stating,changing content by their own will, I mean they are doing it freely or independently as per their own point of view and personal analysis, without following the Wikipedia guidelines.ManaliJain (talk)17:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the latest warnings all done by me is because the editors who have/are reverting their edit(s), for instance[203][204][205][206][207], are not leaving a warning on their page. Also, the user edits limited number of pages and majority of them are maybe not being watch-listed or checked by experienced editors that often. I checkKundali Bhagya's page on a regular basis, hence I get aware of the user's activity and warn them respectively.ManaliJain (talk)17:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Amigao keeps mass deleting content and sources
Amigao (talk·contribs) wasblocked sometime ago for mass removal, across English Wikipedia, of sources and/or sourced passages where sources have been deprecated, sometimes replacing them with<cn> tags. Obviously, this is not only vastly problematic, because often these passages formed a part of the article's logical flow, but expressly against the policy:Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources).
Many editors, including recently myself, have pointed this out to them on several occasions[208][209][[210], etc. Also, I pointed out to them that they should instead use thedeprecated inline template. To no avail.
The user has made hundreds if not thousands of such mechanical edits in the last months all over Wikipedia, often going faster than one article per minute. A few random examples from the last 24 hours:[211][212][213][214][215][216], but honestly, it's easier just to open their contribution list.
The issue is not about removing a deprecated source in individual instances, e.g., in an article you're working on. The problem is with your ongoing indiscriminate, mass removal of all occurrences of a source, in thousands articles, despite the DEPRECATED policy and objections from fellow editors. —kashmīrīTALK14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect. Deprecated sources MAY be removed. And no, I don't read and have never read Sputnik if that's what you're asking about. —kashmīrīTALK19:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
No... Its pretty obviously should... Thats the whole point of our classification system, to clean our poor sources. All sources *may* be removed, thats a universal not just the deprecated ones.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this report, Kashmiri. I agree Amigao's mass edits and indiscriminate removal of sources are a problem. The user has been warned many times about problematic mass edits (for example:12345). —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)15:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you sure that there are warnings in all of those diffs? Maybe you linked the wrong things? The only warning I see is from ToBeFree and its a warning about being unresponsive, not about problematic mass edits. What am I missing here?Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Not templated warnings, but in each of those discussions, other users asked Amigao to stop making specific kinds of mass edits, or to be less indiscriminate about them. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)02:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
We did, the consensus was that while some people don't like such mass removals of unreliable or deprecated sources there is nothing in the existing policy or guidelines which prohibits them.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately doing so generally achieves nothing, as such templates are ignored. At least replacing the ref with{{citation needed}} warns readers that the text is unsupported (which is the case with deprecated sources). An attempt should be made to replace it, but that is not required by policy. So as long as the replacements aren't being done in aWP:MEATBOT fashion or errors are left in the article because due care wasn't taken, which none of the supplied diffs show, there is nothing to answer for here. This is unlike the last ANI thread where both of those issues were present. -- LCUActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords°13:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
If a source is deprecated, it should not be used as a source. The existence of a deprecated source added to support a claim in an article is equivalent to that claim being unsourced. The deprecated source is simply useless. It cannot support a statement because it has no weight, and the statement might even be false. And if there's concern about not being able to understand the meaning of a statement because the source has been removed, we should remember that if the only source supporting a statement is a deprecated source, the entire statement probably shouldn't exist in the article. The deprecated source should therefore logically be removed and replaced with a{{citation needed}} template.Nythar (💬-🍀)13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
And if someone replaced a deprecated source with a{{citation needed}} template and you disagree with that, please look for and add a reliable source instead of thinking about re-inserting the deprecated source. — Nythar (💬-🍀)13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Removing a statement can change the meaning of the text surrounding it. If a source was used we should say what it was, not hide it, until a better source is found or the content rewritten so the source is no longer necessary. And it could be that the source used is not deprecated, but the URL that the citation now links to is on the site of a deprecated source (which is what happened here).Peter James (talk)11:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment:WP:BURDEN = no problem with removing deprecated sources and unsourced content; it absolutely should be done when it is in a BLP or has names of living persons. Cleaning up articles of unsourced "content" should be encouraged. If you need to leave the unsourced content, it could use a cn tag to warn readers. Every removal of unsourced material increases Wikipedia's already fragile reliability. // Timothy :: talk03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Once again, everybody believes that they themselves know The Right Way(TM) to handle material cited to deprecated sources, and anyone doing it a different way is being wrong and disruptive. My own take is that{{citation needed}} and{{better citation needed}} tags can sit around for ages without getting attention, deprecated sources are a blight upon the encyclopedia, content covered only in unreliable sources is by definitionundue, and wholesale removal of deprecated sources along with the sentences to which they are attached can be a darn good move. Might it sometimes have costs, like disrupting prose flow? Sure. Are those costs worth the benefit not pointing our readers to disinformation and propaganda? I'd say so.XOR'easter (talk)21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The user is deleting proper, well cited material on the pageCis-Sutlej states, to add what are his own theories and original research using selective portion of one citation. It's a clear case of adding revisionist history to suit his own POV.CrashLandingNew (talk)19:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@CrashLandingNew Commenting here because I was asked to share my opinion over email. I remember seeing @Javerine delete a section of the article mentioning cis-Sutlej states paying tribute and/or being under the suzerainty of the Maratha empire, but this claim was only cited using a British Raj-era source, which is not reliable and therefore can be removed, so he is justified in removing that. I cannot recall the WP: code for citing the policy that discusses the issue of Raj-era sources being unreliable as sources on Wikipedia but it exists (MOS:RAJ or WP:RAJ? or something like that). As for the other things that were edited and changed on the article, I have not gone through all of it as of yet but I will try to read through all the changes.ThethPunjabi (talk)22:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
User CrashLandingNew reverted well sources information and sources including that of historianHari Ram Gupta. He did it 4 times already and I left a message to stop disruptive editing.[217]. Soon after, CrashLandingNew submitted same warning on my talk page as can be seen here.[218] and then submitted another message on false pretext[219]. Here are his some of his reverts:[220],[221],[222],[223].
Even from the messages on the reverts, user is pretty aggressive and doesn't take time to go through the information provided and reverts the changes back the way he wants. User CrashLandingNew has been disruptive and uncooperative before as well according to previous discussion by other user on his talk page[224] and on this noticeboard.[225]. I would like administrator to please take necessary action. My changes on articleCis-Sutlej states can be seen here[226] and you can see that they are well detailed with reliable sources and footnotes as compared to changes that the user prefers[227] and the problem with his changes is that, none of the sources back the information he stated such as "tributes were paid". And he also removes additional information that are vital to the article where some of them come from the exact same source that he shares as well but doesn't prefer that to be viewed. The user has already reverted my changes and I would like someone to please take a look at this case.Javerine (talk)20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As is evident from the history of the page under discussion, User:Javerine has deleted well defined , cited material only to add his POV. Just go through his own submissions and see how hedeleted information backed by multiple citations and used one to add selectively. He first did this deletion of citations and adding of completely new version of history on 16th March, some of his edits were reverted by an IP on 19th March, he reverted that IP's edits. I came across the page on 22nd March and found the page to be completely different from what it was last time I checked. Also, kindly notice how he is only using selective portions of the citation he is mentioning. Much of what he is adding is not at all backed by any citation and is his own original research. No efforts to discuss the changes on talk page either.CrashLandingNew (talk)20:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Another thing that I would like to point out is that if you look at the source templates that the user sites, they are poorly informed with no page numbers. Another thing, the user didn't leave a notice on my talk page about the discussion on this noticeboard. Finally, there was exact same reverts done by IP[228] with similar comment as that of User CrashLandingNew on "Vandalism" which is completely false.Javerine (talk)20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Both of you need to discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page calmly. Javerine made an attempt at starting a discussion there; CrashLandingNew, your response was to bluster and threaten. Please trydiscussing.Schazjmd(talk)20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) This looks to have at its heart a content dispute. I have no idea whether anyone is right in that, but you are both wrong in the way that you are going about things. You should both stop editing the article, but should discuss things civilly on the talk page with each other.Phil Bridger (talk)20:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand but the user CrashLandingnew isn't being cooperative and that is the problem. The user is in no mood to resolve the dispute and keeps repeating about having me blocked for vandalism. He did it on my talk page and on the article's talk page[229]. That is why I think its better if additional help can be possible to looks at my changes and the user's changes that I mentioned above. The changes I made are well detailed and improvement to the article. Previously it was mostly incorrect with sources not even supporting the sentences.Javerine (talk)21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, i have added my contribution about the sources and information that I think is best of the article for its detail and accuracy. Any editor can take a look at it on the article's talk page[230] and can run a comparison with the articleCis-Sutlej states.Javerine (talk)21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
You have only deleted the well defined citations and the information backed by them. You are suppose to use the talk page before bringing in such heavy changes which completely change the narrative of the page. The discussion should have been initiated on the talk page before making these substantial edits and removal of citations. The discussion is on now btw.CrashLandingNew (talk)21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you didn't read the response earlier by Schazjmd and also ignoring that I initiated the discussion on talk page[231] before you started reverting without following discussion.Javerine (talk)21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Content dispute between User:Mnnie053 and User:Pichsambath, removal of sourced content, possible biting of a newcomer
User:Mnnie053 is in a content dispute with User:Pichsambath, citing "unsourced content" as the reason for reversion of the edits by User:Pichsambath. Mnnie053 made a report of the other user at AIV with the explanation, "Repeatedly readding unsourced content without explanation, intending to edit war." I took a closer look at the article contents that are being disputed between the two users, and on at least one article, it involves removal of sourced content (diff here). Pichsambath's contributions seem to be high-quality for a new user in general, as they are adding things like automatic date templates, and foreign language text translationshere andhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think every single bit of content addition immediately needs a source? i.e. sources needed for just substantial additions only?
Furthermore, looking at the talk page for User:Mnnie053 (the reporter at AIV) reveals they have been very recently warned and blocked in the past for disruptive editing before, with behaviour that seems very similar to what's happening above, so I probably don't know what to say between these two editors. Here's a quote fromDrmies on their talk page: "Besides, on closer inspection it seems clear that at least some edits of yours are, well, vandalism with misleading edit summaries. Here, you removed a bunch of information, and you said "needs source"--but you removed the actual sources in that edit, including this article. And in that edit you also removed the basic and uncontroversial statement "The national federation is a member of ASEAN"."
I mainly intend this thread to be a further discussion thread for these two users (i.e. I am helping them out), since an AIV report is probably not appropriate here (not for in-depth discussions at least). AIV is intended for obvious vandalism and promotion/disruptive editing, and on Pichsambath's talk page I only see one warning, a level-2 disruptive editing template.
The user just reverted again, in series, and passed 3RR already, despite warnings. They posted incivility in my user page and hardly showing any communication or maybe language competence. This is clearly disruption and not content dispute. Please delete my user page as I previously requested in AIV because I didn't create it.Mnnie053 (talk)11:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, there has hardly been any communication from User:Pichsambath at all, so farthis is the only talk page discussion they have started, and it's on their talk page, not on yours or on any articles. Though, a look at the page histories of all four pages reveals they have onlyjust hit 3RR, not broken it.AP 499D25 (talk)11:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking closer atthis diff I am a bit mistaken. The paragraph changes appear to be copyediting rather than straight up sourced content addition. Indeed, no sourced content has been added. Ah I should've looked a bit closer before writing up this report, my bad.AP 499D25 (talk)11:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Update: 24 hours later, no response from Pichsambath on any discussion pages. As of now,this is still the only communications from them. That talk page message kind of suggests to me they aren't willing to work issues out with other editors in a disagreement. Note that Pichsambath's edits have been reverted for the third time already, so if theyredo the edits and notdiscuss with the other editor here first, well, I think it becomes clear which party is in the wrong here. Mnnie053 appears to be willing to discuss issues with the other editor happily whenever needed, given their presence here and on the other user's talk page. @Pichsambath if you could chip in and leave your thoughts on why your edit should be restored, that would be appreciated.AP 499D25 (talk)12:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Update 2: Pichsambath just restored their edits yet again, without any consensus or discussion before it:12345. The lack of communication from them is a bit troubling... I made the original thread above centred around both users in the dispute, but as time goes on it seems Pichsambath is the one being the disruptor here.AP 499D25 (talk)23:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I think blocking Pichsambath from article space for a week would be justified, if only to force them to use the talk pages. I will wait for feedback before pressing the buttons.PhilKnight (talk)06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The main issue here is the lack of communication from them. I've left another message on their talk page to point out that they should communicate with other editors when there is a disagreement, and also that the onus is on them to provide a reliable source for their edits, since that's the main reason why their edits are being reverted (they have not actually provided sources for their edits, I didn't look further and closer into this before typing up the original report).
By the way, they've just made another wave of edits today since the last reply, this time after being reverted by a different editor,Untamed1910, also on the basis of no citations provided:123.AP 499D25 (talk)07:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I am a sysop on fr-WP.Hermine Horiot contacted us on the French VRTS address to report being cross-wiki harassed. The perpetrator adds libellous contents both on en-WP and fr-WP under IP2A01:CB04:B50:A500:0:0:0:0/64 or2A01:CB04:B50:A500:0:0:0:0/64. Can you please block them here for a significant duration? (their contributions are harmful since Jan 2022). Or protect the article?
Also, these two versions should be erased:[232][233]
Certainly looks like they should be revdel'd, and the article semi-protected; there are numerous edits over the last couple months from anon IPs that havealready been revdel'd, and no doubt the disruption will continue. Ravenswing19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead, revdel'd the edits and blocked the /64 range for 72 hours. I would suggest, if you haven't done so, to go to Meta to request a Global Block on the IP for cross-wiki harassment. Page also semi'd for a month. Hopefully that will keep things in check.RickinBaltimore (talk)19:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
you are making edition war and dont participate in discussion page. Already @Freerow2 and @Surveyor Mount were doing the same vandalism as you and also claiming that he wasnt born in Russian Empire. Really i understand that you have war, but stop with this antirussian propaganga, removing Russian art history. Shevchenko was born in Russian Empire, work in Russian language (nine novellas, a diary, and an AUTOBIOGRAPHY), only poetry in Ukrainian, so Russian language wirter and Ukrainian language poet as it was standing before you start with your propagandaJoaziela (talk)14:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I think there are two issues here. From the last couple of edits I get the idea that, in this context, "Ukrainian" is not referring to the language of his works but to his ethnic origin.MOS:NATIONALITY states that[t]he opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Nevertheless, it also includes the following proviso:Ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead sentenceunless relevant to the subject's notability (emphasis mine). While Shevchenko was, indeed, a subject of the Russian Empire, and a distinguished one at that (he was even recognised as a member of the Imperial Academy of Arts), he was known to have expressed himself explicitly in favour of some sort of autonomy if not outright independence for Ukrainians, and in many ways this is what he is best known for today. Now I do not think you're acting in bad faith, and I, too, am worried about instances of blind (and wrong) "wikiukrainisation" of places and individuals, but this is quite clearly not the case. I don't think I could come up with a better example than Shevchenko of a situation in which a figure's ethnic origin should take precedence over other considerations in the lede. If you feel his works in Russian deserve more space (which could be a valid point), then come up with a way to integrate them into the article outside of the lede.
The second issue is people removing "Russian Empire" as country of birth in the infobox, or introducing placenames transliterated from the modern Ukrainian official names instead of using the historically accurate Russian (or, in other cases, Soviet, Austrian, Hungarian, Polish...) names. In those cases I believe your edits are justified in essence, and there are MOS considerations as well as Wikipedia policies that support your position, but you're not conveying this in an articulate and civil manner. I would advise you to step back a little and find a way to formulate your concerns more adequately. I get your frustration as it is apparent that many users have refused to engage in discussion in the talk page, but do understand that your abrasive style isn't conducive to discussion either, and probably puts off reasonable editors. A random IP popping out of nowhere with weak diffs won't make a difference, but you are engaging with different individual editors in an antagonistic manner, castingWP:ASPERSIONS freely, and that can't end well. You have been blocked for a week due to your edit warring recently, and it can only go downhill from there if you don't find a way to communicate more efficiently.Ostalgia (talk)09:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ostalgia notice it was written neutral facts: "Ukrainian language poet, Russian language writer". The facts are that only his poetry is in Ukrainian language. All his writing including autobiography was in Russian language. See at:[234] there Russian language is called: "aggression and perpetuates crimes of the past". With this logic just reading Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Nabokov, Zamyatin, Solzhenitsyn you are committing a crime. As you notice this blind wikiukrainisation is taking place and we need to keep strict to facts.Joaziela (talk)10:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to yourlatest revert, which I believe is what motivated this ANI thread. The version you reverted was referring to Shevchenko being Ukrainian, and not to the language. In my opinion, stressing Shevchenko's "Ukrainianness" in the lede is entirely acceptable. I agree that his works in Russian could/should be mentioned, but highlighting that in the first sentence of the lede lends undue weight to them in the overall assessment of Shevchenko's relevance, as it gives the impression of his Russian languageoeuvre being somehow on par with his production in Ukrainian, which strikes me as unreasonable.Ostalgia (talk)11:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
IsImmanuel Kant Russian philosopher? (he was born in what now is known in Russian asKaliningrad; in my opinion is fact more forKönigsberg not being Russian city, but that for other discussion). Shevchenko was Ukrainian language poet, Russian language writer that facts, i notice another example of trying of Ukrainization ofArkhip Kuindzhi atTalk:Arkhip Kuindzhi. With painters it is little more complicated, but here he have written work (written proof of what language he decided to write). And if someone writes his own autobiography and other writings in Russian he is "Russian language writer", and if his poetry is produce also in Ukrainian it make him "Ukrainian language poet". Just facts, no emotional opinions.Joaziela (talk)11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Neptune777, for the record, a notice must be placed on the other user's talk page. I've done that, but in future please read the instructions on how to do that at the top of this page when you open an edit box.Valereee (talk)16:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
After going through their recent edits, Joaziela seems to be on some kind of anti-Ukrainian crusade as most of their edits are eitherpointedly drawing attention to past misdeeds by Ukrainians:
Dear IP @73.68.72.229, if you don't like something it doesn't mean it isn't true. Describing Bandera was "Ukrainian nationalists and convicted terrorist" (facts: he was convicted terrorist for ordering political murder ofBronisław Pieracki and leader of nationalist group OUN-B that is responsible forVolhynia genocide), describing him as politician, is as calling Hitler "watercolourists and vegetarian".
Cossack Hetmanate was created by PolishTreaty of Zboriv. And lastly: before 20 century historically Ukraine meant border region between Poland and Russia (Name of Ukraine). Those are facts, if you don't like facts it don't change them. The fact is also except poetry in Ukrainian language, Shevchenko writing including autobiography was all in Russian language. Neutral facts, not emotional opinions, this is what this is about (and again i understand war, but let don't make because of it reading Russian literature a war crime)Joaziela (talk)10:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop arguing content here, all of you. We don't care. This is not the place for that.
@Joaziela, immediately stop all personal attacks and unsupported accusations here and at the article talk. If you do not haveWP:DIFFs to support an accusation, keep your suspicions to yourself.
@IP73, the diffs you've provided do seem to indicate a nationalistic stance, but are any of them really egregious enough for sanctions? I looked at Bandera, for instance, and the article's short description calls him a Ukrainian nationalist leader. Terrorist seems like going too far on a dab, though, I'd agree. But to call him a politician is certainly whitewashing what he was.Valereee (talk)11:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Uninvolved comment After going through these edits and comments, I agree with the IP thatJoaziela should perhaps not edit related to Ukraine. Apart from a POV-tendency, the argumentation style is a clear example ofWP:BATTLEGROUND, as seen already in this discussion with the downright bizarre invokations of Hitler.Jeppiz (talk)11:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
While I agree with the battleground assessment, I would not speak of "downright bizarre invokations [sic] of Hitler" in this context, i.e. discussing a figure who collaborated with the Nazis and whose organisation participated in the Holocaust and in related massacres of other nationalities. In fact, it's probably one of the very few instances in life in which bringing Hitler up isnot bizarre.Ostalgia (talk)12:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
After going through the editor's talk page, which contains multiple warnings for similar behavior, I've indef'd for disruptive editing.Valereee (talk)12:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsourced editing by 91.73.33.144 soon after block expiration
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
QuarioQuario54321 continually disregarding MOS guidelines, despite warnings
I wanted to bring this to ANI because after several months of reminding this user about theManual of Style-related issues they have introduced into articles with little improvement in their behavior (more specificallyMOS:ENGVAR in recent months, which this report will primarily cover), my patience has run thin. I'm fairly convinced that this is a case of long-termdisruptive editing.
On 26 January 2023 Quario altered the spellings of numerous instances of "kilometers", "meters", etc. inthis edit toAirport link line (Shanghai Suburban Railway) to use the non-American spelling varieties; at that point, assuming that these changes were unintentional, I had triedreminding them to preserve pre-existing English varieties.
I eventually wrote on Quario's talk page that I hoped they were heeding my concerns, only for them todouble downtriple downquadruple down and continue their disruptive editing, as seen inthis edit, for example.
Quario has had several editors contact them regarding the Manual of Style, but previous incidents appear to have largely been resolved... except for this one. With this in mind I've decided to take them to ANI because I feel that I'm out of options, and I firmly believe that Quario should hold themself to account for their disruption.XtraJovial (talk •contribs)18:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
You didn't address the issue at hand either, and you repeatedly defended your disruption by talking about how subtle the change was, how little it mattered, and how the average reader[wouldn't] even notice. This was all in spite of the style guidelines that I and others have referred you to. It doesn't take much longer to ensure that you preserve it.XtraJovial (talk •contribs)21:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I am one of those aforementioned editors who has interacted with Quario on a couple of MOS issues. His/her reluctance/refusal to change is frustrating. In the case of this latest ENGVAR issue I'm amazed action hasn't been taken much sooner. Some naughty step timeout to reflect might be warranted. If this were an employee (instead of a volunteer) I'd be suggesting attendance on an appropriate training course.10mmsocket (talk)18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Except for the first diff, atInner West Light Rail, where they changed the spelling in actual prose frommetres tometers, all these changes seem to be frommeters tometres and produced by adding the conversion template? Including the other changes within that first diff? So in essence, what's happening seems to be that they aren't adding "sp=us" after the unit abbreviation in the template?QuarioQuario54321, look atthis edit byXtraJovial following one of yours. Yes, which spelling is used does matter. That is what people have been telling you repeatedly. But I'm not sure it has been explained that what you need to do is, if the article spells itmeters orkilometers, add "sp=us" to the conversion template. Do you understand and can you promise to do that from now on?Yngvadottir (talk)23:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Your choice t.b.h. I tend to abbreviate very commonly abbreviated units of measure such as m, ft, km, lb, kg, etc. less so on miles (I have a personal aversion to "mi"). So km for example I might do something like {{convert|50|km|mi|abbr=in}} to only abbreviate the input not the output. However... Back to the issue in hand. If you don't abbreviate units the the default spelling is international, ie. non-American, so if you are in an article that has American spelling and you have a unit like metre, centimetre, kilometre, then you need to remember to include the "sp=us" parameter in the{{convert}} template. You have done it in the past - see the message below - but it's something you need to be really mindful of if you don't want to introduce the wrong spelling into an article. Hope that helps.10mmsocket (talk)16:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there's guidance for this atMOS:UNITNAMES; mainlyIn prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use (e.g.Up to 15 kilograms of filler is used for a batch of 250 kg), but as you can see from the rest of the that page there are a some edge-cases and exceptions.
In this particular instance I'm inclined to give a little leeway because{{convert}} is a bit unusual amongst templates in defaulting to British/Commonwealth spelling (in fact, I have a suspicion I might have even got it wrong one or twice myself). However, Quario's response to the corrections they've received is troubling all the same, as it continues the pattern established with their previous MOS issues.XAM2175(T)15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This edit from 9 March (diff) shows that he/she does know about "sp=us" and has used it, but again like everything this user does it's inconsistent and slapdash, leaving others to clean up the aftermath10mmsocket (talk)08:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Starting a thread proposing this on the talk page thenposting again when no-one replied within about 10 hours claiming that the lack of a rapid response was due to "biases and complacency" by other editors
Claiming that my opposition to this change was driven by "biases and complacency" and anti-Romanian sentiment[238]
Theninserting the Romanian leader into the infobox despite the lack of support for this
After this was reverted byDavidMCEddy, posting on the talk page claiming that they were "talking to the walls" and threatening to re-add this to the infobox with a note the "size of an article"[239]
This is clearly really uncivil and unhelpful, and I'd be grateful if an admin could take appropriate action.Nick-D (talk)10:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Romania being where it is, this is clearly an Eastern Europe CTOP problem, but this editor had never been alerted to the CTOP rules. I’ve done that alert, and if conduct like that shown continues I’ll be willing to topic ban them from Romania in WW2… but since this was their first alert, I can’t do that unilaterally.Courcelles (talk)10:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
What I will do, when I get to work and have a computer and not an iPad, is place a warning in the AE log for incivility within a designated contentious topic; provided this thread hasn’t moved significantly in 90 minutes.Courcelles (talk)10:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Can I make my case real quick? The infobox shows only 3 Axis leaders. Two of them are alright, being in that position for the entire war. But two thirds into the war Mussolini was deposed and spent the remainder as a puppet leader. I havemultiple RS stating that, following the Italian armistice, Romania became the second Axis power in Europe for 1 year, so I see the need to add Romania's leader as a means of completion, because otherwise - I maintain - the infobox lies by omission. This is not something that should really be debated or argued, it's just basic chronology. Nick-D, I admit, got on my nerves, since he comes across to me as incorrigible, and yes, he does make me feel like talking to a wall.Transylvania1916 (talk)10:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm making uninvolved observations, but look at the infobox as a whole, and not this particular dispute. Note there's no leader listed even for France, not to mention Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, and on and on. Maybe there's a discussion to be had on what criteria should be used to determine if a national leader should be listed in that infobox, I really neither know, nor am I interested in becoming involved as an editor of that article. But being uncivil is never the way on Wikipedia. And that's why I am warning you, formally.Courcelles (talk)12:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's more of a general issue with this editor that's beyond a topic ban. The battleground behaviour goes beyond Romania in WW2. They don't really get civility generally and some policy basics like CONSENSUS etc. I've come across them a couple of times recently, first atAustria-Hungary where they seemed to be belligerent and angry about everything for not very obvious reasons. Seethis thread andthis edit summary. Note: they did apologise for calling me an insect! I think they just don'tyet get policy and what's expected of behaviour - although 3 years and 1.8k edits should be long enough to.DeCausa (talk)10:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I have nowformally logged a warning for incivility and battleground mentality. I do not object should any admin want to take stronger action under normal admin procedures, because had this editor previously been alerted, I would have issued an Eastern European topic ban when addingDeCausa's diff to the initial filing.Courcelles (talk)12:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
... do you think that smarmy replies is the best way to instill that confidence? This is precisely what they mean about battleground mentality. Let me set this forth clearly: the way civility rules work here on Wikipedia is that even if someone "gets on your nerves,"you keep your mouth shut about it all the same. There is no situation on Wikipedia, none, where you are justified in openly telling an editor that you hold him in contempt. If you cannot keep from lashing out at other editors, you are a poor fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Originally, Lard Almighty had reverted an edit and allowed a BLP disputed name to stay [here], which was undone in [this edit].
After this, there have been several issues that have happened involving Lard and their subsequent edits.
After their edit was removed, the subsequent user who added it received the following message on their talk pageDarrencdm1988 [user page
"Please note that we are not naming the suspect perWP:BLPCRIME. Thank you.Lard Almighty (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)"
This would appear to go against a fair consensus building, since edits to a page should be addressed on the talk page itself, not on a members user page. Also, this would appear to be an issue with WP:OWN, since it doesn't mention trying to obtain consensus or the like.
Lard created a talk page [here], with the first post being
On a prior BLP discussion [located here], Lard had stated the following.
We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service. — User: Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
However, in the talk page discussion, this is contradictory to the following quote
Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS. — User:Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I started [a discussion] on the Dispute Resolution board to try to see if maybe I was misunderstanding consensus being made, and Lard said
The reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it.I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include. — User:Lard Almighty (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
, but this is contradictory to the statement on [this edit where they say that sexual assault was not the cause of death.
When I noted that it didn't involve paedophilia since it has never been stated in a single RS, this was the reply
It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims. — User:Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the revert comment, that is somewhat correct, but I believe it's skewed by the fact that the original talk page statement says not to name the suspect as the very first comment, which most people would more than likely read the first post and assume it's what should be followed without second guessing it.The name has been added 28 times, 13 of those being Anonymous edits, with 14 being registered users. One of those additions is mine, and three are the same user adding it.There have also been 29 removals, 13 of which were by Lard, and 22 of the 29 mention to see the talk page or make mention of the consensus needing to be reached. I listed the ones mentioning the talk page below.
I personally think that several policies have been involved -- WP:STONEWALL by ignoring the concerns presented by others, and seemingly cherrypicking which arguments they would counter with brief dismissals, and nothing substantial in terms of rebuttals.- WP:TALKPOV by not staying objective, or remaining neutral.- WP:TALKDONTREVERT by reverting every mention of the name, regardless of what the consensus seems to be at the time.- WP:NOTUNAMITY by ignoring the arguments, and essentially creating a filibuster by removing every addition regardless of what the talk page has stated.
I just want to be able to have a fair consensus, which had appeared to be reached prior but I am not sure of that, and if I am wrong in any of the above statements regarding anything, please let me know. I tried to be as thorough as possible, and while I have used Wikipedia for several years, I only recently made an account, so I'm more than likely going to make mistakes.
It should be noted thatWP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, not a user agreement. As a policy it cannot be overridden by a consensus on an individual talk page it would need to be altered at the Wikipedia policy level.Canterbury Tailtalk16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what this is doing here. There are lots of people adding the name and lots of people removing it. That points to a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. What happened to your referral toWP:DRN? And why are you eager to include the accused's name in the article? — rsjaffe🗣️23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail - I understand about the policy, but I would further like to point out that that said policy states that "editors must seriously considernot including material" (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which was the issue being discussed on the talk page since it does appear elsewhere when it comes to arrests in connection with murders and higher profile crimes. It should be noted as well that the policy does not outright say that it cannot be done, and it seems to be up for discussion as it currently stands. Several high profile crimes have had their suspects named without convictions, which is the issue I was trying to address. The recent Idaho college murders come to mind, as well as the Pike County murders that were updated with the arrest of the suspects who later were charged, and convicted of the murders.
@Rsjaffe - I put this here because it involves user behavior and what I feel is issues that are hindering consensus, which was the instructions fromWikipedia:Consensus "Sysops will not rule on content,but may intervene to enforce policy (such asWP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctionson editors who are disrupting the consensus process.". The reason for listing the additions was to show that other people had wanted the info inserted, in counter to the argument of "I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include." (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which as stated above I felt was not capable of being met based on user behavior. As for the referral, I haven't been able to follow up to the discussion there yet regarding thecontent issue due to not having a lot of time around schooling, and figured i would address theuser issue here. In regards to your last question about why I am 'eager' to add it,it has been an unsolved murder for several years with no arrests. When the arrest happened and the suspect was publicly named, several people tried to add it (which I understand is WP:NOTNEWS, and should probably have been avoided as being sensationalism). The fact that it was almost continually removed by the same user, and the general consensus on the talk page was ignored as stated in the reasons of my original post brought me here since I felt it was damaging to the consensus process.
I moved this back from the archive since it wasn't closed previously.
I would also like to state that the user is still participating in behavior that seems to violate WP:OWN by almost instantly reverting any removal of, ironically enough, their statement directing people on what to do in the article before editing as being a WP:OWN issue, rather than allowing said users to edit first and discuss after revert..[240][241]Awshort (talk)09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Instead of copy and pasting an old discussion here, what I would do instead is write a new discussion, with a link to the old discussion, with any new info that you want to add in it.AP 499D25 (talk)09:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I would like to address everything that was commented all at once, but I can't figure out how to strike text - is it not possible when a post is on the ANI?
Im currently using Chrome mobile on my phone, but I seemed to have the same problem on my PC.
Thanks in advance, for any input on this, but also for all of the input above.
I had a few posts to follow up on, and wanted to make an effort to do it correctly, since my original post was organized rather poorly and I think some things were listed rather vaguely. I will be able to do a proper edit when not on mobile. Thank you.
I wanted to note a few things that I believe I either didn't point out before, or that were hidden in the random mess that was my original post.
Per talk page guidelines {{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TALKPOV&redirect=no}}, editors are instructed to "Stay objective: Talk pagesare not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article,so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." While I understand what Lard is stating, the portion about the 'people have similar names' thing is a personal point of view that is not objective.
"And the reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone).Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it." When I mentioned that there are no sources stating the above re: paedophilia, and asked for a source this was the reply."It involves the murder of children(likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims."Again, this is not following with NPOV. I do understand the points about BLPCrime, since that was what the discussion on the Talkpage was supposed to be regarding, but saying that it cannot be included due to what somewhat believes may potentially happen to someone with a similar name is not remotely neutral, as well as being an OTHERSTUFF argument.
As for how I felt the consensus process has been prevented, if users are directed to a page with the first page saying 'Don't add this', most will see that as a rule that passed or that it isn't allowed, and NOT that it is open for debate, since it is not neutrally written. A better approach would be to have a page that states 'Don't add this until there is consensus' or similar, since it is neutral and addresses that is open for discussion. With that being said, reverting under a 'No consensus' reason is also not recommended in one of the help pages
It has been noted that I have replied several times to try to get others to change their opinions by I believe {{ping|Ritchie333}}. That is not true; everyone is going to have different viewpoints. Going by {{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bludgeon_the_process#No_one_is_obligated_to_satisfy_you}}, "Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not." I have asked for reliable sources in the above example that mentioned pedophillia, and the next comment was that it involved child murder instead. I have asked if consensus had been reached, since it was unclear, and since there was one editor opposed to inclusion. I have also stated how other countries policies wouldn't necessarily affect the English wikipedia. I have tried to stay in the top tiers of the pyramid at {{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution}}.
I am aware that it is a policy, but it also states "{{xt|editors must '''seriously consider''' not including material}}", and from countless examples in recent ongoing crime or court cases, there are numerous articles featuring names. If it outright states "do not do this", that's understandable. But it leaves it open for debate as it's written.
Respectfully, the prior edits did not address an issue about a editor not following the policies or guidelines. I've brought updifferent things related to the same article, as I have stated several times on this post. My post on ELN asked if BLP applied to links. My post on CR involved if consensus had been reached, since if it's unclear that is literally the only place to go and ask. I don't think it is exactly 'a debate' if a user is potentially ignoring stuff put in place to reach a common ground between editors. That was what I was addressing, since regardless of whether it is with myself or another user, if we have a policies and guidelines to remain neutral, they should be followed. Consensus can always change, either way, which is why we have the policies in place I would imagine. Either way, have a good one and thank you for the reply.
This looks like a content dispute. I checked out the talk page, and I can’t see any sanctionable behaviour from Lard Almighty. In particular, edit-warring over a comment that explains a consensus on the talk page is probably not a good idea.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
May i ask for clarification on a few points?
Namely, how is it not stonewalling, when whatever points are brought up in the talk page are ignored and the main article seems more geared towards what one user wants? Maybe I am completely misreading the WP:STONEWALL article, but I felt this seemed to be in conflict with that, as well as WP:OWN by only allowing whatthey deem necessary on the page. Also, does it not involve WP:FRINGE views with stating that information can't be included due to something that has never been published in any reliable sources, and prevent a NPOV?
I'm not being disrespectful by asking, I am just trying to understand Wikipedia better. I registered an account years ago, made one or two edits and have otherwise been an inactive editor (active visitor, though).
On the article's talk page, I see the following comment in one section, "Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article." and in another section I see agreement. I see Lard Almighty telling you that court transcriptions are not suitable as sources in articles about living or recently deceased people, which is correct per policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY), and also says "BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others", which is a perfectly reasonable point to make. I can't see anything being ignored.
All I can see is people disagreeing with you and you keep asking them to reconsider. Everyone else on the talk page appears to have accepted that consensus might not go their way. Sometimes you've got to accept that you're not going to get the result you want - collaborative editing is aboutteamwork and compromise, not pushing a dispute when everyone else has got bored and lost interest.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This post was in regards to if a users behavior violated any policies, as it was suggested in one of the many guideline pages to post here for certain issues. This is not about the content of the article.
One of the BLP posts was mine, which suggested a RfC, so I'm not sure how me asking about if someone is stonewalling or anything similar is me beating a dead horse when one is content based and one is not.Awshort (talk)12:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Something I'd like to point out that no one's quite said: yes, we like to encourage a collegial environment here, where people talk things over reasonably in order to obtain a consensus. With that,no one is under any compunction to change their mind on your behalf. You can be as eloquent as you please, your arguments may make perfect sense to you, and they might still gain no traction. (Why would I advocate something in the first place, after all, with which I disagreed?) You seem to have mistaken "stonewalling" for failure to agree with your arguments. But that happens here, as in every walk of life; I doubt I could estimate within the nearest hundred the number of eloquent arguments I've made in my time on Wikipedia that didn't budge the needle an inch. Ravenswing21:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment I'm just wondering how many more noticeboards the OP will bother in order to try and get this suspect's name back in the article. At the last count, I think we're on
Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like that's quite enough, especially for an account with only 66 editsin total. I would suggest a pblock from Wikipedia space, personally.Black Kite (talk)12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I have posted on noticeboards that are directly related to the topics at hand, as instructed to do on the policies and guidelines pages. And out of the 5 you listed above, I don't see how these were asking for the suspects name to be added back. I'm not exactly sure how using the noticeboards for their intended use would be 'a bother'.
DRN - asking if consensus had been reached, was told to address at BLP.
BLPN - asking for clarification on wording and if something is allowable, since BLP itself is vague on what was allowed.
ELN - Asking if links containing a name are a BLP issue, since it had not been addressed before and needed clarification for future editors of any topic that may run into similar issues, and had been mentioned in the talk page.
CR - If a consensus is not agreeable, or clear, it is recommended to go to CR and have a neutral party look and see if consensus has been met and rule on it. Considering that it seems to not be clear, by several other editors aside from the two people involved in this post, I followed the steps it said to take.
ANI - I have previously went over my reasons for addressing this here, and they didn't involve content, but the user.
My amount of edits shouldn't have a huge impact on being respected as an editor or person.
This isn't an issue of lack of respect, but of youforum shopping to get a result that you want. You cannot just throw this at every potentially relevant notice board, in the hopes someone will agree with you.
Thank you for the respectful reply and link. I honestly hadn't thought it could be Forum shopping, so I'll check that out.
As for the explanation, yes it has been explained to me, but my confusion was in the fact that other pages with similar content exist with no BLPCrime issues, and BLPCrime states 'must seriously consider', not outright that something is not allowed..
Again, thank you for being respectful in explaining stuff to me. I don't know if you can close this topic or not, but I get your point.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced claims focused primarily on adding films to filmography tables for future projects that have not yet begun filming, but also changing release dates, adding cast members, changing budget/gross.WP:FILMOGRAPHY saysDo not addfuture projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.
Unsourced change to a film's gross receipts that breaks existing ref URLs[274]
Both 2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C::/64 need blocks, or you might consider widening the block to 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42 —Archer1234 (t·c)22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Note that edits in this range picked up minutes after another IP that geolocates to the same area was notified of an ANI discussion about the same disruptive editing behavior.[285]. That IP91.73.33.144 was subsequently blocked:[286].
I considered it but have observed that editors are often reminded that AIV is only for "obvious vandalism" or "obvious spam". The "unsourced editing" I have identified above is not spam and does not appear (to me at least) to fit the definition of vandalism. AlsoWP:VANDAL says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wassuggested by Barkeep49 to come here. I am trying to get a hold on the autopatrolled rights of editors who masscreate stubs and while I was checking some of the top ten article creators and I came acrossPvmoutside, who is aprolific stub creator since over 10 years with an stub count of over 8000 per xtools. At the beginning of his wikipedia career they also created somestart class articles. Pvmoutside was given theautopatrolled rights by an editor whois no longer editing since 2012. They create technical articles on species in danger, usually without mentioning in their articles that they are in danger likehere,here orhere, nor adding an image or add more prose than mentioning their existence in a country. You can see their latest articleshere. A recentarticle not on a species didn't have an inline citation at all.
Support removing autopatrolled. Autopatrolled editors are expected to produce articles that do not need manual review; mass creating micro-stubs without a consensus approving their creation does not fall into this category.BilledMammal (talk)22:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see what is wrong with, for example,Erythrolamprus sagittifer as a stub article. All species are considered notable, so there can be no reason not to create an article. A stub is a place-holder, which this is. It has two very respectable references and a taxobox that connects it to the genus article and other higher taxon articles. The conservation status of the species is shown in the taxobox, as normal for a stub. Why would it need to be reviewed?Peter coxhead (talk)09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose User creates fully functional taxon stubs that contain all features required for this type - complete taxobox, authority, synonyms, fundamental references. Of the dozens I have spot-checked, there was not one that could not be NPP signed off. These thus do not require review through the queue, which is the sole reason for the autopatrolled right. "Did not contain all information that could have been included" is the state of all stubs, not a reasonable requirement of stub creators, and not a valid point in this regard. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)11:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose. From the XTools summary linked above (prolific stub creator), Pvmoutside has created 8,775 articles, not including redirects. 118 of these were later deleted, most of which (106/118) were deleted to make way for a page move, usually to change a title between common and scientific name or due to a later taxonomic change (split or merge species). Of the remaining twelve deleted articles, nine appear to have been made in error, and were most often deleted at the users request. This has resulted in 99.9% of the articles he has created still remaining in mainspace. This level of article retention rate is exactly why the auto-patrolled status is appropriate in order to save new page reviewers time and effort validating new article creations. The articles created by Pvmoutside are all fully functional, and range from disambiguation pages to those now rated as GA or FL. Pvmoutside's article creation contributions are valuable to the encyclopedia and should be further encouraged and emulated.Loopy30 (talk)13:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked in depth, but in this, and previous, discussions, I haven't seen anyone point out any actual problems with these stubs other than the fact that they're short. Yes, the three examples given above (here,here andhere) a sourced to theIUCN Red List, but their endangerment status (as prominently visible in the infobox) isleast-concern, which means they'renot endangered, and this fact is probably not salient enough to be worth mentioning in the prose as well. I don't get what sorts of "deficiencies" these stubs will need to get tagged for by reviewers. If{{image requested}} is important, then we can ask Pvmoutside to add it when creating the stubs' talk pages. As for{{too technical}}, which articles would that be applicable to? If the article goes like "X is a species in such and such subfamily, named in the year YYYY by so and so, and found in such and such countries", then that's as plain and clear as it can get. –Uanfala (talk)14:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Yes,Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center should never have been put in mainspace, but I can't see any problem with the species pages, which is the vast majority of their creations. As mentioned above, if something likeOxyrhopus trigeminus is not an acceptable stub (in my opinion, it's absolutely fine), that's something that needs a wider discussion rather than trying to cause issues for an editor who is only doing what many others have done previously, with apparently few issues.Black Kite (talk)19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It's fine to create such stubs, but not on autopatrolled. The suggestion is meant to regulate the masscreation of stubs, and maybe also mention that the species are in danger, enable them to get tagged for too technical, image requested etc. Anyway, the closers seem to follow much more reason than simple majority these days and I'll hope they follow my approach to the masscreation of stubs.Paradise Chronicle (talk)15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment species articles are a useful magnet for subject experts. Many subject experts will balk at starting a new Wikipedia article, which is intimidating. They will, however, add information to a pre-existing article they happen to have come across, often as an IP editor, and they often give pretty decent referencing. Stub species articles fulfil a very valuable function by providing a place in which others can - easily - write about something that we've already decided is guaranteed to be notable.Elemimele (talk)14:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
For these species stubs, I think it would be a much better idea to merge them into the genus articles rather than revoke autopatrolled rights (for now). A lot of information is duplicated between the genera and species pages (e.g. Kingdom–Genus infobox entry and authority). I see it as a more productive alternative than what's proposed. SMEs can still improve them because the articles will stillbe somewhere, and make the resulting page longer and more likely to pass notability challenges.SWinxy (talk)20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
"Let's graciously forgo penalizing the editor for entirely conforming to expected standards, and instead screw up their output contrary to established consensus to avoid nonexistent notability concerns." Here's a better idea: let's not. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
A little update. I didn't know that least concern doesn't mean that they are in danger and they are not in danger. I figured that if they are on the red list, they are in danger. I correct me on that. Might be worth clarfifying that in he article. Too technical. But that's a point of view that one can share or not.Paradise Chronicle (talk)07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The IUCN Red List contains conservation statuses for (ideally) all species, so it will include species that are not threatened. This is not the same meaning that the average person thinks of when someone says "red list" which may just contain species threatened or worse, and some people may refer to regional threatened species indices as "red lists". The IUCN Red List acts more like an encyclopedia.NeverRainsButPours (talk)10:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose for now.Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center seems to be the only problematic diff presented (might not passWP:NCORP). Species articles always survive AFD. And the species diffs presented above each contain multiple sources. I think creators of species articles are good candidates for autopatrolled since they tend to create high volumes of notable articles, so autopatrolling them reduces NPP workload, and the articles are very safe (no chance of UPE). –Novem Linguae(talk)16:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Huh? If anything, Pvmoutside should be commended for improving Wikipedia's coverage of species, not penalized for it.BeanieFan11 (talk)16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Daily Wire material has been removed following community consensus. For Fox News, "Although a significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News".
The controversy is around what the video suggests, instead of whether they are authentic. Therefore the existence of this section is justified.Wlwl0623 (talk)02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, consensus differentiates between regular Fox News and their pundits, of whom Carlson is one. His feature on the Capitol is also not “routine and uncontroversial” news. -Indy beetle (talk)02:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The controversy here is whether several minutes of video edited down from 40,000 hours presents a full and accurate depiction of events. The video "suggests" what the editors of a highly dubious source intend it to suggest. Without reliable sources stating the video fully and accurately depicts events, anything from Tucker Carlson of Fox News must not be included in such a contentious topic area.soibangla (talk)03:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
FoxNews(Talkshows) is the relevant entry atWP:RSP. Further amplified by FoxNews(Politics) on same list. So no, if DailyDot and FoxNews are the sources, it is not justified. Add inWP:ONUS,WP:DUE andWP:CONSENSUS and it's really not justified in any way at all.Slywriter (talk)03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah Fox News talk shows are not RS, and Fox News are also not an RS for politics. So the fact Fox News may currently not be considered generally unreliable is a moot point since it isn't reliable in the case of the specifics here.Nil Einne (talk)09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I amUser:Matt Smith, and I would like to point out thatUser:Sameboat's claim about me is false. I have never defended Tucker Carlson's credibility in a bludgeoning way. In thediscussion section, I only mentioned Tucker Carlson in two discussions:
The first one is withUser:Muboshgu andUser:Dumuzid. To see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Muboshgu with these text:But the video released by Tucker did show that
The second one is withUser:Slatersteven and User:Sameboat. Too see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Slatersteven with these text:When exactly have Fox and Carlson "admitted to lying"?
The first one is relatively short and did not really involve discussing Tucker Carson's credibility. The second one is the actual one, and the only one, which involved discussing Tucker Carson's credibility.
As we can see, in the second one, User:Sameboat presented me with an old news whose heading is considered taken-out-of-content by me. After that, User:Slatersteven presented me with a few news, which I said are more or less the same. And then User:Slatersteven presented me with a few more news, but User:Sameboat suggested that this debate should not continue. I then agreed tacitly by not continuing to reply to User:Slatersteven.
Aside from the aforementioned two discussions, I also pingedUser:Dronebogus to ask about his particular reason for removing an IP user's comment, which I considered reasonable, though User:Dronebogus did not reply. To see that ping of mine, please search for these text:@Dronebogus: I think the comment you removed actually looked reasonable. That is my last discussion about the article, and it also did not involve discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Furthermore, my intention of pinging User:Dronebogus was not discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Instead, my intention was discussing the article's balance between different opinions, which does not necessarily need to involve discussing anyone's credibility.
So what on earth did I bludgeon about? I think User:Sameboat exaggerated those discussions as if a bludgeoning occurred. Maybe he did not pay attention to the details of those discussions? I don't know. Anyway, I did not bludgeon nor even try to, and my tacitly agreeing not to continue the debate in the second discussion already showed that. --Matt Smith (talk)03:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I removed the comment because it was about 90 percent complaining about media bias and fundamental principles likeWP:Reliable sources that can’t be changed, and 10 percent anything relevant about the article or topic.Dronebogus (talk)05:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Wlwl0623 lacks a basic understanding of the usage of reliable sources in Wikipedia. In the articleCNN,here they added anAd Fontes Media citation.WP:RSPclearly states "Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability." They laterreverted my removal and thenadded a Biasly citation (without even trying to prove if Biasly is credible) and an NYT source that doesn't even mention CNN's bias. As can be seen in thepage's history, they don't seem know when to stop reverting and possibly aren't aware ofWP:BRD.Nythar (💬-🍀)07:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Nearly all of Matt Smith's reply regarding this topic is "it's not about Fox News/Carlson's credibility; it's about the political bias of the article". The worst offender has to be casting doubt on the J6 committee's integrity[288][289] which is not backed by any reliable source. This issue is always about our reliable source policy, nothing less, nothing more, but Matt Smith shrugged it all off every time we told him about that. I find it very unconvincing from an editor active since 2014 (on Chinese Wikipedia), and conclude that it's a deliberate act of manipulation to derail the discussion. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)07:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Carlson is explicitly listed as unreliable at RSPS and even if he wasn’t, as Fox News’s chief polemicist, if he told me it was raining, I’d stick my hand out the door to double check. Any editor who disagrees really needs to be bonked with theWP:CIR bat.Sceptre (talk)08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Just noting that I declined protecting this page (RfPP diff), deferring the matter toWP:AN3 ( {{rfpp|an3}} ), having done so unaware of this ANI thread. A thread which I have yet to review, so I'm unsure to what extent if any it'd have influenced my decision.El_C08:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
After using those words (which I consider offensive), he linked my comments. Is that not the same as including me in his targets?
The discussion about the article had already ended in the article's talk page. I came to here just to clarify his claims about me, not to continue on the topic. Therefore, I'm not sure why you would think of topic ban. Would you mind explaining?Matt Smith (talk)11:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Isn't this one of those cases whereWP:ARE might be a better bet if there are problems with user behaviour serious enough to warrant action?Nil Einne (talk)11:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
For Matt Smith, probably. For Wlwl0623 I'm not sure, because, from a very cursory examination of his edits, I'm starting to wonder whether aWP:NOTHERE indef wouldn't be be the best solution... — Salviogiuliano11:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Not only wondering, I think it so clearly is I’ve just issued such a block. The RGW attitude coming from that editor was not changing.Courcelles (talk)09:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I see both of the main named editors may have only been given alerts recently so maybe it's unlikely an admin can sanction under CT either unilaterally or from ARE. Even so, IMO it's probably better to just wait and see if any alleged misbehaviour improves and file at ARE if it doesn't rather than bother with a community sanctions process.Nil Einne (talk)11:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are three new users whose main focus is on the two writing systems of theBhojpuri language. They're expunging mentions of what is still by far the most commonly used script for the language (Devanagari) and replacing it with an obsolete script that is however undergoing some sort of revival (Kaithi). When they aren't doing that, they're doing something else that's equally disruptive, like moving articles against the naming conventions, making up language codes, etc. These users are:
लोहरान (talk·contribs·logs): the most active of them, after a short block, they've immediately resumed the disruption.
भोजपुरी (talk·contribs·logs): fewer edits overall, but all in the same direction (one of them isthis message on my talk page, which appears to be swearing in Bhojpuri).
They all probably mean well, fighting for what they believe to be the truth, but they absolutely refuse to understand how the encyclopedia works. I'm not even sure they understand English (I previously left a message to लोहरान telling them, in a language they almost certainly understand, that they can edit the Bhojpuri-language Wikipedia instead, but that seemed to have had no effect). –Uanfala (talk)22:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, this is Siggfried. First, you are the one persistently deleting content from articles. Second, shouldn't you be notified when you are mentioned at the Administrators' noticeboard? @Cordless Larry didn't do it. I also think it's hasty to come to the administrators as Cordless Larry did in this case, just like it is hasty to remove non doubtful stuff from articles when you could use a template such ascitation needed. Note that we were still discussing atTalk:Arabs in Belgium.Siggfried (talk)15:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
P.S I forgot to say there is also a bit of distortion or misunderstanding in Cordless Larry's message above, because what I calleduseless is moving the conversation fromTalk:Arabs in Belgium to my talk page as well.Siggfried (talk)15:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't want to say this before because I know about the good faith concept, but earlier I had the impression that Cordless Larry's purpose wasn't improving the articleArabs in Belgium or strictly apply Wikipedia's policies (in the way he interprets them, anyway) but somehow undermine it. Now that he has opened this excessive administrators' incident report, while he waits for the result, he started to remove stuff from at least another article I created,Japanese people in Belgium, which prompted me to report this and my earlier impression. Whether he was right or not to remove that content, shouldn't he at least try it to discuss the removal action first? Further, is there some concept like "revenge" editing in Wikipedia's policies? Because if there is, I think this may be the case.Siggfried (talk)15:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
You notified me later, after opening this section. When I started writing my reply, I still hadn't received any notification.Siggfried (talk)15:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
A notification under a minute after this thread was opened is more than reasonable. I'd love to know when you'd've preferred to be notified: one minutebefore the thread was opened? —Trey Maturin™16:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@Trey Maturin For the record, though Wikipedia refs show 1 minute difference, the time elapsed could've been up to 1 minute and 58 seconds. Anyway, I don't think it's so important, like I said, I got the mention in this page when still there wasn't any notification on my talk page and then I started to write the reply and didn't see the talk page message till I refreshed the page.Siggfried (talk)16:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@Siggfried I think you should drop this pedantry. It doesn't make a difference between a minute or two when the notice to your talk page is relatively as close as it can be to the creation of this thread in comparison to any other threads here.– robertsky (talk)16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@Robertsky Since you talk bluntly I guess I will do the same: I think you should consider better what you read. I saidfor the record. And I also said it's not important.Siggfried (talk)16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how is that useful or is it just to make fun or something? It's not making me laugh anyway... I think it's interesting though that both the two editors who joined the convo didn't provide an answer or opinion on the real issue; but they both zeroed in on a trivial matter... I guess maybe pedantry has many forms (?).Siggfried (talk)16:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
You complained, which as you know on this page means"I want this taken into consideration when sanctioning the person who I'm complaining about" that their notification to you about this tread wasalmost a minute after the thread was posted. When challenged on this, your response is to go on the attack and complain that it could've beena whole 1 minute and 58 seconds but that this is somehow now trivial having been really important just before. You have undermined your case here with this nonsense, which is on you, not us. —Trey Maturin™17:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
"which as you knows means...". No, Idon't know it means that. I only know it is a reply in our conversation, a trivial conversation on unimportant matters not started by me. I also said it is not important, I say it again now:it is not important, whoever reads this: let it not be considered by them in their judgement.
I also didn't want and don't want any case. I am simply here because I was tagged for a certain thing, and I wanted to explain why what I am accused of has happened. And I still haven't understood why Larry had to move the conversation here (aftertrying to do so on my talk page).Siggfried (talk)17:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I haven't moved any conversation. I started a thread here because you appear to have decided thatWP:BURDEN doesn't apply to you, so this is a user conduct issue rather than a simple content dispute that could be resolved on the article's talk page.Cordless Larry (talk)17:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
That there is a conduct issue with me is your opinion. You apparently briefly mentioned WP:BURDEN at the article's talk page and thereafter opened this case. So even if there is a conduct issue, you could've have tried to solve it at the talk page IMO. It is also my opinion that there is an issue with your conduct to be frank, as, like I said, if I hadn't had that page on my watchlist, we would have lost important content, which I later backed with reliable sources. Why do you want to remove stuff from that article so much? If you don't have any specific problem with the Arabs in Belgium page, then maybe you should reconsider your general approach and read aboutWikipedia:Citation neededSiggfried (talk)18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
P.S. If the content is not at the French article, then it is probably atnl:Bevolking van België (its Dutch counterpart). I created that article days ago, so I don't remember from which one I translated. Belgium is bilingual and so most native-language sources about it.Siggfried (talk)18:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmm.. I won't say that template is useless as it does contain the necessary information in general about having assertions/statements sourced and verifiable in general. However, that templated warning on Siggfried's talk page is not really needed, given that the discourse about having verifiable information is essentially started in the thread on the article talk page by then. However, given that Siggfried apparently has not taken to heart about having verified information given the multiple run-ins with Cordless Larry over similar issues, it might be warranted.
If the uncited numbers were introduced by another editor, who is now inactive or not touched the article since, and the numbers have been on the page for a relatively longer time, I would also say putting{{cn}} tags may be appropriate to signal to another interested editor to source for the references before an eventual removal. But the numbers were introduced by the same editor within the last 7 days. Siggfried, theburden is on you to prove the numbers you initially provided are right. While there's no deadline to remove the details, there's also no deadline to introduce such details, especially when it is unverified. The numbers being on frwiki doesn't mean that they can be introduced here without citations. frwiki, like enwiki, is a user-generated content site, therefore cannot be used as a reference point.– robertsky (talk)17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@Robertsky I think your mention of wp:fr is very important though you make it at last. The article (well, it's infobox) is a translation from wp:fr (at least it was so originally, then I heavily edited it). So there is another editor who put those numbers in. I checked them and deemed them very likely for reasons I already stated at the other page:numbers close to previous/later reports. Also, the fact the numbers are so specific (e.g. 411 Jordanians) makes me think even more that the numbers are correct, that the original author took them from somewhere and simply pasted the wrong link in their source(s) at wp.fr. Because of all this, I inserted the numbers, and I argue they should be kept with a cn template.Siggfried (talk)17:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
First, any translations should be attributed accordingly due to licensing policy (see the text in{{Uw-translation}}). I don't see any attributions in your edit summaries or in the talk page as to which frwiki pages your translated content comes from. At this point I don't know even which frwiki article(s) you have translated from (I am taking your word for it)! Second, to reiterate this point: even if it is on frwiki and what you think looks right,if the information is unsourced, do not insert here. There are reasons whythe content translation tool is disabled for most editors here; adding unsourced content through translations is one of them. I do not know what is the relevant policies on frwiki when comes to ownership of editing (can we for example, translate anything from enwiki or zhwiki (which many articles lacking enough sources) to frwiki with no consequences?), but here, you take the responsibility of inserting verifiable information, with sources when challenged.– robertsky (talk)17:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, the infobox is a translation, not the whole article (there's no article for Arabs in Belgium in fr.wiki AFAIK). I didn't consider the translation template and attribution; I translated also other articles and didn't do that there either, you can check. The translation is fromfr:Démographie de la Belgique. You said "but here, you take the responsibility of inserting verifiable information, with sources when challenged", I don't have a source, but those numbers, for the said reasons, don't look doubtful at all (411 Jordanians? 405 Lybians??) So why delete them instead of looking for a source via templates? That's why I am arguing that a cn is needed, not hasty, and definitive, removal of content. So the original editor or someone else can give us a source.Siggfried (talk)17:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
But it is the standard for a cn template usage instead of deletion of content. I (partly) translated the article, but what is at hand here is your straightforward and complete removal of content. Plus I still haven't understood why did you open this case here and not stayed on the talk page?Siggfried (talk)17:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
What I mean is: I might have mistranslated the article (I mean, by including things I should not have included) but you should not have removed stuff like you did, you should have used a template, and you should have also did so at the pageJapanese people in Belgium. Or at least discuss. I don't like your attitude of immediate removal.Siggfried (talk)18:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
To the readers: if you go and readArabs in Belgium's history and its talk page history,you will see that Larry had already removed stuff from the article in the past. Also then, he didn't try to discuss and didn't use templates at all. Fortunately, I had the page in my watchlist, and was able to restore some of the content, providing reliable sources for it. Had I not watched the page, that content would be now lost, potentially forever. Like I said, I don't think he had a good attitude. At least regarding the article "Arabs in Belgium".Siggfried (talk)18:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
From my experience, the cn tag is applied onto statements that were introduced on enwiki mostly before the policies regarding V and BURDEN have evolved into the present form. These uncited facts are more or less grandfathered until an interested editor comes along to remove/update the details accordingly. There are more of such articles than editors who can/will parse through and edit. For newer statements, a much shorter rope is usually given, with many long-time editors removing the unsupported statements within weeks after tagging. We don't want new unsupported challenged assertions to linger for too long on here. Given that you are active still and clearly an interested editor, and that Cordless Larry had reminded you time and again that verifiability is one of cornerstone policies, if there is no action from you to support the statements you have added, it is logical to have these unsupported statements removed.
Looking correct in another wikipedia project isn't a valid defence. There is a colloquial phrase from where I am from, or a variant: "You think, I think. Who confirmed?" In this case, you think it is correct; that ip editor in the other wikipedia as found out below, either thought it is correct and/or also made unsourced edits; but where is the definite source that confirms that these assertions are correct? We don't care what that ip editor had introduced in that wikipedia project at this point, rather what we care what you have introduced here on enwikiand if you can prove it.– robertsky (talk)03:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is fairly straightforward. Simply, you don't add material unless it's sourced - "I know the population figures from Wikipedia's fr article. I don't know whether they are correct, but I don't think they are doubtful." is simply not good enough. Find areliable source -then add the material - not the other way round. "I know it's about right" isoriginal research.Black Kite (talk)17:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Black Kite is correct, this is straightforward, I believe Siggfried is rejecting core WP policy/guidelines such as V, OR, SYNTH, and BURDEN. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. Editors must accept V and BURDEN, use sources per V and do not restore unsourced material per BURDEN. Any attempt to challenge, ignore or sidestep V and BURDEN is a problem that cannot be ignored. // Timothy :: talk19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes but before that: isn't there a rule about not deleting stuff? I remember some policy like "Wikipedia is about expanding, not deleting". Anyway, there has to be a reason why there's cn templates, right? I don't know whether I actually failed WP:BURDEN, V etc. (probably yes since several editors have pointed it out), but what I am trying to say is that Larry's approach is wrong, and not matter what, they shouldn't not deleted stuff as they did. Again, this all has happened before on that same article, and we almost lost a lot of demographic content, which I was able to restore and back with sources. If he does this on other articles, it's a loss for Wikipedia.Siggfried (talk)21:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
There is no rule that prevents deletion of content that doesn't meetWP:V. In fact, it is the opposite:Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Yours was the wrong approach.MrOllie (talk)21:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This is not somesort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information, this is precise and plausible demographics data that the author took from some specific source, which they probably mistook because the data in the article is 2017, while the source is from 2018.Siggfried (talk)21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It is your responsibility to source it if you want to add it to English Wikipedia. Cherry picking a line out of context from some other page doesn't change that.MrOllie (talk)21:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@MrOllie It's not cherry picking, I can paste the whole page if you like. But that's the kernel about when to the delete immediately. The issue here (for me) is why Larry boldly deleted content (for the second time) and whether they should have done it when you have such a thing as the quoted cn templates to use.Siggfried (talk)21:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm telling you you are misunderstanding that page. Any improperly sourced content may be deleted, as I already quoted fromWP:V. The issue here is that you don't understand basic content policies, and you don't understand that Larry's deletions were fully within policy, even after this has been explained multiple times by multiple people.MrOllie (talk)22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Observation. If there is one single subset of content on the English-language Wikipedia I would never trust without a cited source it is demographic data. It is a prime target forWP:OR, well-intentioned 'updating' from unspecified sources of unknown provenance, dubious ethno-boosterism, and outright vandalism. If the French-language Wikipedia has discovered a way to rectify these issues, I'd sure like to hear about it...AndyTheGrump (talk)19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
411 Jordanians in Belgium? It's definitely not "ethno-boostering". It is not even WP:OR, because how likely it is that an average editor could access primary demographic sources?
Based on the scarce but precise numbers, which jibe with other reports and demographic numbers of fellow Arabic ethnic groups in Belgium, the information is probably correct, was published in good faith, simply the original editor mistook some sources; if you look at the Dutch wp article,from which I translated, the year of the survey in the article is 2017; yet the source presents 2018 data. Again, they probably pasted the wrong source.Siggfried (talk)21:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
For info,this is the edit in which the 411 figure was added to that article. The 405 figure was then added inthis edit. The same IP editor then madethis edit, changing a figure of 60,257 to 63,257, one of the classic signs of the boosterism that Andy mentions.Cordless Larry (talk)21:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
You didn't use it, but I'm demonstrating why the figures aren't to be trusted. The IP editor did something that is very common in cases of boosterism: changing the number before the thousand separator. We shouldn't trust their edits, which aren't supported by a source, and certainly shouldn't copy them over to this Wikipedia.Cordless Larry (talk)21:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe it. I think that an update of statistics is more likely. These ethnic groups are growing by the day in Belgium, and the IP probably made an yearly update. I think that assumig good faith is a good principle, and should be always employed.Siggfried (talk)21:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Now @TimothyBlue, as well as @Cordless Larry, have both started to edit on articles I created, deleting content in the same way. Again, I don't know all the policies of Wikipedia, but there must be some sort of No:stalking rule? I like that someone contributes to my articles and points out any mistake. But I don't like this fashion, with immediate deletion, nor the fact that these editors reached those articles by looking through my edits. If these are experienced editors, and they act like this, and they are let behave like this, then this draws me away from Wikipedia and makes me less interest in this project.Siggfried (talk)21:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
When you end up at ANI, your edits are going to be looked at. When I see unsourced BLP violations, I remove them. If you want to restore the material, do some work and find a reference. I'm also seeing problems in your "translations", but I haven't finished looking. // Timothy :: talk21:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I wound up at ANI because Larry opened a section here. I read a few conversations at ANI and I know that's totally uncalled for, since they didn't even attempt to solve what they call a "behavioral issue" at the talk page, or at any rate with me at any any page. I also know that because I am a new editor and they are an elder editor they are apparently naturally favored. I don't like the way you put "translations" between commas. It's offensive, and I know Wikipedia has policies about politeness as well. The way I see it, this is a problem Larry has with the specific article about Arabs in Belgium (which appears to have already been deleted btw). They posted the problem here as a way of drawing attentionagainst me. Now you will go through my edits thinking they will be full of mistakes, just because my name has unduly appeared at ANI. But don't worry, I will definitely do my best to restore any content you delete providing more sources. Also, I will make sure the article Arabs in Belgium is nice and fine, because like I said I feel the problem is rooted there (with the article's existence, not its demographics or anything else), and I also don't like that. However, I am almost sure I will later stop contributing to the project. Because I don't like the approach of both you and editor Larry.Siggfried (talk)21:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Please don't make accusations that suggest I have "a problem" with this specific article without checking my contribution history, where you'll see that I very often remove unsourced population figures from a wide range of articles (as policy suggests should happen).Cordless Larry (talk)22:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I haven't made any formal accusation, but I stopped with the principle of good faith with you after you did so with the IP user. I am not the type that checks others' histories, unlike you and Timothy. All I wanted was edit in peace and understand why we cannot save as much content as possible by using templates instead of removing stuff.Siggfried (talk)22:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Assuming good faith doesn't extend to believing unsourced population figures added by editors who look to have engaged in vandalism to existing population figures. Such likely misinformation should be removed, not given the benefit of the doubt and tagged as needing a source. If you want peace, you shouldn't add unsourced content to Wikipedia and then continue to insist that it shouldn't be removed, despite several people explaining the relevant policy to you.Cordless Larry (talk)22:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism? Why vandalism? Only if you have a prejudice you see that as vandalism. I haven't looked at it closely but I believe it's just legit demographics update. Number of foreigners in Belgium literally grows by the day. See, here you go againSuch likely misinformation should be removed why do you call it this way? It's your opinion, and you have it because you fail to assume good faith towards that IP editor.
To recap: the content was translated from wp:fr and wp:nl. It originally had sources. I simply didn't add them too from the foreign languages Wikipedias. Larry had already removed content from the article, in the same fashion, claiming it lacked sources. I already provided them with sources an restored the content. They then proposed again deletion because they couldn't find the data in the sources. I then provided new sources and left a few data unsourced. Now they deleted stuff again (the still unsourced figures) and, together with Timothy, started to delete content from other articles I created. IMO my behavior at Arabs in Belgium and my edit history show that I have an understanding of WP:V and strive to provide as many sources as possible, for example cutting unsourced and "not sourcable" stuff from any article that I translate. I merely think that Larry's approach, showed at Arabs in Belgium, as well as at the other article they attacked, is wrong. Because the claims are not absurd, and even present at other Wikipedias, adding a template like cn is more advisable than utter and quick removal IMO.Siggfried (talk)23:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
There isn't a source supporting the 405 and 411 figures. The DRC figure might well have grown, but it's suspicious to say the least that the IP editor increased it by exactly 3,000 - suspicious enough that we should doubt the reliability of the figures. If you're able to provide a source for the figures I removed fromArabs in Belgium, please do so; everything else is just digging yourself into a bigger hole.Cordless Larry (talk)23:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Why suspicious? There were 200'000 Moroccans in Belgium 20 years ago now its almost 600'000. It's not suspiscious. It's suspicious to you, because you can't assume good faith. I have not dug myself into any hole. You brought this argument here, and you know it well. It was uncalled for, and you also know this well. You did it all yourself, I simply claimed and stuck to the claim that removing stuff from pages without even discussing or using templates is not advisable, especially when you "know" and already talked to the page creator. I stuck and want to keep sticking to this point, you distort it and make it look like I want to post stuff without source and fail to get the point that sources are needed. Now you and another editor started attacking my articles, and the other one has proposed to block me, and you supported him. I in turn cannot say anything because I have to and want to assume good faith, but I would really like to say something. I guess it's easy to pick on new editors. You already know how it's gonna end, no matter what. You don't like an article? Is the article creator are newby? Good, just open a section ad the admins and start claiming whatever you want!Siggfried (talk)23:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It's suspicious because, as I explained, a common form of vandalism to population figures is to boost the number before the thousand separator, leaving the digits after it in place. Regardless, you shouldn't trust a population figure that isn't sourced.Cordless Larry (talk)23:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember, I am the one who's here to argue (!). The demographic increase you are criticizing is plausible, and in the news (where the IP might've well likely have gotten the info) the figures are often rounded (see for ecample theArabs in Belgium page, in the ib, the Moroccans, rounded to 500,000, cause it comes from the news. Also, I note that this 3000 increase figure is not something I used. It's just part of the argument you are making against that IP. I simply reported stuff like "411 Jordanians". Which, for the record, wasn't unsourced. It had sources but I forgot to add them, and it turned out the content wasn't verifiable within that source.Siggfried (talk)23:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Siggfried, since I opened this thread, you've added some sources to the list of notable people in the article. Thanks for that. However, the reference you'veadded for Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui contains the access date 20 December 2014, which is the same as the reference to the same source used atSidi Larbi Cherkaoui, suggesting that you've copied the reference across. Did you check the source when doing so? Because it doesn't mention Cherkaoui's ethnicity. You've been advised that you need to check that sources actually support what you're adding to articles, but you seem to be ignoring this despite all of the discussion here.Cordless Larry (talk)07:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry, I didn't check the source because: 1) I still think adding sources for a list (that I have compiled), where each entry is verifiable at their own articles, is a loss of time, as is this tread. I could've spent time doing something more fruitful within Wikipedia. 2) I know for a fact that Cherkaui is of Arabic (/Flemish) origin. The only instance when I don't check sources is when I know something for a fact and that that fact is widely verifiable, when I have to add them just officially like this. Adding sources to that list is already a loss of time IMO, so I try to speed up the process when I know something for certain.Siggfried (talk)09:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
If you think it's a waste of time to add sources, then leave it to someone else to do and certainly don't spend time adding sources without checking them. To do this now isdisruptive editing, which is creating additional work for other editors, who now have to check the sources and likely go through your other edits to see what else you've added to Wikipedia with non-verifying sources.Cordless Larry (talk)09:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone should really check your behavior, Timothy. What you are claiming is simply not true. I checked the sources myself and each shows the Belgian natives have Arabic origin. And this is after you targeted Arabic-articles I edited, claiming stuff like gamerAthene's article may not meet notability... But I think I already told you what I think of your approach.Siggfried (talk)10:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I said time and time again that for me adding sources is the most important thing. I was trying to say another thing, but whatever I say will be used by you or Timothy against me by cherry-picking some parts of it. That the editors go through my edits is probably what you wanted? And surely some of them will start deleting stuff like you did, while those in good faith may see faults where there isn't because this uncalled for section kind of makes me look like "the bad guy". At this point I don't know what to think: I said it many times already, there was no need to come at the administrators in the first place.Siggfried (talk)09:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I could've spent time doing something more fruitful within Wikipedia. Yes, you could. Like accepting policy on sourcing when it was pointed out to you rather than arguing about it here incessantly.Phil Bridger (talk)10:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger I accept those policies, I even made a statement here upon request. My only problem is with Larry's hastiness to turn to administrator and the start removing stuff from my articles with other editors they picked up here. And, their approach of not using templates. That's it. I already apologized for not having checked one source at the article.Siggfried (talk)10:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
lol you just now removed a bunch of failed V templates without explanation, and above you complain about editors not using templates? // Timothy :: talk10:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
They are not failed V. They verify that each entry is of Arabic origin. But you, in an attempt to undermine the article, have first claimed I need sources, now that I provided them, you aremaking an argument about the definition of Arabic. Basically, you want to change the whole system just to have it your way. But that's not how it works. I deleted your templates because they are preposterous. If you want to use templates, use it when you are deleting whole bunches of stuff as you did and are doing. What you are doing is: whatever Siggrfried has created: contest with templates when I am positive the content is correct and backed by sources, totally delete whenever I get the chance.Siggfried (talk)10:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Proposal
WP:V is not a negotiable point, it is a core policy. I believe Siggfried's responses above show they reject that core policy and have generally shown disdain for policy and guidelines. They also demonstrate problems with BATTLEGROUND, OWNERSHIP, and IDHT. The last part of their comment here[293] I believe shows they are here to win and argument and are NOTHERE. If an editor doesn't accept V and BURDEN, pretty much everything else is pointless to discuss.
Siggfried should be blocked until they acknowledge and accept WP:V and sourcing guidelines.
Not support. User A (Larry) has come directly to the administrators, first claiming problems with a page, then talking about behavioral issues. He then started to remove stuff from other articles I created. User B (Timothy) voiced their support for User A here and then started to delete stuff from my articles with User A. Now they proposes this. I have no problem acknowledging and accepting WP:V. In fact, I strongly support it. My problem is with the immediate removal of content that's not hoaxes or clearly absurd stuff from articles without the use of templates or at least discussion at talk page, especially when carried out by editors who are singling out and targeting a given editor (in this case me).
A view reinforced bythis comment, which represents a doubling-down on this view that it's fine to include unsourced figures even when it's been demonstrated that they're quite possibly unreliable. I didn't remove material because I "couldn't find the data in the sources", but rather because there were no sources cited.Cordless Larry (talk)23:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
To quote Larry:Siggfried, can you tell me where the figure for Iraqis appears in the source you've cited for it? I can't find it or some of the other figures you've used. (from Talk page Arabs in Belgium). Also, it's funny that you and Timothy both claimed I fail to get the point and I am here to win an argument, because to me it looks like you are doing everything to attack me. Timothy can go on with their scornful behavior (like calling my translations "translations" within commas) or claim things like I "disdain" policies as much he wants, but it is simply not true. I have some understanding of policies, I have never said or implied that adding unsourced stuff is OK. I even apologized for this at the Arabs in Belgium page (see talk page there). I simply claimed and insist that immediate and utter removal is not good. Not as good as using cn templates. I also claimed and insist that turning to the adminsitrators as quickly as Larry did, and for the reasons he did, is not ok.Siggfried (talk)23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
You currently have only 500 or so edits to the English-language Wikipedia. You are in no position to be the 'strongest supporter' of anything.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, well I have a feeling (based on being a Wikipedia contributor for a whole lot longer than you) that if you keep responding to every post in the argumentative manner you have been, you won't be here much longer.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't worry, I already planned my retirement. I even anticipated it earlier. It's jsut that I can't really stand this types of things, such as it's happening here.Siggfried (talk)23:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Note for the readers: Timothy has now started to remove stuff from Arabic-related articles I edited, such asBrahim Attaeb. These are not articles I created, just articles I edited passing by. I don't have them in my watchlist, I noticed it by chance. I don't know how many articles and how much stuff they removed. I reiterate that IMO, their approach or immediate deletion is not good. It's a loss for Wikipedia. They are not even attempting to find some sources themselves.Siggfried (talk)23:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@TimothyBlue can I just tell you that you are doing has given me disgust? You target all articles I edited, likeAnissa Blondin andBrahim Attaeb, just because they Arabic/Muslim related and I edited them. You removed material that is not doubtful or absurd, you didn't use any kind of templates.Siggfried (talk)00:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
You added a notability template to the articleAthene (gamer), which has20 sources just because I edited it, and the subject has a Muslim name and Arabic origin. Again, disgust, right in my stomach.Siggfried (talk)00:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the article fails to meet SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Mentions and promo material do not establish notability. Tagged and might its way to deletion. Needs more looking into which is why the tag says it "may not meet" instead of saying "does not meet". // Timothy :: talk00:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
You could have tried to provide sources, or, since you are targeting Arabic/Muslim related articles I edited, ask me about it. Attab's article is the least problem though. You deleted nearly all Blondin's article claiming stuff likeBLP with no citations, content should be restored only if properly referenced how can editors reference it if you deleted it forever? Further, you have added a notability template to an article (likewise Arabic-related and edited by myself) that has 23 sources.Siggfried (talk)00:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
"You could have tried to provide sources" - You could have provided sources if they existed. See WP:BURDEN.
"since you are targeting Arabic/Muslim related articles" - this is a PA, Admins please address this.
"claiming stuff like BLP with no citations, content should be restored only if properly referenced" - Not a claim, its BLP policy which you know and continue to pretend like it doesn't apply to you.
"how can editors reference it if you deleted it forever?" Untrue it is still there for any knowledgable editor to see and work with.
"you have added a notability template to an article (likewise Arabic-related and edited by myself)" - admins note, doubling down on PA.
"you have added a notability template to an article (PA omited) that has 23 sources." Notability is not determined by the number of references, but by the number of independent reliable sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. This is another example of you ignoring policy and guidelines even when you have been told.
Admins please address this: Timothy has joined another user (who opened this tread that wasundo because there was no disruption or anything like that, we were simply discussing at a talk page) and started to utterly delete stuff from articles I edited (after I complained precisely about this approach, almost as if: look, I will do exactly that), whose only thing they have in common is they are about Arabic/Muslim topics and were edited by myself. Some of Timothy's action are almost funny, like putting a notability template on gamerAthene (this guyFORBES,NBC,International Business Times) who has23 sources, enough of which address the subject in depth, and otherwise back each sentence in the article.Siggfried (talk)00:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
See reply above for response to adding notability tag. The PAs against other editors should be addressed as part of the close and any sanctions. // Timothy :: talk01:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support and request immediate action by admins. TheWP:V issue is bad enough, as it's a non-negotiable core policy, but the personal attacks and the claim above that they are retiring anyway means this thread has exhausted it's usefulness and is only a time-sink. 00:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Siggfried is now stating they are adding sources they have not checked because of their opinions. See above, diff:[295]. // Timothy :: talk09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
PLEAS READ CHECK THIS Timothy, after putting a possibly non-notable template on gamerAthene (23 sources), has started to disrupt the articleArabs in Belgium, using such a pedantry as claiming that somone of Algerian origin might be Berber and not Arab (!!!). To quote him:
Source says subject is Algerian, not Arab and not all Algerians are Arabs, eg: Berbers.
But this pedantic attempt to disrupt the article in any possible way is just ludicrous!Algeria is part of the Arab World, and that is what is meant by Arabic.Siggfried (talk)10:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Blocked. Enough. "Algeria is part of the Arab World, and that is what is meant by Arabic." is simply aWP:CIR problem, amongst anything else. Someone should probably AfDArabs in Belgium, since it uses a definition of "Arab" which is misleading (which means that the entries are effectively unsourced).Black Kite (talk)11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disregards WP policy in favour of whatever he believes to be appropriate (such as using Press Freedom Index to declare all Indian sources as unreliable[296][297] and "Indian State Sponsored Media"). RepeatedWP:IDHT[298] andWP:RGW. Personal attacks (accusing others of being "Hindu Nationalist editors and admins" after page was ECP protected to prevent edit warring[299]). Overall, quite clearlyWP:NOTHERE.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)12:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not fair. I am not trying to insert any controversial content into the article. Rather, I have pointed out that there does seem to now be legitimate questions being raised in the mainstream news about some aspects of controversies relating to the events of that day. I cited NBC news, not some crazy junk.Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk)16:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Khione123 appears to be a single-purpose account with aCOI dedicated to changing information on theAlex Roe page without any reliable sources. When confronted with warnings about the addition of unsourced content, the user gets defensive and tries to deflect from the matter at hand. I have attempted to talk to this user to explain policies regarding sources and COI, to no avail, so I feel that it is time for others to step in with their thoughts about what should happen here, whether it be a sanction or nothing at all. Here is a link to the user talk discussion that I have had with the user atUser talk:Khione123.JeffSpaceman (talk)23:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
No problem, and that's ok! Sometimes we forget about notifying others about discussions. Now for the CIR concerns; I'll follow up with abriefing response shortly!TailsWx01:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright, here we go. First things first, this is thefirst edit the user makes. Right off the bat, the edit summary states "Fixed typo". Fixed typo? Anyway, this is connected to the user's first response to JeffSpaceman's warning,here, where they stateI've known Alex since we was little kids and I'm his ex girlfriend and childhood best friend no one kknows Alex apart from me. Yeah, that's aCOI. Next two edits onAlex Roe:[301] and[302]. Once again, inaccurate edit summaries were presented in both instances. This, along with the replies JeffSpaceman has stated above, it's pretty clear there's aCIR and a COI concern over Khione123. And in all of the edits Khione123 has made to mainspace, not a single claim was sourced. Though, for action, I would support a partial block for Khione123 on the articleAlex Roe as they have a big problem with that article.TailsWx01:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All ofUser:David Odusanya's edits to theAfrobeats article have revolved around the removal of sourced content. In these edits (edit 1,edit 2 andedit 3) he made to the article, he cited "fixed grammar" as the reason for his edits in the edit summary. After seeing his bogus edits to the page, I decided to leavethis note on his talk page. Inthis edit, he responded to the message I left on his talk page and insulted me. I leftthis note on his talk page, telling him that I would report him the next time he vandalize the article and insult me. On 3/24/23, heedited the article once more, removing the same sourced material he previously removed. Another user, who previously restored the info he removed, ended up restoring the info he removed once more. Inthis edit to his talk page, he insulted me once more, this time with more malice. Versace1608Wanna Talk?00:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Usage of offensive and bigoted language on Talk Page by 140.213.147.112
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP blocked. Please let me know if you would like the comments on your talkpagerevdelled. And if the user resumes the abuse from another IP, just ping me if I'm around or ask any admin to have your page temporarily semi-protected. Sorry, that you had to face such abuse.Abecedare (talk)03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't personally find it that abusive. It definitely took me by complete surprise, but I've been bullied in person for so long when I was in school that online insults barely scratch me anymore. That being said, if it happens again, I'll be sure to ping you. I'll probably put this in some not-so-secret archive so I can look back on it. Might not though, haven't really decided
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently there is a dispute between Nabongo and Spotts for who is the first black woman to travel to all counties in the world. From what I can tell,User:Universalsunset seem determined to make a statement on the article aboutJessica Nabongo that she was the second woman to do so and bend the article about Nabongo in favor of Spotts without proper citations. From the talk page ofUser:Universalsunset it seems that the user has tried to push through articles stating Spotts as first. I have no problem with the Nabongo article stating she is second, if there is a reputable source declaring her so. I do have a problem thatUser:Universalsunset is doing destructive edits falsely claiming "promotional edits". This clearly shows the user does not understand Wikipedia policy. The user is also quite new to Wikipedia judging by their contributions so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I tried to remove the citation "CORRECTION: Jessica Nabongo will be the second black woman after Woni Spotts to travel to every country in the world if she achieves her goal." because it is based on a report for which the source is explicitly stated as being Spotts herself. My edit has been reverted twice without discussion.
After having reviewed all the citations in the article I could not find a single citation stating that Nabongo was declared second (except for an article starting with "CORRECTION: ..." which is based on a report by Spotts herself). I edited the articleJessica Nabongo to state that both Nabongo and Spotts claimed to be first and also mentioned the dispute. My edit was reverted.
I tried to add that Nabongo authored a book whichUser:Universalsunset has deemed twice as promotional and reverted my edits.
I have tried to add factual details about Nabongo's book (the actual title and the publisher), but my edits have been reverted twice.
tried removing all controversial text about the dispute only adding Nabongo as an author, my edit was completely reversed.
Does it matter who was the first black woman to travel to every country (or, for that matter, who was the first white man, or blue non-binary person)? This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records.Phil Bridger (talk)20:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Insertion of self-published source into multiple articles - "Holroyd-Doveton"
Keeping history alive(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and before themDovetonpoots1and2(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) have been inserting references toHolroyd-Doveton, John (2013).Maxim Litvinov: A Biography. Woodland Publications.ISBN978-0957296107. andHolroyd-Doveton.History of the Young Conservatives. into multiple articles (my first quick scan indicates about 20) about figures likeAnthony Eden,Neville Chamberlain,Georgy Chicherin,Ivan Maisky, etc. The sources are self-published and not as far as I can seeWP:RS. The insertions go back a number of years, so can't be easily undone owing to intervening edits. So, 1) this looks like a long-term spam attempt, 2) these are not obscure articles about obscure people, they are some of the most significant figures of the 20th Century and we seem to have a significant, long-term, sourcing problem - I haven't looked at them all but Chamberlain is a Featured Article.
I would ask, 1) has anyone dealt with this particular source before, have there been any other accounts adding this author? 2) What's the best way to go about cleaning up? I do have to go out for the afternoon, but will be back online this evening, British time. Thanks.DuncanHill (talk)12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
They certainly look non-RS, andMaxim Litvinov: A Biography has some bad amazon reviews, which is about the only reviews I can find. I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects to start pulling prose willy-nilly, but anything that can easily be undone probably should be. On a final note, any edit with the summaryadding useful info from respectable & legitimate sources isnot adding info from a respectable and legitimate source.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)12:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I am working closely with the author of Maxim Litvinov and he kindly asked me to add the excerpts. I checked all sources before submitting but if you aren't happy to approve them then that's fair enough.Keeping history alive (talk)12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I've also noticed this source (Maxim Litvinov: A Biography) being frequently cited inMaxim Litvinov, which I recently copy-edited for a requester at theGOCE Requests page. Source-checking is not something I generally involve myself with during the c/e process but I shall notify the requester of this thread. The article did seem rather laudatory to me. Cheers,Baffle☿gab15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I have found a brief biography of the author:After a successful legal career John Holroyd-Doveton resumed his schoolboy passion in history in obtaining his Open university degree, he was required to write a dissertation, choosing as his subject a defence of Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement before the Second World War. This sparked a fascination in Litvinov and after meeting Litvinov’s daughter Tanya it increased his determination to write this biography of the only prominent communist politician to have an English wife.
I would recommend that this is taken toWP:RSN to gain wider, unbiased consensus on whether the book is aWP:RS. My feeling is that it is not, for the reasons I stated above.CatfishJim and the soapdish10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I encountered the account in question while checking talk pages. I am suspicious of it because the person behind it attempted to impersonate adminGirth Summit. So far, when I checked their contributions, they seemed to be in good-faith. However, due to the attempted impersonation, I think that they might be a sleeper account. I could leave a message about their username with {{Uw-username}}, but I don't like the thought of having to assume good faith with an account that turns out to be a sock. I think watching over them would be the best course of action for now.ZoeTrentFan🎤💍22:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely. Yes, I consider this to be "impersonation" rather than "resemblance," so I went with a hard block rather than a soft one.El_C23:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Highly inappropriate language and attitude
I am not yet very familiar with all the acronyms or other tools used on WP, so I will say it mostly in plain English. I wish to reportUser:MarshallBagramyan for presumptious, highly insulting, rude, ethnically and nationally hateful, and ethnic POV speech (starting with “Official Turkish talking points will not fly here.”) in her/his last reply toUser:Hudavendigar (Murat) in the first topic (“On Primary Sources”) of the current Talk page of the Burning of Smyrna article,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_of_Smyrna. This particular topic was closed after that reply. When I first noticed this, I was more concerned about explaining my edits to an editor, so I let it go for the time being. Apparently, no one else has noticed or cared, although, in my view, this should have been reported long ago. I notice that the person in question is a long-timer on WP, but that does not excuse the language nor the attitude. I have also noticed in her/his replies toUser:Utku Öziz,User:Hudavendigar, andUser:BitikciKebbenek, all very civil in their talks, that s/he acts like the sole authority on how it all works as well as what references and scholars are acceptable in an article, using that as an excuse to delete edits not to her/his liking. Therefore, I wish to add “intimidation” to my report. WP:RS says that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”, and thereforeUser:MarshallBagramyan cannot be an authority (let alone the sole authority) unless he can prove, not just talk, that published sources are not reliable.70.164.212.36 (talk)00:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This IP has some strict criteria regardling who they will accept in dealing with this, you can find their criteria here[303]. So unless you can atest to your ethinic and religious background, you might be rejected as biased (I apparently pass, but Robert McClendon did not).
There history will show more, but I believe the above should be considered in evidence of a DE NOTHERE block. // Timothy :: talk01:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
For a timeline break down of this IPs actions in the last 8 weeks or so for everyone else. They edited with an disruptive ethnic POV in a contentious area under DS. They then went to DRN (see link above for DRN thread) and attempted to apply a religious/ethnic POV litmus test to volunteers attempting to help them at DRN[309]. They started an ill-advised thread at the teahouse (see above for link), accusing everyone who has disagreed with them of being "paid propagandists" and sockpuppets. They were notified of discretionary sanctions in that area (User talk:70.164.212.36#Introduction to contentious topics). They ended up blocked for a week[310] for disruptive editing. And since returning from their block nearly a month ago have evinced some seriousWP:BATTLE andWP:IDHT mentality, being completely unwilling orunable to drop the stick. They were advised by multiple editors to return to some constructive editing, preferably in an area not under DS. They have not. Now we are here.Heiro01:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for a month on the basis of that set of ethnically-bigoted conditions for interaction. That kind of thing is entirely unacceptable, and renders the person behind the IP incapable of applying unbiased editorial judgment.Acroterion(talk)02:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Myself and a few others opined the same thing a month ago when they got their week long block for DS. I was hoping to be proved wrong when they returned, but personally did not think that would actually happen. Since then they have shown an increasing inability to drop the stick, obsessing over this one issue (see every edit they made since their boock expired, it's literally every single edit). They display a serious ethnic/religious POV and areWP:NOTHERE for anything else. We'll see what they say ina month, if they return. But I do not see them changing at all.Heiro03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I asked if Turkey fell under e-e and was told no. Honestly, I think we need a Continuous Topics for Turkey. I'm tempted to put together a Community Sanctions request but it would take a whileEvergreenFir(talk)05:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Whereas I asked ArbCom to create a single unified Western Asia DS/CT that would encompass Turkey alongsideWP:KURDS,WP:AA3, andWP:ARBIRP, and was also told no. I specifically mentioned Turkey as the principal gap alongside those three sanction regimes. I don't remember if I also includedWP:BALKANS (WP:ARBEE), as well, but I don't think I did (though I should have). I'd support aWP:GS, though, so please ping me if and or when that is proposed.El_C06:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If one was on the table, I'd support it. But I'm not really sure it will deter this editor in any way. They have not once shown they understand wikipolicy (although for a very new editor they make a big show of trying to explain them badly to everyone else and how every one else is in error), or that they could in any way have been the one violating it themselves. From the get go they have called everyone who disagrees with them an assorted variety of PAs, the most often used being "paid propagandists" or insinuating everyone is a sock. They double down on it in their current unblock request, accusing TimothyBlue of either being a sockpuppet or a member of a cabal of "good old boys" aligned against them. I do not think this person is ready for Wikipedia. I think the only thing that will deter this editor is to be shown the door.Heiro07:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I would have never thought Turkey wasn’t covered under e-e. I'm not versed in the Byzantine world AE, but it seems that Turkey is at the intersection of so many AE areas that state are “Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic.”, it is strange that Turkey is not covered. I don’t see how Eastern Europe broadly construed could omit Turkey, seems like a hole that needs filling or at least clarification, I can't be the only one under this misimpression. AE needs to be much more layman friendly in their information. // Timothy :: talk07:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I also wouldn't include Turkey (generally) under EE, and not all of Turkey articles under Kurds (although quite a few are going to make it in).
I'm neutral on Turkey having a GS/CT category in terms of need (I could well imagine it's in that wheelhouse), but while having distinct GS/CT categories for everything would make what is already a bureaucracy nightmare worse, the opposite also eliminates the possibility of nuance when limiting individuals or areas. It's a spectrum of suitability and ease.Nosebagbear (talk)10:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The point is that there's all this overlap with these sanction regimes, that may include Turkey—on the GS front also includingWP:SCW—but serious gaps still remain. Gaps that continue to present themselves with some regularity.El_C14:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you again, I'm just trying to clarify the legitimacy of a technique. I made a complaint about a user back in February[311] The jist was:
Today I saw that the user <user name>, after being knocked back in a failed RfC on[312] (they were directed to theMarxist cultural analysis article as an alternate place to edit) they immediately created a merge for that page (Marxist cultural analysis aimed merging it with the much broader topic ofCulture studies) - in order to, I presume, get rid of the obstacle/argument by merging the article. This manipulation seems to be part of their ongoing project to revive 'Cultural Marxism' as having currency or modern political relevance.
I came here to ask about this er... tactic, because I've just reverted similar on the page forCultural Bolshevism, where they performed a merger without discussion, then slashed the merged content by half. This is a topic related to Cultural Marxism (just as Marxist Cultural Analysis is), and my original complaint was that they were attempting toWP:OWN the topic area. I see they're also active in a large range of culture war topics (stemming from GamerGate), and I fear they may have done similar types of... "vandalism?" elsewhere. So is this sort of thing approved on Wikipedia? Or does this warrant keeping an eye on this user? Like I say, last time I asked I didn't get a response, probably because the discussion was flooded with walls of text from involved editors (as things related to "Cultural Marxism" tend to be). Any response by someone who might know is appreciated.220.235.229.181 (talk)09:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Making good faith merge proposals is not a "tactic", nor have I been "caught" doing it as has been implied. On the other hand, starting an ANI thread "just trying to clarify" without notifying me is certainly atactic.
This Australian IP has been taking it on themsevles to drop by my talk page every few months to tell me what a horrible editor I am.
Their latest move is undoing a merge that I closed and completed 8 months ago. After doing some light reorganization atDegenerate art, I thought it would be improved by mergingCultural Bolshevism into it. There were several comments 2-3 years old on theTalk:Cultural Bolshevism of other editors also thinking it was too short or ought to be merged.
I completely followed the steps atWP:MERGEPROP. I closed it after a week without discussion perWP:MERGECLOSEAny user, including the user who first proposed the merger, may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Any procedural grounds for undoing the merge are completely spurious.
The IP says I deleted half the content. If they had bothered to start with the talk page instead of ANI I could have told them the half they're looking for is in the section "Weimar reactionism". After I copied the text, I refactored it according to chronology or theme. The combined article is a complete treatment that is better than either article standing alone. Backing out the Bolshevism content from Degenerate art at this point should be a non-starter.
It is unclear what the IP wants the content to look like. They have not discussed the content at all. The sole issue they have raised is that I am the person who did the merge. They've also taken to casting aspersions on my essay talk page.[313]
I have resisted calling for boomerangs before, because I'd rather focus on content, but there's really no content position in play at this point. The IP is simply pursuing a vendetta against me, trying to disrupt or obstruct things just because of my involvement. Please make them stop.Sennalen (talk)04:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The IP is being unduly aggressive, but at the same time... the article had previously survived both AFD and another merge request (to a different target, but nonetheless, discussion shows a fairly strong consensus both times that it was worth its own article.) I do think you were overly-hasty to merge after no replies;WP:CCC, but concluding that a consensus of numerous editors has been overturned byWP:SILENCE is fairly bold, so I think it's worth slowing down once someone objects, even a while later. Normally when a discussion like that doesn't get enough replies, there are places you can poke to attract more discussion. --Aquillion (talk)07:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In 2015 a mergewith Cultural Marxism was rejected. I'm sure you can appreciate how that's a different can of worms than simply the general concept of a merge. It seems most people only care when the culture war is involved. Silence seemed enough when the only talk page activity in the prior two years was a comment the article was too short and someone suggesting a merge toArt in Nazi Germany.Sennalen (talk)12:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Silence is only consensus until someone objects - in this case someone did. You might have been justified in doing the initial merge, but you weren't when you started reverting to preserve it.MrOllie (talk)12:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I think going up to 2 reverts was entirely warranted given the history of IP and the lack of any real reason in the edit summaries.
Now the IP has the wider discussion they wanted, so the question is whether anyone actually has something to discuss about the content.Sennalen (talk)12:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
What parts of discussing someone's approach to editing do you consider to constitute personal attacks? Honestly, I've only come back here because my question wasn't clarified the first time, and I saw further evidence of the pattern of behaviour I was asking about. Hey, block me if that along with discussing someone's editing philosophy on a user talk page isn't allowed here.194.223.44.220 (talk)04:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Their other edits indicate that this was not a result of technical incompetence or network/device issues. Worse, the editor has used the newly acquired ECP right to edit-war at EC-protected and in-the-news article,Rahul Gandhi, potentially violatingWP:3RR. For now, I'll drop a 3RR warning on their talkpage and inform them that they are looking at a topic-ban from Indian politics, or other sanctions, unless such disruptive conduct stops.Abecedare (talk)02:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it technically possible to withdraw the user's ill-gotten extended-confirmed status,Abecedare? Though I actually think they're a hairs-breadth away from an indef.Bishonen |tålk03:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC).
I believe I have removed the ec status, which I don't think the user should get to keep despite the apology below. Then I restored the confirmed status, which had unexpectedly disappeared with the ec and which I had not intended to remove. Could you please check if it looks right, Abe and Slywriter? And I'll just mention, re the "relatively new editor" statement below, that the user has been here for six years.Bishonen |tålk04:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC).
Looks good to me. As both of us advisedon CrusaderForTruth2023's talkpage, the editor will hopefully use the ECP-free time to familiarize themselves with wikipedia's content policies and practices, which they missed learning about in their rush to get ECPed confirmed by making meaningless edits to boost the edit-count. Unless someone else has something to add, I suppose this ANI report can be closed as resolved for now.Abecedare (talk)04:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I do tender unconditional apology for my actions if they might have caused any harm to anyone. Although I would like to clarify that I have never engaged in editing without clear source or tried to violate any WP in my edits.
Still, being a relatively new editor, I do solicit guidance in editing Wikipedia so it would be helpful if messages are left on my Talkpage regarding any problematic action I might have did (I will surely acknowledge the same and revert back with justification or not try to do the same action again).
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
89.253.73.146(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is an IP user who is pretty clearlyWP:NOTHERE, with a long history of posting rambling, long-winded rants on the talk pages of politically contentious articles. Often these have unambiguously inflammatory or non-neutral titles. They almost never make edits in any other place or way.Dronebogus (talk)12:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The problems are (1) they edit very sporadically; (2) they almost never edit article space; and (3) because of the nature of their edits and the fact that they edit article Talk space, they are almost never warned. Nonetheless, I agree with you. If they were a named user, they would be blocked as NOTHERE, so I've blocked them for one year.--Bbb23 (talk)13:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not an admin, but to be honest a threat to edit war using sockpuppets would seem to require just slightly more action than a topic ban (which would clearly be breached quickly, resulting in further drama). —Trey Maturin™16:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incompetent editor
Blocked per WP:CIR. I would encourageDinomarek to work on the Wikipedia project in their native language. Many of the articles they were interested in could possibly be translated and incorporated into other wikis. -Ad Orientem (talk)13:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user's modus is hard to describe, but most of their edits center around feathered dinosaurs. They often use poor grammar and improperly formatted citations (seehere andhere for a huge bunch). They also misrepresented sources, (this one rewrites a passage so that it claims the opposite of what the source says about a dinosaur's bone anatomy, andthis one obfuscates the wording to hide the fact that the study doubted that a certain dinosaur was semi-aquatic), added long rants oforiginal research/commentary to support their claims (likethis), and engage in slow edit warring to add their claims in slightly different language each time. Unlike most problematic editors, this one communicates, but theirtalk pageposts are often incomprehensible and often consist of copy-pasted content (including from copyrighted scientific papers, which I believe is due to them not being a native speaker of English;one reply somehow contains a reply button labeled "odpowiedz", which is Polish); the editor alsoforum-shops (they have postedthesameexactrant on four different talk pages). Several edits also appear to bebiased against the presence of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs, which has been the scientific consensus since 1996 (seehere,here andhere). This write-up may not do it justice, but it is getting really difficult to deal with this editor, especially the slow edit war they've been waging onHalszkaraptor for more than a week now (although, to be clear, that was not a personal attack). I think this editor should be blocked for incompetence, unclear communication, POV-pushing, or whatever you may find troublesome about them.Atlantis536 (talk)15:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to talk about the content issues but the standard of English does not appear to be compatible with editing on en.WP.WP:CIR would seem to apply.CatfishJim and the soapdish17:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dinomarek I am not inclined to block you, for now. But I am deeply concerned about your command of English. This is an English language encyclopedia and a reasonable level of competency is needed to contribute effectively. I would suggest that you try editing atSimple English Wikipedia while you improve your language skills. I am afraid they are simply not up to our standards for this site. That may change in the future. But for now that would be my suggestion. While that is not a firm do not edit here, if you chose to ignore this advice I am afraid you will end up being blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk)20:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm... That's a fair point. @Dinomarek I'm not sure what to tell you except that your editing is not up to our standards and is borderline disruptive. I do not like blocking obviously well-intentioned editors, but you need to work on your English skills. If this doesn't improve, at some point you are going to end up having your editing rights either revoked or severely restricted. -Ad Orientem (talk)01:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for intervention in Disclose.tv AfD dispute
I respectfully request administrator intervention in the ongoing Disclose.tv article and AfD project page dispute. Despite my civil approach and citing policies likeWP:NPOV andWP:UNDUE, I have encountered hostility, personal attacks, and uncooperative behavior from some editorshere. SpecificallyIsi96 andOrestesLebt.
These editors have repeatedly dismissed policy-based arguments, resorting toad hominem attacks and questioning my motives, despite my clear denial and transparency. This hostile environment hinders collaboration and our ability to reach a policy-compliant article.
I believe these actions violate the following policies:
WP:NPA: Personal attacks, such as selective rule application or false accusations, are not allowed. Ad hominem attacks and focusing on the editor rather than content contradict Wikipedia's guidelines.
WP:CIVIL: Wikipedia expects civility and respect from all editors. Cherry-picking rules or misrepresenting violations to target another editor is uncivil and goes against the collaborative environment promoted by Wikipedia.
WP:HARASS: Repeatedly targeting an editor by selectively applying rules or falsely accusing them of violations could be considered harassment, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia.
WP:DE: Misrepresenting policy violations or selectively applying rules to target editors can be seen as disruptive editing, which interferes with collaboration and may result in sanctions or bans.
The recurring pattern of hostility and similar disruptive behavior among these editors raises concerns about possible collusion or coordination, and I believe that too deserves attention.
Though time is limited, I strive to contribute positively to Wikipedia when possible. I kindly ask for an administrator's review and guidance in resolving this issue and fostering a collaborative editing environment. Whatever the decision of the administration team, I will be happy to oblige. Thank you.
I will note that DiamondPuma previously repeatedly tried to delete the Disclose.tv article, for which they received awarning from an admin that they have since removed. They have also kept spamming the deletion discussion with long walls of text, and most of their edits are in relation to the Disclose.tv article.
Also, I have no coordination with OrestesLebt (the deletion discussion is the first time I have encountered them).Isi96 (talk)02:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you resort to personal attacks rather than engaging in content discussions. The Disclose.tv deletion issue has been previously resolved by administrators, I archived the discussion. Attempts to label me as an SPA or misrepresent my words for a COI case raise concerns about your intentions. Disregarding my thorough, evidence-based responses as "walls of text" in combination with your other actions may reflect a reluctance to address the actual ideas. Why?DiamondPuma (talk)15:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, I never had any interaction that I know of with any of the editors involved in the AFD discussion nor with the article itself prior to adding my opinion and questions.OrestesLebt (talk)05:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be contentiouswikilawyering on both sides. On 21 March,User:Isi96 filed a request atDRN to discuss sources that were reliable and would support keeping the article. DRN does not discuss a matter that is pending in another Wikipedia forum, including adeletion discussion, and the filing editor was told to discuss in the deletion discussion. The closer for thisdeletion discussion should be prepared for an appeal toDeletion Review. I don't know why this AFD is so contentious, but its contentiousness is a fact.Robert McClenon (talk)06:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, the consensus on the deletion discussion seems to be in favour of keeping the article, from what I can see. It's just one editor who keeps spamming in walls of text in the deletion discussion.
I believe they previously commented as an IP on the article's talk page, under the "Attribution as fake news" section.Isi96 (talk)07:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I haven't had an account before, my only interaction with the Disclose.tv article before my AfD wasthis topic on the talk page. I created the account because you can't request deletion without one.
Frankly: I have no idea why this whole deletion discussion has caused two separate dispute resolutions. For me it was just weird to see an article this strongly worded for what comes down to a news aggregator (nowadays), which then turned to be out based on mostly one article. I've seen been convinced that the amount of sources isn't an issue for an article to exist, so by me it would be fine to end the deletion discussion now if it means this silliness stops...SenorCar (talk)17:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It's noteworthy that I'm not the sole editor providing detailed responses or supporting deletion. The nominating account SenorCar, has also raised a thorough opening case for deletion. Misrepresenting my comprehensive responses as spam, furthermore raises questions about your reluctance to address the points raised.DiamondPuma (talk)15:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
A thread I started at the BLP noticeboard has beenarchived. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created several BLPs consisting almost entirely of unsourced contentious information (seeSamuela Matakibau as an example of one which was outright deleted as a G10). I was hoping more eyes (especially from adminstrators who likely have more experience dealing with situations like this) would be useful. I strongly suggest reading the thread and other linked conversations there to understand the underlying context.Clovermoss🍀(talk)04:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
In fairness and upon closer look, Davidcannon's last contribution was early Feb. The list in that thread may be of import, though, and perhaps a dedicated subpage would work better.El_C05:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for manually unarchiving the BLP noticeboard thread, I wasn't aware that I was allowed to do that. Biographies of dead people have similar issues too, I just tried to keep it relevant to that noticeboard so I wouldn't say my list is complete. Some article subjects have died since article creation (seeEsala Teleni as an example of what I mean). Davidcannon does seem to edit intermittently (even if the last one was early Feb) so I was hoping that maybe they'd see the talk page messages and participate in some sort of cleanup or offer their thoughts about all of this. Maybe I'll hear something in a few months? I do find it concerning that an admin has created content that was described in the previous thread as being redaction-worthy if a new editor did it.Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Clovermoss, no problem. Not sure if you'd be allowed to do it (probably yes), but as an uninvolved admin, I definitely am. Though, again, maybe a subpage dedicated to cleanup from that list would be better. You might also consider contacting ArbCom about this, as such editing likely falls short of the expectations from an administrator, even though no admin tools were used (that I gathered). I'm afraid that I haven't reviewed the material closely enough to comment further beyond that general advise and note.@The Wordsmith,Ritchie333, andIdiotSavant: courtesy pings.El_C06:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I've also mirrored the list onWikipedia talk:WikiProject Fiji#BLPs created by User:Davidcannon, so hopefully they'll get some attention. If they're tagged for cleanup in WikiProject Fiji, then Imight get round to them (I'm gradually working my way down the list there, though also focusing on quick jobs and deferring bigger ones).
Referencing standards do seem to have been lower in the past; possibly the problem is that these articles haven't seen the improvement that other areas of wikipedia have received.--IdiotSavant (talk)08:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A spot check of those articles and I didn’t find any Davidcannon had touched in years. And, yes, in 2005 standards were way different (and lower).Courcelles (talk)09:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It's true that pretty much all of their article creations are years old even if some of them are way more recent than 2005. I just think that if I were in their shoes and standards had drastically changed for something I spent the majority of my time here doing and I was still editing... I'd just try to do something about it. Maybe that's just me. I'm mostly just concerned about the BLP implications right now. Not everything is terrible, I mentioned that at the BLPN thread. That's why I mentioned that it was important to look at the context here. I also appreciate all thatIdiotSavant has been doing. As for the dedicated subpage, maybe that'd work or get more eyes than the one at WikiProject Fiji? Or everything could just be centralized there. The only reason I figured out these articles existed was because I was trying to organizeCategory:All unreferenced BLPs in mysandbox.Clovermoss🍀(talk)10:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@El C: I haven't seen any evidence of tool misuse from an adminstrative standpoint although I suppose I'm not really qualified to make that decision. The redaction-worthy content if a new editor did it was a reference to2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial[323]. But that was 2004. In general I like to think of admins as people who are experienced in current Wikipedia policy and someone I'd look up to. Having an article exist like this for almost two decades doesn't meet my definition of that but other editors may draw that line elsewhere. I'm not sure what ArbCom could realistically do in this situation, though. I doubt it'd be actionable from that perspective.Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Clovermoss, oh, I thought some of these were created or significantly contributed to by Davidcannon at least in the 2010s. But if they were all created around 2005 (the year I became an admin), then I'd agree with whatCourcelles said wrt admin expectations (within reason, depending on the severity of the violations, obviously). I dunno, maybe there's pages I created or significantly contributed to that also suffer from serious problems by 'modern' BLP standards — I don't think that's the case, but it is a possibility. In any case, I think repairing BLP problems should be the priority.El_C15:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Kinda not really. It's a long list of pages with no dates or diffs/excerpts with the accompanying violations attached, so it's hard for me to tell atm. But it seems more folks than myself are familiar with these issues, so as things stand, I'll probably leave to them for the time being.El_C15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy ping. As the deleting admin for those two articles, I can confirm that I didn't see any evidence of tool misuse or anything like that. I do think it would be a good idea (when this thread is closed) to notify Davidcannon that these articles are far out of line with current BLP standards (though 2005-2007 standards were much looser) and new articles can't be created like that, and request that if he decides to create new articles or do content work in the future to make sure he brushes up on modern standards. I don't think going to Arbcom or taking disciplinary action here would have any real preventative purpose, as long as there are no new issues. I'm more concerned with the amount of cleanup that has to be done, and hopefully we can get some sort of group effort going to review these articles and source or delete them (though from what I understand, political events in Fiji have caused a number of sources to be permanently lost and unrecoverable so sourcing might be difficult).The WordsmithTalk to me17:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@El C: I could be more thorough if you'd be interested. I took a quick glance at each of their 600+ article creations around the time I started the BLPN thread. The vast majority are just basic uncontroversial stubs of Fijian politicians. But it's mixed in with some articles that focus almost exclusively on the subject's wrongdoing or investigation from the nation (like the G10 mentioned above andLaisa Digitaki). I can't see the deleted content anymore because I'm not an admin, but I remember those being quite bad. My concern, like yours, is pritorizing cleaning up the BLP violations. iirc, a lot of these articles in their current state wouldn't meetWP:NCRIME. I posted here after the BLPN thread was archived because The Wordsmith suggested ANI as a possible course of action when I was first showing them the problems I had identified with these article creations. As forWillem Ouweneel, if a new editor had submitted this through the modern AfC process[325], it likely would be declined. I think 2015 standards were a bit higher than that, but as I said, the bulk of their creations are from 2004-2007. So my concerns are broad and mostly that articles written about people aren't up to current policy standards (whether that's BLP violations or notability).Clovermoss🍀(talk)15:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Well since it doesn't really seem like ANI is the best place for this specific situation, maybe this should be closed now that the BLPN thread has been unarchived? I just didn't want my concerns to go unaddressed.Clovermoss🍀(talk)18:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's a list of all Davidcannon's creations in case it's helpful. With no new articles since 2015, there's probably no need for any sanctions at the moment, but obviously we'll have a problem if there are more BLP issues in future. Note that since he isn't autopatrolled, any new articles willnow go through NPP, which will at least provide an extra set of eyes. (Oh, and thank you, Clovermoss, for your watchfulness here.)Extraordinary Writ (talk)00:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Brian K. Tyler is edit warring to add original research toAlice in Wonderland (2010 film). WikiProject Film typically depends on two review aggregators:Metacritic andRotten Tomatoes. When they disagree on the consensus of a film, sometimes editors want to flat out ignore the aggregator that disagrees with their own personal interpretations. I've been trying to crack down on this behavior lately. This has particularly been a recurring problem onAlice in Wonderland (see, for example,this edit,this edit, andthis edit). Some editors have even argued that "rotten" doesn't mean "negative" onthe talk page. I tried to compromise with these editors bysaying "rotten" instead of "negative". However, not even this is enough for some editors. Brian K. Tyler has argued toignore what the source says and just call it "mixed". I have explained to him thatthis not how it works, and the source does not need to be interpreted by editors. He has once againedited the article to add his own original research to the article and remove what the cited source says. I'm requesting that an uninvolved administrator partially block him from this article.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)02:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I did not mean to remove any sources. I was just moving that detailed information from one section to the other on the same page, because other articles on movies don’t normally mention critic aggregator sites on each of theirbasic info sections. They just leave it on the "Critical Reception" sections.
Sextus Caedicius is being a little disingenuous here (unintentionally, I'm sure). The comment he alludes to went un-noticed by myself as although a response and question to me he didn't ping me, and inserted it in the middle of an ongoing discussion so Imissed it and genuinely thought that conversation had dried up on the talk page, hence removal of the template. Once Sextus Caedicius alerted me to the comment I instantly went back and responded - so it's a bit unfair to say that I'm "[refusing] to seek further consensus" when in fact there seems to be a deadlock of editors supporting insertion, and those against it.This incident was openedafter I responded to him on the talk page, so it's clear that I am in fact conversing with him. Let's note that in this month Sextus Caedicius could have always reached out and either made another comment to the talk page, or assumed I'd left the conversation, beenbold and removed the term to see if that prompted a reaction - which is exactly what I did. Given that (as Sextus Caedicius says) there had been over a month with what I saw as no further comments it seemed to have stabilised.
Additionally it's a bit of (and the irony is rich here) a contentious label and loaded term to say that I'm refusing to seek further consensus. Where has that been shown? Where have I refused to do such a thing? From reading the section the exact same term could be levelled at Sextus Caedicius and all other editors on the talk page.
This is a content dispute, and I see no reason why it should have been raised here.Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, or possibly evenWP:3O as the other contributors seem to have backed off, but I don't actually see any transgressions that require admin input - apart from perhapsthis edit from Sextus Caedicius where he all but accuses me of bad faith editing without bothering to check the article first to see where the quote came from.
El_C - given that both Sextus Caedicius and I quote from it in our discussion, I'd say so:unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject,in which case use in-text attribution - criteria which is met. The article contains multiple sources and quotes confirming his worldwide status as a terrorist.
This discussion is about use of the term "terrorist" in the lede of the article. It has multiple uses and sources in the body of the article, and as the lede is intended to summarise the body of the article, there is no reason not to include it. Whether other articles do so or not isWP:OTHER, and a discussion for those particular articles.Chaheel Riens (talk)08:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Can this report be closed as a misunderstanding (it seems that Chahiel Riens missed the comment on the talk page by Sextus Caedicius, and that was misinterpreted) with discussion of the content issue continuing on the talk page? I don't see any benefit in continuing here.Phil Bridger (talk)10:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is my first visit to AN, so bear with me. I believe I am in the right place, but if I am wrong, please tell me the appropriate venue for filing something like this. With that said..
Recently there was anRFC at theEyferth study article. For multiple reasons, I believe the close of the RFC was improper and against procedure. I'll list the reasons first and then go into greater detail:
1.) The editor who closed the RFC,User: LokiTheLiar wasWP:INVOLVED, and therefore should not have performed the close
2.) In his closing, userUser:LokiTheLiar stated that he discounted !votes of users who were eitherWP:MEATPUPPETS orWP:SPA's or users with "very few edits". This normally would not be a problem, however there were a large number of users who were labeled as SPA's (by another editor), who were neither meatpuppets, nor SPA's as I shall show below.
In regards to Loki being WP:INVOLVED, in his close, Loki uses apast RFC regarding Race and Intelligence as part of his reasoning. However,Loki himself was involved in the RFC in question. According toWP:INVOLVED, editors shouldnever close a discussion where they created ornon-trivially contributed to the object under discussion. I realize this may be a judgement call, however there certainly is an appearance of impropriety.
In regards to Loki discounting !votes from SPA's and MEATPUPPETS, the problem is much more serious. Roughly 15 minutes before the close of the RFC, another editor,user:Generalrelative,incorrectlylabeled several accounts as SPA's. Loki took this labeling into account when making his vote count.Every !vote that was removed/discounted byuser:LokiTheLiar was an !include vote.None of the !exclude votes were discounted. Now, I am not accusinguser:Generalrelative of bad faith, this is more aWP:CIR problem. Iattempted -severaltimes - to explain to Generalrelative that by adding a "/64" to the URL for IP user contributions,he could then see all the contributions for that particular user. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand what I was getting at, and continued to revert me. Eventually I gave up and allowed him to leave the SPA tag, even though the accounts were NOT SPAs. They all either had well over `100 edits in multiple topic areas, or had been around for several years with few or one edit to the topic area in question. This would not be a problem, except for the fact that Loki used Generalrelative's SPA labels in determining his vote count.
Bottom line, this is a potentially important RFC. I feel it could be better served by a closer who is not even tangentially involved in the topic area. I also feel that numerous votes were discounted when they absolutely should have been considered. Hence, the close was not in keeping with policy, and I ask that the RFC is reopened and a different user/admin perform the close. I also ask that someone take the time to explain touser:Generalrelative what an SPA is, and how to properly view the contributions for an IP editor.
(I dispute the characterization that I wasWP:INVOLVED, and alsoWP:MEATPUPPET gives closers a lot of discretion to deweight potential meatpuppets. But let's get into the details in the appropriate forum.)Loki (talk)22:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP user takes issue with the use of Trump as an example inDARVO article. Writes a screed and asks why atTalk:DARVO#Kafka Trap.[326] Tone is angry. I attempt to answer it with short answer based on policy that would have clarified it just fine for any usual Wikipedia editor.[327] IP editor then attacks me at length[328] in a mocking and derisive tone with phrases such as "BuT ThErE Is A CiTaTiOn" and "since you seem to not understand" and "you're part of what is wrong with wikipedia" and "If you can't fathom the reasoning here, you probably shouldn't be an editor at all."
This is a politically-motivated attack about an example used on a non-political article. Please handle because this abusive post is beyond the pale and, if not handled, this IP editor will continue down this road of abusing Wikipedia editors and disrupting the project.
Based on this user's very short edit history (straight to their user talk page and then an article talk page), I don't believe this is the first time this person has edited in Wikipedia; reeks of the possibility of any of a number of inappropriate uses of alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny.Grorp (talk)04:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This is essentially a follow-up toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1122#User:Wjemather (10 March 2023) where Johnsmith2116 complained about a different user undoing his edits. Most of Johnsmith2116's edits are what he refers to as "preparation". I have already opened a discussion atTalk:2023 WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play regarding his recent "preparation" edits. He wants to add the hidden text "A or B" to the result of the match between A and B, which is taking place later today, which seems utterly pointless to me, since the table already indicates that A and B are playing each other later today.Nigej (talk)11:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Continuing to put in one's own opinion of "pointless" does not mean it is pointless, especially when no one had a problem with this kind of preparation for nice years of editing. Only recently, for whatever mysterious reason, have people decided that valid information is a bother to them. If it was an actually problem, editors would have been turning back these kinds of valid edits 9 years ago. And anyway, it's hypocritical anyway, because the same preparation with the "flagicon" addition is added to another page all the time, and it is never removed from that one. So, people's removal of good edits are not only unfair but also not even rooted in logic. People cannot have it both ways.Johnsmith2116 (talk)11:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Not quite true:[329] from 2022 was an undo of this type of edit with the edit summary "pointless" and there may be others. Anyway, editors have often let these edits go, since they are simply pointless and not actually harmful. I've thought they were pointless for the last 9 years.Nigej (talk)11:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
And now User:Wjemather, who also has a history of doing this, is now adding to the vandalistic removal of perfectly good information which had been accepted for 9 years. Valid information cannot be Justifiable undone, especially when it has always been accepted for 9 years. It is both hypocritical and unproductive.Johnsmith2116 (talk)11:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Nigej. Multiple editors have reverted these additions and there have been discussions about them previously. Johnsmith2116 needs to engage in discussion and abide by consensus; unfortunately this is something they seem to have had problems doing in the past.wjematherplease leave a message...12:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found that these accounts (Duan Zuolin, Luo Yanlin, Huang Arataki Lan Yu, Le Sisi, Fang Shaoru, Wei Yuqi, Xumilan) wrote articles with the same style (executed by Zhu), the same Google translate from Chinese, and a rather prejudiced attitude towards the Ming emperors.MartinofLA (talk)05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErraticDrumlinI added genuinely verifiable information to an article, in which I have a declared (unpaid) interest.It stood for nearly a month. Others noticed the coi only bc I put requests in the talk page regarding this before, so it was obvious. It was to balance an incomplete article. All sources cited were verifiable.
The person who mentioned the coi originally didn't delete my contributions, so felt they didn't violate blp issues even with coi. Others deleted bits, checked cites, tightened etc.This person apparently came from nowhere, and deleted everything. Citing the previously mentioned coi. It went to barkeep49 they said they saw no blp issues with my additions.This individualhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErraticDrumlin went ahead after that conversation and reverted back again. The judges findings were deleted, and all reasoning behind the verdict and defence were deleted, they were all cited correctly and completely verifiable. No-one else had an issue.I took it to talk. Erratic tried to hijack and have dominated there. So I doubt anyone will take them on. I went to tearoom, they did the same there. I didn't refer to them personally.They suggested who I am irl,nastily, for no reason as I had already declared the coi, at this point. But it does say, though not encouraged you can edit if something is wrong with the article, and this article has multiple issues now. Anyway the links remain on barkeep49,n that nasty conversation by erratic they said sorry to barkeep (not me) in a way to draw more attention to it. And to avoid sanction after doing it!very childish. I reverted once on another of their articles, that put it back and that was the end. I've apologised. That was wrongful, butThey've been monitoring my page and content of edits, bc they've commented on it to barkeep49They've criticised my command of English language, which I think comes from a racist perspective.They won't even consider leaving the judges findings and reasoning, or the appeal arguments. I believe they have a vested interest.They shut down any debate, and have deleted everything, even though others were happy for this to be there. Where's the consensus there?why do they get away with that. No-one will take them on.
I feel harassed and upset, and refuse to believe that this level of stalking, sarcasm, harassment, reverting and nasty abuse is not personally motivated.
All my contributions were verifiable, the content on there now does not match up to the sources, furthermore there is verifiable information that is directly contradicted by other equally verifiable sources, I added these, buthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErraticDrumlin has insisted on just one version.
Barkeep said there was no blp issues with my contributions, others felt that too, even the person who pointed out the coi didn't revert.
Can a neutral person look at this, with a view to reinstatement of information. I didn't delete anyone's contribution, even the sockpuppet, or the misleadingly quoted, contradictory bits. It's a complex legal case, and some people would be interested in all sides and information to hand. Also there's the outing, and comments that are oddly obsessed and over familiar. I'm actually scared that they'll come to my house.This is very wrongful. Thanks.genuinely. They also said that my contributions were "spin", but it was all verifiable informationBeautiful Rosie (talk)16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
My complaint is that they've commented on me deliberately to to suggest who they think I am "out" me. I declared a coi, there was no reason for that.
They reverted everything, even though it was verifiable information.
The article is now incomplete, as crucial information has been removed. No-one else had an issue with my additions. so the coi reason makes no sense. No-one felt it violated blp issues.That's an excuse. They've been monitoring me, and commented on all my contributions.
They've also commented several times on my use of language , and I think that this is from a racist perspective. I just wanted advice, and someone neutral to help. I've taken it to talk but they've dominated there. It is wrongful to have information that is directly contradicted by other equally verifiable sources, and to exclude them . I declared my coi in talk, I initially thought it meant paid, when I realised I declared it, and I declared it in the edit history when I made the change backBeautiful Rosie (talk)16:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Please take a step back and try to get your argument in order before you bring it here. I can't see where you declared a conflict of interest - please give us thediff of that. It's hard to tell what exactly you are complaining about. If your disagreement withUser:ErraticDrumlin is about content, this isn't the place to complain about it.Deb (talk)16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was looking for the place where s/he said s/he had declared an COI, not the detail of his/her edits. Or is this all s/he thought s/he needed to do?Deb (talk)16:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Anyone with a self-declared CoI in relation to a high-profile murder case should expect their edits to come under close scrutiny. That certainly isn't in of itself harassment. And if real harassment has taken place, we need to see proper evidence, not vague claims.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Can I just say that I am genuinely sorry for any discomfort or worry that I have caused. However, I really can't see how I have been harassing here. This is essentially just a content dispute. This all started because I reverted Beautiful's addition of content to theMurder of Don Banfield[331]. I did this for a number of reasons stated, one being that other users had surmised that there may be a conflict of interest issue:User talk:Beautiful Rosie#Managing a conflict of interest. Beautiful reinstated the content,[332], but then bizarrely reverted a completely harmless edit I'd done on a separate, completely unrelated page for no apparent reason[333]. At this stage if anyone was being harassed it was me, and adminUser:Barkeep49 later said to Beautiful "following Erratic to another article and reverting them is not OK. If that happens again I will block you.". I then removed Beautiful's content again on the Murder of Don Banfield[334], but this time opened a talk page discussionTalk:Murder of Don Banfield/Archive 1#Beautiful Rosie explaining why I had removed the content and explaining to them that theWP:ONUS was on them to seek consensus to include disputed content. However, Beautiful apparently ignored this and simply reinstated their content again, without consensus[335] and also (belatedly) declared that they did indeed have a personal connection to this casein the edit summary. Instead of reverting again and intending to avoid a further edit war, I then went to adminUser:Barkeep49 who had protected the page previously and asked if they would consider modifying the protection status up to extended confirmed protection. Beautiful then followed (!) me there and proceeded to add nine(!) comments across three sections on Barkeep's talk page, two sections which they created, and in the process I was accused of inappropriately discussing the page's content there, when I had only gone to query Barkeep49 if an extended confirmed protection to stop the edit war was possible and it was Beautiful who randomly appeared and started adding extensive comments about the content, still refusing to engage with me on the actual article's talk page. I did add one more comment, but it was only to briefly note that Beautiful was suddenly editing dozens of articles to up their edit count[336], which I viewed as an attempt to reach extended confirmed status and so get around any possible impending imposition of extended confirmed protection status for the page (Barkeep49 later agreed with me that they were trying to get to extended confirmed, but rightly highlighted to me there was nothing inherently wrong with this[337]). I didn't make attempts to argue over the content of the article on Barkeep's talk page. I was still waiting for Beautiful to engage with the talk page discussion, which they still hadn't. (I will continue after saving).ErraticDrumlin (talk)16:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand that this is a subject you're personally passionate about, Rosie, but do you understand how taking revenge on another editor by randomly reverting their unrelated edits is a very bad look and will count against you? —Trey Maturin™16:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Content disputes aren't settled here - seeWikipedia:Dispute resolution for options. Meanwhile, can you please provide actual evidence regarding harassment - we take such matters very seriously, but we need evidence, not vague assertions.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Also doesn't explain why s/he was looking at my contributions, why he thought he was outing me or why they made passively racist comments.Beautiful Rosie (talk)16:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
All contributions here are public – literally everybody in the world can see them – and weencourage editors to check the contributions of other editors, for various good reasons. The other assertions you've made in this sentence are... at the very least mean spirited, so perhaps you would withdraw them? It would benefit you a lot. —Trey Maturin™16:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I see a number of issues with Beautiful Rosie's conduct here, this report is full of personal attacks, misrepresentations of what has been said and a refusal toWP:AGF.
ErraticDrumlin politely raised their concerns in the talk page sectionTalk:Murder_of_Don_Banfield#Beautiful_Rosie where they pointed out numerous issues with the tone of the edits, the use of biased, opinionated sources for statements of facts and a large number of typographical and formatting errors. Beautiful Rosie's response to their comment? "I wasn't asking you" and a demand for "neutral people" to look at it.[338]
The claims that ErraticDrumlin is "dominating" the talk page is ridiculous. A look at the talk page will show that Beautiful Rosie making 3 or 4 responses to every comment someone else makes, and combined with their previous IP editing as92.4.9.94(talk·contribs·WHOIS) they have completely swamped the discussion.
The claims that ErraticDrumlin is reverting them due to aracist perspective is completely without evidence and should be treated as a personal attack, as should their repeated name calling, e.g calling ErraticDrumlinvery childish.
They claim ErraticDrumlin is stalking them, while themselves following ErraticDrumlin around the project to revert them[339].
I did feel it was childish to try to put me, but so was i. I can only think that to criticise my command of English is racist. And it is a acceptable to make editsBeautiful Rosie (talk)16:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This morning,User:Barkeep49 spoke to me and Beautiful on the talk page where I had only intended to ask for extended confirmed protection but which Beautiful had turned into a series of comments about the content. Barkeep49 noted[341] that I had made an attempt to discuss the content conflict on the Murder of Don Banfield talk page and advised Beautiful that "Erratic started a discussion there and pinged you. You have some obligation to engage with them in good faith". The admin also responded by saying that "You are suggesting it is unreasonable that ErraticDrumlin has been editingMurder of Don Banfield. I don't see any reason that it's unreasonable." It was only at this stage that Beautful finally engaged on the talk page[342], and then proceeded to ask if they could reinstate all of their edits unconditionally straight away[343]. I replied, highlighting again that I objected and that they did not have a consensus to restore this disputed content, and further elaborated on my reasons for removing it in the first place[344]. Beautiful replied that he/she wasn't "asking you" and that they wanted "neutral people" to comment instead, implying that I was being unfair and non-neutral. They then started making personal attacks on me[345], saying I was "oddly and overly obsessed". On this Admins noticeboard they've said that "I'm actually scared that they'll come to my house" and I've discovered that they posted atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, saying that (before they deleted it)[346] "I actually think they may come to my house, they seem so overly dominant and interested in this. I am genuinely scared. Their behaviour is so odd" and "Should I phone the police? I think that I know who this is and why they're being nasty and over familiar". I feel totally slandered by this. I have no interest whatsoever in visiting any editors house, and I wouldn't know where Beautiful's is anyway, and I don't understand where this has come from. I certainly never made such a suggestion. I pose no threat to Beautiful and feel quite upset that they have suggested I do.ErraticDrumlin (talk)17:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The only comment I ever made about Beautiful's language was a brief one at the end of one reply on the murder of Don Banfield talk page I made explaining why I had removed the content in the first place, stating that "Additionally, the presentation of the content you added was very poor, and not professional enough for an article. There are far too many inappropriate capital letters, spaces, or lack of spaces between words and quotation marks, some examples of which you can see in the quotes above"[347]. How on earth is this racist(!) against you on the grounds of your command of the English language? I don't even know what ethnicity you are. This is beyond bizarre. I'm racist because I said you included too many spaces and capital letters?ErraticDrumlin (talk)17:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I felt overwhelmed with this, and it did feel so personal, especially when you suggested who I was. I thought it was someone with a grudge. These comments have given me a sense of perspective. I genuinely felt scared, but I realise I got it wrong. You just felt that there was an issue. I'm glad that I got it wrong, and sorry for upset. I never intended to be hurtful. I thought you were someone else. Sorry. I withdraw any comments made. I meant them at the time, but was wrongful and stupid. This is personal, and upsetting to me. I lost perspectiveBeautiful Rosie (talk)17:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
You're a very big person for admitting this – people on the internet, myself included, are terrible for our sense of perspective – so don't beat yourself up about this.
What would be a good way to move on for you on this article? We like people to discuss these types of dispute calmly on the talk page attached to the article in question, but if you and ErraticDrumlin are unable to work together now (on either side, for various reasons, no blame attaches to either of you) then there are other places on Wikipedia where experienced editor-mediators can try to help out.
Our processes work towards protecting our encyclopedia first and foremost, which is what ErraticDrumlin was doing, and they will need to be involved in sorting any dispute over content. But by working together (even if you two cannot work directly together because of the recent history here – you're both annoyed, that's fine) this can be sorted. —Trey Maturin™17:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Just to add I was always willing to discuss any improvements to the article, and still am. Yes I am a bit upset about being called an oddly and over-obsessed racist who needs the police called on, but this does not change my commitment to wanting to sorting the article. I actually briefly suggested to Beautiful a possible solution[348] during the talk page discussion (which seems to have been missed in it all), saying that "Clegg's book can absolutely be mentioned, perhaps in an 'aftermath' section or something similar, with a brief (neutral) overview of what the book said". In this way the book is mentioned but the opinions from it are not used as statements of fact.ErraticDrumlin (talk)18:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thanks for still being prepared to engage with me. I apologise unreservedly, I genuinely thought that you were someone else. I need to take a break, and calm down. I am sorry. I sound bonkers to myself looking back, seriously I am sorry. I was out of order. Speak another time, if you're up to it then!thanks!.I'm logging off for a bit!take care. I got you completely wrong.Beautiful Rosie (talk)18:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The linked IP range from Brussels has been disrupting talk pages again, following their earlier block in December. They keep shouting the name ALICIA MAYOMBE.[349] Can we give them another time out?Binksternet (talk)00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, please see edit history of IP user207.148.176.2. Assistance is needed for obvious personal attacks in edit summary. "You ever wonder why no one takes this site seriously anymore? Its assholes like you that have ruined Wikipedia" Thanks,EDG 543(message me)04:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this EDG.
I've tried searching for what the IP editor has described, someone "bragging on Reddit" about vandalisingStreisand Effect. While I could find a post about the article relating to the ElonJet content on a different subreddit, it was made two months ago by a group of Redditors trying to determine whether or not Elon had edited the article. I couldn't find any current discussions of the article on any subreddits, and certainly not any evidence of a Redditor or group of Redditor's bragging about vandalising the article.Sideswipe9th (talk)04:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:JimKaatFan frequently engages in edit warring, POV pushing, and using misleading edit summaries. They have a history of such behavior and were even blocked for that. The user tends to "take over" articles they are interested in and erase any content they do not like, as well as pushing their POV version. The most obvious example isIce hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament article where theyrepeatedly introduce controversial, non-neutral content and resist any attempts to make it adhere to NPOV regulations. They have already receivedwarnings to stop this behavior, but did not heed any advice. User:JimKaatFan continues makingcontentious edits under the pretext of "combatting POV" while in fact pushing it themselves.45.159.249.180 (talk)22:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
IP editor, I looked at your diffs and several other recent edits by JimKaatFan, and none of them support your accusation that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. It seems that the two of you disagree about the best way to summarize what the sources say, but that's a routine content dispute, not anything that justifies your extreme accusations or a report to this noticeboard.Cullen328 (talk)01:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Kotyudkupaler5 has repeatedly added copyrighted content, they've been notified of these issues on their talk page but haven't engaged there at all. I think there's a generalWP:CIR issue, they've also been adding unreliable sources.JaggedHamster (talk)10:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
You're supposed to notify the subject of an ANI filing on their talk page. I've taken the liberty of doing so for you.CatfishJim and the soapdish15:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
For the record, JaggedHamsterdid notify Kotyudkupaler5, just under the section heading of an automated disambig link notification instead of its own header, to which Kotyudkupaler5 responded.GabberFlasted (talk)16:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think anything needs doing per this ANI now, we can happily AGF that some education will have the desired result going forward.Courcelles (talk)16:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll close this now on the assumption that the problematic editing is sorted.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Ayush sharma211 sent me a harassing e-mail message
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, userAyush sharma211 sent me an unprovoked e-mail message at 5:00 AM EST this morning that I found harassing. The contents of the e-mail are as follows:
"Hi ThethPunjabi,
Your ISI agent Amritpal is on run. Prey that he will not be caught by UP Police you know what will happen when they transport terrorist like Amritpal LOL!! AA GAYA SWAAD !!! AUR CHAHIYE KHALLISTAN !! JAI HIND VANDE MATARAM !!"
Can any action be taken against this user for harassing fellow editors and attempting to provoke arguments? This particular user is evidently not here in good-faith.ThethPunjabi (talk)15:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we get TPA revoked for this blocked user? These diffs speak for themselves...
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I warned an IP for disruptive editing atSpaceX, and got a reply from them as linked in the diff below.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, if that was intentional, it's an easyWP:NONAZIS indef block. But if I had to guess, I'd say Marvin has a browser plug-in that displays Jewish names that way, and was unaware that the echos were added to the edit window. Much like people who, in the early days of the world going to hell, had browsers that changed "Trump" to "Drumph" in edits, without them knowing it would happen. The consequence for accidentally outing oneself as an anti-Semite is (rolls wheel of fate) also an indef block. I'll go do that (edit: I guess Rick will go do that)Floquenbeam (talk)21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:2604:2D80:AB02:A100:8558:B6F3:7AEB:B0ED strange behaviour, possible sockpuppetry of Larrypage2009
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user from this IP has placed an unblock request on a recently blocked user (Larrypage2009)'s talk page just several minutes after they were blocked (diff), as well as made strange modifications to block notices on that account's talk page (diff 1,diff 2).
They have also placed disruptive material onAdakiko's talk page (diff), and attacked other editors on their (the IP address's) talk page:diff 1,diff 2.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wrongful mass reversal with no apparent explanation
The rest of the reverted edits, all of which were similar, Ertrinken reverted them either “assuming good faith” or simply ignoring any sort of good faith. The fact is that I only removed the European Portuguese pronunciation from the articles of Brazilian localities whose entire population speaks Brazilian Portuguese, so there is no need to mention an irrelevant pronunciation. You don’t do the same in articles from locations of Portugal, so let it not be done in articles from locations of Brazil.
I ask that this be resolved quickly and fairly. I don’t want to be stressed out by a sleeper account that reappears after five years and reverts countless edits without giving a proper explanation.
I have to say I would have reverted those two edits as well, but I'd have left an explanation. The first one was adding a link to a subject that's already linked in the article many times (in fact some links need removing.) The second one was adding an accent to the article subject that isn't in the name of the article subject and not used or referenced in the article. For the other edits, they likely reverted you because you deleted information from the article with no explanation in most cases.Canterbury Tailtalk08:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Doh, yeah misread that. I have to ask why you decided though to bring this here instead of attempting to discuss with the editor first. Though I will say, many editors would have made those reversions as well but I'd hope they'd leave explanations.Canterbury Tailtalk08:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
RodRabelo7 When you edit several pages and remove valid content with the summary "unnecessary" without explaining why it is unnecessary, you should expect to be reverted. Then, you made this report claiming that I should be blocked for reverting without an apparent explanation. However, did you provide any valid explanation for your edits?Ertrinken (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)( Blockedsockpuppet)RodRabelo7 (talk)00:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
LKF2006 report
User:LKF2006 has been disruptively editing theList of adult animated feature films article, adding examples which, while containing strong thematic elements, are not explicitly marketed towards adults. Four specific examples they're adding (theSouth Park: Post Covid andStreaming Wars duologies) aren't even considered movies. They've been warned repeatedly, but they keep attacking those who warn them. I've already notified the user, and invited them to discuss the issue here.TheVHSArtist (talk)23:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked from article space and told them they need to respond here. I noted no Talk space edits in over a year and no User Talk edits in longer than that.. As always, any admin may modify block or unblock as they see fit. A ping would be nice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)01:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Over the past week, they've reverted and been reverted in turn by three other users. Their edit summaries do not ooze with collegiality.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)01:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Freoh is hereby warned by the community that their actions in talk page discussions have tended towards disruption. They should refrain from overlong talk arguments, avoid ignoring discussion consensus, and expect direct administrative remedies including blocks or topic bans if they continue to refuse to acknowledge their mistakes in the future.
1) It is highly unusual for a successful and productive editor to apply for a fresh start or create an entirely new account; it's not an unreasonable assumption this contributor has demonstrated sufficient behavior problems in the past they felt compelled to take such a remedy. 2) While experienced SPI editors have looked at the possibility of multiple current accounts, there's no direct evidenceUser:Freoh is now using multiple accounts in violation of policy. 3) There's substantial evidence Freoh has edited in disruptive ways since the new account, even after they've been confronted more than once on the exact same issues (ex: source analysis). Freoh is at least a somewhat experienced wikipedian and may very well be violating the terms of any fresh start by their disruptive behavior. 4) Several editors have tried in good faith to accommodate Freoh's many disruptively long contributions in various discussions but Freoh does not seem to recognize their own responsibility as part of the problem. They seem to refuse to "drop the stick" and accept they have been frequently acting against consensus. 5) Given this failure I believe consensus exists for greater administrative action than mere warning. However, consensus clearly exists for the reasonable warning proposed byUser:DIYeditor.BusterD (talk)18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Freoh (talk·contribs) is a relatively new editor, from August of last year. Since then, a pattern of disruptive/gaslighting editing has become obvious. The most recent is atRayleigh–Jeans law, an article which they never really edited and suddenly got involved into a debate without understanding the basics of it, mostly about whether or not it should be included in the categoryCategory:Obsolete theories in physics. From the article, it should be patently obvious that it is (and certainly is obvious to any physicist). The Rayleigh–Jeans law was an attempt to characterize radiation emitted by black bodies, and it wasknown since its inception that the law was inadequate. This was called theRayleigh–Jeans catastrophe.
When physicists tried to apply classical ideas of radiation,they could not derive blackbody spectra that agreed with the experimental results. The classical calculations yielded an intensity I(ν,T) given by
This is known as the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. [...] The Rayleigh–Jeans Law agrees with experimental results at low frequencies (long wavelenghts),but disagrees at high frequencies. [...] (The classical prediction of arbitrarily large energies at high frequencies was sometimes referred to as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.) [...]In 1900, Max Planck, a German physicist produced an empirical formula that accurately describes the experimental blackbody spectra:
Emphasis mine. RJ was obsolete back in 1900. This was not good enough for Freoh, who keeps demanding sources andwrites.
Headbomb stated that "this is cited" in the article, but I do not see where. I am not taking a side here on whether or not it is obsolete, just ensuring that the information in this article is verifiable.
XOR'easter,that looks like a good source to me. I would not be opposed to re-addingCategory:Obsolete theories in physics along with a cited sentence to this effect
I'm very new to all of this, but here are some facts relevant to what I've observed. I think it would be worth it if everyone concerned just paused and looked at some facts. I would hope these are easily agreed by all:
approximations are used in physics and scienceall the time
when a new discovery in science supersedes a previous one, it is often the case that the previous one continues to be used as a useful approximation
the word "obsolete" means no longer used. Something that is actively used is therefore not obsolete
What I have observed unfortunately is @Headbomb refusing to acknowledge any of the above. This baffles me. @Freoh and others had a good-faith, honest debate about the topic. The difference is clear, and is recorded in the talk page.Dllahr (talk)14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Obsolete means out of date, not "no longer used as an approximation". RJ was never, even at the time it was proposed, ever in agreement with reality. It was known to be wrongeven at the time of proposal. The attempts to salvage it involves invoking theluminiferous aether. XOR'easter explains why further on the talk page.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the proof again of @Headbomb's dogmatic approach of ignoring all evidence. Rayleigh-Jeans has always been a useful approximation at long wavelengths.Dllahr (talk)13:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't say I'm surprised that this has made its way to ANI. What I've seen is entirely consistent with what Headbomb has described, and I've tried to explain this on Freoh's talk page. Headbomb did not mention what I think is the largest issue in these discussions though, which is that Freoh often refuses to drop theWP:STICK. All of the discussions and RfCs opened by Freoh follow a cycle of proposing fundamental changes about the approach of the article, multiple editors explaining why it's not viable, and a subsequent back-and-forth.In addition to what Headbomb mentioned atTalk:Rayleigh–Jeans law,Talk:Science, andTalk:Constitution of the United States (where according to Xtools, Freoh has written 87,455 bytes, almost entirely on a singleWP:1AM issue over the last four months), this has also happened atTalk:James Madison,Talk:Civilization, andTalk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of Rayleigh-Jeans law, all of these also have a strongWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS component to them.Thebiguglyalien(talk)04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The encyclopedia is so big that it can harbor editor groups with all these points of view. So he doesn't have to "poke the bear", he can "live and let live" / ... Sorry that it got to be too much.
I think we handledTalk:science by getting to a meaningful dialog on his talk page that we could agree on, and he stopped. --
Freoh isn't doing anything that couldn't simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage with them. Headbomb gave them a warning for edit warring onRayleigh-Jeans law, but they only haveone single revert in the history for that page, and two edits total spaced out over a week. Their insistence on documentation for that category could be a little nitpicky, but could also be seen as an attempt to facilitate an agreement between Headbomb and the other editor. There's no behaviour here that requires intervention.Larataguera (talk)12:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Larataguera: we sadly can't ignore it, because this behaviour occurs across the board onScience, on Raileigh Jeans Law, and elsewhere. That "only" two reverts happened on that page is immaterial. What matters is that discussion is impossible with them because they read words differently than everyone else, then revert consensus when they've agreed to it. And that's on top of the other behaviour highlighted like accusing people of espousing white supremacist views when they say the ancient Greeks has an important role to play in the history of science.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Not eager to dip my toe into the ANI waters, but... I'm a bit baffled as to why the text already in the article didn't count ascited sentence[s] to this effect, and why Freohreverted the re-addition of the category while pointing toa guideline that says the correct course of action is to add the{{unreferenced category}} template. I'm significantlymore baffled by the remarks fromearlier this month to the effect that it's racist/white supremacist to say that the ancient Greeks were important for the history of science[350].XOR'easter (talk)14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I was pinged here, and likeUser:Ancheta Wis I was part of some awkward, and needlessly long, discussions involving the history of science. I can not speak for other articles but the descriptions sound familiar. Sometimes Freoh seems to refuse to get the points being made by others on talk pages. On the other hand, I am not sure why this level of talk page awkwardness by a new editor would deserve an ANI discussion? If it is just for collecting feedback to help Freoh get perspective then I am OK with that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk)15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the very long discussion atTalk:Science. And it does seem like it took Freoh way too long to finally "drop the stick". But as long as the behaviour is confined to talk pages, other editors (as pointed out byLarataguera above) can simply choose to not engage.Paul August☎16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Paul August: He appears to also be tag bombing articles and reverting BRD notices while editing main pages, as he did with Dhtwiki on the James Madison article for several weeks. Binkster, in his comments below here seems to be stating that this has been the long-term edit conduct of Freoh in his edit history.ErnestKrause (talk)15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that this is a misunderstanding,Headbomb, and I wish that you wouldassume good faith and try to reach aconsensus rather thanedit warring and taking this toWP:AN/I andWP:RFPP. I do not think that the text currently in the article supports the idea that this law isobsolete, only that Planck's law is more accurate. (AsDllahr pointed out, these are not the same thing.) I do not understand why you are so opposed to clarifying this point, and you might benefit from reading theadvice for hotheads. — Freoh18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
"this is a misunderstanding"
Then please to explain why you reverted the addition of the category because it was 'unsourced' after youexplicitly agreed that XOR'easter's source was appropriate and that you would not object to the category being restored.
Freoh tagging a category as needing a citation is a little odd. Categories can be wrong but category discussions need to be approached a different way. Decisions about how we structure and make Wikipedia itself are not subject to those rules in any simple way. Please do take notice of the concerns being raised. The line you could cross here would be if these types of interventions start to make it literally difficult for other editors to keep editing. It is important that in your interactions with other editors you should show that you are trying to understand them and work with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, perWP:CATVCategorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition. It is entirely sufficient to establish things on the talk page, so long as the article gives an indication as to why a category might be there. The article clearly explains that RJ was supplanted by Planck in 1900s, which is plenty sufficient to support the addition of the category (on top of the existing refs which support the same).Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
At the time, Ichose to tag and remove the unsupported content because I thought that it would have taken more of my time to figure out where and how to describe the obsolescence. In retrospect, it would have taken less time to just write the material. — Freoh02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The list of users who are arguably involved in some way with the Freoh situation, asThebiguglyalien points out, spans far more individuals and articles than have been included and notified here, and with that in mind I think this ANI report may be premature and of too limited scope. Of respected editors,Doug_Weller immediately comes to mind and commented on this onHeadbomb's talk page.
I find Freoh to be quite confrontational (e.g. with the spamming of veiled links toWP:DISRUPT against everyone they disagree with) and to themselves be a situation of probably something along the lines ofWP:PUSH. The user, to be honest, seems to openly have contempt for anything to do with "white men" and feels like merely using that label is a sound argument against inclusion (e.g. the ancient greeks were white men, so their contributions to science should ipso facto be downplayed).
That said, it would be very easy to say that Freoh is bringing needed balance to articles that do suffer from institutional bias. It's the approach that's the problem. Freoh seems to be veryWP:IDHT andWP:STICK and to continue plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others. Even when I partially agree with them, and offer some middle ground compromises, they do not seem to understand how to take advantage of that or collaborate.
I think Freoh is more of a wait and see situation, and where one should compile a list over time of examples of behavioral problems for a single comprehensive ANI report that covers all these articles and behaviors. Maybe Freoh will learn how to be a good wikipedian, or maybe their personality and approach are just unfit for this place, but I think it is too early to say - or at any rate, it would need much more thorough documentation and wider input than this report is going to get, which is actually counterproductive in getting Freoh dealt with.—DIYeditor (talk)06:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
After reading Freoh's talk page I'm starting to wonder if this is an editor we can work with. That's not the talk page of someone who's here to work together in a collaborative environment. It's the talk page of someone who knows Wikipedia is wrong and is here to fix the great wrongs. Someone who has a lot of confidence in their own judgment and not much in anyone else's. They're attracted to fraught topic areas and they want to make big changes. Collaborating with this one is going to be a challenging and time consuming exercise.—S MarshallT/C09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@DIYeditor@S Marshall Agreed. As I said at Headbomb's talk page, there's clearly a problem that I doubt will go away soon. It looks as though this will need a more comprehensive report than this. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that as I'm trying to devote my time now mainly to writing.Doug Wellertalk11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Freoh: I hope you are paying attention to all this, especially to whatDIYeditor andS Marshall are saying. I think you are intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, and so have the potential to make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. But not the way you are going about it now.Paul August☎12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Could you explain why you characterize my behavior asplowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others? I have listened to the concerns of other editors and made plenty of compromises. Looking just at the conversation inTalk:Constitution of the United States about how to discussthe People:
I listened toAllreet when theyopposed my use of footnotes to clarify whothe People were, so Imade a new proposal that avoided footnotes.
I listened toONUnicorn when theypointed out that I was blurring the lines betweenthe people who wrote the Constitution,the people who ratified it, andthe people who voted for delegates, so Imade a new proposal that was less ambiguous.
I listened toDhtwiki when theycomplained about my attempts to address length concerns within an RfC with a different focus, so Imade a new proposal that I thought was in the spirit of their proposal while addressingONUnicorn's concerns.
I listened to you,DIYeditor, when yourecommended that I include an in-text attribution for a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the support for constitutional ratification, so Iedited the proposal to include an in-text attribution.
I listened to you again when yousuggested that I expand my in-text attribution to name one of the historians who has made that estimate, so Imade a new proposal that named Forrest McDonald in particular.
I listened toBogLogs when theyargued that it would be misleading to cite the percentage in favor of ratification without citing the percentage opposed, so Imade another proposal that cited instead the total percentage.
I listened toGwillhickers when heargued against making a vague reference tothe people as a whole, so Imade an edit that avoided the issue by cutting out the disputed content.
I listened toRandy Kryn when hewanted the Preamble section to mention Gouverneur Morris, so Imade another edit that kept the reference to Morris while again removing the disputed content.
This conversation has gone on so longbecause of mysubstantial response or reaction to others, and I feel like I am one of the few people who is trying tocompromise rather thanstatus quo stonewalling. I know that I am in a minority among editors, but I have been taking the opinions of others into consideration when trying to reach aconsensus, and Ihonestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. — Freoh13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Because you lost all of those discussions, there was no need for any deletions, and yet you keep going and going and going into thousands of words of discussions not realizing that editors are volunteers and not paid to be here or bots. You've been told this many times by many editors on many talk pages, that you seem to have no idea when to stop beating the horse. You removed most of the Preamble section, I reverted, and then you removed it again and someone else reverted - at that pointWP:LETTINGITBE probably works.Randy Kryn (talk)13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ihonestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. Yes, I can see that. My main advice to you is to goa lot slower and bea lot more succinct. And absolutely do not go within 100 miles of anything touching on post-1932 US politics under any circumstances whatsoever, but I'd say that to anyone.—S MarshallT/C13:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Please, hopefully nobody requests an indef ban, or even a topic ban just yet, this editor is going to be a very good one once he stops beating the dead horses into submission and maybe stops bragging on his use page about negative reactions to his disruptions. Thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)13:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Since I received a ping from Freoh I'll respond. To get a definitive idea of the nature of Freoh's on going involvements all one need do is look at thethe failed RfC on the U.S. Constitution Talk page which he initiated, starting on 2 February 2023 and continuing to 11 March 2023. During that RfC he introduced three other proposals on top of the one initiated under discussion, and in the process some 42 browser pages of talk ensued in an apparent attempt to obscure the discussion, and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. I would not be surprised if some sort of block was imposed, but he should at least get a stiff warning, that is, if he promises to stop flooding the discussions with endless argumentative talkfirst. --Gwillhickers (talk)21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Pinged to comment here by Randy Kryn. After reading through the last six months of Freoh's edits, then there appear to be some comments to make. Freoh seems to have made a hobby of Quantum computing, which is a timely subject, and sysops editors have apparently been pleased to have him edit the Quantum computers articles and to give him something like a 'pass' for his tag bombing and multiple reverts on other pages not dealing with Quantum computing as a type of courtesy. A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself as a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and evenweeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions. One example which literally went on for weeks and weeks was his interaction with Dhtwiki on the Talk page for James Madison where Freoh was tag bombing the article and making revert edits against several editors, which Freoh was making against BRD on the James Madison page. At the end of weeks and weeks of interaction with Dhtwiki, the peer review nomination which was in progress for Madison at that time was fully derailed and failed. And Freoh as SJW was able to prevail over Dhtwiki for his own purposes, with regards to edits unrelated to his hobby in Quantum computers. Supporting Randy Kryn on his report here regarding Freoh's edit conduct issues made above.ErnestKrause (talk)14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
"SJW" is not a good argument against Freoh any more than their "white men" argument holds water as a reason to diminish or remove something from an article. These need to be framed in an appropriate Wikipedia behavior and Wikipedia content fashion. Wikipedia is not aWP:BATTLEGROUND and that cuts both ways. Feeling that their calling is to address "institutional bias" or whatever is not a reason to block Freoh from editing. In fact, many would say it's a needed role on Wikipedia.—DIYeditor (talk)22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Gaslighting continued
Actually,ErnestKrause's comment is right to the point, as from what I've seen in a number of cases Freoh has exhibited SJW behavior in several ways, esp when, on theTalk page, he referred to the atomic bombings in WWii Japan, which ended the war, as a "terrorist attack", a fringe POV that none of the sources resort to. Also, your statement that Freoh's activity is needed to correct "institutional bias" presents its own acute bias, and only encourages this editor to continue with this behavior. In any event, I agree that WP should not be used as a battleground, and this is indeed why this ANI involving Freoh is occurring, as explained by numerous editors. --Gwillhickers (talk)23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable using the third person, so I'll be direct.Freoh,responding to others is not the same aslistening to what they have to say. Above, you gave examples of your willingness to make compromises. Certain things, however, do not lend themselves to compromise: specifically, the fact that Wikipedia's focus is determined by theprevailing view, meaning what most mainstream sources have to say. I've pointed this out several times, in several different ways, and I'm certain you haven't listened; otherwise, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. And to be even clearer: You say you listened to what I said about footnotes, yet changing them to text wasn't a compromise, just another tact, since the message and its effect were essentially the same.Allreet (talk)07:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It gets back to the ability to collaborate. Freoh doesn't really seem to understand how to work with others and this I think gets into CIR territory, but it premature to claim such here in ANI. I'm not sure what the respondents here want done about Freoh. A warning? For what exactly? Let's move on to either in depth evidence supporting some stronger action, or wording on a "warning", or just drop this, because I don't think we are going anywhere.—DIYeditor (talk)13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The comment from Binkster directly above just stated that the long term harsh edit conduct of Freoh is described as: "That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all."ErnestKrause (talk)15:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
A warning? For what exactly? ( ? ! ) Numerous editors have said essentially the same thing and have provided detailed examples involving a lot of time and articles, and thus far therehasn't even been an acknowledgment from Freoh that there's an issue, other than,I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. --Gwillhickers (talk)18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Freoh: Tens of thousands of words, literally hundreds of hours, have been wasted over the past three and a half months on issues you've raised that have little to no basis. Here are a fewdetailed examples:
I just pointed out thatGeorgia and South Carolina relied heavily on slavery..., and you contended this amounted toambiguous synecdoche. Clearly, you don't understand the guidelines related to the term. The states and their governments are synonymous in this context, and we don't need to distinguish one from the other.
In illustrating a point about vagueness, I cited a passage from theEncyclopedia Britannica, and you said you wouldn't be opposed tosome of this information, meaning you would oppose other parts. That puts you at odds withJoseph Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who oversees the encyclopedia's articles on the Constitution.
You contendedwe should be presenting aglobal perspective on the Constitution. Aside from a minor tweak, I have no idea what that might mean, but I do know we're accurately reporting the viewpoints of leading historians.
Most scholars generally concur with Yale historianAkhil Reed Amar that in the late 1780s the Constitution was "the most democratic deed the world had ever seen" (America's Constitution: A Biography, page 5), as exemplified by the Preamble's opening wordsWe the People. Yet you've called our section on the Preamble and its emphasis on this phrasevague and misleading, even though what we've stated is consistent with the mainstream view.
We just concluded a five-week RfC whereS Marshall ruled no changes should be made to the Constitution article without first seeking a consensus. Despite the finding, you deleted a full paragraph in the Preamble section a couple days ago. While your deletion has since been reverted, you continue to argue that your edit was justified.
What I see here is a combination of incompetence—a lack of understanding of WP's guidelines, values, and methods—and an unwillingness to heed what others tell you about them. Perhaps a formal warning will make this clear to you. If not, then IMO a topic ban should be imposed.Allreet (talk)20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Formal warning
I propose thatFreoh be formally warned that they must:
significantly improve their collaboration
demonstrate an ability to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here)
drop theWP:STICK and not plow ahead when a discussion has gone against them, or perpetually prolong discussions that have gained no traction with other editors
not try to concoct "consensus" from thin air on the premise that it is not a vote to use as a pretext for unilateral action on an article
understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus and notWP:TRUTH or what is right
tone down this aggressive piped linking of Wikipedia: space policies/guideliens/essays in disagreements with other editors until Freoh gains more experience and understanding themself
and that if this warning is not heeded, anarrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place.—DIYeditor (talk)00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Its not clear what you are supporting since Freoh appears to have already stated above that: " I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong." Freoh has not acknowledged a single comments made in this list and I'm not sure what your support means given his comment.ErnestKrause (talk)17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment the general outline. That list of your six items above is, after reading it again, really a very strong criticism of Freoh and his edit disruptions over months and months; I mean that if another editor where accused of even half of those disruptions then everyone would be talking about a possible block of an editor like Freoh for a day, or a week, or even a month. I'm not for being excessive on this, but your 6 point criticism of Freoh really portrays him as being somewhat extreme in his disruptions of Wikipedia over the last several months.ErnestKrause (talk)18:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
For that matter, there could've been a7. avoidWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs, or something like that, or even more items. It can be difficult to precisely define what the problems have been.
I do think some acknowledgement of the issues and this warning would be appropriate, but I don't think it would be necessary to have any duration of block given such acknowledgement, even a brief acknowledgement. Not everyone "gets" Wikipedia right away. To me it's better to say "stop this general behavior, or it will be a longer topic ban, or block" than to shut out a new user right off the bat. I'm not sure what purpose a brief block would serve other than punitive.—DIYeditor (talk)20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support — Actually, the six items are points of good advice, not criticisms, given the endless arguing, (which is still in progress in at least two articles) reckless handling of an RfC he initiated, tag bombing and often times, multiple reverts (still in progress). And yes, this involves many articles over months and months indeed, and in some cases with obvious SJW behavior, in spite of his subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion, all of which makes his activity on the extreme side, though, albeit, I've seen worse behavior. In any case, we are still not seeing any acknowledgement from this editor, so I'm inclined to go for a topic ban, at least on American history articles, but no more than 30 days, this time.. --Gwillhickers (talk)19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As I (andThebiguglyalien) mentioned above, I don't think it is constructive or appropriate to use labels such as "SJW" which is pejorative. There are many good editors who are sympathetic to "social justice" political views and who would no doubt like to see what they believe to be bias in major articles addressed. I think we should phrase this instead asWP:ADVOCACY,WP:BATTLEGROUND andWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.—DIYeditor (talk)20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
SJW, which there is a WP article to which you linked, can be either pejorative or complimentary, as the case may be, and the way it has been used here was a reference to behavior, as are BATTLEGROUND and ADVOCACY behavior, – not exactly name calling inasmuch as terms likeLiar orThief. In any case, I will desist from using the term, which I didn't even know existed until someone else introduced it here, so as not to futher side-track attention away from the issue here at ANI. Just for the record, "Social justice" is a two way street. --Gwillhickers (talk)21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Freoh's edit conduct with Dhtwiki on the James Madison page (which was just linked by DIYeditor) was very odd from before, which suggests that your concern for that canvassing should be examined. Also, it should be noted that Freoh appears to be ignoring the very generous offer made by DIYeditor above and appears to have no interest in the comments made by DIYeditor; its a large difference if Freoh acknowledges the issues which DIYeditor has raised or if he ignores them. If he ignores them, then something may need to be done in addition to a low-level courtesy warning as stated by DIYeditor. Its possible that Freoh has already calculated that he will be given something like a 'free pass' by sysops on this ANI because Freoh may think that his hobby of editing Wikipedia articles about "Quantum computing" are highly valued by sysops at this time. Its different if Freoh acknowledges the issues raised by DIYeditor, than if he continues to ignore them without acknowledgment.ErnestKrause (talk)15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak support It is clear that Freoh has irreconcilableWP:IDHT behavior issues in several topic areas. I am still concerned that the scope of this proposal is still excessively broad — since most of the science-related disruptive behavior is specific to human history,the termscience should probably be dropped at the end. Also, since all of their problematic behavior involves discussions related to article sourcing or analysis of sources w.r.t. the article topic, a better alternative would be toban Freoh from participating in discussions related to third-party sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)18:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Upon further review of the US Constitution talk page, I am convinced that the topic ban from American politics and history is still needed, since at least the earlier comments are primarily about NPOV and show that Freoh has a strong left-wing bias on this topic. Nowhere is this as self-evident as inthe edit that started the round of discussion, where they amended wording in the article to refer towealthy elites and toimperial subjects [of the United States] as a term for theinsular areas, and asserted that the Preamble to the US Constitutionpretends that the [United States] government stands for everyone. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)18:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I was initially content with a warning, because everyone deserves a second chance. Based on the lame defenseFreoh has just offeredand the behavior noted below regarding the Constitution article (see my comments andGwillhickers's), I agree with you that a ban is justified.Allreet (talk)04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Response. I am aware that I am often in the minority among Wikipedia editors, but thepersonal attacks here are disappointing. Most of these conflicts have been my attempts to uphold Wikipedia'ssecond andthird pillars. The dispute atTalk:Constitution of the United States is my attempt to make the article moreneutral by avoiding statingopinions as facts, especially those with widespread disagreement. The dispute atTalk:Rayleigh–Jeans law was my attempt to ensure thatDllahr (a relativenewcomer) feels that their voice is heard in the face ofpassive aggression from experienced editors unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion. I am sorry that this rubs some of you the wrong way, but I assure you that I am acting ingood faith, and I assume that the same is true of all of you. I agree withDIYeditor that these disputes are notbattles for anyone towin, and we are all ultimatelyhere on the same team. With that in mind, I will respond to each of your demands.
I am still learning the best ways to collaborate, but feel free to leave a message on my talk page. A few concrete points:
I see now that I have upset some people with my use ofcontentious labels within talk pages. I will try to avoid these in the future.
There have been a couple times when someone removed acleanup template I had added, and my response was to then remove the taggedcontent. I have learned my lesson, and in the future I will instead re-add the tag and discuss these issues in the talk page.
I see that some of my comments have been unclear and at first glance contradictory, leading to thegaslighting charge. I will work on phrasing problems more clearly.
Theother people here havecalled me names, tried todrive me away, and repeatedly re-added disputed material without consensus[352][353]. I do not and will not emulate this behavior. If you have other suggestions, please leave a message at my talk page.
It is not my goal toperpetually prolong discussions. I usually make it clear exactly which changes would end the discussion, and asLarataguera said earlier, these discussions cansimply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage. These conversations have dragged on for a while because I have spent a significant amount of time asking clarifying questions to understand the points of view of other editors, and then making newcompromise proposals that try to address everyone's concerns. These are notsubtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion; I amhonestly discussing these issues. I am getting a better sense of where my perspective differs from others', and I will takeS Marshall's advice to heart and go slower and be more succinct. I will also spend more time on my responses, especially on concrete proposals rather than abstract criticisms, so that the editors I am arguing with can feel moreheard. I think that these conversations might also end sooner if some ofyou were willing to meet me in the middle and try to understandmy concerns and make your own compromise proposals.
Inevertry to concoct "consensus" from thin air. I am aware that in many of these cases, we havenot yet reached a consensus, and my edits are onlyattempts at reaching anedit consensus after I have better understood the concerns of other editors. I admit that I was off-base in some cases, so if you would like, I can spend more time on theD before cycling back to theB ofBRD.
Idounderstand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus. I have focused my efforts on cases where there isno clearprevailing scholarly consensus, and I have always backed this up withtier 1 sources. Wikipedia isnot the place for propaganda, which is why I have pushed back againstAllreet's vague and controversial content about howthe people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.
Piped linking is not aggressive. If you feel that I am lacking inexperience and understanding, then feel free to explain.
I have made noinsinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs. It is possible to criticize theundue weight that an editor is giving to white people without calling them a white supremacist. I do not believe thatHeadbomb is a white supremacist, but I do believe that he may have been influenced bysystemic bias. Every editor is biased (myself included), andevery source is biased (mine included).LaundryPizza03, I made those edits a while ago, and I was still learning Wikipedia's neutrality policies and using wording from my sources, but I think that I have improved since then.
TL;DR: Contrary to what some of you believe, I have been trying to have real discussions about good faith disagreements, and you are welcome to advise me on my talk page. I apologize for upsetting people and for being inefficient and unclear in some of these conversations, and I will work on this. — Freoh19:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This ANI is about your consistent and ongoing conduct, and now you're trying to drag in many of the same subjects you've been involved with in the apparent hope that we will forever be going over these things, yet again. e.g.Making the same claims about the Constitution, etc. This only tells us you've ignored the well thought out explanations of multiple editors who took the time to address your never ending contentions. Iow, all you've really done here, regardless of your apology and one acknowledgment, is to exemplify yourWP:IDHT behavior, because you're still pushing many of the same issues all over again, only now it's in this forum. --Gwillhickers (talk)19:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Freoh, is back at theConstitution of the United States article and has just tagged thePreamble section with another one of his POV tags, which I reverted, as he was already turned down at theRfC he initiated. So much for his apology. At this point this editor clearly needs to be topic banned from US history articles, at least. --Gwillhickers (talk)03:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Freoh, in what amounts to a non-apology apology, is blaming other editors for most everything while accepting very little personal responsibility for the situations created. Meanwhile, the recent RfC, which ruled against Freoh's proposals regarding the U.S. Constitution article, warned editors thatany changes to this article would needrough consensus before they could be made. Despite this ruling, Freoh forged ahead with adding a POV tag to the article today. What's astounding is that they did sowhile a vote was in progress to determine whether a community consensus favored such a tag. Frankly, I'm appalled anyone would act this way in the midst of an ANI regarding their behavior, and thusI agree withGwillhickers that a topic ban is justified.Allreet (talk)04:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment. This ANI is about to roll over into archive without any action taken by sysops; is the assumption that this Freoh thread may roll over into archive without any sysops action. As I mentioned earlier in response to the 6-point chart presented by DIYeditor, then if any other editor than Freoh had committed even half of the disruptions listed in that chart then a possible ban of a day, a week, or even a month would be discussed among participating editors. Pinging the last last three respondents here before the chart was added by DIYeditor for a second opinion on the appropriate level of response for either of Topic ban, Page ban, Editor block, etc.: (@Randy Kryn,Binksternet,S Marshall, andDoug Weller:). I've already stated that I'm not for being extreme on this matter, and the comments from the 3-4 previous respondents I've just pinged would be useful to hear for their own opinions and their own viewpoints.ErnestKrause (talk)14:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This response is tone-deaf.
always backed this up with tier 1 sources Tier 1according to you, in aWP:1AM way since these sources' reliabilityregularly gets rejected by others, or show signs of cherry-picking/misalignment with overall scholarship (see the entire U.S. Constitution talk page). At Science, you presentedsix sources but seemed to misunderstand all of them, since none actually supported your claims (having the "cognitive foundations of science" does not mean practicing science, which should be obvious).
You've accused others of edit-warring, but that is largely caused by your own behaviour. Your approach toattempts at reaching an edit consensus consist of repeatedly boldly inserting material or tags into articles (which you frame as "compromises"), forcing others to either give up and let it stay, or continue arguing with you. It's classic bludgeoning.
The fundamental problem, in these repeated WP:1AM discussions, is that we end up with that we end up with threads with 30+, 50+, sometimes 100+ comments debating your suggestions, and those suggestions wouldn't even improve the encyclopedia or reduce systemic bias, they'd just introduce fringe or poorly sourced claims into our articles. Isupport the general outline.DFlhb (talk)18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see gaslighting or a chronically disruptive user. I see a new user getting essentially bullied by more experienced editors who disagree about content disputes. For example, look at the edit warring warnings on Freoh's talk page, then look at the page histories and behold how there is no edit warring. It's not inherently problematic to challenge the use of the term "obsolete" to describe an outdated scientific theory. I don't see any problem with the Constitution RFC (the points Freoh raised are legitimate, per RS, and I agree they should be addressed in the article, although the problem is how). I don't see a problem with suggesting that the US' nuking of two cities in WWII were attacks on civilians, not military targets, and even the suggestion that they be described asstate terrorism is reasonable, and supported by some RSes. (It's not the mainstream view, but it's not fringe, either.) I'd change my mind if someone showed diffs of actual edit warring, or misrepresenting sources, or personal attacks, etc. Maybe there's something more I'm missing here, but so far all I see is disagreement, and disagreement is not disruptive. And Icertainly don't see any "gaslighting" by Freoh at all (that accusation seems like an aspersion to me).Levivich (talk)15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Freoh is not a new user, although their present account is fairly new. See their talk page for mention of a vanishing of a previous account (for similar reasons as are complained about here?). That makes sense, since they have a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that is rather extraordinary for a new user. Gaslighting didn't seem as right to me as doesWikipedia:Civil POV pushing in terms of categorizing Freoh's actions. If you are looking at only the RfC at Constitution of the United States, then you might look at earlier discussions with me where Freoh's persistence in wanting to make changes without consensus developing was pretty much the equivalent of edit warring, if not in actual fact.Dhtwiki (talk)18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Taking into account all the evidence I see here, I do not feel that Freoh's behaviour has risen to the level where a logged warning would be needful.—S MarshallT/C16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Pinging involved editors: @Levivich,Marshall,ErnestKrause,Allreet,Randy Kryn,Dhtwiki,LaundryPizza03,Thebiguglyalien,Headbomb, andThebiguglyalien: @Hawkeye7: additional ping. — Levivich, multiple editors have said basically the same thing about Freoh's conduct, (habitual use of tagging, reverts withWP:IDHT and lengthy, repetitious and endless talk that has gone on for many weeks - and to lump all the involved editors together as a bunch of "bullies", simply picking on a new user, is not a very fair characterization of these editors. Just for the record, no one denies that mostly civilians died during the bombing, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military industrial cities, turning out weapons of war on a massive scale, where most of the weapons testing was conducted, all of which were engineered and manufactured by "civilians", and which would have extended the war indefinitely, costing more lives than were lost during the bombing. Freoh, who referred to the bombings as a "terrorist attack", wishes to focus on civilians, i.e.Civil POV pushing, while he ignores these facts, and when these things were explained to him by several editors he simply refused to acknowledge the point, and continued with lengthy talk, i,e.gaslighting.This is just one example. On the US Constitution page, he deleted a major portion of the Preamble sectionDiff with very little talk and no consensus, calling it a compromise. When this text was restored, he again made the same basic major deletion,Diff, with no discussion. Again this was restored by yet another editor. During this time, he POV tagged this section three timesDiff1,Diff2,Diff3. The third attempt to POV tag came after he apologized to us (see above). I'll let other editors present the diffs they were involved with if they must. This editor clearly needs at least a stiff warning, if not a topic ban on American history articles, for at least 30 days.. --Gwillhickers (talk)19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Headbomb: The opening sentence of your original start of this thread stated that Freoh is a new editor, but Dhtwiki is now telling us above that Freoh is not a new editor and that he had a previous account. Does this have an up or down effect on your comments about his editing practices being discussed here?ErnestKrause (talk)14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It has little effect honestly. Since this ANI thread began, they got warned twice for 3RR stuff about very much the same behaviour under discussion here. If this is a returning editor from a clean start, it does not bode well, and what little good faith we could assume goes straight out the window.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so. Awolf's behavior was outright vandalism, repeatedly, with different IP's, unlike Freoh's, who never targeted us specifically. --Gwillhickers (talk)21:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Similar behavior, similar topic areas, etc. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Perhaps an administrator can see if Freoh geolocates to the San Francisco Bay area as well? @Tamzin, you've dealt with this editor in the past.Bgsu98(Talk)22:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping,Bgsu98. I'm rather bemused by this one. Comng into conflict with Allreet and Gw, and for that matterRandy Kryn, matches the Awolf MO, as does interest in foundational U.S. articles and broad-concept articles in general. On the other hand, interest in quantum computing is totally new AFAIK, and we're missing a lot of Awolf tells. On the third hand, I did tell Awolf a while back that if he was going to keep socking, he might as well pick a new topic andedit quietly, so maybe he's followed at least the first half of that "advice"... but I've learned a fair bit about Awolf and quantum computing really isn't the secret previously-unmentioned interest I'd expect him to have (especially since, AFAIK, he doesn't edit in the topic area he actually works in, which would seem a more logical place to quietly return). Oh and on afourth hand, there'sa significant overlap here with theGreenCows sockfarm... but on the other side ideologically.Blablubbs, do you have any thoughts?--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll give Blablubbs the chance to respond, since he's a CU familiar with both the Awolf and GreenCows cases. If he's unavailable, I can handle SPI.--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)04:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Acknowledging that I've seen the ping. I should be able to take a look later today, and hopefully no later than tomorrow. --Blablubbs (talk)12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin, please tell me whatComing into conflict with Allreet and Gw means regarding a past editor's "MO"? I don't feel targeted, so to speak, as much as sucked into an abyss where my good faith has been taken advantage of, so some insight would be helpful for moving forward. I did look upAwolf58's past discussions and their writing tone and argumentation style are a carbon copy ofFreoh's. Also note the date of the ban, August 5 2022, and the start of new account. August 12. All just coincidental? Could be, but the circumstantial evidence appears substantial enough to warrant a closer look.Allreet (talk)17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm needing to go along with Dhtwiki and Doug Weller that the 'clean start' issue in a concern. DoesDhtwiki have the link which shows that Freoh has stated, using his new 'clean start' account, that he had a previous account or accounts at Wikipedia? Does Freoh state which Wikipedia articles he may have previously edited or modified at Wikipedia under the previous accounts before opening his new 'clean start' account?ErnestKrause (talk)14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The text on their talk page is: "I will say that this is not my first Wikipedia account, and I was somewhat successful on a previous account before a clean start with this one." That doesn't mean that they were blocked for disruption, especially as they freely admitted the previous account's existence.Dhtwiki (talk)16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
One would have to wonder why this editor felt it was necessary to get afresh start in the first place. "...somewhat successful on a previous account"? Without knowing the user name of the previous account I can only assume, all the (many) things considered, it wasn't because he was well received by fellow editors -- somewhat. --Gwillhickers (talk)19:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Anything is possible, but probable? If he was that concerned about revealing personal information I doubt he would of put much of it out there in the first place. Very few editors use their real name, and I've never seen anyone put their address, or phone number or eMail address, place of employment, etc out there, so realistically, it was likely because he was taken to task for the same reasons a dozen or so editors have done so over this latest account. In any case, this should not weigh in on whether a topic ban is imposed. We should only use the facts to do that, and there are plenty. --Gwillhickers (talk)19:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe a two weeks history topic ban, 30 days is pretty steep and a couple of weeks will give all of the editors who are trying to reason together through tens of thousands of words a break for 14 days to go on about their business of improving the place (some very good sources have emerged from all of this though). There may or may not be another reverting-needing-talk-page-discussion situation shaping up atMount Rushmore (trying to downgrade and now actually mock its alternate name "Shrine of Democracy", which is what the statue's sculptor and many others called and call it) which could use more readers, thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)22:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support: I agree Freoh needs to be given a choice between changing their behavior to become a good Wikipedia citizen, or face the risk of getting booted. In comparison to some of these examples, the current discussion over atTalk:Civilization_(disambiguation)#Complex_and_advanced is not nearly as troublesome (being merely tedious, repetitive and unconstructive), but still - Freoh does not appear willing or able to a) heed advice and/or b) let things go. Specific points of concern include #1, #2, #6 and especially #3, in my opinion (I'm an involved party of that discussion).CapnZapp (talk)09:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment. It seems timely to bring up the question of whether someone can request a sysops comment for this ANI discussion which is very near to rolling over into archive. I've previously stated that I'm not for extreme measures here, though Freoh not responding to the many editors here who have commented on his using other accounts, along with his admission to Dhtwiki of having a second account is something of a let down. This Noticeboard discussion seems to need someone from sysops to assess this; Freoh seems to be completely avoiding this Noticeboard discussion after the admission to Dhtwiki of having a second account and is currently editing the Constitution article as if nothing is taking place here. I'm rarely at this Noticeboard here and do not know if a request for sysops closing can be placed on the Noticeboard for "Closure requests" before this discussion here rolls over into archive without being assessed.ErnestKrause (talk)15:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Freoh didn't admit anything *to* me. I merely gained that information by reading through their talk, and I don't want it to imply anything nefarious unless it can be undoubtedly proven to be so. I don't see Freoh as the same editor as AWolf, for example.Dhtwiki (talk)16:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support warning, leaning toward a ban of some sort. Since my last post here, it seems that Freoh has not only declined to course correct, but has spread this disruptive behavior to other talk pages, including user talk pages. Freoh appears either unable or unwilling to address the issues with their editing, which is starting to come off assealioning.Thebiguglyalien(talk)16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Talk about it... He's actively goading me, despite me having clearly stated I'm done interacting with him until this ANI has run its course... and remember: he's wildly off-topic, and have been informed of that already. Multiple times.CapnZapp (talk)17:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support some sort of formal warning. While Freoh's response here sounds reasonable and conciliatory, reading his talk page tells me that he sees what he does as a necessary corrective in spite of the fact that there's often little support from other editors (... it's exhausting to continuously argue with people who think that Euro-centrism is "mainstream" just because it's what they learned in high school....With James Madison, I was successful at drawing attention to some serious issues that prevented it from getting promoted to featured article status...). The pride in the derailing of the Madison article, in spite of little objection being raised at FAC, is probably the most egregious disruptive behavior.Dhtwiki (talk)16:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Time to close this ANI?
As I said above, it seems that Freoh andAwolf are not the same editor, as the latter was involved in flagrant vandalism, repeatedly, whereas Freoh is not. However, he justPOV tagged the thePreamble section in theConstitution article for the forth time, where yet another editor reverted it with a reminder that consensus was not on his side, which apparentlyhe refuses to accept. This has been going on for some time now, keeping the article in a constant disruptive and unstable state. A week or so ago I was somewhat undecided about a topic ban and would have been satisfied with a stern warning, but that has changed, ast it seems he has no intention of complying with consensus and continues to ignore reasonable discussions from a good number of editors, and this is just one article. At this stage it would seem nothing short of a 30 day topic ban is called for, as some dozen editors have chimed in with the same basic concerns over his behavior. It seems like it's about time to close this ANI with a decision so everyone can move on. --Gwillhickers (talk)19:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe the issue of identity is nowthe question of the hour. It's possible, maybe likely, we're talking about two different people, but vandalism wasn't the only issue last year (seeUser talk:Awolf58).Freoh, if I'm wrong in my suspicions, I apologize. However, I believe it would be in your best interests and the community's to settle the issue several editors have now raised. I have no idea what the processes are, but my hope is that administrators at some level will take a look at this. As for the ANI itself, I continue to support a ban and believe it should be of sufficient length, 30 days, to make clear that your behaviors over the course of nearly four months have been at the expense of the good faith efforts of others, my own included.Allreet (talk)21:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's something interesting. Back in August of 2022, Awolf created another user account with the name ofGwiIIhickers, (spelled with two capital 'i' (I)) to make it appear that it read as my user name, Gwillhickers, spelled with two lower case 'l' (L) . This account was blocked indefinitely on August 12, 2022, only days before the user account of Freoh was created on August 20. Nothing conclusive, but something to consider. In any case, right now our primary concern should be aimed at closing this now belabored ANI, as it appears that Freoh is bent on slighting US history articles. As stated on his user page, his favorite article isList of common misconceptions, where the United States is the only country listed by name in its table of Contents, and where theChristianity section is the longest, by far, of any other religion covered.. --Gwillhickers (talk)02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This noticeboard discussion is about to be archived and is the next in line to be archived currently without a closing comment. Although I've previously said that a close should not be extreme, Freoh's not answering any of the questions about his 'new account' as mentioned by Dhtwiki has been a let down. Has anyone placed a request on the noticeboard for "Closure requests" to try to get more eyes on this discussion, or maybe someone could list an "administrator help" here on this page. This noticeboard discussion is next in line to be rolled over into archive and seems to be in some need of some closing comment.ErnestKrause (talk)17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible account sharing by student editor groups
I've recently come across a number of accounts with "group" in the name that are all drafting essay-style articles, not unlike what can be seen from Wiki Education tagged student editors. With these accounts, I'm concerned about violations ofWP:SHAREDACCOUNT and, if they are not part of Wiki Education, violations ofWP:NOTWEBHOST in that Wikipedia is being used as a platform for the collaborative writing of papers. If these users are part of Wiki Education, then they should be on their own student accounts rather than these group accounts.
There are probably more accounts like this that I haven't found yet. I'm guessing all these accounts are from the same course as I believe HFCN stands for Helene Fuld College of Nursing and the two accounts that don't have HFCN or Helene in the name also have medicine-related essays that they're working on. Pinging @Ian (Wiki Ed)/@Guettarda to see if you know anything about courses from this college on Wiki Education.Uhai (talk)21:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the pingUhai. This isn't a class we're working with, as far as I know. I will leave the students notes asking their instructor to contact Helaine.Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)17:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This user has repeatedly refused to understand Wikipedia Policy about reliable sources, verifiability and assuming good faith. His activity onTalk:Amritpal Singh (activist) (which is a BLP talk page) is highly disruptive and tendentious.
User also claims that Page Protections have been added to this page for the sole purpose of"pro-state narrative to flourish" like here andhere
Users like@CrusaderForTruth2023: and@Mixmon: and I have attempted to explain to him and point him to relevant guidelines and policy, but he shows no capacity what so over to understand what we are attempting to explain.WP:NOTHERE in the form ofTreating editing as a battleground— Precedingunsigned comment added byExtorc (talk •contribs)19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I belive if you rather input to construct a dialog at first we wouldn't be in this situation. I have pointed multiple times same concern and your response is in a way, like you don't want to accommodate ground reality. there's is clearlyWP:NPOV and article is not balanced. If you guys understood at first point why I have to repeat so many times to make you stop on further edit that too without discussing on the talk page.Dilpreet Singhping20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:RS we will discuss this on relevant page and there's already a thread & will open another one to discuss this further.Dilpreet Singhping20:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Extorc @Mixmon User Dilpreet Singh has the right to claim a possible conflict of interest as perWP:COI, seeing as one of the two users have Hindutva userboxes and both the users’ editing history is related to figures related to the Hindutva movement (including creating articles for Hindutva personalities). It is not a personal attack if a user suspects another of having possible conflict of interest in-regards to their editing if it can be reasonably assumed based on their activity and information provided on Wikipedia. Therefore, this is @Dilpreet Singh asserting a conflict of interest with regards to certain editors on an article where it may interfere. Dilpreet should not be punished and the victim of a witchhunt if he voices concerns about conflicts of interest of certain editors. Diffs: 1)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Abhijit%20Iyer-Mitra&oldid=1139528075 – draft for Hindutva internet personality, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, by user Mixmon 2)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy%20Index&diff=prev&oldid=1140538871 – including viewpoints of Hindutva economist, Sanjeev Sanyal, in article by Mixmon, even after being reverted by another editor who was concerned about including the views of a controversial figure into the article. User Extorc currently has a Hindutva infobox on his user page, whilst this may not indicate an affiliation with Hindutva but rather a genuine interest in Hindutva topics, a cursory look at his editing history can reasonably lead to someone coming to the latter conclusion. His choice of words in past edits are suspect of holding certain viewpoints on issues which are sympathetic of common Hindutva talkpoints and narratives, such as that Muslims are overly-appeased in India: 1)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1144783208 – writing edit that discusses how a court decision relates to the apparent "appeasement" of the Muslim minority in India. 2)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=1140942154 – contributing to an article titled "Criticism of Islam", where he changed wording slightly to claim that Muslims are more aggressive due to their religious environment and "Islamic imperialistic history", which is suspect given the above points. Therefore, is it unreasonable for Dilpreet to claim conflicts of interest based on Hindutva considering all of this? It is not a baseless personal attack as it is being presented here.ThethPunjabi (talk)21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Now what is "Hindutva economist" the user who reverted again cited no source for this labelling (I accepted that edit not because of the reason cited by that editor but because of lack of good quality critical analysis in the source unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies). You people can fall to such a low level- even if you disagree with the views of the person in draft article how is that an indication of bias? Following that logic editors who created articles on criminals have a criminal mindset? That draft is still there and I will work on that ( by the way again no source to brand him "Hindutva personality"). I am not supposed to clarify on this but it remains a proof of your meanness.Mixmon (talk)21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mixmon I am not being mean or personally attacking anyone, I am making the argument that Dilpreet has reasonable grounds for voicing concerns of certain editors on the basis ofWP:COI and that his accusations are not empty, hollow, or unsubstantiated (as shown by the diffs I have provided above). Your draft of Abhijit Iyer-Mitra portrayed him positively and does not meetWP:BALANCE, it makes no mention of his past controversies, controversial views, and affiliations with extremist ideologies. The controversy section is shallow and concludes by again showing him in a positive light.
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra literally is an contributor and writer for the Swarajya Magazine, one of the the main internet outlets for Hindutva on the internet: (search the keywords "Abhijit Iyer-Mitra swarajya" on Google to find his page on the Swarajya website, I cannot link it because their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia)
Look at the arguments you are making full of original research and lies - I can reply to this nonsense if you want but bring it to my talk page. This noticeboard is not for that.Mixmon (talk)22:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mixmon This is the right place for this discussion as it was claimed @Dilpreet Singh made personal attacks by suggesting others may have a Hindutva bias. Meanwhile, an editor can suggest possible conflict of interests regarding certain editors in specific areas as perWP:COI, and these are not personal attacks if they are reasonable based on the particular editor's activity and information shared on Wikipedia.ThethPunjabi (talk)22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
same thing I have noticed aboutDaxServer, they kept a biased against Sikhs. no doubt our observations was correct.Dilpreet Singhping21:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
What real arguments about policies and guidelines they are making? Their entire agrument is based on allegations on editors and original research about their editing.Mixmon (talk)22:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dilpreet Singh if you suspect another user of having a conflict of interest, please substantiate your claim by referring to their past editing history, information they provided about themselves on Wikipedia, and the views they have shared on Wikipedia (by sharing links of examples of evidence to support your assertion). Otherwise, it may be seen as a personal attack without basis.ThethPunjabi (talk)22:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I was just thinking of filing a report on Dilpreet Singh. The only thing the user has to offer is that [all] RS are just state-run propaganda. The user is exhibiting a crusader’sWP:RGW behaviour. Sorting thru the discussions is painful and quite a headache as the talk page is being littered with the same argument (see OP links). The user is a net negative and clearlyWP:NOTHERE for an encyclopaedia —DaxServer (t ·m ·c)21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and see the reply to my Contentious topic reminderhere where they just repeats the same thing —DaxServer (t ·m ·c)21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)(amended at 21:44 22 March 2023 (UTC))
and this comment is an example of his biasedness against sikhs. If you wants a constructive dialogs then you have to give space to others.Dilpreet Singhping21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Let me summarise Dilpreet's major arguments -
All the sources cited in the Amritpal article are state propaganda.
The editors on that page are government-affiliated "state lobby".
The editors are only pushing state-sponsored sources while ignoring sources offered by Dilpreet.
Wikipedia is "biased against Sikhs" as they "don't have many accounts that meet the requirement for the semi-protected".
Editors are not aware of the ground reality so they are defaming "drug healer" "bhai" Amritpal Singh.
Protection on the page is Wikipedia's "conspiracy against Sikhs" to keep them away for the reasons mentioned in point #4.Mixmon (talk)22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Let me make it easy, there are two concerns which I have :
1. Balanced conversation.
2. opportunity to edit/protect the article.
check your points they are merely an explanation that you don't want aWP:BALANCE conversation. I repeated this many times in many ways and you are going in circle.Dilpreet Singhping22:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I have blocked Dilpreet_Singh for three days for personal attacks after my warnings earlier today. I don't have much faith that they'll contribute constructively after the block, but it'll stop the immediate disruption while this discussion continues.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mixmon @ScottishFinnishRadish I supported Dilpreet's claim of possible conflict of interest in violation ofWP:COI using diffs/links of past user history and citations. Therefore, there was no unsubstantiated personal attacks made against any user. I have remained civil in my tone of writing as well, even after Mixmon started writing uncivilly to me above, accusing me of "meanness", "You people can fall to such a low level", and "unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies". Furthermore, I warned Dilpreet Singh above to not make unsubstantiated claims of COI without evidence (such as diffs) to support his assertions or else they will be viewed as personal attacks.ThethPunjabi (talk)22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Bluntly,everyone on that article that isn't some drive-by and is actually going to stay and defend their position should be given a warning forthe India-Pakistancontentious topic area, with Singh probably being one of the worse ones due to the aspersions-casting. The topic area is a powderkeg; the last thing we need is nationalist bickering. —Jéské Couriano(No further replies will be forthcoming.)04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano I took your point and tried to extend an olive branch at the article talk page just now but the other editors there accused me of “propaganda” now. So who is in the wrong when one tries to make amends and the others continue to attack, belittle, and argue with them?ThethPunjabi (talk)07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Jéské Couriano, I'm not standing by what @Dilpreet Singh has said or done but the fragrant and blatant abuse of the page by Hindu nationalist accounts @Extorc @Mixmon @CrusaderForTruth2023 by refusing to listen to accounts who oppose the Indian government's actions in Punjab thereby destroying any neutrality and locking the page.
User @Extorc is refusing 'Requests to Edit' that do not agree with the Indian-state narrative.
For example, I requested an edit to remove an article by Indian-state backed media that was a blatant character assassination on the individual in question. I argued that the heavily pro-India narratives of these media outlets backed by the central government renders them unreliable sources when considering the context that said individual is an anti-Indian entity. Wikipedia policy on reliability of sources when considering context:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
In response @Extorc, rather amusingly, rejected it claiming I needed to provide another source on how the source in question was unreliable!
This is a blatant attempt to mischaracterise the article at a time when many will view it and needs urgent Administrative attention.Uproot Tyranny (talk)20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Uproot Tyranny: I'm not defendinganyone's behaviour on that page - not Singh's, not Mixmon's, notRandom Drive-By IP EditorWot Doesn't ReadAnything #134i76238596847561, andnot yours. The fact that this is the fourth time in three years that this exact situation has erupted at an article underWP:ARBIPA strongly suggests to me that more restrictions need to come, and it will very likely beXCP as the result of another Arbitration case in the vein ofWP:ARBPIA4. I would sooner that not happen, as it'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but if the nationalist griping and edit-warring does not stop, that is where things are going to be headed. —Jéské Couriano(No further replies will be forthcoming.)20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It is sad, I agree. Yes there should definitely be more introspection on the rules if this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Take care.Uproot Tyranny (talk)20:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand that you are not taking any one side, believe me. I, myself am neutral on the whole Amritpal Singh issue. The problem arises when the Wikipedia article of a preacher who does not believe in the idea of an Indian state contains unsubtantiated allegations of being 'funded by terror' 'having links with Pakistani Intelligence agencies' or claiming the preacher in question was 'making human bombs'. These claims, which are not true (As any non-Indian news article on the subject will state), have the intended effect of misrepresenting the individual in question during a time when many will seek to find out who this person was.
The problem seems to be that a particular group of Editors, some with special abilities (I am hesitent to call them Administrators as I do not know if they are) are using their powers in what seems to be a concentrated effort to dilute the truth. The fact that I have been targeted for investigation by one of these Editors(?) for raising similar points as others on the page looks like textbook intimidation to me.
I understand that this may seem like an exhausting, tiring and never-ending issue of 'nationalist griping' but the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous. Journalists, along with regular people, will be looking this individual up at this particular time. Thank you for reading.Uproot Tyranny (talk)21:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If you intended your little speech to be some form of mollification, all it does is convince me you're a partisan in the area and shouldn't be in it. No duh "the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous";that's why the partisans on either side are trying to skew it. This isn't "Indian nationalists vs. everyone else", it's "Indian nationalists vs. Pakistani nationalists vs. everyone else". And "Everyone else"always fucking loses because the other two camps think they'reProtestants or Catholics,Israelis or Palestinians,Azerbaijani or Armenians,Democrats or Republicans. The tribalism is the root cause of this, and you're just showing us that you're not as above the fray as you're claiming. —Jéské Couriano(No further replies will be forthcoming.)00:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I came here to articulate the blatant injustice that I was seeing by the addition of false information from Indian media, that was then locked on the page by Hindu nationalist Admins and this is what I get back for trying to seek redress.Uproot Tyranny (talk)00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, at this point given the reaction, I'll relent with the source being there, though it is blatantly untrue, if the article had both sides shown in the interest of neutrality, but this is not the case. The whole article is very one-sided and Pro-Indian Government and the 3/4 Hindu nationalist Editors/Admins have rejected the addition of the other side.
We can go back and forth about one particular source but the bigger issue is this: At least allow editors to put the both sides in the article before locking it. The bottom line is that it is a very biased article and it needs to be more neutral.Uproot Tyranny (talk)01:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Blocking me was not a solution, since then many profile pointed out same thing and unfortunately those profile were blocked raising voice. Just for you all, I have no idea about these profiles, you haveslaughtered innocent people for voicing.Dilpreet Singhping00:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment I went down a bit of a rabit hole looking this thing up (its around 5 AM in my country right now and I should probably got to sleep, so pardon any confusing english). The common theme I see on the talk page is 1) Uneccessarily wordy arguments 2) Failure to adequately separate discussions regarding different topics and 3) General disregard for the application of WP policies, instead choosing to adopt whatever felt 'about right'. The TP is a mess and is unlikely to bear fruit unless there is a drastic improvement in the actions of editors involved. Additionally, I think the page would benefit from a longer ECP; being rather controvertial with little likelyhood of improvement in the next few days. Will probably add to this later.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)23:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Of course you want a longer ECP, you completely disregarded everything I said as 'unsubstantial' even though I gave you6 references!
Extending the ECP only serves to solidify the Indian Government narrative over the article in question.
Why is it so hard to accept that Indian news media is actively pro-government? You suggested that I should take up the reliability concerns at RSN; which I agreed with, you didn't need to add the petty remarks like"but I doubt you'll find any takers" or taking a jab at me for using the word 'ponder'
Again, it is an established fact that Indian news media is state-backed. I have given you credible sources as references, extending the ECP without addressing these issue will only embolden the Hindu nationalist editors and adminstrators who had already locked the page with blatant falsehoods fromstate-backed Indian news media.Uproot Tyranny (talk)23:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No, it isnot an "established fact." It's a widely-held presumption. I happen to agree with it, largely, but that's a long way from an "established fact." With that, you seem to be under the impression that because many people dislike the spin that much of the Indian news media uses, you and your comrades therefore justified in edit warring. This is absolutely not the case.
If a particular source is cited inWP:RSPSOURCES as unreliable when it comes to politics, then raise the issue for that particular source. If you think a sourceshould be listed, make your case at theappropriate noticeboard, and accept the consensus that results. Those sum up your options. Complaining because you think an article reads the way that the Modi government might like is not one of those options. Ravenswing00:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not trying to 'edit-war' I am trying to showcase how Indian Press cannot be used as a reliable source for an Anti-Indian state entity. Fine, it doesn't need to be an established fact (Even though, it pretty much is), even if it is a widely-help presumption, the usage of Indian news media, which will always favour the integrity of India, to make unsubstantiated unreferenced claims that a preacher was making 'human bombs' is always going to be anunreliable source. Maybe not for everything butfor this particular context, YES.Uproot Tyranny (talk)00:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Putting aside the issue of the sourcing, which could have a disclaimer of sorts, the bottom line is that the article is very one-sided and attempts of adding anything of non-Government narrative has been consistently denied and rejected.All I am asking for is a neutral article.Uproot Tyranny (talk)01:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I saw this user onThe Incredibles with the tag of "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" which is an immediate redflag. Given their recent edit of removing this entire section I suspect they areWP:NOTHERE. As for whether or not they are a sock I can't tell.(Non-administrator comment) ―Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Upon looking a bit further they seem to be a new anti-vandal. IT's a little suspicious that they already know what they are doing but I think we shouldassume good faith here. ―Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I was reviewing their edits and all seemed to be in order. I will ask however that they please do not delete sections on ANI, especially with no edit summary.RickinBaltimore (talk)19:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First, the Uyghur genocide is untenable. Anyone who has visited Xinjiang knows that this does not exist. The UN mission did not mention genocide, and the Muslim countries that went to Xinjiang to investigate did not say that there was genocide.
Second, the Uyghur genocide is a very serious incident, not only the government, but even the Chinese people have to pay the price for it. So please be careful with Wikipedia. Because of such an entry, the life safety of many Chinese people will be affected in the future.
Third, Wikipedia is a neutral platform, if you must write, please indicate that this is a controversial topic, let everyone distinguish between true and false, and not just believe in Western words.Gueeisgrim (talk)01:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non communicative anon continues to add unreferenced material. Account operator seems to be primarily (maybe entirely) interested in articles covered underWP:GS/PAGEANT. Talkpage full of unacknowledged warnings. ☆Bri (talk)05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Blocked temporarily for plain disruption. I was unaware of the GS, BTW, but we don't have to go there to see the disruption.Drmies (talk)18:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now, I am concerned abut their disruptive editing, edit-warring, canvassing and personal attacks by this user and edit-warring + canvassing by another user – they're mostly focused onAgop Dilâçar and any articles related to him (Turkish alphabet,Atatürk's reforms, etc.):
They’d remove any mention of Agop Dilâçar and the fact that he founded the modern Turkish alphabet[1],[2],[3],[4],[5], and then they'd edit-war with various users[6],[7],[8],[9].
After modern reliable independent sources were presented to them on the talk discussion[10] and added to the article and the IP was reverted with relevantnotices on their talk page, the IP, switching to the registered account, canvasses asking for"help" (also calling reliable sources “fabricated”), and restores thecanvassing comment once I removed it after notifying them of canvassing[11]. Later they canvassed in tr-wiki as well[355].
The person whom they canvassed with in en-wiki -Aybeg (talk·contribs) removes the well-sourced content with false "unreliable references" edit-summaries[12],[13] then edit-wars with false accusations of "propaganda"[14],[15] and "vandalism"[16],[17]. Aybeg then canvasses by asking "help" from another user[18] . What's also concerning is that Aybeg never participated in any of the talk discussions.
@KhndzorUtogh i can give exact URL where i found this conversation:https://web.archive.org/web/20230325143856/https://eksisozluk.com/entry/150616832(also i wanna note, i rememberin school they taught us that there was a armenian who just onlyhelped the establishment of turkish alphabet. in ekşi sözlük entry, it says the article only says "only armenian guy created alphabet". so, we should keep discussing it)
and "many people will come" was just a prediction of mine. in that entrythere isnt sucha thing like this: "heyy people!! go edit that!!! help me!!". so, that eksisozluk.com thing is not guilty in my opinion. but i dont know other things performed by canuur, but again i believe that eksisozluk.com thing is okay for me. think about it, just a guy post in reddit and talking about it, and nothing more. ----modern_primatඞඞඞTALK15:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Most of the information about Agop Dilaçar on the pages is based on false and unofficial claims. Official sources on the subject between 1933 and 1945 were shown. In fact, Agop Dilaçar himself referred to the articles he wrote. However, the accounts named @KhndzorUtogh and @Nocturnal781 ignored official sources and then cited books written after 2010 that had nothing to do with linguistics or linguistics, and did not provide resources on the subject. I still do not understand why the official sources about agop Dilaçar between 1933-1945 were deleted and why Agop Dilaçar's own articles were not taken into account, but why the books after 2010, which had nothing to do with linguistics, were taken as the only reference. The official sources given are deleted without giving any reason. Then we get reported for violating the rules. If there is a belligerent behavior here, it is the accounts named KhndzorUtogh and Nocturnal781, which do not accept any official source except for books that have nothing to do with linguistics and delete them.
All the changes I made are based on official sources. However, all these official sources were removed for no reason, and instead all the correct information was removed by showing the books after 2010 that have nothing to do with linguistics or even the Turkish Language Association or Turkish.
This is a conduct board, not a discussion of sources which I've patiently shown to you (including relevant source guidelines) in thediscussion. You've beenalready shown reliable, academic, independent, modern sources (unlike outdated non-independent source from 1930 you kept citing on talk/article), those sources were added to the article as well. Yet here, you don't address any of the problematic conduct of yours including edit-warring, personal attacks, false accusations, canvassing - both on wiki and (I’m not including the link but can email to the interested admins) off-wiki. This is why I reported you and Aybeg.KhndzorUtogh (talk)19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
So here's my two cents on this:
Canuur is essentially correct on the content as I explained at lengthhere; and theWP:CHERRYPICKING of non-subject-specific sources to support a statementpost hoc rather than looking at general overviews at reputable sources is poor encyclopedia writing. It may be worth noting that this is particularly problematic in this subject area.
The behaviour, on the other hand, is clearly problematic. Canuur seems to be a new user who is more used to how things are done at other parts of the Turkish internet - hence the reflex to canvas and share this on Ekşi Sözlük (as noted in previous discussions, this website is a 4chan meets Reddit meets Urban Dictionary sort of place where the user base skews pretty nationalistic these days).
It's important to keep things in perspective - the canvassing and the Ekşi Sözlük post are obviously very inappropriate, but it doesn't contain an actual "call to arms" and doesn't seem to have resulted in heightened interest in the topic barring a single user. It is more reflective of a lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes thanWP:NOTHERE behaviour; indeed, Canuur displays a decent ability to browse Turkish-language sources, which, if channeled appropriately, would be very beneficial for the encyclopaedia. I see an opportunity to turn things around here, which is why I've posted a lengthy comment and tried to expand the article further to resolve the issue. So a good reprimand is in order, followed by keeping an eye on the conduct - but probably not more at this stage.
Your first point is merely based off your interpretation and you need to assume good faith before accusing of cherrypicking, as a consensus hasn't yet been reached regarding that issue (and it should be noted that your arguments don't negate the ones that suggest that Agop Dilâçar was heavily involved/created the modern Turkish alphabet script per reliable sources). It's good that you recognise the problematic behavior that has been demonstrated by Canuur, but it isn't just limited to off-wiki – they've been directly canvassing on-wiki as well despite notices in their talk page - good faith was shown to them by patientlyexplaining the basic rules of Wikipedia instead of imminently reporting. In the same vein, their repeated personal attacks as false accusations in addition to edit warring as demonstrated in the report, all despite warning in their talk, the behavioural issues cannot simply be washed away (along with the user Aybeg). -Kevo327 (talk)13:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the behavioural issues should be washed away, on the contrary, I'm saying that a good reprimand is necessary, but also quite likely sufficient. This inappropriate behaviour also has to be contextualised in that 1) this is a new user who is used to a different form of internet culture and 2) the "patient explanation" involves not even acknowledging asolid academic source that focuses on the article's topic, dismissing it with a few sources that discuss the issue in a single sentence and the not-very-accurate response of "This is an undeniable fact". There wasn't exactly an attempt to de-escalate there. Now that there's an actual conversation, and that the erroneous nature of the conduct has been explicitly pointed out, the disruption seems to have stopped and Canuur now seems to be engaged inconstructive editing, so I can't see the benefit of anything more than a "formal" warning. Obviously further disruption should result in sanctions. How would you like to see this resolved otherwise?
I agree with you that a formal (logged) warning is probably sufficient for Canuur at this stage, only because he’s a newbie as you say. It would be worth for them to start learning editing Wikipedia in easier, less controversial topics for some time. We have seen some editors who stood up from the wrong foot quickly improve after they garner some general editing experience. I also agree with you that Aybeg’s behaviour is more concerning, as he should’ve learnt the behavioural rules by now, and I’m open to suggestions from the community as to what sanctions may be suitable.KhndzorUtogh (talk)17:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
User(s)blocked.,
Extended confirmed protected was Cullen and Galobtter what done the job.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)10:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
—Czello14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely forWP:PAID violations:User talk:Ankur D1946#Indefinite block.El_C08:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Murder of Don Banfield appears to be the article that this is about.Deor (talk)16:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Blockedsockpuppet)RodRabelo7 (talk)00:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)