For clarification, I was indeed blocked before. The false allegations are the misbehavior that said IP sock is implying/alleging, which are not true. Some details below[1].Symphony Regalia (talk)23:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m curious as to what difference it makes? Different wikis, different rules. You can be blocked on one, but fine on another. If Symphony was that bad, an SRG would have been put in at Meta, for locks, when JAwiki put the block on.
The global block log and global block list are aboutglobal blocks. Misleading as the global block log description might read, the wordsblocked and unblocked still lead to the global blocking page on meta. –2804:F1...10:1F3D (talk)16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The penny’s just dropped. That part of Meta is about blocks implemented to affect all Wikis, not a list of where local blocks have been applied. Alrighty, well, I’ve learned something here today.
Is Symphony a problem here, though? I stand by pointing out that JAWiki would have gone to SBG for locks, and Global Block would have an entry, if Symphony was that bad.MM(Give me info.)(Victories) 06:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Nevermind, just read what was linked below, about Proxies, and the previous ANI report. Proven guilty. If a block goes ahead here, maybe we should pop to SBG, as it’s now cross-wiki.MM(Give me info.)(Victories)06:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I am sensing there is subtext, but I lack the contextual knowledge to read between the lines. Symphony Regalia is difficult to work with, but no one should face false accusations. I also think it is unhealthy for the community for such things to be unaddressed. My original plan was just to report it and let the admins figure out how to handle it. Now it seems that SR is accusing me of being in some sort of conspiracy, and I feel the need to address that.Tinynanorobots (talk)15:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
So it appears it is not a false accusationaccording to this report. Of courseSymphony Regalia can clear this up by chiming in here. I'm guessing it is the same person, since they are also a frequent contributor to the EnglishYasuketalk page. And what about this IP, how would they know any of this background unless they too were editing in that same related area. It would be nice to hear from them as well, with whatever IP they arecurrently using. Since it seems like this IP has some experience editing WP, they should also be firmly reminded to comment on the content, not the contributor.Isaidnoway(talk)17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on thisprevious incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia. I blew the whistle due to the fact that the JP wiki ended up being in the crossfire roughly a month after SR's initial edits on the EN side and it doesn't help that SR wasdenying allegations (socks and harassment) that were levied byJP users, which ultimately was true from the results of the report and the fact that SR didn't bother to defend themselves, further adds to this scrutiny. Furthermore, when called out for their misconduct, they do not attempt at addressing said misconduct, but would rather concoct unfounded allegations on their accusers,like so.
I'd like to know why SR is adamant in pushing their POV whereby it spills over to the JP side of things, to the point where socks are involved. At the same time, I do not think this user should be editing, especially with the events and misconduct leading up to the aforementioned site block on the JP side, as well as their past misconducts.14.192.208.205 (talk)18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear the Japanese check user found something odd, but no definitive proof of sockpuppetry. An admin with the appropriate authority might want to look at their results. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Looks like there was a couple of admins involved over there at ja.wikipedia.org in that whole debacle, and it appears there was consensus to block all those accounts, not sure what we can do about it. The initial complainthere was about a possible false accusation, and it doesn't appear to be false.Isaidnoway(talk)00:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
In terms of the accusations of sock puppetry, here[2], one of the accused socks copies the message another user wrote[3] and makes it about them. Here on EN Wikipedia, SR does the same thing[4][5]. Just wanted to note the behavioral similarities for whatever admin might investigate the sockpuppetry situation.Brocade River Poems (She/They)08:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
"Directly involved" with what? I have no participation in the Japanese Wikipedia and I have no involvement with the 3PO that you and Tiny are looking into. My creating an RfC on Yasuke has nothing to do with this save for the fact that you were banned from editing the Japanese Wikipedia because of your behavior regarding Yasuke. PerWP:INVOLVED,editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved, I am not an administrator, for starters, nor am I actively involved in this particular dispute between You, Tiny, and the IP. You are sayingthe allegations are indeed false but the statements that you have been blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia and have been blocked before on the English Wikipedia are demonstrably true. I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I posted. Being on the opposite side of an RfC from you doesn't negate my ability to provide easily verifiable evidence in regard to whether or not the accusation that you've been blocked is true.Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
You are a directly involved editor in that you've attempted to overturn a RfC[7], on a topic where you and Tinynanorobots (and perhaps not coincidentally the sock IPs here) have all taken the same side dozens of times[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18],one that has been obviously opposed by me in that I gave a lengthy dissent[19]. The POV you and Tinynanorobots seem to push is that it should be represented as "debated" whetherYasuke was a samurai or not, and that CNN and other sources such as Time, BBC, and The Smithsonian are not reliable.
I am actually quite surprised you found this ANI thread by Tinynanorobots even before I did, considering no one notified you. You've even supported Tinynanorobots in his RSN thread to argue that CNN is not reliable[20], because it happens to contradict the POV you two share.
In fact you've even canvassed Tinynanorobots to edit the Samurai article[21], so a bit strange for you to say you're not involved in the 3PO.
In fact you've even canvassed Tinynanorobots to edit the Samurai article[151], so a bit strange for you to say you're not involved in the 3PO.
He posted a quote from a source on a different talk page and I told him it seemed helpful forSamurai.A comment I made which precedes your disagreement by a month. One of the difs you linked is me answering a question about citing articles, one dif is me explaining why I made an RfC, One dif is me commenting that one source is more useful than a trivial mention about wrestlers. So on and so forth. I fail to see how Tiny and Gitz arguing about sources has anything to do with me. Again, me being on the opposite side of an RfC as you does not negate the easily verifiable evidence that you have been blocked multiple times on the Japanese and English Wikipedia. Ergo, the accusations are not false. As for the claimYou've even supported Tinynanorobots in his RSN thread to argue that CNN is not reliable, no? I suggested an RfC might be necessary to determine whether Thomas Lockley's book is a reliable source because the previous time it was brought to the RSN there is no clear answer to the question. I didn't mention CNN once. In fact, some other editor involved in the discussion suggested replacing the CNN Article with a citation from Lockley's book and my post is quite literally me explaining that local consensus seems to be against using Lockley's book. Oh yeah,real hard argument against CNN there.Brocade River Poems (She/They)00:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of how you attempt to justify it, it is abundantly clear that:
1. You are a directly involved editor.
2. You and the submitter Tinynanorobots have taken the same side dozens of times (shared by the sock IPs I mentioned below), and frequently push the same POV, which has been opposed to me.
I once again ask "involved in what?" Do you continue to fail to understand thatWP:INVOLVED refers to closers and admins, not for posting evidence?
It's almost like people develop consensus and engage on the Wiki Talk Page for the purpose of building a consensus that involves compromising rather than just randomly misciting policies. Secondly,Tinynanorobots is reporting the IP Poster for making false accusations against you and I am providing evidence that shows they are not false. That fundamentally makes us on opposing sides here.
I am here because I saw the post of the accusations while readingTalk:Samurai and saw that Tiny said he was going to report it and I know for a fact you are under ArbCom sanctions and you have been blocked on both the Japanese and English Wikipedias. I frankly couldn't care less that you dissented on my RfC. You are a singular editor with a questionable history. Your accusation that I am here becauseit will be helpful to you in any future content disputes is a funny accusation. What future content disputes? I have no intention of engaging with you on anything relating to Yasuke or any other content going forward because it isn't worth the time and the energy, so unless you're going to be following me around Wikipedia wherever I go, I don't particularly see what possible content disputes we're going to get into.
I want to say for the record it'shilarious that you're all but accusing me of being involved in some grand conspiracy to push some POV about Yasuke against you, when not even a whole month ago I was accused of being involved in a conspiracywith you to push some POV, to the point that my page was vandalized.
Also, I want to add for the record that suggesting a reliable source that is published by an academic press would be helpful in improving an article that currently has a tag forThis article needs additional citations for verification is a far cry fromWP:CANVASSING. My participation inTalk:Samurai prior to that point involved two posts providing sourcesSpecial:Diff/1237546021Special:Diff/1237534244. I informed Tiny that the source would be more useful atSamurai because the source wasabout samurai in general and did not involve Yasuke, and I knew thatSamurai was looking for more sources. I find this accusation to be offensive, especially when you considerTiny had already been involved in that discussion onSamurai before I even participated in it.Brocade River Poems (She/They)02:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I admit, I was mad at this, until I start reading your evidence. I only read the first few, then I laughed. Those involve us disagreeing civilly or only partially. In one case, BRP answers my question. Also, do you not realize that I have agreed with you? I actually opposed the RfC, I just didn’t want it to create a new consensus that was stricter than it should be.
The canvassing accusation is too weak to brother defending against. In fact, I think the best evidence against you, is that you think your evidence is evidence.Tinynanorobots (talk)15:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed a false allegation. This IP user (@14.192.210.103, @14.192.208.205, @14.192.213.32) is a sock and an involved editor using proxies to spread false information.
Concerning Japanese Wikipedia I was indeed blocked, but it is was for political reasons and nothing that the IP user is claiming. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated because they aren't true. I was blocked based on a comment request[23] where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart (on Japanese Wikipedia the Nanking Massacre is namedThe Nanking Incident and many of the genocide allegations are scrubbed from the article).
Regarding your statementI have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart
You were warned for arbitrarily changing the article title.[24]
You were warned to stop vandalizing the article twice.[25][26]
You were warned to stop editing other user's comments.[27]
The user who initially posted about your arbitrary renaming wrote記事名を変更する場合には必ず前もって「Wikipedia:ページの改名」に基づき改名の提案を行った上で合意を得るなどの手順を遵守してください telling you not to arbitrarily rename an article and to go through the proper renaming proposal procedure, to which you apparently tried to brute force the change. Moreover, the article contains a footnote that explains that there is a problem with the terminology massacre because it belittles all the rape, arson, and other crimes that happened. You repeatedly[28][29][30][31][32] edit warred even after being told you couldn't rename the article arbitrarily and that it required a proposal to do so. Likewise, evidence shows you did not even engage in talk page discussion about the subject[33].
You were blocked for one week on the Japanese Wiki[34] for forcing the name change here.
You were blocked for one week on the Japanese Wiki for removing other user's comments and falsely warning them on their talkpages in retaliation here[35], and regardless of the sockpuppet accusation which did not definitively close one way or the other, you were indefinitely blocked with a citation being that you were highly likely to be a sock puppet, but that also you had engaged in other conduct explained in an RfC[36] here. They say that they moved to have you banned based on the RfC and the CheckUser saying there was abnormal connectivity between the various alleged socks even though the CU could not definitively say they were the same person. The Request to Block you and those other accounts noted that you were blocked because even if you weren't a sock puppet, you were a user who drained the community by your conduct[37]. You were subject to a Request for Block process on the Japanese Wiki, and the statement that only three editors commented is pretty irrelevant when, from my reading, the RfB is a limited process whereby only experienced editors can vote and that the voting carries on until an Admin decides to close it. The rationale of the Admin who closed it was as follows (translated)(Action) All accounts subject to the request are blocked indefinitely. Some of the respondents have claimed that “guilty until proven innocent” is not correct, yet none of them have made any mention of the unnatural connectivity shown in the CU request, despite the fact that there are several votes citing it as a reason,(putting aside the validity of comparing the block to guilt or innocence in the first place), we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith. Thus, we have concluded that the comments made by the subject of the request are not convincing enough to overturn the vote.
Basically you were indefinitely blocked, along with all other suspected accounts, because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the irregular connectivity despite it being cited multiple times as the reason for wanting to block you. Because of this, the admin concluded that you were incapable or unwilling to prove your innocence in good faith and thus you were blocked. In fact, you provided no comment at all in your defense while three of the alleged socks simply said it wasn't fair without actually saying anything to disprove the charges. The vote ran from August 24th to August 31st with all 4 participants agreeing that the accounts should be blocked, with the admin closing the request on the 31st that there was not sufficient defense to overturn the vote.
In short, the community found you to be disruptive and blocked you.
Beats me. Tinynanorobots reported an IP User saying the IP accusations were false. Symphony Regalia contends the accusations are not false and gave the above explanation, most of which was simply not true, so I posted the evidence. If there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked before doesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware. I don't think lying about the circumstances of their ban on the Japanese Wiki is against any particular guideline, and if it is, I'm unaware of it. The issue is that they're saying the IP Editor is making false accusation, which isn't true, because the evidence supports the IP editor's accusations. That said, the fact that the IP Editor is apparently highly likely to be a proxy is probably worth some sort of investigation.Brocade River Poems (She/They)02:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
For clarification, it is the alleged misbehavior and implications being spread by the IP sock that are false. They are also not supported by the evidence.
You are indeed a directly involved editor and judging by the responses here, it is quite likely that these sock IPs (@14.192.210.103, @14.192.208.205, @14.192.213.32) belong to you.
Why do you use a very similar writing style to the sock IPs?[38][39]
Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[40] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago)
Despite being a new user why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works, like the sock IPs?
How did you find this thread so quickly right after I dissented in your attempt to overturn an RfC[41], despite you receiving no notification of it?
You were warned for arbitrarily changing the article title. You were warned to stop vandalizing the article twice. You were warned to stop editing other user's comments.
No, I did not do those things. On Japanese Wikipedia warnings are frequently weaponized and abused by editors in content disputes, because Japanese Wikipedia has a provision that warnings cannot be removed from talk pages for any reason.
What I did was attempt to get the article renamed from Nanking Incident to Nanking Massacre, to bring it in line with the rest of the world. And I stand by that. Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources.
Touching the Nanking Massacre, by and large, was not received kindly. Many JA Wikipedia editors take it very personally. Something different between English Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia is that, unlike English Wikipedia which is significantly more demographically diverse spanning a large number of countries and a broader age range, editors on Japanese Wikipedia are overwhemingly of one demographic, in one timezone, and of one age group.
This leads to a situation where there is effectively dogma, and unsaid things you not allowed to do there.
Moreover, the article contains a footnote that explains that there is a problem with the terminology massacre because it belittles all the rape, arson, and other crimes that happened.
Indeed, and it is a very bizarre form of "victim blaming"-style mental gymnastics. I have no interest in yet another content dispute with you that you refuse to drop the stick on.
The Request to Block you and those other accounts noted that you were blocked because even if you weren't a sock puppet, you were a user who drained the community because by your conduct
This is categorically untrue as I was never a frequent editor on Japanese Wikipedia.
You were subject to a Request for Block process on the Japanese Wiki, and the statement that only three editors commented is pretty irrelevant when
It is indeed very relevant. Only three comments total is extremely weak form of consensus, particularly with how common canvassing is.
from my reading, the RfB is a limited process whereby only experienced editors can vote and that the voting carries on until an Admin decides to close it
This is false. The requirement to vote in a "block RfC" is overall very weak, essentially not much more than being auto-confirmed依頼時点で編集50回以上、活動期間1か月以上の2点を満たしている、被依頼者でないログイン利用者 (50 edits and registered longer than a month). Not only that, but the requirements to just "comment" are effectively nothing, and those effectively serve as votes.
English Wikipedia outright abolished the use of RfCs for blocks.
we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith. Thus, we have concluded that the comments made by the subject of the request are not convincing enough to overturn the vote.
As mentioned by other editor, "guilty until proven innocent" is an absurd violation of fundamental Wikipedia policy. I cannot disprove something that doesn't apply to me to begin with.
It is a form ofDevil's Proof. ("Probatio diabolica is a legalrequirement to achieve an impossible proof. Where a legal system would appear to require an impossible proof,the remedies are reversing the burden of proof, or giving additional rights to the individual facing the probatio diabolica.")
Basically you were indefinitely blocked, along with all other suspected accounts, because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation
Multiple explanations were offered. Given that I hadn't even edited Japanese wikipedia in a while, I had no interest in participating in what was clearly a political ban. Blocks are also not supposed to beWP:PUNITIVE.Symphony Regalia (talk)02:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh boy, new conspiracy theories about my identity!
Why do you use a very similar writing style to the sock IPs? [168] [169]
Probably because it is an incredibly formal style of writing and I'm not inclined to write super informally on Wikipedia? Is the crime which you are accusing me of having a vocabulary or something?If you want to send me up to CheckUser, go for it. I have nothing to hide. I have disclosed that I once shared an IP Address with another user, and that I was once an IP Editor.
Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[170] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago)
Bludgeoning what? Why do you routinely cite policies and guidelines that aren't even applicable to what you're talking about.WP:BLUDGEONIn Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. What viewpoint? What high number of comments? I have responded to your comments and made an additional comment saying that it is offensive to accuse me ofWP:CANVASSING for suggesting that someone's reliable source would be better served in an article that is actually related to the source. Beyond that, I gave evidence that you were blocked on the EN Wiki before, and you decided to go on a whole spiel about how I'mWP:INVOLVED which, again, doesn't really seem to apply here??? You said I was involved, so I got involved and posted a response to your statement that you were essentially a victim of political persecution, and now that I have done so, you're calling the evidence "obscure diffs from years ago". The crux of your defense is that you're discriminated against because the Japanese editors want to whitewash genocide, when you were sanctioned for disruptive editing and trying to bruteforce the change you wanted. As for thesame diffs, you do realize that anyone can go and check your edit history, right? That people don't have to just take it on face-value when you claim you're the victim of some grand persecution?? I cited the difs because they're relevant to why you were blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia.
Despite being a new user why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works, like the sock IPs?
Because anyone with eyes who can read Japanese can go and read how the Request for Block process works? Links were provided to the RfC, the CheckUser Request, and the RfB. It might be shocking, I know, but I'm not going to just accept whatever people tell me without investigating it myself first. It isn't like this is some opaque occult practice. Everything is pretty transparent. That said, I didn't read the entire page, so I didn't know their idea of an experienced editor was 50 Edits and 1 month of account existence.
How did you find this thread so quickly right after I dissented in your attempt to overturn an RfC[171], despite you receiving no notification of it?
As I mentioned previously I saw the accusations onTalk:Samurai and I saw Tinynanorobot say he was going to post a complaint if they were false accusations. Again,I have eyes, that's how. Right after you dissented in my RfC?You dissented days ago. The diff you linked to is from the 5th, this is not right after you dissented. Just because you dissented days ago on an RfC doesn't make the evidence of you being blocked somehow irrelevant.
As to the rest of your comment, I'm not going to continue arguing beyond the point of noting that I cannot simultaneously be a nefarious expert of the Japanese Wikipedia while also being unaware of their policies. If the Japanese Wiki doesn't allow you to remove warnings, and your editing other user's comment warning is because of that, then mea culpa, but it's still against their policies. Just because you don't agree with their policies doesn't mean they cannot justifiably sanction you for violating them.Brocade River Poems (She/They)03:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Probably because it is an incredibly formal style of writing and I'm not inclined to write super informally on Wikipedia? Is the crime which you are accusing me of having a vocabulary or something?
Yes, but there's formal and then there's "you formal". You and the IP socks certainly have an oddly similar writing syle.[42][43]
WP:BLUDGEON In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.
You've left more text on this page than anyone else despite it supposedly having nothing to do with you. Why is that? Pretty weird, huh? It's almost like you're directly involved not just because I recently dissented in your attempt to overturn a RfC[44], but also in other ways as well that are now coming to light.
you're calling the evidence "obscure diffs from years ago".
You used diffs[45] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. You also cited the same diffs here[46] that the IP sock did in July[47] on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in.
Care to explain?
Because anyone with eyes who can read Japanese can go and read how the Request for Block process works?
You claim to be a new user with no experience with Japanese Wikipedia and yet the familiarity you are demonstrating with Japanese Wikipedia here isn't something one gets by simply ad-hoc checking one day. RfB doesn't even exist on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, RfB is Requests for bureaucratship.
The IP sock itself attempted to claim in this very thread that they had no experience with Wikipedia (For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia.) which is obviously false because there's no way they'd have such in-depth policy knowledge of Japanese (and English) Wikipedia, not to mention that they're on a blacklisted spammer IP.
This post in particular is familiar enough to your style of writing, word choice, and formatting (including yourfondness for bold underlined text) to the extent that I'd have a pretty hard time believing anyone else wrote it.
Wait, I will dignify this one with a response because it demonstrates how continually absurd this is.You used diffs[176] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. You also cited the same diffs here[177] that the IP sock did in July[178] on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in. Care to explain?
Yes, Symphony, why would I use a diff from 2018 that demonstrates what you were doing on 2018 while investigating your claim that you were blocked for political reasons, a block that happened in 2018? As for the second one,I was in that thread.[48]. As I have disclosed elsewhere,I was an IP Editor, and I made this account because I was tired of trying to relay sources through third parties. See,Special:Contributions/172.90.69.231.Either request an SPI investigation, or retract this slander.Brocade River Poems (She/They)05:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
None of that precludes that the IP socks in question, which by strange coincidence write exactly like you, and have all of the same knowledge as you, and use the same diffs, are you[49].
Another interesting coincidence is that the day the IP sock reappeared again on a new IP again to post false information about me[50], was the day you started your RfC[51].
IP sock also noted:During the duration of both instances, this user made no attempt to defend or explain themselves[52]
Which is very similar to what you posted:because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the[53]
Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[117] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago) I linked every diff from the history of the Nanjing Massacre article on the Japanese Wikipedia that demonstrated your improper edits, which had been reverted for edit warring and demonstrated that you had tried to force the article rename. All of the diffs I used, I found by going through your edit history on the Japanese wiki as well as the history of your talkpage to demonstrate where you were warned and for what. Likewise, the subject of the alleged sock mimicking other users posts and turning it back on them was raised, which was something I had remembered seeing you had done on the EN Wikipedia back in July, so I made note of the similarities.
How did I find the thread? I saw the accusation in Talk:Samurai when I replied to say that Daimyo were technically retainers.
Why do I write similarly to the IP? I don't know? I write in a very formal manner most of the time. We don't even write all that similarly, when you get down to it. Yes, we both use bold and italics for emphasis sometimes, but I do not mass-link walls of text like the IP user does, it isn't friendly to those with visual impairments to do so. A majority of the time when I link something, I link a single word, or use[54] these funny little boxes. PerWP:SIMit is not uncommon for people to learn from the writing styles of others, or copy the techniques used by other editors often not known to the editor in question. Different users editing in a similar fashion may be reflective of what an editor learns simply from reading other articles.
Why the same Difs? I linked every diff from the Nanjing Massacre article on the Japanese Wiki, that one of the diffs happened to be the same that the IP user used is sheer coincidence.
Same Wording About Lack of Defending Themselves? Because the reason the admin gave in the close for the block is that the accused didn't bother to defend themselves.
Why do I know about RfB I didn't until it was linked in the topic above, and once I went to the RfB page, I clicked the link at the top that took me to the main part that explained the rules for how RfB worked.
Why do I intimately know the Japanese Wiki I don't. I just followed the links that were provided and examined the exchanges and the history myself.
You've left more text on this page than anyone else despite it supposedly having nothing to do with you. Why is that? Pretty weird, huh? It's almost like I responded to your accusations that I was doing this, that, or the other thing and that resulted in more and more text from me. You're effectively baiting responses out of me and then using those responses as a 'Aha! Gotcha!'. Prior to you accusing me canvassing and calling me this, that, or the other thing my participation in this thread had been limited to posting links about your EN Wiki Blocks and also linking to the accused sock mimicking a message and you doing the same thing.
You used diffs[122] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. Once again, the block you received on the Japanese Wiki was in 2018, of course the diffs relating to the incident are also going to be from 2018. The dif in question is one with an attached message explaining that you were being reverted for trying to bruteforce the name change.
on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in. Care to explain? Yes, as already noted, I was involved in that thread, had read that thread, and was aware that you had done the twisting the message around on someone else gimmick on the English Wikipedia.
You claim to be a new user with no experience with Japanese Wikipedia and yet the familiarity you are demonstrating with Japanese Wikipedia here isn't something one gets by simply ad-hoc checking one day. RfB doesn't even exist on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, RfB is Requests for bureaucratship.The IP sock itself attempted to claim in this very thread that they had no experience with Wikipedia As already explained, there was a link above posted to the RFB page. I have eyes, I can read Japanese to a reasonable degree. I clicked the link that took me from the RFB about you, to the RFB mainpage, and I briefly skimmed the top of the rules. I am in no way intimately familiar with Japanese wikipedia's policies or rules.
This post is similar It really isn't, see above. I have never turned so many words into links, ever. Nor do I routinely properly link to the Japanese Wiki as they do "ja:弥助", The "similar word" choice that you are claiming seems to be very basic formal writing. I also generally don't make numbered lists, I tend to do bullet points. I also make frequent use ofthis thing and the IP editor doesn't ever seem to. See[55]
None of that precludes that the IP socks in question, which by strange coincidence write exactly like you Except they don't except for the most superficial basis of "they bold and underline" and "they use formal writing". I generally don't @ people, I don't properly Ja:interwikilinkthing, I don't create mass walls of linked words, I use talkquote judiciously, I don't switch from "copypasted" to "copy-pasted" in the same paragraph, I never refer to people as "its". The IP Editor uses "copypasted", "copy-pasted", and "copy pasted" with no consistency. I do not believe I have ever typednetting you that x in any of my discussions in any context. The wordingit would seems like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked is awkward, and while I do make spelling mistakes and typos from time to time, I do my best to go back and correct them when I notice them. "It would seems[sic] like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked" is a strange sentence construction to me, as a natural speaker and writer of English would prefer "It seems like you have a grudge over being blocked". Likewise, the IP Editor writesI find it very difficult that you would operate in good faith which is a malformed sentence. Moreover, despite your insistence that we write in the exact same style, you're forgetting one very important thing. I frequently use transition phrases due to my academic training. I consistently, and often, use phrases like "Moreover," "Likewise," "However," "Regardless," so on and so forth. When I actually examine my own writing and the IP Editor's writing, it becomes increasingly self-evident that our writing styles aren't really all that similar afterall.
and have all of the same knowledge as you, and use the same diffs, Generally speaking, the evidence does not change from person to person whoever finds it. They also don't have all the same knowledge as me.
Another interesting coincidence is that the day the IP sock reappeared again on a new IP again to post false information about me[127], was the day you started your RfC [128]. I didn't even know this existed, so. Not...really sure how I'm supposed to defend the existence of a post I didn't know existed.
Which is very similar to what you posted: because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the... There really are only so many ways to word "the admin said you guys didn't bother defending yourselves", you know? The admin specifically saidnone of them have made any mention of the unnatural connectivity shown in the CU request, despite the fact that there are several votes citing it as a reason,(putting aside the validity of comparing the block to guilt or innocence in the first place), we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith, or paraphrased, "you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the connectivity issue", which is the crux of why the blocks went through. Which by the by, if you can demonstrate the IP Editor using "crux" and "ipso facto", "vis-a-vis", and "by the by" frequently, I'd bereally impressed.
Involved comment. I was initially not going to participate in this discussion, dismissing it as a dumb complaint but in light of new evidence of behavioural problems from the japanese wiki, past behaviour and tendency to blame anyone but himself, including in this very section, even when uninvolved admins point out issues and sanction him, I think Symphony Regalia is definitely tipping toward chronic, intractable behaviour which requires admin intervention. I will be back with a formal complaint.Yvan Part (talk)08:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Since Brocade River Poems beat you to propose a block, can you post anything to that subthread and not start yet another thread, or make a separate block proposal for the same editor.Nil Einne (talk)09:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose for this main thread anymore. We've established that Symphony Regalia was blocked on the Japanese wikipedia which is probably all we need to know. The socking allegations are something which could be worth exploring here. The rest of the stuff seems best ignored. Different standards etc and the inability of many editors to even read the background info mean it's not helpful to relitigate whether a block on some other language Wikipedia was justified. Especially since ultimately even if a block here is proposed as happened below, said block is going to mean very little for whether we block here except perhaps for socking, and clearcut unacceptable behaviour (e.g. racism). Which also means that anyone talking about Symphony Regalia's Japanese block on any article talk page needs to stop right now. I mean discussing behavioural problems or alleged behavioural problems on article talk pages is generally not a good thing, but it's even more of a problem when it's about some other Wikipedia. Of course, the subthread on a block for Sympony Regalia can stay open as long as it needs to be. And if anyone wants to propose a block for any other editor involved in this, they should make a similar concrete proposal. Likewise socking allegations would be best handled at SPI.Nil Einne (talk)09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I still think thisYasuke has been a frequent flyer at ANI. Symphony Regalia below floated the idea of EC protection as a possibility if the problem persists. Another idea is to implement something like has been done forTalk:Nikola Tesla, addressing the much-debated question of his original birthplace and nationality. — rsjaffe🗣️21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User continues to engage inWP:WITCHHUNT against me here on the ANI asserting that I am running IP Socks. I have told the user that if they truly believe I am a sock, to open an SPI, or to otherwise retract their statements. They have done neither and instead of doing either, they doubled down on the accusations.Special:Diff/1245296849,Special:Diff/1245293533,Special:Diff/1245298749,Special:Diff/1245292071. HereSpecial:Diff/1235357153 the editor has engaged in baselessly insinuating other editors are socks in the past. For the record, the user has a known history of trying to turn accusations or warnings back on others as seen in these diffsSpecial:Diff/1232460986&Special:Diff/1232704577 andSpecial:Diff/969540213&Special:Diff/969541660. The user is presently accusing me of sockpuppeting the IP user that posted accusations about them being blocked on the Japanese Wiki for sockpuppetry, after I provided evidence that the IP user wasn't making false accusations with diffs for the related blocks. This after falsely accusing me ofWP:CANVASSINGSpecial:Diff/1245266197, and when that didn't work when I pointed out the user in question was involved in the discussion before I even was, they moved on to accusing me of socking. The user was previously blocked for making false reports and wasting editors timeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive407#c-EdJohnston-2020-05-01T17:58:00.000Z-Liz-2020-05-01T05:36:00.000Z. User is subject of arbcom sanctionWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269#Symphony_Regalia where it was writtenAs an alternative to a topic ban, an indefinite block might considered. I have been open about the fact that my formerWP:ROOMMATE used to edit Wikipedia, and that I was an IP Editor, but I am not going to sit here and address these points endlessly while they refuse to take the issue before SPI just because I supplied evidence that they had been blocked as had been accused. It is a waste of my time and it isWP:ASPERSIONS.
I propose ablock of same manner given their history. Barring that, aninteraction block with myself, at the very least, and for theWP:ASPERSIONS to be redacted
As it was explained to me that they're allowed to accuse me of sockpuppetry on the ANI, I retract my complaint. I erroneously believed that accusations of sockpuppetry could only be dealt with at SPI, and that refusing to go to SPI while accusing me was a personal attack. I apologize. --Brocade River Poems (She/They)08:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm turning this into a subthread of the possible false accusation thread. I don't see why we need a new main thread for it when most or all of the diffs are from that thread.Nil Einne (talk)09:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't make it a subthread because the issue in my complaint has nothing to do with the main thread's accusations outside of the fact that the above thread is where SR made the accusations. Now becasuse it is merged with the mainthread, people are going on and on about Yasuke, how accusations of SR socking (what??) should go to SPI, and how the stuff they did on other Wiki's is irrelevant and that I'm just trying to remove someone who dissented from an RfC that I have since disengaged from beyond admitting that my wording was poor and explaining what my intentions were, and correcting an improper use of policySpecial:Diff/1244764288,Special:Diff/1245081035,Special:Diff/1245083560. I have left the discussion on Yasuke, I do not care what the result of the RfC even is and am no longer participating in the discussion on the RfC that I started. Now people are focusing on this irrelevant stuff instead of myactualcomplaint.Brocade River Poems (She/They)02:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Support indefinite blockWP:ABF andWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that seems to misunderstand the purpose of the website - a crowdsourced encyclopedia. Their article talk page behavior all around creates an uncomfortable environment for everyone involved. The repeated casting of aspersions, sockpuppet accusations and tendentious battlegrounding only impedes progress in discussion by requiring it to derail into the accused to needlessly defend themselves, sometimes with their own evidence, very publicly within the article discussion itself, making collaboration near impossible while increasing hostilities between users in the discussion. All around net negative.DarmaniLink (talk)12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Note DarmaniLink is a directly involved editor[56][57][58][59][60] who is a vocal opponent of thecurrent RfC consensus over at Yasuke, that of which BrocadeRiverPoems wants to overturn[61]. He engages in frequentWP:OR[62][63], calls reliable sources "fiction"[64], has referred to reliable secondary and tertiary sourcing as "incest"[65], andclaims he personally has samurai heritage as a way to brute force his content positions.
He has even been reprimanded by other editors concerning the way he attacks people who hold positions on editorial content against his own[66].
DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their firstcomment on the Yasuke talk page withDescendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editorcomplained aboutblack supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.
I didn't know if I supposed to mark myself as involved, nor was there any indication of it. I have since completely exited that entire area because it is more productive for me to edit elsewhere.
Involved Comment. I took a long time and got beat to the punch so I will drop it here instead and as suggested by @Nil Einne I will leave the Japanese sanctions out of it but it certainly does give some perspective if multiple wikis have seen fit to block him. Apologies for the extremely long reply.
Adding: I will address a few points raised by other editors below. First, that this is a confusing topic. I agree so I will summarize the dispute.The thread was started after a proxy IP started leveling accusations at Symphony Regalia. Not much came from this. Brocade River Poems(BRP) joined the conversation and Symphony Regalia started throwing accusations ofWP:SOCK at BRP that she was behind the IP.
Secondly, that Symphony Regalia's previous blocks don't matter. Based on theiredit history Symphony Regalia has only edited 5 times between their Tban in 2020 and 2024. As I regularly readAN, one of the common reason to refuse to overturn a Tban or block is lack of contributions between it and the appeal. It's impossible to judge whether his problems are really gone when he has barely edited for 4 years. To illustrate my point, you can't claim that a car which was already a barely driving piece of junk now has no problems because you refused to drive it for 10 years.
Lastly, that this is solely about aWP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute. The thing is, since Symphony Regalia became active again in 2024, he has almost exclusively edited around the articleYasuke and its talkpage[70] making it difficult to have intereacted with him outside of that topic area. I have collapsed my own complaint since editors seem inclined to dismiss it outright under the belief that this is solely a retaliatory attempt to remove an "opponent" from a content dispute. Not only do I believe that exporting the battleground mentality to ANI does no one any favor but due to the ongoing persistent problems the simple reality is that the next step is ArbCom and I doubt they'll be taking sides.
Extended content
Current problems: WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR: Refusing to acknowledge that fully reverting edits that have both debatable and fairly minor changes was not appropriate.[1][2][3] User talk pagediscussion that ensued only after which he finally agreed to let the non-controversial changes through when making the changes himself.[4]
Particularly telling is this revert edit summary "If this is to be mentioned, I wouldn't mind it being in the article body though" basically telling other editors to do it untilhe is satisfied with the changes.
WP:LAWYERING:Very frequently mentioning aprevious RfC and other variousWP:RULES to oppose all manners of proposed changes while not proposing any solutions, looking for compromise or generally acknowledging other editors issues, selectively applying rules, camping on his position when multiple editors disagree with his understanding of rules and dragging people to endlessly debate the interpretation of rules rather than content. RfC: edit summaries:[5][6]/discussions:[7][8][9][10][11]. Other rules:[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28].
WP:PA: Part of the previously mentioned user talk pagediscussion. "Given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai", I can understand if this is an emotional topic to you, but do try to be civil". And thisdiff "I am assuming good faith on your behalf (given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai")" always following mentions ofWP:AGF for a dose of irony. WP:ASPERSIONS: Particularly against "Japanese nationalists" and "agenda pushing editors".[a][b][c][d][e][f]
WP:BLUDGEONING:Particularly the copy paste list of sources he has been dragging around for awhile
(July 8), refused any challenge to a single source on it (particularly the CNN article) even when other editors have argued for use of a better source he himself defended adamantly and felt it was really necessary to copy paste the list5 times in 2 days in a recent RfC discussion.[1][2][3 and 4](since it was pasted twice in the same reply)[5]
Past Behaviour: MultipleWP:ANI trips.[1][2] (No action but warned "The next step is a formal topic ban or a block for disruptive editing. For now, I will close this thread with no action" and a 31h block) AWP:AN casehe filed.[3] (1 week block for him) An ArbCom case[4] which resulted in a Tban and cherry on top he removed the arbritration sanction as "harassment" from his talkpage.[5](edit summary) And judging from histalkpage, and more importantly what he removed from it, he is no stranger to frequent warnings.[1][2][3][4][5]
Conclusion: To me it seems like an editor who picks a contentious topicdu jour (COVID andMen Going Their Own Way in 2020,Yasuke and surrounding articles in 2024) and is disruptive (whether intentionally or not) in various ways until he get sanctioned and who is back to the same behaviour problems he had 4 years ago (he only edited 5 times between his Tban in 2020 and June 2024) of always blaming others and fomentingWP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour wherever he goes. The repeatedWP:ASPERSIONS in this topic, which by all expectations he should have come fairly clean out of if he had kept his mouth shut, are really not helping his case.
Support Indef: I… Was about to suggest that this block wouldn’t be about their Edit Warring, so give them a month or more (next step up from the week on the last one) and have that be their very, very last strand ofWP:ROPE (would call Indef, if it was focused on a third Edit Warring vio), then Yvan Part’s war and peace above gave me 7 or 8 reasons to change to Indef.
I AGF’d Symph while this thread was simply “they’ve been blocked on JAWiki”, but with how much evidence has come into the limelight since, I’d be a major CIR issue myself not tofold my cards, and side with the house. Sorry, Regalia, too much against you. Your chips are cashed, as far as I’m concerned.
Oppose. To me this feels very obviously like a bunch of people who disagree with the consensus over atYasuke trying to remove an opponent. Being blocked on JA has nothing to do with EN, and nothing else mentioned is remotely convincing.Loki (talk)15:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, considering editors with opposing views "opponents" is what causes the behavior that brought about this ANI. If this were the goal, it would not be this single user with a proven history of behavioral problems.DarmaniLink (talk)17:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Opponent has an adversarial connotation to it. Wikipedia discussions aren't formal debates, they're discussions. We aren't each others "opponents" to be defeated and we don't "win" if the other person changes their mind, or if the consensus goes our way. I ask that you readWP:NOTCONTEST. It's an essay, but I share the same sentiment.DarmaniLink (talk)22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Consider whether a dispute [of the term "opponent"] stems from a different perspective. My perspective is that the term was used as I described, because I amassuming good faith that it was not meant to be taken as having an "adversarial connotation".Isaidnoway(talk)23:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, SR has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetry, I requested they take it to SPI three times or retract their statement, and they continued to make the accusations while doing neither.This has nothing to do about Yasuke.
SR Continues to accuse me after I asked him to either retract or open the investigationSpecial:Diff/1245298749
My request was that they be blocked because they've a history of making false accusations,or at the very least be blockedfrom interacting with me and have their accusations redacted. ByWP:SPI, I am not allowed to request CheckUser on myself to clear myself of SR's claims. Which means if SR doesn't make theWP:SPI report, their accusations against me just go unchallenged. They shouldn't be allowed to just wildly speculate that I am socking while refusing to use the proper venue.Brocade River Poems (She/They)02:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - I tend to agree with Loki, if anyone wants to make accusations of sockpuppetry (with the required evidence), then start a discussion at SPI.Isaidnoway(talk)16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
SR is the one accusing me of sockpuppetry, I requested they take it to SPI three times or retract their statement. They continued accusing me.
SR Continues to accuse me after I asked him to either retract or open the investigationSpecial:Diff/1245298749
Hence I requested they be blocked or at least blocked from interacting with me and their accusations be redacted. I cannot open an SPI investigation on myself, that's against policy. If SR does not open an investigation, there's no way to clear my name of the accusations. Do they just get to keep making the accusations??Brocade River Poems (She/They)02:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Involved comment
The way this thread has gone has inspired me to do some checking, especially since Regalia Symphony has accused me of being canvassed to the
article. RS has made 13 edits to the article. The first one was, unsurprisingly, to add information about Yasuke. All 12 others have been to reversions to my edits. This was after I disagreed with RS on the Yasuke talkpage. To be clear, I disagree RS mostly about Wikipedia policy, not on whether to call Yasuke a samurai, which I think most editors give too much importance.
Comment I don't quite get why editors keep making a big deal over Symphony Regalia previous blocks and topic bans. Sure they indicate they had problems at one time. However AFAICT, they happened over 4 years ago and there hasn't been anything since then suggesting they learnt their lesson and are respecting their topic ban. Like Loki, I'm not convinced by the evidence for recent problems and also find this does look like editors trying to get an opponent blocked. I also find it troubling that the 2 main editors asking for a block seem to be very new accounts, suggesting it's even worse than Loki suggested as some of the editors seem to have just been drawn here by the culture war issue.Nil Einne (talk)19:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Like Loki, I'm not convinced by the evidence for recent problems and also find this does look like editors trying to get an opponent blocked I did not push for anything regarding SR until they began wildly accusing me of controlling socks. The prior blocks were brought up because an IP User posted about the blocks and someone reported them as false accusations. When I posted evidence to demonstrate that the accusations weren't as false as SR was making them out to be, they proceeded to begin attacking me. I do not consider anyone in Yasuke an opponent, and I have mostly advocated for middle-ground changes and compromises between the two opposing sides, and have mostly been shouted down for it. Even my RfC is an attempt at finding a compromise. I have been attacked by people who opposed Yasuke being called a samurai, and I have been attacked by people supporting Yasuke being called a samurai. I have been accused of conspiracy and behalf of both positions, now. I told SR multiple times that if they believed I was engaged in Sockpuppetry, to open an SPI investigation as I did not mind or oppose it. They did not do so, and instead continued to post their conspiracies about me. When I told them again to either open and investigation or retract the accusations, SR continued to double down on them, and it was only at that point that I created this request. Just because SR disagrees with my RfC does not give them carte blanche to smear me. If they truly believe they have strong enough evidence that I am engaged in sockpuppetry, why do they not bring it to the SPI? I cannot request that someone check me to clear my name, as that is against the policies, so must I just sit around and let them make wild accusations just because they opposed an RfC? As for why I mentioned their previous blocks in my request, it demonstrates a pattern of behavior, it demonstrates that the user has made false accusations previously and continues to do so.Brocade River Poems (She/They)01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think that just because an account is new, that is enough evidence to claim that they are drawn by the cultural war issue. Although I have on occasion disagreed with Brocade River Poems, I have yet to see her do anything typical of a culture warrior. She seems to be open-minded about the issue and open to compromise, and is concerned with fairness. The main one who acts like a culture warrior in the thread is Regalia Symphony, who seems touchy regarding criticism of the game, and has accused unspecified editors of being gamers and saying they should be sanctioned like gamers gate. The other possible culture warriors are the Japanese users, or other guests that appeared when the talk page is unlocked.
I don’t want Regalia Symphony to be banned, but I find it worrying that he seems to have successfully defended himself by accusing others, and that he seems to have received support for that. So I wonder now, should I defend myself here? Because I have been accused by multiple users, but the accusations are flimsy and are based on a false assumption of my views. I have a feeling that a lot of the conflict between me and RS and Gitz comes from the fact that they believe that I am sneakily trying to undermine the RfC consensus.Tinynanorobots (talk)15:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose (involved editor). This is not the appropriate forum for allegations of sockpuppetry - they should be handled atWP:SPI, where check users have the tools to investigate them. The English and Japanese Wikipedias are separate projects, and sanctions imposed on one are irrelevant to the other (however, Symphony Regalia's comment about "political reasons" and their attempt to modify the Nanking Massacre article has at least the ring of truth, given certain troubling allegations[71][72][73]). Regarding Yasuke, Symphony Regalia has been civil and professional in addressing attempts to undermine the consensus reached in arecent RfC. The same cannot be said of some of their accusers, such as Brocade River Poems and Tinynanorobots, who have started asecond, redundant RfC on the same issue, attempting to advance the fringe theory that Yasuke was not a samurai, or that his samurai status is disputed. This thread is an attempt to turn the content dispute into a dispute over behaviour, despite Symphony Regalia's conduct being entirely appropriate - if I'm wrong, please provide a diff instead of vague accusations and aspersions.Gitz (talk) (contribs)00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Seriously? SR is the one accusing me of sockpuppetry, and when I told them to start an SPI case or retract the claims,they simply continued making allegations. I made this request because SR refuses to take his claims toWP:SPI and I cannot request that I myself be checked. So SR is allowed to just make accusations that cannot be disproved because he refuses to open an investigation??? This has nothing to do with Yasuke beyond SR claiming that me posting evidence that the claims aren't false is because of Yasuke. It has nothing to do with Yasuke. SR Has literally written manifestos about how I am a sock, and I requested multiple times that he either open an investigation or stop.
When the accusations about me canvassing Tiny to a discussion Tiny was part of before I wasSpecial:Diff/1245279017 and after pointing out that Tiny's report was that the accusations were false and mine was that they weren't false, he proceeded to start accusing me of being a sock.
SR Continues to accuse me after I asked him to either retract or open the investigationSpecial:Diff/1245298749.
I even notedSpecial:Diff/1245282782 here thatIf there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked beforedoesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware.. I only proposed that SR be blocked, or at least blocked from interacting with me and to have the accusations redacted because they continued to post large posts accusing me of being socking after I told them I was more than fine with them taking it toWP:SPI, after telling them to take it toWP:SPI if they were certain, and finally tellng them to take it toWP:SPI or otherwise retract their accusations. They continued to make the accusations after that.And I had explicitly made my report a separate section because it has nothing to do with the rest of this ANI Report beyond the fact that SR was writing the SP accusations in it. Someone else merged it back together again. The point of my report had nothing to do with anything involving Yasuke and was strictly about SR repeatedly accusing me and refusing to open an investigationBrocade River Poems (She/They)01:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose perLoki andNil Einne. This whole ordeal is getting exhausting. I'd hoped that an admin would eventually close the prior ANI discussion and that would maybe settle this whole mess, but it looks likeExtraordinary Writ closed the closure request as not done yesterday. Valid reasoning in not addressing anything since it was archived so long ago, but I really don't want to re-litigate any of this. Can we all agree that:
1. Accusations of socking should be taken to SPI.
2. Why/if someone was blocked on other wikis is not relevant to this wiki.
I haverequested, assented, and even demanded in one instance that Symphony Regalia take their accusation that I am socking toWP:SPI or otherwise retract it and they refused and just continued to accuse me.That is the purpose of my proposed block that was, I feel, improperly merged back into this mess.Brocade River Poems (She/They)02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I just had the unpleasant experience of trying to understand what's going on here. There is a lot of unpleasantness on all sides regarding this topic. The easiest solution would be to have a special "Yasuke" edition of Wikipedia, where everyone could fight over that page without torturing anyone else. Short of that, I think there does need to be some strict behavioral standards applied to that page. — rsjaffe🗣️02:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I just had the unpleasant experience of trying to understand what's going on here. The purpose of this complaint has nothing to do with Yasuke. My complaint was that Symphony Regalia was repeatedly accusing me of socking while refusing to retract his accusations and also refusing to take the issue toWP:SPI. Everyone is presently making it about Yasuke, and ignoring my complaint, because someone else took my complaint and merged it with a topic about an IP User falsely accusing Symphony Regalia, and if my complaint had remained separate as I had created it, I wouldn't now have to be explaining the basic facts of the issue. Because of that, I requested that they receive some sort of block because they have a history of making false accusations, or at the very least that they be blocked from interacting with me and their accusations be redacted. They keep making accusations and refusing to open an investigation atWP:SPI, so my name cannot be cleared. I cannot open an investigation against myself, it's against the policy.
You have many posts in this thread with a number of different accusations against Symphony Regalia. Yes, you ended up focusing on the sockpuppet accusations. My impression is that there are a bunch of upset people treating each other poorly. And it’s more important going forward to address the root cause than it is looking back to see who was worst and singling them out. — rsjaffe🗣️04:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Multiple people have posted either saying that they did not understand what was happening, or that they believed my issue was about Yasuke. I was just trying to explain what my complaint was about, but alright.I really don't understand why a random third party editor was allowed to take my complaint, merge it onto a different complaint, and then tell another user to further dilute the complaint with their own complaint. I give up.Brocade River Poems (She/They)09:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I've reviewed the diffs you provided above, and I don't see any significant issues with Symphony Regalia. All their comments were made at ANI, not on the article talk page, and they did not request that you be blocked for sockpuppetry: they raised reasonable concerns while you and others were accusing them of spurious, non-existent violations, including being blocked on ja.wiki. On the other hand, you startedan RfC that is futile and could be seen as disruptive editing per WP:POINTY and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe it's because you're a new editor, but you're also a single-purpose account bludgeoning the talk page of that controversial article (where you've made 99 edits out of your 490 edits), which frankly looks bad.Gitz (talk) (contribs)09:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I requested they do aWP:SPI investigation as that is quite literally the only way to clear my name of the allegations that I was using sockpuppets. Accusing me of socking without actually doing an investigation that could clear my name, I asked them to bring it up to CheckUser or SPI so that the matter could be settled and they refused to do so. Is that not bad behavior??? Beyond that, I didn't accuse them of anything. Someone posted accusations, Tiny reported them as false, I substantiated them with evidence, Symphony claimed political persecution, I posted evidence that seems to indicate otherwise.
As for the rest of your comment, I started the RfC as an attempt at compromise. I'm unsure as to how I'm a single-purpose account bludgeoning the talk page when a majority of my time on Wikipedia has been spent editing various other articles. What exactly am I bludgeoning Yasuke for? Since you've made this statement that it looks bad, I shall now reflect on my time onTalk:Yasuke. Filtering out edits I tagged as minor, I have 89 edits onTalk: Yasuke, of those edits, a further 13 are me correcting or editing my own posts. This brings us down to 76 edits. Of those 76 edits, approximately 20 of them were made in relation to the RfC I created, which brings us down to 56. 9 of my early edits asSpecial:Contributions/172.90.69.231 were me discussing sources, as well as discussing the meaning of sayamaki, which increases us to 65. 33 of my remaining edits are discussing sources, including providing translations of Yuichi Goza's interview, as well as translating Yuichi Goza's self-published source and explaining that Yuichi Goza isn't actually being as definitive as people were claiming. Likewise, I explained that Lopez-Vera's academic book was published by a University Press and was thus considered a top-tier source. This leaves us with 32 edits remaining.
Of those 32 Edits, a breakdown of what I discussed is as follows:
Explained Sayamaki in detail, Pointed out Hirayama's tweet as well as the Google Group where scholars were discussing Yasuke, Argued against an extremely nationalistic editor who talked about the spirit of the samurai being required, which I noted was funny when the only credible source expressing doubt about Yasuke being a samurai makes the argument that people gave their favorite wrestlers samurai status for funsies. Defended Hirayama Yu's academic credentials. Defended Oka's academic credentials from same editor. Minor procedural things like announcing I had cleaned up repetition, or that I had fixed misattributed text. Explained that you cannot use an author referring to Yasuke as a retainer as meaning the author doesn't accept Yasuke was a samurai when the Lockley piece the author was citing pre-dated Lockley claiming Yasuke was a samurai. Me explaining that if 100 authors all said "retainer" before the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript was made public, it doesn't mean they don't believe Yasuke was a samurai, it means they lacked evidence. Arguing that there was no consensus that tweets from experts were inadmissible. I argued for the inclusion of Hirayama Yu's tweet.
My edits were reverted, and I ultimately self-reverted in July on the understanding that there was an agreement to have an RfC as another user said it wouldn't be right to include Yu's tweet without including Goza's dissent, and including Goza's dissent would require an RfC. I agreed as compromise, and self-reverted. After doing so, the can was kicked down the road for an RfC to be done later as there was concern Goza might retract or contradict his self-published statement. Me stating that I would not arbitrarily add Goza's statement as the prior RfC existed. Stating that my position is that having a source that clearly expresses a doubt is preferable to people vaguely pointing at "they called him a retainer". Noting that one can be a samurai without being a retainer, since ronin were still samurai. Clarifying I had not read Goza's self-published source and that if it wasn't as contentious as it was made out to be to me, that I didn't think it should be included afterall. Explaining what user I believed had access to Kaneko's book. Stating that Tiny's vote didn't count twice. Explaining why MTL isn't always great. Saying if Lockley's Britannica is a better source to use, all the better. Explaining there was a consensus that no source definitively said Yasuke had the title "weapon-bearer". Saying we shouldn't attribute Yasuke being a samurai to Lockley, because Lopez-Vera came to the same conclusion independently, as did Hirayama Yu. Complaining that some editors tends to excise or revert things that could just as easily be fixed (such as renaming a category). Saying that Goza couches his statements in possibilities without definitively saying anything in his SPS. Explaining that Goza is, in fact, talking about pop culture representations for most of his interview.
All told, of my edits onTalk:Yasuke, the most recent 20 are me arguing in favor of representing that there is a dissenting opinion such as Lockley's Britannica article says there is, or else we shouldn't use the Britannica article because that seems like cherrypicking to ignore the mention of a dispute.
So, what POV am I pushing and bludgeoning, exactly? How is starting an RfC that was discussed back in July as part of getting me to revert my edit a case of me engaging inWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? How is itWP:POINTY? I was led to believe in July when I reverted my addition of Hirayama Yu's tweet as a compromise gesture, that the reason Yu couldn't be included was because then Goza would have to be included, and including Goza would require an RfC? Your contribution to that discussion wasI strongly advise against starting a new RfC until there are reliable sources disputing Yasuke's samurai status andIn my opinion, Yūichi Goza's article is not such a source. However, I started the RfC later after the Lockley Britannica article became a thing that said the status was disputed and Goza gave an official interview and people pointed out that Kaneko says that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript could be inauthentic. If people want to decide that Britannica's mention isn't worth it and Goza's interview isn't worth it, that's ultimately fine by me.
I argued as I did on the RfC because I believed in the compromise that seemed to be offered to me in July when I was made to revert my edit. If nobody wants it, there isn't anything I can really do about that. Of my edits on that talkpage, I have roughly 20 that you could theoretically argue are anti-Yasuke-samurai (which isn't even exactly correct), while the remainder are providing sources and were generally preceived as being so pro-Yasuke being a samurai, so much so that I was harassed on and off-site for it. I do not like this mentality that there are opposing sides and that I'm so nefarious entity seeking to 'win' an RfC. I posted evidence that the statement Symphony had been blocked wasn't false, and that they engaged in behavior similar to the behavior exhibited by an alleged sock from the Japanese Wiki. Now suddenly I am being painted as some great anti-Yasuke crusader who is just trying to snipe the opposition and suddenly I'm this IP, that IP, and another IP.Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to articulate a bit more about the socking accusations. I said above that socking accusations are best dealt with at SPI and I stick by that. However it's perfectly normally and definitely not a blockable offence to suggest someone may be a sock at ANI (or any of the administrative noticeboards) since it is an issue ANI can deal with.
SPI isn't some sort of magic place, it's where socking generally should be dealt with for various reasons including including ensuring it's easy to find the case and evidence if it's needed in the future and it allows a focused case with admins used to dealing with socking. But socking is sometimes handled without SPI. And notably one of the reasons to use SPI namely it's a documented way to call for CU assistance is irrelevant here since the claim related to IPs.
Provided editors are able to articulate reasons why they feel this may be the case, it's not generally going to be considered castingWP:aspersions to bring up socking suspicions. Unless the editor is able to find sufficient evidence to convince an admin to block, an editor does need to drop the accusations eventually. I do think Symphony Regalia should have dropped the issue earlier, but I don't think it crossed over the line into blockable territory especially since they were mostly presenting what they felt was additional evidence. Also if Symphony Regalia has concluded there isn't sufficient evidence for an SPI, it makes no sense that they need to open an SPI just to somehow make their earlier comments okay, they need to just drop the issue.
Note I said drop rather than withdraw. We don't generally require an editor to withdraw such accusations provided they had some reasonable evidence even if it isn't sufficient for a block. It's important that the editor stops bring up the accusation and treat the editor as any editor in good standing. But I'm fairly it's perfectly common that editors continue to personally suspect sockpuppetry even if there is insufficient evidence for it, and so requiring editors withdraw what they still suspect just seems silly.
Also while I don't deal much with SPI, I'm fairly sure when an SPI results in no action, the editor who raised the issue isn't required to formally withdraw their accusation. I'm also fairly sure editors are not blocked just for bringing an editor to SPI when the evidence is felt to be insufficient, except perhaps in an extreme case or when their behaviour at SPI crosses some line; or perhaps when an editor keeps bringing editors to SPI when they've been asked not to. And while I understand why editors are unhappy when they've been falsely accused of being a sock, even at SPI I'm fairly sure I've seen a number of cases where the result was something along the lines of 'insufficient evidence of socking for a block' rather than 'definitely not socking'.
What it comes down to is that while ANI isn't a free for all where editors are allowed to make accusations willy-nilly, it's accepted some accusations which others disagree or don't find compelling are going to happen and it's often unnecessary to block over this. After all, Brocade River Poems who proposed the block has made various accusations against Symphony Regalia relating to what happened on the Japanese wikipedia. I don't see that any independent editor who can understand Japanese well has look into it and concluded that Brocade River Poems summary of what happened is fair. I'm not suggesting anyone does, as I noted in the main thread, these seem irrelevant to here. But even if it turns out Brocade River Poems's statements on what happened don't seem to be fair, I don't think they're sufficient for a block. Yet in some ways that seems more concerning since it related to something irrelevant, and required people to be able to look into the Japanese wikipedia to decide. I mean I'm not even sure the IP needs to be blocked although they did raised the issue in the article talk page.
I mean, if that's really how it works, then I withdraw my request. It was my understanding fromWP:HSOCK that if there's suspicion of sockpuppetry, it should go toWP:SPI. I do not think that it is reasonable that I should address every one of their complaints, repeatedly, when they just kept reiterating the same points after I had explained them. I was under the impression that repeatedly accusing someone of something on superficial evidence constituted a personal attack, and that personal attacks could be redacted. If that was a mistaken understanding on my part, then I apologize, and I will go back and address SR's allegations here on the ANI, for all the good it will do me. In regards to me accusing SR of anything, I wasn't accusing him of anything with the stuff from the Japanese Wiki. Rather, my initial comment was to provide links to his blocks on the EN Wiki and saying that the statements weren't false that he had been blocked on the EN Wiki. Another user suggested an admin might want to look into the sock accusation from the JA Wiki, and I posted diffs that demonstrated SR had done similar actions as the accused sock had done on the Japanese Wiki. When SR started arguing with me about how involved I was, I decided to "get involved" and looked into the claims on the Japanese Wiki as well after he had posted that he was the victim of political bias. I then supplied diffs, said that his explanation didn't seem true and that the accusations didn't seem false. I even noted elsewhere on the topic that I didn't think it mattered because I didn't think SR had done anything warranting sanctions on the English Wiki, and that I didn't think even if he lied about why he was blocked on the Japanese Wiki that it violated any policy.
The only reason I created my complaint was because he continued to post that I was socking and ignored any response I made to his accusations. I did not intend to accuse SR of anything, all I did was supply diffs from the Japanese Wiki and explained what they said (that they were reverted for edit warring, that he had been warned for arbitrarily renaming the article without going through the proper procedure, etc, etc). I just want to make it clear that it was not my intention to accuse SR of anything, I was just sharing what the Japanese Wiki had said since it didn't seem to align with what SR had said happened. I understand that what I intended to do and how it is perceived, however, are different things, and I apologize.Brocade River Poems (She/They)13:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, wildly disproportionate. Dealing with what an editor feels areWP:DUCK socking situations is always frustrating and complicated, but simply stating that someone believes another user to be a sock on ANI isn't enough to justify sanctions as long as they provide evidence (which SR has); obviously SPI is the appropriate place to send such accusations, but it is not unusual for them to be discussed at ANI in order to encourage someone to build a proper SPI case or to make the argument that alleged sockpuppetry trumps other issues being raised here. Either way, the entireYasuke topic area could stand to have the temperature lowered a bit... but the people arguing for a block here can hardly be said to have clean hands in that regard. The degree ofWP:BLUDGEONing of both this discussion andTalk:Yasuke is honestly a more serious problem. --Aquillion (talk)02:52, 14 September 2024 (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.
WP:Boomerang proposal for BrocadeRiverPoems
BrocadeRiverPoems is a new user who has been an editor for a little over a month, and despite that has wasted anextraordinary amount of valuable editor time both here at ANI and on culture war article talk pages, where this user tenaciously pushes POVs[74] to disregard broad communityRfC consensus. I think there is enough evidence for a SPI investigation concerning the IP socks[75] so I will consider that separately.
That said, I think the above discussions speak for itself in highlighting how disruptive this editor is. Recently BrocadeRiverPoems filed an arguably frivolous attempt to overturn a RfC[76], in which I gave lengthy dissent[77]. And then despite having absolutely nothing to do with this ANI discussion, BrocadeRiverPoems saw an opportunity to "get" someone with an opposing view and then immediately jumped in (somehow even before I got here)[78][79] to turn what should've been a short discussion into the above mess.By my count BrocadeRiverPoems has left50kb-100kb of text here, in an obsessive attempt to pursue a vendetta in what looks to be retaliation for me dissenting in said user's RfC attempt[80].
BrocadeRiverPoems was repeatedly reprimanded by many editors for their bad faith editing and misuse of ANI above:
To me this feels very obviously like a bunch of people who disagree with the consensus over at Yasuke trying to remove an opponent. Being blocked on JA has nothing to do with EN, and nothing else mentioned is remotely convincing.
Like Loki,I'm not convinced by the evidence for recent problems and also find this does look like editors trying to get an opponent blocked.I also find it troubling that the 2 main editors asking for a block seem to be very new accounts, suggesting it's even worse than Loki suggested as some of the editors seem to have just been drawn here by the culture war issue.
Symphony Regalia has been civil and professional in addressing attempts to undermine the consensus reached in a recent RfC.The same cannot be said of some of their accusers, such as Brocade River Poems and Tinynanorobots,who have started a second, redundant RfC on the same issue, attempting to advance the fringe theory that Yasuke was not a samurai, or that his samurai status is disputed. This thread is an attempt to turn the content dispute into a dispute over behaviour, despite Symphony Regalia's conduct being entirely appropriate
I've reviewed the diffs you provided above, and I don't see any significant issues with Symphony Regalia. All their comments were made at ANI, not on the article talk page, and they did not request that you be blocked for sockpuppetry: they raised reasonable concerns while you and others were accusing them of spurious, non-existent violations, including being blocked on ja.wiki. On the other hand, you started an RfC that is futile and could be seen as disruptive editing per WP:POINTY and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Maybe it's because you're a new editor, but you're also a single-purpose account bludgeoning the talk page of that controversial article (where you've made 99 edits out of your 490 edits), which frankly looks bad.
BrocadeRiverPoems was also reprimanded for extremely disruptive[85] bludgeoning byrobertsky:
@BrocadeRiverPoems just a word of warning,stop bludgeoning. Repeating the same points over and over again consecutively does not look good on you.
And then went on to bludgeon nearly 20kb more text[86][87] again not heeding that warning.
Notably when I informed people that BrocadeRiverPoems was an involved editor[88], said user responded withHere, now I am involved directly in this dispute[89] and a very long off-topic accusatory rant which I thinkdemonstrates malicious intent, in that BrocadeRiverPoems was behaving in a retaliatory mindset and was trying to "get back at someone", rather than being at ANI in good faith.
BrocadeRiverPoems was also reprimanded for that escalation by an editor[90]
And so... What's the exact issue here on enwiki that has to be resolved?
And yet did not heed that warning, going on to waste considerable editor time here.
BrocadeRiverPoem's claims of making the above request simply because I provided evidence here to suggest they had similar conduct to the IP socks is dishonest, because that was done in the context of this ANI discussion concerning IP socks harassing me (that had nothing to do with BrocadeRiverPoems), in which BrocadeRiverPoems tenaciously inserted themselves out of nowhere to repeat essentially all of the very specific claims that the IP socks were making[91]. BrocadeRiverPoems demonstrated clear intent to strike an editor with a differing view from the onset.
BrocadeRiverPoems is now retracting their above request and apologizing, but it should be noted that this is not out of sincerity (though I wish it were as I have only been professional with said user), but rather because said user did not get the result they wanted. It is reasonable to infer that the above request was done with premediated intent to strike someone with a differing view and that said user knew what they were doing. This is made obvious based on the editors BrocadeRiverPoems notified[92][93][94]. None of them were involved this dispute, the only thing they had in common is they were selected based on opposing the RfC that BrocadeRiverPoems wants to overturn. BrocadeRiverPoems also failed to notifyGitz, even though BrocadeRiverPoems mentioned him by name[95].
Given the disruptiveness, time wasting, and repeatWP:SPA behavior I think aWP:BOOMERANG could be perhaps appropriate. Frankly I do not feel strongly one way or the other, but in light of the above I feel it is worth getting input on.Symphony Regalia (talk)07:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, involved. Entirely retaliatory. Symphony Regalia ultimately tries to do exactly what he accused BrocadeRiverPoems of doing, attempting to remove someone over a content dispute. From my interactions with BroacadeRiverPoems, I would say she has a fairly balanced position and is generally more open to compromise than most editors. Her problems is that she stepped into a topic that is massively entrenched and made mistakes you would expect from a fairly new editor like getting too involved or replying while emotional but not something that would require a block or tban.
I will add thatmy own complaint still stands, and will wait for admin input whether toWP:REFACTOR as a new subsection here or start a newWP:ANI section when this one gets closed/archived as I feel the issues I've raised are sufficiently separate from BrocadeRiverPoems and have not been addressed by !voting editors who have completely sidestepped it to focus entirely on BrocadeRiverPoems. (The matter will be settled at ArbCom instead.)Yvan Part (talk)07:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I will note that perWP:BOOMERANG (note: essay), scruntity of the reporter isn't retaliation. Rather, it is the idea that the reporter should not believe they are immune to scruntity.
A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, it's about them", as if discussion is restricted to the original complaint, so that discussing the behavior of the original reporter would be "changing the subject". But that isn't the case: any party to a discussion or dispute might find their behavior under scrutiny.
I will also add thatYvan Part and BrocadeRiverPoems are both new users who began arguing on the Yasuke talk page within 48 hours of account creation. Yvan Part's account in particular was created on the day the trailer for the video game featuring Yasuke was released, which was the beginning of the culture war he has been subjected to[96].And as a side note and a slight digression for ongoing vandalism on Yasuke, I think general sanctions are maybe worth consideration not unlikeGamergate sanctions (context), though that can perhaps be a different discussion.Symphony Regalia (talk)08:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I've already made my case against you earlier. If you feel my behaviour requires sanctions, feel free to start a new section. I will not bother replying to petty arguments trying to discredit me.Yvan Part (talk)08:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
You were created on 16 May to edit "Yasuke" and "List of foreign-born samurai in Japan" and less than a month later, when you had not yet made 50 edits, you saidI don't usually deal with medical topics after opening a thread "New study linking covid vaccines to excess deaths in the West" atTalk:COVID-19 vaccine[97]. On 3 August you cited a cited a bunch of policies and guidelines to push a POV on Yasuke, where you reverted and were repeatedly reverted[98]; see also this edit[99] citing MOS:SPECIFICLINK and MOS:SOB. Are you a quick learner? I think you are an obvious sock.Gitz (talk) (contribs)10:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I am a quick learner. You are entirely free to start aWP:SPI if me being a sock is obvious. Throwing accusations of SPI but being unwilling to commit to it and potentially being proven wrong does your own argument a disservice.Yvan Part (talk)11:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Just for the sake of clarification, you're allowed to post a bunch of accusations at me posed as questions, and when I answer your questions and accusations after someone explains to me that you're allowed to accuse me of socking on ANI[100], that's bludgeoning? Well, alright, then. Likewise,[101] was me responding to the statement that I was a SPA trying to bludgeon on Yasuke by breaking down what my activity onTalk:Yasuke actually was. Regarding myfrivolous RfC and accusations of bludgeoning.
Special:Diff/1237845246 I added Hirayama Yu's tweet, since Expert SPS are allowed, it got reverted.
Special:Diff/1237850800 Me saying I see no reason Hirayama Yu's tweet should be inadmissible.
Special:Diff/1237866505 Again, I support including Goza's self-published source, maintaining a consistent position that theWP:EXPERTSPS should be included, as a compromise.
Special:Diff/1237867252 Me stating that I would not arbitrarily add Goza's statement as the prior RfC existed.
Special:Diff/1237873666 Saying I will not add the point about the Sonkeikaku Bunko due to the RfC
Special:Diff/1237877171 This turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I said I would leave it up to others to make the RfC since I didn't want to screw the formatting up (I did).
Special:Diff/1237877875 I self-reverted my inclusion of Hirayama Yu's tweet on the understanding that there was going to be another RfC, that ended up not happening
Special:Diff/1237878301 Following my reversion on the understanding there would be an RfC, they decided to hold off on one. Per the discussion they suggested waiting at least one month. This was 31 July 2024. I created the second RfC 2 September 2024. I waited over a month, as had been suggested by the editor who wanted to include Goza.
Special:Diff/1237928540 I relented on the subject of the RfC as they were worried Goza might retract his self-published statement.
Special:Diff/1237933836 Me explaining that if 100 sources say Yasuke was a retainer, but those sources didn't have access to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript, it doesn't mean that they believed Yasuke wasn't a samurai, it means they didn't have the evidence.
As I said above, I reverted an edit including Hiryama Yu's tweet saying Yasuke was a samurai as a compromise as another user said it wouldn't be fair to add Hirayama Yu's tweet without adding Goza's SPS, since Goza was also a historian, and adding Goza would required an RfC. The RfC was determined that it should happen later when more reliable sources emerged. Moreover, I waited until such a time that there were three sources that are considered more reliable to broach the subject.
Lockley's Britannica Article says there is a dispute
Yuichi Goza is published in a new interview.
Someone noted Hiraku Kaneko's book expressed doubt about the authenticity of the passage.
Under the basis of there being more reliable sources now since now we aren't dealing with anything self-published from Goza I went ahead and created the RfC that was discussed in July when I had self-reverted my edit including Hirayama Yu's tweet.
BrocadeRiverPoems is now retracting their above request and apologizing, but it should be noted that this is not out of sincerity (though I wish it were as I have only been professional with said user), but rather because said user did not get the result they wanted.
No, it was out of sincerity. I didn't know you could just accuse people of sockpuppetry in ANI, I genuinely believed consistently accusing me and doing nothing about it constituted a personal attack.
And so... What's the exact issue here on enwiki that has to be resolved?
To which I repliedIf there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked beforedoesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware. I don't think lying about the circumstances of their ban on the Japanese Wiki is against any particular guideline, and if it is, I'm unaware of it.
I only suggested sanctions of any form after you continually made accusations about me socking.
This is made obvious based on the editors BrocadeRiverPoems notified...None of them were involved this dispute, the only thing they had in common is they were selected based on opposing the RfC that BrocadeRiverPoems wants to overturn.
I notified the users who were involved in the diffs which I posted, as I was pretty sure I was supposed to do?
BrocadeRiverPoems also failed to notify Gitz, even though BrocadeRiverPoems mentioned him by name[168]
I didn't notify Gitz, because I didn't mention Gitz in my complaint, which was originally posted separate from the false accusation thread, and was merged to the false-accusation thread. I was unaware that I needed to notify Gitz for responding to yourWP:CANVASSING accusation withI fail to see how Tiny and Gitz arguing about sources has anything to do with me.
said user responded with Here, now I am involved directly in this dispute[162] and a very long off-topic accusatory rant which I think demonstrates malicious intent
You kept making accusations about me and saying I was involved in the dispute, so I went and fact-checked your statements about what took place on the Japanese Wiki and said "Here, now I am involved" since you were arguing so stringently that I was involved in the dispute.
Moreover, your accusation that I am a sock hinges on mostly on your assertion that the IP is a proxy.
Per[102],[103],[104] the IP Addresses you're accusing me of being all come from Malyasia, from the same source[105], and are listed asType Good IP (residential or business). Meanwhile, the only IP Address I have edited from is[106]. Moreover, the basis given on the links you provided that say they are likely abusive/proxies is because the IP Addresses are on blocklists. As noted here, though, the IP Addresses are only listed on a few blacklists, and such listings can occur in error:
Notably, ways that an IP Address can get on these blacklists is if it is a dynamic IP Range that has been used to spam in the past. Of 60+ Known blacklists, the IP Addresses only appear on 4 to 5 blacklists. The IP Addresses aren't mine, and nor do they actually appear to be Proxies.
repeat WP:SPA behavior
The majority of my time spent onTalk:Yasuke was spent giving translations, discussing sources, and giving evidence that supported the notion that Yasuke was a samurai, while also giving evidence that indicated otherwise as one should do when approaching a topic neutrally. WhatWP:SPA behavior? I've spent most of my actual article editing time improving and working on various different articles related to mostly Chinese history and some eclectic other anime related content, and even created an article just recently about a Chinese poet. You can see a breakdown of my edit history[107], 35% of my edits are on Talk pages, with 99 edits onTalk:Yasuke. Conversely, I've only made 20 actual edits to the Yasuke article, none of which were overly substantial[108], with my most substantial edits being giving translations to sources. Moreover, I've edited and helped improve a wide variety of articles[109]. Of my 114 Mainspace edits, 20 of them were on Yasuke. For comparisons sake, you have 156 Edits onTalk:Yasuke[110] and 44 Edits onYasuke[111].Brocade River Poems (She/They)11:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The IP whistleblower (I've experienced another power outage again) here, perhaps not making an account was a blessing in disguise.
1. I don't have to deal with users like yourself and,
2. You've just given me another silver bullet to prove that the sockpuppets over in the Japanese wiki are indeed yours.
As noted in another comment, my ISP is Maxis, hence the fixed 14.192.X.X addresses. Funny how you used the websitehttps://www.ipqualityscore.com/ against me in our interactions, when it was first used against you in theJP wiki andhere, which you then repurposed the site toaccuse the editorsthere with theやまとぉ account, who coincidentally also cites WP:OR to stifle discussion. What are the odds that you yourself are using the same exact site to accuse other of? It is as you said, "These coincidences are really lining up today".
When the page got locked down, there were as many as 33 IPs (13 IPv6, 20 IPv4), agreeing to statements made by yourself, やまとぉ and Asakasarin, as if to influence of the autonomy there.
Bonus:Here is Asakasarin using the exact list that you yourself have been bludgeoning users with. Plusan attempt by one of the IPs, using the results of the English RfC to influence the Japanese page.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that this isn't disruptive behaviour and mind you, this happened roughly a month after the English edits. We have a saying over here "Berani buat, berani tanggung", If you're brave enough to do such things, you should be brave to own up to it, which you haven't been. I will be escalating this issue to the relevant authoritative bodies with the list of IPs.14.192.209.218 (talk)16:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
You know what I find baffling, why you keep on referring to yourself as a whistleblower, as if you are some kind of secret undercover agent, and why you keep on giving diffs to ja.wikipedia.org, when this is en.wikipedia.org. If you have evidence of a behavioral issuehere on en.wikipedia.org, then please provide said evidence, because we have a saying over here as well, you need toshit or get off the pot.Isaidnoway(talk)20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Making unsubstantiated allegations, (in that instance) that an EN editor is a JP editor (who SR also accuses of being a sock in the JP wiki via the やまとぉ account) with a vendetta against them and removing and repurposing warnings from another editor to use it against them, both of which are of the same behavioural issues that you'd find in both theEN (accusing an EN admin of power abuse) andJAwikis (copy pasting warning from a JP admin to use against said JP admin), isn't it clear cut that the user learned nothing? The victims in both EN and JP are all users who disagreed with SR.
After posting my comment above, SR speaks nothing of the points further tying him to thesocks in JP and instead again goes after the ISP that I'm under, as well as a flimsy argument regarding writing styles (which shouldn't they be going to the SPI, as noted by the other users, if they feel strongly about it). As stated before, I will be escalating this issue to the relevant authorities.14.192.209.218 (talk)00:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Your use of whistleblower is freudian slip that highlights that you are indeed a sock. You are also a blacklisted VPN/proxy spammer IP, who has attempted to claim in this very thread that you have no experience with Wikipedia (For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia.) which is obviously false.
I also find it peculiar that you post in sequence after BrocadeRiverPoems attempting to again coincidentally make the same false arguments[112], including that you are not a VPN/proxy based on semenatics about you "only" being listed on 4 or 5 spammer blacklists.
14.192.209.218 is an IP address located in Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, MY that is assigned to Maxis Communications (ASN: 9534). As this IP addresses is located in Kuala Lumpur, it follows the "Asia/Kuala_Lumpur" timezone.The IP Reputation for 14.192.209.218 is rated as high risk and frequently allows IP tunneling for malicious behavior.
Oppose – If you think there's sockpuppetry, go to SPI about it. I wasn't convinced by the evidence given at all, and will continue on the premise that there's no reason to take the allegations seriously. The remainder of the proposal seems equally retaliatory to the original, if not moreso due to it coming after all the opposition outlining how retaliatory both the original and the discourse generally has been. Assuming BrocadeRiverPoems has moved on from the article in question like she's said she has done, there's nothing to remotely warrant a block. The bludgeoning was truly a problem, but I'm willing to see it as a localized and learned-from ugly situation unless such behavior crops up again in the future.Remsense ‥ 论23:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I encountered this thread through lurking. Will you just stop? This has already been a big headache. Can you prove BrocadeRiverPoems has done anything wrong? I just want to know why SR doesn't get it through his super thick head that thinking Yasuke is not a samurai doesn't make us into some sort of bad people? Seriously. Oh and if you think you can prove we are socks take us to SPI, or maybe(Redacted)? You won't take us to SPI because you don't have evidence.113.211.211.79 (talk)00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I feel strongly aboutWP:NOBITE and am inclined to assume BRP's good faith. However, starting another RfC only three months after the previous one without any significant new sources was not a good idea. Besides,WP:BLUDGEONing is a serious issue, and is likely to arise elsewhere if they manage to move away from Yasuke (as I think they should). BRP should take into consideration that editors' time is a scarce resource: long and numerous comments in a discussion can be very disruptive and discourage new editors from getting involved. Discussions then tend to become arm-wrestling matches between a few exasperated editors, which is in no one's interest.Gitz (talk) (contribs)00:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose BRP got caught up in a corner of Wikipedia that is strongly dysfunctional, and I look at the poor behavior being exhibited by a number of people there including BRP to be a symptom of a systemic issue that needs to be treated by changing the rules for the involved pages rather than it being the fault of the individuals. Blocking people will not fix the underlying issue. I strongly recommend some sort of stricter regime for enforcing behavior there. Whatever the phrase of the moment is: general sanctions, contentious topics, whatever. Alternatively, just lock the page from editing and leave it in its current state. — rsjaffe🗣️02:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I had already considered going to ArbCom but was not sure whether we had reached the threshold for it. Apparently we have so I won't bother with ANI further and will simply file an ArbCom case once this discussion gets closed.Yvan Part (talk)03:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment Thanks. I do not feel strongly in either direction so I am fine with closing this. I mostly just wanted a pulse check on BrocadeRiverPoem's conduct in the above section, while it was fresh. I think there is sufficient evidence for a SPI investigation concerning the IP sock puppets (made even more apparent in this section), so I will pursue that route. Additionally, if the IP sock harassment/stalking happens again I will post it in a separate section.
As a brief aside for theYasuke article, editors were indeed able to establish a very clear RfC consensus[114] and the drive-by vandalism is down, so I think that demonstrates that overall the community was able to come together. There is a second RfC[115], and it appears to be going in a similar direction as the first.
Something thatcould perhaps be useful at some point would be EC protection and/or other measures in thatthe majority of vandalism and/or attempts to disregard the RfC come from new accounts that appear to be drawn here by culture war issues (context). Nevertheless, it probably isn't necessary yet and the vandalism is down. Which is pretty nice considering that Yasuke is not a contentious topic in Wikipedia parlance. That could change in a renewed news cycle, but as of now it appears to be fine.Symphony Regalia (talk)10:30, 15 September 2024 (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 has also repeatedly reverted editors who have tried to rollback unsourced, poorly sourced or contentious material, including possibleWP:OR. User's response to requests to seek consensus or engage inWP:BRD is to claim that "truth is more important than consensus" and to continue disruptive editing.
Given the vast number of edits made in a short period of time, the unwillingness to engage, hostility and edit-warring, user seems unlikely to cooperate or join in the spirit of Wikipedia, and so may need a temporary or permanent ban, or some other measure such as page protection.
In the interests of transparency: I marked two of the user's recent edits (reversions of rollbacks by me and another editor) as vandalism, which means I've technically fallen afoul ofWP:3RR (though I didn't realise until after the third one). I appreciate that my own behaviour may also be called into question, so I also welcome any investigation of my own behaviour at the same time, if required.Lewisguile (talk)18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
In both instances, these rollbacks have been reverted again with the dubious content reinstated (in the former case, the article was reverted multiple times).Lewisguile (talk)21:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The IP address has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring.@Lewisguile: Please be careful aboutWP:3RR and following the guidance in theedit warring policy. 3 reverts in 11 minutes is a lot and if the changes are that bad, other people can revert them too. It also seems like people could be going further to explain the issues with these edits on the IP editor's talk page.WP:BITE has some additional guidance.Daniel Quinlan (talk)07:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate it.
Yes, I was working on two pages at the time and, TBH, got a bit mixed up with marking them as vandalism without tracking which was which. Mea culpa. I will refrain from reverting anything on that page for now, to avoid any further breach of WP:3RR myself. Hopefully someone else will take a look at it first.
Someone else did try to revert the edits onAfro-Jamaicans last night, too, but the user also reverted that immediately.
I have left messages on their talk page which they haven't engaged with in good faith. Three other editors have also left comments this month about similar issues, but have received similar short thrift.Lewisguile (talk)07:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Since this morning, I have discovered that the same user (possibly using multiple IPs) has been making similar edits to a whole range of Caribbean-related articles, nearly always insertingCoromantee Creoles into them, and blanking out/removing huge chunks of text in several cases. The user appears to be aWP:SPA with a particular agenda.
I've done my best to rollback what I can and have noted the relevant talk pages. I've also notified Daniel, above, for transparency.Lewisguile (talk)18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note that the following IPs seem to be the same user:
2A02:6B67:D961:3500:9919:E631:B50:3203
2a02:6b67:d965:700:20a2:8444:cd4e:a611
2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:7150:aafe:6600:475a
2a02:6b67:d965:700:70a1:41b7:a8a2:1f54
2a02:6b67:d965:700:f56e:96b3:de79:b17f
2a02:6b67:d965:700:6cdb:cdd3:b57a:c3c6
2a02:6b67:d965:700:488c:3bb3:d71d:ad89
2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:46c:14f0:de9d:789b
2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:7102:82a3:e4e7:abbc
2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:8541:a906:5ded:a044
2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:bddb:f186:ce09:85d5
2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:2045:df63:b372:4872
2a02:6b67:d961:3500:d5c0:dbc:4638:9310
2A02:6B67:D961:3500:2C93:AD36:E9C5:B177
2a02:6b67:d961:3500:891f:6dae:3fd5:76e7
2a02:6b67:d961:3500:f15e:8f51:448e:4edf
2a02:6b67:d961:3500:5cc4:5297:ca9e:5bf5
2a02:6b61:d470:0:5878:4d40:dbe0:ac95
2a02:6b61:d470:0:fc30:501d:996d:a4a7
2a02:6b61:d470:0:8061:e6b9:8f0:64e1
2a02:6b61:d470:0:35dc:3a0b:5a88:86fe
2a02:6b61:d45e:0:bc19:cec6:f137:643e
2a02:6b61:d413:0:3196:bdd5:7bd3:a9e4
2a02:6b61:d413:0:54b8:dcfb:2b63:1c76
2804:1054:301f:21f0:5dae:e476:a611:1f8b
Original IP: 2a02:6b67:d965:700:8053:c17a:29c3:abd3
Please note that the user has been using performatively British slang (*"nonce", "morphodite", "quim", ...) of some sort in their summaries. The IP that accused me of all manner of things in the thread above is also from the UK.Biohistorian15 (talk)10:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
An odd selection of British slang at that. "Nonce" is countrywide, probably from TV dramas; "morphodite" is new to me; "quim" I know, but it's outside my dialects (Northeast and West Midlands), possibly East Anglia or Ireland.Narky Blert (talk)14:02, 19 September 2024 (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.
Ever since my first ANI report (which got auto-archived) of JR H44[116], they have been reverted 10 times (in fact, the majority of their 156 edits have been reverted, Ctrl + F "reverted"[117]), including re-engaging in their edit warring atRusso-Turkish wars by altering sourced information[118]. They were even willing to sacrifice the quality of the article of Armenian national heroAndranik to ask a question "to Armenians" which I'm assuming is meant to be provocative[119]. Would highly appreciate if an admin would look into this and the earlier report. I fail to see how this user is a netpositive to this project. --HistoryofIran (talk)19:22, 18 September 2024 (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.
Flourish4520, a long term SPA that boosts the profile of Jeremy Rifkin
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:Tad102 removing declined unblock appeal from talk page
PerWP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, users are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests for currently active site blocks.User:Tad102 has removed onetwicenow -- the first time, I reverted it and tried to point them to the user talk page guidelines, but they have removed it again. To avoid needless edit warring on someone else's talk page, I am bringing this matter here: this may not mean much in the long term to some, as they were only blocked for 24 hours, but it might be something worth getting eyes on.JeffSpaceman (talk)13:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This is apparently not a widespread belief, but IMHO, we make too big a deal out of that rule. What itshould say is, you can't remove a declined unblock requestand then make another unblock request. If they're just going to sit it out, I don't see the point in enforcing a "scarlet letter" rule. I don't mean to criticize you, Jeff, you're definitely following policy. And it's a breath of fresh air that you only reverted once; not many people have that level of self-control around here. But personally, I'd say meh.Floquenbeam (talk)13:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough,Floquenbeam. I just wasn't sure if this was something that admins would care to give any attention to, and I definitely did not want to revert again, considering that the block is only 24 hours, as well as the fact that, with the block length taken into account, it's not an especially serious offense (if they were attacking or threatening people, I probably would have reverted again). I appreciate the input, and I definitely see where you're coming from.JeffSpaceman (talk)14:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Honestly unless the unblock request has information that is important for anyone else who may review a future unblock request, I wouldn't worry about it. It's only a 24 hour block, they're not being unblocked. If it was a long term block and they are making multiple unblock requests it would be different. And remember, it's in the history. It's not going anywhere, they can't hide it.Canterbury Tailtalk14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea how to de-escalate when someone is so angry. I though about posting advice not to continue the personal attacks, but that would just be taken as a threat. The best I can come up with - and I admit it is really weak sauce - is to ask other good faith editors to ignore, to the extent possible, really angry people venting on their talk pages while blocked, and hope against hope that it subsides when the block ends. Jeff, it isnot open season on you, but if you can turn the other cheek that would be kind of you. It would be a shame to lose a good faith editor of 18 years, but the personal attacks on other people are going to have to end one way or another.Floquenbeam (talk)17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I was aware the editor removed the unblock request, and was also aware it was against 'policy'. I decided that this user was clearly very upset so figured I would just leave it alone, with the hope they would calm down over the coming days. If this behaviour continues, I'm sure the next block will be indefinite.Daniel (talk)20:02, 19 September 2024 (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.
Vacosea is the one pushing their preferred version of Amdo without consensus. Vacosea would do large scale deletion when contributors add references and new edits with good literature support. Vacosea's recent large scale deletion edits are not focusing on stuff "without consensus", but destructing the page. I repeatedly reminded Vacosea that bringing his or her disputes with good literature support is welcome if thinking the version is without consensus, but he/she insists destructive moves.NicolasTn (talk)06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
NicolasTn repeated their personal attack[121]. Asthis shows, I'm not deleting long time contributions or adding controversial stuff or errors, so their edit summary again indicates either misrepresentation of what's going on or an inability to understand and work on Wikipedia.Vacosea (talk)18:01, 19 September 2024 (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 would like to bring attention to the conduct ofUser:MPGuy2824. The user has been repeatedly engaging in behavior that appears to violate Wikipedia's policies, specifically [insert policy violation, e.g., "edit-warring" or "vandalism"].
Here are some examples of the behavior in question:
I’ve attempted to engage with the user on their talk page to resolve the issue, but the behavior continues. I would appreciate administrator assistance in addressing this matter.
If GPT gives you editing notes (e.g. "insert policy violation") you should probably follow them, and insert the violation, before posting the thread to AN/I. Are you doing a bit or something?
Hi Tendythexangsw, your attempts to contact me were on the talk page of the relevant article/redirect, and not on my user talk page. This is one of my first edits to Wikipedia in more than 12 hours, so your charge of "the behavior continues" does not apply, since the aforementioned talk page messages are only about 3 hours old. I've have now replied to your message atTalk:Zamduar College. We can continue that conversation there, if you are willing. -MPGuy2824 (talk)06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
What am I missing here? Is there a specific template for use with ChatGPT/another LLM that let's you (or in this case, the OP) generate invalid (but stylistically-correct-looking) Wikipedia complaints/arguments, by just plugging in the relevant policy?SnowRise let's rap06:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Well it's not the technical feasibility that is new information to me, so much as the implication created by those bracketed elements that either a) someone has trained an LLM specifically on Wikipedia discussions or b) one of the existing broad-utility models gained basic competence for generating such content from its default training set.SnowRise let's rap10:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
SnowRise do you actually use LLMs? I don't but I've heard enough that I'm not surprised they could do something like that with zero additional training especially since I'm certain most of them have been trained on pretty much all of Wikipedia including the ANs. As an example, here's what Bing's Copilot gave me for'Make a template for filing complaints on the English Wikipedia'. This is what it gave me for'Give me a template to file a complaint on the English wikipedia's administrative noticeboard'. And this is what it gave me for'Give me a template to file a complaint at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents'. The style in all of these is different from what the OP used, but a different LLM (e.g. ChatGPT directly) might help with that. Or just betterprompt engineering. Notably, it seems to like to give templates with those 'subheading:' things, perhaps telling it not to will make it more similar to the OPs, or just some other way of asking. As said, I don't use LLMs so I'm sure my prompt engineering is totally crap. Importantly though, all of them had the 'please fill in' sort of things. Perhaps just being more specific e.g. telling it who I wanted to complain about and what article would also help. Note there was additional text in most of them e.g. sure here's..... and other stuff e.g. telling me to remember to fill in the details or in one case giving a filled in example (although just userexample1, userexample2) although it did chose Climate Change as the example article, probably not the the best one anymore.Nil Einne (talk)18:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Well I decided to try being more specific on who etc and asked 'Give me a template to file a complaint about [[User:Nil Einne]] regarding their editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' on the default more balanced setting andthis is what it gave me. I should mention all previous examples were also on this setting. On the more precise, it wasthis. Note as I understand the way most public LLMs work, asking the exact same prompt on the same setting probably won't give the exact same response, with the more precise setting I think probably resulting in more similar responses. Also I don't know the specifics about Bing Copilot. All of these were fresh questions rather than continuing from the old ones, but I didn't try to reset it in any way so I'm not sure if this was also an influence. Anyway again both are somewhat different in style from what the OP wrote above, but still you can see fair similarities. I didn't mention earlier, but I'm also fairly sure that none of the LLM providers consider using it for this sort of thing abuse or unwanted, so I doubt they've done anything to try and prevent it helping. You might get caught up in other filters of course, for example, I actually tried Donald Trump first instead of Malaysia and Bing Copilot refused to help because "I’m afraid talking about elections is out of bounds for me! What else is on your mind?".Nil Einne (talk)18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
It occurred to me that perhaps one issue is talking about filing a complaint is very generic, so it could be affected by other places you may file a complaint. So instead I tried with the default balanced setting a IMO more Wikipedia focused 'Give me a template to alert administrators about [[User:Nil Einne]]'s problematic editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' and it gave me[122]. It's clearly gone too far, since it's lost the template stuff, and also lost any wiki markup. But still, it's IMO easy to see how some sort of cross between this and what I was doing earlier would give something like what the OP posted.Nil Einne (talk)19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Nil Einne: That's very edifying--thank you for your delving! I guess I shouldn't be surprised in the least if creating basically functional templates for various tasks on en.wikipedia is well within the wheelhouse of any number of LLMs. After all, few other projects/singular sources of material will have created as much fully-free and openly-available content for the developers of such models to hoover up and feed into their training sets. Interestingly, even with the place-saver fields included, and the somewhat formulaic format, the one detail that most stood out to me as marking these templates as artificial constructs was the formalism of the tone. One very rarely sees "I respectfully request review of User:X's conduct on Article Y, in order to ensure compliance with all applicable guidelines and policies" and when you do, it rather tends to suggest a newer user, doesn't it? Whether that's because we are just being reasonably efficient and to the point in avoiding ancillary hedging language ("over egging the pudding", so to speak) or because we have lost all sense of social niceties is (I suppose) open to debate! All I know is that experience has left me with what I feel is a built-in skepticism of anyone who leans too fully into that kind of additional (ostensibly polite, but in practice often accompanying meritless complaints) colour commentary. And I couldn't tell you with confidence whether I think that impression is a good or a bad thing in general. But at least it's going to (for the immediate future anyway) be one more way to recognize possible LLM-assissted commentary.SnowRise let's rap08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m… Going to put aside my original rant about how LLM usage should bring you close to a block pretty quick, and ask what the next step would be towards getting LLM into Policy. RFC?MM(Give me info.)(Victories)18:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, though I hasten to add that my above thoughts were intended somewhat tongue-in-cheek--i.e. "should we not be openly discussing how the LLMs can better evade detection, since they will undoubtedly 'read' all of this eventually? That's a silly commentary because that kind of abstract lesson-learning is quite beyond the capabilities of such models: in future outputs they might repeat my sentiments about tell-tale signs of their work product hidden in the tone of such content, but they can't otherwise derive a new approach to being less obvious from that info, even if asked by the prompt-giver to be as circumspect as possible.All of that said, clearly we need robust policies to guide practical responses to these emergent technologies--and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the need is urgent. This is one area where we do not want to be playing catch up as the models leapfrog one-another into increasingly dynamic (and potentially problematic) forms. But at the same time, I'm not sure that this particular instance represents the area we should be most concerned about: there's actually a colourable argument to be made that the usage of such outputs by newer users trying to wrap their heads around our sometimes bureaucratic procedural norms could be a net positive. After Nil Einne's responses the other day, I actually asked ChatGPT directly something to the effect of "What pragmatic and ethical concerns does the community of Wikipedia editors have regarding the use of content generated by LLMs in the content of Wikipedia articles and in discussions within the community?" And it actually gave me a fairly exhaustive, detailed, and accurate response. I suspect such models will often give helpful instructions on how to engage non-disruptively and productively with the community in various contexts, if the inquiries are made with the right prompts. Of course, there's variations in user approach, different chatbots/tools, different editorial/community contexts, and so, so many other factors to consider. But I do think in the final analysis we are going to need to pick our battles carefully. Barring a Butlerian Jihad in the near future, the tools are not going anywhere, and and my thoughts about the current state of the art not withstanding, they are only going to become more capable of evading detection when required. So we'll need to target response carefully at disruption, I think, not wholesale rejection of any AI assistance.SnowRise let's rap19:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
In a few years won't the training materials for LLMs be so full of LLM-generated content that they will no longer be aping human intelligence?Phil Bridger (talk)20:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Woah. Like, deep, man.
(For the record I mean that as a cheeky comment about how weird the new normal is, not a dig at you or your observation. Seriously, it is a bizarre variation on the Ship of Theseus principle: at what point would any product born from successive/recursive LLM iterations stop being best regarded as a product of human innovation in the same way as the original body of content from which the first machine product was derived?)SnowRise let's rap04:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree. The essay, as it currently stands, takes too hard a line. I’d like to see something that describes how LLMs can be used productively to assist those with poor English and those with writer’s block, and then talk about a verification requirement before entering the text in Wikipedia (and the falsity of “references” generated/hallucinated by LLMs). — rsjaffe🗣️21:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that the community will have no appetite for allowing any machine-generated content in article space for quite some time. Honestly, even getting an affirmative greenlight for LLM-assisted content being presumptively allowable in project space is going to take some work, and probably a lot of carve-outs and caveats and specification.SnowRise let's rap04:53, 19 September 2024 (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.
It is not “edit warring” to revise content with emotionally charged and accusatory wording that prevents a nuanced or balanced representation from being presented. I object to such classification. I see it as an attack on my integrity.Steven1991 (talk)20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This user falsely accused me of “edit warring” when I removed unsubstantiated and accusatory content and replaced it with more neutral wording on the article The Atlantic. This user is harassing me over disagreement with abusive editing seeking to push certain narratives aligned with his biased views against the Jewish people.Steven1991 (talk)20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This user also demonstrates an apparent refusal to “talk” to reach “consensus” but stalking my contributions to reverse all of my good-faith edits. Harassment per se – I don’t see how it aligns with Wikipedia’s community guidelines.Steven1991 (talk)20:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I fail to see how wellington is "stalking" you. The way I see it, based on their most recent edit at the Jewish chronicle, they were restoring content that you frankly had no business removing without first seeking consensus on the talk page. If you have an issue with wording, get consensus first.Insanityclown1 (talk)21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not wrong to describe as such when the user’s behaviour has given me the impression that such actions are being directed at or committed against me.Steven1991 (talk)21:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Whether you agree or not, I believe that the user is targeting me, over disagreements on certain issues, as I cannot see signs of the user making the same allegations towards any other users who may have acted in similar ways he accuses me of. You cannot dismiss my perceptions like that – it is a form of victim-blaming. I consider this as a form of bullying.Steven1991 (talk)22:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Have you ever heard the phrase "claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." This is not victim blaming, this is simply rationality. You are not a victim here, and any attempt to say that you are is frankly disingenuous.Insanityclown1 (talk)22:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I would also appreciate if you can present me your credentials that would convince us of the credibility of your judgments, whether regarding me or any edits I have ever made.Steven1991 (talk)22:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring is no exaggeration, though I can't see that Steven1991 has violated 3RR (they may have, but in the generally fast and furious editing, it's hard to be sure). But a definite problem is quite a few egregiously deceptive edit summaries, whereby they refer to tendentious and POV edits as typo fixes. Examples:here,here,here, andhere (where also some "copy editing" which changed good English into highly ungrammatical English was done, presumably in haste).User:Steven1991, it appears from your comments above (and in a worse way inthis aggressive user talkpage post) that you don't know what "edit warring" means; please look it uphere. And stop it with the deceptive edit summaries before you are blocked for that alone. And use article talkpages more!Bishonen |tålk21:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC).
OK – whatever you call it. I would appreciate if you apply the same standard to the other user making allegations of me on this page rather than to me alone due to any disagreements.Steven1991 (talk)21:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not “aggressive” to remind the user of any of his actions that causes me upset or damages my user reputation. You can’t selectively use phrases or apply standards like that. To me, I feel that I am subject to bullying over disagreements on certain issues.Steven1991 (talk)21:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Support Steven has accused others of bullying, stalking, harassment, and victim blaming over a content dispute. Then, he challenges someone to argue with sexual abuse victims. This is trolling.107.116.165.134 (talk)22:15, 19 September 2024 (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.
Please ban me.
Hi. This account was made through theWP:CLEANSTART process, after having retired for quite some time. Thinking about it, I would like to return to my old account, so I’d appreciate if you guys blocked me. Regards,SymmetricalEnglish (talk)02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
SymmetricalEnglish, you could just abandon this account and stop using it. If you are worried about accusations of sockpuppetry, send a message to ARBCOM or the functionaries list or simply list it as an alternative account on your original account's User page.LizRead!Talk!02:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Severe Case of Verbal Abuse onWarraich Extreme threat!!
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.
Consistent edit warring and reverting constructive and consensual edits on article Lakshmi despite being warned several times
This user @Krishnpremi is continuously edit warring and reverting constructive and consensual edits for several days on the articleLakshmi. Despite being warned several times he is adamant to revert article to his pov and is not even ready to discuss anything on the talk page. He doesn't provide any edit summary for his disruptive edits and reverts every constructive and consensual edit to his pov. Therefore i request a block for him.Hbanm (talk)04:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hbanm, I'm not sure if you are familiar with ANI but nothing will happen here unless you provide diffs/evidence of the conduct you are complaining about. Editors have limited time and they won't spend time going to look for evidence that you should have provided in your statement.LizRead!Talk!04:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Here are all the evidences of his edit warring and reverting consensual and constructive edits[123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132]. Here is his response after being informed that a block has been requested for him[133], from this response it is clear that he will not stop reverting consensual and constructive edits and will carry on with his edit warring and will always revert the article to his pov. Here is the consensus for the change on the talk page([134] please see the discussion titled as "Lion and Elephant as Lakshmi's mount"). Here is the warning given to him on his talk page to which he didn't respond[135]Hbanm (talk)06:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the diffs but it's past midnight here and I'm heading to bed soon. I'm sure another editor or admin can offer you some advice.LizRead!Talk!07:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger As already said above he is not ready to discuss anything on the talk page, he is just reverting consensual and constructive edits and doing continuous edit war, that's why I requested a block for him.Hbanm (talk)08:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Krishnpremi has been reverting back to their preferred version ofLakshmi
On the 18th, Krishnpremi made 3 reverts and you started a talk page discussion
On the 19th-20th (depending on time zone), Krishnpremi continued reverting back against three other editors
Krishnpremi has not participated in the discussion (which they had not been explicitly told about on their user talk page, but which was mentioned in several edit summaries)
Since a consensus was reached on the talk page, Krishnpremi has reverted back three times and is now at6RR as of their most recent revert
(Non-administrator comment) Right, so Krishnpremi needs to stop edit warring and start discussing their edits when they are challenged. This is a new editor, and hopefully they will be able to learn how consensus works at Wikipedia – they have never posted to a talk page, even thoughSeyamar asked them yesterday, in connection with Krishnpremi's repeted reverts toBhumi (goddess), to start a talk page discussion instead of just reverting. It looks like a short block might be a good idea.Hbanm, I think I would have issued a 3RR warning on their user talk page instead of warning them in an edit summary – they clearly did see the edit summary since they replied to it, but in general I think it is better to do it that way. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@Bonadea They won't participate in any discussion, all they want is to revert the article to their pov. Although the change I made was not any significant change that needs any discussion but I had to start a discussion because of their edit warring, seems like they consider this article as their personal blog. Let's start with a short block, I hope they understand after that.Hbanm (talk)09:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Since like Bonadea mentioned Krishnpremi has never really used a talk page other than an automated tagging via the AFC wizard[136], as a new editor normally we might assume they are simply unaware of talk pages. But they did manage to make it to RFPP to request protection twice.[137][138] Their most recent edits were on the mobile website which some people feel can cause talk page messages concerns but most of their edits aren't. I wonder if instead of a short full block, a shortish but longer (maybe at least a week) partial block fromLakshmi might be an option. If they give up on that article and instead just move on toBhumi (goddess), it can be reevaluated from there. (I mean you could partially block from both those article, but some may argue whether they've done enough to justify a block specifically from Bhumi.)Nil Einne (talk)11:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nil Einne Why you people are assuming them to be too innocent to use talk page? Their edit history says otherwise, from their edit history it's evident that they have proper knowledge about how wikipedia works. They aren't interested in any talk page discussion, they just want to revert the article to their pov. I too think that longer partial block would be better than short full block, as they are particularly interested in vandalising the articleLakshmiHbanm (talk)11:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Get this user to use talk pages rather than continually revert to their preferred version.
A block would achieve both. I would prefer to make this indefinite (not permanent) and it could be lifted as soon asKrishnpremi says that they will follow consensus. I would adviseHbanm not to assume motives. We can only see and act on behaviour.Phil Bridger (talk)12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring Noticeboard anyone? I got 90% though filing a report then hit the X (easily done on iOS, when you’ve got 6 tabs open) and don’t have the time left in my current journey to go through it all again.MM(Give me info.)(Victories)13:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
User:71.114.123.162 is very combative and engages in edit wars
This unregistered user appears to edit war and fight with other users in talk pages. They've been repeatedly warned about the actions they engage in yet continue to do so.
The most recent example wasTalk:Ryan Wesley Routh. This is not how discussion on Wikipedia should be held and this unregistered user has received enough warnings and leeway to learn their lesson.
User also vandalizes when they feel like, seethis edit here.
Looking at their contributions, I don't see any edit warring behavior and the one diff you linked to is from July. That's pretty stale. Do you have any evidence of recent edit-warring? Because ANI is supposed to be used for "urgent" problems and I don't see any urgency here.LizRead!Talk!07:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha, probably not urgent then. My concern is they appear to heat up, burn out, and then come back. I wasn't sure if there was a place to make admins aware of this to be on the lookout.poketape (talk)16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
User was previously blocked for unsourced edits in June ([140]) and from what I can tell they've continued the same behaviour since then. They were given another level-4 warning two days after that block ([141]) and then again yesterday ([142]) for edits like these:[143],[144],[145],[146]. Since yesterday, they've continued to do yet more of the same:[147],[148],[149],[150],[151]. Based on some brief spot-checking of their older edits, I suspected they've never cited a source for any edits. Earlier talk page responses likethis andthis are also not encouraging.R Prazeres (talk)18:53, 17 September 2024 (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.
Canterbury Tail, have you looked at the diffs? The editor is wikilinking "Serbian" right after a statement that somebody was born in a historical version of Serbia, which is also wikilinked. If that isn't overlinking, I do not know what is. I have given the editor a warning. In addition, their talk page is full of belligerent comments.Cullen328 (talk)16:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
And why the heck do we need to evenmention somebody's brother-in-law's ethnicity, let alone wikilink it and edit war about it?Cullen328 (talk)16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Plus, we have violations of theNo original research policy, such as this gem from an edit summary,He played fir a big Serbian club, speaks fluent Serbian, and married a Serbian women. He is DEFINITELY ethnic Serbian.Cullen328 (talk)16:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I know why. It's about making sure that the word "Serbian" sends the reader to ethnic Serbs, so as to strengthen the notion that certain notable people are ethnically Serbian, by descent from one or both parents, and are not children of mere citizens of Serbia who may not be ethnic Serbs and could belong to a variety of ethnicities—national minorities. The idea is to associate "Serbian" with "Serbs" as opposed to "Serbia". This is tied to nationalistic anxieties worsened by the fact that the individuals concerned have last names that have deviated from their original Serbian forms due to these individuals' connections with foreign societies (Novakovic used to be Novaković; Jovovch used to be Jovović; Ačimovič used to be Aćimović). I'd probably support aWP:NOTHERE.—Alalch E.16:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The fear is that since their names have been adulterated by foreignness, they may not be truly ethnically Serbian any more. —Alalch E.17:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring has continued atMilla Jovovich--between that, the completely OR justifications, the belligerent response above, and the lack of any constructive editing history outside of Balkan national identity politics, I'm going to go ahead and impose an indefinite block.signed,Rosguilltalk19:00, 20 September 2024 (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.
Landmark is aweird "selfhelp" group started by a guru calledJohn Paul Rosenberg who now uses the name Werner Erhard. Nowadays they are mostly focused on making money but back in the day it was pretty cultish. Various RS and "not-so-R" S-es reported on that and negative information made its way into the Wikipedia article. A group consisting of a handful of meatpuppets and a dozen or two sockpuppets have beenWP:GAMING the system byWP:CPUSHing andWP:TAGTEAMing for over 2 decades. Abunch of the socks got blocked but not all of them. There wasan ARBCOM case back in the day but that didn't solve the problem.
The meat- and sockpuppets have been manipulating Wikipedia for more than 2 decades. They believe that they do not have to followWP:COI when they refuse to admit that they have a conflict of interest.
Avatar317 has been improving the article. Coalcity58 is editwarring toright great wrongs.
The cult members oftenCPUSH andsealion andeditwar and waste everyone's time because they cannot accept the fact that reliable sources have mentioned negative information about the cult.
Even if Coalcity58 ends up getting blocked, it's unlikely to stop the problems. I'm thinking some form of long term page protection might be needed here. -Ad Orientem (talk)21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. After a bunch of sockpuppets got blocked all these new accounts suddenly appeared who were repeating the same talking points and had the same habits and interests. So a block is a good idea, but we need more than that to stem the tide. Perhaps it needs to be declared a Contentious Topic again and we need admins to hand out topicbans like cookies. Or another Arbcom case? I don't really know how to deal with this kinda stuff.Polygnotus (talk)22:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@C.Fred Check out their edit history. AndGovernmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects and[156]. But it appears to have been the German Senate for the state of Berlin, not the country as a whole. When one of them ends up at the noticeboards they often getWP:ANIFLU while other accounts start trolling and randomly throwing accusations around to distract and confuse onlookers.Polygnotus (talk)04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I think focusing energy on whether or not the group is a cult (I personally don't think so) is a distraction from the policy issues that seem like the impetus for bringing this case to ANI which is COI editing and, perhaps, disruptive editing. Let's focus less on the nature of the article and more on what is happening on the article and policy. If you want to take this back to ARBCOM, you better have pretty solid evidence to back your allegations and perhaps this discussion should be closed. If you just want clarification about the arbitration remedies, perhaps you could bring it to ARCA or AE.LizRead!Talk!07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Liz: Agreed. A better term would be what academics use, a New Religious Movement (NRM). SeeTalk:Landmark_Worldwide/to_do in the Sociology section. But if you say that they really go wild. They hate that term for some reason. I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling evidence of longterm patterns ofTendentious editing is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet. And I don't know which account belongs to who (I could probably figure out at least a couple of them but again that would be very boring). But I would not be surprised if it ended up there again (which would hopefully lead tostricter remedies than last time). "Discretionary sanctions"were rescinded, should I use ARCA to get them reinstated? I think discretionary sanctions were renamed to Contentious topics, is that correct? Even under DS or CT we would still need administrator(s) willing to jump into the fray and block (or at least topicban) the cultists. If DS/CT makes it easier for an admin to hand out topic bans then I will gladly request DS/CT. In the meantime can we get a 3rr block for Coalcity58?Polygnotus (talk)07:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Correct: CTOP is essentially the rebranded Discretionary Sanctions, with a few procedural tweaks, andWP:ARCA is the right forum to propose changes to remedies. Regarding "new religious movement" as nomenclature, the reason you will see resistance to that term is that it has for most practical purposes become so widely associated as a synonym for "cult" that it has inherited most all of the semantic subtext and cultural implications of the latter. The terms are not exact synonyms as they are used in sources, but more generally and idiomatically, they are broadly regarded as very near terms. Basically if you call something a "new religious movement", you should be prepared for a given party to react in essential the same manner you would expect that person to react if you called the religion/institution a "cult".SnowRise let's rap04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I had never heard of the term NRM before stumbling upon the Landmark article. If my reading of the archives is correct, they consider(ed) the usage of the term NRM far more offensive than that of cult. Usage of the term NRM was the inciting incident of much of the drama.Polygnotus (talk)05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I think there's two things going on there: 1) I think the term has recently developed some social cache among want would have traditionally been called the "anti-cult movement". In other words, the people it is applied to often perceive the term to be inaccurate and unfair in the same way they always felt "cult" was, with the added sense that they are being condescended to with academic idiolect. And 2) the question of whether to apply this label is often a threshold fight: members of a given movement often don't want it applied to their beliefs, while some editors (particularly, but not exclusively, those who make a habit out of contributing to articles in this general area) consider it to be the low hanging fruit of describing such a group. The difference in perspectives leads to a lot of slow, grinding arguments that are typically lost by the SPAs and aren't quickly forgotten by either side.SnowRise let's rap06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
OK so if I understand it correctly, topic bans can be given by the "community", Arbcom and WMF. Admins areonly allowed to give topic bans if the article falls under CT.
WP:AE is for enforcing active sanctions. WP:ARCA is for clarification and Amendment of currently open cases.
This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case, and ask them to reinstate the DS/CT designation so that administrators can give topic bans to the cultists.
I mean, Poly, I wouldn't hold your breath. This feels like you are trying to task someone with doing your homework (for a class you are voluntarily auditing, no less--to extend the metaphor). So far you are very much the only person in this thread who has advanced the notion that a new ARBCOM case is not only the way forward here, but indeed a necessity. If you feel that strongly about the matter, anyone is permitted to open a case request. But what seems to be the case here is that you want to pursue the biggest possible ask of the community: the largest, most involved, most severe process available to the project for addressing longterm abuse...while simultaneously not feeling it is important enough to actually present a case for it. I mean, when you say"I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling the evidence is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet." and then immediately follow it up with"This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case. Who is willing to do this?", you do realize that you are implying something about the relative value of your time, compared to the person you expect to do all of the hard work after you've identified what you feel is a need? Or are you just the community "idea man" and the rest of us the grunts?And look, I'm really not trying to be rude here: I just want to provide you with a sobering reminder that if you want exceptional action to be taken by the community, the burden is on you to demonstrate exceptional need. All you've presented in terms of concrete evidence of disruption in this thread so far is three diffs from an edit war you participated in. As Liz alluded, you are going to need a lot more than that if you want to open a case request (hell, you'll need much more than that for an ARCA motion).Expecting another editor to emerge from the aether willing to fill in the gap between where you are now with an organized case and where you need to be in order to invoke such high level process is just not a realistic strategy. I mean, there's a lot of editors who seem to specialize in crossing keyboards with religious COI-SPAs these days, so maybe someone will eventually end up in your corner with similar perspectives and more willingness to do the work to build the case? Maybe? But if you want it to happen any time soon, my suggestion is you'd better roll up your sleeves. Though even then, I'd caution to have third parties look over the case before hand and make sure it worth pursuing to the end of the process, which can be a commitment.SnowRise let's rap05:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I see: I mistook your meaning for sincere, rather than sardonic/rhetorical. But I can see now that it actually makes more sense if said wryly! Please disregard my comments along those lines. To address your uncertainty about whether a new case is necessary, it is my understanding that you can request an amendment to any case which previously applied a remedy tied to a discrete topic area, in order to propose introducing, removing, or re-introducing a remedy targeted at that area--including a CTOP designation. At least, again, that's my personal understanding; while I've certainly read dozens of ARCAs over the years in connection to various cases, I have never filed one, nor seen this precise fact pattern (reintroducing the same basic restriction as a CTOP as previously existed under the DS schema). In short, you may want to wait for someone else to confirm that before acting, but I'm 95%+ certain you don't need a new case request.SnowRise let's rap06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Kind of a drive by comment here but the editing is often like this when it comes to active "new religious movements", to the point where I'm surprised that "new religious movements" was never designated as a contentious topic; though I guess defining that would be half the problem.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm just noticing this now after being away from Wikipedia for several days. Frankly, I find this action difficult to understand. I recently initiated a civil discussion on the talk page regarding the positioning of certain material in the article in question. In response to that, an edit was made without discussion, instead of engaging in conversation with myself and other editors. My interactions with this particular editor have been marked by uncivil responses on their part, including refusal to answer perfectly reasonable questions, and instead responding with what appears to be nonsense. Further, this person has accused me of a conflict of interest with no evidence whatsoever. Again, I am mystified.Coalcity58 (talk)15:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense to post false accusations when the talkpage is publicly available.
Here is everything I ever wrote to you:
We should followWP:LEAD and add the criticism of it being a cult to the lead section. Also those articles you list are far from perfect. I will donate 100 USD to a charity of your choice if you send me a perfect Wikipedia article. To qualify it should at least do my taxes and some light chores around the house. Thank you. I hate unloading the dishwasher. A debate about content doesn't have to be "settled" to include or remove it. Due to its nature, much of the content on Wikipedia is constantly debated. But that doesn't mean we delete all the content that someone might disagree with or object to. See for exampleWP:NOTCENSORED. Thebeatings debates will continue untilmorale improves the heat death of the universe. Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned. An RFC would not make sense, but I already predicted another ARBCOM case which might be a good idea. even when you feel you arerighting great wrongs you can't just editwar to get your way. You will get blocked. What is your relationship with Landmark? Please respond here and in the COI section below. Thank you,
Also I haven't "accused" you of having a conflict of interest, I just posted the template that informs you about how the COI guideline works. Perhaps you are confused with another account?Polygnotus (talk)17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Again,It doesn't really make sense to post false accusations when the talkpage is publicly available. Unless you are trying to build a false narrative because someone wanted you to stop editwarring of course.what is it The coi template is used to inform people of the coi guideline.Polygnotus (talk)19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
And here we go again. Polygnotus has claimed I’m posting false accusations, while in the very act of accusing me of creating a false narrative. So, a double accusation. And still, a ringing silence regarding his (or hers as the case may be) demonstrably false statement that “Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned.’ Why does he ignore a simple statement of fact refuting his falsehood? On another note, I’m relatively new to Wikipedia, still learning about it. I also have little time to edit due to work commitments, and now I’m suddenly having to waste all that limited time defending myself against a spurious accusation in response to my reversing an edit made without consensus. I have to wonder what’s really going on here. Is there an agenda I don’t know about? Does Polygnotus ever provide a straight answer to questions? The history of this article would seem to indicate not.Coalcity58 (talk)21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, you have both done some overreacting to eachother's comments. The use of the COI template may have been a little pointed, but it's not per se an "accusation" of a COI: people do regularly use it to inform newer users whomay have a COI of the project's standards on such conflicts, just in case. Does it get over- and mis-used, including in an aggressive manner that is more about making a comment about another user's conduct, rather than actually to make them aware of editorial and policy considerations they may be unaware of? Yeah, unfortunately, like most warning templates, that's probably the majority of how it is used. But where there is reasonable doubt, you should try toWP:AGF about the intention, imo.Likewise, I don't think you're trying to misrepresent the talk page history as you see it. And I do think that Poly's initial response did have a little more snark than was necessary and did make some definite criticisms about your approach, but none of it crosses a line into disruptive as far as I have seen. As to the question of whether anyone got blocked "last time" the community looked into this particular topic area, one of you may just be unaware of a more recent discussion. And as for the question of the edit warring, I'm personally not of the disposition to go digging through the edit history at this late juncture to try to qualify or disprove it, but it would probably be too stale to act on for preventative purposes just at the moment.I do disagree with Polygnotus on one point: it's probably not too late to RfC the underlying dispute. Unless there has been a really, really recent discussion that had a clear outcome, that's precisely what I'd recommend to break the loggerhead here. But either way, bluntly, you two are playing ABF/overreaction leap frog at the moment, and I think the community's tepid response thus far demonstrates that no action is currently considered appropriate other than clear advice to separate to your respective corners and try our standard dispute resolution processes. Though that sentiment could quickly change if things continue in their current direction. For all I know, Poly may very well be right that the overall situation is ripe for ArbCom review. But unless and until that happens, the best that can be recommend for this contest of wills is that it stop and additional voices be brought in to break any editorial deadlock.SnowRise let's rap01:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, SnowRise, for your attempts to bring some balance and restraint to this dispute.Polygnotus has an extensive history of failing toWP:AGF, and violations ofWP:CIVIL.
I have to say that I find Polygnotus' accusation of edit warring against Coalcity58 as disingenuous to say the least. Coalcity58 may have been unwise to allow himself to get drawn in to a series of reversions, but it was instigated by implacable re-postings of the same edit that would have been a 3RR violation but for the detail that they were performed alternately byPolygnotus andAvatar317, effectively acting as a tag-team.
Also assiduous edit-warring on theWerner Erhard page to repeatedly remove well-sourced and relevant content, while aggressively refusing to engage with discussion about the edits on the talk page:[161][162][163]
Although this is not the place to debate content disputes, it is relevant to point out the flimsy nature of the case for adding this content to the article at all, much less placing it in the lead. Even the proposers admit on the Landmark_Worldwide talk page that "It should be noted that MANY sources talk about Landmark as being ACCUSED of being a cult, and that is what we are saying in this article, not that they ARE a cult."
In fact, anyone who takes the trouble to read the cited sources will find that none of them reference any specific primary sources stating that Landmark is a cult, merely referring to rumours or gossip to that effect; and in almost all cases they go on to say that in the opinion of the writer, they didn't seem to merit that description.DaveApter (talk)15:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Topic ban for DaveApter?
I support a topic ban for DaveApter from Landmark (he is practically a SPA as well as COI editor BY HIS BEHAVIOR - [he did attend Landmark) blocking improvement of this article by removing or opposing anything HE views as negative about Landmark in any way. He has been on Wikipedia since 2005, andhis editing history shows 1,300 edits to Mainspace, of which 320 (25%) have been to the Landmark article; 760 edits to Talk space, 433 of which are Landmark, (57%).
I made that statement in Talk (my support for a topic ban against him if he were to continue to edit the article DIRECTLY), and he has not directly edited the article since, so I would say his Talk page statements are more annoying than disruptive at this point, but I do consider him to be continuing inWP:CPUSHing.
Another editor who was a strong defender of Landmark and blocked article improvement wasUser:AJackl who "As of February 01, 2023, I began work as the Chief Technology Officer for Landmark Worldwide and am enjoying this new role!" and at least now HAS stopped editing the article.
Maybe both Dave and Alex are examples of this: "One thing is certain: Landmark is a program that is incredibly successful at making people feel good about Landmark."[164] ---Avatar317(talk)21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposal doesn't come anywhere close to providing the level of evidence necessary to justify the suggested sanction. Although a misconception we see here from time to time, merely being anWP:SPA does not automatically qualify an editor asWP:Disruptive orWP:NOTHERE; many SPAs contribute productively to the project, and (just as with a proposed sanction of any other community member) the onus is upon the party proposing a CBAN (generally only considered for the most substantially disruptive editors) to demonstrate that it is necessary to prevent ongoing disruption. By the nom's own analysis, Dave's behaviour is"more annoying than disruptive", which falls far below the threshold of necessitating a TBAN. And I suspect one's mileage would vary with regard to even the "annoying" part. Indeed, also by the nom's analysis, roughly 36% of Dave's edits are to the area of Landmark, and they have been contributing on the project for nearly 20 years, so the label of 'SPA' itself is fairly dubious. I'm also somewhat skeptical that Dave has a COI that rises to the level of an actionableWP:COI under policy. The only link that Dave has disclosed is having "purchased a Landmark product" decades ago and found it worth their time. It's a novel case, so I'm not staking a firm position on the matter just yet, but that feels like a weak foundation to base an argument of actionable COI on. What would be the relationship? That they bought a product, or attended a talk? By that logic I have a COI with Microsoft and hundreds of academics and researchers.SnowRise let's rap21:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
And honestly folks, this is getting to be a bit much. The ABF is thick as fog in this dispute and the constant broadsides from both camps are frankly mostly hyperbolic and getting to be a waste of time. The general lack of engagement from the community after the obvious troll was squashed last week ought to be telling you all something about how likely any of you are to be able to completely remove your rhetorical opposition from the article, so find a way to resolve the editorial issues inside of our normal dispute resolution processes. At the moment,the only community sanction I think I might possibly support is mutual IBANs, and I usually have a very low opinion of the utility of that tool.SnowRise let's rap21:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
User:KSDerek has been harassing me on the page Talk:Asian fetish over my large batch of edits. My editswere bold and sweeping, but I spend a proportionate amount of time researching them and writing about them on the talk page beforehand. I posted to community noticeboards asking for participation (which nobody responded to, unfortunately). I started with good-faith discussion, but was met quickly with derisive condescension and rudeness combined with some misguided interpretations of the sources.
At this point I noticed his account was created on Sep 8, which is around the last time I encountered opposition from IP editors. Given recent interactions with certain other editors, I launched asockpuppet investigation with my suspicions. I understand his offence at this, but I think it was reasonable grounds to suspect something. However, turned out to be false. I left a message on his user page offering to forgive, forget and reset the discussion.
At this point I think the discussion is untenable. I tried, I opened the door to patching it up, I understand the harm that SPI did (although I maintain the suspicion was reasonable and I later apologized), but KSDerek has not shown a willingness to change his tune. Instead, between the choice of civil discussion and no discussion, he's chosen no discussion and has again started editing from his POV.
I have to say that theunifying theme of KSDerek's objections and edits is in supporting a POV that violence iscompletely unrelated to this topic. (There is plenty of discussion in both opinion and research-based sources relating the two.[1][2][3][4]) He does not askwhether the claim should be made, if due weight is appropriate, etc, but instead asserts that it's simplynot, going so far as a semantic argument about the word "fetish".
In summary (tl;dr):
I'm not perfect, but I have tried my best to follow the spirit and rule of Wikipedia's policies,
KSDerek's conductbefore the SPI was uncivil,
KSDerek's conductafter the SPI was uncivil,
KSDerek is engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing.
So, to sum up, you did a bold deletion of content, KSDerek didWP:BRD and questioned it on the talk page, then after some back and forth you opened an SPI and expected them to be nice after you didn'tWP:AGF? From what I can tell, nothing KSDerek has done is uncivil. However, I do think that the talk page needs a resolution to this and that you cannot be as dismissive as you were with A Rainbow Footing It.Conyo14 (talk)18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I would say that comments like "Or, is this just to force your viewpoint?" (said repeatedly) and "Why do you lie so much constantly?" are pretty uncivil. I won't get into who did what first, but I think it should be very evident that one of us gave more of a chance (WP:AGF) than the other. And I think A Rainbow Footing It joining the fray would be blatantWP:CANVASS, considering their first interaction with me was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet (which, fine, but if you think that, open a SPI and find out). Them joining the debate would almost certainly not be about the content and instead be about me personally.ShinyAlbatross (talk)21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I believeWP:IUC supports my case here. And the "revert" in BRD has to come with reasons (WP:BRDR) – KSDerek did not. One of his biggest complaints was a study that he actuallydidn't revert away (the Shor & Golriz study). Another one of his biggest arguments was totally unrelated to my edits (that Pornography and Sex Tourism should be removed from the article).ShinyAlbatross (talk)21:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
ShinyAlbatross, of course, civility and AGF are valued here at Wikipedia. But this is a collaborative editing project, editors disagree all of the time and tempers get the best of them. Try to work out disputes on the article talk page or another form on dispute resolution. I'm not taking sides here because I haven't studied the edits to this article but you can't run to ANI or SPI every time you have a disagreement with another editor or your actions will eventually be seen as disruptive editing. Most editors here who have been around a long time find a way to continue working on a peoject where there are other editors who they don't get along with and this is usually done by giving them a wide berth and not editing the same articles. An editor's behavior has to be seriously egregious, like racist or transphobic, to warrant a block for lack of civility. Just not being nice or short-tempered are chalked up to the fact that we are all human beings. If you think this editor's behavior is that severe, you have to present examples/diffs so that editors and admins here can see what you are talking about.
Also, I saw you suggest to the other editor that you wanted to remove a discussion on the article talk page but please do not do that. You can archive talk page content if it is old but do not delete content just because it doesn't reflect your current position. And if you have questions about civility or Wikipedia's forums of dispute resolution, please bring them tothe Teahouse, not ANI. This noticeboard is where you come if all other forms of discussion and resolution have failed and I think this complaint is too soon for ANI consideration.LizRead!Talk!00:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Just one suggestion, if you find yourself in a me vs. them dispute, it is often helped by the participation of other editors. You might post a very neutral message on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject inviting editors to come and discuss the dispute. But, like I said, it must be aneutral message.LizRead!Talk!00:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. For all the recent research I've done into Wikipedia's guidance and policies, I'm still learning. I don'tbelieve I am running to interventions prematurely, but I will take more experienced users' opinions on this.
Nonetheless,should I present diffs/examples and a timeline? I was not sure how detailed to make this account.
I would not delete a discussion unless it wasWP:MUTUAL, but if you suggest I shouldn't even do that, I'll take that advice.
Just reflecting on this and comments so far, I agree that dispute resolution is more appropriate. To whichever admin reads this, is it okay if I archive this and move it to dispute resolution instead?ShinyAlbatross (talk)19:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
This editor makes some noticeboard listing of me almost every day. I didn't even do anything for a day now? Two dispute resolution posts, the SPI, now this. All have been closed quickly. Like who is harassing who? After a long discussion on the talk page I gave a small slight of their way of arguing and now they endlessly wikilawyer on that and refuse to respond to any of my points there anymore. They're doing "bold" removals and getting ire for it on two articles, not just one. And when it comes to their claim of having researched things well, almost every single sentence they add to this article is heavily laden with stuff that wasn't mentioned in the source. And they have talking points like "White women discriminating against Asian men (which is pretty well-documented)"[165]. At least other people recognise that I'm not the odd one here.KSDerek (talk)03:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
One SPI has been concluded, and that investigates a very different charge. There was one dispute resolution post, which was closed because the SPI was open (my mistake, I didn't suspect SPI until the dispute resolution was already open)
I believe everything I wrote is much more faithful to the sources than before my edits. And they were mostly the same sources. I'm not saying there isn't room for further improvement, but it's already a large improvement over what was there and I explained thoroughly what I did on the talk page and (to a lesser degree) edit summaries, which you haven't engaged with.
Itis pretty well documented.[5][6][7] Two of these sources are cited in the article. And in the context of that discussion, it's clear I wasn't crudely casting grievances (it is not a moral judgment).
You later made another post at the dispute resolution noticeboard but removed it yourself. So if you make another there it's going to be a third now. All the noticeboard posts you make are also always slightly biased for you, for example at the numerous Asian-related noticeboards you write that you're "fixing issues", and still, no one is willing to participate in this, which says a lot.KSDerek (talk)02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
You know,BrocadeRiverPoems, I just got done trying to read throughWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible False Accusation and if I were you, I'd focus more on editing and not on spending so much time on ANI. For a new editor, I think you have been involved in 3 or 4 cases here already. Editors start wondering if this is drama-mongering on your part. This is not a comment on the nature of your complaint, which might be valid, I'm just trying to discourage you from bringing every dispute you find yourself in to ANI or to keep bringing editors to SPI which is terribly backlogged right now. But at this point, after reading through the last complaint you were part of, this one needs some fresh eyes.LizRead!Talk!02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi. My apologies. I do want to say that I haven't brought anyone to SPI, someone else brought it to SPI and I commented on it because the person who made the SPI complaint mentioned my comment from the previous ANI, and I wanted to properly explain why I had believed the IPs were connected to the editor. I'm not trying to monger drama or anything. Of 4 cases at ANI, 3 have potentially been about the same user's behavior, with this editor seeming to be a sock of the other editor involved in the other 2 disputes. Aside from the incident at "Possible False Accusations", the previous ANI I was involved in was atWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#h-User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.-20240905035100 where nothing was resolved even though a number of other editors expressed their concerns about the user. I had posted a closure request for it, but the topic was archived before anything happened, and another admin I asked said they doubted anything would be done about it since it had been archived. Since the account seems like a sock of the other user involved in the content dispute, and is repeatedly accusing me of being a racist, I don't really know what else I was supposed to do except report it and hope that someone looked into it. But, I'll steer clear of ANI from now on.Brocade River Poems (She/They)03:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I’ve read theGeji talk page. For the issues withGeji, I suggest you currently treat it primarily as a content dispute and continue to proceed as you are already doing through the various options outlined byWP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Hopefully the sock puppet investigation will be processed soon. — rsjaffe🗣️03:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I’ve read the Geji talk page.Talk:Geji is barely readable. It could be, if admin had properly addressed the concerns ofBrocadeRiverPoems—and multiple people who agreed with her—on the earlier ANI threads. The suspected sockpuppeteer's bludgeoning on Talk:Geji and canvassing elsewhere arehampering resolution of thecontent dispute. Just some context. Thank you for reading,Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)15:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m no admin. I just think that there is plenty of opportunity to escalate this along the content dispute side, which may be more fruitful for BRP to do, rather than focusing on conduct by going to ANI, which hasn’t been successful so far. — rsjaffe🗣️16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
User:年轻的古惑仔, if you repeat the baseless accusations of racism/discrimination or bullying, I'm going to block you. Ditto for maintaining the combative tone displayed at that talk page, including the "do you dare?" type of comments. If you have credible evidence of someone being racist/discriminatory/bullying, please bring it to an admin's attention as soon as possible for review. It would almost never be appropriate to just make the accusation at an article talk page, and none of the evidence you've provided so far—mainly the failure to edit other articles—even approaches the point of sufficiency for such a serious accusation.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Whitewashing "abysmal" "inept" movie
Someone using two different ips 2A04:4A43:423F:D906:C022:CBE8:FFFB:8910 and 188.30.169.186 is repeating vandalisingWatermark (2013 film)[166], removing sourced content because they want to pretend the movie did not get bad reviews. Wikipedia is not a venue for whitewashing the past.duffbeerforme (talk)06:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
UserMikeAllen reverted two of my edits on pages ofThe Northman andThe Lighthouse with the comment "Nothing ever good comes from a Brazil IP addreess on film pages", which is xenophobic. Not the first time he acts in a similar "jokey" way on a page I previously edited, like he was the owner of the page and only his opinion is the one that matter, even cursing, but this comment, for me, crossed a line. He is not better or smarter than me because of the country he comes from. I would expect that this person is blocked from using Wikipedia.2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF (talk)00:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Although it was said in a joking manner, that's a bad attitude and edit summary to have towards other editors. I wonder if they are referencing a previous LTA they have encountered from this area. They will have to explain if there is any context here. The edits arehere andhere. Many editors, even experienced ones, can be unnecessarily dismissive towards our IP editors.LizRead!Talk!01:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Uh, let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Mike. No one is going to object to the CU block, but Liz isn't the only one who is hoping you can provide some insight for your comment, because irrespective of whether you were talking to a troll or an outright LTA, it's hard to imagine a context where such broad and obviously nationality-based commentary isn't a problem. Even if we AGF our very hardest that there is a history with particular editors that is animating that comment, the generalization in what you actually said implies a pretty substantial and problematic bias. At a minimum, I think it's reasonable to hear an acknowledgement of that from you and a commitment not to make such broad generalizations, whatever your particular experience.SnowRise let's rap04:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Um, any chance of a sensible response? Assuming good faith while admiring a six-month block of a /40 (Special:Contributions/2804:7F0:9000:0:0:0:0:0/40), it is obvious that a lot of abuse from IPs in a certain region has occurred. A sensible response would be to point out that the edit summary would be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with the situation and should not be used. A better edit summary would be "rv LTA".Johnuniq (talk)06:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, that is exactly my concern as well, and I couldn't agree more with the proposed alternative approach to the edit summary in such situations.SnowRise let's rap06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
My statement in the edit summary was based on the experience of Brazil based IP addresses that make very similar disruptive edits. This happens daily on film articles. I’m not entirely sure that all of these usersare located in Brazil. Which is why I said “a Brazil IP address” and not people of Brazil. It’s not that hard to mask your IP. You’re all right that I shouldn’t have even mentioned a country in that way and won’t for now on. My apologies.MikeAllen09:50, 21 September 2024 (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.
Revolutionary Communist International, NOTHERE by likely COI accounts
Pretty open and shut case ofWP:NOTHERE. New accounts with no editing outside of this one minor Trotskyist group, taking umbridge at the covering of sexual harassment claims against the group and demanding it be removed. Wouldn't be surprised if it was the same person operating both accounts. Relevant diffs: Flintinsects (talk·contribs), just claiming covering the claims is "vandalism" and citing the party's website as proof they're fake claims.[167][168] TrotskyChilde (talk·contribs), repeatedly claiming the group's response hasn't been detailed (despite it clearly being present in the next sentence) as cover for removing details of harassment claims, adding promotional-style content about the group's "explosive growth", and using edit summaries to rubbish the source of the claims[169][170]
Mmm. You have here an article on an international organisation, of which over nearly 20% text is about an incident that happened in one location, and were onlyallegations (nothing ever appears to have been proved). Not only that, but of the two sources used in the section, the second one actuallydisagrees with the first one about the nature and poosible veracity of the allegations. I'm unconvinced that this isWP:DUE. Obviously the blatantly promotional stuff needs to go, and yes there is obviously COI here, but I'm unsure about whether that section needs to exist.Black Kite (talk)08:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@Black Kite there's definitely a discussion to be had about the article's content on various issues (I know I've banged my head against the AfD wall a couple of times on it), but that's not why it's at ANI. Instead it's theconduct of the two accounts above, and namely the way they've gone about it by just removing it as vandalism (when it's clearly reliable sourced) or wanting to downplay the allegations themselves but put emphasis on how they must be fake without any evidence to demonstrate that.Rambling Rambler (talk)08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
This has long been a significant issue on Wikipedia. I read those articles before and also noticed the unjustified edit reversals in contravention of relevant guidelines. It comes off as sock-puppets engaging in self-promotion in the form of censoring unfavourable coverage. It’d be interesting to look into whether the actions are elaborately coordinated, e.g. botnet. The IP addresses of those accounts must be checked for sure.Steven1991 (talk)12:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Blocked both indefinitely. ECP the article as there's been other nonsense.
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 an admin please revoke this IP user'stalk page? They keep edit warring after they were blocked. They were originally blocked after attacking a blocked IP user.PEPSI697 (💬 •📝)10:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to note that this is becoming very severe and had to revert the edit warring and personal attack over 50 times, this is getting extremely out of control. This is really urgent. Can an admin please revoke this IP's talk page asap?PEPSI697 (💬 •📝)10:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I have an offer as well. Whoever solves or revoke this IP's talk page will be awarded and will receive an anti-vandalism barnstar from me.PEPSI697 (💬 •📝)11:24, 21 September 2024 (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.
Since 2011,Stephenhague has exclusively editedFaith Theological Seminary (except for a few User Talk edits). In 2011, Stephenhaguedisclosed that they were employed by the seminary as the academic dean. Theseminary's website indicates that they are still employed by the seminary as one of its leaders.
I have opened two discussions about this editor atWP:COIN. One was opened inJanuary 2023 and archived with no action taken. I opened another report a few days ago and no action has yet been taken by an administrator. I know that few admins monitor that noticeboard and it's not uncommon for even clear problems to go unaddressed there simply because they're overlooked so I am raising this here.
If the consensus is that it's okay for this editor to make promotional edits to their employer's article without more clearly revealing that they're closely connected to the subject than a User Talk post from 2011 (in another user's User Talk page), please let me know and I'll drop this. But this looks like a blatant violation of bothWP:COI andWP:PAID.ElKevbo (talk)13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I have partially blocked them from the article. They're welcome to use talk page but this is not a license to be disruptive there. Meta level, @Axad12 raised this lack of action on COIN on my Talk after I said at one point it had no teeth. I think AN/ANI are better suited when action is needed, as it was here.StarMississippi14:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
DinosaursLoveExistence and bulk creation of empty, or near-empty categories
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.
DLE and their IP sock have been engaged in a behaviour, supposedly for some time, where (to quote Liz)"DinosaursLoveExistence shows up, about once a month, and creates dozens and dozens of empty categories. Then they leave until next month. I tag the empty categories CSD C1. Then, over the course of the next 7-10 days, a random IP account, usually located in Nottingham, comes to Wikipedia and proceeds to fill up most of the categories".
As DLE is just not engaging, I think there is no other course left here than an indef block. If they wish to discuss it, or the categories, then such a block could easily be lifted. But the current situation is a ridiculous waste of time.Andy Dingley (talk)14:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I figure the dinosaurs were probably fairly depressive and fatalistic in general. I mean, for sure the theropods at least: few creatures have been given a less ideal set up for scratching their own backs. You'd go insane, wouldn't you? Ten years in, and you'd be like, "God, I can't wait for that meteorite to hit. I hope it comes down straight on top of me."SnowRise let's rap05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this. DinosaursLoveExistence has been editing Wikipedia for 18 years and did a lot of productive editing over that time. The primary problem here is the fact that they refuse to communicate with other editors, even once before when they were brought to ANI. In that discussion, they weren't the primary focus and the discussion just got archived.
But seriously, between personal messages to them and CSD C1 notices, I've probably posted hundreds of times to their User talk page over the past 5 years with no engagement. But their behavior was so predictable and our work on categories overlaps that my being aware of their editing cycles is second nature. I'll admit that tagging dozens and dozens of empty categories they created every month and then untagging most (that's most but not all) of them 7-10 days later was a waste of my time but it gave me an insight to the diversity of their interests which ranged from medical devices to universities in Germany to geography to landscaping to nuances of the circulatory system. They really had a broad knowledge and contributed categories in many areas that hadn't been categorized yet and, let me tell you, after 23 years, you would think that all of the necessary categories on Wikipedia would have been created already but they found plenty that hadn't been created yet. And while some were questionable and were brought toWP:CFD, I think the majority of the categories they created are still in use today.
I don't think they will apply to be unblocked given their aversion to interpersonal contact but, if they do, I hope they will answer the question that has always preoccupied me which is why do they use a registered account to create so many categories and then, a week later, use a variety of IP accounts to fill them. It's such a strict division of labor that I've never seen from another editor in my time on the project. Maybe that will just stay an unanswered mystery.LizRead!Talk!06:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't know it. That's why I asked for an explanation of the problem. I personally don't understand why categories even exist on Wikipedia except as for something to argue over. They aren't very visible to readers. So, having a magnitude greater or less of them seems inconsequential from my current point of view.107.77.204.150 (talk)00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
107.77.204.150, we have a speedy deletion criteria, CSD C1, that is just for deleting empty categories after 7 days of being empty. Years ago, when policy was being formulated on the project, the consensus might have been that it was perfectly okay for Wikipedia to have thousands of empty categories. But that's not what happened and thus, we delete empty categories after a suitable period of time has passed. Them's the rules.LizRead!Talk!00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
But why? Especially, if it's felt to be a waste of time? Couldn't you justWP:IAR and work on something else that you feel is productive and let someone else work on category maintenance who doesn't find it to be a waste of time?107.77.204.150 (talk)00:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that not everyone who might be confused by this methodology is here for this discussion. So the issues with the wasted time are likely to repeat themselves.SnowRise let's rap22:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps DLE is creating the cats with their account and then filling them in during their commutes on a work phone that they'd rather not have their login credentials on? I mean, I know it's wild speculation, but the point is, one can imagine scenarios that explain this behaviour. I also happen to agree that the disruptivness of this methodology is being at least marginally exaggerated here, and that the assessments feel a little reflexive. But at the end of the day, the bigger issue is the lack of communication. I'd love to think that there's plenty of people out there who are capable of contributing productively without ever saying a word to the broader community, but the nature of the space is such that even a very knowledgeable, astute, and cautious editor is going to fall ass backwards into a dispute now and again (whether of their own making or someone else's) and you just have to make an attempt at discussion at some point. If it's not this situation that can't be resolved without engagement, it will be one of the future ones. So let's hope the block gets them into a minimally communicative mood.SnowRise let's rap22:12, 19 September 2024 (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.
Persistent edit warring and possible conflict of interest byUser:Earthh
Earthh(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) Long history (for over a decade now) of removal of sourced content and edit warring atMr. Nobody (film), creating an alternative reality where that film was a hit and persistently removing sourced content that says the film was a box office flop, despite the film's own director having called it a financial failure, which is sourced in the article. They even created a new rule and keep removing the film's box office gross because they claim (without a source) that "the film was released on streaming services in most countries", but it was released theatrically in all of its production countries and it still flopped in all of them and everywhere else. They seem to act like a publicist (which falls underWP:COI) by removing even the slightest negative sourced content aboutJared Leto and any article related to him, most notably when they claimed that Leto's performances inSuicide Squad andMorbius were acclaimed by critics despite several sources saying the opposite, seethis,this,this,this,this,this andthis. User has argued with several editors and received several warnings from different editors about their edit warrings throughout the years, but nothing happens to them and they keep removing sourced content that goes against their personal preference and adding false information because they refuse to accept facts. Intheir latest edit warring, they not only removed the box office gross, but also the film's distributors from the infobox (which were sourced) and added a new one that has no source and wasn't the distributor in any of the film's production countries, which they had originally addedon July 2, 2024 without a source and without any explanation.Zoolver (talk)21:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
You are required to notify User:Earthh of your complaint. I'm also not seeing where you have attempted to discuss this with Earthh, either on the talk pages of the articles you cite, or on their own talk page. Ravenswing22:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
There was a blackout in my neighbourhood yesterday right after I sent my report, so I couldn't left the message notifying Earthh, but fortunately@AlexBobCharles: did that already (thank you!). And I honestly have no desire to waste my time with an editor who refuses to accept facts no matter how many discussions several people have had with them for over a decade to try and make them understand that they're wrong and should stop removing sourced content and replacing them with false information. I'm quite sure that this report won't go anywhere again as this is not even the first time that this user is reported for the same behavior.Zoolver (talk)17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for the delayed response to this discussion, my time dedicated to Wikipedia has become increasingly limited, and the summer break kept me away for over a month. I would also like to thankAlexBobCharles for bringing it to my attention,Zoolver's approach has been anything but collaborative, as they did not notify me of this discussion and have avoided all attempts at reconciliation on the article's talk page or my user talk page, ignoring all suggestions proposed by WP:ANI regarding conflict resolution, and resorting to blackout andWP:NOTME to justify these shortcomings. I would like to remind Zoolver that if their contributions are contested, it is essential to discuss and seek consensus rather than persistently edit and engage in edit warring, especially concerning aWP:GA that has been vetted by multiple users. However, I do recognize that the user's perspective appears clearly non-neutral, as they resort to personal attacks against me and unfounded, ridiculous conjectures portraying me as a publicist for Leto. The discussions in which I was involved and that they reference have always concluded with a consensus; I don't understand what the correlation is with this discussion. Moreover, there is evident bias when I am accused of describing the film as a hit, while the version Zoolver is challenging me on describes it as a"box office disappointment."
As previously mentioned to them, the issues raised have been extensively discussed in the past, bothhere and during the subsequentGAN. The film's financier and international distributor,Wild Bunch, found it neither sellable nor distributable ("ni vendable ni distribuable") due to its length; at the director's insistence, it received limited theatrical releases only in a few countries (countries where Mr. Nobody was released vs.countries where Van Dormael's next film was released) and lacked promotion[171]. While Zoolver asserts that the film flopped everywhere, sources indicate it is the second highest-grossing Belgian film of the year[172] and one of the top-grossing films ever from Belgium[173]. This, without a doubt, does not suffice to categorize it as a box office success, as explicitly stated in the article even before their contributions, although Box Office Mojo's data is incomplete. For instance, data from Canada (one of the production countries) is missing because the BO Mojo algorithm does not track the Canadian release unless it coincides with the U.S. release (a notable example isC.R.A.Z.Y., one of the highest-grossing films in Canada, which BO Mojo does not track). In all major markets, the film was released only on home video and streaming formats, distributed similarly to films likeBeasts of No Nation,Roma, andThe Irishman (in the United States, Mr. Nobody was initially available on video on demand and then in four theaters only). Multiple sources suggest that the film found commercial success precisely through these formats[174][175][176][177]. What emerged needs to be clearly reflected on the page, and I will try to edit it in the coming days. In summary, Wikipedia relies on what the sources state, not on Zoolver's viewpoint, and I again encourage them to discuss collaboratively on the talk page.--Earthh (talk)15:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I have not made any changes to any semi-protected article or to extended confirmed protected article in the past or present. The rule here is clear. You cannot judge my experimental changes by looking into a magic ball. There are no restriction rules on the changes I have made.
Example: A new editor makes 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed, and then makes controversial changes to semi-protected articles, moves a promotional draft to article space, or otherwise edits disruptively or vandalizes articles. >>>I am not a new editor and I do not need to do anything to be autoconfirmed.
Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles. >>>never made "controversial" or any changes to extended confirmed protected articles. Also so-called "violating EC restriction for Armenia Azerbaijan" is nonsense, I have not made any changes to any extended confirmed articles in the past.
Unfortunately, there is a clique here that tries to block every issue related to Azerbaijan by calling it Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Azerbaijan is a state that exists independently of its relations with Armenia. You cannot block every issue related to Azerbaijan in this way. For this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation.Hezarfen (talk)18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
What was your intention in repeatedly removing the numbers "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9" from your user page, one after the other, 349 times, and then stopping just after you obtained EC at 502 total edits? I'd be fascinated to know what you were doing if youweren't gaming permissions.Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeffed as Not Here for the clear gaming above, but also a side of RGW forFor this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation.. They're welcome to file an unblock if they have an interest in editing collaboratively.StarMississippi18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
IP adding slurs to articles (and adding unsourced information about slurs to articles about slurs)
The /64 has been doing this since September 1. So I'm expanding the block to a rangeblock. This history also demonstrates that it's not just a few-minute problem, giving additional support to the use of a several-day block.DMacks (talk)19:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Eksilon has been making disruptive test edits despite multiple warnings across several months. They frequently introduce deliberate factual errors to existing articles and create unfinished (infobox only) articles with historically inaccurate titles in the main space. My theory is that Eksilon is test editing with their own imaginative, fictional ideas, but despite being told six times about their sandbox, they continue to make these edits in the main space and have yet to communicate on their talk page. They are clearlynot here to build an encyclopedia, and even if one assumes good faith (just test editing, doesn't know better even though they should by now), their disruptive edits are unlikely to stop because communication from them seems unlikely.Yue🌙20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
All of the following should also be deleted because they're not genuine attempts by Eksilon at creating an article (evidenced by them beingjust copy-and-pasted infoboxes and tables from other articles) and are abandoned test edits cluttering the draft space:
I p-blocked them from mainspace in the hopes this gets them to engage on talk pages. Happy for anyone to lift that block if/once it's no longer necessary. --asilvering (talk)20:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
RealDr.Method and persistent addition of unsourced music genres
I have indefinitely blocked RealDr.Method from article space although they are free to make edit requests on article talk pages.Cullen328 (talk)01:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Evelyn Harthbrooke
First of all, my apologies if this is not the correct venue to discuss this. This dispute originally started as a content dispute but has since - in my opinion - devolved into a conduct dispute. I've there are more appropriate places to have this discussion, I would love to be directed there.
I'm frankly at the end of my rope here. I've requested multiple times to discuss things first, requested 3WP:THIRD's, and occasionally other users have joined in on the discussion. But pretty much everything anyone says or does has been left ignored. The user has repeatedly stated that her opinion was final (Evelyn:my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back, among other instances) and with that implying, in my opinion, no willingness to discuss. This is further exemplified in recent days by various requests to discuss being left completely unanswered. As I feel that much of my goodwill has been wiped out by the repeated falsehoods (even after being disproven), repeating the same arguments without acknowledging any counterpoints and bringing up different arguments ad nauseam, refusing to acknowledge any other opinions or disregarding them because "user has left", generally contradictory statements, etc. I'm now taking this here because I'm not sure much constructive discussion can still happen at this point.
Originally, I wrote out an entire timeline of each relevant edit and revert trying to sum up as objectively as possible the arguments made. However, that resulted in a list of nearly 300 entries. So instead I'll just summarize some of the arguments here, still trying to be as objective as possible in arguments made by others (resorting to direct quotes for most of it). I'm collapsing it because this is still a long list. Although arguable, reading through the talk pages would be the better option, but I do realize that's a long discussion.
Rough progression of the argument
On January 1st, 2023, a discussion is started atTalk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Hardware support, 2 users (DFlhb and Herbfur) discuss whether or not the "Hardware support" section should remain. DFlhb decides to remove it on January 3rd. However, inTalk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Widespread copyvio, DFlhb in discussion with other users comes back on his opinionI agreed with someone else to delete, but two people isn't remotely a binding consensus and on January 23rdrestores the section arguing that (people seem to value these types of articles for their technical comprehensiveness. I no longer see anything wrong with these tables; they're not exactly redundant, since the present the same information as the first table in a more straightforward, intuitive way).
Evelyn responds to thisremoved due to severe article bloat (it dramatically increased the post-expand include size).
I bring up that the inclusion size isn't a concern, as of the time of that writing, the inclusion of the section would add 238.961 bytes to an article of 438.928 bytes, well below the limit of 2 million bytes. I also point out that the article, before massive parts of its content were wiped out, had a total inclusion size of 1.2 million bytes, still far below the limit. So even if the article is expanded back to its original proportions, there is no issue here.
I also point out that, perWP:SPLIT, if the article becomes to large, the article should be split up. Removing information is antithetical to the goal of Wikipedia.
Evelyn will go on to never acknowledge theWP:SPLIT argument and never addresses the fact that the article is well below the size limit. Nontheless, she brings up this argument repeatedly over the next 1.5 year.
She also claims thatthe table at the top already serves of a sort of "support table" as it already shows "device end-of-life" as a column.
I point out that the "Device end-of-life" column in the overview only shows the last version supported, but not when support starts. The 2 tables clearly serve a different purpose and have little overlap.
I also point out that how data is presented is equally important, even if there would be duplicated information.
Evelyn will go on to never acknowledge these arguments. Like the inclusion size, this argment is repeated multiple times.
She goes on to argue thatwhen support for devices is dropped and said removal of device support is cited, it is displayed in the respective version's overview, seemingly referring to the version detail tables as seen iniOS version history#iOS 17.
I bring up that that argument doesn't fly. As of even today, only 6 sections have these tables at all (at the time only 2 had them). I argue that we cannot just remove content because future edits may duplicate the information elsewhere.
Evelyn never addresses this, but does repeat the same argument in the future.
She goes on to say thatmy stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back.
User @Mesocarpresponds to the WP:THIRD request. She states that "I don't think it's quite fair to just say that those tables are obviously "unnecessary" or "bloat."", she further request if any sources may need to be added. She also goes on to say thatWP:NLIST may support the tables existance. She also questions ifWP:NOTACATALOG may apply.
In response to this, I bring up that the guidelines described byWP:NOTACATALOG have no bearing on the content being discussed, and further point out that similar tables can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. I further question if she actually read the policy, as she seemingly just repeats it.
Evelyn will never go on to elaborate whyWP:NOTACATALOG would apply.
IP user further acknowledges that if the size of the article becomes an issue, that a split should be made, offering the Windows and macOS articles as examples. I believe this is specifically in reference to theWindows 10 version history andmacOS version history articles.
In an edit summary, she claims thatthis is a article focused on the development of iOS and that thus the section must be removed.
I point out that this is not the case, its a version history page and not "Development of iOS", pointing toDevelopment of Windows XP as an example of such an article. I also point out that if this information should not be on the article at all for this reason, that her prior argument that the information is duplicated elsewhere makes no sense in that context.
At this point, I'm starting to have a suspicion that Evelyn is no longer arguing in good faith, seemingly bring up new arguments hoping that one sticks.
Evelyn will go on to claim that she hasbeen an editor of this page for literally years. Further claiming thatthose tables with the abundance of checkmarks didn't exist until you added them in February of this year.
To me, this confirms my earlier suspicion both by seemingly implyingWP:OWN, as well as the fact that I was not the one to add these tables, my only edit in February 2023 being anupdate to rename the templates. This was also my first edit to the iOS version history article, as well as my only edit in February.
I however bring up that 1 of the 2 users involved (DFlhb) self reverted the change and already made clear that he doesn't believe there was consensus to remove the section.
Evelyn goes on to never address this. She will however repeatedly claim consensus, claiming that including herself and me, there is a 3 to 1 consensus for removing the tables. Not only is this too an objective lie, this also ignores comments made by other users.
Evelyn also brings up in an edit summary thatthey are overly visual heavy, which is *awful* for people who are blind. Text is better in this case, for accessibility reasons
At this point, I fully believe that Evelyn is no longer arguing in good faith as she claims the tables aren't accessible due to their use of templates while questioning that she is not sure they have alt text, an easily verifiable fact. The tables are accessible, as are the templates used in the tables. As someone who uses a screen reader myself, I feel well positioned to make this point. I also point out that if this was the case, that would warrant a request for improvement, and not to outright delete content.
Evelyn goes on to respond withAccessibility is important, even on encyclopedia platforms like Wikipedia, and those templates are downright awful when it comes to that. Screen readers, to work effectively, require captions, or alt text.
Note the comment about captions, it will be important later.
Both DFlhb and I confirm that the tables are perfectly accessible.
Evelyn goes on to never address this.
At this point, the argument has spanned 1.5 month and Evelyn abandons any discussion and restores the section.
Starting on November 21st, 2023, without any discussion, Evelyn removes the tables yet again claimingremove hw support tables; these tables are getting too unwieldy; the individual iOS version articles already have supported devices in their infobox, and this article is strictly intended for documenting iOS' version history, not what version supports what, and even then, the version overview tables already list supported hardware models
I respond to this claiming thatPrevious discussions on this have resulted in these tables remaining on this page, they are not unwieldy and provide visualization of data that isn't otherwise available anywhere else.
Evelyn responds to with another revert claimingyes they are, and there was no consensus to either keep or remove them. these templates are honestly an eyesore and don't belong on the page; esp. not with the checkmarks
I restore the section again claimingBeing an "eyesore" is not an argument for removal, nevermind that these kind of tables are all over Wikipedia as I believe that her argument isWP:WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Evelyn reverts again, and argues on the talk page (Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Missing hardware support table?) that I am the only one arguing for the tables to remain. Over the course of this discussion, a lot of the previous arguments are repeated without acknowledging any of the counter arguments.
I point out in that in the current discussion alone I'm already not the only person arguing for it.
I also point out that removing them because the tables are an "eyesore" is not a valid argument.
Evelyn also makes the claim that the Wikipedia guidelines say to "avoid information-dense tables unless absolutely necessary".
I point out that the tables are a simple matrix.
Evelyn goes on to never address this response.
Evelyn then goes on to say that I amthe only one who's defending them now, the other one who defended this left Wikipedia.
I point out that this shows an intention to repeat the discussion until people give up arguing with her, no matter what they say. I futher point out that just because people aren't repeatedly coming to the talk page to defend their earlier stated opinions (opinions that she never countered) doesn't mean she can just ignore it.
As a result of this, a day later, lacking any response, I restore the section.
At this point, the discussion is yet again abandoned as Evelyn never responds. This eventually results in the discussion being moved to the talk page's archive.
On September 14th, 2024, Evelyn removes the section again claimingonce again remove these, these are genuienly becoming incredibly unwieldy, and are a maintenance burden. what happens in 10 years when we're at iOS 28 and iPhone 26? these templates are going to become incredibly hell-ish to maintain (more so than they already are) and quite frankly they don't belong here. this article is a chronological history of iOS releases, these templates genuinely do not belong here. Soon thereafter she updates the "See also" section linking directly to the templates as if they are articles.
I restore the article adding thatLet's discuss the removal of an entire section on the talk page first... Again... Nothing about these tables is "unwieldy", nor are they a burden to maintain, and neither is a reason to remove them anyways. These are small and very simple tables compared to some complex creations that have come into existence over the years on Wikipedia. and open a new discussion withTalk:iOS version history#The "Hardware support" section, again. Where I point out that the tables are not a maintenance burden and that keeping them up-to-date is a 1 minute job that has to be done at best twice a year, as well as point out that when the article grows to large, it can be split, as can the tables themselves.
Evelyn will repeat these claims, but never addresses this counter argument.
Evelyn responds, repeating the inclusion size argument, as well as the claim that they are a maintenance burden. She also claims that the tables are out of scope for the article sayingyou don't see any other version history articles with these kinds of templates, now do you. Finaly, she claims thatyou have made the vast majority of edits to those templates, therefore you are personally biased towards the templates existing within the article. She also makes these comments on my personal talk page.
At this point, I fully believe I'm justified in assuming that this argument is being held in bad faith as these tables existed for years prior to being turned into templates, during which I never made any edits to them. My other edits were either maintaining the templates by adding new devices and OS releases or directly attempting to address Evelyn's earlier concerns. I point out that she is now essentially saying that my opinion should be completely discarded because I made attempts to compromise.
I also point out that we shouldn't link to templates as if they are articles.
Evelyn goes on to repeat this argument, but never acknowledge the points raised. She does however use my argument that we shouldn't link to templates as a reason to then remove the templates entirely from the article.
I also point out that unlike other version history articles, Apple's ecosystem is uniqly tied together and that this is why tables like this don't exist on other articles likeAndroid version history, etc.
Evelyn goes on to never acknowledge this counterpoint, but will repeat this claim.
Evelyn responds again, repeating the inclusion size argument, but also stating thatand they also cause a user to have to scroll for longer to get to the bottom sections of the article as well as thatArguably even now this article is still not encyclopedic material, because a lot of the text is repetitive.
I respond to this saying that the tables being to long is not a reason to remove them. I also ask her to add a template to request improvement for het "not encyclopedic" argument. She never elaborates on why specifically this isn't encyclopedic and so this isn't an actionable argument.
Evelyn never addresses either of these counterpoints.
Evelyn goes on to claim thatIt should also be noted that the last time someone asked to reinstate these templates, someone other than me literally said that the discussion failed to reach consensus.
I believe this is in reference to DFlhb as no other similar statements exist, and I point out that they were making the opposite argument; that there was no consensus to remove them.
Furthermore, Evelyn resorts to startcalling me toxic and disruptive.
For thethird time, I request aWP:THIRD, this one is at the time of writing still unanswered.
At this point, the tables are restored to the article and not removed again.
However, instead Evelyn now begins making various changes to the templates themselves. These include removing OS names and device names, as well as removing the captions (first by moving them into the table header, later removing them entirely).
Many of these changes seem to be an attempt to practically made the tables invisible by collapsing them, leaving only their (now drastically shortened) caption as well as removing nearly all context within the tables themselves.
This strikes me as an attempt to subvert the ongoing conversation.
@George Ho and myself at various points bring up that she's removing much of the context and actively making the templates less accessible, citing MOS:ACCESS, MOS:COLHEAD, and MOS:TABLECAPTIONS in various edit summaries as well as on a new discussion Evelyn opened on my talk page atUser talk:YannickFran#Please avoid the constant reverting where we point out that header cells and body text are not a good alternative per those policies as well as general HTML standards. There is a repeated back and forth where Evelyn is asked repeatedly to discuss the changes on the iOS version history talk page. She ignores these requests despitevarious comments being made by myself to address my concerns and give tangable examples of why the changes are problematic.
Evelyn only responds on my talk page claiming that many tables exist without captions becauseTHEY ARE REDUNDANT, in this new discussion, she furthers claims thatbringing up all kinds of outdated Wikipedia policies that aren’t enforce as well as claiming that captions are not needed becauseno effect due to newer MediaWiki and Wikipedia changes.
I ask her where it is stated that these guidelines are not to be followed anymore, as well as providing sources for how changes to MediaWiki and Wikipedia would have negated the need for these. I further point out that this directly flies in the face of her argument months earlier stating that captions where necessary for screen readers to work properly.
Evelyrn also brings up thatYou, at every turn, have been reverting my edits without discussing my changes first.
Here I point out that I've repeatedly asked her to discuss things and have cited various in my opinion valid reasons and concerns for undoing her changes and that she is the one who has shown an unwillingness to discuss. I also point out that my reverts also included various changes to address other concerns she's had. These changes are further detailed in the iOS version history talk page, but Evelyn never addresses them or my questions in them to elaborate on why certain changes were made.
Throughout this all, various reverts and re-reverts were made by both Evelyn and myself. However, I feel like I've provided plenty arguments as to why my reverts were in order on the talk page and have more often than not first continued the discussion on the talk page and waiting for a response, rather than opting to revert, unless I was under the believe that policies likeWP:ACCESS were being broken (mostly with the templates in this case) in which I felt making sure the contents of the article remained accessible was of greater concern. Admittedly, for a few of those reverts on the iOS version history article at the start of the dispute, I should have waited longer or let the discussion go further before restoring the section. Evelyn has reverted with every comment she's made (assuming her changes weren't the latest already) across both the article and templates, as well as made multiple reverts without ever addressing the requests to discuss (at best leaving an edit summary), including reverting other changes by myself and George Ho that were not relevant to the discussion or directly attempted to address her concerns.
With that, we've come to today. I've asked her yet again to respond to the discussionsbut she only responds by declining to do so, leaving the tables with various accessibility issues and in general removing context from them even for normal readers. After multiple attempts at dispute resolution, it is clear to me that Evelyn isn't open to any actual discussion (even having said as much herself on multiple occasions), and behaves in a disruptive manner, even often going against her own advice or using arguments that seemingly contradict her previous arguments, ignoring policies and guidelines claiming that they no longer apply (and that somehow that means that we should now do the opposite of those guidelines and policies), ignoring other peoples comments and trying to discard my own by claiming I'm biased because I attempted to address her concerns, and repeatedly lying about DFlhb stance on the matter even after having been repeatedly pointed out that she is incorrect.
This filing and the linked discussions are impenetrably verbose. What is the most concerning type of misconduct, and what three diffs best provide evidence of it? Otherwise, I'm seeing two editors spend far too much time in disagreements that mainly just include the two of them. If third opinions haven't resolved disputes, canWP:DRN or anRfC be tried?Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The most concerning issue is User Evelyn's repeated reverts while showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes. For the most recent instance, this concerns changes that break accessibility (and in general make the templates unable to stand on their own even for human readers) of the 3 templates mentioned above multiple times, these concerns have been leveled by both myself and George Ho. Edits from both me and George trying to address these issues have been undone by Evelyn over the past few days without any elaboration as to why. These requests to discuss can be found both atUser talk:YannickFran#Please avoid the constant reverting., and in these edits to the iOS version history talk page:[178], as well as in the edit histories of the templates ([179]). In her edits ([180],[181]), and comments on the talk pages ([182]), she dismisses concerns about accessibility claiming she thinks her changes "look better", claiming Wikipedia MOS and policies likeMOS:ACCESS are invalid, and dismisses any argument brought up by me because I am "to biased" because I made edits previously (which co-incidentally were mostly attempts to address her previous concerns) or refuses to discuss entirely ([183]).YannickFran (talk)15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the shorter summary. I don't see "showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes" supported by the diffs you provided, and I'm seeing this all in the context oftoo much discussion between the two of you. Once you've co-authored a novella, it's time to call in outside voices, withWP:3O being just a first step in that process.
The "unwillingness to discuss disputed changes" stems in my opinion from both the preceding conflict in which she says "my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back" ([184]) (among other instances with the same sentiment) as well as the repeated requests to discuss and elaborate being left unanswered (both this recent dispute as well as the entire argument) and refusing to acknowledge any counterpoints and continuing to repeat earlier disproved claims. Admittedly, much of that happened prior to the limited scope I established in the comment you're responding to. For an example that does fall within the scope, the afformentionedcomments in these 4 edits I made where made on the 17th and 18th of September and in the edit summary ofthis edit on September 18th, I link to the talk page in hopes to discuss it, but the discussion there is never answered, while she does comment elsewhere, she doesn't address any of the issues raised (other than repeating previous arguments like that policies aren't valid, which I think is fair to say isn't an argument).YannickFran (talk)16:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
YF, that's just not strong enough evidence. After tireless discussion, a lack of response in the two days since you posted those comments is not misconduct. I'm not a fan of comments like the "my stance" one, it's from more than a year ago.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not saying that it is for this scope, I'm only saying that it felt like that sentiment remained going into this discussion for the 3rd time, and at this point I'm more than willing to regard it all as irrelevant if a solution can be found. As for recent events, I feel like it is important to note thather accusation of mereverting [her] edits without discussing my changes first came after the comments I made on the iOS version history talk page. Of course she isn't obliged to answer, but between her comments days earlier dismissing anything I said because of a perceived "bias" and past discussions I hope it is understandable that it came across as such. --YannickFran (talk)20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I made that comment admittedly without looking at the whole revision history of the templates, since that moment I have gone through the whole revision history and saw that someone else created the templates and made the bulk of edits to them, therefore you aren't the creator nor the main contributor to the templates, and I apologize. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I was never unwilling to discuss any changes that were disputed; I was just never alerted to the discussions either by ping or by mention on my talk page, I don't have my eyes on talk pages for every article I edit. If a discussion wants to be held and I am asked to participate in it, I only ask that I am pinged about it. But to accuse me of being unwilling to participate in discussions is untrue. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, they're not the only two users involved in this dispute—that article's talk page has seen at least a couple years or so of spirited discussion from various parties of whether those tables should be included or not, although the two of them have been particularly enthusiastic participants from what I've seen. When I gave a 3O (I'm a "she" btw Yannick :P) I saw policy arguments in favor of both sides. I think it would be great if everyone involved would simmer down a bit and approach the discussion with more of an eye towards achieving consensus; at the same time I recognize that it's hard because both sides tend to be convinced that policy is with them, and the issue doesn't leave that much space to compromise. It is a bit strange that an RfC has never been held on that page from what I can see—Yannick, did you consider starting one at any point? It might possibly be more productive than raising the issue here; I kind of felt like it had gone beyond the point where 3O could reasonably help even at the time I arrived. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《𔑪talk〗⇤19:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for speaking up. I didn't mean to ignore the participation of others, but the linked discussions are certainly dominated by the two. I agree about starting an RfC being a good next step.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are we talking about creating an RfC in regards to the concerns about the content of the templates itself that we're now addressing in this comment three, or about creating and RfC for whether or not the templates should remain oniOS version history (which I believe is what Mesocarp meant given she mentions creating an RfC in reference to the earlier discussions), or both?YannickFran (talk)20:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
It depends on what there's still disagreement on. I would have an easier time giving concrete suggestions with Evelyn's input. What I understand right now is that a year-and-a-half ago or so, there was intense disagreement on whether the tables should be there at all, and now there seem to be some complicated arguments between the two of you (and George Ho?) about howmuch the tables should be there? :P Maybe it would make sense to have the RfC present a set of gradations from "no tables" to "full tables" with some in-between options? This would probably make more sense to begin hashing out on the article's talk page than here, of course. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《𔑪talk〗⇤20:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
My view is that the tables do not belong on the article in question. For the bulk of the article's lifespan (from 2008 until 2022), those templates weren't present. I originally removed them shortly after they were first added (I believe early last year is when these discussions first started), as I felt that they fell out of scope with regard to the article's focus, which is being an overview of each iOS version, not as a one-size-fits-all article that lists each device and every single iOS version they run (List of iPhone models does this incredibly well, and is in my opinion where this information is best suited, even if its not all in one list with x's and checkmarks's). It is my view, and has been since they were originally instated, that these tables fall out of scope. The main reason being is that I believe they are better suited to exist on the core device articles if they really have to exist, due to their higher relevancy and prominence. They receive significantly more views than the iOS version history article. The tables in question also significantly increase the post-expand include size of the article, which has a fixed limit of around 2,000,000 bytes, and due to the templates, it is currently sitting at around 937513/2097152 bytes, whereby without them it would sit at roughly 559291/2097152 bytes.
This, while disputed by Yannick as being fine, is not fine. It hinders the long term expansion of the article, especially as Apple releases new iOS versions and updates. It also hinders article load times and puts pressure on the servers. It is an issue as if the post-expand include size is exceeded, it can introduce major problems such as citations failing to be included in the article as the article gets expanded. These three templates alone due to their heavy template usagewithin these templates are so heavy that they add over 380,000 bytes to the include size. While I have given this argument before, we need to actively keep the article under this limit due to the problems I mentioned.
However, my core complaint is that I genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that these templates fall out of the scope of what the article is intended to cover.
The problem is, Yannick refused to listen to any of my past reasoning, no matter how many reasons I gave. They also continuously accused me of "repeating nonsensical arguments", without understanding the long-term problems that these templates introduce, such as with future article expansion as I mentioned. Why would I shift my view, when I firmly believe that my reasons do make sense?
It's okay for you to have your position, of course. It's fine for Yannick to have theirs as well. I'd say both of y'all have made some solid arguments and I don't think either of you is likely to ever convince the other. Bringing the larger community into the content debate would really help I think. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《𔑪talk〗⇤00:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I've never argued that the size limit wouldn't eventually become a problem. As a matter of fact, I've even repeatedly told you that a solution to the size limit problem was aWP:SPLIT, but there it would be more sensible to follow the lead of others articles like the macOS and Windows version histories and move the version details to their dedicated articles (some of which already today include their own version details), but that's adifferent discussion entirely. Nonetheless, reaching a technical limit of Wikipedia shouldnever be an argument to remove something. The tables were moved to the iOS version history article onOctober 20th, 2022, you removed them for the first time onMay 9th, 2023 so "I originally removed them shortly after they were first added" is not true.YannickFran (talk)11:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the incorrect pronouns. I tried using they/them whenever I didn't know, and missed it for you.
Having said that, after that first 3O the discussion died down and with ended with Evelyn restoring the section and abandoning the discussion. Soon after the second 3O, the same happened. So in both instances I didn't feel like it had to be pursued any further because at that point I believed the discussion was over. When the discussion restarted, I operated partially on the assumption that it would be considered a "new" discussion and didn't want to immediately jump to an RfC, the same for the second time the discussion started again earlier this month (especially sine it now had been long enough for the original discussion to have been archived). It just felt "to quick", I guess. However, the accusations of bias, calling me toxic and disruptive, claiming I refused to discuss anything despite the proof to the contrary, and claiming that policies don't apply felt like an escalation which is why I came here. Especially the policy issue feels like a matter that a normal users wouldn't be able to counter, given both George Ho and I already tried.YannickFran (talk)19:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
That's okay, no worries.
Speaking realistically, I think, if you have a dispute with an editor and one 3O hasn't settled the matter, getting another is kind of unlikely to sway them. 3O isn't binding or definitive or anything, it's just a way to bring in another editor—it works best on distant, obscure pages where two users are locked in a dispute with little hope of a third party turning up, and where both users are prepared to work with the person who arrives to find consensus. An RfC can be more helpful in cases where there are more than two editors nearby who visibly care, and especially when the content dispute is really thorny and the major sides all have reasonable-sounding policy arguments available, which is how this seems to me at least from what I've read so far.
An RfC can bring an argument to a much more definitive close than general discussion can. If one editor keeps editing an article in obvious contravention of a recent RfC, it makes for a much stronger and more convincing case that they're being disruptively inflexible than if there's just been general discussion about it, especially when that discussion has been kind of inconclusive. Browsing around in the links you posted, I can see that things have gotten kind of nasty between the two of you at certain points, but given that y'all have been arguing on-and-off about the same article for nearly two years or something I'm honestly impressed that both of you have kept your cool as much as you have. ;^^ Not to overlook anything that's happened conduct-wise—if you want to pursue that angle more, you can, I just think both of y'all might find an RfC to be more of a relief in a way, since it could help put the matter more definitively to rest for now even where other editors are concerned. This is ultimately a challenging and complex content dispute, and whatever happens here it will remain that way intrinsically. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《𔑪talk〗⇤21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
That edit summary was made without thinking; I used improper wording at a time when I was quite tired. What I was trying to say is that Wikipedia style guide policies are not consistently enforced; each article on Wikipedia can differ vastly from the written MOS guidelines due to the vast number of articles that exist. However, specifically with regard to the usage of tables, I have seen more captions be used when tables aren't the core focus of a given section, and additional context is needed to understand what the table's given purpose is, and less captions used when tables are the core focus of a section, or even article, such as on TV show episode list articles. However, my changes oniOS version history with regard to the hardware support templates, were to better separate the tables instead of being in one section, and allowing people to go to a specific hardware support template if necessary via the table of contents, which in my opinion does better for accessibility than table captions, as in my mind they add unnecessary content duplication. Arguably, even the body text in Hardware support isn't necessary as the context implied by the table rows and columns is that they deal with the minimum and maximum OS versions supported by each released model of either an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. I made the changes based on that context and understanding of my experience with editing, reading, and taking in a wide variety of other Wikipedia articles, including articles that have received Good Article or Featured Article status due to their high quality. My changes weren't made to cause accessibility in the tables to regress or anything of that sort. My changes were made to simplify the templates, and allow better separation in the section in question. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)23:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I neveronce lied about DFlhb's stance on the matter, nor was I even talking about that editor. When I brought up the consensus thing in the most recent discussion, it was in reference to a Semi-protected edit request created on November 23, 2023, where the user Lilu126 responded with the following: "The discussion above (#Missing hardware support table?) failed to reach consensus on this issue. Please continue or restart the conversation to seek consensus before reactivating this request."
That is where I firmly understood that there was no consensus reached on the original issue, which was whether or not the templates should be reinstated, and as no consensus was reached, they shouldn't have been re-added, which is where the issues start. As consensus was never reached, the tables shouldn't have been added back, yet they were; now I am confused as to who re-instated them, but whoever did shouldn't have done so without consensus to re-instate them. DFlhb never even participated in the discussion to give a concrete opinion, they only mentioned the Overview table but did not chime in on the hardware support tables directly, they only participated in the conversation when the copyright violations were taking place, and they were talking about the release notes tables in that argument, so they never once directly argued for or against the tables according to the original discussion in Archive #7 of the iOS version history talk page.
I have also never once intentionally or purposely acted in bad faith. I have always, to the best of my ability, tried to follow and understand Wikipedia's Manual of Style and respect that as best I can. However I am by no means a perfect editor, I make mistakes. But I genuinely do not believe that my template changes (removing the caption and revamping the version fields to use sub columns (iPhone OS and iOS for example)) cause any regressions to accessibility. Even then, I do firmly believe that the templates in question do not have a place on that article, so in that respect, my stance on that is respectfully firm. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)00:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
That's kinda the crux of this entire discussion. You keep saying that a consensus had to be reached to keep the tables, despite that at that point the only discussion about it had concluded to keep them. At no point was there ever a consensus to remove them. You have repeatedly claimed that (presumably) based onTalk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Hardware support despite that one of the 2 people involved there (DFlhb) just a week later changedtheir position to support the tables remaining which theyre-iterated when they self reverted. This has been pointed out multiple times, but you have repeatedly claimed a consensus was needed to keep them ([185],[186]). Months later in May the first discussion was had, they continued to remain on the article afterwards, more months passed, you removed them, the protected edit request was made, and I reverted the article to its original state and requested again to discuss it first perWP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS where my opinion was joined by others, and you were the only one arguing against.
As for the accessibility issues, let me be clear that accessibility is not the end-all-be-all, I'm more than happy to agree with that. But it is still important and even if the relevant policies wouldn't be enforced anymore (which they are), that isn't a reason to go out of our way to do the exact opposite of what these policies said and remove existing accessibility tools.examples had been given as to why the changes were problematic, especially for screen readers (even now, keeping the navbar in the header is not something that should be done). Saying that you "do not believe that my template changes cause any regressions to accessibility" after it had been pointed out that they did with both examples and policies, that doesn't feel like an honest argument (especially not when the only answer to that from you boiled down to "this looks prettier and policies aren't enforceable"). Captions exist for a reason. Body text, header cells, and headings aren't a replacement for captions. Pretty much every image on Wikipedia has a caption, even though they are (pretty much) always accompanied by a header and body text that already describes the subject for the very same reason. This isn't even just Wikipedia policies, this is generally how HTML functions and how screen readers deal with that.YannickFran (talk)11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
DFlhb was saying bring back the hardware support tablesif the version overview tables (showing compatible devices) weren't brought back, from what I'm understanding with regard to their phrasing. They weren't saying to bring them back non-conditional, and in my view, they do not have a place on the article. From 2008 to Oct 2022, they never existed. There are no valid reasons to have these hardware support templates on an article related to discussing the history of iOS, not how long each device supports what iOS version. The iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch articles are where they belong, especially considering that combined, the respective device articles receive significantly more page views than iOS version history (seehere for what I mean). Therefore I genuinely believe that these templates have more of a purpose existing on the individual device articles than iOS version history.
I raise one of my original points again: No other version history article, including Android's, lists all Android models to have ever shipped and their original and latest Android version. Granted, the scope that Android covers goes far beyond just smartphones and tablets, but I thought I would make this comparison because iOS is still its own entity, the only things that iOS version history should cover is the general chronological history of the operating system, which was its purpose for over 14 years, before an editor decided to (without seeking consensus) to move the hardware support templates over to the article, without even getting feedback from the community on whether or not it was a good idea. And in my view, these templates should've never been transferred over. I firmly believe, like I've mentioned several times, that they belong on the individual device articles. And even then, each iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch model, in the infobox, shows its original iOS version, and the final or current iOS version that was made available for the device.
I did say I would no longer fight for their removal, but I have realized that this is something I should fight for. If an RFC is held, and a conclusion is reached to keep the hardware support tables on the article, instead of them existing on their respective articles, then I will respect that. Until then I vehemently disagree with these tables disrupting the content flow and purpose of the article. The overview table is fine, it shows a compact overview of each iOS version, the given release date, and the device EOL. We don't need a table that duplicates information. You have originally said that the overview does not provide the same information, but the overview could be changed to add a "Initial devices" column showing what iOS version appeared on what devices, adopting the same approach as the hardware support templates but without having to have three individual templates on the page, and potentially rendering the dedicated Hardware Support tables unnecessary, as the information the reader needs would be in the Overview table at the top, instead of all the way at the bottom. That would be another solution instead of moving the templates back to the individual device articles; it would also reduce the amount of tables that need to be maintained. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)03:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I have re-instated the table captions, after reading the table MOS further, and I have removed the repetitive body text in the Hardware support section, however I have kept the subheadings to continue allowing easier navigation to each template. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)02:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
You were edit-warring and reverted five times, so an admin protected it. That's not unusual. Indeed, they could simply have blocked you. (For everyone else, the article isKevin Sydney and these events were two weeks ago).Black Kite (talk)13:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but I was the one who was right? Have you looked at the sources? That say nothing other than fans WANT him to be non-binary? Why was MY edit the one reversed? When I was doing the right thing? Then the page protected to continue to spread false info? How is that ok? Not sure where else to ask these questions, the talk page is getting me nowhere as it’s the admin Elli who is protecting the page & reversing my edits, even though once again, the non binary thing is unsubstantiated.72.92.249.71 (talk)13:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI is for behaviour problems of users, not content disputes. Resolution of content disputes isthataway, Mac.
AFAICT, your talk page attempts until just recently consisted of 2 edit requests. Edit requests are not a way to initiate discussion. Instead they are intended to request simple undisputed changes that either already have consensus or where the consensus is obvious that you could justifiable make were it not for the protection. Clearly this isn't the case here since it seems likely the only reason you were using the talk page was because your edit warring was stopped by the semi protection. Your most recent comment is the first time you've at least tried to actually discuss the dispute. So no, you never tried the talk page until now.Nil Einne (talk)14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
NOTHERE editor
Nothingbutthetruth2006 is purely a troll account created to causeWP:SNEAKY vandalism by deceptively terming sources likeOxford University Pressas "unreliable" in order to censor the content despite warnings. First he edit warred with his multiple IPs[187][188] and now he is shamelessly causing disruption with a new account he created to evade 3RR.
Similarly, he falsely claimed that "Your source (Ahir, 2018) mentions Majumdar as a Nationalist"[189] and when I told him that nobody ever used such a source for the concerning claim[190] he then falsely accused me of comprehension problems and went to claim it is "directly cited after the claim that he was a Hindu nationalist for the claim" instead of rectifying his false claim.[191] UndoubtedlyWP:NOTHERE.Ratnahastin(talk)10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I will like to present my side of affairs here very plainly and I would really appreciate if the concerned administrator could see the history of the edits. First and foremost its very funny that he is accusing me of calling Oxford University Press as unreliable, in reality I was the one which was citing multiple publications of the Oxford University Press as proof. My problem was the he was making a wildly unorthodox claim that Majumdar promoted Hindu Nationalist interpretations of history and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar to begin and in which he is said to be a Hindu Nationalist historian in passing. the current citation on the claim that he was a Nationalist that is citation no [4] was also originally added by Me along with other sources. Also I am not a troll account.Nothingbutthetruth2006 (talk)16:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
By saying "and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar" you have verified this report. There are4 different academic sources cited for saying he presented Hindu nationalist views and all of them verifies the information.Ratnahastin(talk)23:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
perhaps you do not know how citation works \, they mention it in passing and dont make a case for it . also Frontline is a pop magzine, and if you are talking about the number I had 5 sources saying he isnt a Hindu Nationalist but purely a Nationalist historian with the likes of people like Romilla Thapar saying the sameNothingbutthetruth2006 (talk)14:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
A Case for retrial on the RC Majumdar article
Content dispute, please work towards a consensus atTalk:R. C. Majumdar, not here, with recourse todispute resolution procedures if discussion stalls. There appears to have been minimal discussion on said talk page thus far, with comments only from Normstahlie, articulating a perspective that appears to somewhat distinct from both that of the OP of this thread and Ratnahastin, the main subject of this complaint. Behavioral concerns relating to this dispute have already been raised in the sectionWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NOTHERE_editor and can continue there; there's no reason to have a separate parallel discussion at ANI.signed,Rosguilltalk14:53, 22 September 2024 (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.
On the page for the Indian Historian RC Majumdar, the third line reads thatRC Majumdar promoted Hindu Nationalist communal interpretation of history. The overwhelming consensus among academics such as Romilla Thapar is that he was NOT a communal historian but part of the Nationalist school of historiography. I had the sources cited for the same claim but were replaced multple time with sources of less relevance and credibility by Ratnahastin (the wikipedia user) on 21 September 2024 it was put that RC Majumdar was a nationalist historiographer byNormstahlie but was reverted back bySomeguywhosbored and extension protection added byDaniel Case. I did try to build consensus with Ratnahastin via talk that we add a legacy section which will allow both his critics and appreciaters view to be heard but he refused to engage with me on any level. Wikipedia is the first thing which pops up when one searches RC Majumdar and by calling Him a Hindu Nationalist it is tarnishing his legacy, THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF ACADEMICS FROM ALL SCHOOLS OF HISTORY believe that he was NOT promoting Hindu NAtionalist views, their authority on it has been ignored for an ideological few.Nothingbutthetruth2006 (talk)14:47, 22 September 2024 (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.
Kautilya3, Offwiki canvassing thru emails and social media
Case
User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia. This includes chronic off-wiki stealth canvassing to stack votes, elect admins thru offline canvassing so that they help target a group of editors, create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, and such inappropriate practices. This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's chronic behavior and editing particularly relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.
This case also seeks a review of Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where
an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
where an editor celebrates off-wiki violence, disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and thereby harms en-Wikipedia, harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and harms en-Wikipedia community?
1. User:Kautilya3 off-wiki canvassed for RfA votes in favor of Vanamonde93 in order to help elect Vanamonde93 as an admin. Kautilya3's motive was included in that email to me, the very first email I ever received from Kautilya3 through Wikipedia. In that email, Kautilya3 cast aspersions on editors – without evidence – who in good faith opposed Vanamonde93 as admin, and made a bigoted allegation against "oppose" voters. Kautilya3 helped Vanamonde93 get elected as admin thru stealth offline canvassing (I cannot post the original emails of Kautilya3 per WP:ANI guidelines because it contains personal information about Kautilya3 and me, names of other Wikipedia admins and editors he claimed he regularly offline corresponds with; the originals include email address, real names and other information; One original email of Kautilya3 that stealth-canvassed to stack votes in favor of User:Vanamonde93 to elect him as admin has already been forwarded to ARBCOM; An ARBCOM member has acknowledged receiving the email).
2. Evidence as recent as September 2024 suggests Kautilya3 actively advertises on off-wiki social media that he is a Wikipedian. He posts on social media about topics he actively edits and gate-keeps on Wikipedia (2a,2b,2c).
3. The User:Kautilya3 en-Wikipedia account is the same person as social media account @Kautilya33. This is established by the en-Wiki edits claimed by the social media account and timing of edits. For example, see December 5 2023 edits on social media and en-Wikipedia. (3a,3b).
4. In his social media posts, Kautilya3 has encouraged others to hire and pay Wikipedia editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles affecting them. For example, he wrote, "I have mentioned above, an experienced [Wikipedia] editor who offers her services for payment." (4a,4b)
5. Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity. His offline canvassing and wiki-editing favors one side. An example of Kautilya3's WP:COI editing is in en-Wiki articles related to the Manipur conflict where violence has led to death and destruction. (5a),5b,5c,5d,5e,5f, etc). Kautilya3's social media where he presents himself as Wikipedia expert extends beyond X/Twitter, includes videos, interviews (however, per WP:OUT, I cannot include those links here as Kautilya3 has not disclosed those on Wikipedia on his own).
According to an Indian newspaper, 226 human beings have died and 1500 injured as of May 3 2024 (5g). The tragic violence has restarted and is spreading again in September 2024 (5h).
6. The social media account of Kautilya3, the Wikipedian, advocates, invites and takes one side in his off-wiki posts (6a,6b).
Kautilya3 has not only advocated in favor of one side (6d,6e,6f, etc), he has cast aspersions and advocated against the other side, including caricaturing the other side as "Meitei fundamentalists" (6g,6h,6i,6j,6k).
In one X/Twitter thread, Kautilya3 the Wikipedian wrote his support for violence, "The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy. Let the crooks stew in their own juices." (6c).
This is one example of his personal involvement in this tragic conflict. Such one sided, violence-cheering Wikipedian should not be editing and gatekeeping Wikipedia articles about that very region, topics and the side he advocates (with disinformation as evidenced below).
7. Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor of the wikipedia article about Kuki people – one of the parties in the tragic violent conflict in Manipur (7a,7b,7c).
Kautilya3 added the following content to wikipedia on Kuki people, "Taranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (Ko-ki) country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India" (7d). This is false. It is not supported by the Michael Lunminthang source cited, or the source Michael Lunminthang himself cites. For those who do not have access to these sources, you can find the relevant section of the sources with context and a discussion here: (7e).
Neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha sources ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" (a term that means "Assam (Kamarupa), Arunachal, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya"). This is disinformation fabricated by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 added content is not only original research, it is false, feeds his social media narrative and incites. He has used his false and fabricated narrative in Wikipedia to further his social media activism with false statements off-wiki. For example, "So, the New Kukis were not new arrivals into Manipur. Rather Manipur was a new arrival into the Kuki land" (7f).
Kautilya3 has thus leveraged Wikipedia to create and spread the disinformation that northeast India was the historical nation of Kuki-people. He has repeated this misinformation on social media (7l). He thus falsely implies that Kuki-people historically had their own country that today is northeast India, the numerous other tribes and ethnic groups in northeast India are invaders or colonizers or migrants to Kuki country. This is incitement thru Wikipedia and an abuse of Wikipedia.
This example shows how Kautilya3 has used Wikipedia as a megaphone to spread falsehoods. He advises his followers on social media to "read Wikipedia". (7g,7h,7i,7j, etc). While misrepresenting scholarship and creating misinformation, he claims in his social media post, "On Wikipedia, we use only high-quality sources that know what they are talking about. We [...] provide only a gist of authentic information." (7k). The last part is obviously false as neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" (or anything close).
8. Kautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him (8a), also see specific Manipur-related, Kuki people-related and Meitei people-related Wikipedia articles (8b).
Kautilya3 has leveraged Wikipedia to push his socio-political beliefs through social media as evidenced above. He has also leveraged Wikipedia and social media to help craft one-sided narrative and argue his socio-political beliefs: (8c,8d,8e, etc).
9. In past cases, ArbCom has unanimously agreed that "editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia" (9a). Wikipedia ARB committee has unanimously and repeatedly voted that off-wiki stealth canvassing can be disruptive, deserving of sanctions, and issued sanctions (9b, (9c,9d).
Given past ArbCom cases and rulings, this case requests a scrutiny of Kautilya3's on-wiki and off-wiki behavior, the conflict of interest issues it raises, and whether Kautilya3 should leverage Wikipedia as a megaphone for his advocacy and political activity by publishing misinformation that he then repeats to his followers on social media. His behavior needs to be scrutinized in light of his off-wiki activity such as encouraging others off-wiki to subscribe to paid en-Wiki editors to spruce up their articles, and his history of off-wiki canvassing to disrupt good practices within Wikipedia such as admin elections etc.
If after due review of above evidence and cross checks, if Kautilya3 is found to have violated good practices, disrupted and harmed Wikipedia, I request that he be appropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers. If he is not, one hopes the same standards will be applied to past editors who have been blocked or topic-banned, as well as future editors who do what Kautilya3 has done.
The evidence is compelling against the user Kautilya , wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place where discord is not encouraged, this person seems to be sowing discord going by the activity provided as evidence and by a cursory glance at his regular edits.2405:201:C000:C8B5:E140:8CE5:C835:4C1E (talk)03:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Questions. You wrote:This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's [1] chronic behavior and editing particularly [2] relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.
There are quite a lot of accusations:
User:Kautilya3 has [3] a history of [3a] conflict-of-interest behavior that is [3b] disruptive, that [3c] spreads disinformation, and [3d] harms en-Wikipedia.
[4] [a] chronic [b] off-wiki stealth canvassing [c] to stack votes, [d] elect admins thru offline canvassing [d1] so that they [the administrators?] help target a group of editors, [d2] create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, [d3] and such inappropriate practices.
You also wrote:This case also seeks a review of [5] Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing [5a] coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and [5b] the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where [5] evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where
[5c] an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
[5d] synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
[5e] where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
[5f] where an editor [5f1]celebrates off-wiki violence, [5f2] disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
[5g] where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
[5h] where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources [5h1] to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and [5h2] thereby harms en-Wikipedia, [5h3] harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and [5h4] harms en-Wikipedia community.
Some comments:
Regarding [3]: that alone is a heavy accusation, which indeed begs evidence. Without evidence, this is baseless character-assassination, colouring the impression the rest of your accusatiins make.
Regarding [4d]: youare accusing implicitly accuse Vanamonde93 of helping to "target a group of editors," thereby questioning their neutrality and their admin-actions. You alsoaccuse implicitly accuse Vanamonde 93 of helping to "create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles." And you imply that Vanamonde93 engages in other "inappropriate practices." This needs a lot of explanation, and reminds of an off-wiki "dossier" mentioned by a now-blocked editor, in which Vanamonde93 was targetted. So, how aboutyour conflicts of interest?
Regarding [4d], bis: you wrote "elect admins" - you imply that Kautilya3 has tried to influence admin-votes repeatedly. You also imply that there aremultiple admins with the same problematic behaviour you imply Vanamonde93 exhibits.
Regarding [5e]:WP:PAID is not forbidden, as long as it is disclosed. The full atthis Twitter-post you linked is:
Hello Suhagji, you are talking about newbie editors, mostly your members, who come to spruce up your page, without any understanding of how Wikipedia works. They certainly won't succeed. I have mentioned above, an experienced editor who offers her services for payment.
@Joshua Jonathan: Please read the case again. This case is entirely about Kautilya3. Vanamonde93 is only mentioned in part [1], in the context that Kautliya3 stealth canvassing for his election as an admin. Nowhere is this "accusing Vanamonde93 of ...." etc. Please avoid straw man arguments.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This is what you imply: that Kautilya3 wanted Vanamonde93 to be elected as admin, in the expectation that he would take sides. I think you should remove the canvassing-allegations: you have already done an appeal on ARBCOM for that accusation, and we, ordinary editors, can't read, and therefor judge, the contents of those emails. It's confusing to mention that alleged canvassing when we can't judge it, but it does colour the rest of the post.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
In this context, 'burning' serves as a metaphor for political, social, or ethnic conflict. The 'Valley of Manipur', where the majority Meitei people reside, has experienced significant unrest. The statement reflects Kautilya's disdain toward the Meitei, whom they perceive as responsible for the unrest, and a sense of justice and satisfaction in seeing them suffer.DangalOh (talk)09:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [5h]/(7),Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor - when you are the dominant editor, your edits are incorrect? You have givenone concrete example of what you think is incorrect, the Taranatha-description of the 'Kuki-country'. Kautilya3 wroteTaranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (Ko-ki) country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India. I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." At best, it could be expanded with "extending it beyond the linguistic group of Kuki-Chin."
Regarding (8), you stateKautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him. That's not concrete.
What you basically are saying is that Kautilya3 is not a neutral editor with regard to the Manipur-conflict, but sides with the Kukis, as presumedly evidenced above; that his edits are biased, due to his pov and activism, as exemplified by one edit; and that therefor Kautilya3 should beappropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers. Alternatively, what I also perceive in your overview, is that you either feel uncomfortable with Wiki-connected activism in general, or specifically, reject the particular pov Kautilya3 is taking. The real question is: are Kautilya3's edits biased? But also: what kind of editors is he up to there, for example at2023–2024 Manipur violence? Neutral editors, or pov-warriors? Andif his edits are biased, should a warning suffice, or should a topic-ban be considered? Regards,Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Taranatha should not be used unless quoted by reliable secondary sources. For example, Taranatha does mention that Brahmins used a form of "yagna magic" (ritualistic fire sacrifices) to destroy Nalanda. This claim is part of his larger narrative on the conflicts between Brahmins and Buddhists during the decline of Buddhism in India. According to Taranatha, the Brahmins performed a yagna (sacrificial ritual) that involved supernatural elements or "magic" to bring about the complete destruction of Nalanda University. However, I would not trust anything attributed to Taranatha without cross-checking. He might be right, and Brahmins may have supernatural powers, but more evidence would be needed.DangalOh (talk)09:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Whether Taranath's views belong to the article and if so, how it is to be framed, is acontent-dispute, patently unsuited for ANI intervention.TrangaBellam (talk)11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Joshua Jonathan; MSW's sole evidence of factual inaccuracy ("disinformation", no less!) is weak sauce. The rest of the evidence is indicative of "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach.For example, what is the issue with 2B and 2C? In 2C (repeated as 3A), K3 adds a citation, tweeted by an academic, to a Wikipedia article for a very non-controversial factoid; what's the link with Manipur? In 4A and 4B, K3 explains our policies on paid-editing to HAF folks and points to one of our better paid-editors — MG operates well within community norms and expectations — in the hope that HAF takes help from someone who has a good grasp of our policies and stop grovelling about "evil Wikipedia"! I see no fault with the engagement. K3 with V93, me, and others, has guarded the HAF page against persistent attempts at whitewashing and MSW's accusation of him suggesting HAF "to spruce up its page" is ridiculuos!What action are we supposed to take wrt 5B and 5D? Prevent people from wielding Wikipedia articles to dismiss others' arguments? In 5C, K3 asks tourists to avoid Manipur; so did multiple foreign governments. What are we supposed to do, here? In 5E and 5F, K3 defends Wikipedia and also asserts that all content discussion must be on wikipedia itself than Twitter, which is — ahem — good? Not one of the single X-tweets in MSW's 5X series shows K3 canvassing — if anything, K3 is asking those who challenge the Wiki narrative to come to Wikipedia and discuss content under our policies! It is bluster to connect his wiki-edits with the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded over Manipur (5G and 5H).It might be that K3 has a pro-Kuki bias but editors are not expected to be unbiased; unless there is a pattern of K3 abusing sources to push pro-Kuki narrative in our articles, we have nothing to see here.TrangaBellam (talk)11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya is an experienced and skilled editor, but the question here is whether someone who is so publicly involved in Kuki activism on social media should act as a gatekeeper for Kuki-Meitei-related pages.DangalOh (talk)11:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I have nothing against Kautilya, nor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them, such as the recent drone-related attack I mentioned on the talk page of2023–2024 Manipur violence. You can check it out.
For example, he's using "claimed" for reasons that go against the Kuki community, while removing "claimed" from the reasons involving the Kuki side of the violence. Is this NPOV? There are numerous examples like this. One paragraph simply bashed the Meitei community, portraying them as Hindutva supporters harassing Christian Kukis, completely disregarding the fact that there is a mainstream Meitei group that is not even Hindu but Sanamahist, who hates Hindus even more. Tried various times to show it as a primarly 'anti-christian conflict initiated by BJP' rather than ethnic. I’m glad someone removed it. And these are just the most recent examples—I haven’t monitored the page from the beginning, so there could be much more.
The issue isn’t about being biased—every human is biased. But being biased in private and in your own mind is different from being openly biased in a public forum. When you are openly and publicly biased, and use the same name on X (formerly Twitter) as you do on Wikipedia, it raises eyebrows. A person who is not only involved in pro-Kuki activism but has also posted inflammatory remarks against the Meitei community on their X account should be scrutinized, especially since they have the most edits on these pages. It does not mater if sources he removed were bad or the sources he used were more reliable. It must be scrutinized. How is this not a red flag? I’m amazed. If it’s okay with everyone, then it’s okay with me.
The person who raised the complaint might know more details about the diffs. These are just my random observations. I am not motivated to get Kautilya punished in any way. Even if he realizes and acknowledges that there might be some bias, that would be enough for me at least. I don’t know what the person who filed the complaint wants to happen with Kautilya.DangalOh (talk)12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Regardingnor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them, 'observations' without diffs are useless here, in the literal sense of the word, not the rheforical or offensive usage.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no substance to this accusation. Editors are allowed to express opinions on twitter; that does not create a COI. Editors are allowed to point to the few legitimate avenues for paid editing. Editors are allowed to correspond with others via email. If K is violating policies with his edits, or has an actual COI, or is engaging in actual canvassing - that is, asking people to take a specific position in a discussion - then evidence of that needs to be presented.Vanamonde93 (talk)15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Vanamonde that there is no substance to this complaint. Many of us, including myself, instinctively dislike any encouragement of paid editing, such as Kautilya's encouragement on X of using "agents" to "spruce up" one's BLP on wikipedia, mentioned in Ms Sara Welch's point 4 above. It is, however, allowed, and I definitely find Ms Sara Welch's speculations about wrongdoing in point 5below to beworse:"Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission?" (I presume "he did" was supposed to be "did he".) Did he ask for commission — really? Seriously, Ms Sara Welch, you should think for longer before you publish insinuations like that at this board. Things like"Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity" (so what?) or"User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia" (evidence-free) I find hard to take seriously. Nor can I see anything wrong with identifying himself as a Wikipedian on social media (Ms Sarah Welch's point 7 below) — what's the matter with that, exactly?Bishonen |tålk09:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Isn't it odd that when faced with complaint from affected party who claims to be offering WP:RS and asking for a balanced NPOV biography, Kautilya3 – a key editor and gatekeeper of that organization/group biography article – is not linkingWP:BLPCOMPLAIN, but suggesting a paid editor? We must assume that a neutral Wikipedia editor would not be influenced by paid or unpaid editors trying to revise an article. What exactly is this Kautilya3-recommended paid editor supposed to do, that Kautilya3 will not do to the article Kautilya3 extensively edits and gatekeeps, given the same sources? On point 7 below, Kautilya3 on social media has called himself "Kuki ka Parivar" (identifying himself to be the "family" –parivar – of one side of the tragic conflict). Per WP:COI, editors are strongly discouraged to edit articles about themselves and family (or close enough to be family-like). The local newspapers, and police case I have read, name him and Wikipedia as party in a legal case. His social media account was blocked in India (and may be, still is; I do not live in India, so I do not know). All this is not any legal threat from me, just a short summary of situation in Manipur and India since you ask for more evidence. I am not linking more because of WP:OUT guidelines. Perhaps Kautilya3 can disclose and provide links so you can see how Kautilya3's Wikipedia-linked social media advocacy has and continues to affect Wikipedia in India, plus the extent of his conflict of interest.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Narendra Modi, the incumbent Prime Minister of India, started the trend of having BJP supporterschange their social-media handles to "Modi ka parivar" during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections to show their support/allegiance to him. I presume that K3 borrows the language from this stunt but uses itagainst the narrative propounded by BJP (whom he feels is allied with the Meiteis, opposed to the Kukis). Now, do you suggest that everybody — from among the few million Indians — who had ever used the "Modi ka parivar" tag in their social media handles, has a COI about anything related with Indian politics esp. Modi and his political party? And that K3 has been sued in India, what shall we do? I know of no policy that guides us in dealing with editors who are sued.TrangaBellam (talk)16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I haven't been "sued", at least not yet. The Manipur Police registered a complaint against me made by some one in Imphal. Similar complaints have been registered against Kuki women's leader Mary Grace Zou, Kuki People's Alliance leader William Hangshing, University of Hyderabad professor Kham Khan Suan, JNU professor Thongkholal Haokip, University of Nagaland professor Jankhomang Guite,National Federation of Indian Women which sent a fact finding team,Editors Guild of India for a similar venture and even the central paramilitary forceAssam Rifles! Meanwhile, India's press freedom index ranks 161th out of 180 countries. Whenever these indices come out, the Ministry of External Affairs issues a statement claiming that these are motivated, unscientific analyses that are ill-informed. The Prime Minister gives a statement saying India is the "mother of democracy". After a couple of days of drama, it is business as usual. --Kautilya3 (talk)19:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The allegation is apparently canvassing.WP:CANVASSING states:In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.In the case ofVanamonde93's RfA, my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages. One of them (MSW) voted in support and the other editor voted to oppose. That doesn't sound much like "canvassing", does it? I am happy to share copies of all the email exchanges on this issue with ARBCOM if necessary.
Regarding the supposed "canvassing" on Twitter, I was pointing out apermitted avenue for editing Wikipedia, suggesting apaid editor who had already established her credentials here. If people out in the society believe that Wikipedia content is inaccurate or biased or whatever, I would definitely tell them they are wrong, and to challenge them to come and correct it if they think something is wrong. We are an open platform that everybody can edit. Everything is above board. The people complaining are essentially carrying out their own propaganda in the outside world trying to defame Wikipedia, without having the gumption to come and challenge us here. If they can't do it themselves, let them hire somebody who can. We are not afraid.
Regarding my twitter activity in general, we all know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and twitter is a micro-blogging site. Nobody can confuse one for the other. In an encyclopedia we summarise reliable sources. On a blog site, we write our own views, however well-informed or otherwise they might be. That goes to myfreedom of expression, which Wikipedia has no right to curtail. In future, I might become a public intellectual, giving talks, writing articles, or anything else I please. All of those would be conducted in accordance with the policies and principles established forthose media, not according to Wikipedia policies. The real world is not an "encyclopedia".
Having said that, I would like to maintain that all my public-facing activitiy is consistent with what I do on Wikipedia, where I base my views on high-quality sources and evidence, and maintaining "neutrality" as we understand byWP:NPOV. The only difference is that, on Wikipedia, I cannot draw my own conclusions and write my own views, whereas in the outer world, I can.
WP:NPOV states, inter alia,Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. I believe I do that. If people think I don't, they are welcome to challenge me wherever they find such issues. ANI is not the place for it. --Kautilya3 (talk)13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan continues his inappropriate straw man arguments. On the disinformation stated in [Case Evidence 7] above, Joshua Jonathan alleges, "I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." He states this without quoting the source, or providing any other evidence. In contrast, in [Case Evidence 7] above, I quotedthe source, explained thru links above how this is disinformation, showed with a diff that Kautliya3 added it to Wikipedia, and included evidence that the social media account Kautilya3–the–Wikipedian perpetuated the disinformation in the social media.
For [Case Evidence 8], Joshua Jonathan asks for more concrete evidence. Kautilya3 is the top author–editor of2023–2024 Manipur Violence article. He is the top author–editor ofKuki people article, and so on. For evidence of gate-keeping, see the edit history ofManipur violence article. Its edit history shows that other than being the top author-editor, Kautilya3 has reverted numerous edits and repeatedly controlled what stays in the article and what does not (J1,J2,J3, etc). Kautliya3 – whose conflict of interest, celebration of violence against one side, and advocacy in social media is presentedabove in the case evidence – has been authoring and filtering what information stays in that Wikipedia article and what is thereby communicated by Wikipedia to its audience. That is gate-keeping.
Kautilya3, in his statement, inherently accepts that he emailed me (and one more person) for a vote to elect Vanamonde93 as admin. Then he spins and covers up the whole truth. In that email, Kautilya3's intent in asking for the vote is clear. He wanted Vanamonde93 to do something after getting elected (his email says so). He was also troubled by Vanamonde93 getting hammered by oppose votes, and he cast aspersions on the oppose voters without evidence. Those statements show Kautilya's non-neutral intent. Those emails show his disruptive off-wiki activity for years. Obviously, Kautilya3 knew Vanamonde93 well before the latter was nominated for admin election. He was keen on getting him elected by whatever means necessary. Kautilya3 has repeatedly violatedWP:CANVASS off-wiki. For what it is worth, I have emails that show that his attempt to help Vanamonde93 fraudulently get elected was not the first and last time Kautilya3 canvassed off-wiki. It would help if Kautilya3 self-disclosed all off-wiki campaigning, vote-stacking and stealth canvassing he has done in the last 8 years, with all Wikipedia-editors.
On Manipur violence and social media advocacy as a Wikipedian, Kautilya3 should also disclose and provide links to all his off-wiki videos, interviews, other social media accounts and off-wiki activity where he identifies or positions himself as Wikipedian. He should also disclose any off-wiki disputes and cases where he has identified himself as a Wikipedian, where his role in Wikipedia has been questioned, cited and has identified Wikipedia along with him as a party in the dispute or case. The community can then weigh if and how much harm Kautilya3 has done to Wikipedia.
Some comments above assert that paid editing of Wikipedia is allowed. True. But there are few other important requirements that apply to paid editing – no misinformation and full clear disclosure are among those requirements. Further, these comments also miss the context. Kautilya3 is one of thetwo top author-editors and one of the gate-keepers of that article in which Kautilya3 is recommending the affected party to hire paid editor (friend?) to help change an article that he watches, controls and actively edits. Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission? Should he have disclosed Wikipedia's COI, paid editing and other guidelines to the affected party?
Kautilya3 did not show why he grossly misrepresented the Michael Lunminthang source. Kautilya3's response did not offer a defense for the disinformation he fabricated about the "description of Kuki-country", an unsupported lie he repeatedly peddled on social media (see example links in the Case Evidence above).
Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93 above, misunderstand this case. This is a case not about Kautilya3's right to express opinions on X/Twitter, social media, make videos, or exercise his other human rights. The case is about Kautilya's extensive violation of Wikipedia'sWP:COI behavioral guideline. I haveshown evidence above that Kautilya3 identifies himself as a Wikipedian on social media, he is deeply involved on one side of the Manipur conflict, he actively advocates for that one side, disparages the other side, he has interest and external relationships in the Manipur conflict, he celebrates Manipur violence with "Manipur is not burning any more! The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy" and "Let the crooks stew in their own juices." (for those unaware of Manipur, the side that Kautilya3 disdains and disparages in his social media posts generally live in the valley; while the side he advocates for generally live outside of the valley). Wikipedia guidelines say thateditors should not "edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships."
“
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, [...] and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. [...] COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. [...]
my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages - while I don't know if it's enough to require sanctions, I definitely disagree that this is sufficient to justify the sorts of emails you sent. Even ifyou personally consider the editors neutral, that's a subjective judgment that other editors could reasonably dispute - and by notifying them via email, in a non-transparent way, you made it impossible for anyone else to raise that objection. (It was only a coincidence that you happened to send it to someone who raised the issue.) PerWP:INAPPNOTE, secret canvassing is inappropriate for this reason. More generally, I would personally advise against targeted notifications of any sort - no matter how certain you are that they're "neutral", the fact is that when there's a significant dispute, people involved in that dispute are generally going to disagree on what neutrality looks like. Someone can easily end up going "all the other people I'm in a dispute with are biased POV-pushers; I'm going to select a crowd ofneutral people to counteract them!" - and it's easy to see how this can cause problems. But all else aside youmust do it openly, allowing the people you're in a dispute with to see it and raise any objections - not over email. Your simple assertion that you're only contacting people you consider neutral is not enough. --Aquillion (talk)19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Aquillion, Kautilya3 had already been editing Wikipedia for 2 years at the time he sent that stealth email for vote. His stealth off-wiki canvassing continued for many years thereafter.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)14:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
Ms Sarah Welch, I have read this this entire complaint, though I haven't looked at every diff. And my impression is that this doesn't look like a typical case for ANI but the evidence page for an ARBCOM case. There is just too much going on here, editors browsing this noticeboard can't respond to every claim you are making. These charges seem much more suitable at ARBCOM than ANI. I realize that you have already compiled a lot of content but I don't think this is a series of accusations that can be resolved at ANI. ANI is just not set up for careful review of this much evidence. If you wish to pursue this at Arbitration, I would take it to ARBCOM and make a case request. Also prioritize, you are given a limited number of words there so just hit the highlights and, if the case is accepted, you can get into the details when you present your evidence. However, given the limited response you have gotten at ANI so far, I'm not sure how far you want to take this investigation.LizRead!Talk!05:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You could also consider emailing ArbCom directly if there is private evidence that you want to share. Even the case request page may be ill-equipped to handle a complaint that relies on off-wiki evidence.Pinguinn🐧03:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I did read through all the 'evidence' such as it is above, summary: its basically crap. This shouldnt go to arbcom (like everything else) unless the community is unable to solve a problem, and there is an overwhelming lack of a demonstrated problem that needs resolving here, let alone compelling evidence to support that Kautilya is causing the issue. This amounts to writing a wall of text as an end-run around providing clear diffs supporting policy-violating behaviour. Its accusation after accusation with, at best, a 'They are biased' argument. This should be closed unless something substantive can be presented. Not pushed to arbcom because people do not want to read. Its been designed to make you not want to read it.Only in death does duty end (talk)11:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Since when did Wikipedia community agree that secret canvassing by email during admin elections is okay or encouraged? FWIW, the secret email canvassing by Kautilya3 has included email asking me toWP:GANG up on a very experienced Wikipedia editor, an email to Joshua Jonathan and copied to me that cheered what Kautilya3 called "nice lynching" of a Wikipedia editor, etc. Given Kautilya3's social media activity on the tragic Manipur conflict where he advertises himself as Wikipedian – social media activity he has not yet disclosed fully and clearly on Wikipedia – should Wikipedia abandonWP:COI andWP:ADVOCACY guidelines? If you feel all this is okay or WP:COI does not apply here, I will love to read your arguments. (FWIW, please take comments of Joshua Jonathan, Tranga Bellam, Vanamonde93 above with a grain of salt, as they are part of theWP:CAMP that Kautilya3 has either copied to in emails to me or has claimed, in his emails to me, to have had off-wiki discussions about disputes, RfC, en-Wiki editors etc; they are close: you can also check their on-wiki user talk pages and co-editing patterns; IOW, these are not independent, uninvolved en-Wiki editors).Ms Sarah Welch (talk)14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Having off-wiki discussions is not prohibited. Neither is social media activity related to editing on wikipedia. Or are you suggesting we ban every female editor who edits during WIR and socials about it? Because your COI accusations so far are that level of nonsense. I would also suggest a description of an email copied to multiple people as 'secret' is a bit overblown. You dont copy multiple people you barely know on the internet in on an email if you want to keep it a secret. Not unless you are an idiot.Only in death does duty end (talk)20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I received numerous emails from Kautilya3. Very few were copied. All the rest were one to one. The emails with secret canvassing, such as the stealth vote request for Vanamonde93, were one to one, and not copied to anyone. Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines onWP:CANVASS andWP:COI are important.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)14:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Over the last few days (I suspect) one IP editor (a range of IPs all coming out of London) have been disruptive onTalk:Gender-critical feminism, some comments have been removed but there is wide agreement they are in violation ofWikipedia:NOTFORUM. I am not sure what options we have for dealing with these editors but something needs to be done to get this to stop.LunaHasArrived (talk)13:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually after checking the /64 edit history, this user is the same that also did some talk page disruption last month ([192],[193]) and wasblocked then by @Isabelle Belato (for the second time after having been blocked a few days prior), so I guess this is really that the IP user is just returning for more disruption this time. So, I guess we'll see if another IP block timeout works or not.Raladic (talk)15:42, 21 September 2024 (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 account was created in May 2020 and for four years made sporadic edits to articles related to mathematics. Then, a couple months ago, started making rapid "assessments" to articles - and by rapid, I mean 7 or 8 per minute, and over 10,000 total edits in that time. After I noticed this editing pattern, I left a notice on the user's talk page, letting them know that spending less than 10 seconds an article is insufficient (especially for an inexperienced editor) and asking them to stop.
The edits did stop - but whoever is behind them disappeared completely. It almost looked like gaming extended-confirmed access, but blowing that far past 500 edits doesn't make sense in that respect. However, the sudden shift in editing pattern and disappearance upon being questioned makes me wonder if the account was compromised - something seems off here.
Spot-checking some of the "assessments" they made, some are probably right, others are wrong. I don't know if a mass revert is possible or feasible in this case (but it'd be easier than manually verifying them all). --Sable232 (talk)14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
hey, it's supyovalk speaking.
So to start, no this account is not comprimised, nor I have disappeared or was supsended, just having less edit usage due to not prefering not to rate.
So a couple months ago I started to go on a spree of rating pages to help the wikipedia. However, I was using the widespread Rater, and using a strategy to swiftly rate pages, eventually replacing that with a Java selenium auto-rater I built.
But I thought its supplied ORES rating, modified with some bias system I made to ensure it's lowballing, is good enough rating measurement. after weeks of not getting noted and even being thanked for some of the edits, Sable232 left a message explaining it was wrong to rate pages without proper observing of the page's content, and I responded accordingly, noting the problems. (which is weirdly absent now from my talk page. Don't sure what happened to it) Then I just stopped rating pages, due to realizing I wasn't a sufficient rater. And so my editing activity stopped.
Now for the mass revert, I wouldn't mind if you revert all of them, as I now agree that most of them weren't fair but there's the considering that some them, especially the low-end ones that had a very high ORES confidence, that are indeed fair.
So here's my offering for a possible mass revert: Revert every rating of mine that is C or higher. that way it will ensure all the very risky and half-hearted assessments are reverted while keeping the low-end pages in a semi-correct to correct state.
But if you think that's not doable task, I understand if a mass revert is in order. and I will refrain from haphazardly rating Wikipedia pages from now on.Supyovalk (talk)15:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. While stub articles can be easy to assess, higher levels require more attention. When I assess or reassess articles, I often find easily-resolved issues that I can take care of at the same time. I find it is generally a methodical process, not a fast one. --Sable232 (talk)16:44, 22 September 2024 (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.
MissusLunafreya, those diffs are to routine content disagreements, not to anything requiring administrators to intervene. Work together with the other editor to gain consensus before escalating to this noticeboard.Cullen328 (talk)09:47, 22 September 2024 (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 condcut:DoctorVadarWho's persistent vandalism
A couple of IP editors (137.99.142.46 and98.191.14.194 to name two specifically) have been engaged in a widespread campaign to attempt to renameStorrs, Connecticut toStorrs-Mansfield. A move request was entered in September 2023 (seeTalk:Storrs, Connecticut), and the request was soundly rejected by the community. These IP editors have made changes across en.wiki to implement this change without consensus.User talk:98.191.14.194 contains a discussion in which the IP is unwilling to concede to multiple other editors on the issue. Since this appears to be a widespread abuse issue, this was the only venue I could think to address it.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The USPS, for reasons of their own, lists the post office name for this place as "Storrs-Mansfield" (possible because the post office serves multiple localities). This does not make the name aWP:COMMONNAME. The discussion happened, in September 2023, atTalk:Storrs, Connecticut, and theconsensus was that the name change was not appropriate. The two IP editors are essentially edit-warring across multiple articles to make and keep this name change. I'm asking for a temporary block so that the discussion (currently atUser talk:98.191.14.194, but more properly atTalk:Storrs, Connecticut, can reach a new consensus. (How long is consensus valid for? Is last year's consensus no longer valid?)WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
While the website itself lists it's postal address asStorrs-Mansfield, a lot of it's contents alternate between that and a standaloneStorrs for addresses.
This matter is not an edit war and should not even be up for debate. It is an example of Wikipedia editors reversing edits which improve articles based on correct, official, and truthful information - with properly added citations in the article, supported by numerous accurate and substantial primary and secondary sources. It is an example of reversals without the inclusion of replacement citations. It is an example of "consensus" disregarding official sources and the overwhelming community usage of this name. And most of all it is an example of editors involved who do not live in, have nothing to do with, and have maybe never even heard of the community in question or, if they have, they have not made it clear. (Theonly example is the single user here who claims they've visited.)
I'll make it more clear then: You may not abuse this talkpage to present lengthy arguments about content, that isn't its purpose
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
The official and legitimate name of the community anchored by the main campus of the University of Connecticut is named Storrs-Mansfield. This community, encompassed by the areas of ZIP Codes 06268 and 06269, was named after early settlers Major Moses Mansfield and the Storrs family, both of whom owned a majority of land in the Town of Mansfield. The other community within the municipality is Mansfield Center, encompassed by the area of ZIP Code 06250. ZIP Code 06269 was established as a boundary of the University of Connecticut property, including but not limited to its use in the USPS' mail contexts, but it doesn't exist outside of 06268 as it were.
Storrs-Mansfield does not have its own municipal government. The Town of Mansfield is the municipality and is actually the smallest entity of distinction at the state level. Storrs-Mansfield is commonly considered avillage, but it is not incorporated.
The argument hangs on the fact that there is a census-designated place with a name label of "Storrs" which does include a boundary within the village of Storrs-Mansfield and town of Mansfield,but itself does not include businesses, residences, or significant features associated with, identified with, and labeled as being in Storrs-Mansfield. (Or, for the sake of the argument, in "Storrs" either.) The other example used in the discussion was "Downtown Storrs", which is not an official name nor is it commonly used. The area that the editor was referencing is officially referenced as the Mansfield Downtown Partnership.
As is common knowledge, and is not in dispute here at Wikipedia, census-designated places do not have any legal status or standing, being created exclusively for statistical purposes. In fact, their use have actually been superseded by the Census Bureau themselves in favor of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. In our case, Storrs-Mansfield is encompassed by ZCTA5 06268 and ZCTA5 06269, and Mansfield Center is encompassed by ZCTA 06250. Census-designated place boundaries, geographies, and names do not have any relationship with or bearing on local or state government and do not match with what citizens and community members know to be their community. This is the case here. Place names are arbited by and are supremely determined by the United States Postal Service and it is inappropriate to use a census-designated place name when it does not represent a majority of what the article is actually about, and in both cases, the actual community at hand.
When corrective edits were initiated here on Wikipedia, correct and verifiable references were included that were properly cited in the article. These included official sources, from the Town of Mansfield, which corroborated and accurately listed the addresses of municipal and town-related facilities as being in Storrs-Mansfield. The references also included listings from local businesses, utilities, and federal entities which all support the name of the community being named Storrs-Mansfield.Storrs-Mansfield is the official and supported name of this community. When other editors reversed these constructive edits, they did not provide any verifiable or official sources to support the destructive edit.
It is clear Storrs-Mansfield is thecommonly-used name to refer to this community.
The only reason this thread on the Administrator's noticeboard exists is because editors, or groups of editors, prefer to drive away constructive, corrective, and truthful edits. I have seen numerous replies to the discussion by editors who say something along the lines of "The residents of Storrs refer to the town as Storrs." This disqualifies those individuals from participating or having a binding opinion on the subject because any response like that has bias. It immediately assumes a resolution, and, in support of an incorrect and unsubstantiated name. Some other editors came from wherever, most likely due to a ping somehow, and placed warnings on me. But it's patently unfair the same exact message haven't been placed on the users engaged in the discussion on this page, users involved directly with the changes/edits/reversals on the articles in question, or any future involved stakeholder. If I am getting warned for making corrective edits referencing properly the truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield,any and all editors reversing the samemust have the same warning notice placed on their page. By not doing so, being that they are taking just as much a side as I would be in the theoretical "edit war", you are presenting that Wikipedia has itself declared the correct stance. You cannot do that, during an open matter. You cannot favor one editor over the other,especially in the case of the TRUTH PREVAILING.
There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules.
In the United States, there are many towns and communities withdouble placenames. By allowing any of these and not Storrs-Mansfield, which is corroborated by official and substantial references, Wikipedia contradicts itself. Anyone in this discussion who supports any reference to a singular "Storrs"must support the replacement of any and all references to valid double placenames like Storrs-Mansfield, lest they be hypocritical and not credible. Any administrator which continues to allow this contradiction, and does not allow the correct and truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, would no longer be considered responsible in their ability to uphold the facts over an opinion.
I have posed the question to the other participants of the discussion: What if the town in whichyou lived was capriciously referred to as something else? "Banana, USA" may just be where you are reading this. And if enough people start using that in turn of phrase, then all of these users would be obligated to adjust each reference to your town to "Banana, USA". That is wrong and of course would never happen. What if people just start creating false claims and perpetuating them? This happens all of the time, and it's obvious that this discussion is not rooted in vandalism or malfeasance.It is and was inappropriate to single me out for trying to improve Wikipedia by making corrective edits in reference to this place name - by attempting to block and reverse my edits, which also contained substantial constructive changes, by attempting to place numerous and many warnings on me claiming that I am being disruptive "when things weren't going your way", and by not treatingANY of the other editors in the discussion the same way as I have been.
I am making every effort to improve Wikipedia, being an online encyclopedic reference of distinction. It is clear there are many policies in placedesigned to maintain accuracy and truth.Why then, are we even considering a discussion of an untruthful place name?
Stop attacking me and stop perpetuating falsehoods. Anyone who attempts to reverse my truthful and corrective edits should have the disruptive editing process initiated unto them. If that doesn't happen, that's not fair and meansany shred of credibility Wikipedia currently lays claim to would be extinguished, by allowing such a claim to prevail.
Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name. Do not suggest otherwise.
^"ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06269".United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Code 06269.YOU ENTERED: 06269 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
"Town Manager".Town of Mansfield Staff Directory. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut:Mansfield, Connecticut.Physical Address: 4 S Eagleville Road, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268
"Town Clerk".Town of Mansfield Staff Directory. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: Mansfield, Connecticut.Physical Address: 4 S Eagleville Road, Audrey P. Beck Building, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268
"Can I reach the Town Council through the Town Manager's Office?".Town of Mansfield FAQs. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: Mansfield, Connecticut.Yes. Requests to the Town Council can be addressed to: Town Council, 4 South Eagleville Rd, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268.
"Mansfield Fire Stations".Town of Mansfield Fire Department. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: Mansfield, Connecticut.Station 107: 879 Stafford Road (Route 32), Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268 - Station 207: 1722 Storrs Road (Route 195), Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268 - Station 307: 999 Storrs Road, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268
"Senior Center".Town of Mansfield Senior Center. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: Mansfield, Connecticut.Physical Address: 303 Maple Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268
"Public Works".Town of Mansfield Public Works. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: Mansfield, Connecticut.Physical Address: 4 S Eagleville Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268 - Town Garage: 230 Clover Mill Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268
"Contact Us".Town of Mansfield Parks and Recreation. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: Mansfield, Connecticut.Located in the Mansfield Community Center: 10 S Eagleville Road, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268
"Hours and Location".Town of Mansfield Public Library. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: Mansfield, Connecticut.Mansfield Library Express: 23 Royce Circle, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268 - Maple Road Library: 303 Maple Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268
"Frontier Internet Service in Storrs Mansfield, CT".Frontier > Availability > Connecticut.Frontier Communications.Learn more about Frontier Internet services available in Storrs Mansfield, CT. Call 855-552-9691 to check for availability and get started with Frontier. - Get Frontier Internet in Storrs Mansfield, Connecticut. You can count on Frontier Internet to keep you connected for all your online tasks.
"DISH Network in Storrs Mansfield, CT".DISH Network > Availability > Connecticut.DISH Network.Find the best DISH packages in Storrs Mansfield, Connecticut featuring the channels you want. - All DISH packages in Storrs Mansfield come with local channels so you can keep up with your local sports team or your favorite news channel.
"AT&T Storrs Mansfield, CT Deals and Services - Get Connected".AT&T > Availability > Connecticut.AT&T.Serving Storrs Mansfield, CT and surrounding areas - AT&T Storrs Mansfield, CT services for your home and business - Get connected with AT&T in Storrs Mansfield, CT
"Storrs Mansfield, CT Trash Pickup and Recycling".Republic Services > Locations > Connecticut. Republic Services.Republic Services is a leader in recycling and non-hazardous solid waste disposal. We have waste services in Storrs Mansfield and the nearby area.
"Storrs-Mansfield, CT Copier Dealer and Managed Print Services".Production Print Systems. A&A Office Systems Inc.Over 60 Years of Workplace Innovation in Storrs-Mansfield, CT and other nearby areas in Connecticut - Authorized Storrs-Mansfield, CT dealer for a wide selection of cutting edge devices
"Stone Arches Bed and Breakfast - Storrs Mansfield, CT". Storrs-Mansfield, CT: Stone Arches Bed and Breakfast.Come and stay at our 300-year-old historic stone home located only a few miles from Storrs Mansfield and the University of Connecticut (UConn) and Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic and even closer to hiking, fishing and boating at Mansfield Hollow State Park.
Saying "assuming you're right" misses the point that the corrective edit was substantiated by droves of verifiable and official references, correctly cited in the edit and re-exemplified here. It is one thing to make an edit, but it is another to provide a number of correct references to support it.
There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules. Any user who reverts a corrective edit, maintaining the truth, is the one who should be perjured - not myself.
Why haven't you or anyone else involved with this discussion placed equivalent messages or notices on the pages ofany other user involved in the discussion? That is patently unfair.98.191.14.194 (talk)01:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
It's "asserting you're right." You may not edit-war, nor may you use Wikipedia as a battleground. You are expected to follow the policy-compliant advice of other editors, which you are not doing, and which is why you're here. Dial it back; you aren't entitled to be sole arbitrator of content or style. Neither Wikipedia notr this noticeboard are courts of law.Acroterion(talk)01:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
You nor any other editor do not have any right to censor any part of my reply. And, for the record, "why I'm here" is because other editors do not know how to identify correct and verified references, properly added to support a corrective change in an article. Other editors do not know when to use the official and, obviously community-supported, name of a local community.
Since asking the name of the town in which you live would be considered personal, let's use the US President. If someone said he lived in "Hydrogen, VA" what would be your response? We all know that's not true. But if enough liars say it, your position is that Wikipedia would list it.
Like I've said, this isn't an edit war. It isn't even a conflict - it's an example of editorsnot allowing the truth to prevail. Do not censor my replies.98.191.14.194 (talk)02:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I (and any other editor in good standing) do have the right to collapse long digressions into a content dispute. ANI is for user conduct issues, not content arguments, and you appear to be importing the conduct issues that concern other editors to this noticeboard. Last chance. You will be blocked if you unhat your diversion again.Acroterion(talk)02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Fine, keep your hat on - it's not even your color.My reply was NOT a digression. It is and was relevant to the the discussion at hand. But you're saying that it is a content-based discussion, sowhere is the right forum? Reminder: Another editor started the topic here. That's not on me.
Secondly, my conduct is acceptable because I am upholding Wikipedia's values of accurate information, use of verified and reliable sources, and correct editing technique (including actually citing sources when I make an edit). You nor any other editor can argue that any of the edits I have made on this matter have been anything but complete, technically sound, and appropriate edits.
It isnot considered forum shopping if I was not the one who initiated the topic here, and, in such a case have to use the content-based forum. It is doubly not appropriate to silence my replies if this isn't even the right place - which should have been made clear in an upfront fashion. You have zero right to opine on thefacts presented and call them a digression, diversion, or off-topic in the first place.98.191.14.194 (talk)02:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The article talkpage is the place topolitely and respectfully discuss and resolve content. You will have to change your attitude toward other editors. You will be expected to present suggestions that comply with the manual of style, which is why people keep telling you about COMMONNAME. Total conviction that you're right, everybody else is wrong, and that they are to be treated as opponents to be subdued through walls of text and denigration is one way to lose editing privileges. And that's why your conduct is being discussed at this conduct noticeboard. Don't exhaust our patience.Acroterion(talk)02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
And since you've placed two tit-for-tat warnings on my talkapge and exhibited no inclination to actually listen, you're blocked for 48 hours. Any recurrence of the battleground behavior on display here will earn a much longer block.Acroterion(talk)03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Weighing in here, since a colleague here at UConn told me about the discussion. It's obvious this IP user (using an IP registered to UConn) is new to editing on Wikipedia and wasn't immediately knowledgable on certain policies. I do not doubt the spirit of any warning or advice given to him here or on the user talk page, but he has a point - reference-supported edits aren't inherently destructive. Respect that this user did not make further reversals once the discussion had started.
All the same, an official determination hasn't been made so just throwing him in the cooler isn't appropriate. Many of the responses here do have preconceived notions that "Storrs" is correct and the end-all-be-all, and the user pointing that out does not mean the IP editor considers you an enemy.
I was the user last year who requested the page name change. I did that because I searched out that policy, and notice how I didn't even change the body text at that point, and haven't done so yet again.
But, saying that the request achieved consensus may be flawed - No participant provided any supporting evidence or reference, and one basically said "I don't care for the source you've suggested" and then cited WP:COMMONNAME, without providing any examples. I do not disagree with WP:COMMONNAME - but, as evidenced in the IP user's argument, there is a substantial amount of sources which differ from the supposed consensus, not to mention "Storrs-Mansfield" continues to be commonly used.
I've gone ahead and moved this discussion to the article talk page. Any of the editors here could have done that, so saying "Why aren't you using the article talk page" when the IP editor is simply replying to your response is unproductive. I'd recommend further discussion to occur there, and to let any prior bygones be bygones.Jonathanhusky (talk)04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
A few points in regards to their (no idea how the IP identifies) behavior. Yes, the stopped reversion after the warning, but their reaction after the warning including tit for tat warnings onAcroterion 's pages. In addition (assuming both IPs discussed here are the same) they deleted the discussion that you started on the name change. That speaks to complete disregard for anyone on Wikipedia's opinions. The IP got a 48 hour bounce. When they come back you would like to mentor them, go ahead. I'm guessing the behavior won't change.
The block concerned their contemptuous behavior toward other editors and their treatment of the topic as a cage match fight to the death, accompanied by walls of text on this noticeboard and a disregard for any voice but their own. However a reasonable discussion (as modeled by Jonathanhusky and Naraht) turns out, it's fine with me.Acroterion(talk)19:22, 22 September 2024 (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.
Icarus58 is another user I have observed on English Wikipedia whose grammar and/or spelling is below the standards expected of contributors:
[205] - I convinced you all your assumptions are true, but be careful for my word:If you will violated the rules under the WP:DAB, Manual of Styles in Linking, Do's and Don'ts in Redirects and other main articles and piping policy;you will report from the interventions against vandalism if you continue to remove the specific wikilinks without any excuses. Any subsequent edits (as well as years in Philippine Television articles)will reverted manually. Thank you.
[206] - So, please stop and you'll receive a warning because those removal specific wikilinksare not purpose of the streamline of readers andit does not common sense.
[208] - However,Crising is only Philippine name from PAG-ASA, it seemsthat should be delete as no longer cheap redirects,altough they are same designation but different classification from PAG-ASA and JTWC.
[209] - Unfortunately, some tropical cyclone articles in typhoon names are considered as repeatable in year descriptionsto make it easier find (especially the main topic) andshould be keep it neutral. In general terms,those year descriptions are common senses and not be superfluous. As you did it at Typhoon Ewiniar (2024) by using scripts, which is already reverted earlier; but you need to follow the wiki guidelines as neutral point of view. Hope you'll understand for my reasons to know what is right and wrong actions.
Based on the highlighted text demonstrating grammatical errors, I firmly believe that Icarus58's grasp of the English language is not good enough to edit English Wikipedia. Thoughts?TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
That grammar is quite subpar, but I think it's only a problem ifIcarus58 contributes significant chunks to articles and/or routinely interacts with newer editors, who might be confused by Icarus58's explanations or arguments.WADroughtOfVowelsP15:59, 22 September 2024 (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.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, 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.
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.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 89.125.129.68
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.
Two editors unable to participate collaboratively
Keystone18 has not edited for a week, and this thread has ceased to progress in a meaningful manner with no consensus developing that either Keystone or EEng's behavior needed addressing at ANI. All editors should, as a matter of helpful and collegial editing make best efforts to use edit summaries and other tools to accurately describe their edits, but they are not required. Thebiguglyalien, if you believe there is still an open issue I'd recommend a more concise report with fewer sections and proposed actions.StarMississippi21:47, 22 September 2024 (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.
Ironic, isn't it, that they made that mess just 30 minutes before coming here to lecture me.
No, that's just a delusion you have.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yet in article after article you have mindlessly shoved all images to the right, and made them all the default size, turning them into a monotonous stack in which most images are far from their relevant text
Again, you don't know what you're talking about
This is the root of your problem. The idea that all pages must look the same is popular among editors who have no judgment of their own and find comfort in running around imposing their hallucinatory formatting and copywriting "rules" on articles about whose histories they know nothing, and about whose subjects they know nothing.
Honestly, how can you possibly think that's OK? Because anything outside your tiny radius of experience is foreign matter that must be expelled? Shoot first, ask questions later? This truly epitomizes your bull-in-a-china-shop editing.
You're a one-editor wrecking crew.
Don't make me laugh.
You think you're some kind of cleanup superhero when you're really an inexperienced, overconfident, careless editor who needs to slow their roll.
There were legitimate concerns about Keystone18's editing, particularly regarding the introduction of errors, lack of edit summaries, and misuse of minor edits. Understandably, Keystone18 did not respond to EEng's inappropriate comments. All of the comments above were merely in response to the advice; Keystone18 had done nothing to escalate the situation.
Even though Yngvadottir came in with a more reasonable tone, EEng escalated it even further when Keystone18 did not respond:
First look at the ridiculous effect of putting all images to the right and making them all the same size
but Keystone's too busy to actually look at what they do before rushing off to turn some other article into shit.
A few random examples of other destruction they've wrought on various articles
As you mentioned, even given their abysmal track record I have, until now, gone through every one of their edits looking for any nugget of a useful change amid all the fecal matter.
Complete incompetence.
Those friends are close to as incompetent as Keystone is. They've done similar things in other articles -- don't know what words mean, reverse the sense of the text, screw up the formatting, project their naive ideas into articles. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Completely understandably, Keystone18 did not respond. Unsatisfied, EEng left a retaliatory warning on Keystone18's talk page atSpecial:Diff/1245755384. I believe that both editors are in the right here in that the other needs to correct their behavior. Both editors have had many chances over many years to do so. To avoid a pointless back and forth, I'm going to skip straight to proposing remedies so we can be done with this.Thebiguglyalien (talk)23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The bile in EEng's response was unnecessary, but I don't agree that the original post was particularly worthwhile or constructive. I don't doubt it was in good faith, but its tone was frankly obnoxious at points:hat led you to think that was warranted? [...] Unless I am missing something, don't use it, and try to remove it from the edits you have already made isn't rhetorically negated just because they were indeed missing something that they could've made some effort to figure out first.It is not your role to add your commentary on the subject in edit notes, or even to issue emphatic edit notes saying what should or should not be done with edits. The site is guided by guidelines that make that unnecessary; similarly reads as both presumptive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. I don't think editors are beyond question for their experience or whatever, but some basic self-awareness about things other editors may or may not be privy to is also a factor for civility and constructive collaboration.Remsense ‥ 论23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Several of Keystone18's edits indisputably were a "mess", and the passive-aggressive comments like "Do not project ownership over pages" aren't as conducive to collaboration as the author might imagine them to be. On the other hand, it is easy to see why an editor would disagree with the need for 39 separate comments saying "DO NOT "FIX" DIRECT QUOTES" in one paragraph atStatue of John Harvard. There might be a need for intervention here, but the talk-page comments aren't why.Walsh90210 (talk)02:46, 15 September 2024 (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.
Keystone18 is warned that they must preview edits before publishing them and to correct any errors they introduce into an article.
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.
Keystone18 is indefinitely subject to a requirement that they use edit summaries in all of their edits. These edit summaries must be sufficient to explain the reason for the edit or the changes made. Keystone18 may not mark any edit as minor. Repeated use of the minor edit function or failure to use an edit summary may be sanctioned with a block until Keystone18 agrees to comply with the restriction. The edit summary and minor edit restrictions can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.
Support. I have been frequently frustrated by Keystone18's rapid-fire edits without edit summaries. Requiring edit summaries will not only make their edits easier to understand - it will force them to slow down and think about the edits.Pi.1415926535 (talk)00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Support - I know it's an usual step to take, but this is an unusual case. Keystone has made over 100,000 edits in the past 2.5 years: 45k in 2022, 39k in 2023, over 31k so far this year[210]. Only half of those edits have edit summaries--that's 55k+ edits with no summaries[211]. They are going too fast and making too many edits, and the lack of edit summaries is likely because edit summaries would slow them down. They made 1,620 edits toAllentown, Pennsylvania; 1,342 edits toLehigh Valley. What possible reason could there be for any editor to makemore than a thousand edits to one article? And look at the edits, e.g. to Allentown, PA:[212]. Even when edit summaries are used, they're canned, like "further" and "minor copyediting." This sort of behavior absolutely blows up article histories--and floods watchlists. Requiringdescriptive edit summaries would both solve the lack-of-edit-summary problem, and, I think, solve the too-many-edits problem.WP:HIGHSCORE editing is disruptive.Levivich (talk)15:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
PS: 930 edits to talk pages. 110,000 edits to mainspace, less than 1,000 to talk space. Kinda tells you all you need to know right there.Levivich (talk)15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I can appreciate the sentiments motivating this proposal, but this is a very clumsy and impractical way to try to reduce the disruption associated with this editor's approach. Indeed, I'm concerned it would exacerbate issues and become its own time sink, if anything. What happens when Keystone's summaries are inevitably found to be too brief, flippant, or just unclear? We're back here with another couple hundred thousand bytes of text being wasted on a new argument for the next sanction. Beyond that, it's just not practical to create a unique framework of editorial rules for an editor over and above what others are formally required to adhere to. If appropriate, make a proposal to TBAN them from particular areas or processes that they tend to disrupt, or propose a block altogether. These kinds of cobbled-together, hand-holding/guardrail sanctions pretty much never solve anything except to postpone any actual solution the issues.SnowRise let's rap05:09, 19 September 2024 (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.
EEng is subject to an indefinite civility restriction. If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.
Oppose. Please don't waste everyone's time with this. An editor made "suggestions" at his talk page. And they weren't as fully perfect as you make them out to be, in your description at the beginning of this ANI thread. No one is obligated to accept those suggestions. A disagreement at a user's talk page is unlikely to require ANI and proposals for community sanctions. If there are problems in article space or article talk space, come back again, I guess. --Tryptofish (talk)23:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I think EEng's civility may merit discussion at this board. His comments are, if memory serves, frequently sarcastic and vitriolic. I don't think this is the right way to begin that discussion, though.—Compassionate727(T·C)00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose this entire thread. Disclosure: I'm pretty sure I once voted for EEng to be indefinitely blocked, but nothing here warrants that, and these kinds of civility restrictions aren't enforceable. It's all or nothing.Mackensen(talk)00:36, 15 September 2024 (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.
Problems with Keystone18's editing
Keystone18 (talk·contribs) has been extensively rewriting articles. Partly this is because they evidently have firm preferences as to article layout; see their talk page andthe note they dropped on EEng's talk page after, it seems, a series of conflicts on articles on EEng's watchlist. But they have been leaving some of these articles badly broken: for examplethis version ofMemorial Hall (Harvard University) with formatting symbols and part of a caption left hanging in the text, article text incorporated into the quotebox, and a set of 4 images repeated. In good faith, I have tried to come up with an explanation for why an experienced editor—and member of the Guild of Copyeditors—would leave an article in such a degraded state. EEng has mined their edits for improvements that can be reinstated. But they appear oblivious. And their collegiality leaves a lot to be desired. Most of these edits have been marked minor and have no edit summaries, both of which are hallmarks of editors seeking to avoid scrutiny; they have declined to discuss their changes on article talk pages; after starting the section on EEng's talk page, they did not respond to frequent pings as I and EEng discussed their own editing; and when EEng went to their talk page, theydeleted the section in favor of discussing on EEng's talk then returned witha response that accused EEng of "shifting blame" and characterized their "suggestions" (their quotation marks) as descriptions of problems that EEng must fix. Having opened themself up to examination of their edits by making unfriendly suggestions about EEng's style, Keystone18 is now refusing to discuss and instead attacking. They've revealed themself to be a problem editor. I don't know whether this is a recent development. I don't know whether they're going through a bad patch, working on a small-screened device, or simply overcome by loathing when they come across articles with a large number of images as well as a quote box. I don't know how many ofthe problems I found in the wording atHistory of Harvard University after a flurry of edits by Keystone18 and others, and even after some fixes by EEng, are down to Keystone18 not fully understanding, and how many were someone else's disimprovements. But they've been requiring quite a bit of clean-up after them, only a small portion of which can be attributed to legitimate disagreement over how articles should look on the page. So since we're here, Keystone18's behavior should be examined, including both their article work and their interactional style.Yngvadottir (talk)02:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I had two very negative interactions with Keystone18 overimage sizes andCommons category location in 2023. In both cases, they were making formatting changes that I feel made no sense, and their talk page replies were very strange interpretations of guidelines/policy. I don't think this problematic editing is a recent development; it's just another chapter of Keystone18 refusing to work nicely with other editors.Pi.1415926535 (talk)03:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The pattern of dozens of small edits per page, with a high error rate, has gone on for some time. Another recent article edited,David Starr Jordan (this diff has all Keystone's edits with only one minor interleaving edit), has similar issues: there are now two separate sections titled "Personal life", and typos appear more than they are corrected (for exampleIn 1875, while inIndianapolis, Jordan obtained aDoctor of Medicine degree fromIndiana Medical College in 1875. orIndiana President PresidentMichael McRobbie. This is an editor who needs to be more careful in their editing.Walsh90210 (talk)03:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
After reading through many more of Keystone18's edits, beyond the image-layout concerns and the pattern of a large number of small edits per article (with a high error-rate and minimal communication), the main thing I noticed was idiosyncratic views about how places are referred to. For example, changing "[[Brooklyn]], [[New York (state)|New York]]" to "[[Brooklyn]], New York City, U.S." in infoboxes.Walsh90210 (talk)04:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
If Keystone18 is going to leave the "edit summary reminder" option on and will attempt to minimize fast minor edits, I don't think any other action is required at this time.Walsh90210 (talk)23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Three hours ago I was in the process of askingTryptofish to have a quiet word with Keystone to help them see the light. But then thebiguglyalien took it upon himself to stir the shit-pot, and here we are.I've had to clean up so many of Keystone's messes that I can't remember them all, but here are talk-page threads I opened on four articles, listing the problems Keystone introduced (some of them, anyway -- no way to find them all since their diffs are often so scattershot you can't tell what they do e.g.[213]):
Keystone never responded to any of those threads, instead typically returning to whichever article and attempting to edit-war their changes back in -- their signature move being shoving all image to the right and making them all the same size, no matter how bizarre the results (see[218] -- and scroll to the bottom to see how Keystone also somehow managed to paste 1/3 of the article into a footnote, images and all).EEng04:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This ended up here after Ioffered several suggestions/questions to EEng a few days ago on some of Eeng's editing trends. Two editorsthanked me for my edits while also warning of EEng's aggressive guardianship of these pages. As one editor wrote:"Thanks to both of you for your hard work on the Harvard articles and attempts, though sometimes futile, to make them better. I see you both have encountered "the steward." I encountered them months ago on History and traditions of Harvard commencements. Finally made some progress but it took weeks. There are a handful of Harvard articles (it sort of seems like a random list) that they watch like a hawk, and any change they don't agree with, however minor, will almost invariably be walked backed. It leads to articles that, I agree with you, are formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, and certainly not an encyclopedic one." That was followed by EEng's very volatile responses, which I first saw today. At no point have I refused to collaborate with him on the article. Just the opposite. Collaboration was one of my suggestions in my short post to his page. I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions; his addition of personal commentary on the article's subject, which he adds as edit notes in text, which is confusing and sometimes presents spacing and editing problems; his routine use of the "shy" function to words, which I have not before seen and which makes page editing very difficult and also adds to spacing issues; his placement of images in various sizes all over the page (on the left, in the center, and on the right); my suggestion that he not project ownership (what he calls "guardianship)" over pages; and my suggestion that he work collaboratively with other editors.
The editing of these articles, including my bracket and other error, was complicated by these unusual formatting tactics, but let me focus on my own takeaways for improvement: 1.) I should use the preview option consistently; I likely would have caught the bracket error if I had; 2.) Cease editing on a small device as I have the past few weeks, which was likely part of the cause of the bracket error; in fact, I discovered another similar bracket error today in the Harvard template box, which I corrected and I believe was of my making recently; and 3.) Use much greater discretion (if used at all) with the minor edit option.Keystone18 (talk)04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Keystone18, your explanation is inadequate. I have made about 100,000 smartphone edits without ever blaming a "small device" for my errors, which I do my best to correct promptly. I became a highly active administator on my phone and have writtenGood articles on my phone. Your editing is being discussed because you offered a harsh assessment of another editor's work and other editors took a look at your own work and discovered major problems. Please offer a more detailed response to the criticisms of your editing and a more robust assurance that the problems will not crop up again.Cullen328 (talk)05:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
When Keystone posted on my talk page five days ago, that was the first time they had given even the slightesthint of acknowledgment of my existence -- after ignoring for a week (as they continue to ignore) the several article discussion threads I'd opened (linked at the four bullets above) and my dozens of detailed edit summaries (e.g.[219]) explaining why I was forced to revert essentially every edit they'd made to numerous articles. What I'd like you,Cullen328, to get from Keystone is how they justify that behavior, for which editing on a phone is also not an excuse.EEng05:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1. No excuse for editing errors ever. My primary corrective step is to systematically begin using the preview function; 2. No excuse to mark an edit minor if it isn't, or might even be viewed that way. I am going to use great discretion with it; and 3. In the coming weeks, I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns.Keystone18 (talk)06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Keystone18: He is being a "guardian" as he calls it because you have made hundreds or thousands of worthless pointless edits that are constantly filled with errors. (Not on just that page, but all over.) It doesn't have anything to do with the equipment you're using, and it's not a stray bracket here and there. EEng was probably wrong to be as sarcastic and harsh as he was, but behind his nasty tone he absolutely was telling the truth about the constant terrible quality of your editing.TooManyFingers (talk)05:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Keystone18, in your first response above, you wrote:I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions. Hmm? What do you mean? Could you link to a diff where you fix an unattributed quotation in an article that EEng has worked on? And I don't see a single mention of quotes in your post to EEng's talk page. The specifics are aboutshy and image placement. The only person I currently see on that talk page (EEng's done some archiving there recently) mentioning quotes lacking sources isJjazz76 back in May, who states that EEnghas ridiculed me for asking for sources for quotes. I lack the context for that statement, and I note that the previous August, EEng was referring to someone objecting to there being citations in the introduction atPhineas Gage—which were needed to reference quotations. So that's the opposite way around. Can you fill us in on what you were referring to, since you apparently intended to mention it to EEng but didn't?Yngvadottir (talk)08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
For the record, the "context for that statement" you're looking for is this discussion[221], in which an editor insisted that his original research into Harvard's tax returns overrides multiple reliable sources from which I had directly quoted. That editor made themself look ridiculous all by themselves, no help from me needed.If you will allow me,Yngvadottir, to redirect the focus however, I have asked Keystone several times now to explain why they refused to discuss their edits at the talk-page threads I opened on several articles[222][223][224][225]. That's the heart of this whole issue. Keystone's overestimation of their own skill wouldn't matter if they had been willing to discuss andlearn, but they're not -- though they do put on a good show of it here at ANI. ("I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns" sounds like AI-generated bullshit, BTW.) So once again,Keystone18: what's your explanation for simply ignoring those discussions for up to ten days, while you kept doing the same mistaken things to those and other articles?EEng11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Nothing complicated, EEng. I was not on from about September 10 until yesterday, and you reverted the edits anyway. If I revisit any of these pages, though, I'll be sure to raise my suggestions with you on the respective article talk page first.Keystone18 (talk)12:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
No, content/editorial disputes about specific articles should be discussed on the article talkpages. EEng says they opened discussions on the article talkpages which you didn't contribute to.AusLondonder (talk)12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Keystone18, either you think we're all dumb, or this is getting to be aWP:CIR case.
The four discussions were opened on September 4, 7, 7, and 12. Between September 4 and 9 you made almost 1000 edits,including to some of those four articles[226], but ignored the discussions completely. You also ignored my extensive, careful edit summaries[227] reverting your edits; instead you just went back and started editwarring your changes in again.
On September 9 you left your message on my talk page, outlining your ideas about editing and article formatting, which might charitably be labeled idiosyncratic. As soon as Yngvadottir responded to you, that evening, pointing out the many ways you'd been messing up article after article, you suddenly stopped editing.
Hi, EEng, by the time I saw your edit comments on theWidener Library andMemorial Hall (Harvard University) pages, you had already reverted my edits. I also did not respond to the very complimentary comments I received on my page about those very same edits from one of two different editorsUser talk:Keystone18#Widener Library, who praised my edits. Nor did I sign on for four or so days because, frankly, I wasn't feeling well. And nor did (or do) I really have the inclination to revisit these two pages as an active editor because I sense you do not have much interest in collaborative editing on them. I will, however, be sure to read them.
If I am wrong about that, however, and you want my response to your page comments, I am very willing to address them. You appear to have systematically reverted editors with similar concerns, however. My focus, here, is in not being defensive, but focusing on constructive steps that I can take that make sense and will likely eliminate errors and improve my contributions, including: 1.) I am going to begin using the preview option routinely; 2.) I am going to minimize greatly or entirely the use of the minor edit function; and 3.) I am going to reach out in the coming weeks to those who commented here.Keystone18 (talk)17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
As seen in that history, on September 4 you made a long series of edits that completely screwed up the article. That same day I reverted step by step, with an edit summary at each step explaining why your edits were destructive, and opened a talk page thread further explaining[229].
As noted so many times, you just ignored all that. But nonetheless, on September 7 you returned to the article and started trying to editwar your changes in again.
Meanwhile, you kept moving on to other articles making the same mistakes, I kept opening talk page threads explaining why what you're doing is destructive, and you kept ignoring it all and wrecking more articles; as with Widener Library, in some cases you returned to thesame articles after being reverted, and tried to editwar your changes in again.
I repeat: you're either lying, or we're in a CIR situation, given that you're unable to recall or reconstruct your own actions sufficiently to answer for them. When that happens with a criminal defendant, they put you in a mental hospital until you regain sufficient competency to stand trial; in your case, the comparable action would be a block until you demonstrate that you can engage in basic ways with other editors, and take responsibility for your actions instead continuing this dazed-and-confused act.
But I didn't open this thread -- another editor made the decision to waste a huge amount of editor time by opening this thread when the matter was already being addressed with you privately. Right now other editors are deciding your immediate fate (above) but whatever happens this time, the moment you show signs of repeating your destructive behavior I'm going to move to have you blocked.EEng05:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC). P.S. The praise you received is from editors with error rates similar to yours e.g.[230]. It's like a mutual-support network for mess-makers . I wouldn't crow about it if I were you.
Keystone18 appears to have been led astray by their friends. What I'm seeing is a failure to pay attention to objections to their edits (including failure to read the edit summaries on reverts, failure to discuss after being reverted, and simply ignoring pings; instead they edit war by simply reinstating their changes). In addition to a failure to be responsible for their own work: we all forget to preview occasionally, but leaving article after article broken is sloppiness that outweighs any improvements within the edits. Edit summaries are not mandatory, but they are expected, and communication is required. I looked for previous mentions of the lack of edit summaries on their talk page, and found only one (October 2, 2022). I found numerous editors querying their over-use of the "minor" flag, some of them templated, others not (February 19, 2022; May 11, 2022; October 12, 2022 andJanuary 2, 2023). I was not impressed by their responses on either issue; they seemed to me to quibble over definitions rather than understanding that their usage was anomalous and not very collegial. For someone with such a pattern of unresponsiveness to go to another editor's talk page and "suggest" they edit collaboratively is galling. I'm sorry you have been ill, Keystone18, and I hope you are now feeling much better. But I for one don't want you to "reach out" to me personally. The communityexpects editors to be responsive and collegial and to consider the possibility they are wrong, or out of step with community norms. In addition toexpecting editors to take reasonable care they are not leaving an article a mess.Also, while I appreciateEEng's desire for focus, I believe you owe him an apology not only for misrepresenting the timeline of your edits, but also for the serious accusation you threw in when you finally responded, here on a noticeboard, that he habitually includes unattributed quotations. In addition to the untruth about your having raised this with EEng in your post on his talk page, you have failed to offer any support for that statement. So far as I can see there is none. The only source for it that I have been able to discern is your friend's statement on your talk page that EEng demands sources for quotes. Is it possible that you jumped to an insulting conclusion about EEng's editing from a misinterpretation of your friend's statement? Or have I missed where you got that from; perhaps it wasn't on-wiki? In any case, it's quite an insult to EEng's editing, and I'm calling you on it.For anyone who wonders why I haven't opined in the sections above: Voting on remedies prior to exploration of the problem is putting the cart before the horse. I'd like to keep the emphasis on what's expected of editors, in hopes of Keystone18 understanding.Yngvadottir (talk)11:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Keystone18, you seem to think that by going dark long enough you're going to escape scrutiny for your behavior. Think again. It may well be that this thread ends up closed without action, but as mentioned before, the moment your bad behavior shows any sign of returning you're likely to get blocked. And the threshold for such action will be far lower if you continue thumbing your nose at the community's concerns here in this thread, as you're doing now.EEng04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Subsection on how this thread began
I don't frequent ANI too much because I'm not here for drama and conflict. I think frankly some editors need to remember what we're here for. This whole thread is largely a waste of time. On the substance, all editors should use edit summaries and avoid multiple small edits in quick succession. I edit exclusively on mobile and that's not an excuse for poor editing. Finally, I've noticed twice recently the editor who began this thread insert themselves into disputes they had no involvement in. Why?AusLondonder (talk)12:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
For the record, this thread began because our colleague thebiguglyalien and a few others have made it their mission to get my name on the ANI marquee as frequently as possible, in order to reinforce the "I've seen his name at ANI so often, he must be doingsomething wrong" effect. See[231]. It's so transparent it's laughable.EEng20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Time to close
Well, it's been a week since Keystone last edited, which is unfortunate. But at this point there's no action to be taken -- and I want to remind everyone that it's wasn't I who opened this thread -- so I think it's time for a close. A big shout-out to civility copthebiguglyalien, whose shit-stirring in opening this thread led to the pile-on which may very well have caused Keystone18 to leave the project forever. Way to go!EEng20:25, 22 September 2024 (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.
Graham87 (talk·contribs) initially blockedRager7 (talk·contribs) for Manual of Style violations. Half a year later, he very reluctantly unblocked them. Regarding Rager7's appeal, Graham87 didn't likethe whole ... vibe of it. (ellipsis in original). He added:Your main problem was editing sprees on random articles; don't do those this time and things should be all good.
A few days ago Graham87 blocked Rager7 again, based on"three strikes":
"Strike one" was creating a redirect fromFailed Austrian Painter toAdolf Hitler. By all accounts, this was done in good faith. The redirect iscurrently at RfD and will likely be deleted, but at least one editor (not me) is actually in favour of keeping it, so it's not so obviously and blatantly wrong as to warrant a block.
"Strike two" was Rager7 sending Graham87 a Discord friend request. There is no reason to believe this was not done in good faith, yet Graham87 describes this astechnicallyharassment and considers it a "strike".
"Strike three" was a comment Rager7 left at the RfD, where they said they weretesting the waters of which edits makes sense or not. Apparently Graham87 took umbrage at this; he considers it unacceptable for an inexperienced editor to be "testing the waters". Which is ridiculous – how else are they supposed to learn? This was a single redirect that Rager7 created. Hardly disruptive.
When I inquired about the block at the RfD, Graham87 saidIt's ... a vibe thing. (ellipsis in original). Apparently he really dislikes Rager7's vibe, but blocking based on vibes is unacceptable.
All of Rager7's edits outside this redirect seem to be productive and unobjectionable. The "editing sprees" never happened again, as far as I can tell. I therefore consider the block unjustified. I asked Graham87 to unblock Rager7, but he refused. I was going to bring this toAdministrative action review, but then I looked into the archives there and noticeda previous discussion where Graham87 had blocked two people including Rager7. There was overwhelming consensus to undo both blocks. Evidently there is a pattern of overzealous blocking, which is why I am bringing this to ANI.Un assiolo (talk)08:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say this summary is generally accurate. It's like ... if that's what they were going to do to "thest the waters" (create a redirect to a highly controversial subject area), I'd prefer not to find out what they'd do next. I'd been checking their edits daily after unblocking them in case of any trouble ( and apart from what's been discussed above, there wasthis addition of a really bad ref to an already-referenced statement (which Idiscussed with the user here ... I find that incident kinda weird but could maybe assume good faith about it. If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that.Graham87 (talk)08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your Strike 3 (uw-vandalism templates tell people to use sandboxes for testing, waters or not, so, by our own admission on a largely used template, they’re messing up) but your Strike 2 feels like youclimbed the Reichstag, when you’d only been told not to climb something, but were yet to be given reasons. You know…Oh what’s the words… Jumped the gun! That ain’t much to go off of, for a harassment case. Is there any missing context, to class the friend request on thedraconequus’ namealike(This one’s for you, bronies and pegasisters) as harassment?
If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that. I don’t know about anyone else, but I see this as backed byWP:ROPE. Mentor program, if you really need to supervise. Other than that, they need to be able tobe awesome enough, on their own two feet.MM(Give me info.)(Victories)12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
You can't create a redirect in a sandbox. Well, you can, to learn how it works, but the technical aspects of creating a redirect are not the alleged problem, but the appropriateness of this particular redirect. This being a "strike" implies people should not be allowed to make an edit unless they are completely certain that it will be completely uncontroversial. That is not a reasonable standard.Un assiolo (talk)19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Taking a brief look at what I've seen so far, I've never heard of the three-strike system being included as part of our policy, and I don't believe that should be enforced (as it feels like a case ofWP:NOPUNISH) when a user commits three different mistakes, that in which a user that's been here for over a yearcan learn from. As Graham unblocked them, I would've assumed that Graham would trust Rager that educating them about why their actions are disruptive rather than blocking would be the better decision going forward. I think Graham should know more about Rager first, and particularly so for any established users, before blocking such users indefinitely, because indefinite is indeed the last straw.A♭m(Ring!)(Notes)11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
And that's one example of a mistake that userscan learn from. If they used "are" on something done in 1998, that's more likely to be an accident than done on purpose; and you could've just simply reminded them that they should've used "were" instead, along with the past tense. For some users, English isn't their first language, but if they're also ones that are willing to learn from their previous mistakes, sometimes a little reminder is best so that they can be at least assured they won't repeat (or minimise) the same mistakes again.A♭m(Ring!)(Notes)12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I noted why I thought ANI was more appropriate than XRV, namely that they've already been at XRV for the same thing before and I felt that this was a pattern of behaviour which needed to be addressed, not just this individual instance. I admit I don't know whether AN would have been more appropriate. --Un assiolo (talk)19:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Bad block - unblock. The reason given for the block, according to the block log is -I think you blew your chance... - not a policy based reason. And highlighting strike two which Graham87 said is "technicallyharassment, which is defined as apattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. How on earth is a Discord friend request a "pattern of repeated offensive behavior", and why is this friend request threatening or intimidating to the point Graham87 is frightened or discouraged from editing. Very dubious reasoning for being harassment, in my view. And strike one and strike two are ridiculous as well. This is an overzealous block, and Graham87 should immediately unblock Rager7, and if he doesn't want to, he should step aside, and let another admin handle this.Isaidnoway(talk)16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
OK, I'll unblock ... and won't take any more unilateral administrative action regarding this user except inhighly far-fetched emergency scenarios I need not enumearate where any reasonable admin would block a user, but I do think their editing still needs to be supervised).
Re: harassment: I recently noticed the message above byMatticusmadness and was about to reply up there but my Internet connection went down, but what I was going to say there fits equally well here:Wikipedia:Harassment § Off-wiki harassment says: "Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment." So that makes what Rager7 did not exactly OK, but it was at least ... odd. The conversation itself, which came after my comment on the "Failed Austrian painter" redirect discussion, was pleasant enough and I just said that I respond to on-wiki things on-wiki. I did think about the possibility of something like this happening when I set up my Discord username. The context in which I use Discord is far removed from the mainstream culture on the platform and I don't use theWikimedia Discord server (though I was previously barely active on there). Maybe Discord is like email for the yunguns in some ways, but I wouldn't know.Graham87 (talk)16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Wait, so they tracked down your Discord UN, and Friend Req’d, even though you’re not in a mutual server, and didn’t really have a good reason to Friend Req you? That’s noticeably more red flag-y, and much more validating of a strike, if I’m reading you right.MM(Give me info.)(Victories)17:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That is correct, and I still don't consider it block-worthy or harassment. It may be weird from our perspective, but to someone who is not used to communicating on-wiki, butis used to communicating on Discord, this may have seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.WP:AGF.Un assiolo (talk)19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
A friend request is not aprohibited behavior. I'm not familiar with Discord at all, but isn't there a "accept/deny request" option for a friend request, so in cases where you don't want to be "friends" with someone, you can just deny it.Isaidnoway(talk)21:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
You're citing the list of prohibited behaviors on the community Discord server. Graham, as he has said, is not a member on the server; what he's describing is equivalent to someone randomly sending a Facebook friend request to an admin, which—having had that happen to me twice with people I blocked—I can tell you is a pretty uncomfortable feeling. PerWP:OWH,Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment. I have no opinion as to whether it justified a block, but it's certainly weird and inappropriate and a reasonable thing to bring up as problematic. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe)04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Also their Discord username was different from their username on Wikipedia. When I asked who they were, they said they were Rager7. I guess it's not impossible (but highly unlikely) it was aJoe job. I've had people find me on Facebook before from onwiki blocks, but I've sometimes had productive things come out of that process (like users blocked due to collateral damage from IP range blocks). This is the first time something like this has happened on Discord though.Graham87 (talk)05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Nail on the head, Taz. You’ve bang on hit why it jumped out at me, from Graham’s explanation.
Probably by seeing what happened when they typed my Wikipedia username in to Discord ... as they're exactly the same (I did say on their talk page that guessing my Discord username isn't rocket science). It's probably better that stuff like that happens to *me* rather than some innocent party who might choose that username in future. If I'd gotten a Discord friend request in a different context I would have reacted differently.Graham87 (talk)13:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but that doesn't answer my question if you can just simply deny the friend request. My assumption is that you can deny it, which would seemingly suggest to the person who made the friend request, you didn't want to interact with them. And then if the person continued to pursue interaction with the other person, after being denied, then in my view, that would definitely constitute harassment. I just don't interpret a single friend request as being harassment.Isaidnoway(talk)15:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know who they were and the easiest way to find out was to accept their friend request and ask them. I was thinking of it as technically harassment in terms of connecting screen names on separate platforms (as in ourouting policy, which deals with doing this publicly), but I've found out from the messages above and a close read of our policy that our definition of harassment isn't quite that broad. In retrospect, I should have at the most sent them a warning quoting the "Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited ..." text mentioned twice above here now.Graham87 (talk)16:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, I also agree with you about quoting that relevant passage to Rager7 from our policy on harassment would have sufficed, and served as a formal warning not to do that again.Rager7, there has been some excellent advice in this thread concerning your conduct, do you understand not to do that again with a friend request, or contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, is inappropriate? And that you need to be more careful with your editing going forward?Isaidnoway(talk)23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I understand I need to be more thoughtful when editing and also need to ask permission before friend requesting and/or direct messaging if I were to talk about Wikipedia off-site.Rager7 (talk)23:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
To further clarify the Discord messaging, I was trying to resolve the redirect dispute, granted from Graham's end it came off as weird, but that was my goal. The goal being was to settle the redirect dispute, granted it was taken the wrong way hence the re-block.Rager7 (talk)21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
There's some intenseWP:BITE activity here. Not only with misuse of the block button, but in the unbecoming way that Graham is interacting with new editors in general. I'd like to see at a minimum some indication that he is either going to change his approach in handling well-meaning new editors, or that he is not going to interact with them at all. The Discord thing is starting to seem like ared herring.Thebiguglyalien (talk)03:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I would go further to say to Graham that if, in the future, you're choosing whether to block on "vibes", you absolutely donot do so. We don't have a three strikes rule, we don't block based on personal feelings, we don't try andMinority Report-style decide before they've done something wrong they're not here for the right reasons, we block based onactual violation of PAGs.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Bad block. I can understand why these things made Graham87 feel leery, but we don't block based on vibes. Going over the three "strikes", while the first one looks like a silly redirect at first glance, reading the MFD discussion makes it clear that there was a reason for it (it's a euphemism used for Hitler on Facebook to avoid automated systems surrounding controversial topics.) That doesn't mean that it was a good redirect, but it was done in good faith and isn't so out-there as to be a conduct issue. The friend request was definitely the most inappropriate thing they did, but it's an easy mistake for someone new to the site to make; many more informal sites out there do use Discord to discuss blocks and bans with moderators. Assuming they immediately dropped it when they realized they'd screwed up I don't think it calls for a block. And thetesting the waters of which edits makes sense or not bit, which actually prompted the block, was awkwardly-phrased but clearly isn't saying anything inappropriate. It's expressing trepidation because their earlier experience (which feltWP:BITEy to them) meant they were afraid they would run afoul of some other obscure policy and get blocked... which, to be totally fair, seems like a reasonable way to feel given that they were immediately blocked for that comment. --Aquillion (talk)19:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
OK, I'll agree to use more solid grounds than "just vibes" to block users in the future. Good to know re the comment about Discord up above.Graham87 (talk)20:20, 19 September 2024 (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.
EnglishDude98 topic ban
EnglishDude98 INDEFfed by Barkeep and warned against further logged out editing (by me) as the block applies to the editor not the account.StarMississippi21:51, 22 September 2024 (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.
EnglishDude98 (talk·contribs) has received multiple warnings from a few users regarding their conduct, including numerous messages from me regarding creating mainspace articles even though draft articles (in either draft or user space) already exist.
As a side note, lots of their articles appear to fail GNG.
Given they will continue to create duplicate and non-notable articles, I suggest a topic ban from article creation, broadly construed.GiantSnowman20:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I think that yes, EnglishDude98 needs to stop making "duplicate" and non-notable articles. However, I'm not sure that the articles they are making are always clear cut CSD or PROD-able, some of them should go through AfD, as it's not black or white. I think they have potential to make valuable articles in the future. They have created some articles that are actually not that bad (see here). They just need to learn first what constitutes notability. If EnglishDude98continues their disruptive habits from this point forward, ping me again and I will reconsider my position.Paul Vaurie (talk)01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Putting the draft duplication issues to side for a moment, EnglishDude98 shows a fundamental lack of understanding about notability, which combined with a clear ongoing desire to create articles, is disruptive.GiantSnowman07:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Despite numerous editors sending his articles to AFD - his talk page is now riddled with the notifications - EnglishDude98 (who I note has not commented here) continues to create impressive looking but ultimately non-notable articles. He is a time sink. He needs to be topic banned.GiantSnowman18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Given the concerns raised and that disruption is continuing even while this thread exists (and previous agreement to stop) I have blocked EnglishDude98.Barkeep49 (talk)00:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I've seriously learnt my lesson after the last few days in terms of creating non-notable articles. I won't bother making any more NON NOTABLE pages in that case; I will edit on pages which are notable.User:EnglishDude98
Oppose TB hopefully, the recent block experience will focus their minds on what is expected in article creation (and also, vis à vis, not wasting several editor's time—from Giant Snowman, to the commentators here, to the AfD filers, to the AfD commentators...etc).SerialNumber5412918:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes it has focused my mind on what is expected in terms of creating articles veral editor's time—from Giant Snowman, to the commentators here, to the AfD filers, to the AfD commentators...etc).SerialNumber54129 and I apologise toGiantSnowman et al for wasting their time on this, I've learnt the errors of my way and will be open to help from other users in the future when it comes to creating new articles on here.User:EnglishDude9819:05, 19 September 2024 (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.
Physical threat
Tejas pratihar is using physical threats to impose his bad edits.[232]. He is also restoring his poor edits that I've reverted with abusive edit summaries, alleging me to be a "jealousRajput". Also vandalised my userpage[233]Ratnahastin(talk)07:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I assume the physical threat is in the Hindi text since I don't see any in the English. Provided the comment isn't so bad that it definitely needs to be wiped from sight and not spoken about it might be helpful to provide a rough translation for the benefit of those why cannot understand the text. That said the racism in their comments is IMO enough for an indef.Nil Einne (talk)07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Google Translate is certainly not 100% accurate but I find it a pretty good indicator most of the time. They render the edit summary asIf it is very hot then come and talk to me so that this game does not happen to me. If that machine translation is anywhere close to accurate, I fail to see anything resembling a physical threat.Cullen328 (talk)08:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I am using authentic sources but a rajput person change the edit again again its last warning to the person अगर भई जदा गर्मी हो तो मिलके बात करले मेरे पे ये खेल ना होवे"If you're getting too heated, let's meet and talk. I don't want to play this game." Most of the meaning was lost in translation . " मिलके" means 'meet', he is asking me to meet them (likely in real life) because I'm "getting too heated", one can easily guess what he is implying here.Ratnahastin(talk)08:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Ratnahastin, surely you are familiar with the 21st century concept of meeting someone on the internet. Zoom calls. Online chats. Dating sites. Wikipedia talk pages. You have presented very thin soup which is more like a broth as your evidence here, when what we need is a hearty thick stew with plenty of chunks of meat and vegetables. Speaking figuratively, of course.Cullen328 (talk)08:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
It's possible Tejas pratihar might be unaware of this discussion even if they had checked out their talk page since while Ratnahastin did notify them[234], this was lost when their talk page which had been moved elsewhere was restored. I've given a new notice just to make sure. While I agree there doesn't seem to be any evidence for a physical threat, vandalising Ratnahastin user page isn't acceptable. More significantly, IMO them continually blaming "Rajput people"[235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242] for whatever is simply unacceptable even without considering them bringing up "rajput feel jealousy". Personally I feel it's enough for an indef at least until we can be sure they're not going to use someone's caste or race against them in irrelevant ways. But in any case, I've given them a warning and IMO any continuation is definitely enough for an indef.Nil Einne (talk)11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nil Einne,Cullen328,Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Kindly! Check this user's biased edits he is biased in some ways and he is purposely removing content from Gurjar related pages and he is wrongly redirecting these pages.[243][244][245] he also wrongly removed source content from Gurjar BLP related page of Vijay Singh with wrong summary[246][247] and he is probably aRajput[248] that's why he is doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism. This user and his fellow editors ( Ratnahastin & Gotitbro) also created a trap just to block me they filed too many reports against my account. See these biased reports[249][250].This user also engaged in edit wars on this page See the first fellow editor of this user Gotitbro[251] wrongly removed sourced content from my new page and redirect. Now this user is trying to conduct an edi war on this page.[252][253][254] how a new created page by myself is a high jack.?— Precedingunsigned comment added byTejas pratihar (talk •contribs)10:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
So after I warned you to stop bringing up editor's caste, you thought it a good idea to come here and say "he is probably a Rajput that's why he is doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism"? No one can create a trap for you which forced you to bring up someone's caste. You were free to restrict yourself to discussing their behaviour exclusively rather than saying it's probably because of their caste. Let's be clear, if Ratnahastin or anyone else is causing problems we don't care what their caste is and we barely care why it's the case. The only real reason why someone is doing something matters is it might affect how we approach the issue and what sort of sanction we impose. But someone's caste definitely is not something we would consider. Someone doing something due to casteism is a concern but there needs to be actual evidence of that. Someone's caste isn't evidence that they're engaging in casteism. In fact assuming someone is doing something because of their caste is a form of casteism hence why your behaviour is so problematic. So from where I stand, the only editor who is a problem is you since you keep bringing up the caste of editorsedit: and blaming it for their behaviour.Nil Einne (talk)11:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)11:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I should have said 'bring up someone'salleged caste' above to make it clear I do not know or care what Ratnahastin's caste is. It's irrelevant and a problem whether the claimed caste is self-identified and correct, inconsistent with self-identification or the editor's caste isn't something they've ever commented on.Nil Einne (talk)14:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Just because different editors have noted your problematic edits and IP socking as evidenced at the SPI which you have yourself thankfully linked, does not mean they are "fellow" editors (implying collusion where there is none). Anyhow, like mostWP:CASTE focused editors and disruptors, this user isWP:NOTHERE and never was. The evidencedpersonal attacks based on ethnic identity only bolster those claims.
@Cullen328: Since I have had similar violent threats from other caste-based sock networks (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#IP sock threatening to rape and murder) in the language used here [Hindi], that is indeed a very thinly veiled physical threat in local gangsta slang threatening to 'fix' someone up offline. There is a reason this was issued in a local lect so that it flies under the radar, we should not be tolerating this at all. Protestations of innocence are bunkum when you see the deception practiced here to do all this, tell-tale signs of long socking activity not of a novice; while a CU is ultimately to lead to a block here, we should not be waiting for that.Gotitbro (talk)11:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: Caste-based disruptors/socks like these are a dime a dozen at theHindi Wikipedia andSimple Wikipedia where they have been wrecking havock for the past few years. Past experience at hiwiki and the pattern ofHinglish edit summaries (along with obvious personal attacks) by the editor here are a particular feature of these networks especially when they are frustrated in their 'efforts'.Gotitbro (talk)11:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nil Einne, I'm not blaming any race (ordiscriminating) I mistakenly once used the wordjealous rajput I will never use this word again I doapologie I also used this word one time only never repeat this again. And kindly see some biased edit of this editor on the pages I have created and they removed all content and redirected my all pages for no actual reasons. Next time I will not bring any one caste or any kind of personal info i really apologize for my mistake. I'm new I have read some policies of Wikipedia. But kindly help me I'm new some one is really removing all content from my pages after this (Ratnahastin) also giving me many edit warnings!. Such warnings he/she gave will cause block for new user this is unfair!.Tejas pratihar (talk)11:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
It's good you're starting to recognise the error of your ways but please don't downplay the severity of your historic problems. By my count you brought up editors being Rajput 9 times in edit summariesthanand then one time on this very page. You bought up Rajput jealousy/jaelousy in some form in 5 different edit summaries and on this very page made that similar comment about "doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism". Thisisisn't something you mistakenly once used but instead persistently did.Nil Einne (talk)14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)23:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Repeated accusations of bad faith in attempt to discredit, which is disrupting ability to work constructively
There has been a Talk page "war" that has gone well off the rails at this point involving my overly-verbose self (sorry) and the original article writer for multiple articles. I self-declared a COI and attempted good faith extensively, but the views of the other editor @Desertarun have only become more unprofessional. If nothing more, their conduct is making it difficult for me to engage with other editors who have been helpful in the conversation (thank you to @ProfGray in particular). @Desertarun has been libelous repeatedly, accusing me ofWP:CANVASSING when I did not, of editing in bad faith when I have not, and has constantly referenced WP rules in error in an attempt to discredit the source, and myself for using them (incorrectly citingWP:SPS,WP:PRIMARY), and constantly brings up my self-declaredWP:COI as if it is disqualifying at every level. In one instance, they opened a formal Requested Move in my name (even though I had not formally endorsed the requested move they proposed in my name).
A major concern behind this, I am increasingly confident that user @Desertarun has their own undeclared COI, or at least a problematic bias deserving attention. One of the reasons for this dispute devolving was they wrote multiple articles in ~2020 with the unusual disambiguator (DAB) of "(slave trader)", which is almost entirely unique to their articles. Their articles covered historical figures of some note for multiple "significant views", but wrote only on their slave trading aspects. There has been no dispute of their notoriety as slave traders, nor even that this is an inaccurate DAB, but it certainly isn't one aligned withWP:CONSISTENCY as almost all similar biographical articles use DABs like "(merchant)" or "(lord mayor)".
However,and this is why this really feels like it needs the incidents board, I have to be blunt and forego politeness: user @Desertarun is not a careful reader, and has included many inaccuracies in their articles systemically. More problematically, at the time I discovered their articles, it included invented phrasing like "Baker and Dawson slave trading company" when the source they cited referred to them as "Baker and Dawson shipbuilding company." Uncareful reading has led to many confusions in their articles, some minor, but also some major, and these I have detailed extensively onTalk:Peter_Baker_(slave_trader). What is even more disconcerting is that this user is writing on figures of genuine historical importance,and there is a serious concern that their content has spurredcitogenesis/circular reporting issues not just on Wikipedia, but in secondary sources that they have then used to reinforce their own biases. For instance, see:Talk:John_Dawson_(slave_trader)#Requested_move_20_September_2024. @Desertarun not only arbitrarily accuses me of bad faith, of the source material being both primary and unreliable (it is neither), but... they are literally fighting against a mistake they (and possibly others) clearly made where they simply confused two relatedJ. Dawsons. Newly-digitized source material written by the grandson of John Dawson (b 1799), and great great grandson of James Dawson (b 1752), makes abundantly clear that John Dawson wasn't even alive at the time of James Dawson's slave trading peak in the 1780s. And yet the articleJohn Dawson (slave trader) is written overtly covering James Dawson's exploits. Rather than recognize this error, @Desertarun has attacked me, and the source (HS Phillips 1953), the long-deceased flippin' grandson of John Dawson, of not knowing the correct names of his own family. This incident pushes past a red line for me, where it is clear that @Desertarun is not interested in reasoned debate, but simply seeks to block every correction I attempt to these articles, which are riddled with errors andWP:WEIGHT issues. Arbitration and some sort of more-than-volunteer involvement in the Talk ofPeter Baker (slave trader) andJohn Dawson (slave trader) feels warranted at this stage.
I have a self-declared COI to these individuals, which I stated up front, and outlined explicitly here[255]. But these repeated attacks on my character and wilfull ignorance of Wikipedia policy and codes of conduct are making it very difficult to have reasoned conversation about this controversial topic. I really can't just keep responding to every libelous attack on my character to ensure my original query is not discounted due to accusations of bad faith. This is making the Talk pages unnecessarily long and confusing to follow.
Thank you for stepping in and helping to resolve this issue.
At its essence this dispute centres around this users desire to remove the disambiguator (slave trader) from the name of his ancestorPeter Baker (slave trader). This user has a declaredWP:COI, but doesn't understand the limitations this brings to his edits. Another of his relatives isJohn_Dawson (slave_trader). He recently did a request move for John Dawson to James Dawson. That article has 14 references that call this person John Dawson and he's wanting this move based upon just one self published source - by another of his relatives. I believe this ANI was made because in that page move request I said i believe it was a "Bad faith" nomination, I've now struck those words from my oppose move vote.Desertarun (talk)08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I just fixed an error on the article relating to this source, and looked into it as I did. It's an unpublished pamphlet handwritten by one of the subjects ancestors and it's unclear what it's based on. It might be helpful if other editors give their thoughts on if it's a reliable source. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
My TLDR: Desertarun has written numerous articles that contain inaccuracies. In a most extreme case, they wrote one titled after the wrongJ. Dawson. Document SAS/25A/1/9 is a clear-as-day proof of this, as John Dawson wasn't the son-in law of Peter Baker, James Dawson was. I think we can trust John Dawson's grandson, author of the museum archive document, to report that accurately. This has become a possible citogenesis/circular reporting incident.Best --Crawdaunt (talk)13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Document SAS/25A/1/9 isn't proof of anything. Its the disputed source - it is handwritten in an exercise book! Its a primary source and no doubt riddled with inaccuracies.Desertarun (talk)14:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I have further sorted out (I believe) part of the John Dawson - James Dawson confusions and posted these to both the Peter Baker and John Dawson pages.TLDR: there was a John Dawson slave trader that went bankrupt in 1793 and died in 1812 (Pope 2007). But this isn't the Dawson from Baker and Dawson. James Dawson (of Baker and Dawson) remained in charge of the company until his death in 1824 (Phillips 1953). It's a simple correction to disambiguate these two J. Dawsons made possible by this Baker-Dawson family lineage document (Phillips 1953). Best --Crawdaunt (talk)16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
For the benefit of observers and posterity for linked relevant discussion to this incident, see[256], which addresses these questions confirming this is a published source perWP:RS, and is indeedWP:SECONDARY. Best --Crawdaunt (talk)16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
My point was more that this something someone wrote, it's an interesting historical object but that it exists and is accessible doesn't make it a reliable source. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Placing an object in a museum isn't 'publication' by any reasonable definition, but regardless of that, the document in question simply does not meet Wikipedia requirements as a reliable source:WP:RS requires that sources bereliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It cannot be cited.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the RS standard is used for sources that are used to establish notability. I don't think that primary sources are forbidden from articles. They just have to be used carefully and judiciously.LizRead!Talk!07:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The question here is not to do with the source on its own, it's that the source in question is contradicted by published independent RS.Brunton (talk)13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Writing down your "family records and traditions" doesn't make it reliable, if it did you could just setup a website containing the same information. If a historian was investigating the subject they might find the pamphlet an interesting historical object, butself published sources should have some standards. Maybe it could be used as a primary source using intext attribution, but then it would be a matter of due if the writings of the subject great great grandson should be included. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
AN/I recommendations: My sense is that @Desertarun has been mostly civil, not disruptive, though I disagree with: charging "bad faith" (even w link to humor page), certain policy assertions (e.g., primary), and the unusual technique of creating anWP:RM that they actually oppose, perhaps to make aWP:Point. If admins agree with these concerns, I suppose that can be communicated to the editor, no need for further sanction IMO.
AN/I is for conduct, not content disagreements, right? I've already discussed the reliability problems with the 1953 family history manuscript (i.e., unreliable for most purposes), and the proposed name changes, on the relevant Talk pages. If need be, these content diagreements could be resolved with e 3PO or RfC.
If the above is roughly on target, then @Crawdaunt could be advised on how to best pursue their content concerns outside of ANI and to not restate same issues in multiple locations.ProfGray (talk)14:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Itis published byNational Museums Liverpool per definition of published inWP:RS. National Museums Liverpool is an independent body that took this information andindependently judged it to be of merit for storage in its permanent collection. Is this scientific peer review? No.But that standard is not held for most historical documents from an era before modern peer review.
WIth that said: @Liz yes absolutely. Regardless,this is not a primary source. The author was born 150 years after the subject matter died.The author has a COI. This an incredibly important distinction perWP:RS, particularly for historical documents which are often written by individuals with COIs related to the subject matter (but without whom, we would not know the history).
FINALLY: this incident report is about the libel I am facing from @Desertarun. If we must focus it to a specific event, I will cite[257]. To give further context to this: onPeter Baker (slave trader), @Desertarunactually invited me to contribute to the page using Phillips (1953) as my source (link). When I wrote in this information, suddenly, he attacks me and the source in an effort to discredit both under spurious definitions. I am disappointed these continue to be raised here, and ask editors to consider if their perception is coloured by @Desertarun's original framing, or if it is arrived at fully independently -It can absolutely be the latter, but request a moment of reflection here.
Regarding the discussion on these controversial pages: I would please request a more civil policed discussion that considers the points being raised for their legitimacy, and not solely for who said them. I am dredging up some longstanding historical confusions, inaccuracies, and more by going down this rabbit hole. For instance, see:[258], which contains a further account of how this name confusion may have arisen, given the original source of Williams (1897) self-acknowledges their own source had the name wrong, and it was Williams (1897) who did the correction to "John Dawson". I now believe this is the root of thecitogenesis issue plaguing this and other documents, and now also Wiki pages. Best --Crawdaunt (talk)15:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I skimmed the early part of this thread earlier but frankly barely remember it so I have no real idea who you are. I think you're someone's descendant but I don't particularly care. The problem seems to be that you lack any good sources to challenge the existing ones. The one you keep promoting is highly questionable for Wikipedia purposes. It might very well be correct but that's not for us to decide. This seems to be a classic case ofWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You need to convince someone else to do a write up based on your findings and get it published somewhere suitable to correct the historical record rather than trying to start with us. Failing that you could do a write up yourself and try to get someone reliable to publish it. Again I'm really unsure of who you are and I'm fairly sure if say the same to a professional historian completely uninvolved or unconnected to any of this previously. (Well I'd suggest they write it up and get it published aa the first suggestion .) Note that the evidence presented here suggests that even if we did contribute to the alleged problem, we're definitely not the ones who started it so it's not like this is a problem we created.Nil Einne (talk)00:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Although at this point all references are additionally supported after requests to support further (recent edit requested by ProfGray). I agree and have recused myself from these pages any further unless requested for comment.
I agree there is alsoWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns both for my own edits, but also for the original conceptions of these pages. Desertarun wrote over a dozen articles in 2020 on historic figures with the unusual DAB (slave trader), which comes almost exclusively from Desertarun and isn't standard forslave traders of this time, except those articles written by Desertarun. They then nominated many for WP "did you know." So if you invent a DAB, then pump it to the front page, and also invite edits by a fellow Wiki editor based on a newly-digitized source, but then reject them and start using libel and making false claims about the content, I believe there is a conduct issue and also a systematic attempt toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
On theWP:RS concern, @ProfGray has worked very constructively to adopt the information from this source where it is appropriate, and raise concern where it is not.
This is my last comment here. I do believe it is right to have raised this incident, and accept if the judgement is that I have been at fault in no small part. I hope the logging of this incident might be useful in the future if further concerns about Desertarun-written "(slave trader)" DAB articles arise. Best --Crawdaunt (talk)00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Mod removing legitimate requests on Talk Page (nsfw)
Mod MrOllie is removing my request for someone add a Ejaculating Penis on Wikipedia page: The Human Penis, similar to how the Wikipedia Site for another language does it. He gives No explaination and is abusing Mod Power with this and He even threaten to remove right to edit.DaKocamasra1 (talk)23:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
It was amusing to read the trolls' posts on the human penis talk page. One apparently was arguing that we need a full "gallery" of images to illustrate that article. I pointed them to the Commons where they can find plenty of penis photos.LizRead!Talk!02:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
There is a problem here,Mvcg66b3r andSammi Brie. For CSD, it has to be an obvious hoax, one that anyone could spot. For editors who are knowledgeable about radio stations and broadcasting, I guess you can tell when a draft or main space article is inaccurate. But to the admin patrolling CSD categories, it might just look like a regular radio station article. Of course, if there are sources, they can confirm the existence of the subject but not all drafts are sourced. Is there any way to tell a real radio station from a phony one? Thanks.LizRead!Talk!02:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@Liz The easiest way would be to consult lists of authorized broadcast stations. Especially in call sign-titled countries, these can quickly prove or disprove existence for currently operating stations. It might also be possible to infer reliability for some users (especially those that do kids TV hoaxes like these) from prior activity.Sammi Brie (she/her • t •c)02:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Wotheina, thank you for identifying these IP ranges but you need to provide some diffs of the damage that is being done because no one is going to go through the contribution history of all of these IP accounts looking at all of their edits.LizRead!Talk!06:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
This is still an awful lot of information to comb through. I'm not optimistic that there will be an admin or editor willing to spend the time to plow through all of this but who knows, maybe one will! But I know I don't have the time to do so. You might look through this page and see ANI reports that are quickly responded to and model your next complaint on the format they have. They are generally brief and concise and easy to quickly digest. I appreciate the time you took to put this all together but it's just a lot of data to assess.LizRead!Talk!02:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I can't see anthing good coming from this range and a block appears necessary considering the extent and amount of disruption that is coming from here [even if we were to disregard socking].Gotitbro (talk)14:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The edits I checked were pretty bad so I've blocked the range for a week. I have limited experience with range blocks so if another administrator could check my work, that help would be welcome.LizRead!Talk!02:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Harassment by Steven1991
Hi, Steven1991 seems to have a pattern of engaging in personal attacks against multiple users, including myself. Attacks seem to generally consist of accusing us of "harassment" after some of us commented on a previous ANI post. [[275]][[276]]. User has made statements indicating that they do not plan to stop even after having been told to do so[[277]].— Precedingunsigned comment added byInsanityclown1 (talk •contribs)04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Complaint probably isn't ripe at this point, but was concerned by his comment that made it sound like he had no intention of stopping the activities that got him banned in the first place.Insanityclown1 (talk)05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
P.S. In addition to the current block, the user was already blocked in the past for 48h for exactly same behavior. Lesson not learned, it looks like. --Altenmann>talk17:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Altenmann the editor was blocked in 2019 for some problems[278], that was over 5 years ago and although the editor has a very sparse editing record, I don't think it should count that much when considering current blocks. I also don't know that it's "exactly same behavior" since at least from the block log the stated reason was "edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny". While edit warring has unfortunately continued. I don't see anyone has presented evidence of the editor logging out. Further using misleading edit summaries wasn't mentioned in the past and seems unlikely considering they were barely using edit summaries at the time.
While the editor did say some stuff on their talk page which was concerning, we tend to ignore some minor blowing off steam when an editor is blocked and I'm unconvinced anything they said then is really enough for a longer block. Frankly I would personally take the sexual abuse comment to be crossing the line enough for an indef, but Drmies didn't see it that way and so IMO it's not worth pursuing further.
So what matters is how they actually edit going forward. Now that their block has expired, their editor interaction seems to have restricted themselves to emptying their talk page which they're allowed to do and posting these two comments on ANI[279][280]. I don't think either of those really cross the line sufficiently for a block.
OTOH, surprisingly this wasn't discussed previously but many of their recent (direct article) edits both before and after their block seem to clearly be within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. To articles that aren't sure but they're editing stuff which directly mentions the current war e.g.[281] and[282] and before the block[283]. They were already given a CTOP alert for the A-I conflict previously and so informed of theWP:ARBECR requirements so really should not have been making these edits.
I've directly asked them to stop[284]. If they continue to make edits which are so clearly within the A-I topic area, IMO an admin should just block them under CTOP or at least give a logged warning. These articles are generic enough that most of them don't need ECP and editors need to self regulate. And there's enough that I don't see a partial block will work. If no one is willing to do so from here, opening aWP:A/R/E case would be the simplest solution.
It is not “inflammatory”. Your response does not seem to be aligned withWP:AGF andWP:NPA. I don’t understand why you seem to be targeting me – there is no bad faith on my part to any extent.Steven1991 (talk)00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Looking at this user’s contribution history, they appear to have filed several complaints against multiple users over minor disputes. It raises doubts of vexatious complaints.Steven1991 (talk)01:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I think both sides could benefit from a little moreWP:AGF in this case. Insanityclown, I concur that the edit summary was misleading, and did not reflect the nature of the edits. This is an issue. As noted below, I don't think this necessitates them being deliberately deceptive. It's worth keeping an eye on, but even with the pre-block edit pattern, I don't think this one diff is enough for me to suspendWP:AGF. Do you have any more egregious examples? The few I found were all of the same "could have been a mistake" variety.
Steven, I can also see how labeling the phrasing changes as "grammar" could be a well-intentioned error. However, your addition ofprogressive journals like [Mosaic Magazine] adds the impression that other journals have said the same, which changes the meaning of the sentence. Similarly, addingsome to make the phrase "adopted by some progressives" changes the meaning from being widely accepted to a minority, which likewise is a content, not a grammar change. Can you see how another editor may have been misled by this edit summary? For good or ill, your contributions are under a microscope now, so you should be careful that your edit summaries accurately reflect their contents.
Finally, Steven, note thatWP:NPA says personal attacks areAccusations about personal behaviorthat lack evidence. (emphasis mine). Insanityclown1 provided evidence above. They may be wrong, but it's not a personal attack to be wrong. This is the appropriate place to raise concerns about an editor's behavior, and they did so with evidence.EducatedRedneck (talk)13:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
That is quite uncivil, but I am more concerned by the user'slack of edit summaries even onmajoredits(!) and the unsourced edits.
(As a side note, I think you should add more diffs to your reports, as only one diff per claim makes it difficult to evaluate whether these are chronic problems.)WADroughtOfVowelsP16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The uncivil edit summary is block worthy, and the unsourced edits and lack of communication is also concerning. I'm not sure this rises to the level of an indefinite block though.PhilKnight (talk)16:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I am inclined to block them for a week, and make it clear if problems continue they will be blocked indefinitely. But I'll wait for more opinions.PhilKnight (talk)17:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@PhilKnight: I'm fairly certain they're a sock ofUser:Stricklunk880 as their editing pattern is identical. This is a long term airport disrupting sock puppeet editor I believe. Seeinteraction history. Changing of small tagging (that shouldn't be there in the first place), overlinking and deleting native names from the article bodies.Canterbury Tailtalk13:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. And gives me more confidence to block these accounts when I see them now. There are a few sock accounts that persistently disrupt airport articles.Canterbury Tailtalk13:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Please see article historyhere where the same IP (and in one case a different IP) has added the same unverified material a total of six times since 19 September despite edit summaries removing the material because it is unsourced. The second IP (presumably the same editor) acknowledges the addition to beWP:OR in the summary ofthis edit.Cinderella157 (talk)09:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Multiple different IP's constantly vandalizing the article:Battle of Barawa
Hi, as you can see here in theediting history of the article, this page has persistantly been vandalized and there will always be someone who uses different IP's or makes new accounts in order to continue this. At the moment I am writing this, the page is completely vandalized. In the last few days I have already reverted the edits of these IP users 3 times but I don't want to continue doing it in order to avoid participating in edit-warring. I tried using page protection,see here, but the response wasn't very helpful, perhaps the person who responded to my request didn't understand this situation very well. From the history of this page, even if this last Ip user is blocked, more IP's will strike again in the near future, it's very frustrating. Once again I don't want to participate in edit-warring or any activity that would break wikipedia's guidelines so I am leaving this here and hopefully an administrator will understand this issue and help me. Thanks for everything.Javext (talk)12:53, 23 September 2024 (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.
Remove unsourced content added by disruptive, bad faith, and biased editor Spworld2
Uninvolved editors feel this is a content dispute full of assumptions of bad faith by Neutralhappy. The claim of a COI isn't well supported and looks more like a topic of interest for Spworld2. The content dispute should be settled in the existing forums already in use.--v/r -TP14:27, 24 September 2024 (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.
It seems User:Spworld2 is incorregible. Because of too much influence of a COI (WP:COI), Spworld2 would be ready to get even anindefinite block. This is becauseEK Samastha and its followers are strong in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted thecentenary declaration conference (as per a source) or the inauguration conference inBengaluru, which is outside Kerala, whileEK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation" as per theEK Samastha'swebsite; after thepromulgation conference by the faction ofAP Samastha inKasaragod. Spworld2 apparently and certainly belongs to a particular type of supporters ofEK Samastha who are not ready to edit neutrally or edit as per the source. So anindefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and related topics, such as its subsidiaries, would be needed. I at least seek the intervention of adminsto remove the unsourced content, especially the unsourced content inSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction).See also severaldisruptive and unhelpful edits by Spworld2Neutralhappy (talk)22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, any editor can provide sources or tag with "citation needed" or if all else fails, remove implausible or false unsourced content. That does not require administrator's tools.Cullen328 (talk)23:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Now, I have provided convincing evidence in the form ofdiffs. Spworld2 would definitely need anindefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and the related topics, such as their subsidiaries.Neutralhappy (talk)11:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Remedies
1) Remove all mentions of the term "(AP Sunnis)" in bold in the article, except in the title, since it is not part of the name of the organisation of AP Sunnis.
2) Remove the statement that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)", because it is unsourced. Instead, say it is known as "Samastha" since the sources say so (1,2,3,4).
3) How should we treat the time of formation, the founder, and the history until the so-called split of Samastha in 1989? Based on the source or by arbitrarily considering one of them or both of them as new organisations? Please help decide it.
I suggest the removal of theunsourced statements (including in the infobox) that theAP Samastha was founded in 1989 and that the founder ofAP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar.
4) Remove the mention that Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar ever became the president of any Samastha, since no source supports it.
5) Remove the mention that headquarters ofAP Samastha is Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya, for two reasons: it is unsourced and itappears dubious since a post of a Facebook page, supporting the AP faction, says "Samastha Centre, Kozhikode-6" below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama".
Spworld2 again wrongfullychanged the year of formation of AP Samastha without citing a source. Thesource given does not even mention "1986".
Spworld2 wants toadvance the position that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, without citing a source.
Spworld2added the headquarters of AP Samastha as Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya without citing a source, though thisappears to be wrong since the place shown below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama" in a post of a Facebook page supporting the AP faction is "Samastha Center, Kozhikode-6".
Spworld2 says Kanthapuram is thefounding president of AP Samastha, which must be false, not only because there could not be a single source stating Kanthapuram ever was a president of any Samastha, either before the so-called split in Samastha in 1989 or after it; but also because at the time of the reorganisation of Samastha in 1989, Kanthapuram was made the general secretary and Ullal Thangal the president.
Removal of sourced content by Spworld2
Spworld2 also removed content to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha byremoving the sourced content.
Spworld2 removed thesourced content about the flag of Samastha, probably to suppress the AP faction version of the narrative about the flag.
Spworld2removed "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha being referred to as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", though the sources given against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama". See what the sources say also. Instead, Spworld2 replaced the term "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" with "All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama", another organisation of AP Sunnis.
Soworld2removed the sourced content, giving a false edit summary.
Unhelpful editing by Spworld2
Both Samasthas are known as Samastha. But Spworld2 madethis unhelpful edit, by changingalso known as Samastha toalso known as Samastha (AP Faction) even though there are numerous sources to support it and5 sources are present in the article to support it. Note there is not a single source that saysSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)" or "Samastha (AP faction)". Spworld2 apparently and probably madethis edit to get a positive result to theSpworld2's move request and thus getthe page moved to "Samastha (AP Faction)".
Spworld2 madethis unhelpful edit by changing "Flag of EK Samastha" to "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama flag". In fact, it is the flag ofEK Samastha only. This edit by Spworld2 would mislead readers that there is no difference of opinion regarding the flag used by both Samasthas. In fact,AP Samastha uses adifferent flag. This is especially problematic since both flags appear to be the same, though there are minor differences.
Spworld2 removed "of EK Sunnis", which distinguishes the organisation, bythis edit. In addition, Spworld2 removed the part that clarifies the misunderstanding that there are two Samasthas in the same edit.
Spworld2's character of not maintaining neutrality
Though there is nothing unclear Spworld2 placed the clarify tags (1,2), without giving a reason. Later, Spworld2removed the content altogether just because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha and its success.
Repeated addition of EK Samastha's only position without citing source to support it, by Spworld2
Disruptive edits by Spworld2 even after getting warning
Spworld2added an unsourced content, even after getting a warning (see:1,2). Thesource says about the split of Samastha in 1989, not the formation ofAP Samastha. Nor does the source sayKanthapuram is the founder ofAP Samastha.
I can see nothing here that belongs atWP:ANI. This discussion only seems to add one venue to the already too long list of venues where the content issue is being discussed.Phil Bridger (talk)12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I rather disagree with you since thisWP:ANI is meant to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems, as this venue itself says:
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
I came here not mainly to discuss but to get an action taken against the bad faith, disruptive, and biased editor Spworld2, or mainly to get the unsourced content removed.Neutralhappy (talk)13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased". If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss. All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites.Phil Bridger (talk)13:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for your reply. Have you found out that America isknown as USA? If yes, should we avoid saying America is known as USA in the Wikipedia article on America, because some people hate to refer to America as USA? What is your answer? Whether it is yes or no, the same applies to both Samasthas, since both of them are known as "Samastha". Spworld2 hates to refer toAP Samastha as a Samastha, so Spworld2 replaced "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (AP Faction)",—which is similar to sayingTaiwan is "known asChina ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction)",—without citing any source though the given sources against it refer toAP Samastha as "Samastha". If it is not a problem, the same should apply toEK Samastha, where Spworld2 had not applied the same, by replacing the term "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (EK faction)", because Spworld2 wants to project onlyEK Samastha is known as Samastha, obviously to advance the view of the EK faction (people affiliated with EK Samastha) that the onlyEK Samastha is the real continuation of the Samastha founded in 1926. If it is not a problem add "known asChina ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction), by replacing the "[name of founder of Taiwan]" with the founder's name in the articleTaiwan. Likewise, add similar terms coined by Wikipedia editors in several other articles.Neutralhappy (talk)14:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Spworld2removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha" because Spworld2 wants onlyEK Samastha referred to as "Samastha" without qualification. Which Wikipedia guideline suggests mentioning alternative names of a subject without boldening it. Therefore, it is not only an act of disruptive editing but vandalism also.Neutralhappy (talk)15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Thisedit by Spworld2 changed "also known as Samastha" to "also known as Samastha (AP Faction)", the changethis move request is seeking for, without any supporting citations, though the use of "Samastha" to refer to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was supported by 5 sources at the time of this change.Neutralhappy (talk)18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
As for Phil Bridger's comment, each sentence (specially shown) is rebutted as follows:
This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased".
I do not contest this, nor do I need to.
If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss.
A discussion can take place even if all sides has already taken opposing positions. Furthermore, this venue is to report "chronic intractable behavioural problems", which has to be ascertainedbefore reporting on this venue.
All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites.
Sorry, I was busy and didn't see the discussion.There was no World War here to mention so much Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently inthis sectionSpworld2 (talk)04:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
If Spworld2 is saying, "Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section" about the edits Spworld2 made onAP Samastha andEK Samastha, it is false, since they were neither misquoted nor unrelated.Neutralhappy (talk)05:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
This makes it the largest legally functioning Sunni Islamic organization in India.
In 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase), due to a slight difference of opinion from this organization, under the leadership ofKanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, he resigned (separated) from this organization and went and formed anew organization. It is known asAP Samastha,AP Sunni,Samastha (AP Faction) andKanthapuram Faction[287][288][289][290].
But this editor (@Neutralhappy) has the information and history of the organization founded in 1926 in the same way Wrote in thenew organization adding unsourced information along with it.
You are telling a lie that Kanthapuram resigned from Samastha. Moreover, the matter that the Kanthapuram faction created a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 is a POV pushing. In addition,AP Samastha has the same name, registration number, and flag Samastha had before the so-called split in 1989.Neutralhappy (talk)06:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
AP Samastha was formed between 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase)
When a new organization isformed it will have a year, it willhave a cause/reason, it will have afounder,
the same description and the same year of formation should not be written the same in two articles.
In the absence of the above facts it is against policy to create the article as a new organization.
The following are the sources cited by Spworld2here to say the AP faction formed a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The first and the second sources do not say it at all, while the third and the fourth ones are the same source that says the AP faction created a new organisation after a split in Samastha. This is the fist time Spworld2 cited a source before me to claim the AP Samastha has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. See what is the problem with them:
This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha.
This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha.Neutralhappy (talk)08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
* Spworld2, being failed to get the page forSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) deleted, began the attempt tomove and rename the page asSamastha (AP Faction), probably because Spworld2 wanted to remove the full name of the organisation, which is often quoted by reliable sources, so that readers would think the only organisation with the full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" is that of EK Sunnis. Earlier, Spworld2 tried to remove "Samastha" from the full name (1,2,3) so that readers would thinkSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is not officially known by its full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", or as just "Samastha".
* See also thisremoval, which wasundone by an admin.
Pages created by Spworld2
* The pagescreated by Spworld2 show Spworld2 is closely associated withIndian Union Muslim League and EK Sunnis (people affiliated toEK Samastha), which the overwhelming majority of followers ofEK Samasthasupport. Spworld2 created the article100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala for thepromotion of the future event andEK Samastha's claim of the legacy of Samastha founded in 1926. Spworld2 alsoremoved the notability tagadded by someone else from the article100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala. Furthermore, Spworld2 created the articleMajlis Al-Noor, which is about a program of EK Sunnis (people affiliated toEK Samastha). Interestingly, Spworld2 appears to have a close connection (maybe as a leader such as a local leader of any subsidiaries ofEK Samastha) to the subject because Spworld2 hasuploaded an image used inMajlis Al-Noor, which might only be uploaded by those who are close to the subject because of copyright. The flag ofHaritha (organisation), which is associated with Indian Union Muslim League, has also beenuploaded by Spworld2; that in turn shows Spworld2's closeness to the group or the faction, such as being a leader of this political party or being close to the leader of a subsidiary of EK Samastha. See Spworld2's complete list ofuploads; which in turn shows probably Spworld2 has been to or lives nearPuthanathani, a place inMalappuram district,in the two constituencies of which the Indian Muslim League fielded its candidates for the2024 Lok Sabha election. Likewise, Spworld2 created articles on places and institutions inMalappuram district. Theedit by Spworld2 shows, Spworld2 knowsMalayalam, though the source does not support Spworld2's claims in the edit. Spworld2 edits are largely on articles related to Kerala politics or politics in whichIndian Union Muslim League has an interest. The other articles Spworld2 created are related toGCC,where a large number of Malayalees work. So it is certain that Spworld2 has a close connection to at least the leaders such as the local leaders of the subsidiaries ofEK Samastha. The following is a list of the articles Spworld2created as of 13:34, 6 September 2024; and those that have association with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) are shown in bold, and those with EK Sunnis or EK Samastha with an underline:
This sourcesays most of those affiliated with EK Samastha are members of the IUML: "It is a known fact that most of the Samastha workers are members of the IUML and the party is confident that the issues with Samastha may not have any political fallouts."Neutralhappy (talk)08:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
So what? S !! All this is created by me, what is the problem??
Write more articles on the subject of knowledge, and create related articles when writing an article. What's the problem with that? There is no interest in awar over an article, I don't like arguing a point and writing a lot of essays about it
I am not affiliated with any organization. I don't write for anyone's money, I write in my free time
All this is just your wrong feeling, Just your fake propaganda Otherwise only slander ,
The anger at what the COI told you is telling back to me
I know about the organizations in Kerala, I know about the political parties, I know about AP Samastha, of which you are the editor . Writing articles under the Kerala Wiki project.
Lies and deception by Spworld2 to continue disruptive, bad faith, biased POV pushing
Spworld2, at8:46 16 September 2024, (see also:1,2—in which User:Spworld2 is seen,3—how it appears in Spworld2's user page), hasadmitted that Spworld2 is asupporter of the Indian Union Muslim League and that Spworld2 hasMalayalam as the native language. The EK Sunni supporters of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) would likely have more hatred towards the AP faction than the EK Sunnis who do not support the Indian Union Muslim League, since several leaders of the IUML are Mujahids. The biggest enemies of non-Sunnis, in Kerala, including Mujahids, in Kerala, is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, general secretary ofSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and the AP faction Sunnis. But,just within 5 hours after the admission, Spworld2lies that Spworld2 is not affiliated with any organisation. It is obvious Spworld2 is blatantlylying, like Spworld2's otherlies, such as those seen in Spworld2's edit summaries inSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), allegations against me, Neutalhappy, and the addition of the false, unsourced content. Spworld2 alsolies that Spworld2 knows aboutSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), because Spworld2 does not appear to know the headquarters ofAP Samastha, and whether ever Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar became the president or the founding president of any Samastha. Spworld2 alsolies thatAP Samastha is known by the term, coined by Spworld2, "Samastha (AP Faction)". Actually, either Samastha is known as "Samastha", which Spworld2replaced with "Samastha (AP Faction)", though there were 5 sources supporting the fact thatAP Samastha is known as "Samastha". Spworld2 engaged in edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism—(1: grammatical and spelling mistakes,2: removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha", violating the Wikipedia guideline to bolden it, because Spworld2 hatesEK Samastha to be referred to as "EK Samastha"; in other places Spworld2 removed terms indicating the EK faction, such as "EK faction" altogether),— and bad faith editing (unhelpful editing) on the articleSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Spworld2 alsolies that Spworld2 is not interested in edit warring. But, had Spworld2 not interested in edit warring, I would not have reported about Spworld2 onWP:ANI, but just would have undone Spworld2's problematic edits.The edit history ofSamastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) proves the edit war conducted by Spworld2. So, kindlyTOPIC BAN Spworld2 on both Samasthas and the related articles, since it is unavoidable.Neutralhappy (talk)19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
By my count, Neutralhappy has contributed over 39,000 bytes to this report. That is very muchWP:TLDR. Diffs are important, but everyone here is a volunteer, and most have better things to do than wade through ~40k buytes offorum shopping, as this issue was already brought up by Spworld2 onWP:NPOVN.
From a glance, this seems to mostly be a content dispute, sprikled withassumptions of bad faith by Neutralhappy, including in the very title of this section. Neutralhappy, if you want people to read your report, I recommend starting a new subsection, and presentingbriefly the most important parts of your case, including at least 3 but not more than 10 diffs showing the most egregious problems. If it's over 1,000 words, it's likely too long. Be sure to cite the policies each diff violates. Or, better yet, try the steps inWP:DR, includingWP:3O to get uninvolved editors to weigh in and solve the content dispute. If Spworld2 edit wars against two editors, that's a very easy block, and requires very little documentation.EducatedRedneck (talk)11:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Neutralhappy, there is no nice way to say this. You have obviously gone through a lot of work pulling this complaint together. But for any sanctions to result from an ANI complaint, the misconduct either a) must be blatantly obvious to any editor or b) have a reasonable amount of compelling evidence presented that a large assortment of uninvolved editors can easily assess and come to conclusions about.
By "reasonable", I'm thinking of 3-10 diffs of bad behavior, not a very long, multi-sectioned narrative. You are not going to find many uninvolved editors (well, except for EducatedRedneck) who are willing to put in the time and effort to assess your complaint here and this is likely to be archived without action being taken. Editors are busy, they don't have the time to devote to all of this when they have other editing activities to do. As I advised another editor (below), cases this complex should be brought to ARBCOM if that is a suitable forum. ANI is just not set up for evaluating this large amount of content and could end up with a BOOMERANG on you. Take this as a lesson learned for the next dispute.LizRead!Talk!01:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Looking through Spworld2's contributions, it seems the user is treating Wikipedia as a gossip column of a tabloid by adding sensational content such as run-of-the-mill issues/verbal spats/allegations under the heading "controversies", disregardingWP:CSECTION and it's long-term notability. Some of the articles created are also sensational in nature.117.230.80.72 (talk)14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Admins pleasenote: this is thefirst edit from this IP (117.230.80.72) , the only IP not active in this discussion, first edit participating in 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.
After noticing they hadadded some content toAlanis Morissette (disruptively), I initially did assume this editor to be good-faith,trying to fix the MoS problems they had caused. But look at what they did subsequently:claiming I had reverted "a legitimate update" "without reason or explanation" (even though I did explain, seethis andthis) and restoring their edit repeatedly (despite opposition from me and @Fulfiller, seethis). I asked them to stop disrupting the article, but they refused (seethis conversation).Thedarkknightli (talk)01:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
If it is indeed edit-warring, I'd file a case at ANEW. But it looks like a content dispute and there is no discussion about this on the article talk page. There has been no activity there since January 2024.LizRead!Talk!02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Liz, thanks for your timely reply! Well, I've just starteda conversation on the article's talk page. For the reason I didn't file a case regarding them at ANEW, Cruzado didn't violateWP:3RR (so I don't think they'll be prevented from disrupting the article if I did). Btw, I admit my ignorance of the rules.Thedarkknightli (talk)03:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I understand,Thedarkknightli and I thank you for providing diffs. It's just that escalating disputes to ANI can lead to unpredictable results as both the reporter and the editor being reported are usually scrutinized.LizRead!Talk!05:06, 20 September 2024 (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.
Zayn Hesham has Wikipedia email enabled, so there's not even any need for them to ask for others' email addresses. I've explained this on their page.Bishonen |tålk09:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC).
Considering they said they’rehere to promote, I’d adviseWP:NOTHERE be invoked. I find this to also be supported by what they were trying to do with their user page, on their old account that DMacks sniffed up. ([291])with a little information and not too much Sounds to me like they know the harm that can occur on having an article onWP:YOURSELF, and would whitewash. That’sWP:OWN trouble waiting to happen.MM(Give me info.)(Victories)15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
FromWP:NPA:Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. I think they were trying to disparage you (say you were of little worth) withI don't see you and you had the honor of talking to me. — rsjaffe🗣️15:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I see that on Arabic Wikipedia, under both accounts the user page content has been removed and warnings about inappropriate user page use appear on their talk page.Largoplazo (talk)16:38, 23 September 2024 (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.
Am I right in saying that you have started an SPI about these users, and one other, because they have voted in an AfD to delete an article you want kept? Where is this personal attack and what evidence can you provide for what you are reporting?Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)12:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Monophile created a malformed SPI, which I've deleted, and added a quick checkuser request at SPI, which I've reverted. I've blocked them for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)13:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Bbb23 for sorting this out while I was away-from-keyboard. Here's a bit of context:
AfD of a newly-created page (nom'd by not-my-sock)[293]
The AfD comments struck me at the time as a hair's-breadth away from violatingWP:NPA but I didn't want to end up here if it could be avoided. Hopefully the block will give them a chance to reconsider their editing approach.Oblivy (talk)13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
You did not notify Russ Woodroofe about this discussion. I have done that this time, but if ever you launch another discussion about another editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.NebY (talk)14:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Trying to interpret the original post, I think thatMonophile (talk·contribs) is making accusations of harassment. I will disclose that perWP:HA#NO, I did examine Monophile's contributions for policy violations. I had watchlistedTushar Palve during the recent deletion discussion. Monophile requested refund to draft of that article[294][295] (granted byExplicit with a strong suggestion to run through AfC), and subsequently moved the minimally-edited page back to mainspace, where it was speedily G4 deleted[296]. The editing pattern gave me pause, and left me with questions on both the judgement and grasp of policy and guidelines of this fairly new editor. I saw a similar Mumbai physician of similarly questionable notability, again with lots of references but little substance, and (after aWP:BEFORE) nominated for deletion. I do not think that this constitutes harassment, and do not see anything from Oblivy that could even remotely be harassment.Russ Woodroofe (talk)15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Like @Russ Woodroofe I watchlistedTushar Palve and @Monophile’s talk page because of the prior AfD and our interactions. That's how I saw the recreation/deletion of Tushar Palve yesterday, as well as the nomination ofDhiraj Sonawane for deletion. Given my prior interactions with Monophile I could have waited before piling on -- while I don't think there was anything wrong with the substance or tone, the pace probably added to their frustration. This does look like inexperienced editor trying to create meaningful pages, but growth has to happen. That means considering what other editors say rather than lashing out. Editing existing pages may be a more promising path, as deletion discussions IMHO are not a model environment for new editors to learn about either policies and guidelines or civility.Oblivy (talk)23:16, 23 September 2024 (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 hopper (re-)introducing bad copy-edits andWP:NOTSEEALSO bloat to CTOPICS
Drmies has imposed a range block that includes the only IP who's edited recently. There's nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk)16:15, 24 September 2024 (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.
User has been warned countless times and generally does not appear to respond to talk page suggestions whatsoever. They are edit warring as can immediately be seen from their selfsame additions toRadical right (United States). The IPs also never use edit summaries.
@Bbb23. Well, but if I'm not mistaken, they can still block such accounts on their own without telling anybody here. Right? In that case, please restore the template/point some unnamed CU to this case.Biohistorian15 (talk)15:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not IPs can be blocked, it seems like you are asking a Checkuser to check a lot of stale accounts which I think they will see as a lot of work for not much payoff. Why did you not file this at SPI, why did you come to ANI? SPI is severely backlogged right now, there are lots of open reports from the summer that still have yet to be investigated and if there isn't urgent vandalism, I don't see this sock hunt as attracting their attention away from more compact and polished reports that have been filed.LizRead!Talk!06:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Liz. Yeah, no, it's unlikely that this is a case ofWP:LOUTSOCK anyway. The IPs have thousands of contributions if you add up/extrapolate.
There appear to bea lot more implicated IPs as far as I can tell. But this should be enough to demonstrate that there might be some serious LTA going on.Biohistorian15 (talk)17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
It's a wide range of IPs, and it has been going on for I don't even remember how long - I can say that at least a year or more, probably longer. Their edits are essentially of two varieties: (1) gross expansion of "see also" lists (like way over the top inclusions) and (2) copyediting to a more pedestrian wording (unnecessary conjunctions, overworded clauses, and similar) that does not improve article quality. They will ignore all forms of attempted communication, whether that's article talk, edit summary, or user talk notices. So LTA would be putting it mildly, IMO. It's been going on so long, I'm essentially numb to it at this point. Some of the IPs have received blocks, and that has usually occurred during periods of significant, repetitive disruption.ButlerBlog (talk)23:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Nythar, I blocked a few ranges.LilianaUwU, I'm not sure who you mean--the diplomatic relations editor I'm thinking of, that's not this one, not these ranges, but perhaps you have another in mind.Biohistorian15, as Liz and Bbb indicate above, this isn't really work for a CU, but for a rangeblocker, and next time, I suppose you can post at AIV and link this discussion.Drmies (talk)13:18, 24 September 2024 (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 seems to be running an automated script to replace all occurrences of "i.e." by "that is" on many articles in rapid succession. Has been warned repeatedly, needs swift blocking.Tito Omburo (talk)00:30, 24 September 2024 (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.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 176.84.121.244, 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.
The IP editor has been adding unsourced content for a month and every one of their edits has been reverted. A 72 hour block was ineffective, so, I blocked for three months.Cullen328 (talk)08:02, 24 September 2024 (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 known accounts are veryStale, so Checkuser won't be any help. Behaviorally, yeah that's probably him. The pattern matches; some people just have too much time on their hands. I'll file a pro forma SPI to get it logged in case this it can be useful for a future CU.The WordsmithTalk to me03:30, 24 September 2024 (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.
Broadcastwitnessnews92 competence issues
Broadcastwitnessnews92(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) started editing Wikipedia today, and has already garnered multiple warnings, including final warnings, regarding vandalism and page hijacking. All their edits have been reverted. When I look at the edits, I don't see vandalism or hijacking, just a lack of understanding of the topic (perhaps a lack of understanding of the English language) and misguided attempts at improving the page. The editor has not once stopped to respond to any of the notices.
For example, inSpecial:Diff/1247550796, the editor added, after "Thevaginal opening and theurethral opening are only visible when the labia minora are parted.", the following completely wrong information: "The primary function of this system is to produce, maintain, and transport sperm and protective fluid (semen)."
And, inSpecial:Diff/1247481033, "For example,nudity in the context ofnaturism would normally be regarded as non-sexual.Ensure the equation is in standard form, which means all terms are on one side of the equation set equal to zero.", where the italicized content is the addition by this editor. — rsjaffe🗣️20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
ApparentlyUser:ZDX hasn't learned anything from his own block log. He deleted my citations on the page mentioned above and pasted his own POV without any reasoning. This user has no idea about Indian elections and appointment of office bearers it seems. My edits on the page speak for themself, I have added proper citations and reasoning only to be removed by this user because he wants to paste his POV, his edit summaries summarize his MO, he believes something and wants to paste them here. For instance, he believes a CM/Chief Executive, appointed after the elections was the leader in an election by default even when he didn't participate in the elections under discussion in any capacity.CrashLandingNew (talk)14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Let alone the tediousWP:DABLINK error introduced in that edit. Not knowing the topic, I had to waste a couple of minutes fixing it. Some editors seem never to check their links.Narky Blert (talk)18:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
He recently reverted User:RatnaHastin's edit yesterday and this was after I reported the incident here,[302]. The sources he is referring to do not say that Bhajan Lal was a leader, that source is calling both Hooda and Bhajan Lal as CM candidates.
On 8th September he claimed party's president is leader, later I reverted his edit because there was no proper source mentioned.[303], isn't his claim isWP:OR? The sources he has added there are saying something different from what is written there.
Now yesterday again he reverted his edit on that page, I tried using the talk page but instead of participating, he reverted those edits.[304]
I've just flagged this at AIV. I'd given Emmay33 afinal warning for repeatedly ignoring WP:ENGVAR earlier in the month, but a lot of their edits are still going against that, changing individual words in British/Indian articles to the American spelling. Seems either aWP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue (they've never replied on their talk page) or a competence one.Belbury (talk)09:33, 25 September 2024 (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.
Their edits, as far back as 2020 and more recently in the last day or two, appear to be copy-pasted promotional nonsense, clearlynot building an encyclopedia, sometimes vandalizing existing text along the way:[305],[306],[307],[308],[309],[310],[311],[312]. Based on a quick Google search, I think at least some of the copied text can be found social media or elsewhere on the web, which might raise copyvio issues (though it may be the user's own promotional material posted elsewhere).R Prazeres (talk)06:12, 25 September 2024 (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:Vijay bhaskara reddy k - Copyvio
Too many problematic contributions. A large set of subpar articles about various temples have been draftified in the last few hours by NPPs. No response on the talk page and there are multiple instances of copyright violations, including 20 images on Commons.WP:NOTHEREJeraxmoira🐉 (talk)11:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I actually remove some of the copyvio he/she made onSri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Temple, Nellore where he/she basically copy paste the content and I also notice he/she made a close paraphrasing in some of article he/she made, (i didn't revdel as they Earwig only show around 40%) and just copyedit it. I was considering reporting but it think it isWP:BITEY. But I did not know that the photos were copyrighted lol.Warm Regards,Miminity (talk) (contribs)11:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Miminity, this is a tangent but how on Earth did you get a report from Earwig? I used to use it but haven't been able to get a report since early 2024 because it is always over its limit. I'm shocked you were able to use this tool and get any information back. What's your secret? What time of day did you use it? Thanks for any information.LizRead!Talk!06:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Liz, if you uncheck the "use search engine" button, you'll be able to get it to run, since the limit only applies to google searches. They're working on making the tool log-in required, which should help with running through all our search engine credits. --asilvering (talk)09:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I just want to say that it looks like this user does a lot of good work on articles here, and I'm a bit saddened to come here for something so silly.
This began when I changed some icons on Spanish elections pages from to, from to, and from to(diff) – this made almost no visual difference and the latter are templates that include alt text,which is necessary for functional icons.Impru20 reverted my edits with no explanation, so I went to his talk page to discuss. There, he accused me ofrevert[ing] a stable version with no explanation whatsoever(diff). A discussion that was not particularly productive ensued, and I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency, and I was concerned about functional icons with no alt text.Impru20 reverted all of my edits with the edit summaryreverted consciously bad-faith edit conducted in the middle of a discussion. Due to the masive nature of this, it could be considered as disruptive (diff). I considerconsciously bad-faith to be a personal attack. I raised this point on his talk page, and he continued to be quite uncivil in his replies, warning me aboutWP:BOOMERANG (diff).
Yesterday, I restored my edits (which, as I have stressed toImpru20, were necessary to comply withWP:ACCESS). Impru again mass-reverted with the summaryReverting unconsensuated edit. Also, waiting some time to enforce a change deliberately avoiding the discussion on the issue is not a good practice. Doing it massively through hundreds of articles after being warned against it is also not a good practice (diff – he did introduce alt text in the second round of mass reverts, but it is not particularly helpful, as it describes the appearance of the icons instead of what they mean). His behavior over such a minor change makes me think thatWP:OWN may be an issue here. Both of his mass reverts have made Wikipedia less accessible, and his personal attacks and incivility in his summaries and on his talk page are unbecoming of an editor of his experience, and should be addressed.WMSR (talk)18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency How could you possibly think this action would be seen as anything other than a provocative edit that sends a clear "fuck you" message to the other editor? Since you took this action in the middle of a discussion, how exactly are you going to argue that it wasnot disruptive? The implication that your actions were perfectly innocent and in good faith, and Impru's reaction unpredictable and unreasonable, is offensively disingenuous. Yoursecond message on Impru's talkpage was to accuse them ofWP:OWN.
You may have a good point here about accessibility issues, but from a behavioral standpoint, it's not Impru's behavior that I find concerning. Why did you not start a discussion at the article talkpage? Why did you not seek broader consensus? Why did you decide to edit war, ignore Impru's concerns, and then open an ANI report? Being right on content doesn't excuse poor behavior.Grandpallama (talk)19:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Grandpallama in almost all respects. This is a classic example of WP disputegeneration, which makes me sad. The only points I would add to his review are:
They're both edit-warring using JWB. I assume, like AWB, that this could theoretically be grounds for removing JWB from both of their toolbelts? I'm not necessarily advocating for that, so much as trying to emphasize to both that theyshould not continue down this path.
While I do agree that WMSR is "more" responsible for this conflict, I think Impru20 could have helped by not responding to minor hostility with more hostility, and not responded to a misues of JWB with a misuse of JWB.
I don't suppose that the two editors could recognize they both acted imperfectly, that they're both long term experienced good faith editors, and just agree to start all over again? A do-over? A calm, respectful (friendly would be great, but probably asking too much - unless they want to give me a pleasant surprise) discussion to truly understand each other, if necessary followed by a 3rd opinion or other dispute resolution method?
(edit conflict) Accessibility alone does not justify such a behaviour, but even then: I was not even against solving those issues! You will be able to check that from my talk page discussion, in which I actually proposed WMSR compromise solutions that maintained both the icons and achieved accessibility. They could have contested them, but they basically refused to even discuss them, instead resorting to mass-editing and to attack me on my user talk page. Yeah, I ended up warning WMSR ofWP:BOOMERANG along with a profound sense of frustration after they had suggested bringing this to ANI ([313]).
The issue here is that WMSR was openly provocative and aggressive from the very beginning. They have never attempted to seek a compromise despite multiple requests, they never explained why the compromise solution that I proposed was unacceptable (spoiler: it wasn't) and their only course of action was to 1) adopt an aggressive behaviour in my talk page with outright attacks (their first reply to my was to accuse me ofWP:OWNing just because I disagreed with their initial few edits), 2) to keep linking random wiki policies in an exercise ofwikilawyering, 3) once these two failed, to resort to massively edithundreds of articles despite being wellaware that these edits would be contested (since this came when the discussion had started and was well underday), and 4) to threaten me with bringing this to ANI should I did not accept their edits. Heck, their initial response to myinitial complaint to their massive edits was to tell me that "this is going nowhere, so I have made hundreds of edits and if you disagree with them just seekrecourse elsewhere" (hinting at admin intervention at[314], then more openly at[315]). So you have a content dispute and, instead of trying to solve it amicably, you just attempt to intimidate the other user and force admin intervention even when ANI is not for such kind of disputes?
I acknowledge that I did not take the OWN accusation well. That was basically WMSR'ssecond comment in the discussion and came after I inquired them on their reasoning for their edits. I cannot see how on Earth this kind of behaviour could be seen as any other than disruptive from that point onwards, but particularly from the moment that WMSR disengaged from the discussion to mass-edit hundreds of articles (which I then reverted back to their original versions).
The"I, probably unwisely, decided to boldly make the same edit across all Spanish election articles using JWB. I thought this would assuage his concern about consistency" claim is (sorry) an absurd claim. WMSRshould know that making literallyhundreds of edits at once while a discussion is ongoing is not a good-faith course of action. Plus, WMSR just did this again less than 24 hours ago, after having left the discussion for two weeks and leaving my last comment unanswered (which was basically the specific, last proposal for a compromise solution). How can anyone even think of this being done innocently and thinking that this would "asuage" any concern?
Btw, my last edits on all of those articles (which involved reverting WMSR second provocative mass-editing) did actually implement accessibility according toWP:ACCESS (or, at the very least, the best I could do it), by taking the advantage of the reverting to implement the compromise solution that they just refused to even address in my talk page. I seriously don't understand what their motives are here, but it's fairly obvious thatWP:BOOMERANG applies here.Impru20talk20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, and onFloquenbeam's remarks: I don't want to use JWB to resolve the dispute. I only had to in this case because that was the only mean of undoing such massive changes so swiftly. I am more than willing to voluntarily refrain from using it in this dispute. Even then, that should not hide that WMSR has used it in a provocative and aggressive waytwice, both of them without previous notice and under threats of ANI intervention if those edits were contested (as I linked above; threats that have ultimately materialized today), so it's probably them who should commit themselves to stop doing this.Impru20talk20:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
It's a "yes" (on my part) to not use JWB again in this dispute, and a "no" in allowing WMSR free use of it as if nothing had happened, seeing how that could spark issues in further situations in which they come across content disputes. Using JWB to "solve" a content dispute by editing hundreds of articles so that the issue seems "locked" by making it seemingly impossible for the other part to restore them manually, then threaten the other part to refrain from using JWB to revert them or else they will be brought to ANI, is not how JWB is intended to be used. Not saying thatI will press for that (on my part, I just find this highly disruptive and frustrating).Impru20talk20:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we got your point now. You may want to take some time away from this. WMSR may receive aWP:TROUT for his actions here. If he continues you may want to return and justice will be swiftly given.Conyo14 (talk)20:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I am definitely seeing where my behavior was in the wrong. Content-wise, I still do not understand the dispute. That said, I definitely failed to take the high road, and I see that I misused JWB in the process. This definitely calls for aSelf-trout. I really would value an opportunity for a "do-over" and a second opinion on the content dispute at hand.Impru20, I'm sorry for all the stress I've caused.WMSR (talk)00:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Infoboxes are under discretionary sanctions. I alerted both editors. I was going to remove their access to AWB/JWB, too, but it looks like the drama has died down, even if only slightly.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually, so are election results now, right? I know almost nothing about that recenthistorical elections arbcom case, but is there any reason to believe one of these two editors is involved in (hang on while I look up the term used in the case) "Election Twitter"? Results of historical national and sub-national elections are now acontentious topic.Floquenbeam (talk)21:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I struck out a couple of comments in that discussion made in violation ofWP:ARBPIA (specificallyWP:ARBECR). One of the comments struck out was from an IP that a participant,DaringDonna,called out asantisemitic blood libel, and she would like to have the comment removed. I don't know exactly what to do here, I am afraid going further than striking out for ARBECR (for example, collapsing or{{redacted}} it), would not be in line withhow involved editors should act in discussions (yes I am technically involved simply by proposing the move), I am also aware ofWP:NPA which prevents most of these serious aspersions. Can an administrator investigate and take an appropriate decision? Such claims are very very serious and especially casting doubt onWP:AGF, unless if it is very obvious to most editors; if the IP comment needs to be removed andWP:RevDel'd, so be it. If further page restrictions or personal sanctions or warnings or no action (even against me) is needed, so be it. But I feel there needs to be more moderation as I have seen a lot of slow reactive not proactive measures in these topic areas.AwesomeAasim22:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Awesome Aasim ECR is a bright-line rule in ARBPIA, so I don't think you'd be out of line collapsing/removing the comment entirely - just make sure it's applied universally. IPs and non-XC editors aren't allowed to contribute anything in the area besides edit requests, so votes on a move aren't allowed.TheKip(contribs)22:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I thought. But I already struck that comment out. It wouldn't hurt to collapse the replies to the ECR violating comment?AwesomeAasim22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the comment along with the discussion that resulted. Someone else is free to remove all other comments which violate ARBECR but I don't think we need consistency. If a comment violates ARBECR and is clearly causing disruption it's reasonable it might be treated different. I mean under the old ARBECR not all comments from non EC editors would be a violation but disruptive ones would be. (And even now with edit requests which this clearly wasn't, disruptive ones are a problem but otherwise they are okay.) Alternatively you could say we are being consistent in removing all disruptive ARBECR violating comments. (I didn't remove any other comment but if someone points out something else equally problematic I'm happy to. The only other struck comment I noticed doesn't seem to be similarly problematic.) I'd note that the claim the IP didn't provide a source isn't entirely true, they did[316] but I don't think Mohamed Kleit's opinion is an RS so the OP did fail to provide an RS. As for the other comments in the thread that I removed while they might not be a violation by themselves and I'm not going to revert if someone reinstates them; it seems to me removing the disputed comment but leaving the discussion it spawned just generates more confusion plus risks drawing attention to the issue.Nil Einne (talk)05:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the discussion. Just to clarify, I did not say there was no source, I said there was no RS (reliable source). I did look it up before I made my comment, and saw who exactly the IP was quoting. Not someone who could be considered reliable as a source. Thanks again. Removing the comment is a win for sanity at Wikipedia.DaringDonna (talk)15:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Nardog / Reverting Additions Due to "Obvious" Generative AI
WITHDRAWN. I mean this with the utmost respect and without any intention of suggesting purposeful malice on the user's part. But I recently had an edit to an article reverted by this user as "obvious generative AI."
The fact is: we don't have the technology yet to determine what's AI-written and what's not, and the only people saying otherwise are snake oil salesmen. Supposed AI-writing detectors are absolutely notorious for false positives.
Colleges abound with users having to prove that they can pass the Voight-Kampff test (i.e. no, I'm not a replicant).
The technology is far too immature to be counted upon programmatically, and on your own calling users "obvious generative AI" is 'ad hominem'. If we're going through Wikipedia and somehow going to start wiping out people's edits because they are somehow "obviously" generative AI, I think it ends up having the effective result of - and again, I'm not casting aspersions on theintentions of said user - widespread vandalism.
Can I ask you: how can Wikipedia editors claim to have an ability that doesn't exist yet (i.e., knowing what's AI-written and what isn't)? Whether or not there's a policy page all about it (I'm sure I could find similarly elaborate policies at every college), the fact is, this ability provably doesn't exist yet ...MollyRealized (talk)15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Let me answer your question with a few of my own: Why did you wait less than fifteen minutes after posting to Nardog's talk page to bring this to ANI? Why are you assuming that he is using a tool more technological than his own eyeballs, especially given the aforementioned lack of meaningful discussion of this with him? Why are you misleadingly comparing this to "widespread vandalism" when it appears to be a single edit?Writ Keeper⚇♔15:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, then let me answer you directly: you opened this ANI thread extremely prematurely; you should have actually made a good-faith effort to discuss this with Nardog before running to ANI to get him in trouble. Moreover, you're misrepresenting his actions by implying he's on some kind of misguided crusade (with your references togoing through Wikipedia and somehow going to start wiping out people's edits andwidespread vandalism)--all without any diffs whatsoever--when the only recent revert I can find in Nardog's contribs that mentions LLMs is yours. I recommend you withdraw this before you get smacked by theboomerang.Writ Keeper⚇♔16:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
That wasn't a threat. That was sage advice, but not quite a warning, from a site admin. You might notice the complete absence of support for your complaint here, which is why you're being advised that failing to drop the issue is more likely to result in aboomerang than any other outcome.Grandpallama (talk)17:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I seem to have misconstrued the phrase "getting smacked", then. 17:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't removeyour addition just because I suspected it of having been generated with an LLM, but because it wasn't written like anything you see in other articles, as pointed out onthe talk page. Whether you actually used an LLM is ultimately immaterial. If you have seen the film and can write a plot, go ahead, but please actually write a plot.Nardog (talk)15:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately what was inserted into the article, regardless of how it was generated, is not a plot. It's a film school student essay and interpretation.Canterbury Tailtalk16:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so it looks like basically these are justad hominems and not actually dealing with an AI problem. Now we've got some clarity as to intent.MollyRealized (talk)16:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Me too. If it really wasn't AI, @MollyRealized, my advice is to completely rethink how you approach plot summaries. Describe the plot precisely, and avoid making claims about tone and meaning (that goes in later sections). The plot section should just be a straightforward description of the plot. --asilvering (talk)16:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
To make it visible,WITHDRAWN. I don't see any other clear instruction on how to do so within your protocols. Thank you to asilvering and MM, exclusively and only, for your approach to this matter.MollyRealized (talk)17:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@MollyRealized: it's expected that editors should discuss problems they have with other editors before bringing them to ANI, unless the problem is so severe that it requires immediate attention or for some other reason it's impossible to approach the editor concerned first. If you want to continue to edit here, you need to accept this and apply it going forward. This isn't hostility, it's simply what is expected from all editors on the English wikipedia.Nil Einne (talk)19:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll add that talks ofWP:Boomerang aren't generally intended as some sort of idle threat or just a way to be hostile. Instead, they are intended to warn the editors concerned because plenty of editors have found themselves blocked or otherwise gotten into trouble because by opening an ANI thread and from their responses within the thread they opened, they've revealed that they and not the editor they're complaining about was the problem. I don't think anything you did here or that was revealed about your editing is severe enough to warrant sanction, but IMO it's definitely true that it's been your approach and not Nardog's that's the real problem and that's why other editors responded as they did. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and so if editors are unable to edit productively with their fellow editors, then this is a significant problem. And yes, editors bringing their fellow editors to ANI which is a very severe measure over something which is not really a a significant problem isn't good for collaboration. And as others have said, it's hard to call the edit you are complaining about a significant problem, at most you could say the edit summary should have better explained the problem rather than just saying it was AI. The reversion itself was well justified. Further since you made no sufficient attempt to discuss it with the editor concern before bringing them to ANI, you did not give them the chance to better explain why they reverted you and fix the only possible problem with their edit. Again this isn't good for a collaborative project. You need to be able to talk to your fellow editors and take on board what they say, even when you find something they said or did annoying.Nil Einne (talk)19:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This might be a case ofWP:DOLT. Even the articleTicketron acknowledges that the brand was bought from Ticketmaster and revived. Having Google pick up our categorization and mark it as defuct seems to be causing harm. We should make the changes.--v/r -TP18:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Buying a trademark and starting a new company doesn't mean the old company didn't go defunct. Compare the situation with theBiograph Company, where somebody bought an old trademark and started a new company with the same name some 70 years later. Note that our article isn't about the new company.MrOllie (talk)18:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
IP also made a legal threat against my ANI notification. For what it's worth, I tried revising the lede to mention the 2017 trademark buyout and subsequent online business but was reverted byPemilligan.DigitalIceAge (talk)02:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Vmarkova legal threats
Vmarkovna(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), while logged out, inSpecial:Diff/1247753781, she writesAs whole, this article reads: Criminally deceptive, unfounded, malicious and criminal labeling to indict murder through Wikipedia meant to be informative only. Not a neutral portrayal of a biography. Pointed to murder, written from a pointed perspective to take life. Non neutral igniting violence in hate crime. This hate crime is punishable by a court of law through fine/imprisonment. Hate crime taking a human beings life through resolved suicide of mot resolved. It is obviously this user, as the extensive edits are the same as previously posted by her onJoão Teixeira de Faria, e.g.,Special:Diff/1247575603.
I'm almost wondering if this is impersonation. She has two college degrees, passed the California bar exam and yet her English in the edits to the article and talk page, are barely coherent. She uses the word "murder" liberally in a way that has no connection to its actual or legal meaning and doesn't write like a person who is an American attorney. Her Instagram is all modeling photos but I checked the Bar website and a woman with this name is a practicing attorney. There is just something that doesn't gel with her presentation of herself and her claims about João Teixeira de Faria who, she states repeatedly, is just like Gandhi.LizRead!Talk!22:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
My edits are professional anf pointed at clarity of a human being being murdered by the way this page is written. The word "murder" is used the way it appears in legal act to this writing. I am an attorney United States Supreme Court barred, I write enumerating all basis for rewrite as instructed by you. All words make sense from legal perspective, not from Wikipedia editor's vantage point that doesn't have context. You don't sound like an editor to me as those are kind, not pointed in criminal through accusation unfounded.2601:600:8E00:1936:9B9:6B54:5097:4D39 (talk)22:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Becoming a member of the USSC bar is fairly easy. I’ve seen reports that there are over 70,000 members, so I wouldn’t be using that as a special qualification or proof of being correct in this discussion. — rsjaffe🗣️22:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
So inthis edit summary you stated “Malicious and criminal profiling subject to law suit.”
Withanother edit summary stating “The previous version pre rewrite is criminal malice”.
Taking both of these, it is evident they are both in reference to the article - with an implication the article would be subject to a lawsuit if your edits weren’t accepted.R0paire-wiki (talk)22:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Rsjaffe, there is no legal threat in what was written. What was written in old version of article is clear criminal defamation on its face and could bring legal action as it incites violence and ignites riot. You are taking a human being's life away through criminal prose which is actionable, not a legal threat. You told me to enumerate changes/all basis for edits on Talk page for article, I did exactly that. Keep all changes.2601:600:8E00:1936:9B9:6B54:5097:4D39 (talk)22:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
To clarify the “no legal threat” comment, you agree you will not engage in a legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. Correct? — rsjaffe🗣️22:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Even if the Vmarkova isn't suggesting they will personally take any action, the chilling effect of making such threats remains. If there were substantial problems with any of our articles Vmarkova could have brought them up without saying someone might be subject to criminal sanction for not doing what they ask. (They can't anymore now that they've been rightfully blocked.) AndWP:NLT aside, it's just dumb to make such threats. As aWP:BLP/N regular, I can say that from my experience such threats do not make us take their concerns more seriously. They actually cause us to take them less seriously since probably 95% of the time when editors make such threats there isn't a problem or at least not a significant one. (Although perWP:DOLT we try not to ignore them.) Editors able understand the basics of how stuff works around here will also know they shouldn't make such threats so are much more likely to be correct when they say their is a problem.Nil Einne (talk)07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Good block. Frankly, the English here is so incoherent and poor that, even without the legal and COI issues, there would be a legitimateWP:CIR concern around editing enwiki.Grandpallama (talk)03:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I, too, endorse this block for the belligerent and irrational legal threats, and also agree with Grandpallama that this editor lacks the minimum level of English language competence required to edit here. I am very forgiving of the minor English language errors of good faith editors who learned English as a second language years after birth, and who are clearly here to build this encyclopedia. I will happily copyedit their little quirks. They are among our best editors, and I commend them for the work they do. This editor's writing, on the other hand, is at least an order of magnitude worse. Their prose approaches deranged and hallucinatory territory.Cullen328 (talk)05:19, 26 September 2024 (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 am the blocking administrator. Cryptic revoked talk page access while I was visiting with my granddaughter and picking up a pizza.Cullen328 (talk)03:08, 26 September 2024 (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.
No worries. I am suspicious of non-standard domains as well as things get shady really fast with some TLDs. You could easily replace the .co with the .com and have it all still work.spryde |talk14:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
On the English Wikipedia you probably should switch it. .co is the TLD for Colombia - that is why the IPs version of the link has a Spanish-language UI.MrOllie (talk)16:39, 26 September 2024 (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.
I meant to block that IP, while allowing accounts from that IP to edit. Also, 99.175.18.1, is registered to School District 57, Prince George, BCLuhanopi (talk)18:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Kpako4stories has CSD-nommed the article forThe NBM of Africa, which is known as the Neo-Black Movement of Africa is registered under the laws of Nigeria. This published article is defamatory and we as an organization will not stand and watch criminals or unscrupulous elements damage the reputation of this Organization. We have written a court order that this article should be taken down speedily.Sincerely, Dilettante20:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I, for one, am concerned they (at least ostensibly) jumped to filing a court order after their AFC was denied, rather than discussing it. That's a tad more drastic than an ANI filing. Unlike a mere threat, which can be made in the heat of the moment, it indicates they are unlikely to back down.Sincerely, Dilettante20:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
They're welcome to withdraw the threat at any time and perhaps have the block lifted, butWP:DOLT...once they make such an unambiguous statement I agree that an immediate block is reasonable. There is no alternative beyond "you are prohibited by policy from editing unless and until you withdraw it", and it's reasonable discretion to enforce that with a block. Legal threats aren't a level1 up to level4 warning situation, and it's not for us to try to discern how serious they are about it.DMacks (talk)20:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Having taken a quick look at the article in question, I'd have to suggest that at least some of the complaints about it may be entirely legitimate. It appears to include, amongst other things, unsourced allegations of rape and murder.AndyTheGrump (talk)22:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Each sentence containing the word "rape" or "murder" has a cite after it; one is even as part of a cited direct quote.DMacks (talk)02:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Happymappy12342 has engaged in repeated unsourced additions toCarlisle Public Schools, which they were informed of byWillondon. Happymappy took to continuing to reinstate their unsourced additions, as well as disrupt Willondon's user and talk pages. Happymappy has created a very obvious sock account, called Happymappy123, seemingly to get around their p-block on Carlisle Public Schools imposed byPonyo (see filter log). Any admin willing to take action on these accounts would be greatly appreciated.GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)01:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
User:DanielTokenhouse has made persistent controversial edits to various articles implying that the subjects harbour Anti-English/British sentiment or to question whether or not they are English, British or Irish. Most of these edits are without any sources.
For the articles of Rich Peppiatt, Steve Coogan, Miriam Margolyes and John Oliver, they have implied they have renounced their British citizenship without any source, which has been reverted in all cases.
The user has changed the ethnonyms on the articles for Johnny Marr, Kirsty MacColl, Andy Farrell, Liam Farrell, Owen Farrell, Steve Coogan, John Squire and Ian Brown, to state they are Irish, without any source stating they identify as such.
For theJoe (website) article, they implied the Irish version was Anglophobic without a reference, further implying the same for theKneecap (band) yet using a joke interview from the aforementioned article subject as a reference.
The user'ssecond,third andfifth edits show they not only know how to use citations but also know the correct format.
Although it would have been nice for the OP to have provided diffs, it only took a few minutes examining DanielTokenhouse's edits to see severe problems. For example, they wrote thatRich Peppiatt hasrenounced his British citizenship, surely a highly contentious claim, and they provided no reference to a reliable source. Worth noting is that Peppiatt apparently still lives in the UK, in Belfast. Similarly with the far more famousJohn Oliver who, as is widely known, became a US citizen in 2019. But dual citizenship is a thing and many people are citizens of both the US and the UK. AtTalk: John Oliver they wroteNo, he publicly renounced his British citizenship. He’s stated on more than one occasion he’s ashamed of his association with the “shithole” country and never wants to be associated with it again. When asked to provide a reliable source for that claim, he did not do so. In the article, he wrote that Oliverhas stated on multiple occasions how ashamed he is of being born in the United Kingdom and his dislike of British people without providing a reference verifying this highly contentious claim. I could be wrong but I have been unable to find reliable sources that verify that Oliver has renounced his UK citizenship or that he broadly dislikes "British people". The editor also clearly dislikes Irish musical performers who sing or say negative things about the UK, and seems determined to call them "Anglophobes" without bothering to provide references to reliable sources describing them as Anglophobes. His edits to various members of the Farrell family are to attempt to deny that they are English while failing to produce any reliable sources that they are not English. My conclusion is that this editor is an ethnonationalist POV pusher who simply does not see the need to provide references to reliable sources verifying his contentious assertions.
Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked this editor for BLP violations and also for persistent additions of unsourced content, POV pushing, and tendendtious editing.Cullen328 (talk)05:28, 27 September 2024 (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.
Thank you. I'll note that I wasin the process of formatting a reply when I got bombarded by a bunch of talk page notifications and emails that I couldn't clear. It's hard to figure out how to get rid of that yellow banner when the software doesn't like the location of your talk page. And then you panic/lose a lot of good faith given the new location of my user page.Bobby Cohn (talk)16:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
No kidding. I'm not going to act on Liz's warning, since I can't find the vandalism she's talking about, but I hope one of that editor's next edits is an apology and not more inventively rude vandalism, for their own sake. --asilvering (talk)16:51, 25 September 2024 (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 is conveniently again using selective quotations that suits their bias. "I included several references and citations, you did nothing but include a note by some guy. Ought I find some note about how worthless persian sources are." The charge of xenophobia is nonsensical as the xenophobic opinion expressed by the note that they left is being described as "worthless, meaning that an opinion saying the same thing about 'persians' would be equallyworthless.
This is what was said, the note they left in place of primary sources that actually had numerical figures:
"According to Daryaee, "Islamic texts usually report the number of the Persian soldiers to have been in the hundreds or tens of thousands and several times larger than the Arab armies. This ispure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars."
Even non-Arab sources were rejected for this user to suit their bias. Even if those primary sources were cited by people being cited in the main article. And I don't even know if the user is Persian or not.M7md AAAA (talk)19:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
It's obvious that I cut parts of the quote to only highlight your attacks (hence the "...."), which is what is the point of this report. And by all means, please show the diff that says I rejected a source because it was by an Arab, because such diff doesn't exist. All I did was mentionWP:PST, which made you immediately start your attacks. Also,Touraj Daryaee is a historian (he doesn't use the word "worthless" either, more made up stuff), you're not - we base our info on academic sources, as you've already been told when I mentionedWP:RS andWP:SCHOLARSHIP. Yet I am clearly the "hyper emotional" one here, everyone can see your treatment towards me here[320].HistoryofIran (talk)19:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
In the talk page the user refuses to include anything that doesn't agree with them I'm new to the wiki interface so I cannot use wiki as weapons of abuse as well as he can. I am not interested in engaging with a party that actively hampers knowledge. Here is the previous wiki page, Please look at and judge for yourselves. I even asked for arbitration, but the user here did not relent. The user appears to be the xenophobic here, using personal affiliation as bases. I have no knowledge of his person to base that on anything.
I did not alter the xenophobic note that he put in place of the figure, or the figures that were there before. I fixed them as they were being cited as medieval estimates, which nonsensical. I added additional numbers and actial primary sources because I am neutral as far as what had happened, but the user here appears to act as if the article is a fact finding mission.
Without evidence? What? How is removing numerical figures for a derogatory note acceptable ? Are all primary sources taboo on wikipedia now? Should all battles from antiquity, or even the modern era (as the figures from them too are contested) ought to be replaced by a concise offensive remark? By the logic the user is employing here, in guise of factuality, that is the case.M7md AAAA (talk)20:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, because I removed those poor citations perWP:PST/WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that does not make a xenophobe, using my "personal afflilation", "using clunky wiki interface as a weapon of abuse", or any of your other accusations. As for yourWP:REHASH argument, again, readWP:OTHER. We're not going to ignore the policies of this website merely because you oppose them, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to constantly attack me.HistoryofIran (talk)20:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Apparently the user is unable to use actual words, again utilising wiki interface as their weapon of misuse. And those citations aren't poor, they're all we have. The user is being ridiculous.M7md AAAA (talk)20:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Proving what?WP:PST/WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not support removing everything to suit xenophobic tendencies. And again they're the figures being used in modern scholarship, as elaborated in the talk page. What is this nonsense? In addition their ad hominem against my contributions are baseless, they actually resulted in anew article in which they were included (M7md AAAA (talk)20:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Proving that you seem unable to interact in a consructive manner with editors who disagree with you, unable to stick to comments about the topic rather than editors and, last but not least, unable to avoidpersonal attacks.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)07:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Ironic, givenEdit warring the user is engaged in. This second useralsoremoved any sources that do not agree with themWP:Overzealous deletion, though I had assumed at the time it was because of my errors in editing, then went one for several more hours to make my additions in the same style of the original article, yet I can't help but see this as another user who simply hates Arabs, and Arab sources. The note is Xenophobic, offensive, and worthless. Why is the summary of the battle being used as a springboard for an agenda? That literally what it is being used for, not what it is assumed to be used for. Not only did I not remove the note, I simply added more information to the topic. But the first user here added the link here from the talk page, hence the second user's remark.WP:Gaming the system twice over?M7md AAAA (talk)13:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
"this as another user who simply hates Arabs, and Arab sources." What are you talking about ? Any of your comments contains attacks towards other editors, which only proves my above comment.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@M7md AAAA, are you using primary sources on an article about a battle from antiquity? You should not be doing that, no, except in certain circumstances (such as to say something like "Tertullian said that 'blah blah'; however, modern historians believe that 'blah blah'." Weaving together an article based on historical sources from antiquity isWP:OR. --asilvering (talk)18:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
That's what I did. See thenote that I added, which was more informative thantheirs.
@M7md AAAA, yes, that looks likeWP:OR to me, as described. (Note that in the example I said was acceptable, the ancient historian's statement is immediately answered by one from a modern historian.) --asilvering (talk)03:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
What? Remove herodotus' figures from theBattle of Thermopylae then and add that note instead. Why the double standards? I left the note, added nuance. They removed nuance. I added non-Arab sources which are used by modern historians, and they still removed it. Ibn Khaldun already did the work "modern" historians do.M7md AAAA (talk)03:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
BegoneWP:Gaming the system. I have no interest in some racist xenophobe. How many Editors has this user scared off wikipedia, followed by them running around talking about how the grandeur of their contribution, how many contributions of higher value has their existence prevented by his terror tactics?M7md AAAA (talk)16:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment : The reported editor seems unable to engage in a constructive manner when they have a disagreement with another editor, they comment on editors, not the topic and they makepersonal attacks. Sounds like we havenothere case here.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)07:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
We have a case ofWP:BOOMERANG actually. The user conducted themselves in bad faith, not being assumed to. Again, explain yourselves, you who also aided them in their corruption of the article. The xenophobic note is contradicted by other sources; non-Arab, non-Muslim sources. Yet again this is omitted, censored, and obfuscated followed byWP:Disruptive sanctions to scare away anyone that's after the spread of inconvenient facts. It seems the article for the battle is being used as a springboard to cast a shadow of doubt over all Arab sources with a note, one that is utterly nonsensical by the fact that non-Arab sources use figures that are actually MORE than the range Arab sources cite. Why is this note not being left in place for all the Greco-Persian battles now? According to the reasoning deployed in the aforementioned article by the two users here, where primary sources are omitted for the sake of offensive remarks, all numbers in all Greco-Persian battle articles (in particular the summary) ought be omitted for the sake of that singular note, whichsays the very same thing about Greek sources being worthless. Why aren't the numbers in TheBattle of Thermopylae omitted for that note? By their reasoning there is a far greater case to make for that. Not only is it similar in scope, not only are the parties involved named in that illustrious note, it lacks corroborating non-Greek sources for numbers involved to boot; unlike the situation here which had non-Arab sources, which I added,and they removed, and the reason why we are having this conversation here in the first place. Instead of letting the reader judge for themselves, the users here act as censors to tell the reader what they ought to think.M7md AAAA (talk)12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Are you done constantly tweaking your comment? Most readers aren't going to see all the changes you've made to it over the last 24 hours. Please stop constantly reviewing and altering it.Canterbury Tailtalk16:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
They can see them if they want to.Changes were made right after posting, they're additions for the most part. I'm actually here to add that the reason why that note isn't inplace of every single Greco-Persian battle instead of figures is because they have more eyes on them, hence corrupting the article wouldn't be as tenable."tweaks" in italics.M7md AAAA (talk)02:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
M7md AAAA has now started throwingWP:ASPERSIONS against me in my other ANI thread[321]. This isWP:HOUNDING. They are also ironically the oneWP:GAMING here, making a DRN thread[322] right after they were told that they engaged inWP:OR by asilvering. To no surprise, they are also attacking me (and Wikaviani) in the thread, even commenting in OUR summary of disputes.HistoryofIran (talk)07:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Go away man. You're neither interesting, nor worthwhile to me. I asked for arbitration, because you are clearly an oldhand at abuse of the system here and I did not want the article to remain corrupted. Enough terror tactics. How many Editors has this user scared offf wikipedia, followed by them running around talking about how they have positive contributions, how many better contributions, better editors has their existence prevented?M7md AAAA (talk)16:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to request an administratorindefinitely block M7md AAAA asWP:NOTHERE due to their doubling down on the use of personal attacks (I have no interest in some racist xenophobe. of HoI, above) and inability or refusal to useWP:SCHOLARSHIP. If they have a change of heart, they can request an unblock and contribute to the encyclopedia without casting aspersions at other users.EducatedRedneck (talk)17:06, 27 September 2024 (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.
Urgent admin action needed
Could an admin please semi-protect talk:Hassan_Nasrallah for two days? The amount of IP vandalism and disruption, much of it openly racist and derogatory, is at levels I've never seen. I requested at RfPP but the backlog there is very heavy and urgent action would be needed.Jeppiz (talk)09:19, 28 September 2024 (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 have created and maintained a section the the Charities Commission enquiry into, amongst other things sexual abuse of the charity's beneficiaries at an RNIB facility in Coventry. The content is supported by national news outlets considered reliable for contentious statements;
Since adding the content staff from the charity have contacted me via social media demanding my full name and address and when I refused to provide them with this information gangs of Police officers have been showing up at my house banging on my door in the middle of the night waking up the whole street and when they didn't get a response they went to my sick elderly parent's house and woke them up too. I believe the article's subject is weaponising theOnline Safety Act 2023 to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary. What steps can be taken to de-escalate this matter while preserving the article's independense and objectivity? What legal rights do I have as a content creator on this platform?𝔓420°𝔓Holla09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I'll bite: since you have no personal information on your user page, how is it the charity could have possibly found you on social media? How would the police be coming to your door? As far as "weaponising" the Online Safety act goes, the information about the inquiry appears not merely to be in the article, butdominates it. The article's "independence" and objectivity does not now seem to be at stake. As far as what dealings you and your family might have with UK law enforcement, that's not part of Wikipedia's remit, nor does the WMF have any authority over that. Ravenswing10:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Any number of ways, it's a small country where everyone knows everyone.
In terms of due weight. I mean, it's difficult to balance the POV when the secondary coverage of the scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since with the possible exception of election accessibility.𝔓420°𝔓Holla10:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
You are underestimating how much information a dedicated person can find about a person online. One photo can compromise location, one shared username(or even email) could expose private accounts, email and some money is all that is necessary to reveal personal information collected bydata brokers. I deliberately performed a clean start for this reason, 'ca' is basically unsearchable.Catalk to me!11:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Generally on Wikipedia here, as long as there isno legal threats on the platform, there is nothing much we can do. Even if there is, it would likely result in a block on that account making the threat. As for your offline personality being known, there's nothing much we can do. You may have to seek legal advice on your own.– robertsky (talk)10:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. As a Brit myself, I am unconvinced by "it's a small country where everyone knows everyone." I am certainly not on friendly terms with every single one of the other 69 million people on these isles. Regardless, about the article - that section dominating an article for a 156-year old charity ismassivelyWP:UNDUE and needs to get trimmed significantly. It probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead either.Black Kite (talk)12:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
And thirded. I have never seen the UK described like that, except by very ignorant people from other countries who were disappointed that I didn't know Prince Charles (as he then was) personally.Phil Bridger (talk)18:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
It would be more believable if one comes from a smaller country like myself, but even then, I wouldn't know everyone in this 42km-long island, neither do I expect everyone to know me.– robertsky (talk)02:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
And really, it's not believable at all. Only in lurid fiction and tabloid fantasies can one find omniscient charities who can mobilize squads of brownshirts at the drop of an utterly unremarkable username. We're being BSed here. Ravenswing14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeed; I couldn't even tell you ifbanging on my door in the middle of the night waswaking up the whole street. Checking the article's history, I findI have created and maintained a section the the Charities Commission enquiry is not the whole story; GDX420 also deleted much positive content.[327] Expostulating aboutthe scandal outweighs anything they've done before or since (above, albeit slightly qualified) and an edit summary aboutAlton Towers for nonces[328] adds a flavour ofWP:RGW.NebY (talk)13:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Honestly it seems like GDX420 is determined to just turn the entire article into a hit piece against the RNIB, and their edit history does show that perhaps they're a little too obsessed with doing so. Does the scandal have a place, yes it does. Does it deserve to override everything else and even delete general information from the lead, absolutely not. I'd suggest GDX420 is outright blocked from the page and everyone else gets involved in resetting it and rebalancing the article and removing undue.Canterbury Tailtalk13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Whether or not off-wiki events have occurred as described, GDX420's description of their stance –"I believe the article's subject is weaponising the Online Safety Act 2023 to whitewash their reputation, mislead their donors and keep their Royal charter by any means neccessary" – and edit summaries such asAnyone who disagrees is complicit with child abuse.[329] don't indicate someone who can edit the article collaboratively and in accord withWP:NPOV.NebY (talk)13:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that particular edit-summary and on that alone I have partially blocked GDX420 from the article. If I'd seen it at the time, that block might well have been site-wide.Black Kite (talk)14:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Black Kite I think topic banning GDX420 from attempting to investigate or fix COI editing would be a reasonable step here, since a lot of the disruption seems to stem from their belief that this article is being edited by COI editors. They have had issues with lacking the competence to properly deal with paid editing in the past, resulting in two previous ANI threads[330][331] and their previous block.86.23.109.101 (talk)16:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
In 1914, the organisation relocated to larger premises inGreat Portland Street and changed its name to The National Institute for the Blind, or NIB, to reflect its status as a national body involved in all aspects of the welfare of blind people.[1]Traumnovelle (talk)20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The police banged on your door in the middle of the night, didn't bring any tools to forcibly enter, just left after waking up the entire street, and then went to your parents' house to ... mosey around? Pull the other one.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)00:09, 26 September 2024 (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.
Thewikizoomer Bludgeoning
Per consensus in the sub-section below,Thewikizoomer (talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from theARBIPA general editing area, broadly construed. A reminder to Thewikizoomer that this topic-ban applies to the individual, not the account, and any attempt to start editing with a new account to evade this sanction will see that account blocked.Daniel (talk)09:32, 29 September 2024 (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 never said a single point again and again. My discussion lead to clearing misunderstanding that took place.
Most importantly, my inputs may have also made it clear to users unfamiliar with the subject that they are different companies.
And also my inputs were civil, reasonable, and much needed for reaching consensus. The discussions available at Afds are self explanatory to this.
Also the user @Scope creep may note "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed forconsensus building." as mentioned inWP:BLUD.
If anything is undesirable here, that is trying to create hostility by using words such as "one more comment and I'll take you to WP:ANI" like an involved user saidhere which doesn't appear to be a comment to be made on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
You're literally aggressively responding to every single comment, sometimes multiple times. These links read like you're clearly trying to dominate the conversation perWP:BLUDGEON. Responding to people with things like "so according to me it doesn't make sense" and "it's still unfair" are not helpful or substantive. Make all your points and leave others to make theirs and let the closer evaluate consensus. An ANI warning was fair at this point, though I don't think action needs to be taken if you actuallyback off and quit trying to be the grand inquisitor of this article.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
My intent was never to be aggressive or dominate, the intent was to clear misunderstandings and nothing else as most users may not be aware of how Indian Power Sector is structured or work, so yeah, let us let the closer evaluate the consensus.Thewikizoomer (talk)18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment — I find Thewikizoomer's behaviour to be very problematic, for example they responded to scope_creep's comments with the exact same comment beginning with "Oppose merge all" in bold despite them already voting[332] Constantbadgering[333][334][335][336]. Accusing scope_creep[337] of personally attacking them when there was nothing in their reply that could be considered as such[338].Their recent edits where they movedPune airport toJagadguru Sant Tukaram Maharaj Airport[339], as well as renaming mentions of it on different articles[340][341][342][343][344][345], in spite of the fact it is not the official name yet, let a common one[346]. Their mass merging proposals of NTPC building articles are problematic as well.[347][348] Especially when the rationale for it is seemingly lacking in any actual policy. "Owned by NTPC and there is little to no reason to have separate article, All plants are owned by one company". They have nominated articles[349][350] created by@CharlieMehta: who voted oppose on the original Afd, in their reply to Thewikizoomer they said[351]:"I have noticed your actions on the NTPC Power Plant pages I created as per WP:NBUILDING rule. This seems to be driven by a sense of vengeance". Since this report was filed, they have been mass welcoming new users despite some of those users having zero edits[352][353][354][355], I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to bury their edit history in order to avoid scrutiny. I would also like to state that Thewikizoomer is aware ofCT IPA.Ratnahastin(talk)01:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I welcome new users when I have time to do so. Also being a user with over 5000 edits, it would be very dumb of me to think that this welcoming of users will "bury" my edit history. The welcoming of users is done as my everyday interest and nothing else.
@Thewikizoomer: You haven't addressed any of the issues that have been pointed out by me andMrSchimpf. You say that "I welcome new users when I have time to do so" but this does not address why you welcomed users that have made zero edits to this site. AsWP:WELCOMING clearly states "welcome new users who havealready madeconstructive edits". Starting welcoming new users right after proposing merger of over 30 articles[356][357] does give an impression of burying edit history.
How do you explain your blanket merge proposals of NTPC power station articles[359], especially when you have proposed multiple of them to be merged within a single minute[360][361][362]. I don't think that short window of time is enough for you to decide whether an article should be merged or not.Ratnahastin(talk)09:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed all of them and before-hand and nominated for merger. I'm not aware of WP:WELCOMING, now I am. Pune airport name change did occur and citations can be found too in the article, I added more than 1 citation regarding name change.Thewikizoomer (talk)15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The source noted "The decision was taken at a state cabinet meeting, an official said, adding the proposal will be sent to the Centre."[363] The fact you have misinterpreted and misrepresented these sources to portray an approval of a proposal as an actual rename serves as a testament to yourWP:CIR issues.Ratnahastin(talk)16:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Thewikizoomer, before this discussion snowballs into sanctions, can you stop participating in these identified AFDs? I'm sure you have already made your opinions known at this point. But this step would be a start in curbing some of your behavior which has been identified as problematic.LizRead!Talk!06:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
After checking diffs presented by Ratnahastin[364][365][366] and reviewing Thewikizoomer's behaviour in this thread, especially comments such asthisComment: Any issues other than WP:BLUD, use appropriate forum when this board is exactly for highlighting a user's problematic behaviour. And that he is still continuing to misrepresent sources in order to defend his disruptive page move.[367][368] This was after he received warnings for undiscussed page moves[369][370]. He made a page move request today by citing that the target name was more popular in Google books ngram, when in reality it's the opposite.[371] This blatant misrepresentation has shown us that he has seriousWP:CIR issues and is causing alot of problems in ARBIPA topic area. Therefore, I propose that Thewikizoomer be topic banned from all articles related to ARBIPA (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) broadly construed.Georgethedragonslayer (talk)17:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment That misrepresentation of the source on the Pune rename is problematic for me. Its a false representation of information and straight up NPOV and incorrect rename of an article. Its more than that. I don't know enough about the area to call for a topic ban. A simple reading of the source, it states it clearly would have show not to go ahead, but it could also have inexperience but it could beWP:CIR. In all respects its a very poor decision.scope_creepTalk10:27, 28 September 2024 (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.
Repeated unsourced minor edits
58.235.154.8 (talk) has repeatedly made minor edits (Changing a month to the following month, for future planned events) without reference. He has been told not to on his talk page. This behavior is essentially the entirety of the user's contributions.Narnianknight (talk)17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Warningleaked the detail of personal number on edit summaryNote: he mentioned he will again commit this abbuse often after the page got unprotected automatically217.162.74.162 (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)He accompanied by various other suspect you can vitally check on edit summary for brief acquisition217.162.74.162 (talk)— Precedingundated comment added05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I should've added an exasperated sigh sound effect because your comment misses the mark by a mile.
Thank you for receiving the concerns in the spirit they were intended.SnowRise let's rap11:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Stale, so Checkuser won't be any help. Behaviorally, yeah that's probably him. The pattern matches; some people just have too much time on their hands. I'll file a pro forma SPI to get it logged in case this it can be useful for a future CU.The WordsmithTalk to me03:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
to
, from
to
, and from
to
(diff) – this made almost no visual difference and the latter are templates that include alt text,which is necessary for functional icons.Impru20 reverted my edits with no explanation, so I went to his talk page to discuss. There, he accused me of
Self-trout. I really would value an opportunity for a "do-over" and a second opinion on the content dispute at hand.Impru20, I'm sorry for all the stress I've caused.WMSR (talk)00:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Done by HJ Mitchell.QwertyForest (talk)10:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Note:Thewikizoomer appears to have retired. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )00:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)