Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Wefa and nothere

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

After two attempts at subtle POV pushing on Talk:Libs of TikTok [1][2] they dropped all pretense of editing in good faith or respecting NPOV and posted this:

I have given up on this article. The discussion archived above has amply shown that the cognitive divide has reached such an extent that we seem to live in different universes. Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children, see LOT as a courageous whistleblower and critic, the above mentioned group sees her as a hatemonger and is motivated to paint her in the worst light possible. There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.

In such a situation, especially with the "paint in worst light" part, Wikipedia's policies just do not work. The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences. The mostly lefty administrators and the various informal councils make sure of that.

And that is that. We as Wikipedians collectively get the Encyclopedia we collectively deserve, and right now, that picture is less than pretty. All I can say on this point is good luck with this article. Wefa (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Which to me says that they're not just done editing that talk page but its time for them to say goodby to the project as a whole, I guess I would accept a topic ban from anything related to sexuality, gender, or politics but they appear to intend to disrupt more than just those topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have left a DS notice for WP:ARBGSDS. Not looked into the comment much more than to see it was under the scope of that DS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This person hasn't disrupted anything, and they're arguing for NPOV, so I don't see any reason to ban them from anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not an argument for NPOV. In fact, it's the opposite, a call to slant the article towards the conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That is hardly evidence of anything. In my personal experience, no person who ever tried to go against NPOV in any serious capacity (i.e. not straight up vandalising) did so by openly stating that they have an axe to grind. Ostalgia (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a poor look, IMHO, to hand someone a topic ban (or worse, an indef) for no other cause than that he's expressed sentiments on the talk page that you don't like. The best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and I am not sure I favor a ban, but when you start accusing your interlocutors of being in league with "Mengeles," to my mind it is something more than expressing a sentiment that people don't like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless they set off carving a path of distuption across the encyclopedia, there doesn't seem to be any point blocking, and while they have been playing at the edge of stuff that can get users banned, they haven't gone there yet. Based on what they've said, they might have been NOTHERE (on that page anyway), but they apparently aren't there anymore anyway (i.e. they left). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That was yesterday and they didn't leave, they were removed[3]. Note User talk:Shibbolethink#you hid my talk page text on Libs of Tiktok where Wefa castigates @Shibbolethink: for removing their rant from the talk page. Also note they're now disrupting their own talk page, how is this not carving a path of disruption across the encyclopedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Treating them preferentially because they've invoked baseless conspiracy theories is a bad look, its effectively a get out of sanctions free card. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

They aren't commenting here but they don't seem all that worried about our enforcement action... From their talk page (emphasis added):

You are basically making my point. That article is constantly changed without consent, against the objections of a the conservative editors present, and no editor nor admin saw need to call out, let alone threaten, the editors doing that. AGF was immediately violated by other editors who called my position transphobic; "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

But as soon as I point out the discrepancy, as well as the fundamental problem with editing Wikipedia under such circumstances, several people jump at me, you with all your administrators might threaten me on my own talk page. Where was such threats/warnings for those who called all conservatives "transphobic"?

Yep. Thanks for making my point. Wefa (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editors who can't set aside their fringe beliefs have no business editing the encyclopedia because they are incapable of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to this user's apparent belief that people with XY chromosomes are men and people with XX chromosomes are women, I don't think that can be called fringe for any standard definition of "fringe". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE is things which aren't accepted by mainstream medicine, science, and/or academia. Such as the opinions you just elucidated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wew, you're just going for every checkbox on the "how do I get banned" bingo, aren't you? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with editors here that Wefa's conduct is disruptive and pretty clearly not here to build consensus. It amounts to the my way or the highway style of argument. But I also agree that the best way to deal with this editor is to stop giving them what they want. This user engages in long drawn out time-wasting culture war arguments. So why don't we all stop engaging? Either they will run out of steam, or they'll edit article space against consensus or in a disruptive manner, thereby justifying their own WP:NOTHERE block. If they, instead, decide to edit more productive and less vitriolic areas of the encyclopedia, it's a win for everybody. To summarize: WP:DFTT. Honestly I would apply this same logic to several other users in the space as well. If they bludgeon, edit against consensus, or otherwise break rules, then that should be dealt with appropriately. If all they’re doing is spouting out loud culture war arguments in support of their conspiracy theory, then collapse, delete, or ignore.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

you would be wrong in your assumption. My note on that talk page was to explain why I would refrain from further editing the article, and was prompted by someone else's comment on the talk page asking for my input. Unfortunately someone had deleted my comment from the talk page near instantly, so the majority of editors there probably did not even see it. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the best course of action is to just let it go. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable. I just see an editor who is tired of being contested, which is fairly understandable. When you get into the weeds of controversial or political topics on WP it's hard to internalize that we aren't here to preach the truth, we're here to aggregate information from public sources. I think just letting them storm off is best for everyone. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Wefa: It's best to just not make such editorializing comments on talk pages. Just state your opinion about the content dispute and move on. That's all you can do. If you continue to make such comments you will likely be topic banned rather soon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• that is basically clear to me, too. I just underestimated how fast the Wikipedia landscape on that matter had changed. Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees. I explained here - clearly I think - why in the context of Wikipedia, its rules, and the people currently interpreting and enforcing those rules, editing under such circumstances leads nowhere. I originally came there to make a suggestion to improve NPOV, but went down in flames quickly.

BTW - thanks for the ping - I had missed this debate here completely. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to claim that Wefa is NOTHERE. They've done good work on a wide range of articles through the years. That doesn't mean that they aren't about one poorly-worded comment from a long-term DS block, though. Stop comparing other people to Nazis, take a break, edit articles that aren't going to raise your (and everyone else's) blood pressure, and keep being a valued member of the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to."

That is one of many such comments, and though you do not say it explicitly, I would caution against seeing this as weighing their other "good work" to this disruption. The net positive fallacy is pervasive, and is unhelpful.

The comment, and others, aren't even an attempt to discuss what's supported by reliable sources, it's pure culture war soapboxing. It should be considered in the context of the harm caused, not in the context of their other work.

It's one thing to disagree on how we include reliable sources, it's another for Wefa to compare people to Nazis when they disagree with him. Accusing other editors of being part of "the left's propaganda arm" when consensus is against them, is also not constructive, nor are the many other implicit and explicit accusations of bad faith.

The trend here, i.e. Wefa's insistence that people either agree with him or are acting in bad faith, is not indicative of intent to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't weigh the other good work against the disruption. I just say that the other good work tends to invalidate the NOTHERE accusation. You can be HERE and disruptive at the same time. Wefa has been very thoroughly warned of the community expectations at this point: it's their choice if they're going to listen or if they need to be separated from the community for a time for the good of the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats fair but someone can also be NOTHERE and have made productive contributions to the project. This isn't exactly new behavior though, two years ago they were at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with a very similar rant about "The current debate climate is not conductive for a solution. For the time being we have to live with Wikipedia's erosion of NPOV, and see it slowly become Leftopedia on political matters. And that includes the constant low key disparaging of conservatives in their respective BLPs."[4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

2018 at Talk:Rape in Islamic law "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves, even though we can guess it from peripheral parts. This is unencyclopedic"[5]. From what I'm seeing in their edit history the vast majority of their edits are not constructive at least from 2018 to the present. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Considering the message posted by Horse Eye's Back, and their decision to continue that kind of narrative here, a topic ban from gender and sexuality seems more appropriate. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. I’m in support of a topic ban from gensex with a warning for wider soapbox issues. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• We have lots of editors in the GENSEX topic area, of all manner of POVs, who are good at separating strong private feelings from their encyclopedia editing. This does not strike me as such an editor, and an indef GENSEX TBAN under DS seems reasonable. I've been minimally involved (viz. I made two "gain consensus first" reverts) in a dispute over whether puberty blockers are chemical castration, so probably shouldn't be the one to impose that sanction, if only to avoid an appearance of impropriety; but if another admin wishes to do so, I think that would be in keeping with recent "jurisprudence" in the GENSEX area [6] [7]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Whilst I did suggest that a siteban or siteblock wouldn't be helpful, a TBAN most certainly should be on the cards. If they aren't going to voluntarily keep out of a contentious area which they have obvious issues with editing in accordance with policy on (including soapboxing on article talkpages and their own talkpage), they need a TBAN. I'd say that, in WP:ARBGSDS, they show signs of not being there to build an encyclopedia, but in others, they are definitely constructive. By stopping the distracting stuff, hopefully they will be more helpful in the areas where they are HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really struggling to find helpful edits in any area post 2018, it almost looks like two completely different editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Most of 2021 looks fairly reasonable. What am I missing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  That there are only 19 edits in all of 2021 perhaps? Their very first edit in 2022 was POV pushing at Soy Boy[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think a GENSEX TBAN is a bit tough at this point. At least give them another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I actually don't think it's a bit tough. I just really want to give them a chance to fix things themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

GENSEX TBAN: Wefa

I feel like it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other whether to move this to WP:AE or make it a community sanction, but since we already have multiple opinions expressed above, I'll go with the latter (although I do think it would still be acceptable for any uninvolved admin to issue a DS TBAN). Proposed: For repeated comments in the topic area not oriented toward building an encyclopedia, Wefa is indefinitely topic-banned from gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people.

Already expressing opinions above: Ravenswing (generally against), Vermont (for), Mako001 (not against), Iamreallygoodatcheckers (against), SarekOfVulcan (not against). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I'll reïterate my comment above that we've already had two DS TBANs this year for similar conduct. [9] [10] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wefa has acknowledged the issue and have been adequately warned. I have no reason to believe more restriction is needed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Give them a second chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  How is Wefa coming to ANI to say "Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees." at all describable as having "acknowledged the issue"? Or this comment, the other response to this ANI thread. It's the exact behavior that resulted in Wefa being brought here and it's this singular interest in discussion over ideology rather than sources which necessitates a TBAN. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The editor made a couple soapbox edits on one talk page. When he was confronted about it here he said that it's "basically clear" to him that he needs to stop. The quote you mentioned is Wefa explaining how they view Wikipedia and the topic have changed recently; he hasn't been editing much in the last few years. It's reasonable that he might be a little rusty and ignorant to Wikipedia standards today. There's no evidence of sustained disruption in the GENSEX area by this user. Therefore, a topic ban would be more punitive than preventative. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  So, he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, and he has come to AN/I to continue to show that he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but no disruption would be prevented by banning him from GENSEX discussions? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  "he has come to AN/I to continue to show" isn't accurate; he was brought here, he didn't come here to continue to show anything. It'd be different if he had inserted himself into a dispute that didn't involve him. Levivich (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I've read through the proceeding discussion, and some of Wefa's other contributions. I think a topic ban from GENSEX content is the right call here. To editors who believe we should not topic ban for just talk page contributions, I'd point out that actually in practice we do. To quote/paraphrase from another AE case (comments by admin Joe) where an editor was topic banned because of their talk page contributions; it is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and contributing to the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people (conflating gender affirming care as mutilation of children, likening health care professionals with Josef Mengele, asserting that transphobia does not exist, denying that trans and non-binary people are who they say they are) in a way that is contrary to the UCOC and the civility policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Wefa lacks the sensitivity and tact required to edit in this topic area productively and collaboratively. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not seeing where -- and there haven't been any diffs to demonstrate -- (a) Wefa has made ban-worthy objectionable edits to articlespace, or (b) where he's continued to make objectionable and explosive comments to article talk pages in this line. I'll reiterate my statement from above: the best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The thing is, we are discussing a topic ban, not a site ban. It is clear from Wefa's talk comment quoted above that they disagree profoundly with both the enwiki community consensus and the consensus of reliable sources on key questions in the GENSEX topic area, to the extent that they are willing at least to make a public thought experiment about crusading against consensus reality. In this context, what purpose is served by allowing an editor to contribute to a topic area within which any contribution they make is bound to be counter to policy, and therefore disruptive? The whole point of sanctions is to prevent future disruption, is it not? This isn't about "thought crime", it is about contributing to a collaborative project. Wefa's comment - conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else - is essentially an assertion, against all the sources on the topic, that transgender identity does not exist. Editors can believe what they like, but bringing their pastafarian or flat earth beliefs into the determination of article content in this way is inherently disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Meh, Wefa had made all of 20 edits in 2022 before this. AFAICT, ~1,500 edits over 18 years and there apparently has never been a problem before, until Sep 19, 2022, when Wefa made one offensive forum/soapbox-y article talk page comment and a second, similar user talk page comment; the sentiments were repeated a third time in this ANI thread above. Wefa hasn't edited in the past week. I don't think going straight to a TBAN for two disruptive edits (not counting ANI) is merited, particularly for an editor who barely edits. What are we preventing? I see no reason to think this problem will be repeated, and if it is, the proper mode of action is a full NOTHERE site ban (or block), not a TBAN. But for context, here's a perfectly fine comment from earlier on Sep 19, and another from Sep 11, I do not see any kind of ongoing pattern outside of two edits on Sep 19. They barely edit; most of their edits are fine; the disruption is limited to two comments posted on one day; I continue to support closing with a warning but a TBAN is too much paperwork for this. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support are we seriously just going to give this user a slap on the wrist in this topic for comparing transgender care to Josef Mengele? There is no way Wefa can edit this area in a civil or reasonable manner. Dronebogus (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• It's bizarre to see opposes based on "too much paperwork" and what amounts to WP:DENY. Not only does Wefa compares their fellow editors to a Nazi figure and denies the existence of trans people, they clearly refuse to work within our policies and guidelines and sources go against their point of view, which can be seen on this report and on this earlier discussion on a topic in the same DS area. They are clearly a net negative on this area. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  It might be bizarre if any opposes were based on the premise of "too much paperwork." Would you care to point any out? Ravenswing 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I guess she's quoting me, but I don't really oppose a TBAN, so much as I just think a warning would be better than a TBAN ("too much paperwork" == "not worth the editor time to administer"). (What I really oppose is no action.) Levivich (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Warn per Levivich, although further disruption would merit a topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 10:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Tamzin. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Wefa has shown they do not have the neutrality necessary to participate in this sensitive area. Should they develop that sensitivity at a later date, they the community can always re-evaluate, but for now- they are not a net positive contribution in this area and I am not convinced they have realized what the problem even is. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support Let me make it clear that I think a topic ban is completely appropriate…if we had an active editor here. The lack of activity on a long term account suggests that this isn’t going to prevent that much disruption. With all that said, I don’t think Wefa would be able to edit collaboratively on that topic should they become more active, so I’m supporting the ban. I also want to make it clear that it’s okay to have opposing views regarding stuff like this, and a TBAN simply for different views would be invalid. However, when you express those views in a soapbox post on an article and user talk it is no longer appropriate, just like it wouldn’t be if someone made the opposite argument in a soapbox comment on a talk page. Talk pages are to discuss improving the Wiki, the comparison to Mengle is nowhere near that. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above, and the fact this thread is still going with no resolution — haven't we sunk enough time into this? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the above. AKK700 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose after seeing an editor above repeating "he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion" a couple of times. Since when is only one opinion acceptable in a discussion? A discussion requires people from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, being allowed to express their opinions, not just one side humming in unison. TBANning someone for daring to express an opinion that is very far from being fringe, and shared by a very large number of people violates the principle of freedom of speach, and Wikipedia is supposed to be free, and not censored. And please don't call me transphobic or anything like that for daring to oppose a TBAN based on the principle of freedom of speach, because you have no idea where I stand on GENSEX matters. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  One opinion is not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but more than one opinion is also not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, because WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX means that nobody should be giving their opinion about GENSEX issues in a GENSEX discussion. The only acceptable GENSEX discussion is one about RSes. The posts at issue here were straight-up preaching a political viewpoint. Wikipedia is free and not censored -- that's the mainspace articles -- but talk pages are not free, and they are censored, e.g. by WP:NOT policy and the WP:TALK guideline. There is no freedom of speech on talk pages. The reason I support a warning (and oppose no action) is because it is not OK for an editor to express their political opinions on article talk pages. (The reason I prefer a warning over a TBAN is because it's a first offense and hasn't been repeated since.) Levivich (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Thomas.W: are you saying that a very large number of people believe that doctors who provide healthcare to transgender people are the equivalent of Josef Mengele? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to say it HEB, but that's probably true. First, trans people aren't exactly widely accepted in the US or in the West--in some parts, sure, but a majority? Not sure. Second, think of the rest of the world. A majority of the world still doesn't accept homosexuality; I doubt a majority accepts even the concept of gender identity (as distinct from biological sex). Heck, I doubt a majority of the world even accepts interracial, interreligious, or interethnic marriage. Sad but probably true. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Theres a difference between not accepting it and thinking that contemporary doctors are in general comparable to the absolute worst that industrialized, putatively civilized, man is capable of. I will desist because dwelling on it puts me in a dark mood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  We don’t pander to cultural relativism on Wikimedia. There was one admin on Amharic WP that was extremely homophobic, as is typical in Ethiopia (where Amharic is principally spoken) and he was still banned from WM. If you’re a vocal bigot, you’re out. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  lol, "pander to cultural relativism" is a funny way of saying "tolerate other people's cultures". I guess it's just your culture we should tolerate? This is why I (and others) don't support promoting NONAZIs beyond an essay. Sure we can all agree about being tolerant of people regardless of their gender identity (or sexual orientation or ethnicity), but what about... [insert list of divisive cultural issues]? This is a slippery slope. That's why our "rule" isn't "you must agree with Western values," it's WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX, as Tamzin explains below. "Bigot", like beauty, is too often in the eye of the beholder. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t see why I’m supposed to take seriously someone whose first word in their response is “lol” Dronebogus (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it's a good thing then that transgender existence and transgender health, like evolutionary biology and vaccines, are topics where WP's content is to be based on reliable sources and not on opinion polling. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, this isn't about TBANning someone for having the wrong opinion. Plenty of people edit constructively in the GENSEX area—as all areas—despite having strongly-held controversial views. It's not even per se about admitting to having that opinion in a talkpage discussion. I don't think we'd be here if he'd said, in passing in a discussion, "Personally I think all of this should be illegal"; that would go against NOTFORUM, but not in a way that usually leads to sanctions. No, this is about someone using talkpages to rant about their political views. The fact that those views are divisive makes it worse; it is immaterial whether they are right or wrong. If someone were saying "All people who oppose puberty blockers for transgender youth are doing so purely out of a desire to drive them to their deaths", and then doubling down as Wefa has here, I would support sanctions there too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you Tamzin but if you read DB's comment above, it isn't at all clear that this isn't about TBANing someone for having the wrong opinion. DB is expressly saying the opposite. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I was refuting that your apparent appeal to the majority and appeal to cultural relativism to excuse (but not endorse) an egregious statement (that transgender care is morally equivalent to Nazi human experimentation). I might’ve been wrong to say “bigot” instead of “bigotry” (since it’s the offensive, extreme statement itself which is the problem here, not what the user and their opinions) Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would’ve let this slide if Wefa hadn’t brought godwin’s law into this mess; personally I find their general subject commentary grating and inappropriate but not ban worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't excused anything and don't try to turn this on me because I disagree with you. Levivich (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Support due to their comments here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I find it ridiculous to consider banning a user for making a single talk page post that, as far as I can tell, does not violate any policies. I'll grant that Wefa's language is somewhat hyperbolic, but their basic view - that performing surgery or hormone injections on children under 18 in order for them to look more like the opposite sex is immoral - is a significant mainstream view, and probably even the majority view around the world. Not that I'm a fan of banning people for their views in any context, but to ban someone for holding this particular view makes no sense. And no, I don't think they disrupted anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  An editor who trivializes and ridicules gender-affirming surgery ("getting surgery is a choice, just like running for president") should probably not be offering their opinion about what forms of POV advocacy are or aren't disruptive, and it is questionable whether such an editor ought to be participating in GENSEX TBAN discussions, at least not by !voting. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you know what "ridicule" means. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd go with the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way. Comparing access to gender-affirming surgery to being eligible to run for POTUS strikes me as both cruel and harsh. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. IMHO, just the idea to put transgender care and Josef Mengele in the same sentence would justify a TBAN from all gender-related materials. —Sundostund (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• 'Oppose no serious violation, he expressed himself, let's move on instead of targeting him for his opinion.Lmharding (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - the statement Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children is essentially a statement that Wefa's feelings about the topic take precedence over what reliable sources actually say about the topic, and that because editors are unable to concede that the sky is actually puce, that this is a problem with the Wikipedia community. Elaborating such solipsistic views on WP Talk pages is inherently disruptive, and people who are unable to concede that their personal reality has diverged from the reality documented in reliable sources are not qualitied to participate in WP in areas where they are unable to restrain themselves in expressing their, umm, idiosyncratic POV.
• I would ask those placing "Oppose" !votes why they think the TBAN is a bad idea - do they want to see Wefa make more such comments so that we come back here again? There is no suggestion that they are likely to comport themselves any differently on this topic in future... Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  As one of the "Opposers" - I see no problem with the way they have comported themselves, either in talk pages or in articles. We accept people with all different political opinions here, as long as they make reasonable edits, and that seems to be the case with this user. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  It probably doesn't hurt that you share their opinion about the immorality of trans healthcare. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences.

  This is not a reasonable edit - it expresses the editor's opinion that their personal intuitions, rather than a discussion of sources based on WP policy, ought to determine what NPOV means in a specific (ACDS) domain, and that because the editor is right about this, they would be justified in edit warring against consensus reality even though it could result in a community ban. (Even the editor's opinion that their individual dissent is sufficient to deny consensus to article text already represents a degree of solipsism.) This is not a reasonable edit by an editor who is able to contribute to a collaborative project, at least not in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  The user was clearly making a rhetorical point about double standards, not actually threatening to engage in an edit war. Ironically, by calling for banning them, I think you're making Wefa's point even better than they could themselves: people on the other side of the argument (about Libs of TikTok, etc.) do routinely revert changes without consensus, but this user risks being banned for just talking about doing the same thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are nicely sidestepping the question, "what is the consensus among the reliable sources on this topic?", which is where the "two sides" WP:FALSEBALANCE civil POV argument goes to die. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Depends on the topic, of course. Given that this user doesn't seem to have made any bad edits to any articles, this seems like a strictly theoretical discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no reason to excuse disruptive POV rants on Talk just because an editor doesn't follow through in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I tend to agree with Ravenswing's view here. I would warn them per Levivich but removing them the first time they screw up in expressing their views isn't going to result in articles written from a wide ranges of edits. If they haven't been taken to ANI in the past them give them some leeway and help them learn what is/isn't OK. Springee (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Parga

I will appreciate your insight here on the article Parga. Despite expressing my opposition to the use of extremist source, Xhufi, an extremist far-right Albanian politician known for his extreme bias against foreign countries and nations and for his nationalist propaganda, editors keep edit warring to have that scholar used regardless of whether other editors have expressed their legitimate concerns about that particular source. Furthermore, they haven't waited for consensus on the talk page, and are quick into reinstating the disputed source to the article even though they were supposed to discuss, not brute-force their new source to the article. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident. This is obviously a content dispute that is currently being discussed on the article talk page, as you know. ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If edit warring is going on, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you believe that a work by Pëllumb Xhufi is not a reliable source, make your case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You also have various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: as an uninvolved admin, can you please tell SilentResident to stop calling Xhufi a "extremist far-right Albanian politician"? I am not involved in that content dispute and I would not prefer using Xhufi as a source, but calling a living notable person on Wikipedia that way is a breach of WP:BLP IMO. That part of the comment should probably be deleted. Xhufi does not belong to the far right and is not an "extremist" at all, whatever that term is supposed to mean here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• SilentResident, weren't you going to do a report to determine that Xhufi is not a reliable author? Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made? Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Third party academic scholars informed me that they are preparing a detailed analysis on Pëllumb Xhufi's reliability. That's why I am not rushing right away for the RSN because more material on the politician, can prove always helpful for Wikipedia to understand whether this person is reliable as a source. Not that the content and evidence found already thus far, isn't sufficing for the RSN to determine.

You stated "Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made?" but you are reminded that a growing number of WP:RS already disputed and challenged Xhufi's credibility but the users chose to ignore this, insisting -without presenting proof to Wikipedia- that Xhufi is reliable. How is Xhufi reliable when editors havent provided any WP:RS supporting Xhufi in face of the WP:RS that have discredited Xhufi's objectivity as a scholar? This is not okay I am afraid. Until the RSN concludes on Xhufi, the legitimate concerns over Xhufi's reliability may not be ignored and the legitimate concerns of editors are not less legitimate. There is no such guideline stating such a thing. In our case here the users wanting to use Xhufi's work, are fully aware about the WP:RS disputing Xhufi as a WP:RS and have two options: 1) to either provide WP:RS defending Xhufi as a reliale author, or 2) provide WP:RS debunking the other RSs discrediting Xhufi's reliability as an author. The users have done nothing of that. Instead, they chose editwarring to add Xhufi without wp:consensus to the articles and by ignoring the concerns of verification. The editors are reminded that WP:VERIFY is a core content policy in Wikipedia and when there is no consensus for using a particular source, then the editors are asked to provide independent third-party sources verifying that information provided by the extremist politician. This helps addressing any editorial concerns adequately IMO.

If it is wrong to have legitimate concerns over an author (whose credibility is questioned by other scholars) and to ask just for any third party independent RS, then please correct me because I have read again and again the Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:VERIFIABILITY and there is no such a thing as a guideline recommending that this Core Content Policy can be superseded by personal editorial POV(!) which can ignore the WP:RS(!) discrediting an extremist politician. This is just the pure definition of "not okay", if you ask me.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that this whole thing is worrisome: just now, at Parga, another Albanian account came from nowhere, from a different topic area and reinstated the new additions to the article they have never edited previously in their life, all this just to add Pëllumb Xhufi back to the article [11] through brute-forcing and without participating in the talk page nor providing any third-party reliable WP:RS. The fact that too many Albanian accounts are working together persistently to brute-force content while disregarding Wikipedia's WP:VERIFIABILITY and not working through WP:CONSENSUS-building at the talk page is exactly part of the broader issue of Albanian WP:TAGTEAM to which User:Coldtrack has pointed out recently [12] at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of talking about "tagteaming" and "Albanian accounts" here, try one of the dispute resolution ways. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The dispute resolution is supposed to be followed by all editors, not edit war to brute force your unreliable sources instead of waiting for dispute resolution like how you did now. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

What? I am not involved in that content dispute and I did not revert you. It seems that you are very confused at this point. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You are. Sorry. Lack of direct editing on the specific article doesn't exactly make you any less involved. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You must be kidding. I hope you are not blaming an "Albanian account" for the actions of another "Albanian account". In any case, it is not clear what you are trying to say and what do you seek here at ANI/I, and it is clear nobody will solve your content dispute here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the points raised here by SilentResident, I remind all editors who wish to include material originating from Xhufi that per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It doesn't say force it on until a consensus disapprove of it. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

PS. As regards the denialism that Xhufi represents far-right extremist viewpoints, perhaps objectors could enlighten the community by distinguishing the views of far-right Albanians from the views of Xhufi, and where they are on record as opposing his works. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, perhaps you are correct and works by Pëllumb Xhufi should not be considered reliable. I do not know. But the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN as you know. Asserting over and over that he is unreliable without going to that noticeboard is not acceptable. So, either go to RSN or drop the subject. It is also not acceptable to belittle other editors for being Albanians. Do not ever imply that another editor should be disregarded simply because of their ethnicity. That is unseemly and disruptive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

P. Xhufi is quite active in local national rhetoric (in TV shows etc.). Statements such as this [[13]] show clearly that he is personally involved in promoting a national agenda: he does not hesitate to accuse the Greek government (since the creation of the Greek state) of anti-Albanian activity. Definitely this isn't the kind of neutral scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered posting a RSN? Cullen literally said "the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN". Alltan (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 Without prejudice over anybody's national identity, I have read every comment on this thread including the all-important original post. I infer that SilentResident was basically using this noticeboard to say, "the behaviour of numerous editors is unacceptable" and may have hoped that admins take a deeper look into who is doing what. Although conventionally it seems that this project page is normally focused on one accused person. This time he was saying that a team of about three are slithering their way across multiple articles and posting dubious material. To that end it is not an ANEW matter in the strictest sense, and with regards RS debate, it is definitely the case that no less than one person is violating ONUS as I stated above. So in SilentResident's situation, I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Coldtrack:Thank you both very much. Now if you allow me, just for clarity: as soon as I get my hands on the new Autumn 2022 reports on Xhufi by Western scholars who view that politican as unreliable scholar, you have my word that I will make haste for the RSN. Just like how you said, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that consensus is not necessary until the RSN. And to clarify that when I say "Albanian accounts": I am specifically talking about accounts focusing specifically on the two Albanian Topic Areas: Albania and Kosovo; It is important to make a clear distinction on what the term Albanian refers there. All the accounts involved into brute-forcing Xhufi into Wikipedia, share a common characteristic in the sense that they are mainly editing the 2 Albanian topic areas. Its important to make this clear because - my mistake- I assumed everybody would understand that, since obviously it makes no sense to refer to them as "Albanian accounts" in an ethnic sense - that makes no sense, since I can't verify the nationality of editors nor it matters for Wikipedia, nor I know anyone here caring at all about Ethnicities. But I am referring to these accounts in an Topic-Area context: it is a common characteristic of the WP:Balkans that accounts from one topic area, often share views and cooperate to this end, which, at first glance, is not harmful to Wikipedia, yes, but when a great deal of it involves ignoring WP:ONUS and WP:RELIABILITY, then it is worrisome and goes against the Wikipedia project's goal which is to steer away from nationalist authors and dubious sources. Next time I will use the term "Topic Area" to avoid any potential misunderstandings again, and will mention this again only if from a technical perspective (i.e. whether it is important for Admins to understand what is going on there). Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: There is large scale tendency to promote sources such as Xhufi, while on the other hand removing multiple academic publications that don't fit with Xhufi's POV. One example is the removal of published works by A. Spiro (linguist of the University of Tirana) with the excuse that he doesn't agree with the national POV as Ktrimi explained [[14]]. Removals&reverts are performed in wp:TAGTEAMING fashion, as shown here: [[15]]. Also several wp:RS have been removed due to the same as part of the same fashion (to name a view scholars: Skendi, Vakalopoulos, Hasiotis, Tsiknakis, Kofos) in favor to POV narratives by Xhufi. Those editors that insist on the removal of those authors never filled an RSN they just resort in TAGTEAMING.Alexikoua (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Peloponnese

@Cullen328 and Coldtrack: I think it is getting out of control and spilling over even more articles: the accounts from the Albania Topic Area are again brute-forcing their new additions to more articles, such as Peloponnese today, and that's only one day after the similar incidents at Parga, where, once again, they disregarded any need for achieving WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, having ignored what WP:ONUS says. Even if I agreed/disagreed with the new additions and intervening the one way or the other, I have no faith that my voice matters anymore in Wikipedia in front of this large WP:TAGTEAM of editors who always get things done their preferred way through edit-warring instead of WP:BRD and following the guidelines by seeking WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION at the relevant talk pages. IMO, the whole editiorial behavior of disregarding Wikipedia's rules, is in my opinion really worrisome, since it is extremely disruptive and shows that the one side with numerical superiority has become unstoppable and is acting as if it WP:OWN Wikipedia, and can do whatever it wants, disrupting the normal editorial progress. And of course, I can't think of where myself to go complain about that new incident! Technically, they didn't violate 3RR, so the 3RR Noticeboard is not really an option here, so Coldtrack's words: "I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely." echoe now louder than ever. I am posting here for one last time, because WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, the policy in Wikipedia for such behaviors in disputes, states that: "Issues of conduct may be addressed at the incidents noticeboard, and may be taken to the arbitration committee for more complex disputes.". Any help from the Admins will be really appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, please name the members of this "cabal" or "tag team", provide diffs of the most problematic edits, and inform those editors of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sorry to bother you but may I ask if the diffs have to be from a specific article only? Because the issue spans multiple articles such as Parga before Peloponnese, and even Greek War of Independence before that, and more. I'm mentioning these 3 articles here for now because they are fresh in my memory and happen to be the most recent cases, all of them occuring during the current month, September 2022). If any clarity is provided on the criteria for the diffs you seek as to determine the range of diffs allowed to present here, that will be appreciated and I will try to do my best. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, no, the diffs do not need to be limited to one article, but they should clearly show the problematic behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are disputes where many editors from Greece and Albania find an interest to edit. SR will only show some diffs of "Albanian accounts" reverting "Greek accounts". @Cullen328: why do not you ask SR why they see a "cabal" or "tag teaming" only among "Albanian accounts" and not among "Greek accounts" too? I am not saying there is "tag teaming" among "Greek accounts", there is no evidence for any kind of "tag teaming". I just think that these "tag teaming" accusations are personal attacks against perceived opponents. As such, without clear evidence of a "cabal", they should result in a block for personal attacks or at least a warning. These "tag teaming" accusations have become common among some Balkan editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, that is why I am asking for evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, if you are aware of any issues of editorial misconduct, then it will be appreciated if you bring them to the admin's attention.

Now, if you allow me, I can't help but express my concerns about your reply's tone suggesting a culture of collective responsibility by pointing that "other sides did that too". You are reminded that no side has immunity from the project's rules - everybody here is to be scrutinized for their actions, including me (per WP:BOOMERANG) and that's a fact.

In case you missed what my concerns here are: is the fact accounts appearing collectively in certain articles the Greece topic area on articles which most of these accounts never edited before (since their focus is mainly the Albania topic area), yet are quick to edit war instead of discussing and seeking a compromise, at the expense of Wikipedia's guidelines, consensus and dispute resolution procedures. Resulting in all these articles in the Greece topic area having currently a revision not reflecting a talk page consensus, and the newly-added content to them isn't the result of compromises between the sides, is rather a revision imposed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of such walls of text, post what you think is evidence of "tag teaming". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I am working on it, and will have something to present very shortly. It is a fair amount of work, so please bear with me. Khirurg (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This report has been open for 2-1/2 days, and so far, we have:

• no lists of alleged "cabal" or "tag team" members, and
• no required notifications to the accused, and
• no reports to the reliable sources noticeboard, and
• no reports to the edit warring noticeboard, and
• no set of diffs showing a pattern of disruptive editing.

Instead, we have unsupported assertions that an Albanian academic is unreliable (maybe he is and maybe he isn't) and unsubstantiated accusations that unnamed editors who work on Albanian topics are misbehaving. To say that I am unimpressed at this point is an understatement. Maybe I will wake up tomorrow morning to find ample evidence. But so far, nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies for making you wait. It is not intentional, just I am back from my work in real life and I do not have access to my PC from work. Since you clarified to me that the report doesn't have to be limited to a select few articles, and since the issue spans more articles than the fingers of our hands, its obvious that I will need some time to prepare the large report. In this context, I was hopeful that the ANI can give me the required time to work on the reports on an issue that has been spanning in time range not a single month but whole years? If the ANI is eager to close the current discussion, thats fine, I can open a new one once I have it ready. I speak only for myself though, I cant speak for editors Khirurg and Ktrimi991, though, whether they got their/any reports to submit and if they can do that even faster than me, then maybe the ANI can give them a chance.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not willing to make "tag teaming" accusations here; after all those are controversial Balkan topics that can easily attract attention from editors. Editing an article is not illegal. In any case, I am waiting for the evidence you and Khirurg will provide. If admins judge it is of value, I can enrich it with more evidence. There are many cases to be discussed in that case, not only among "Albanian accounts". But I really doubt admins will find your evidence of value; as I said, articles are open for editing to every editor. Just editing an article does not make you part of a "tag team". And even if one does see "tag teaming", proving it is extremely difficult. Cullen328, for the record, last November Khirurg was warned and then blocked by User:Bbb23 after making accusations including "tag teaming" accusations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. I don't know what happened between you and Khirurg last November, but I have my serious concerns and I am not alone here; such concerns are shared on the ANI by least 2 other editors too, which itself is more than enough to require ANI attention this time. If indeed there is no tag-teaming as you claim, then there is nothing the other editors may be afraid of. The report will be submitted and left upon the Admins to evaluate. If the Admins deem these incidents to not be a case of Tag-teaming and conclude that there is no such behavioral pattern, then the filler ought to trust and accept their judgement and offer a honest apology to the other editors for which these concerns are about. In mean time, it is recommended that all editors familiarize and abide by the Wikipedia's guidelines, because even if the Admins do not deem these incidents or what happened at Peloponnese to be a case of tag-teaming, still is a serious disruption violating Wikipedia's guidelines regarding dispute resolutions and consensus-building, not a mere "Just editing an article" as you might think here. Now if you excuse me, expect no more responses before the report's submission. It is just "walls of text" as you said. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not the first time you make such accusations and like I said sometime ago, this is just WP:WITCHHUNT! I hope this time ends once and for all because I am sick of it. Taking part in those hot Balkan topics is normal for anyone. All of you do the same even in Albanian related topics from the north to the south and no one has accused any of you of Team Tagging. Some of you has taken part in discussions about the name of some unknown towns in Kosovo, which to me is quite bizarre to say the least, but no one has ever accused you of something. Now you are accusing "Albanian accounts" why the take part in Albanian related topics? Several Admins has intervened in lot of those discussions and for the most part, changes were confirmed and the articles were improved. Have a good day! -- Bes-ARTTalk 16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence

OK, here we go. There is a group of editors who all share a similar background, as can be seen by their contribs, that behaves in a matter best described as WP:TAGTEAM on Balkan articles. The main purpose is to circumvent 3RR so as to prevent insertion of undesired material, and insert disputed material by brute force. It has been going on for a long time (off the top of my head I would say it started in early 2020), but it has been getting steadily worse in that past few months, when Çerçok (talk · contribs) returned from a 3 month break, and has reached an absolute crescendo in recent days (the first six examples are from the past few days alone). Now, while it is very common for editors who share interests to participate in the same disputes, as the evidence below will show, the nature of the behavior in question is of markedly different intensity and quantity. Particularly noticeable are instances of editors who have never shown the slightest interest in an article showing up to revert within minutes or even seconds, suggesting some form of coordination, possibly via live chat. Also of note is the fact that some of these articles are absolutely peripheral to the Albania topic area, yet the intensity of the behavior is the same as if they were core articles. The evidence below is arranged roughly chronologically. I am aware it is very long, but just to give you an idea of the intensity of the disruption, this is what I was able to gather quickly going off my memory, and even then this list is not exhaustive. As this evidence was gathered somewhat hastily, if you see any mistakes please point them out and I'd be happy to correct them. If the below evidence is too much and you just want to focus on the most egregious examples, I'd say those are International Recognition of Kosovo, Greek War of Independence, Himara, List of Albanians in Greece, and Messapic language. Update: Since I filed this report, my watchlist has been extremely quiet. I don't think it's a coincidence. Cullen328, Coldtrack, I was wondering if you had a chance to view the evidence and had any feedback, in particular as to what might contribute an appropriate venue for it (ANI does not appear to be the right venue).

• 1. International Recognition of Kosovo, 7 reverts in ~48 hours by 5 different users. Article history: Initial, non-revert edit by Uniacademic [16], revert by Ktrimi991 [17], Maleschreiber [18], S.G ReDark [19] (a relatively new user who had never edited the article before), Ktrimi again [20], Ahmet Q. [21], Ahmet Q. again [22], followed within minutes by Durazz0 [23], who prior to that hadn't edited in weeks. Durazz0 in particular is not very active lately [24], but always shows up at just the right time to revert [25] [26], !vote [27], or complain to an admin on behalf of another user [28] [29]. Attempt at dispute resolution in the talkpage was initiated by the other party [30]/

• 2. Greek War of Independence, 12 reverts by 5 different users in a 4 day period (not including 3 days of page protection). Article history: Cercok [31], Excine who had never edited the article before, Ktrimi991 [32], Ktrimi991 [33], Cercok [34] (as soon as the page protection expired, Alltan [35], Alltan [36], Ahmet Q. [37], Ahmet Q. [38], Ktrimi991 [39], Ktrimi991 [40], Ahmet Q. [41].

• 3. Amantia, 2 reverts by 2 users who had never edited the article before, within 12 hours. Article history: Ahmet Q. [42] (never edited the article before), Lezhjani1444 who had never edited the article before, within minutes.

• 4. Parga, 5 reverts within ~24 hours by three different users, one of whom had never edited the article before. Article history: Cercok [43], followed by Alltan [44], Alltan [45], Uniacademic who has never edited the article before, Cercok [46].

• 5. Himara [47]: Maleschreiber [48], Maleschreiber [49], Ktrimi [50], Cercok [51], Cercok [52], Lezhjani1444 who has never edited the article before, Alltan [53], Botushali who has never edited the article before, then very interestingly Alltan shows up a few seconds later with a nearly identical edit-summary, then Cercok [54], then Cercok again [55]. The use of an identical edit summary by Alltan and Botushali seems to sugges that they had agreed upon this edit-summary off-wiki (e.g. via live chat) and Botushali beat Alltan to it by a few second. Something similar happened back in June at Kosovo between Uniacademic and Truthseeker2006 [56].

• 6. Peloponnese, 6 reverts by 3 users in 3 hours. Article history: Ahmet Q. [57], Ahmet Q. [58], Maleschreiber [59], Alltan within three minutes even though he has never edited the article before, Alltan again [60]. Attempt at dispute resolution initiated by me.

• 7. Arvanites [61]: Ahmet [62], Ahmet [63], Botushali [64].

• 8. Epirus revolt of 1611 [65]: Cercok [66], Alltan who had never edited the article before, Cercok [67], Alltan [68], Cercok [69]. Then again several days later: Maleschreiber [70], Alltan [71], Ahmet Q. [72], Cercok [73].

• 9. Dropull [74]: Lezhjani1444 [75], Lezhjani1444 [76], Lezhjani1444 [77], Alltan [78], Alltan [79], Ktrimi991 [80].

• 10. List of Albanians in Greece [81]: Ahmet [82], Ahmet [83], Maleschreiber who had never edited the article before, Ahmet [84], Maleschreiber [85], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, within minutes, Ahmet [86]

• 11. Template:Greeks in Albania [87]: Ahmet [88], Alltan [89], Ahmet [90], Alltan [91], Ahmet [92].

• 12. Struga [93]: Alltan [94], Durazz0 [95], Durazz0 [96], Durazz0 [97], Botushali [98], Botushali [99].

• 13. Bratonozici [100]: Botushali [101], Botushali [102], Alltan [103], Alltan [104], Botushali [105], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before.

• 14. Piperi (tribe) [106]: Botushali [107], Alltan [108], Botushali [109], Durraz0 [110].

• 15. Kuči (tribe) [111]: Maleschreiber [112], Ahmet [113], Alltan [114].

• 16. Bjelopavlici [115]: Botushali [116], Alltan [117], Alltan [118], Botushali [119], Durazz0 [120].

• 17. Pristina [121]: Maleschreiber [122], Ktrimi [123], Ktrimi [124], Alltan [125].

• 18. Messapic language [126]: [127] (note the source falsification about "dialect"), Βατο [128], Βατο [129], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, Ktrimi991 [130], [131]. In this instance, they ganged up on the hapless 3knolls, who had not idea what he was dealing with.

• 19. Bar, Montenegro [132]: Ktrimi991 [133], Ktrimi991 [134], Maleschreiber [135], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, Maleschreiber [136], Ahmet [137].

• 20. Illyrian Emperors [138]: Ahmet [139], Βατο who had never edited the article before, Maleschreiber who had never edited the article before.

Of note is that Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs) has on several occasions asked users to activate their wikipedia email, ostensibly so as to "share sources" [140], but soon after this was done, the user Ahmet Q. instructed to activate emails starts showing to !vote [141] at RfCs and RMs that Ahmet Q. had just !voted, sometimes within minutes [142], despite these articles being relatively obscure. Ahmet Q. also did the same thing on Wikimedia Commons [143] with user Cercok on August 25. It could be a coincidence, but it is my impression that the intensity of the tag-teaming has been especially strong since then.

Also of note is that as a result of the tag-teaming on the Montenegrin tribes articles (Piperi, Bratonozici, Bjelopavlici etc.), Boki (talk · contribs) eventually became discouraged and gave up [144]. While a bit rash and inexperienced, this user seemed competent and promising, and this is a good example of the kind of result that tag-teaming can result in.

In closing, I'd like to point out that while I fully expect the accused parties to come out guns blazing and counter-accuse, there is a fundamental asymmetry here: Articles such as Greek War of Independence and Peloponnese are central to the Greece topic area, but peripheral to the Albania topic area - in 15 years of editing wikipedia, I have not seen editors from the Albania topic area edit these articles, until now, that is. So while it is to be expected that any perceived POV-push in these articles will result in a response from Greek topic area editors, given that many will have these articles watchlisted, it is highly unusual to see an even more intense response from Albania topic editors. Individually, it could be that some of the instances of apparent tag-teaming I have described could just be coincidences with a perfectly sound explanation, or just garden-variety edit-warring, but when the evidence is viewed in its totality, I strongly believe something is going on here. Whether it is off-wiki messaging (as I think is the case with at least some participants), email, or just contribs-following and a tacit agreement to back each other, I cannot say, but clearly something's up here, this isn't normal. I've been editing for 15 years, and I've never seen anything this intense, this massive, and this coordinated for so long. Khirurg (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As an editor not mentioned, but who very well could be, and someone who 90% of those articles mentioned above have it in his watchlist and followed all the discussions in question (mostly not intervening at all) I can say without a doubt that in absolutely most of the cases the editors were invited in the talk page to discuss the reverts or the changes. And many of them were resolved there with consensus by the editors in question. See for example Struga, Himara, and others' talk pages. What you have forgotten to put here are articles that you have taken part in yourself and resulted in you getting blocked or being warned about it because of your language used against the same editors in TP discussions. All you do whenever you don't like a change or sources like Xhufi is open discussion like this one, remove it at all costs, get the editors blocked, and restore the versions you like. And when no admin supports you, you just start another conspiracy against "Albanian accounts". -- Bes-ARTTalk 22:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, do not forget to notify the editors you are mentioning in your report. They will want to know. Add the following code to their talk pages please: {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg: when you post accusations, you should at the very least notify said accused users, (an admin asked both you and SilentResident to do so many times already). Now, all the articles which Khirurg mentioned are under the scope of WikiProject Albania, and some of them are of top importance. I dare to consider myself one of the "veteran" users (been here for about 2 years) and I don't see what exactly the problem is that Khirurg is supposedly so concerned about. Articles which are under the scope of a small WikiProject will, at one point or another, inevitably concern most active users which are interested in such subjects. There are in total maybe 15-20 or so active “Albanian users”, so it's all too normal that they'll end up editing the same articles eventually. This is being made by Khirurg to sound as if the cases where they tend to agree show that they always agree with each or that they all support the same edits, but this is simply a misrepresentation by Khirurg. There are countless cases where some editors who agree on one thing, disagree on another or don't even edit similar articles. Even Khirurg's examples show such a thing because he has just cherry picked cases where some users will agree on a small issue, but there's still no overall agreement across all articles. What he has decided to leave out includes all the other cases where the same users who agree one thing, disagree with each other as is normal for all humans who don't cooperate. For myself I'll note that in Aliko, one of the articles which belong to the same subject as the articles listed by Khirurg, an edit I made [145][146] was reverted by Maleschreiber[147]. Other recent examples of Maleschreiber reverting me which come to mind include [148] and [149], this being one of the articles used as “evidence” by Khirurg. I also recall a case of me being reverted by Botushali, which happened just this July [150]. So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali. Is this what people who are tag-teaming do, or is it what people who share similar interests but both agree and disagree occasionally do? It’s more likely the latter and not the former. Most of these subjects are very closely related, so when Khirurg claims that an edit of mine is the "first" I've ever done in the article Peloponnese(region of Greece), he somehow leaves out that I have hundreds of edits in articles which involve Albanians in Greece. Since August all 6 new articles I've created are about the history of Albanians in Greece [151]. This is a subject which I'm very passionate and interested about, but Khirurg presents my edits as if I just learned about the subject a minute before I made the edit. Another thing which Khirurg omits is what the disputes are about. In most of the cases, they exist because a couple of users (which in 9/10 cases include Khirurg) want to remove WP:RS from articles. Now, these reliable sources don't come just from Albanian historians, but are in fact most of the times works by ‘’Greek’’ historians whom some users are always trying to remove. My edit in Peloponnese exists solely because the same users who are always doing such things tried to remove Georgios Liakopoulos, a respected Greek historian from the Max Planck institute from the article: [152][153][154]. What exactly is illegitimate about my edit? Is Khirurg saying that some users can remove reliable sources, but users who have spent hundreds of hours writing about these subjects can't even edit related articles? This isn't even the first report by Khirurg where he tries to invoke interests in common subjects by people who have the same cultural background as a reason to ask for someone to get sanctioned. In an SPI against Ktrimi991 [155] Khirurg claimed that he is a sock of a banned user, essentially because both are Albanians and are interested in Albanian history.

So what is Khirurg's evidence? A series of edits which show that sometimes user’s who have similar interests, will agree with each other. In the same articles in which Khirurg finds agreement between some users, he should note all instances where all those who agree with each other either don't get involved in an article or actively disagree. In addition, he should note all instances where we find agreement on the "opposite" side of the aisle between users from WikiProject Greece and in fact in all instances (like the Peloponnese article) two or more users from WP Greece will do the same exact edit/revert (including Khirurg). This isn't "tag teaming" or disruptive when done by Khirurg, yet when other users have partially similar interests do it, it can only be disruptive and can never mean just a genuine interest in a subject.

In conclusion, I see one more content dispute which involves Khirurg and other long time users devolving into accusations by Khirurg that they are tag teaming just because they disagree with Khirurg about subjects which (as far as I remember) many of the mentioned editors always disagreed with him. Khirurg has repeated the same accusation in the past when he was blocked and this is the reply he got by admin Bbb23: "Second, you have accused other editors, some who have been around here for a long time (as have you), of tag teaming just because they disagree with you. That constitutes a personal attack. I strongly urge you to amend your behavior, or you will find yourself blocked." [156]

So yes Khirurg, this is indeed yet another outrageous case of editors who are interested in Albanian-related subjects editing articles related to Albanian subjects. A troubling development indeed.Alltan (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This way tl;dr, but just to note that of the 20 articles I've listed, only half are within WikiProject Albania. And that anyway does not explain the lightning quick reverts to articles you have never edited before, like Peloponnese (within three minutes). Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Khirurg has listed twenty articles, out of which I (accused of tag-teaming) have edited only four. 4 out of 20... And I am often in disagreement with the people Khirurg accuses me of being in league with, see:

- with Ktrimi here: [157]

- with Maleschrieber here: [158]

- with AlexBachmann here:[159]

I contribute to Wikipedia as I know best, following wiki guidelines and adding RS content. I do not coordinate with anyone. I agree or disagree with each editor based on the merit/reliability of their edits. I am sure I am not an exception. Khirurg seems to have misportrayed the contributions of other editors here just like he has mine. These accusations are simply ridiculous. Çerçok (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The wp:TAGTEAM pattern is way too obvious but what surprised me personally was a strategy of full coordination as in the case of Himara Revolt of 1596: taking turns in the TAGTEAM process. So the revert sequence here is:

• [[160]] Cercok,
• [[161]] Alltan,
• [[162]] Ktrimi (who never participated before and without trace at talkpage), and then again
• [[163]] Alltan
• [[164]] Ktrimi
• [[165]] Alltan

After his 2nd revert Ktrimi991 immediately filled a report against me in order to block me for 3rr, but no wonder this disruptive pattern has been immediately noticed by uninvolved editor @Coldtrack: [[166]] [[167]]

Ktrimi also provides support to the more hesitant (revert)-editors of this team by removing warning messages in their talkpages: Here [[[168]], after Uniacademic performed a rv although he never showed any trace in article and tp before [[ [[169]]]] (as Khirurg noted above). The same support is also provided by Alltan [[170]]) obviously to encourage a more massive and coordinated campaign of this kind.

It is crystal clear that their main purpose is to increase their revert-warring fire power in order to promote a certain national POV and at the same time discouraging multiple editors from productive editing.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, if my name is going to be brought up, I’d greatly appreciate being notified. Now, in regard to this report, I am actually offended that I am even being mentioned as a part of such a thing. The diffs of me on pages about Montenegrin tribes of Albanian origin are particularly annoying; if you bothered to check those diffs, you will find I was actually the first account to initiate the change on the article that there was a subsequent edit war over which was resolved in the TP. In fact, if you check my edit history, you will notice a lot of my work focuses on Albanian tribes. I have created multiple pages based on this topic and revamped or worked on several other pages also in this topic. Regarding Struga, I really do not see what is wrong. I participate heavily in Albanian-related topics in North Macedonia, which is why there is overlap between me and Alltan, who also seems to participate heavily in such topics. If you check the edit history there, it becomes extremely clear that I have contributed a lot to the page over time, not just for those diffs.

Arvanites is obviously extremely related to the Albanian topic area considering it literally is an article on the historic Albanians of Greece – my contributions to the Souliotes (another tribal-like Albanian community in Greece) page should clearly indicate that I am already involved in such matters. Himara is also of interest, I have monitored that article for a while and have been looking for sources on a particular matter; nonetheless, it is a site that seems to have played a role for Albanians in the Middle Ages, which is something I have also done much work on.

To conclude, the accusations made against me here are baseless, illogical and outright wrong. Furthermore, this accusation of multiple editors in the Albanian topic area working in collusion I find to be a clear application of double standards; multiple Greek topic area editors seem to collude and combine their efforts on small villages and the like in Greece and southern Albania, not that I am accusing them of tag teaming, but it is the same principle. However, what I find revealing is the collaboration of editors who focus on Greek topic areas when it comes to articles in Kosovo, or better yet, Serbia. When regarding the city of Niš in Serbia, which I have added to, Khirurg somehow randomly began to participate in the discussion – despite not being involved in the slightest in the Serbian topic area – petitioning for the removal of sources that discuss the existence of Proto-Albanians in the region [[171]].

Now, there have been many Kosovo RM’s, most of which I have played a role in, in recent years. Khirurg and other Greek editors have shown up together to vote !oppose and have never shown any interest to improve said articles, let alone participate in the general topic area of Kosovo. What should I do in my case? Complain that Khirurg and these other editors are tag-teaming against RMs? Khirurg's post boils down to the fact that there are many editors who are interested in the same subjects in the Balkans and the large majority do not agree with Khirurg regardless of their background. This isn't a problem of wikipedia and it's certainly not a reason to report anyone, but it is particularly interesting to see these editors in the Kosovo topic area. When I was looking at previous RM’s in preparation for my own requests, I noticed editors from the Greek topic area involving themselves in these RM’s which I found extremely strange:

• RM of Peja [[172]], users of note who voted !oppose in this discussion were Khirurg, Alexikoua, and SilentResident.
• RM of Lipjan (initiated by me) [[173]], Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose
• RM of Vushtrri (initiated by me) [[174]], surprise surprise, Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose here too.
• RM of Malisheva (2020, not initiated by me) [[175]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua
• RM of Malisheva (2021, not initiated by me) [[176]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua

For such small, unknown towns to receive convenient attention from the Greek topic area editors during RM requests seems awfully intriguing. Nonetheless, just wanted to get this out there so that all admins may observe the double standard here and perhaps something else at play. Botushali (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Botushali: you provided very few and sporadic edits that go back more than two years ago, nevertheless Khirurg provided solid clear evidence and this concerns quite recent activity. It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above (not simply on voting but on revert warring). Most important this TAGTEAM pattern is massive and quite active as uninvolved editors have immediately noticed.Alexikoua (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, just as you have the right to edit, revert, remove content so do others and I'm one of the people who has written the most content about these topics, so what's the accusation? I'm editing what I always edit or is the accusation that in this article Cercok and I agree, even though we disagree other times? If that's the accusation, then why you don't you mention all the (daily) articles where you are in disagreement with someone active in WikiProject Albania but nobody else joins the dispute? Where was a tag-team to support Ktrimi when you had a dispute with him in Lefter Talo just two days ago? While we're on this topic why don't you add all the diffs where you and Khirurg monthly do the same reverts? Parga: Alexikoua [177] Khirurg [178] Vuno: Alexikoua [179] Khirurg [180] Albanians in Greece: Alexikoua [181] Khirurg [182] Why doesn't tag-team apply to the two of you but applies to everyone else who you disagree with? Don't all others have the right to agree with each other in some topics or are you and Khirurg the only users who have the right to agree with each other?:Alltan (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan, Khirurg filled a detailed report that concerns wp:TAGTEAM, a disruptive pattern that was also noticed by uninvolved editors at the Himara Revolt of 1596. This is obviously not just about edit, revert or remove content, but reverting in wp:NINJA fashion without trace of participation at any discussion as part of wp:TAGTEAM & BRD breaching while even encouraging such a disruptive activity (i.e. removing warning messages from the talkpages) among more hesitant members of the (TAG)TEAM is a serious accusation.Alexikoua (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I already mentioned once that decorating your comments with Wikipedia policies and with strong wording such as "crystal clear" do not make your arguments stronger. In your latest comment above this one, you said nothing of importance to attempt and refute Alltan's comment. If you will not engage in real debating, I ask you to desist from writing these comments; what you're doing is called WP:BLUDGEON. This report is already large enough. Super Ψ Dro 20:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, saying that something is ”solid, clear evidence” does not make it so. In fact, this whole report is a besmirchment of many solid editors included myself, and I expect Khirurg to apologise for even mentioning me in such a way when I devote so much of my time to Wikipedia as a volunteer. Besides the fact that certain editors from the Greek topic area, including yourself, randomly collude at convenient times in completely unrelated RM’s of relatively unknown towns in Kosovo to vote against name changes to the Albanian form (interesting, right?), I also have below a list of recent cross-editing which you would call “tag-teaming” when it doesn’t concern you (again, double standards):

• 18th August 2022, Dropull article: Khirurg [183], Khirurg [184], Alexikoua [185], all in the space of 2 hours
• 13th September 2022, Himariote dialect article: Alexikoua [186], Khirurg [187]
• 25th-27th August 2022, Epirus Revolt of 1611 article: Khirurg reverts changes by Alltan made to an addition initially added by Alexikoua [188], Khirurg [189], Alexikoua [190], Khirurg again [191]
• 16th-18th August 2022, Chameria article: Alexikoua [192], Khirurg [193]
• 22nd September 2022, Himara article: Khirurg [194], Alexikoua [195], Khirurg [196]
• 15th September 2022, Himara article: Alexikoua [197], Khirurg [198]
• 6th September 2022, Souliotes article: Alexikoua [199], Alexikoua [200], Alexikoua almost violating 3RR rule [201], Khirurg [202]

Now, is this evidence of tag-teaming, or is it only tag-teaming when it is not involving Alexikoua and Khirurg? As far as I am concerned, this is exactly what I have been supposedly called out for, but I am not “tag-teaming”. I am editing topics that are relevant to WikiProject Albania, as I have always done, and nothing more. I am awaiting Khirurg’s apology for slandering my name and completely disrespecting the time and effort I put into Wikipedia – such accusations should not be taken lightly. I’ve noticed that he has already been in trouble for this behaviour prior to this report. Hopefully an admin can take control of the situation and stop this once and for all. Perhaps a block or even topic ban would be in order so that Khirurg may finally halt these behaviours that completely disrespect and devalue other editors here on Wikipedia. Alexikoua, baseless statements like “It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above” do not prove anything – above I have provided reverts as well, but is it still too weak simply because it mentions your name? If you are going to accuse me of tag-teaming, I will be disappointed and will expect an apology from you too should an admin clear my name. Using strong wording doesn’t make your opinions or comments superior to anyone else’s, and you cannot simply dismiss things with no valid reasoning. The reverts may not be so bad – but the voting is extremely suspicious and I urge an admin to look into it. Botushali (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm actually there was no 3rr breach on Souliotes if you mean that. You also ignore to state that the above edits were always accompanied by tp participation: in most cases you point there was no more than 1rv per 24h and strictly following wp:BRD, no drive-by reverts or accounts that came from nowhere and simply wanted to support a supposed common national campaign as in the case of Khirurg's extensive report.Alexikoua (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Support a supposed common national campaign..." do you know how ridiculous that sounds? What exactly are you trying to implicate? Even then, most reverts I make I involve myself in the TP discussions for, unless it's not necessary. If you're innocent according to what you wrote above, then so am I. Very flawed report, very flawed comments and very flawed rebuttal of what I have put above. You RV'ed the same change three times (so correction on my part, almost* violating 3RR), and to prevent you from going to four, Khirurg came in to do the RV. If that's the case, I do not know, but had it been me or any other accused editor here, you would consider it evidence of "tag-teaming" due to the double standards you have quite clearly shown during the course of this report. Furthermore, I see that there was no comment in regards to the voting? You know the votes that uninvolved editors from the Greece topic area - who do not edit, comment or patrol pages in WikiProject Kosovo and have never done so - somehow randomly casted (same vote every time by the way, always !oppose) whenever an RM request was made to move a page to its common, official Albanian name? Very strange phenomenon, isn't it? Botushali (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What I don't see in the above walls of text is an explanation for how come you reverted at Himara within 14 minutes, even though you had never edited that article before, and how come literally seconds later Alltan showed up with an identical summary (but the edit was blank because you had already reverted). Khirurg (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why you're asking me. I've edited many other articles like Himara and I have it on my watchlist - as I said above I've been monitoring it for a while. Why shouldn't I revert there if I disagree with an edit? Why Alltan copied my edit summary is something which he should reply about but he already has done so as I can see above ("So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali"). What's the accusation? Unlike you and Alexikoua who always have the exact same reverts, I have been in actual content disputes and disagreements with Alltan and I have reverted him. [203] just a few months ago. Botushali (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've edited many other articles like Himara doesn't explain how you showed up to revert within minutes at that article, despite never having shown any interest before. Your claim that you had been monitoring it for a whileis not verifiable. Your revert of Alltan occurred after first reverting me and insulting me Example text and the matter was referred to ANI [204]. So much more likely that was the reason, than any purported "disagreement". Khirurg (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have the article in my watchlist, bud. I've shown interest many times before in articles in which Albania and Greece overlap. Perhaps me monitoring it cannot be verified, but neither can me not monitoring it. The revert - if you look at the source, it did not even indicate what was said, so that's why I reverted Alltan. ANI didn't even do anything about what I said to you because it really wasn't that bad - especially in comparison to you and your track record of disrespect that you have littered throughout TP's and edit summaries towards your fellow editors. This whole report disregards the hard work of the editors you are accusing, including myself. I also would like to point out that you are yet to explain why you and other editors here have voted !oppose on articles that have nothing to do with the Greek topic area - rather, it is a topic area you have never attempted to improve, work on or add to, but conveniently you decide to vote !oppose when RM's are made attempting to move said articles to their rightful Albanian title. All in all, your unfounded conspiracy theories are getting boring and simply tiring - what's next? Tin foil hats? Botushali (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Be sarcastic all you want, but rest assured this is just starting, and there will be admin feedback, no matter what. By the way my watchlist has been extremely quiet literally since I filed this report. I wonder why. Khirurg (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Good, I hope there's admin feedback, and I hope the admin tells you to quit this nonsense. That last line is exactly what I am talking about, not everything is a big conspiracy against you. It's just becoming a joke at this point... Botushali (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I do not think that the aforementioned articles and diffs constitute "evidence of tagteaming". Someone might do a reasonable assumption that there is tagteaming going on, but the most profound explanation (Occam's razor) is that the users accused are watchlisting the pages. Albanian and Greek history intermingle too much and areas of debate (either mostly Greek or mostly Albanian) attract the attention of both Albanians and Greeks that are interested in history. Cinadon36 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The major problem with the report is that it is invoking WP:TAGTEAM which is neither a policy, nor even a well-defined concept. This is made clear in the first sentence of WP:FACTION: Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial[note 1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. note 1: Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced a concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Wikipedia's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work In this context, there's nothing to discuss in terms of policy because there is no policy to debate about. We can still use the discussion to define it in better ways so that it's not invoked as in the report. I think that for WP:TAGTEAM to exist it has be shown that a group of editors a)have a consensus which they push around by b)circumventing official channels of consensus-building. Point b) cannot be shown in this report because there are many discussions at all talkpages about finding a consensus and one is usually found eventually. The problem which Khirurg seems to have is that there are many more editors who support specific revisions and few who support specific other revisions. This isn't a problem of policy. Consensus tends to reflect the desire of the majority of editors to the extent that they can back it back up with sources and policies. There will never be a case where consensus will reflect what just 2 editors want (e.g. Khirurg and Alexikoua) but not what 20 others want to the extent that it can be backed with sources and policies(WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). There are many editors active in articles under the scope of WikiProject Albania and they don't coordinate and they certainly don't agree with each other on many subjects, but it's natural that to a degree a common cultural background will translate to a similar understanding of some subjects. This partial commonality is what Khirurg's diffs reflect in the same way that diffs which show Alexikoua's and Khirurg's common reverts highlight another partial commonality in reasoning. Point a) is where major flaws can be found because there is no consensus which these editors share. Others highlighted instances where they revert or disagree with each other. It can't be shown that a "WP:TAGTEAM" - even in a colloquial, non-policy manner - exists if the "members" of the team don't share the same consensus. Khirurg has created a narrative which I'm certain that he himself knows that it can't stand upon scrutiny. I'll highlight some instances which mention me in a very inaccurate way:
  • Illyrian emperors - according to a Khirurg I placed a revert in this article even though I had no prior edits. This makes it seem as if my only purpose for reverting was to support other reverts. In fact, for the past 2 years I have been re-writing parts of articles about individual Illyrian emperors[205][206], so me placing a revert at the list article about them is quite ordinary.
  • Kuči (tribe) is one of the main articles related to Albanian tribes and all editors involved in improving relevant articles have engaged with it. I have written close to 40% of that article and Alltan 14.5%.
  • Bar, Montenegro: Some were reverts were listed, but there was a discussion at RfC about these changes and the majority of editors supported them. There was disagreement and consensus-building which produced results(Talk:Bar, Montenegro#RfC). Consensus-building wasn't circumvented or ignored.
  • Epirus revolt of 1611: Khirurg leaves out the fact that I disagreed with Cercok too [207][208] and changed his edits as well. I've written 28% of the article. How is it possible that two users are acting as WP:FACTION if they disagree and change the edits of each other? A key problem when we perceive any situation in us vs them terms is that we often fail to see that the Others are separate individuals. That 2 editors disagree with a third editor doesn't mean that they agree with each other. This discussion absorbed much time from several editors for no reason and it should at least with a warning that if someone has an issue with a specific editor they should report just that editor to AE where the activity of both can be scrutinized instead of dragging in many other irrelevant editors. Long discussions shouldn't be repeated at ANI without a clear context based in policy. There's always a huge backlog at all boards because of such discussions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  At Illyrian Emperors, you had zero edits to the article prior to reverting, and yet you reverted within minutes. Your explication that you have been re-writing parts of the articles about individual Illyrian emperors does not cut it. At Kuci, it doesn't matter what % of the article you have written: What matters is that we see the same pattern as all the other articles, namely, you and the others reverting round-robin fashion to prevent changes you do not want. It's the same pattern in all the articles. As for your disagreements with Cercok, those are trivial. Anyone can have disagreements like that. But none of that changes the central finding of this report. That you and a group of editors with similar views have engaged in round-robin reverting to either ram through changes by brute force, or to prevent undesirable additions. And in all these cases, neither you nor the other editors initiated attempts as dispute resolution (talkpage discussion, RfC, DRN, etc.). It was always the other party. Khirurg (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have Illyrian Emperors in my watchlist as I've worked on most articles under that list. What is abnormal about me reverting when I was online about a subject I'm heavily involved in? Articles about Albanian tribes like Kuçi are some of the most high traffic articles under WikiProject Albania. I don't know what makes you think that this article could only get attention because of WP:TAGTEAM. It's interesting - from an anthropological perspective - that you consider "trivial", disagreements and reverts between two other editors but when you're reverted, that's when you consider it important. You spent too much time which you could have spent in better ways to write a long post about something which isn't a policy and you couldn't evidentiate even in the colloquial sense. The problem stems from your perception of "us vs. them". You just have to accept that everybody agrees and disagrees with everybody over a long period time. When they disagree with you, it isn't qualitatively more important as to be linked to something more than a disagreement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have Illyrian Emperors in my watchlist - I'm sure you do now, but it strains the imagination that you had back then, and there is no way you can prove that, so it's easy to claim. But it's not just one article, it's a whole bunch of articles, and the pattern is always the same. The problem stems from a group of highly motivated and organized users that see everything as "us vs. them", and the diffs clearly show this. And not coincidentally, all this madness started in early 2020. Btw, Botushali only reverted Alltan because I brought the issue to ANI and he was afraid he'd get blocked. The rest of your post is the perfect example of what is known as gaslighting. Khirurg (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Can you stop acting like you know everything? I reverted Alltan because he misused a source, which is something I discovered upon closer inspection. You didn’t bring the issue to ANI - ElderZamzam did, but it is interesting that you immediately got involved there, and that Elder recently brought up the Xhufi discussion in a completely unrelated article despite me not being involved in the slightest with the Xhufi discussion. Are you trying to admit something here? I wonder why you implicate yourself as the person who brought the issue to ANI. Additionally, another extremely curious thing to note is that you have not discussed why you and other editors from the Greek topic area have showed up in waves on completely unrelated RM requests in WikiProject Kosovo to vote !oppose against an Albanian-titled article - keep in mind, you nor these other editors have ever shown interest in improving pages regarding Kosovo, you haven’t edited, added to or created articles in the scope of this project but somehow still manage to show up in a group to conveniently vote !oppose when an RM to an Albanian toponym is being voted on. Stop dodging the question and answer truthfully about what is going on there. If it’s plausible, although I strongly doubt it will be, fair enough - I won’t do what you do and act like I know everything whilst dismissing every ounce of reasoning as some big conspiracy towards me, gaslighting (funny that you brought it up) other people in this thread and utterly disrespecting my fellow editors. Like I said, once my name is cleared, you owe me a big apology for wasting my time on your conspiracy theories and shunning my name and reputation here. Botushali (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah sure, it must be a coincidence that you reverted me with an insulting edit-summary, then as soon as ElderZamZam reported you to ANI, you "discovered something upon closer inspection" and reverted Alltan. Yes, must be a total coincidence. Then there's the extremely interesting coincidence that you and Alltan used the same edit summary within seconds of each other The almost 40 years old source is refuted by 21st century sources and archival records present on the talk page. The almost 40 years old source is refuted by 21th century sources and archival records present on the talk page.. Come on, what's going on here? As for your accusations, I can assure you that me and ElderZamZam are not the same person (you can file an SPI if you think so), and that contribs logs are public. Khirurg (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I’ve already explained to you that this question can only be answered by Alltan, and as I’ve mentioned previously, he seems to have discussed it in his comment - genuine question, are you senile that you have to keep bringing it up when Alltan has already discussed it AND I’ve already told you that you should be asking him that question? Truly a genuine question and not a personal attack, because you seem to be running circles here with no real argument and just baseless conspiracies. Also, the first part - that ANI report was complete bogus which is why no admin did anything about it, bringing it up is just embarrassing because it didn’t affect me in the slightest. It’s not a coincidence that I make sourced edits and reverts/removals on false information - check my edit contributions. Again, you failed to answer the whole voting in Kosovo RM’s spontaneously in groups thing, must be because you have no response that you can plausibly falsify - we both know something is up there, stop dancing around in circles and answer me now for the fifth time (maybe more), why have you and other editors here (who seem to show up in all articles together with the same exact viewpoints) voted in Kosovo RM’s despite not being interested in the topic, nor having edited or created articles under said topic? Is it only to vote in spite of what you deem to be “Albanian editors” or is it only to vote against the common name simply because it’s in the Albanian language? And better yet, why is it more than just 1 of you consistently showing up for these spontaneous votes? Botushali (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Nah, the only explanation for the fact that you guys used the same summary within seconds of each other is that you shared it offline (Discord? Whatsapp? Signal? Doesn't matter I guess). But youbeat Alltan to the revert, which is why his edit was blank. This is what's called a "smoking gun". Don't be smug that the report hasn't been actioned yet. That's only because it's too long and complex for ANI. But rest assured there are appropriate venues for it, and that's where it will go, and it will be actioned. Hurling insults ("senile") is not going to help you, and in fact is only making things worse for yourself. Same goes for your counteraccusations, especially considering that are years old. You really need some fresh material, but you got nothing, so that's why you are engaging in "diff archeology". Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  These responses get more and more absurd as time goes on - off-wiki collaboration? Really? Way I've read Alltan's explanation is that they copied my summary, but you seem far too stubborn to accept that not everyone is out to conspire against you. I am not smug about this report not being actioned - I was referring to the report against me specfically - as I do truly hope this report gets actioned so that the admins may tell you off for your behaviours and these foul accusations you keep throwing. If anything, the votes on Kosovo RM's that date from 2020-2021 show consistent collaborative meddling on pages that you have never been involved on and have never had an interest in improving - they are not "years old", and I do not need "fresh material" when you are simply refusing to explain and account for your suspicious actions on said RM's. I also hope the admins read this and see how much you dodge the topic, continuously reverting to things I or others have already explained. Botushali (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why copy an edit summary for a null edit? No, it's because he went to revert with the agreed upon edit summary. But your revert had already gone through a few seconds earlier, so there was nothing to revert, hence the null edit. As for "meddling" and "no interest in imporving", that applies to your edits in the Greek topic area, where it seems all you're interested in doing is "flag planting" and other petty POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  How about you actually ask Alltan since they made the edit? They might've just wanted to add the little ending on the end my edit summary, you'd have to ask them. Brave claims to say I push POV and the like in Greek articles, also very hypocritical coming from you. I've worked on multiple articles in the project, unlike you in the project for Kosovo, where you have done nothing. Again you avoided the question, must be guilty of something. Botushali (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Report

Page:
Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Comment:
Editor Çerçok added on 31 August an unreliable source (Pëllumb Xhufi) to the article (back then, it was titled Greek revolt of 1567–1572) but the edit was reverted as other editors with a long standing, 15+ year-long experience in the Greece topic area, who are fully aware that Xhufi is an extremist^{(the admins who cannot wait for the RSN report, may simply assess what for example the Austrian Scientific Academy does sat on Xhufi: [[[209]]: In contrast to the differentiated opinions in Greek history, institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressively nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi). Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric. Xhufi also published material-rich, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays such as Manipulimi i historisë: rasti i Epiriti This is published by the Austrian Scientific Academy at 2015])} politician and objected to him being added as a reliable source in Wikipedia: [210]. Despite reverting as there being no consensus for using Xhufi,[211] Cercok attempted to reinstate the scholar back to the article without consensus [212]. When Xhufi was removed again, editor Alltan intervened to help Cercok in re-adding Xhufi again back to the article [213] despite the other editors at talk page opposing this. Xhufi was removed -again!- and then reinstated -again- [214]. The cycle goes on and after some days of no fruitful results at the talk page in reaching an agreement about Xhufi, I have attempted to remove the disputed author and have the article reflect only on consensus, [215] but another editor, Ahmet Q. from the Albania topic area stepped in to help Cercok and Alltan: [216]. Result? As of today, and in violation of any Wikipedia's rules on WP:ONUS and WP:VER and WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, Xhufi is still on the article: [217]. The editors from the Albania topic area disregarded any legitimate concerns the opposite side has expressed in the dispute, ignored what wp:onus states that they should be doing, and brute-forcibly added the dubious scholar to the article where he remains to this day today without wp:consensus.

My own reports also included the following articles: Greek War of Independence, Parga and Peloponnese, all occurring on September month as well, as well as the other articles where similar incidents occured in the past months such as Epirus revolt of 1611 (August) and so on. Since they are now covered by editor Khirurg above who beat me in the race, I am dropping them. However, the purpose of my report remains unchanged nevertheless: which is to highlight my serious concerns that on month September -alone-, Wikipedia witnessed such large scale disruption across multiple articles of the Greece topic area with editors from the Albania topic area coming there and disregarding & ignoring our legitimate concerns, not following the normal dispute resolution procedures and wp:ONUS, and brute-forcing their changes to the articles without consensus. This has heightening my fears that this might be something the Admins may have to look after and is the reason I came here for. Sure, the other editors may be right and I am not experienced in identifying accurately whether this kind of disruption is with certainty a case of tag-teaming, but that's why there are these procedures for. For this reason, I will really appreciate the Admin's attention in evaluating, as a third party, whether this is really the case as suspected. Certain editors here counter-argued that this behavior is not Tag-teaming because it is a usual WP:BALKANS behavior; however We are not exactly experiencing everyday such a surge (if I may describe it as such) of activity by editors that aren't naturally editing this topic area, yet are going to great extend to edit-war their way to the preferred version of articles in spite of consensus and Wikipedia's other core content policy guidelines. If the admin feels that there is no such kind of disruption and that my concerns are inflated, illegitimate, or I am just seeing things where there aren't supposed to be, then I am willing to apologize to the editors for that, and also to the Wikipedia's community for wasting their valuable time. In this case, I will have no other option but refrain from raising similar concerns in the future and/or listen to any suggestions/advice on what to do if I feel there is such a pattern arising again in the future. Also, if the admin deems that my concerns were disruptive to the Wikipedia community and/or I have violated the guidelines, then I am willing to face the consequences. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I added content from at least four sources, one of which was Dr.Xhufi's book. Most of the content was from Malcolm. Dr.Xhufi has been twice unsuccessfully reported by editors who disagree with the historical facts found in his verbatim representation of primary archival sources. Dr. Xhufi's book is an academic publication that has gone through peer review and has been cited countless times in top journals.

I wish added content could be discussed based on its reliability per wikipedia guidelines, not on personal like/dislike of it. Çerçok (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There are two RSNs about Xhufi which didn't conclude that the source is unreliable, as I have explained to SR already in previous discussions. [218][219] Xhufi is a medievalist who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards and it has been positively reviewed in Studime Historike, Albania's leading historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj. It checks all boxes for RS. We can't just cherry-pick one opinion to disregard someone's work. The quote which SilentResident picked is by an author who has even contributed to the same anthology with Xhufi [220]. The source which constantly and without stop SilentResident has been trying to remove from all articles is a respected living academic and comments such as "racist, "nationalist", "ultranationalist", "extremist", ([221][222] [223][224][225][226]) which have been written about him by SilentResident are a violation of BLP for which SilentResident has been warned to stop by admins and open a RSN (Drmies[227], Cullen328[228]) and they even have redacted her comments [229][230]. Alltan (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident has provided the necessary scholarship that mentions Xhufi's work as being: "aggressively nationalist". There is no BLP violation on providing this information. However, an RSN needs to filled in order to have a clear image on this but there is too much extremist speech on TV shows etc. and scholarship doesn't hesitate to reject his claims (Arbërit e Jonit has been also considered non-RS even inside Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A longtime Wikipedia user calling a living academic racist, extremist, nationalist, tendentious, ultranationalist etc. (see diffs above) and doing this multiple times over a protracted period of time even after being warned is in fact a severe BLP violation.

Xhufi's work has received excellent reviews in Albania and abroad. It's listed as a main source for a Cambridge University Press source as of 2022[231] SilentResident can't pick a random quote from someone who has even written an article in the same anthology as Xhufi who hasn't been "rejected" anywhere. Falsely claiming that a living academic is promoting "extremist speech on TV shows" is in and of itself a BLP violation. You can't go around and call anything "extremist speech" without evidence or a source which calls such speech extremist. Admins need to know that in the previous RSN there was an attempt to distort a historical comment by Xhufi and make into the opposite of what it said [232]. There is a clear targeting of this author by several users who have to stop using wikipedia as public space to attack living authors Alltan (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Being cited in sporadic occasions doesn't make RS his work, in fact this means nothing about the author and his work in general. I have seen several nationalistic works that have been cited for various reasons in serious scholarship. Please don't mix up those two. SilentResident mentioned the conclusion of high quality scholarship about works on the topic Xhufi is specialized (Albanian history and Greek-Albanian relations) and definitely Xhufi's work should be treated with heavy precaution. [[233]] Himara has always been Albanian, Greek government launched a 200-year old Anti Albanian agenda and several other motos of this fashion can't meet RS.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC on Xhufi at RSN [234]. This thread should be about the alleged tag-teaming, and nothing more. Khirurg (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, please consider this a firm warning that you are at immiment risk of a long term block if you keep engaging in WP:BLP policy violations regarding Pëllumb Xhufi. If you do not stop attacking and besmirching this academic without filing a report at WP:RSN as you have been repeatedly been asked to do, then a block will be the inevitable result. The idiom is "put up or shut up". I truly hope that you understand, and will conduct yourself in accordance with policy going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I am heeling to your warning. And not just that, but also I am trying to understand the line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP to make sure that when describing an unreliable source for the nature of their unreliability (i.e. unreliable due to their extremist views), doesn't result into WP:BLP violations. For decades, I had the impression that sources can be subject to scrutiny and criticism in Wikipedia, provided that it is based on WP:RS. But apparently this isn't the case and this is what I am trying to understand. Understanding a policy's principle, helps a lot not just to avoid repeating the policy's violations in the future but also the approach to questionable sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, adding to my confusion expressed on my comment just above, regarding the precise line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP, another Admin just intervened at the RSN stating that editor Alltan is doing an inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP regarding the criticism against Xhufi. The RfC at RSN also has non-neutral wording, and is advisd to be closed and moved to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard instead,[235] an advise the filler stated that they will follow. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

User:SilentResident, it is inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP to say the criticism of Xhufi in academic books is a breach of WP:BLP. But calling him an extremist or things like that is indeed a violation of WP:BLP. In other words, you can quote academcs who criticize Xhufi, but you can't call him an extremist, far right politican (he does not belong to the far-right) etc. Xhufi for some edits can be unreliable, for others can be reliable. It is a bit hard I know, but what can else we do? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thank you! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Not only is Khirurg accusing me of "tag teaming" (last time he accused me of "tag teaming" was in November 2021 and he was warned for that and then blocked) but he is using the inflammatory term "gang up". It is very insulting: I am a Wikipedia volunteer, not a street gang trying to bully people. Even worse, there have been cases where I have supported Khirurg's position againt editors I am supposely "tag teaming" with. For instance, Khirurg accuses me of "ganging up" with Çerçok, but just 6 days ago I supported Khirurg's position in a content dispute with Çerçok [236]. I can cite other such examples where I disagree with editors cited as part of the "tag team". I urge you to intervene to make sure Khirurg never makes such false accusations against me again. Btw, Khirurg noted that Ahmet Q asked editors to exchange emails; well Khirurg too has asked several editors to exchange emails. Even writing those requests for email exchange in Greek though here editors are supposed to write only in English. I frankly do not see any issue with asking someone to exchange emails, Idk if there is a policy against it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you deem it inflammatory, I've struck the term (it's unnecessary anyway). Now, can you try and address the topic of the report at hand? Btw, is this you calling a veteran editor an "edit-warrior" in an edit-summary [237]? Not only is this a clear WP:NPA violation, but also a violation of WP:SUMMARYNO, which explicitly states Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy. Attacking editors in edit-summaries is especially bad because they cannot be edited. As a sign of good faith, would you be willing to ask the edit-summary be redacted by WP:OVERSIGHT? Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warrior is someone who is edit warring. If I keep edit warring, I am an edit warrior. The editor breached the 3RR three times within a month. I reported him and he got warned by an admin. Then he kept reverting and placed a warning template that is used for disruptive IPs and newbies on my tp just because I reverted him twice. In the edit summary he claimed that I was not participating on the tp, but the history of the tp shows that is not true. Will you ask him to get his edit summary deleted? Anyways, some admins who use the term "edit warrior" in edit summaries for example [238] [239][240]. Even the WP:EW page uses the term "edit warrior". Do not expect any more responses by me here. I waited for the evidence of "tag teaming" but you just posted some random reverts of "Albanian accounts". Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991, indeed there is no trace of you in the talkpage [[241]] although you kept reverting. By the way the result of your report was "user(s) warned" since your disruptive editing was noticed by uninvolved editors there. As such you owe a sincere apology for this pattern. Indeed you are reverting without talkpage participation in a wide variety of articles considered that you support editors that agree on your national agenda (another recent example of reverting sourced information [[242]] and no trace in tp [[243]], same situation in Pecë [[244]][[245]] and nothing in tp [[246]] apart from my comments).Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salviogiuliano, the admin who warned Alexikoua (for breaching 3RR thrice in a month) [247] made it absolutely clear you were the only user edit warring and the only one warned. [248]Yes, I only warned him, but the template automatically closes the report as "warned user(s)". As I said during the discussion, Alex was edit warring and Alex was warned. Ktrimi991 explained this to you already in a discussion [249]. So why are you, being aware that this is not true, still asserting this? Alltan (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The full report is found here [[250]] and no wonder an uninvolved editor noticed immediately Ktrimi's disruptive pattern. After the first comment by Coldtrack Ktrimi desperately responded to wp:ADMINSHOP tactics: [[251]] and [[252]].Alexikoua (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion

A thread was opened at RSN concerning whether Pellumb Xhufi should be considered a reliable source. An RFC was briefly started, but it was then stopped by User:Rosguill, who advised that the issue be taken to DRN for moderated discussion to focus the discussion better. I have created a subpage for the discussion, which will take place at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. If there is agreement that this is a dispute about the reliability of a source, which is a content dispute, then this thread can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruption by Locke Cole

Editor Locke Cole is edit warring against consensus on multiple templates Template:Bit and byte prefixes Template:Quantities of bits Template:Quantities of bytes (including a possible 3RR violation [253] [254] [255]), disrupting talk pages (here’s one example [256]) and carrying out personal attacks [257] [258]. Some editors are trying to hold a discussion at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits, but the discussion is continually disrupted by Locke Cole's edits. Can someone take a look? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: You have failed to notify Locke Cole of this ANI filing, as the red notice on top of this page and when editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300 He did notify Locke here, but was reverted here. ~~~~ ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to apologise, in that case. I was going to check shortly after I made the comment and notice, but forgot to. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting on the possible edit warring and general discussions I find it odd that the discussion for Template:Quantities of bytes is being held at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits#New_proposal:_Legacy as part of a proposal that appears to have gained consensus and been implemented in November 2021. The only reason that I was able to figure out to go there was the fact that there was a November 2021 message on the Quantities of bytes template Talk with a link. The same goes for Template_talk:Quantities_of_bytes (where the previous talk items date to 2015). This discussion appears to have been going on for multiple years in different forms both on individual pages and collectively. I also note that the templates link to Kilobyte and other pages where the nomenclature should align with what is in the templates otherwise it is going to get even messier and the discussion will migrate there or the Template discussion will be used to support viewpoints elsewhere.

With all of this I suggest that a formal proposal be started at the Wikipedia:Village pump with messages left on the template talk pages alerting people and whilst the discussion is being undertaken the templates should be left in a stable form. Apart from anything else:

1. That will gain a wider viewership and input than on a single page.
2. Changes based on consensus at the Village Pump are easier to support and require an equivalent level of consensus to change to something else.

Gusfriend (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this should have been held at WT:MOSNUM, as one of the templates under discussion (Template:Bit and byte prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is transcluded at WP:COMPUNITS (part of WP:MOSNUM; thus making it a MOS change, not simply a template change). As to the November 2021 "consensus", the TL;dr version is, Dondervogel 2 drags out discussions, waits a month or longer to reply, apparently in an attempt to force their POV. It worked this time because I and other editors who would oppose it did not notice the "new" discussion (you can see I was heavily involved in other discussions in that main section; the proposal they made nearly two months after the last meaningful discussion in that sub-thread was quickly closed in only six days when they got what they wanted (with no attempt to ping or reach out to other editors they knew were heavily invested in the discussion)).

It is my intention to collect evidence of this disruptive behavior by Dondervogel 2 (back to when they edited as Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which goes back literally over a decade, present it here, and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG wherein Dondervogel is restricted from editing pages in any namespace that have any relation with units of measure that involve computers or technology. If you want just one taste of how they treat this topic as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, look at the full edit history of User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which they have religiously updated for fourteen years. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)If I'm reading correctly, a header at WT:MOSNUM indicates that this is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, so any editors involved in a dispute about this topic should beware and tread lightly, yes? Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice the failure of Locke Cole to assume good faith in his post of 25 September, justifying the comments by Quondum and Zac67. Further examples can be found by following the link provided by Quondum. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to Locke Cole's editing against consensus, disrupting the discussion chronology and edit warring, I'd like to direct attention to his severe lack of WP:AGF, frequent allegations of lying and generally rude tone at least bordering on harassment. A productive discussion is impossible. I'd seriously appreciate an admin calling him to order officially. --Zac67 (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This ANI thread is about disruptive behaviour by Locke Cole, and as I see it, any comments relating to the merits of the debate and forum (for example by Gusfriend above) will only distract from the purpose here. I confirm Zac67's observation above: there is a long history on this topic, including (section 'Should it be there at all?') accusations of lying, failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and generally being unpleasant to interact with. Included are accusations such as the one above against Dondervogel 2. This unpleasantness by Locke Cole and the failure of the community to censure him caused me (about a year ago) to decide to leave WP. I will no doubt leave again, but for now, I'll see whether the WP community can restore a little my faith in managing this disruptive behaviour. What is needed to deal with this? —Quondum 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Too much drama. This is a long-running dispute between essentially two warring parties. Claims of “editing against consensus” should be looked upon with critical scrutiny as they can often be a tactical move that is the Wikipedia equivalent of leaving Novichok on a doorknob to remove inconvenient obstacles. On this long-running war (over whether Wikipedia should adopt terminology like “gibibits” instead of "gigabits”) “consensuses” tend to actually comprise just one complainant and a fatigued friend extracted from the woodwork who barely cares. Were someone to induce just one or two more people to somehow care and join these discussions, purported consensuses simply swing the other way.

This dispute truly had a consensus many years ago with very many editors weighing in and a consensus discerned and declared with an admin supervising. At that time, Dondervogel 2 (then known as Thunderbird, if I recall correctly) didn’t accept that consensus and doesn't agree today with the current policy that sprang from that consensus. Nothing has since changed other than drama persists. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Quondum said above that there is a long history on this topic and Greg L says that it is a long-running war. As I mentioned above, the way to solve the underlying root cause, the best way of getting more involvement in the discussion and stop having this pop up again in a few months and a few months after that is a formal RfC at the WP:Village Pump which then becomes a formal consensus at WP:MOSNUM. Once it is there it applies everywhere in the project, people can be referred to the MOS in correcting their edits and sanctions can be applied to those who continue to act against consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend: I wish to add canvassing to the list of Locke Cole's disruptive activities. He has summoned Greg_L at least twice [259] [260], knowing that Greg_L would support his position. Except when summoned by canvassing, Greg_L was not involved in the discussion on any of the templates since [2008], when he supported the disruptive activities of the socks Fnagaton and Glider87. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: He has summoned Greg_L at least twice 2021-06-21T19:06:37 2022-09-28T21:50:37, knowing that Greg_L would support his position. (original edited to add dates to diff links) As to the first linked diff, that comment was posted over a month after Greg L had already participated in the same discussion: 2021-05-07T23:27:25. As to the second diff, I provided Dondervogel 2 with an explanatory diff (2021-06-23T01:45:08, where Greg L had participated in a discussion at Quantities of bytes regarding header titles), and instead of dropping the stick and stepping away, they doubled down by casting aspersions (see Special:Diff/1113072411). As Greg L was involved in the discussion at the Quantities of bytes template, you made his involvement important when you used a separate talk page as justification for making changes he had previously opposed: Special:Diff/1056250211. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Sort of like how Quondum just showed up randomly here I presume.

Now that we've settled Dondervogel 2's latest attempts take issue with my behavior, can we please address their behavior in so far as WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:CANVASS (for the Quondum canvassing) and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goes? I'm still preparing my WP:BOOMERANG proposal, but clearly if they're going to escalate to casting aspersions about me, this needs to be stopped now.

@Dondervogel 2: I see you can spend time here making more aspersions against me that are unfounded, can you spare a moment to reply to my question on your talk page? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it’s time for a reality check and history lesson since this tendentious behavior by Dondervogel 2 isn’t going away and occurred so long ago, almost no one currently on Wikipedia remembers.

First off, I’m a senior mechanical engineer at a major electronic manufacturer, where I help establish engineering standards for the company. Although I’m close to retirement, I’m not yet retired and have better things to do with my life that spend time here dealing with tendentiousness that makes Wikipedia’s articles look foolish.

Secondly, no one “summons” me. I seldom visit Wikipedia anymore to edit and happened to notice an “1” badge on my alert bell because my name had been mentioned on that template page.

An objective look at the most recent 100 of Dodgervogel 2’s edits shows him to be a near-single-purpose account user with an apparent obsession over how Wikipedia should be using terminology like “kibibytes” and “mebibits.”

The consensus hammered out years ago, which resulted in the current MOSNUM policy was one that Dondervogel 2 (then known as “Thunderbird2” or something like that) vehemently disagreed with. Sometime after the consensus went against his position, Thunderbird 2 dropped off the radar… I don’t remember when and the circumstances, just that there was no disruption for a while.

Now, newly reincarnated as Dondervogel 2, he spends an unusual amount of time on Template:Quantities_of_bits, which links to an uncanny amount articles, and where Dondervogel 2 seems to always have a presence.

Wikipedia doesn’t need those tables featuring the “gibibit” terms if the price is continual disruption. Those units are largely ignored by the mainstream computer world and the computer press; Dell doesn’t use them in their literature or packaging. Same for Apple. ‘PC World’ and ‘MacWorld’ don’t use them… unless perhaps it is an article of a proposed standard that never took off. Spell checkers from Apple—a tech company—don’t even have those terms in the dictionary… when I try to type “gibibits,” my spell checker tries to auto-correct it to giblets.

If Dondervogel 2’s contribution was to just produce a nice table and let the community use it as the MOSNUM-memorialized consensus intended, that would be fine. But instead his tendentiousness expresses itself as doing his best to put that table in articles where the units aren’t used… as if “keeping the units front and center amounts to keeping the dream alive” that the computer world will one-day follow Wikipedia’s lead.

Finally, as for me somehow being in Locke Cole’s hip pocket, there’s zero truth to that. Locke and I were on opposite ends of a different disagreement (linking dates) around the same timeframe and it was a bitter ending for Locke when the consensus went against his wishes. Though Locke didn’t like it, he accepted the consensus and didn’t edit against it… or at least didn't edit against it much as I recall. Greg L (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Dondervogel 2 casting aspersions

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Evidence and Discussion

During discussion at Template talk:Quantities of bits I had advised Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that they need to inform other editors who had expressed concern over the topic under discussion of the new discussion at this new talk page. They seemed to largely ignore that, ultimately pinging Quondum instead. Noticing that Greg L (who had previously participated in discussions at Template talk:Quantities of bytes) had been conspicuously absent from the other ping's, I finally did what Dondervogel 2 appeared incapable of doing: ping of Greg L. To which Dondervogel 2 replied (with an edit summary of why?) What is the reason for wanting to involve Greg L? I answered with a diff of Greg's previous participation, asking I wonder perhaps if you could explain why you'd exclude him? And instead of recognizing their error, they elected to cast aspersions about why he was pinged: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. Is that a good criterion for involving a new editor? I replied Where did I imply this? I expect an answer to this Dondervogel 2.

No reading of what I wrote could possibly be taken as inviting him because he would support my position, nor the logical fallacy that follows. After receiving no answer but witnessing Dondervogel 2 continuing to edit elsewhere, I took the behavioral issue directly to their talk page: With this edit you commented in a reply to me the following: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. I had replied, asking Where did I imply this?. Can you explain your comment as I've already asked? To which they replied, adding conditions to any answer (clearly now meeting WP:ASPERSIONS as they are unable to substantiate their false claims about me): I will consider responding to your questions once they are expressed as questions (or requests, but not demands) and when you learn to assume good faith. Further replies on their talk page yielded no answer, just further demands to meet conditions even after explaining that such conditions are inappropriate (especially in dispute resolution).

Request

My goal from the beginning of that line of discussion was to ensure that any concerned parties on other talk pages were informed of the discussion now taking place at this alternate venue. Dondervogel 2 appears to be both WP:FORUMSHOPping and engaging in WP:CANVASSing by being selective in who they ping and when. As they refuse to answer my WP:ASPERSIONS concerns (I suspect because they can't, but they also refused to withdraw them as well), I am asking for an administrator to either directly ask them to answer for their claims against me, or block them indefinitely until such time as they do. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks and uncivil comments by Wikaviani

Wikaviani is not taking 'No Personal Attacks' seriously. He makes harassing and uncivil comments during the discussions, specially when it comes to challenging issues, which makes consensus building nearly impossible. Here he makes attacks by saying "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV". In response, I politely asked him to avoid casting aspersions against me. At the time he made more attacks, like this.

Now, when he is told by another user to avoid making personal attacks he made here, instead of avoiding personal attack, he responds: "calling a cat a cat is not a "personal attack". --Mhhossein ^talk 11:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the conversation. I think there's a case for WP:BOOMERANG here.

First and foremost, you're quoting him out of context. He said, "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV without providing any reliable source." Emphasis mine. Please don't misrepresent words by selectively quoting them.

It's not a personal attack; it's an observation about behavior. He feels that the content you've proposed is biased towards the Iranian government, that your posts treat the talk page like a WP:FORUM, and that the sources you've provided aren't reliable.

You also linked to a diff that showed a comment Wikiaviani made and called it an attack. It's not. He's saying that you have a battleground mentality; that you're edit warring; and that you're distorting Wikipedia's guidelines.

You, yourself, previously accused him of having a battleground mentality and edit warring. You're claiming that such statements now count as a personal attack. When you said those things, did they also count as personal attacks?

Here's some feedback for you: if you suspect someone is some sort of sockpuppet, raise it in WP:SPI. Don't try to discredit other participants in a discussion by airing such a suspicion in the middle of a content dispute. Quandarie 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This is not a personal attack, and Wikaviani is in fact not the first person to make this observation; I did it as well back in 2019, in a WP:AN thread where other users made similar concerns [261]. If you assemble all the cases, there is a good amount of evidence to back this. For example, back in April 2020, Mhhossein was partially blocked for "tendentious commentary and original research" [262] which he made in this thread regarding Khomeini (taking a pro IRI stance) [263], the founder of the IRI. A pro IRI stance was also taken here (2019 June) (September 2021). Heck, take a look at even his most recent case regarding the death of a poor woman by IRI Guidance Patrol for showing some hair. Do I need say more? (September 2022). They have also been warned "against a battleground mentality and further incivility" in relation to articles about Iranian politics. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the comments down below, I should have perhaps clarified better. This pro-IRI behaviour all violated at least one of our guidelines in each of these threads. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Quandarie: I really don't think [264] and [265] are appropriate ways of communicating with others in such a calm a discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, while edit warring, misrepresenting what reliable sources say by cherry picking only the parts you like, using unreliable IRI sources repeatedly while you have been told not to do so are appropriate ways to edit this encyclopedia ? By the way, two editors are still waiting for your explanations at Talk:Mahsa Amini protests, it would be an appropriate way to communicate to answer them, don't you think so ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mhhossein, thanks for the diffs. Mhhossein is right; it is an unacceptable personal attack. Quandarie 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Quandarie: ; Don't get me wrong,

• Given Mhhossein's profile as an editor, I disagree, when an editor systematically misrepresents what sources say to push a pro IRI POV during unrest in Iran, it's not surprising to see him do it again now.
• Again, calling a cat a cat is not a personal attack towards said cat.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Personal attacks again: I thought the insight by two third parties (Vice Regent, Quandarie) would make it clear enough to you that your comments had been personal attacks and that you should not comment on the editors. Among other things, you are making ad hominem comments which WP:WIAPA says are "never acceptable". --Mhhossein ^talk 03:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Vice Regent did not respond to my answer as to why it was not an attack, neither did Quandarie. Oddly, you keep cherry picking comments that favour you, omitting what HistoryofIran and Quandarie said about you deserving a topic ban ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment : I could hardly do a better job of gathering evidences than what has been done above by two other editors (also see here). I think Mhhossein is quite a knowledgeable editor on Islam related topics, as evidenced by the articles he has brought to the good or featured level, but when it comes to topics related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, he is almost systematically biased.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal: Mhhossein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WP:BOOMERANG : Given what has been said above, i propose a topic-ban of all topics related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, broadly construed.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Amended heading to clarify that this is a boomerang proposal, not a proposal against yourself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for clarifying.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support : Per nom.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment this whole discussion is an excellent illustration of why WP:GS/IRANPOL / WP:ARBIRP [Links fixed. El_C 16:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)] was needed, and of the fact that a larger number of admins are needed to monitor this area. El C and myself did so for a while, before we were exhausted by the endless bickering and omnipresent battleground mentality. I strongly suggest that no action be taken in this case unless and until uninvolved admins or experienced editors have had a chance to give their input (but I will likely not be one to do so). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This belong at ArbCom for a full case with all sides presenting their evidence, not an ANI proposal where one group of partisans bands together in a show of "consensus" for sanctions against another partisan. nableezy - 21:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Not sure I agree. ARBCOM cases are for complex disputes; this is just endless mudslinging that can be resolved by a group of admins, but is exhausting for any single one. Someone ought to try AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde, this case is better here than at Arbcom. Also, I don't see how I can form a band of partisans with an editor I've never interacted with before today (Quandarie).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

There was an ArbCom case on this last year. I don't think Mhhossein has learned from it. Quandarie 06:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: this is worth a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions regime. Quandarie 06:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Yes, Mhhossein has been part of previous disputes, but why is a topic-ban requested here? Having a pro IRI stance and expressing it politely in a talk page? BOOMERANG is not "let's retaliate because we can". MarioGom (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There's much, much more to this than his pro-IRI stance. Quandarie 08:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Being part of disputes and expressing it politely is not the problem and as far as i can see, nobody here is saying let's retaliate because we can, i made a topic ban proposal in order to stop the disruption caused by Mhhossein when it comes to IRI related articles, not to "retaliate". There are many many diffs provided above, please take the time to check them. Every time there is unrest in Iran, this guy steps in with unreliable sources or misrepresentation of what reliable sources say, all with edit warring, personal attacks and a battleground mentality, it seems quite obvious that this editor is not neutral when it comes to editing IRI related topics, isn't that enough for a topic ban ? I've seen editors get blocked/topic banned for much less.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

My comment was a reference to, at least, 2 of the provided links [266][267]. Unless someone gets more specific with diff links or specific quotes, the rationale above seems to be that you consider unacceptable to hold certain positions, rather than a behavioral problem. What I've read so far in these two links are reasonable comments (whether they are right or wrong) about the handling of sources, in-text attribution, etc. Actually, what I do see is that other editors immediately personalized the discussion. I might be missing context, but I just don't see the path from these links to a topic ban. MarioGom (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

[268] Blatantly misrepresenting a source to make it more in favour of the IRI is reasonable? For a user that has been here for 8 years and has been accused/warned for similar behaviour in the past? Mhhossein hasn't even responded to why he did that yet, even though he was asked directly TWICE in that very talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The path that links Mhhossein to a topic ban is here : edit warring and refusal to achieve consensus FIRST before reinstating his edits while trying to discredit reliable western sources with a POV tag when Neda Agha Soltan was killed by Iranian forces (along with personalized comments like "thanks for your collaboration, let's remove the tag when the issues are resolved" while the onus was on him to convince others about the inclusion) : [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274] (he reverted 3 different users to reinstate his edits, two registered and one anon ...). Also, as said above, blatant misrepresentation of a western source by cherry picking only the parts he likes and omitting the rest, quite odd for an editor who speaks English very well and has been editing here for so many years, don't you think ? There are many other examples.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: I for one, am tired of seeing Mhhossein violating our guidelines in favour of their persistent pro-IRI edits/comments and getting away with it. Being "polite" whilst doing it doesn't make it any better, that's why we have something called WP:CPP. I don't think this was would have happened if there were more admins to monitor this area (though I don't blame them). The fact that Mhhossein only got topic-banned from MEK (People's Mujahedin of Iran) related stuff back in September 2021 is honestly baffling [275]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeatedly adding false negative material and BLP vios to a sanctioned article

• Bored Ape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guydebordgame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Guydebordgame has been adding false negative information to Bored Ape, and edit-warring over these additions, since September 17. He has ignored or disparaged several attempts on the talkpage (beginning September 18) to get him to abide by Wikipedia policies (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:V), gain consensus, and make sure his edits are verified in citations [276].

Because the article is under Community Sanctions and restricted to 1RR, and the user is edit-warring and doubling down instead of listening, I am bringing the issue here.

Negative inaccurate edits and BLP vios on Bored Ape:

• [277] "Crack cocaine addict" (the citation instead says this co-founder had addictions for a couple of years in his early teens and they ended when he was 15)
• [278] (reverted removal) re-added "Crack cocaine addict"
• [279] re-added "crack cocaine addict", in a new sentence; still inaccurate, still undue, cherry-picked, and a BLP violation. (The citation instead says that before co-founding Bored Ape, Aronow was [planning to get an MFA but fell ill and became] a cryptocurrency trader.)
• [280] "The ADL has stated that several of the traits in the collection are problematic and racist towards black people and Japanese people." (Instead, the citation refers to two senior research fellows at ADL [Pitcavage and Hill], both of whom refute Ripps' claims of racism, although they note that, out of context, 2 of the 10,000 ape images are problematic and that "a very small subset" is "clearly offensive" taken out of context.)
• [281] "banned in many countries for being child pornography" (The citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
• [282] (reverted removal) re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
• [283] "where users commonly 'draw dicks,' according to the founder." (Not at all what the citation says; not even an accurate quote even though it's in quotation marks. The citation mentions a concept of an unnamed shared blank digital canvas that was apparently abandoned because the founders didn't want people drawing problematical stuff.)
• [284] (reverted removal) re-re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the existing citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere. Guydebordgame added to that an unreliable citation which falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film rather than the album and which links to an unrelated 2015 Canadian court filing which does not mention Bored Ape or the album the pseudonym is named for, and although the court filing mentions the film and says that a police officer had said that based on description one or two scenes in the film were "bordeline child pornography", the court filing says nothing about the film being "banned in many countries".)
• [285] (reverted removal) re-re-re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (see above for detailed explanation).

Again, since the article is under sanctions and the user is edit-warring every time his false negative material is reverted, even with clear explanations in the edit summary and on the talkpage, I'm bringing this here. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC); diffs added to 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now added another diff as Guydebordgame is contimuing to edit war on this 1RR article over his false information and is refusing to gain consensus. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Isabelle Belato and ASpacemanFalls, who have been editing the article somewhat regurlarly recently, to see if they have any comments. Also Hesperian Nguyen, who apparently has considerable experience with this editor (but may be currently off wiki and not see this). 64.64.172.66 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure this is an urgent issue at the moment, but from checking the article's history, it does seem like Guydebordgame is involved in a slow edit war to add that one information about the movie. Their interaction with other users in the talk page, which I've warned them about, also makes me think they want to right some wrongs. I hope a stern warning will course-correct them. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

As a note, after my posting here Guydebordgame again added information to the article that had been disputed before, here. If this behavior continues and the user fails to take this thread's warning to heart, then a page block might be for the best. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. I'd also agree that a warning is sufficient for now. In regards to the movie, it seems that tidbit about the ban is taken from its own Wikipedia page, which only sources that with a PDF filing, which only concerns Canada. So it might also be helpful to get rid of that claim on the film's own page or, at least, amend it to reflect that one country considers it "objectionable". ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Guydebordgame has now breached 1RR on this sanctioned article and has been reported at ANEW: [286]. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

are there any wiki mods here? please somebody check this user 64.64.172.66 and their obsessive desire to remove well documetented facts about child pornography in the film emperor tomato ketchup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Guydebordgame blocked indef for personal attacks, as explained here. There's been parallel edit-warring at Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film). Someone might want to take a look at whether sources verify the current content of that article. The Reddit source doesn't look very promising... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have checked all of those citations and they do not verify or confirm, so I will revert that on the film article. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe

I recently saw that User:Moondragon21 created some problematic articles, noted this at User talk:Moondragon21#Issues with your creations, and pinged User:Joe Roe as they had given them the autopatrolled right, which I thought should be revoked. Things went downhill from there, with Joe Roe completely missing the point and making false claims for rather unclear reasons. Today they warned me that "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place." (the editor created unattributed, machine translated versions of articles from other wikis: no idea how to find this and see if e.g. a CCI is necessary without going through their edits). Joe Roe also reverted a draftifying I made of an article by Moondragon without bothering to solve the issues that lead to the draftifying in the first place, and then blocked me from that page when I redraftified it, which seems like a clear WP:INVOLVED issue. They also history merged another Moondragon21 article I had draftified (Murder of Natalia Melmann, a problematic unattributed translation), without bothering to indicate that they put an unattributed translation back into the mainspace in this way.

Can someone please tell Joe Roe that such WP:INVOLVED blocks are a big no-no, and that making false claims to protect his granting of autopatrolled isn't very good either? Fram (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think I "missed the point" that Fram was trying to make with regards to Moondragon21's edits (he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is). I just disagreed that it justified revoking autopatrolled from his account. Fram is of course welcome to ask another admin to review that decision. Afterwards, Moondragon21 pinged me asking for help resolving a split page history after Fram moved one of his creations to draft while he was editing it. I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy, noting that Liz had just done the same thing a few weeks before (User_talk:Fram#Draftifying_articles). Fram immediately reversed that move, so I issued a partial block to prevent further move warring. All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity, and the only reason I saw any of this was because Fram pinged me to ask me to take an administrative action, so I don't see how I have crossed WP:INVOLVED. I'm happy to hear others comments on whether any part of this sequence was in error. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for showing that you indeed missed the point. The issues I raised about Moondragon were unattributed translations, very poor machine translations, and "fake" referencing (taking the first source from the original article, and putting it at random somewhere in their translation, thereby e.g. using a 2018 source to reference a 2022 fact). "he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is" He has since edited a lot, and has not tagged even one of his creations as an unattributed translation, despite requests to do so from me and from Joe Roe. "All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity": I criticized your repeated failures to actually see the issues, and the false claims (e.g. "The notices about articles nominated for deletion or moved to draft were there before I granted autopatrolled") you made to defend your lack of action. To then go and revert a problematic article back into mainspace and then block your critic is clear WP:INVOLVED admin tools abuse. Fram (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, you are criticising my administrative actions. That's fine, happens all the time, but it does not disqualify me from taking further administrative actions involving you. We'd be rather stuck if that were what WP:INVOLVED means, because someone could just declare that they think all admins are idiots and become unblockable. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    • No, I am discussing your competence and your false claims in defending your lack of action. About the edits of one editor, with a few articles as examples: and you just happen to then block me from one of these articles, and claim you are not involved. Comparing this with an extreme example of slippery slope is a very weak attempt at defense. Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

      Oh, and your attempt to stop me from looking through the creations of someone who produces poor, unattributed machine translations. You seem to have your priorities here absolutely wrong. Fram (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both the Fram block and this ANI thread popped up on my watchlist at the exact same time, so I took a look at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert. I have no dog in this fight, and have no opinion on whether the block or other actions were WP:INVOLVED. But having checked three of the four citations in the article, I had to remove those three as not verifying in the least. I believe that Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert should be returned to draft, and Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked. And MurielMary should be far far more careful in accepting AFC submissions. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Edited to add: Yngvadottir has now fixed the sourcing issues, so I now believe the article can stay in mainspace unless the subject lacks notability. That said, I believe Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked, and Fram unbanned from the article now that it is sourced and unlikely to be moved-warred over (he may have something to contribute to the article). Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I edit conflicted with you after working on Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert, and had previously looked at Murder of Natalia Melmann. To be frank, neither looked like a translation to me, they were both so inadequate in their coverage, while the German articles are distinctly fuller coverage of the subject. I was disturbed by the point to which Fram drew attentions in their edit summaries at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert—an obviously misused reference—and it's a BLP, so I rolled up my sleeves. I believe it's better now. I don't think Moondragon21 should be doing any editing here requiring understanding German, let alone on BLPs. Türkeli-Dehnert is not a politician, she is a civil servant/administrator, and the article contained several inaccuracies. It didn't bear the hallmarks of machine translation, but this editor's work based on German sources, at least, needs to be draftified until it can be checked. In short, Fram's right and since I have now made the article much closer to the content of the German article, I'm going to put the translation template on its talk page, but I don't think the editor has been translating, really. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • To clarify, I don't think I indicated that this page was a translated one (if I did, I messed up). The ones I indicated as unattributed translations were Julia Hamburg (a near-straight Google translate of the intro to the German article, and Murder of Natalia Melmann, which was a badly mangled straight Google translate of the Spanish version: e.g. the text in the enwiki article, "Later skills link five involved since in the analysis of the young woman's body five different genetic traces were found" is exactly the same as what you get with a Google translate of "Pericias posteriores vinculan a cinco involucrados puesto que en el análisis al cuerpo de la joven fueron hallados cinco rastros genéticos distintos" from here. Fram (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support removal of the removal of Moondragon21 autopatrolled permissions given the issues mentioned here and on their talk page since they have been given the permissions. They had an AfC rejected due to using wikiwix.com as a source for Mariama Sarr in August.

  As an aside, whilst I am aware that it is a personal preference and not policy, I do not like signatures that do not display their username. As such I am disappointed that an administrator would have a signature that says "Joe" when their username is actually "Joe Roe". Gusfriend (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps it's a misnomer, but WP:DRAFT is marked as an "explanatory essay". In that context, was this extreme enough to 1) warrant a block 2) require an admin to revert the move back to a "preferred version" in lieu of editors organically resolving this (preferably through discussion).—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  That particular part of WP:DRAFT is just an explanation of how WP:EW, a policy, is applied to moves-to-draft. This was a partial block from editing one page after I had attempted to get Fram to stop himself; I didn't see it as particularly "extreme". – Joe (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Trying to stop me from something not disallowed in policy but just in an essay, and without even attempting to get a) why I redrafted it, or b) to correct these issues on that BLP yourself? And then blocking me, again based on that essay, while we were in a dispute over your handling of the autopatrolled right of that very editor? Fram (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    We weren't "in a dispute", Fram. You asked me to do something, I said no. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    And misrepresented my comments, and then started lying about what happened, and then as a completely unrelated action (right?) lectured me about draft moving one of the articles from that discussion, lectured me about going through the creations of other editors (because, of course, we want more disastrous machine translations and we don't want anyone to find out), and then pblocked me. Totally normal behaviour. Fram (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    I really have no idea what you're talking about with half of that. Let's let others weigh in, shall we? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy...: Those actions that you described are you as an editor, not an admin, and you cited essays. A revert would rarely be an admin action, save for a policy violation (BLP vios, unsourced, etc) or reverting to "preferred version" only after applying full protection in an edit war. This is a content dispute of sorts on what should be in draftspace or mainspace. Discussion would have been the preferred action at that point, not adding to the warring yourself. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    This is both: reverting a (conduct) policy violation and reverting to the (policy) preferred version. I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. I have no opinion on whether the article ultimately belongs in mainspace, only that the process is followed. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    • You are using an essay to support your edit warring and blocking over bringing a BLP into mainspace while the issues that have been pointed out with references not supporting the claims (with e.g. a 2018 source for a 2022 fact) have not been corrected, and claim that you are reverting to the policy prefered version somehow? And that's still ignoring the involved action of it of course, but then again, you "have no idea what I'm talking about" when I describe your own posts, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Fram (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'll defer to others on whether DRAFTOBJECT is a de-facto policy or just an essay, as I'm not too active in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just looking at the new pages recently made by Moondragon21 and noticed that since 23 September Alexis Izard, Elenore Sturko (politician), Finnish gun politics, Paul Midy, Zorlu Tore and Midy have all been created without a talk page template plus pages created with only a single primary source and needing other tags. As I mentioned above I do not believe that they should have autopatrolled permission. Gusfriend (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

They also don't add the redirect templates like {{R from alternative name}} when they create new pages which are redirects. Gusfriend (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not seeing this as an involved problem. If someone moves a page back to article space, don't just keep move warring back to draft. If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved. If there are other issues and you aren't making progress on various talk pages, bring them to ANI. Present a sample of articles, describe the problems they have, and suggest revoking autopatrolling or some other sanction (or postpone such a proposal if the person understands the issues). I will say, though, that as usual, coming in hot with a "look at all the ways I found that you're a screw-up. can't you do anything right?" [paraphrase] followed by a bunch more notifications as you go through a bunch of their edits with the effect of angrily dropping a stack of papers on someone's desk, isn't always the most effective approach at getting someone to change their behavior and is going to lead to the wrong kinds of arguments.
  It looks like some of the this thread has become about Moondragon21, though. Perhaps that should be separated from the involved question. Moondragon21, as several people have said now, you do have to attribute translations, and will need to go back and do so for past translations. You are also responsible for the quality of the translation, and for making sure the articles meeting English Wikipedia policy requirements. That doesn't mean everything has to be perfect, but it does mean e.g. ensuring that text is verifiable in cited sources and, ideally, that the sources collectively justify a notability claim. As is often the case, Fram is correct on the merits (just not on the approach). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  "If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved." is a strange way to describe this. People are involved because they have a dispute, not because they move a page. But if you move a page and then block an editor while you are already in a dispute with that editor (about, among other things, this very page and the seriousness of the issues seen here and on other pages), then that makes it an involved action. Fram (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - so this was the status of the page when Joe moved it to mainspace the last time. "In October 2021, she became State Secretary for Integration in the First Wüst cabinet in North Rhine-Westphalia" is sourced to this source which is clearly dated 23.02.2018, but is sourcing a statement regarding 2021. When Fram moved the article back to draft with this edit, Fram's edit summary clearly said "A 2018 source to support a 2021 event? This is the exact same problem that led to drafitfying in the first place." I would have expected someone to read the reason why it was returned to draft. Also, I'm very unimpressed with citing two essays for the block ... and worse, calling them "policies" (see "Clear policy violation, and I'm not remotely involved"). And that doesn't even begin to get into the fact that you were the one reverting Fram in all this ... which *I* would consider involved even if there is some wikilawyering way of saying "no I wasn't" ... the appearance is very important with involved situations - always better to err on the side of not doing something. On the other hand, Fram, it might have been best to do as Softlavender and Yngvadottir did and just FIX the issues rather than move war ... you may have been on the side of protecting the encyclopedia but it does look a bit like you were being a bit of a pain in the behind rather than just fixing the issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I can get a bit vexed when people move things back to mainspace without bothering to fix the issues (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pranav Pandya (AWGP) for a similar one, not involving any of the people here though). Fram (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  As I have already said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is an explanatory gloss to WP:EW, a policy, as is WP:MOVEWAR. I could have cited WP:EW directly, but that would have just made things less clear, and I wasn't writing with eventually having to defend my action at ANI in mind (though given that Fram was involved, that was stupid of me). I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved. How else are admins supposed to deal with other types of move warring? Or regular edit warring? Or just vandalism? This is not wikilawyering, it's a core element of WP:INVOLVED: one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:MOVEWAR is an essay (and is about page names, not about namespaces, to boot)... anyway, you weren't involved because you reverted me, your reversion and block were problematic because you, the involved editor, made them. Fram (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    For me... the way an uninvolved administrator solves a move warring issue is move protecting the article or blocking someone for move warring. What makes you involved in MY mind is that you got down in the trenches and moved the article/draft around, thus becoming an editor rather than an admin. An admin works to stop the problem without having to make a decision on the content (or in this case, the namespace location of the article/draft). Like I said above, there may be a "wikilawyer" way out of being "letter of the wikilaw" "involved", but for my own actions as an admin, and as a way of staying above the fray and NOT getting into situations where you're "looking bad" - it's better to not make those "content decisions" like reverting a move before making a block. And I'll say - both of you should let other folks weigh in here, rather than doing a big pile of back and forth that doesn't make either one of you look like sensible people who are ready to collaborate and compromise. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Are you saying Joe should've blocked then reverted rather than revert then block? Or that if you block someone for repeatedly inappropriately moving a page, the page must stay at the location in was improperly moved to until someone else comes along? That doesn't seem ideal. It's not like a content dispute where there are two valid interpretations of policy and an admin isn't supposed to choose between them -- pages just aren't supposed to be moved back to draftspace like that. i.e. the next step is AfD, ANI, or some other mechanism to resolve problems with the content/creator. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth said that as an admin Joe should have either move-protected the page or blocked for move-warring, and should not have move-warred himself. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Softlavender: What would be the point of blocking or protecting the page if it remained in Fram's preferred location? – Joe (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm summarizing Ealdgyth, so you'll have to ask him. But you might want to check out WP:The Wrong Version (when there is an edit war or move war, an admin should not choose their prefered version [involvement] and then lock or block), and remember that Ealdgyth gave you two options to choose between, and page-protecting was just one of them; blocking Fram for move-warring (or even just move-protecting) would have allowed other editors to decide (for instance via talkpage consensus or whatever) whether the page in that form should be in draft-space or mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC); edited 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• • I don't see re-draftifying a BLP that is known to have fake sources as edit warring. Moving a BLP draft to mainspace without fixing the issues that have been pointed out is bad. Then blocking the messenger is also bad. Joe, can you unblock Fram from the page and accept a trout so we can close this? —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    No, because I don't remotely see a consensus for that. From WP:EW: an editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. – Joe (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Considering that I reverted once on the 23th, and once on the 27th, and you reverted my moves twice on the 27th, it seems as if that line applies more to you (who broke 1RR) than to me then? Fram (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Is there a policy-based reason to continue blocking Fram from that page? As it is unlikely that they will edit the page, the block currently only seems to serve as a scarlet letter punishment. —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    I would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. They haven't, as far as I know, so I have no reason to conclude that it is "unlikely" that they will edit the page. – Joe (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Are you aware of the reason why Fram moved the page to draft space and also that Yngvadottir has fixed that issue? Why should Fram move or edit the page now? —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    I don't know why Fram would move it in the first place when we have an age old process for building consensus for deciding whether articles should remain in mainspace. Anyway, Ritchie333 has decided to unblock and pseudo-close this thread. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Because draftification is a policy-suggested alternative for deletion, i.e. something which should be considered instead of starting an AFD; because AfD is not cleanup; because draftification gives them 6 months instead of 7 days, ... I don't understand, on the other hand, why you would move articles back to the mainspace without making any effort to address the issues with them first. Fram (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    If you are citing WP:EW, there is no situation when it's an administrative role to add your own revert to an ongoing dispute. There was no WP:3RRNO exemption applicable. You became an editor at that point.

    An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

    Then Fram reverted you, and you invoked an INVOLVED block. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? – Joe (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• If I protect a page after it's seen BLP disruption (for instance), I will usually revert to the status quo after protection has been applied. This is standard procedural practice, and doesn't make a person involved in any way. The involvement is a red herring here. The issue is needing to acknowledge and deal with BLP problems in the content. And draftification isn't a solution to that: the page may be less prominent, but BLP very much applies in draftspace, if there's content violating BLP, it's still an issue. If someone had the time to fix the issue, that's obviously preferred, but blanking, not draftification, is the appropriate second choice. Edit-warring over a draftification is genuinely pointless. As such I don't think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. Joe's block is within policy, but it's not really addressing the meat of the issue. Fram's edit-warring was pointless, and can't even claim a BLP exemption, because he wasn't removing the content. I know I'm likely pissing off everyone here, but can we de-escalate a little, appreciate what Yngvadottir did, and recognize that something similar is what's best done next time? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Striking: had not seen the second revert. Inappropriate block, per Amakuru below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the endorsement, Vanamonde, but going over a translation to find and fix problems is lengthy, demanding work; notice that my initial fix edit conflicted with Softlavender, who saw the problems with the sources. I dropped everything; Fram may not have had time (and may not have the German reading skills needed; I'm not sure I rendered the bureaucratic titles well myself). There are a limited set of editors capable of checking and fixing bad translations, and WP:PNT is perpetually snowed under. Joe Roe didn't examine these articles closely enough, nor did the AfC reviewer who passed the one I worked on, and Moondragon apparently can't read the original languages well enough to translate accurately; at least draftification removed the article from passing readers and from Google indexing while the problem with Moondragon's articles based on foreign languages could be addressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Yngvadottir: I do recognize that, hence my appreciation. Lacking the time to do that, though, the next best option is blanking the BLPvio, not move-warring. Moving it to draft may de-index it, but it's still a BLP violation. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you Yngvadottir and others for doing the important thing and fixing the article. But I still think that, as an admin responding to move-warring and bad draftications, it isn't my job to wade in and decide who's "right" about the content dispute or try to deal with complex content problems. That would make me involved. – Joe (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that Julia Hamburg was an unattributed translation of the first paragraph of de:Julia Hamburg; I've just fixed that, so now it's an attributed translation. It might or might not be a machine translation. I can't see any of the usual smoking guns for a machine translation but there isn't enough text to be sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: Yes, that was what I wondered about at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert; it didn't show the garbled syntax indicating a machine translation, but instead had plausible wording but serious omissions and inaccuracies of content. I've now looked at Julia Hamburg and the German; Fram sees a machine translation of the intro (which is itself a mark of a bad translation), but it's full of omissions of what is an almost quintessentially difficult German summary. I don't have time to work on it for several hours, and it in any case it begs for a rendition of the entire article. Meanwhile I've asked Moondragon21 what exactly they have been doing. Fram has pointed out a passage in another article that was clearly machine translation, but these two German ones make me wonder whether the editor is using some other intermediary text. The combination of plausible English and serious inaccuracies makes me think of those shady news sites that are populated with translations, maybe AI-mediated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Personally I wouldn't attempt an idiomatic translation of the German article. I'd write a fresh article in English based on the German-language sources, which would take me about half the time. Might have a go at that.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You stated above: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. After various comments, I'm interested in your current perspective on admin actions w.r.t. DRAFTOBJECT. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante. Move warring is doubly disruptive because of how annoying it is to revert, and move warring in draft space even worse because WP:CSD#G13 makes it a functional slow deletion. Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays, or said that I should have dealt with the content problems myself. I have more sympathy to the latter point of view, though my general philosophy with admin work is that if their are editors actively working on an article, leave the content issues to them (because WP:NODEADLINE), and just focus on making sure that everyone is getting their voice heard fairly (because WP:BITE is a big risk with draftification). – Joe (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

To summarize: I reverted once the 23th, and once the 27th. Joe Roe reverted me twice(!) the 27th. Hardly a blockworthy edit war in itself. "Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays" Uh, I do believe that if the justifications for a block are two essays, one of them not even applicable to the case at hand (WP:MOVEWAR, as already said above), then this is not a technicality but an indication that your block is not supported by policy. Joe Roe not only went immediately to an indef block (which again is not what policy suggests at all), but refuses to undo the block even after all these things have been pointed out, they have been asked by others to undo the block, and the issue leading to the reverts has been resolved anyway, making the block pointless in any case. Fram (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have a lot of respect for Joe Roe, but they've clearly made an error of judgement here. Using an essay as a rationale for blocking someone, and on an issue affecting a BLP too, in which they were already INVOLVED, was not correct. I can AGF on that, we all make mistakes sometimes, but it's worrying that Joe seems to be doubling down on that now, instead of apologising.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Joe Roe, that line about draftification being bitey and amounting to slow deletion is usually mine. Just the other day I was schooled here that it's perfectly ok to move a draftified article back after fixing its issues, it doesn't have to go through AfC unless there's a COI or some other specific reason. I'm not sure I 100% believe that, but there's that to explain why some NPPers are so casual about it ... However, in this instance Fram had drawn attention at least twice in their edit summaries to a major problem with the referencing (2018 ref for 2021 occurrence). Doesn't BLP policy add urgency? I'm surprised you ignored that point. Would it really have been kinder to Moondragon21 to blank the article, or reduce it to an unreferenced stub? (That was the only reference the first time Fram draftified it.) In any case, I note that Moondragon21 hasn't edited for more than twelve hours; I was hoping they'd have resumed editing and come here by now; but based on the examples in this thread, I too request you rescind the granting of autopatrol. There are too many problems in their articles for them not to be looked at by NPP. Not just the failure to attribute translations, but inaccuracies and faulty referencing; I understand that you were unaware of these problems before this thread. And yes, it's not my place, but IMO you should reverse the pblock on Fram. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Literally all I asked Fram to do was stop move warring and start an AfD to get consensus. It has never been our policy that if a BLP has problems, major or not, it should be immediately removed from mainspace. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay. So what is it I should apologise for? The first time I was asked to reverse the block was today, and I have just said I am happy to do so if Fram does not intend to move the page again. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I take your point, and I don't think there is bad faith on your part, but unfortunately I don't agree with your interpretation of policy here and I also think it's fairly clear that your (good faith) actions weren't in line with policy. Your initial explanation for the block of Fram was that they had violated WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is probably true, but that is demonstrably an essay, not a policy. It explicitly says at the top, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Now you're saying you blocked Fram for edit warring, but if that's the case then it's an edit war you also participated in, with both of you moving the page twice. That's WP:INVOLVED by most definitions, and you should have instead sought an outside opinion if you felt a block was necessary. Many others have said the same thing above so I think it would be good for you to accept the wet fish recommended by Kusma above, and then we can move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So, what we have here, in my opinion, is a problematic BLP, that was moved to draftspace; Joe moved it back to mainspace, on the basis of his reading of the relevant policies, and then blocked the other party in this dispute. Well, as far as I'm concerned, that's the definition of an involved block. Whenever we have edit wars or move wars, both editors claim to be enforcing policies and, yet, they can be blocked (subject to very few exceptions) and, anyway, if they happen to be administrators, they are considered involved in regard to the controversy at hand. You don't get to revert your opponent, because you think they misunderstand policy and then block them, unless it's very clearly vandalism or another type of blatant disruption, which wasn't the case here. The best way of approaching this would have been to ask another administrator to determine whether Fram should have been blocked in this instance, since you had already reverted his move. Separately, after skimming over Moondragon21's talk page, I also think that it would be a good idea to review whether his autopatrolled permission really is warranted. Finally, I have to also say that Fram is not entirely blameless in this; for my money, his approach continues to be somewhat antagonistic, and that makes it more difficult to solve the issues that he correctly points out. Salvio 09:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have unblocked Fram, as I count four admins (Salvio, Bagumba, Kusma and Amakuru) who have opposed the block, along with several other editors, and none that have explicitly supported it as a good block. I am also doing this to de-escalate the situation, and agree that everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and just agree to disagree on this issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't remotely de-escalatory, Ritchie333. You reversed my action minutes after I said I would be happy to do it myself with minimal conditions, and pre-empted the consensus here by calling it a "bad block" in the log, when in fact at least two participants (Vanamonde and Rhododentrites) have said that it is within policy. But whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers and remain unblockable because "four admins" are willing to defend them. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Five admins. Would I call it a "bad block", though? Perhaps a "suboptimal" one. However, it's a block I wouldn't have made. Meanwhile, I don't think the identity of the blocked editor is actually that relevant here, apart from the fact that it inevitably ended up at ANI and became more visible. And I think it is unhelpful to say they were "bullying" article writers when there's quite a lot of agreement here that the article, as it stood, should not have been in mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that I did not think the block was helpful, and would think my earlier points kinda made that clear. So make it six. (Sorry, I had some ... off-wiki issues come up yesterday and did not get a chance to revisit this until this morning). Ealdgyth (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to just leave this thread as "agree to disagree" when Joe's interpretation of WP:INVOLVED vastly differs from mine. From their comment above: This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? AFAIK, an admin should never revert, have another editor revert back, and then proceeding to block that reverting editor. They seem to be confusing this with some (rare) situtations when it may be OK to revert to a longstanding version after a block.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to see a wider discussion about that, because I am quite confident that my view is aligned with broader community consensus. And per Rhododentrites: what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert? I did both within minutes of each other here. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

...what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert?: Before a block, you are making an editorial decision on which version is "right", who had the onus to start a discussion, etc. Worse, you would only be adding to the warring—repeatedly overriding each other's contributions—not de-escalating the situation. After a block, it's merely an administrative action reflecting community consensus, where an admin presumably does not have an editorial preference. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So, if an admin reverts 12:00 and blocks at 12:01, they made an editorial decision and added to the edit warring. But if they block at 12:00 and revert at 12:01, they have merely made an administrative action reflecting community consensus and do not have an editorial preference? This is your understanding of the consensus view? It seems nonsensical to me; like it couldn't possibly matter which order those two actions were taken, they are, for all intents and purposes, taken simultaneously. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I can find no fault in Levivich's logic, those are for all intents and purposes functional equivalents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Except your hypothetical scenario was not what happened. Joe reverted the move at 6:36 27 Sept. Fram reverted again at 7:36. Joe then made the block at 7:48 Joe's revert and block are spread out, and separate decisions, not one minute apart with an arguably interchangeable order.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, so what you're saying is if an admin reverts at 12:00 and also issues a warning at 12:00, and the editor then re-reverts at 1:00, and the admin blocks at 1:12, then it's not an admin action, it's an editorial decision, and the admin is involved? Levivich (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Any editor, not just admins, can make certain reverts to enforce policy (e.g. WP:3RRNO), which would be exempt from being considered part of an edit war. An admin should not revert to enforce non-policies like WP:DRAFTOBJECT or even WP:BRD, though they can do so an editor. Issuing a warning about basic courtesies to avoid an EW is at least an attempt to educate and diffuse the situation.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's use your example: I see an edit that I think violates WP:UNDUE and revert it; it's obvious that I think I'm enforcing policy, but that's not an administrative action, in this case I am acting in my capacity as an editor; it would be the same if it was you who reverted that edit – you are an editor, but you think you are enforcing policy –; subsequently, the author of the original edit reverts me and I block him, then that's a bad block, because I'm involved. It may be warranted, because I Was right all along, but that does not change the fact that I was involved. In this case it's the same principle: the same person, first acting as an editor and then as an administrator wants to ensure that his interpretation of policy prevails. In this case, we're not even talking about a policy, but that's beside the point. Furthermore, Joe may be right on the merits, but that does not change the fact that the block was in violation of WP:INVOLVED
Yes, there can be exceptions: WP:BLP is an example, in my opinion, WP:COPYVIO is another, but, as I said, these are exceptions, they should not be interpreted broadly. In general, the letter as I interpret it or, at the very least, the spirit of WP:INVOLVED is that an administrator should not use the tools to make sure that he has the upper hand in a good-faith dispute, such as this one. Salvio 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Bad unblock. Could've at least said "it was involved, but don't do that in the future". Fram clearly sees it as validation that the guidance we have about moving drafts (which is part of Wikipedia:Drafts -- the page which describes how/when to use draftspace, regardless of the tag at the top) and standard processes to follow to address content issues are just things which get in the way of Defending The Wiki™. This was a page-level block; there was no urgency. Sigh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I would like to see the context of this quotation "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place". Can someone provide a diff please? I am not sure whether is somewhere on the policies or the guidelines, but it is common sense that if user X makes a methodological error continually, you have to check his edits. Or if you spot lets say 3-4 same manner errors, it is reasonable to think that this might be something a broader issue, and it should be checked. Checking ofcourse should be always polite and civil, aiming to help the other editor, not to frustrate him, but anyway, this is another discussion. Checking each other's work should be welcomed. Sorry for not commenting on the central theme (WP INVOLVED), but I would like to clarify this issue first. Cinadon36 10:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: WP:FRAMBAN and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Fram arbitration case did not provide any useful clarification on the "hounding" issue whatsoever. But what should Fram (or anyone else, really) do if he notices a problematic editor whose edits do not improve after friendly communication? (A) Ignore it (B) Continue to point out mistakes or (C) Go straight to ANI? —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

When did the "friendly communication" happen in this case? Levivich (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no intention of letting the abusive T&S ban restrict me from doing the necessary legwork to find problematic editing patterns, as is necessary for e.g. the CCI's I started, the SPIs I started, or the Arbcom cases I started since the Framban. Without going through some of Moondragon's earlier creations, the highly problematic "murder of" article discussed on their talk page would still be in the same sorry state it was when it was created (and not seen by most NPPs as they have autopatrolled status...). Fram (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: as it is related to the ongoing discussion, I was looking at some of their edits and noticed the article Murder of Natalia Melmann without realising that it was the page being discussed (it has been a long day). Of the 6 references for the article, there were 2 pairs of references that were the same but on different sites. I fixed it by combining the references down to 4 from the original 6 and left a note on User:Moondragon21s talk page.Gusfriend (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page. I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't. At the same time, it seems extremely unfair to have discussion of his creations tangled up with this inside-baseball drama. He is a prolific contributor who deserves a fresh discussion and broad consensus, not one or two editors standing in judgement. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Surely before MD21's autopatrolled right is pulled, the first resort would be to deploy the waggy finger and frowny face of mild administorial disapproval on his talk page? I mean, Fram's attempted something of the kind, but, well, not terribly successfully. Let's say that while Fram has many excellent and admirable qualities, gently coaching others about how to change their behaviour in a mild, engaging and de-escalating way is not one of them.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• What's weird about this is that autopatrolled isn't really a right. It doesn't let you do anything you can't do anyway. It's really a kind of tag that causes your creations to bypass NPP. It's a way of taking load off NPP when the benefits of that reduced load outweigh the risk of bad stuff escaping review -- not a way of making the editor's life easier or something. If there's any doubt at all about whether an editor's creations need review, even occasionally, then autopatrolled should be pulled. Holders of autopatrolled should have impeccable records. EEng 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• To be very clear about what I meant, since I've been mentioned above: I do not think this block violated INVOLVED, because Joe's revert was to the status quo. That doesn't make it a good block, only a block within the letter of policy. INVOLVED isn't very relevant here; we ought to be discussing how we should have dealt with the BLPVIO. I would not have blocked Fram in these circumstances, but then I wouldn't have moved the draft multiple times either. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Striking per comment below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is not the way the policy works. "Reverting to the status quo" is not a reason to edit war. WP:EW says in the top paragraph that "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." So by reverting Fram twice, whether it was the right or wrong action, Joe entered into an edit war, in dispute with Fram. They then went on to block Fram from the page on which the warring was taking place, which again is in black and white at WP:INVOLVED - "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved". This was a dispute, Joe was involved, and they took administrative action on it. It was clearly done in good faith, but I don't see that there is a single possible doubt about this. Being "right" does not vindicate you from being involved. As I said above, I expected Joe once the facts were laid bare here to issue an apology for this this morning, or at least accept a WP:TROUT, given the facts of the case. Then we could have closed this thread and all moved on, but instead I see that he's "disengaged". I'm sorry but I do find that very disappointing.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: I had not realized Joe moved the page page twice. That is indeed quite poor. I do believe the principle of my point stands, though; reverting once to the status quo is not involvement. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  For full page protection, the WP:PREFER policy allows admin discretion to reverting to a stable version, but only after full protection, not before. I assume the community supports a similiar action for blocks, reversing actions for which there is obviously no consensus, but again presumably only after blocking. —Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. It wouldn't have been difficult to say "yes, I made this block, but I can see how it could be seen as incorrect given the situation, and I won't repeat this". But, nope. Oh well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  He disengaged per the advice of the admin who unblocked Fram so as to better allow uninvolved editors to come to a consensus on what was correct here. I dont think it is really fair to castigate him for following that advice. As to the merits, I think you either play the role of admin or editor, and the reverts are that of an editor. Once you pick editor then you cant then also do admin things. nableezy - 21:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Timeline To be clear, Joe chimed in here multiple times before they chose to disengage. The rough timeline was:

  • 08:04 27 September ANI thread started
  • 11:30 Joe's statement on enforcing DRAFTOBJECT as an admin: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate.
  • 04:22 28 September Joe stands by his actions: Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante.
  • 10:36 Joe reiterates that he is not INVOLVED: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay.
  • 14:28 Joe posts here: I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page.

  Joe is not a newbie who is blindly following the advice of an admin to disengage. They are an admin, responsible for their actions and the advice they choose to follow. They are no more obliged to follow the advice of "the admin who unblocked Fram" than they are to other admins' and editors' advice here. They can—and have—picked and chosen who they wish to listen to. —Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I can understand Joe becoming defensive about his actions because Fram has been sniping at him relentlessly for a few days. Let's face it, Fram, your bedside manner is poor and you have failed to de-personalize the situation in your comments on this thread. (That said, Joe's bedside manner was quite poor when he wrote "I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place" on Fram's talkpage a day and a half ago.) In any case, I hope after the dust settles after a few days Joe can reflect on what has been said by uninvolved admins and experienced editors on this thread. Choosing a side in a dispute and then repeatedly enforcing that side and then blocking someone about it is generally considered an involved admin action, and is only acceptable in cases of major vandalism and drastic BLP violations (even then it's often good to go to AN and state what happened and ask for a block review). Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• The way I see the complaint, there are two substantial claims of there being issues with Joe Roe's actions:
  1. Claim 1: Joe Roe was WP:INVOLVED and blocked Fram in order to restore their preferred location of a page.
  2. Claim 2: The sanction issued by Joe Roe was not warranted even if Joe Roe were not involved.

With respect to claim 1, it is crystal clear that Joe Roe was involved, which is to say that Joe Roe was actively engaged in a dispute with Fram regarding the proper location of a particular page. Joe Roe moved the article from the draftspace into the mainspace, was reverted by Fram, and then moved the page back into the mainspace and blocked Fram. There was very clearly a dispute between the two editors regarding where the page belonged and Joe Roe clearly blocked an editor who had explicitly opposed him in that dispute and chose not to utilize WP:AN3 or another noticeboard to seek someone who was clearly uninvolved to take a look at the situation. Joe Roe, meanwhile, has stated in this thread I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved.

With respect to Claim 2, the arbitration committee has previously stated that any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct—a move that Joe Roe supported. It is quite surprising, then, that Joe Roe decided to outright indef Fram from that article outright and it's a bit odd; typically first offense edit warring sanctions are 72 hours and, checking through Fram's block log, they don't appear to have been blocked for edit warring before. Why did Joe Roe think that an indef from the article was proportional to the risk disruption, rather than the standard 72 hour block? I don't quite know, and I can't put words into his mouth. What I can say is that Joe Roe stated above that he does not believe the indef sanction to be extreme and that he would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. But to say that Joe Roe would be happy to unblock Fram if he could extract an unblock condition in which Fram would pledge to leave his preferred location of the article preserved is not justifiable in light of Joe Roe's being WP:INVOLVED with respect to the dispute.

Moreover, this whole saga raises the spectre of issues with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, especially if Joe Roe persists in claiming this sort of behavior is justified. Joe Roe arrived here by outright denying that any sort of dispute had been going on ([287]) and multiple times repeating the clearly erroneous claim that they were in no way WP:INVOLVED because their actions (which included their repeated page moves) were not anything other than administrative actions ([288] [289] [290] [291]). Moreover, Joe Roe's response to the unblock performed by Ritchie333 bordered on a personal attack in writing whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers; if Joe Roe truly believes that Fram is a bully, Joe Roe should provide strong evidence of a widespread pattern bad behavior in this thread rather than resorting to diffless name-calling. And, if Joe Roe still disagrees with Richtie's unblock, which Joe Roe describes as pseudo-close of this ANI thread, then there is a place to review miscellaneous admin actions where Joe Roe could seek dispute resolution and broader community reflection on whether that action was appropriate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the comment on Joe Roe's talk page that labels Fram as just single-minded raises some additional concerns for me in light of the conduct described in my comment above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Good analysis, @Red-tailed hawk: I'm also concerned that Joe Roe hasn't taken the feedback he's received with open ears. Instead he's "disengaged" and that's it. Every response was met with a rebuttal instead of a realization. Oh well —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I will note that WP:ADMINACCT explicitly states that Administrators should justify their actions when requested. Joe Roe initially attempted to do that, but the problem is that the justification was erroneous. If problematic behavior in making WP:INVOLVED blocks/admin actions continues (or pre-dates his block of Fram), then this would be something worth discussing. Does Joe Roe have any history of making contentious WP:INVOLVED admin actions, or is this a one-off? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the Red-tailed hawk's analysis. I sympathise with Joe's choice to disengage, given the tone Fram set in the discussion at Moondragons talk page. However, It would be good for Joe to briefly re-engage and acknowledge that their view of WP:INVOLVED is likely not the majority's view and allow this discussion to close. Femke (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Support. I would also say that if you give someone NPP with your comment starting with Hmm... tough one. ([292]) and later on several editors mention that they think that the NPP permissions should be removed then you should probably start a discussion about it somewhere. Gusfriend (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps be less concerned about their own scoreboard: I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't. —Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

...what on earth are you talking about? What scoreboard? I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right because I do not think it should be pulled. – Joe (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please reconsider. It has become abundantly clear throughout this thread that Moondragon21 should not have autopatrolled. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Femke. Thanks for drawing my attention back to this discussion. I'm afraid I don't share the assessment that "the majority's" view of WP:INVOLVED differs from mine here, because the majority here have commented on Fram's narrative of what happened (helpfully summarised with less concision here by red-tailed hawk), not what happened. As I've said above, I'd welcome a broader discussion on the question of reverts as administrative actions, because I simply do not see how it is logically possible to enforce WP:EW (and by extension WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT if admins cannot revert editors who breach those policies. As for the rest, ANI is for incidents requiring urgent action, and any need for urgent action ended with Ritchie's unblock. The context for why I would advise Fram not to hound or bully another editor will be abundantly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with either of our editing histories. From my point of view, there's no reason why this discussion couldn't have been closed days ago. – Joe (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If people want to hash out the INVOLVED question, there's a place for that. Levivich (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving the discussion at his point seems WP:FORUMSHOPpish. WP:XRV says It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct..., while it seems this ANI was opened exactly to seek comment on the user's conduct. ANI is perfectly suitable to handle this. While it didn't necessarily have to be opened here, it is already here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I said If people want to hash out the INVOLVED question, there's a place for that. If people want to hash out Joe Roe, they can do so here. 🙄 Levivich (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Admins are expected to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. With respect to I'm afraid I don't share the assessment that "the majority's" view of WP:INVOLVED differs from mine here, because the majority here have commented on Fram's narrative of what happened (helpfully summarised with less concision here by red-tailed hawk), not what happened, dismissing the good-faith concerns brought up by the community here and continuing to outright deny that there was any sort of problematic involvement—rather than to offer any sort of apology or expression of regret—is quite disappointing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I'm making a new sub-section because the issue of Moondragon21 having the autopatrolled right remains unresolved. As highlighted above by Gusfriend (who refers erroneously to NPP), Joe Roe granted the right on 18 June at the request of Schierbecker with a comment noting that there were troubling talk page messages about Moondragon's articles. Users calling here for the right to be removed have included Softlavender and Lepricavark as well as me, Gusfriend had already said early in the thread that an examination of their recent articles indicated their work was not up to the standard expected, Salvio giuliano said their holding the right should be re-examined, and EEng also made a comment suggesting the right should be pulled, but S Marshall disagreed, instead calling for a stern message on the user's talk page. (Forgive me if I have left someone out who made an argument on the issue; for some reason Firefox refuses to let me search on this page or even in just this section.) I have been troubled by the quality of the articles I have examined. Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert, created on 22 September and the primary locus of the strife between Joe Roe and Fram, had major sourcing problems highlighted by Fram, and its inaccuracies suggested to me that Moondragon had not adequately understood the German Wikipedia article or the sources. I asked the editor on 27 September about this and their translation process (noting also that the issue of attributing translations, which we also expect an autopatrolled editor to be in compliance with, had been raised with them more than once), but they have not responded either on their talk page or here, which I consider a failure of accountability. (They have also not responded to the talk page section started by Softlavender at Talk:Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert on whether the article should be AfD'd, after I went back and tagged it for notability issues; I'm assuming they saw that on their watchlist.) I have since worked on two other articles they created since becoming autopatrolled, both of which rendered material from the introduction of a foreign-language Wikipedia article with a single reference from an official source, a hallmark of editors using machine translation and that usually, as in both these cases, produces articles far below acceptable standard: Julia Hamburg (highlighted by Fram) and Paul Midy (in a group highlighted by Gusfriend). On 28 September, Joe Roe stated I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't, and argued that the editor deserved a proper discussion of whether the right should be pulled. On 3 October, he instead said I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right because I do not think it should be pulled. I believe enough doubts have been raised about Moondragon21's article creations, by enough seasoned editors, that their continuing to be kept out of the NPP queue should be discussed, with the editor's unresponsiveness being an additional concern for me personally. Myself, I believe Joe Roe's granting of autopatrolled was a generous gesture that has been shown to be wrong; their new articles need to be checked, as most editors' articles are, and Moondragon21 should have the autopatrolled right withdrawn. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing Moondragon21's autopatrolled status, since it's very clear they are submitting very problematic articles. I also support any number of editors, and that includes Fram, going through all of Moondragon21's article creations and doing whatever is necessary about the problematical ones. In fact, if need be, an independent thread (not a subthread annexed to this thread) can be started about them. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated above.Gusfriend (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Quoting myself from PERM: On the one hand, there are a lot of notifications about deletion nominations and draftifications on [Moondragon21's] talk page. On the other, very few of these seem to have stuck. Extending AGF, we could assume that the high number of articles he's created is magnifying the normal 'error rate' (on his part and on reviewers'). [...] This user also a legitimately "prolific" article creator so granting autopatrolled is going to help the NPP backlog an appreciable amount. I think that assessment still stands and that is why I don't support removing autopatrolled at this time. His creations occasionally have problems, but with more than 2000 creations it is a low error rate overall, and attempts to remove his articles from mainspace rarely succeed, indicating they're generally in adequate shape. Granting autopatrolled is always about balancing risk (of a user creating bad articles) against potential benefit (in this case, removing thousands of articles from the NPP backlog). The only thing that has really changed since Schierbecker requested autopatrolled on Moondragon21's behalf is that Fram started hounding him and then it got tangled up in an inside-baseball dispute about WP:INVOLVED. Given that, and that he never asked for autopatrolled in the first place, I do not blame him for not responding – especially not here, in a thread with my name at the top. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Joe Roe, I have not hounded anyone, please retract this. Per policy, "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." (That's actual policy, not some essay linked from a policy page). Fram (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Joe, MD has been pinged multiple times, it’s a (concerning) choice that he hasn’t engaged. Maybe he shouldn’t be creating articles at such a prolific rate since he’s not willing to address the community’s concerns? This is solely a preventative concern. Your accusation above against Fram is completely out of line, and frankly, unbecoming of an admin. Why are you so unwilling to just accept the aforementioned trout and move on with life? The earlier advice that you step away from this thread may have been sound. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:A8A4:DB15:A100:14DA (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am not sure that I am comfortable with the use of the term inside-baseball as part of this discussion. Gusfriend (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled. As the user sometimes creates articles with atrocious sourcing, hiding those from NPP is bad. —Kusma (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• I feel we should have a conversation with the editor first.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969

• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roads4117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few weeks, Onel has been redirecting or deleting sections of road articles, especially the route section, because they do not have a citation. Last week, it was mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles, where it was ranging from "what gives" to potentially disruptive editing. Yesterday (26 September), they continued with their disruptive editing, doing the same thing on A1011 road. They were warned that if they are going to continue this, that they would come here, right away. Today (27 September), they have moved away from doing this on road articles, but are now doing this on everything else - Yoon Seok-hyun, Alex F. Yaworski, Gilera CBA, Guyana National Rifle Association and Mariano Llinás are just some of the names. Is this bannable, or is this a waste of your time? Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit in the linked article (A1011 road) is a good one, whats wrong with scrubbing a little OR? The only sanctionable offense would be adding it in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not remotely bannable, and appears to be a content/citation dispute. Star Mississippi 15:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone removing things like

"Continuing south parallel to the Underground and DLR track we now go under another set of bridges. These are the tracks for the District line, Hammersmith & City line and c2c services to London and Essex. Here is the location of West Ham station, a busy main station, and this part of the road can be busy during peak times for people picking up or dropping off passengers for the station."

should get a barnstar, not being reverted and dragged to ANI. Fram (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see any issue with their actions at the time of that discussion and I still don't. They're adhering to policy by removing WP:OR and leaning on WP:V, a core part of Wikipedia. Can you point to what policy they may be going against? Cuz I'm not seeing anything.

Also, you're not being cyberbullied, Onel5969 is just a prolific new page reviewer who happened to sort through some pages that are relevant to a project you're a part of. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Respected and prolific NPP contributor follows policy. Why are we here? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a link to the ANI case concerning Roads4117 just earlier this month. Roads4117, I advised you in that thread not to add unsourced content to our articles. I'll expand on that. The edit that Onel removed was full of content that looked exactly like original research. I'm personally not hugely fussed about stuff being cited to maps if all of the information can be verified purely by looking at the map. This wasn't just a route however, it contained various stuff about it being a quick link bypassing the one-way system, it being busy at peak times, and so on. I thought that you had agreed to stop adding unsourced content to articles? I'll add that it was also largely written in the first person ('now we go under a bridge...'), which is more like a tour guide than encyclopedic writing. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, I will try my best not to add unsourced material again. User: Roads4117 16:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Misleading ...but are now doing this on everything else - Yoon Seok-hyun, Alex F. Yaworski, Gilera CBA, Guyana National Rifle Association and Mariano Llinás are just some of the names: I looked at edits to those pages, and the edit summaries mention reasons including WP:GNG and WP:COPYVIO. It was misleading to have those in a nomination regarding deletions related to WP:BURDEN. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:MINREF, WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, and countless other policies contradict many of the above statements, and WP:BITE applies strongly here; nowhere is it stated that all text must be cited, just that it must be verifiable in some way. These are Start class articles (more like stubs), so content that can be further refined should be welcomed. NPP is a red herring, as these articles have existed for nearly a decade. The discussion at WT:HWY has generally been one of "Here's what you need to do" to Roads4117 (which admittedly they should be paying more attention to than bringing content disputes here, as WP:FORUMSHOPPING also applies). Both editors are in the wrong. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading the WikiProject discussion linked in the OP, I'm rather shocked to see the opinions expressed there. All content should be sourced--that's not debatable in my book. Also, looking at a map and writing in a Wikipedia article what the map shows is, in my view, a textbook example of OR: literally looking at a primary source (the map) and writing our own interpretation of it (what the map shows). That practice brings huge WP:NPOV problems: an editor should not be deciding which map details are significant for inclusion and which aren't. Heck, I don't even trust that an editor knows how to read a map at all. Road descriptions should be sourced, like everything else, to a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, it should not be filled with editors' descriptions of maps. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

All content should be sourced--that's not debatable in my book: Everyone aspires for their own version of MOS:PLOTSOURCE ;-)—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, lol :-) That's the other example of rampant OR, with the same NPOV problems (an editor should not be deciding which plot details are due for inclusion). I didn't realize roads had the same problem. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Published maps are a secondary source. GIS data is a primary source. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Some maps are secondary sources, or contain secondary source information, but using Google Maps to describe routes is using a primary source. That map is a graphical representation of GIS data--it's the same primary source data displayed visually instead of by text. (Older maps, based on direct human observations, are also primary sources.) A secondary source is one compiled with analysis from multiple primary sources. So a thematic map, like a population heat map, would be an example of a secondary source map. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich Feel free to change/delete this citation. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

...And don't take my word for it, just Google "is a map a primary source?" and read any of the many, many articles written about this topic. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "Maps can also function as secondary sources because they may draw on information from other maps, data sets, or primary sources of information."
2. Librarian's opinion
3. Same, plus context is important. We make that clear in WP:MAPCITE
4. "A map can be a primary or secondary source. If a map was produced as immediate evidence of an area, then it is a primary source. If the map is just a symbolic depiction of a space then it is a secondary source."

I'm seeing a pattern though... context. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of primary vs. secondary sources, the policy is WP:V. The only material that requires a citation is quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Primary sources and uncited sources satisfy WP:V. That said, there is an obvious trend across the project, dating back more than ten years, which basically "challenges" all material's verifiability. If there's really a broad consensus that policy requires all material, no matter how uncontroversial or how easily findable a source may be (and I'm not saying all of the content in question falls into "uncontroversial, with easily findable sourcing"), needs a citation to a secondary source, it's probably time for a big WP:V RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is, time to put this "verifiable" business to bed, it's confusing editors and resulting in OR. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's verifiable, it's not OR. There are a lot of people conflating "uncited" with "OR". What is OR about The road initially follows a course through north-west London via Harlesden, Wembley, Harrow, Northwood and Rickmansworth. During this stage, it is known as Harrow Road. It crosses the M25 at Junction 18 at Chorleywood, crossing into Buckinghamshire and then continues towards Little Chalfont and Amersham.? I'm not saying there was no OR to be found in these diffs, but a straightforward description of what's easily verifiable just by clicking the links/databases that are already on the page is not OR. That doesn't mean it should be in the article, but the reason is unrelated to V/OR (and more about e.g. NPOV/WEIGHT, TONE, NOT, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not right. There are only two options: it's either your research, or it's someone else's research. If you're not summarizing someone else's research, then it's OR. Verifiability is irrelevant. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Levivich is correct, its either original or someone else's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

True indeed, and doesn't follow "that's not right". What exactly are you disagreeing with, Lev? Using "research" instead of "published information" just confuses this. All V means is that content is determined by previously published information, so yes, if you add material based on what's already out there in a reliable source (which can include maps/databases), without adding your own claims/conclusions, it's not OR and V is satisfied. As NOR says: The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. Hence, "if it's verifiable, it's not OR". Again, that's a different question from whether there's a citation in the article. Again, whether it should be in the article for other reasons is separate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Original analysis of a primary document like a map or database falls under WP:OR. That is as basic as it gets: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Define "analysis". Is map reading an analysis or a basic skill lost on the internet generation? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Snark aside map reading is analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Saying "it crosses this road" or "it runs north" is not "analysis or synthesis". Standard procedure has been summarized at WP:MAPCITE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:MAPCITE#Original research covers this quite well. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:MAPCITE is an essay almost entirely written by just two editors, it has not been endorsed by the community in any way. It makes some excellent points and in places does summarize our standard procedure, but in others it branches off into tangents which are the author's own ideas and nothing more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What I object to exactly is any editing that isn't "forward" editing (see my userpage). There is only one right way to do it: you start with two or more reliable secondary sources about the topic, and summarize them. I object to any other method, including writing the prose first and then looking for sources that verify the prose (or not doing that second step, which is even worse). I object because it's OR. The only way it's not OR is if you're summarizing someone else's analysis (and the only way it's not plagiarism is if you summarize two or more sources). Levivich (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have your own philosophy, that's fine, but pardon me if I take someone literally saying "my way is the only one right way to do it" with a grain of salt when it conflicts (in its "only way"ness, at least) with norms/definitions developed over 20 years. It may well be that the future of Wikipedia is no unsourced content, erring on the side of deletion/omission in all things, etc., and I suppose it only takes enough people saying "that's just the way it is and it was never any different" for that to become the new reality, but I don't think we're there yet. I'm tapping out of this discussion, though. My objection is basing mass removals and proposing sanctions on rules and definitions that don't actually exist -- I don't even have a real problem with most of these removals, as there are some clear WEIGHT, TONE, and NOT issues (and in a couple cases some borderline OR). I think we should have high standards for content in mainspace, but that when it comes to noticeboard discussions involving conduct, we need to be working with the same basic rules rather than what people think the rules should say. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not dispute that indeed such material should be cited (as it is on every road FA). What I have a problem with is this editor unilaterally throwing away the information without even bothering to look for a citation, and then revert warring over it. Pragmatically - we could throw away half the encyclopedia on those grounds. --Rschen7754 18:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And I likely would have brought this up to ANI at some point if this "bull in a china shop" mentality from Onel5969 had continued, as it is actively destroying the project and chasing other editors (including from underrepresented geographies) away. --Rschen7754 18:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It is very difficult and time consuming to source road articles, having tried I know, but as such lots of these editors who write these are not interesting in referencing. I've seen it multiple times during the last couple of months on NPP, during the last drive. I know from experience how difficult it is to explain even what the problem is. They are not interesting. For a lot of them it is a copy paste exercise. Regarding the page review, it is perfectly valid to remove content, per consenus and WP:V when its unsourced. It cannot be the fault of a page reviewer who is just following process and comes across a group who generally are not interesting in referencing. This is 2022, you don't have unsourced articles in mainspace. That is what draft and sandbox are for. I brought editor Roads4117 to this board regarding article A4421 road (Great Britain) which was unsourced and he made multiple attempts to revert from the redirect. That is the type of behaviour that is happening here. Lastly the three visits to Ani (described in the comment below) are mutually exclusive scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Scope creep: I really wish you wouldn't paint all roads editors with the same brush. There are over almost 100 FAs related to roads, so certainly we had to take interest in sourcing at some point. --Rschen7754 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @Scope creep: I'm sorry if I said I meant all of them; I didn't. There is a spectrum as in everything. Of course. I find the whole thing immesely frustrating. scope_creep^Talk 19:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Tangential discussion on valid sourced content for road articles (Free free to continue at another venue)

On the wider problems of roads articles - My comments here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 24#Hate to be that guy, but road articles have serious SYNTH problems. My analysis of the GA U.S. Route 76 in North Carolina article is most relevant (some of what I complained about got moved to Special routes of U.S. Route 76, a even hotter mess of OR). I have a feeling that if we actually decided to do anything about it, a lot of those green pluses and shiny bronze stars would peel away. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC) This is veering off-topic really, but I find myself disagreeing with the first part of your thread linked above. A map is not in general a primary source, it is a secondary source in which the map designer picks out features of the landscape that they deem worthy of reproducing, while omitting others. A primary source would be a satellite/aerial image or some sort of reproduction that included everything rather than selecting features. Obviously, deriving info that isn't obvious from the map is OR, but even with that there'd be an element of WP:SKYISBLUE. You raised "The highway meets Hallsboro Road at a diamond interchange north of Hallsboro" as problematic, but if the map shows a junction that has all the features of a diamond interchange, and we can also verify what a diamond interchange looks like, then it's reasonable to say that it is one. The key should be the same as for MOS:PLOTSOURCE (a convention which is IMHO far more problematic than using maps for road articles) - if it isn't obvious, then it needs an explicit cite.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I think the problem is not so much that the information is verifiable, rather - is it important to mention in an encyclopaedia? For example, we don't have an article on Drover's Roundabout, Ashford or mention it anywhere on Wikipedia, even though it has coverage in multiple reliable sources ([293],[294],[295]) because these are, when balanced against everything else the news outlet reports, trivial passing mentions. To come back to the example above, "The highway meets Hallsboro Road at a diamond interchange north of Hallsboro" - why is this important? Has there been a prominent accident record at this location? Was the construction of the junction politically complicated? Is a diamond interchange a unique structure specifically worth mentioning? I think this gets to the crux of the problem with Roads4117's editing, and kind of goes back to what Fram briefly mentioned above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Textual information shows weight by explicitly mentioning certain details. Much of what is lifted from these maps do not have that benefit. The equivalent would be trying to write an article on a historical event with 2/3rds of your sources being diagrams and labeled pictures. No other area of Wikipedia that I know of operates like this. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I think this is an important distinction here. There are hundreds of thousands of roads throughout the world, are we to believe that, because it can be viewed on a map, it's notable enough to warrant inclusion and complete description of its route? That seems like the definition of an indiscriminate collection of information to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC) No, and we have myriads of discussions setting precedent on this. If a national of subnational government deems a road important enough to include in its national or subnational road network, it is almost certainly a notable transportation corridor. You're getting into a whole can of worms on this, because any argument that applies to roads can just as easily be applied to railways, rivers, canals, or other similar transportation corridors or linear infrastructure. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Has this been applied to other transportation corridors or linear infrastructure? I don't think I've ever seen a railroad, river, or canal article built off google earth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Nor have I seen many highway articles do the same, outside of stubs in geographically underrepresented areas. Kind of like how many places have their own articles and the only reference is an actual primary source (a census). I just clicked randomly into Africa, here is an example. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Rivers and railways, far as I've seen, tend to attract a fair amount of literature, or at least far more than roads. So no, I don't think that's comparable. I see WP:GEOROAD supports your assertion that a national of subnational government deems a road important enough to include in its national or subnational road network, it is almost certainly a notable transportation corridor, though I find the evidence for that utterly dubious, because if this were the case, the U.S. Route 76 in North Carolina article probably wouldn't have two thirds of its citations coming from maps... I do not see how "the government maintains it" magically translates to "there is probably SIGCOV in RS for this". To look at the "can of worms" from a different perspective, why are not all of the agricultural stations or rural health clinics (not full hospitals) in my state presumed notable? Surely because the state built them, they are important? Or is the real reason for this because there is not a constituency of agricultural station and rural clinic enthusiasts? We probably need an RfC on the use of maps and "visual" sources, and maybe another on GEOROADS. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC) That is an interesting case, and either scenario might be true. Regardless, I agree with your last statement. Floydian τ ¢ 05:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Your assertion: If a national of subnational government deems a road important enough to include in its national or subnational road network, it is almost certainly a notable transportation corridor. The GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm sorry, but those two ideas seem diametrically opposed to each other. Requiring sources and notability is how the project stops itself from becomming an indiscriminate collection of information. Existence does not confer notabiity. You say this is long established precedent, I ask if those who came up with that precedent have ever read the GNG? FrederalBacon (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Actually, WP:GEOROAD, which is a notability guideline, perfectly supports that view, saying International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. I think that's a bad guideline, and there's been a movement in recent months to bring more SNGs in line with the GNG, but Floydian is essentially correct in terms of what the current guidance says. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC) The things one could do with tree maps and a willingness to disregard our most basic policies and guidelines... I see the temptation, but make no mistake it is a temptation to fill wikipedia with OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Even taking maps as secondary sources, most map use I've seen has been general maps in which the specific topic is included rather than maps of the topic. Appearing on a map is not significant coverage within that map source, whether it is primary or secondary. CMD (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC) I think there are two issues being conflated here: 1) are maps valid sources and 2) are maps alone valid enough to surpass GNG? But topics for another venue. --Rschen7754 01:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC) This is veering off-topic really...: The original AN/I concern is more related to unsourced edits and copyvio concerns. However, this here is a tangent on sourced edits and notable content for roads in general, not any particular editor. I'd suggest continuing this at another venue, and not conflating it with the ANI further.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given their addition and restoration of large amount of Wikipedia:Original Research to motorway related articles [296][297][298][299] I propose that Roads4117 be topic banned from motorways broadly construed or to see them properly trouted about until they understand the error of their ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Uncited text != WP:OR Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoa there, stop. Not everything that doesn't have an inline citation is original research. Also, the OP checked with the Roads project and got the impression that they were in the right, then came here. Sanctioning this user seems a bit unfair and over the top.

We do have special rules for plot summaries (they don't need citations); there is something to be said for using maps (but perhaps not always-changing map websites) to verify route descriptions (although there can be notability and undue weight concerns if the information is only found on maps). —Kusma (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Taking their actions and tone into account I definitely think this sanction is unnecessary. They presented things pretty objectively, they kept it respectful, they even asked if this was actionable or if it was a waste of others' time. A trouterang is one thing, but I think an entire TBAN just for posting this thread is overkill GabberFlasted (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Roads4117 citation truth - it says on my userpage this user recognizes the importance of citing sources. This is true - I just need a little bit of help/guidance for which references to use for what etc. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• A topic ban would be a wild overreaction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is completely wrong. I do not endorse the edit warring, but this is a clear violation of WP:BITE and a very inappropriate proposal. --Rschen7754 18:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This editor Roads4117 was posted here on 6 Septmeber for trying to revert an unsourced road article from a redirect. The editor has no interest in sourcing articles. scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think what is being missed here is the larger pattern of Onel5969 mass removing content without even attempting to look for citations. --Rschen7754 18:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not the responsibilty of any particular editor to look for citations. That is not what page review is and that is what they were on at the time. Every editor is a volunteer on here, and the idea of having to stop reviewing while in that reviewing flow (for what of a better word, which is hard on its own, which breaks you down and burns you up), to look for citations is preposterous. Paticularly on these types of articles in the grand scheme of life are not important. They are not the road to Rome filled with crucified victims that is described in every Roman history book for a millenia. As a volunteer you choose what you want to work on. But working on page review, is really important. It has driven the quality of Wikipedia article up immeasurably in the last 5-10 years. However, Wikipedia has only got product and that product is facts. Without sources, they are not that facts. It is not 2006, it not even 2010 anymore. Its not done to build articles with large section that are unsourced. The community doesn't want that. They want high quality articles. Onel5969 is really productive high-quality page reviewer. Please keep that in mind. scope_creep^Talk 19:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay? But what about the editors who are chased away because their work is summarily reverted? After all, there are editors who need to add the facts, or there will not be any pages to review. Maybe an editor doesn't get it right the first time, and certainly my own first edit in 2005 was a bunch of unsourced content. If my work had been deleted without any help or explanation, I don't know that I would have continued. NPP is not the product here. Its purpose is to serve the encyclopedia as a whole. --Rschen7754 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Roads4117 has made 1500 edits, has a talk page full of messages about adding unsourced content, has been to ANI three prior times about adding unsourced content, has been explicitly instructed by admins to add citations for their additions and has repeatedly promised repeatedly to add citations going forward. This isn't some newbie who doesn't know better, this is someone who has received a ton of help and guidance but just doesn't seem to get it. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this. I see no reason why this ANI report should've been opened. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

However the product is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also disagree with plee to WP:BITE, they have been here long enough, and have been brought to ANI enough, to get the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Please also see similar removals targeting a different editor in South Africa - [300]. --Rschen7754 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No targeting just the removal of unsourced text that must not be reinstated without an inline citation, once something is challenged policy is incredibly clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Which I see has been done, just as things should happen. Challenging unsourced text by removing it is a normal editorial process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the "bull in a china shop" rhetoric sidetracked Roads4117 from understanding their own responsibility to source their contributions, and misleadingly provided them a rationale to seek a ban here. —Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't you mean the larger pattern of OR in road related articles against the explicit consensus of the larger community? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And again, please read my comments above. --Rschen7754 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I did, what you need to remember is that bad edits will be reverted... It might take ten seconds or it might take ten years but the problem isn't the reversion its always the original edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. There is no requirement or expectation for other people to search for citations for unsourced material added by others. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that WP:BURDEN section before. scope_creep^Talk 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Okay, but then a few sentences later - In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. --Rschen7754 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Consider is not the word required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's all about nuance. I can just block anybody that reverts 4 times on an article per policy, but that doesn't mean that is the right course of action and if I kept doing that I might get desysopped. --Rschen7754 01:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you blocked someone for not doing something that policy says is only something they need to consider, and left someone who didn't do something that is required by policy, then desysop would be appropriate. You haven't explained any nuance you talk off, only linked to perfectly acceptable behaviour. You need to start backing up any allegations you make properly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

More BURDEN WP:BURDEN also later states: If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. So an editor might believe that text is unverifiable, and delete it. It seems that we can concurrently 1) educate patrollers that basic map info is likely verifiable and 2) deter editors from chronically adding unsourced content.—Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's fair. I know I've (privately) invoked WP:BURDEN when I removed material that I doubt can be verified. --Rschen7754 03:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Whilst Roads4117 actually brought this to ANI, it was with encouragement from Rschen7754. IMHO it would be unfair to impose sanctions against Roads4117 without also sanctioning Rschen7754. --John B123 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @John B123: Specifically, I advised him to hold off [301], but after six pings later and my not responding overnight, he apparently worked himself up into enough of a frenzy to come here. [302] *shrug* That being said, I am concerned about the overall pattern and if I saw it continuing, I would have raised it here. --Rschen7754 00:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly disagree with sanctioning Rschen with regards to Roads, even if they explicitly told Roads to bring it here (which they did not). FrederalBacon (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose completely inappropriate and heavy-handed proposal. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternative mini-boomerang

I'm not sure that a topic ban from motorways (or roads in general, which is what we're talking about here - the A1011 isn't a motorway) is needed here. I think I could support a topic ban from adding content to articles if it is not supported by a reliable source - that's something we should all be trying to adhere to in every edit we make, it shouldn't be too onerous. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support I don't support a boomerang TBAN. However, given the fact that this editor just a couple of weeks ago claimed that sources don't matter(the reason why I didn't add references is because references don't matter), it was explained to them that yes, sources matter, and they're still regularly adding unsourced content, some sort of sanction is needed. This seems reasonable. Add a source, or don't add the information. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon:, I am happy with this agreement. Roads4117 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Roads4117, I don't support any sanctions on your editing at this time. I don't come here very often these days as I'm pretty much retired, but I shepherded NPP for over a decade and wrote or co-authored most of its policies, guidelines, and tutorials, and created its user right. For the few weeks you've been registered and participating on Wikipedia, I appreciate your enthusiasm but I strongly advise you to learn all about NPP and the really massive part Onel5969 plays in it and familiarise yourself with our policies. Notability is one thing, but neutral language in the articles and and verifiability of the content is equally important. Please beware of the BOOMERANG before throwing around with threats of bans and blocks and other things you might not fully understand. Wikipedians are a friendly and supportive crowd and veterans like Star Mississippi, Fram, and me are here to help. - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung I will try to familiarise myself with the Wikipedia criteria. Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, after three recent visits to ANI since July [303] [304] [305], two of which ended up in "I will try to do better" type comments, this does seem to be an unduly long familiarisation process. After all, this isn't difficult - you need to source your additions to articles. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support although as GirthSummit mentions, really all editors need to follow this guidance. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any formal sanction, however continuing to add unsourced content at this point would be quite stupid. --Rschen7754 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the copyvios I am afraid something might have to be done so I am striking my oppose. --Rschen7754 05:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This shouldn't require any formal sanction, if this continues after this point them they should be blocked for WP:CIR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Roads4117 wrote: I am happy with this agreement. I hope they adhere to this proposal anyways, whether or not there is a formal WP:TBAN.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Bagumba Sorry to not be clear, I meant no citation, it gets reverted'. User:Roads4117 (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: It's your responsibility to add sources for your edits. It's unfair to burden the community with reverting such edits of yours. —Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as being excessively heavy-handed at this point in time. If the issue continues it can be revisited. Of course referencing isn't optional, but what I will say is unreferenced information about the description of a road is quite different to, say, controversial information being introduced into a BLP. I'd personally argue the former is borderline WP:BLUE and can be easily cited to a map as a primary source in any case. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're welcome to your opinion on this proposal being heavy-handed, but your comparison to controversial information being added to BLPs shines little light on this situation - if someone were doing that regularly, we would not be discussing a minor editing restriction, we would have long-since gone to indef site-wide block, probably after the second (or even first) incident. I personally have no major problems with someone saying that a road goes from point A to point C via point B being referenced to a map; when people start adding assertions about a road being a quick way to avoid a one-way system, or that it is busy at peak times, or whatever, we move beyond what can be verified from a map, and into what absolutely needs sources specifically verifying that information. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Given the below discussed copyvios (and admitted copying), there may be a different sanction needed here. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Previous block

It appears that this is not the first time Onel5969 has overzealously enforced WP:BURDEN: [306] In fact, that thread resulted in a previous partial block. This shows a pattern.

And again, to reiterate: I fully agree that the edits in question should have had sources, but I disagree with the heavy-handed enforcement of WP:BURDEN, specifically the considerations such as In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. that were ignored. I don't want to see any blocks or bans come out of this thread, but I think that Onel5969 should be advised to take better care. --Rschen7754 03:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It has never been acceptable to wholesale remove content that is likely to be verifiable. This comes up at WP:ITNC sometimes, editors nominate articles which are opposed on the grounds of uncited passages or sections and they respond by deleting large chunks of text without checking its status. We don't allow that, and usually such deletions are reverted and a {{cn}} tag applied. As you say, sources are needed, I'd never dispute that, but we give editors time and space to find them.  — Amakuru (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Removing unsourced content from mainspace takes neither time nor space away from any editor. There is no reason unsourced content needs to remain while someone looks for a source. There is a very good reason why it shouldn't: even if it's verifiable, it might not be NPOV. If it turns out to either be unverifiable or not NPOV, we've harmed, perhaps misled, every single reader who has ever read it. Why would we take that risk by leaving unsourced content in mainspace in order to "give editors time and space" to find sources? They should have found the sources before they added any content in the first place. I don't understand why we not only forgive this (adding content without sources) but encourage it (by leaving the unsourced material in mainspace) all while risking misleading readers. It's not a good trade-off. It's not in the best interests of the project. It's putting editors above readers. No content is better than unsourced content. Levivich (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You're talking about two separate policies. If I catch NPOV material, that is usually the first to get reverted and on those grounds, not on BURDEN. --Rschen7754 04:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't know if it's NPOV or not unless you've read the sources (and it really doesn't matter if it's in two policies or one or seven, a bad trade is still a bad trade). Levivich (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That is certainly not true in my experience of both patrolling and article writing. --Rschen7754 07:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I second this from the patrolling side of things and as an anti-vandal. It's pretty easy a lot of the time to call out whether something isn't coming from a neutral point of view. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not all NPOV problems are obvious NPOV problems. Indeed, the most dangerous are not. And, frankly, unless you've been audited, you have no idea how many times while patrolling you read something that wasn't NPOV and thought that it was and took no action: none of us know our accuracy rate. I think anyone who thinks they are accurate at spotting NPOV problems without having to look at sources is kidding themselves: they can only spot the most obvious ones. Levivich (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No content is better than unsourced content: You would need to get consensus to modify policies to that effect. That's not how they exactly read. —Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The caveat is that ITNC editors can sometimes be viewed as gaming the system by removing unsourced—though likely verifiable—text, merely to fast track a post. I don't believe there is a COI motive for Onel5969, other than the quality of WP. —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My intention was not to tar Onel5969 with the same brush by likening them to disruptive editors who deliberately remove material from an ITN candidate to get it over the line, and certainly I believe their edits alluded to above are made in good faith. But other than that, it doesn't really matter if it's COI or "gaming" the system, either deletion of material without doing any checks for its status is allowed, or it isn't allowed. My view, and the ITN/C convention backs this up, is that it's not allowed. After all, nobody would complain about removing material from an ITN candidate if you could demonstrate research showing that it was either untrue or not backed up by any source. It's the "delete on sight" mentality that I object to, at least without full community buy-in via a central RFC, because that's a big change from anything we've done before. And would potentially lead to enormous swathes of text being deleted from the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that previous ANI resulted in another involved editor receiving the same partial block. Both were edit warring. —Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• For those who might not be aware, WP:BURDEN is not some user essay or a simple guideline, it's a policy. There are no half measures in enforcing policies of this kind, it's not as if it's some vague abstract notion like the civility policy whose imaginary threshold is applied differently to whoever the user is. There is therefore no case of 'overzealous' enforcement of BURDEN - the policy reads well and is at least one of our policies that is not ambiguous. Currently Onel5969 is practically upholding the quality of Wikipedia single-handed in face of the fictitious number of 750 New Page Reviewers. Sanction him for just doing his job and like any self-respecting volunteer editor or admin, he'll just go away again. Ultimately, the problem lies squarely at the feet of the WMF who due to heir policy of 'Quantity of articles is more important than the quality of articles' refuse to allow the Product department to provide ways of initiating new users on what they can and can't write here. It's like ACTRIAL all over again. But that's another story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed that the policy reads well and is at least one of our policies that is not ambiguous, but that policy gives some pretty clear ways that removal of unsourced (and not unverifiable) content can be something like "overzealous". It says if you don't give people time to provide references they might object, but that's pretty flimsy wording. More relevant is where it says to consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step, where it says removing content should be because it's unverifiable and not just unsourced, and where it says you're encouraged to provide a citation yourself, etc. It also says, in a footnote, "Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material." I think that's the issue here. For any quotation, anything controversial, any BLP, we should obviously remove unsourced content. For anything promotional/undue, we should remove it for that reason (not V). I have no problem with someone coming across content, saying "that doesn't look verifiable" and removing it (or, again, saying "that doesn't look WP:DUE" and removing it). The issue is only really when someone sets out on a mission to remove unsourced content, and does so en masse, regardless of how [un]controversial it is, with no attempt to find sources in any of the cases (as per that footnote written into the policy). It's really hard to draw a line, though, and I tend to agree that when these things are ambiguous we should err on the side of removal. I just wish removing unsourced content for the fact of being unsourced weren't a frequent hobbyhorse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  And has anyone shown, with diffs, any prove that anyone is on a mission to remove unsourced text en masse? It's interesting to have discussions about policy and how it should be interpreted, but this is the wrong place to do it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did block Onel5969 back in March, but it was on a single article List of Mixels characters and it was for edit-warring. I had no opinion on who was right and who was wrong. As I believe I have said in the past, I have disagreed with Onel over whether or not something meets a particular CSD criteria, but we have usually managed to come to an understanding, and found he's quite reasonable to discuss issues with, if you're polite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Muck racking rather than showing any actual breaches of policy, backed up by diffs showing those breaches, is nothing more than a low grade personal attack. This thread should be closed with prejudice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How else are we supposed to interpret [307][308][309]? --Rschen7754 15:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As policy based removal of unsourced content. The only thing wrong there is that editors who are restoring unsourced text without adding an inline citations (as per policy) are not being sanctioned. You need to show where Onel5969 is in breach of policy, not something that might they might have considered, but where they editted against something policy says they must or are required to do. You don't like what they are doing, but that in no way makes it wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Could've easily added a citation needed tag or similar rather than engage in mass removal of encyclopedic content that is uncontroversial and easily verified by looking at a map. For the record I'm not advocating for sanctions against Onel5969 or saying he violated policy but a CN tag would've been the most sensible thing to do in the diffs Rschen provided. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere in this mess, that is something that could be considered but is not required by policy, the only such requirement is that challenged text is not retired without a valid inline reference. It's something that's come up here a few times, there is no policy that says unsourced text can't just be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

likewise there is no policy that says unsourced content shall be removed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Theres a reason the body of WP:V opens with "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The assumption is clearly that unsourced material will be (and should be) removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

True but it is still a valid editorial choice. There's no policy that says editors must create new pages, but we do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. On one hand we have WP:5P which states that we are to perform the function of a gazetteer, but on the other hand we have largely operated in a grey zone, because for the longest time the focus was on coverage rather than comprehensiveness. If we focus on the latter, it becomes clear what topics deserve their own substantial coverage, and which are footnotes in a larger topic that is widely covered. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not at all what WP:5P states, "combines many features of" gazetteers =/= perform the function of a gazetteer. Those aren't even close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to the issue. Even during the production bof a gazetteer text might be added or removed ue to editorial concerns. I'm absolutely sure none where ever produce that an editor didn't remove something from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

My interpretation of those diffs is that you have no understanding whatsoever of the most basic levels of content policy and no understanding of the requirement for content to be verifiable, and as such are unfit to be an administrator. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That looks like the proper removal of strenuously UNDUE, unreferenced transcriptions of a primary visual source...? JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Any sanction, warning or "advise" on people enforcing common sense is bullshit. If you cite your shit like you are supposed to per policy, we won't get any problems like this. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth are we dragging a highly productive editor who does a great deal of thankless work on the quality control of Wikipedia through this whole rotten process? User:Rschen7754 in particular is apparently hegging for some sort of sanction because an effective New Page Patroller has taken a considered view of some long-standing OR/unverified/uncited content in articles and removed that content or sent articles materially based on that content to draft. That's what you do, BTW, at NPP - you filter the vast volumes of crud and mark as reviewed or draftify, tag or AfD/Prod articles. There's a lot of judgement calls to make - especially at the back of the queue, where Onel5969 tends to work (and where, when I have the energy, I do too). IF someone wants the content maintained/restored, they just have to find a source for it - ideally AS they add it to WP. It's that simple. NPP can be fun to do, but it can also take it out of you (I've stayed away since coming back from leave last month, just 'cos every time I look at the feed a part of me goes 'no, not today') and someone working as hard as Onel5969 deserves thanks, not talk of sanctions. Are mistakes made? Inevitably. In this case, I and clearly other NPP reviewers, don't think they have been made - these seem like perfectly reasonable calls based on policy. Can't we agree to drop this particular stick? We're so precious about biting the newbies, but I can't see why we allow dragging our established assets until they walk away. kthanksbi. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyvios of Roads4117

It has been pointed out by @DanCherek: that Roads4117 has a number of copyvios. He found 3 but I also found [310] compared with [311]. Personally I would let this serve as a final warning before a short-term block, but given some of the past threads [312] [313] I would understand if another admin thought it was enough to block, maybe long-term.

I still have concerns regarding Onel5969 (as other editors' work was affected), however I feel this does need to be addressed as well. --Rschen7754 05:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've issue them the standard copvio warning too. At a glance, it appears that past discussion were about how to attribute other free sites or copying within WP. —Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that we need a broader investigation, I just found yet another copyvio [314]. Not sure what the threshold is for WP:CCI. --Rschen7754 07:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so is Roads just copying route descriptions from another wiki to here? I can't see the deleted edits, so I'm not sure how close it was. FrederalBacon (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon: the above link looks like a direct copy of the SABRE roads page on the A584. It's not actually immediately clear to me what the licence status of pages on that Wiki is, my guess would be it's a GNU Free Documentation License similar to the one Wikipedia uses, but of course that would need an explicit link to the history of the page being copied from in the edit summary, similar to the stipulation made at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The chapter and verse from SABRE is here and it states "Copyright on all direct contributions to SABRE, including edits to the wiki, rests with the original contributor. However, by submitting their contributions to SABRE, they grant a non-transferable exclusive right to publish their contributions in perpetuity. Copyright on images is dependent on the original licence. Where no licence has been given, and it can be established that no other copyrights have been breached, the original contributor will hold the copyright to the image and grant a non-transferable exclusive right to SABRE to publish the image in perpetuity." ... tl;dr - it's a copyvio if you copy it here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that info. That's an interesting model, and it sounds like it could lead to some oddities in a Wiki-environment. If I copyedit something, am I the copyright holder for occasional words throughout the text but not the whole thing? I suppose for most practical purposes it doesn't matter. Anyway, it's clear that Roads4117 needs to take note of this, and desist from copying anything further from SABRE.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It was the History section that was generally copied, not the route section. --Rschen7754 14:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am happy for this to count as my final warning for doing major copyvios from SABRE Roads. I also propose to delete them all, if DanCherek hasn't done so. Roads4117 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem at this point, in my mind, is that we are starting to get into a WP:CIR issue. Originally it was thought that the issue was that you were simply conducting your own original research, and weren't sourcing it because there wasn't a source. Now it appears there is a source, and it's one you're just copying. That's even more concerning. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: In how many articles did you copy/paste from another source? Levivich (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: TBH I did it to quite a few articles. I will put a list up on my userpage. Roads4117 (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Levivich Sorry to be difficult earlier. I just thought the list would be extremely long, and would block up this page. Turns out that DanCherek has only missed out one articles (the A433). I would also like to say thanks to DanCherek for cleaning up after me - that should be my responsibility. Thanks again, Roads4117 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: I didn't think you were being difficult at all! I agree about not posting a very long list here, and I'm glad you're helping with the clean-up effort. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

What gets me is that in the past ANIs and warnings there were concerns about internal attribution and links, so at least in theory the "don't copy from other websites either" message should have been implicit. One can argue both ways on that. That being said, any further issues related to copyright (or arguably anything else) should merit an indefinite block. --Rschen7754 03:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A better response would have been: I am happy for this to count as my final warning for doing major copyvios from SABRE Roads, period. —Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like something that would have been uncovered much earlier, and addressed much more easily, if editors had had a citation to the source material from the start. Hmmmm... JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Though on the flip side, one could wonder how the copyvios got missed in the NPP process. I don't think this is an argument that would be productive. --Rschen7754 00:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP isn't magic, although it sounds now like it is working somewhat well if Onel5969 has been removing potential copyvio text. CMD (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I didn't see any instances where that was the case. A few times where it was the same article, none where it was the same text. --Rschen7754 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfection isn't a requirement, as it's not a possibility. Someone can not be held accountable for not spotting copyvio text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyway - I've filed a request at WP:CCI, just to make sure we really got all the copyvios. --Rschen7754 05:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: As an update, a full CCI case has been opened. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, we have more than 150 roads articles using the Sabre wiki as a reference apparently[315]. Perhaps the roads project can d a cleanup project to remove all these instances? Fram (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I thought I was allowed to use it as a reference, just not for a copyvio? Roads4117 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you need a project to do that, you can probably just do it. Similarly: if you sincerely believe a highway article does not meet the standards of inclusion, simply AfD it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering the abuse people get when they dare to remove anything from a road project page, I thought it safer to let them handle it themselves. Things like A68 road, unsourced since its creation in 2003, just make me depressed. Fram (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fram FYI the A68 road now has a citation Roads4117 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but that source is a personal website, not really the best site, and doesn't really tell a lot about the A68, does it? Fram (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

FramAfter all though, I have done what I have been instructed to do (add more sources), and people don't recognise it. Also, you were feeling 'depressed' because it hasn't had a citation for 19 years. Roads4117 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

We are instructed to add reliable sources, not more sources regardless of quality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried looking for sources using Google Books just now and drew a complete blank. The A68 is best known for the Carter Bar border crossing and surrounding area, but trying to find sources that cover this specific term doesn't seem to have turned up much. The most promising source, the Maverick Guide to Scotland [316] just gives a trivial passing mention, and focuses more on the historic Scottish Borders battles that take place around the road.

If I can work out the names of the historic turnpike routes, that'll potentially give me enough to find some good sources and start expanding the article, as I did for A74 road and A82 road, once I found out they were notable as historic coaching routes dating back centuries and re-engineered significantly by Thomas Telford. An article that describes just the route, and missing out on the centuries of important British history surrounding it that reliable sources pick up on, is I believe violating our neutral point of view policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Stuck a couple of sources in for you Ritchie333. It's a very interesting road. John (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, John. Roads4117 (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO hostility towards outsiders is not unique to the roads and highways wikiprojects (see for example the longstanding issues with WikiProject Military History), what is unique is the amount of bad articles in the topic space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the hostility is not unique, given the number of NPPers who have been canvassed to this very discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Interesting discussions. [317]. I believe that this hostility towards new users is a real problem that needs to be addressed at some point. Even your their own guidelines say as criteria for revocation of the right: The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in users being offended or discouraged (especially new users). --Rschen7754 18:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC) (slight change added later)

Was this put in the right place? I'm not a NPPer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither am I, and as I've said before this is hardly a new user. I seriously doubt you're ability to be anything near neutral in regard to the roads project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim perfection on behalf of myself or of others that I work with. I do take objection to when the same issues are not being called out elsewhere. And my INVOLVED statement has been on my userpage for quite a while. --Rschen7754 18:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Please strike the claim both places its been made[318]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe that sometimes HEB can be a bit... forthright, but I have to agree strike that that comment it's not fitting of an admin and you should strike it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will go back and clarify. --Rschen7754 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, how does the fact that we are not part of NPP change your appraisal of the situation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just think that any accusations of "hostility" should be even-handed. That was the intent of my comments which I still believe in and endorse, however I regret that they served to be inflammatory and could have been made at a different time. --Rschen7754 00:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in users being offended or discouraged (especially new users). Show where Onel5969 has done this, with diffs to back it up, or stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of that statement is to show that yes, a pattern is sufficient to remove the right. I did not intend to make a statement that Onel5969 has demonstrated an pattern, though he has done it once with the diffs from South Africa previously. --Rschen7754 19:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Three edits of one article about a single road in South Africa, using Google maps as a reference. Something where there is obviously some community disagreement, as shown in this thread. (I would say previously, but who knows with how tangled this thread has become). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Who was the new user in that scenario? Chils Kemptonian is as old as I am in wikiyears with a respectable edit count in the mid thousands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding concerns about new users, I followed the link above through to the WP:Highways talk page and saw that Roads4117 asked "am I allowed to use OpenStreet Maps" and was never answered, despite multiple other members of the project inputting afterwards. Perhaps if someone helped new users with policies such as WP:SPS, especially when they specifically ask for advice on the matter, they would be less likely to run into issues? CMD (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much knowledge of this particular discussion but the comment above this caught my attention. Even if those experienced editors on that project talk page didn't know the answers @Roads4117 was asking for had they directed them to other places where they might could get someone that could assist them like the WP:Teahouse, the WP:Help desk, or the WP:Reference desk then maybe we wouldn't be here at all. There are amazing editors there willing to assist and try to help good faith editors, both new and experienced, just like @Road4117. We also have the mentorship program where new editors can be assigned someone to assist them on their journey here. No one has to go it alone or figure things out for themselves and I believe most of us would rather help another editor avoid the pitfalls that lead to this point than wait for them to fail to bring them to ANI and/or up for sanctions. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal : Indefinite block of Roads4117 for extensive copyright violations

Okay, I have started going through the CCI and immediately found a bunch of copyvios, as have other editors. I don't really have any confidence that Roads4117 has understood the issues beyond simply saying "Okay, thanks", which he's previously said and yet still has turned up at ANI again. Given the precedent with ClemRutter and Martinevans123 over what we do with editors who have an active CCI that shows persistent copyvios, I think we should indefinitely block. However, I'd like to get an agreement first before doing this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support has not shown a change in behavior despite prior warnings, which means he'll continue to introduce copyvios that others need to clean up. Should be blocked as a preventative measure. Star Mississippi 13:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose an indefinite block at this time for the stated reason. Two days ago, I notified Roads4117 about copyright violations on their talk page (and Bagumba followed up with a more detailed message along the same lines), and to my knowledge this is the first time that they were warned on their talk page for something like this (discounting the unattributed merges, etc.). Copying from non-WMF wikis is something I see regularly from a lot of newer editors, and it's an understandable mistake – that if it looks like Wikipedia, then the licensing might be similar – and as there does not seem to be new instances of copyright violations from Roads4117 after these warnings were given, I don't see this as a preventative measure at this time. The CCI is designed for ensuring that problematic edits in the past are adequately handled; on the other hand, any sanctions should come from current or future behavior. I don't think this is directly comparable with other copyright-related blocks named above, which involved many instances of talk page warnings about copyright violations. DanCherek (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per DanCherek. The reason I left the aforementioned formal copyvio warning on their talkpage was that I only saw prior discussions for attributing from open license sites and copying within WP. It's conceivable that they weren't aware that attribution to other sites is not sufficient to avoid copyvios. Consider it a single-issue/final warning. Let me know if I'm missing something.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dan and Bagumba. Roads's account is only 3 months old; they got some poor advice (note that the last ANI did not have a definitive conclusion, and I think didn't communicate the proper message clearly enough); they've since received good advice (here), and seem to be responsive to it and following it, and I don't think the problems have been repeated since then. The other editors had much more experience; I would not impose any sanction. I would suggest closing this with a clear "reminder" about not adding unsourced content and not copying from other websites. Levivich (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think there certainly is grounds for a indeff but given all of the information that has come out Roads4117 is also a victim here. They received bad advice and unless we're willing to consider sanctions against those who gave that advice (which includes a brace of admins) I don't think that any additional action should be taken. Obviously if they start up the CopyVivo again its an indeff on sight but I think that goes without saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: with respect to Obviously if they start up the CopyVivo again its an indeff on sight, are you thinking that this should be formalized in some way? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  TBH I don't, formal procedures like probation are for when things aren't obviously disruptive in their own right but only in the larger contexts of their other edits. Any copyvivo is disruptive, we don't need anything to tell us that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, given the amount of scrutiny now here a block would not serve a significant preventative function, with any further copyvio likely to be caught. Per many above, further copyvios could trigger a block but the opportunity should be given to demonstrate learning after this AN/I report. CMD (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I usually have little sympathy for copyvio cases, and think that ANI has been to lax in some past cases. However I agree with Levivich and HEB, and as ARoseWolf said above mentorship could be useful in this case (from someone uninvolved with this mess or the highway project). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support an alternative proposal that I've included below. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per ActivelyDisinterested. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Copyright probation

Like Ritchie333, I've worked on the recently-opened CCI. The mistakes made seem to be all the sorts of mistakes that new editors make with respect to unattributed merges and copyvio from other wikis, so I don't think an indef is warranted, but the extent of copyright problems here is very extensive for a user with only around 1400 edits to the mainspace. The standard remedy of probation notes that a user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way. Construed for this case and in light of our policy on copyright violations, I propose that the editor be placed on probation as follows:

Roads4117 is placed on copyright probation. This means that any uninvolved administrator may block Roads4117 and/or ban Roads4117 from editing a page or set of pages if that administrator determines that Roads4117 has continued in their committing copyright violations and/or failing to properly attribute content copied from freely licensed sources, broadly construed. This probation may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard six months after its enactment, and once every six months thereafter.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The user is passionate about roads and, with proper adherence to copyright policies, will probably be a productive editor. As stated above, I think an indef is going to be overkill at this point given that these are typical new user mistakes, but I do think that something with teeth is warranted to prevent future damage to the encyclopedia should the user not adhere to copyright policies given the extent of their current copyright violations. Should the user show a consistent pattern of adhering to copyright policies going forward, this probation can be lifted via appeal at AN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• I guess. Personally I would just indef and move on if it happens again. --Rschen7754 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems bureaucratic without any real benefits. Given Roads4117's engagement with this discussion and on their talk page, I am fine with a warning at this point – and the message seems to have duly received – so I don't believe that this "probation" is warranted at this time. (Also per my comments above regarding prevention, first-time warnings, etc.) The standard practice of escalating warnings and then a block if continued copyright violations occur is fine; this does not seem to be an extraordinary circumstance that requires a tailored sanction. DanCherek (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply stated, the next confirmed copyvio should result in an indefinite block. Thinking further, if there is an unblock request, the unblocking admin or community can decide if there are any conditions necessary, depending on the situation at that time.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as this already is standard operating procedures for copyright issues; a complaint has been raised, they've been warned and a CCI's been opened, further issues may fetch admin actions. If someone goes and adds more copyvio after a warning and a CCI, I think (and really hope) that an admin would levy some preventative blocks on them. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancillary issue

In the process of trying to improve A68 road which was rightly highlighted by Fram upthread as a lousy article without any proper references, I came upon what looked like a hoax which had been in the article for a long time. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Perpetration of hoaxes for more detail. Many road articles are dreadful hotchpotches of OR, copyvio and errors sourced to fan websites. The whole point of WP:V is to ensure that we follow proper sources, so we don't get things wrong. I don't think there should be any prejudice against getting rid of stuff that isn't verifiable, and that would also sometimes mean redirecting articles where there is no possibility of ever making them verifiable. John (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree completely with what John has said. I think one of the differences between me and Rschen7754 is that he thinks our road articles are pretty good, whereas I (and, presumably, John) think they're pretty awful, generally speaking. It is possible to improve the articles, but it's quite difficult, at least for ones in the UK - coverage in books is few and far between aside a couple of really good books I've got on London transport that were a key help in getting London Ringways and M25 Motorway to GA. In the interim, I don't see an issue with reducing some of the not obviously notable ones to a redirect with a list until somebody has the time and effort to dig out the required sources to write a decent-sized non-stub article on them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I edit road articles is because:

1. there isn't a lot of road articles espically for UK Roads and...
2. if there is an article, then most of the time, it is not in great condition

I do agree with John and Ritchie333 that road's articles about UK roads are not in great condition, however, if a few people work with each other on an article, then it would make the article much better. A great example of this is on the A68 road page - Fram mentioned it here on Thursday 29th September that the page hasn't had a citation since being created 19 years ago, back in 2003. I then added some sources to it on Friday 30th September, with John adding thirteen more sources on Saturday 1st October (thanks for that mate BTW). Afterwards, Ritchie333 improved the content of the page on Monday 3rd October. If it wasn't for us (especially John and Ritchie), this article would soon be on WP:AFD.

Sorry for the long message, just wanted to prove that it can be done. Thanks, Roads4117 16:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

While some of our road articles are good, I do not think I have ever said on the whole that our road articles are good. --Rschen7754 03:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:85.193.215.210

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 85.193.215.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.193.252.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.193.215.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vikom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, editing from at least the three IPs and the username linked above, makes edits which they claim improve readability. However, the changes they make are almost always unnecessary and are frequently harmful. They often seek to replace words on the basis of google search results, without heed to specific meaning or nuance. They have stated that they believe the English language is "illogical" and that they think editing Wikipedia is a way to somehow change this: "I want to make English a bit more logical, and Wikipedia seems to be a very good tool." Their edit summaries often have an insulting tone, suggesting that other editors are somehow deliberately making articles hard to understand (this and other commonly-used edit summaries make it easy to see that the same person is behind the IPs and the account).

Some examples of harmful edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-tpv1&diff=prev&oldid=901564624
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-tpv1&diff=prev&oldid=903488081
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washingtonian_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1069512575
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limelight&diff=prev&oldid=1074149759
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beryllium&diff=prev&oldid=1106453101
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Sakharov&diff=prev&oldid=1060165019
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFO_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1068284363

Examples of using google searches incorrectly:

• seeking to change "one kind of thing" to "one kind of things": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collective_noun&diff=prev&oldid=1067762349
• changing "as president" to "as a president": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir/Archive_3#%22as_a_president%22_or_%22as_president%22

In that latter thread, they even suggested that a user change their talk page post in a way which made it nonsensical. That is not the only time they have made such strange requests of other users: see also [319]

They have been heavily criticised, in their various incarnations, by a number of other editors. See for example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.193.252.19&diff=1067082486&oldid=1062716563
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.193.252.19&diff=1056848844&oldid=1051992482
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vikom&diff=906163886&oldid=901922680
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vikom&diff=906195695&oldid=906164046
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&diff=next&oldid=904868747

There are plenty more examples of edits they have made which changed meanings in ways that they clearly do not properly understand. While the harm of each individual edit may be minor, the fact that they have been pursuing this campaign of over-simplification under multiple identities over many years motivates me to raise the issue here for discussion. Individual editors have asked them to stop this campaign, and they have not. Should something be done about this? 86.187.235.123 (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have an obsession with me, but I am not a vandal. My dynamic IP does change sometimes, but without my will. I appreciate your painstaking scrutiny but, unfortunately, it was in vain. If your think that replacing "all but disappeared" with "almost disappeared" is somehow harmful to Wikipedia, and maybe to the whole English language, than you have a problem. Just because English is not my first language does not mean that I am incompetent in English. Unlike you I am competent enough to distinguish between syntax and semantics. Look at your unfounded revert that has been rereverted by somebody else. Why should I believe you, especially that you use sock puppets? My problems started when you made this revert, and then your sock puppets came to play:

• Lognomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eh!_Eh!_Aah! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kzqj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Your (already blocked) sock puppets supported you and each other very consequently. And ironically, you accuse me of making harmful edits? How is it that Johnuniq, who is an administrator, called my allegedly harmful edits very reasonable? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of the diffs and they seemed very reasonable to me. Rather than shotgunning a bunch of links, please provide three which show an actual problem and briefly explain what that problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Thank you for your support, especially that you are an administrator! :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I provided a sample of seven poor edits, two extremely poor edits, and five examples of the user being criticised for their actions. The problem, as I said, is that they are seeking to simplify the English Wikipedia for their own benefit as a non-native speaker, and they have pursued this campaign over many years despite a number of users asking them not to. I wonder which of their edits you found reasonable? All the ones I highlighted were subsequently reverted. Sometimes, they do make useful edits, but mostly their changes are at best simply unnecessary, and they most commonly alter meanings to remove nuance. 195.224.241.178 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@195.224.241.178 "Two extremely poor edits"? Which ones? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. "One kind of things" is not as absurd as you suggest because it can be understood as "many things of a particular kind" while "one kind of thing" is like "one kind of individual thing", which does not make much sense. If you have only one thing, you cannot have neither one nor more kinds of it. For example, there is only one planet Earth so one kind of Earth does not make sense. You need at least two things in order to use the word kind of, but then only "kind of things" makes sense. But, maybe I was (and still am) wrong. So what? Sometimes I make mistakes, as with "as a president". But who does not? My mind is open and I keep learning. Native speakers also make mistakes and also learn their own language, especially that language changes. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

A look at some of this IP's contribution gives me the impression that there's no ill intent behind them, but a strange form of WP:RGW - the articles have been written in a complex language, and I must simplify it! This leads, in my opinion, to problems that are not merely stylistic in nature.

• For starters, I'd like to stress that I believe nuance to be important, and it is often lost when replacing a term such as minimal with low [320]. I assume the intention of whoever added that entry was to stress (rightly or wrongly) that vibration needed to be very low. The user also seems to have a particular obsession (6 edits in a row on February 2!) with the use of "all but disappeared", replacing it with "almost disappeared". This makes sense at times, but sometimes it just doesn't convey the same meaning (to me, at least, "all but" conveys the feeling that something disappeared in practice, with mere remnants or vestiges surviving, while "almost" could imply that a thing survived in a reduced, but noticeable way, or even that it was close to disappearing for X reason, but in the end didn't and stayed the same, for Y reason).
• At other times, some of the changes strike me as pure nitpicking [321]. "As" and "because" are often synonyms, as any thesaurus will attest, and both are common enough to not need replacing, and this is a feature of most of this person's edits - they are unnecessary, regardless of whether they're bad (some nuance is lost) or good (some clarity is gained). It's chasing these minor details that's perhaps infuriating to other editors - the user in question claims to be trying to cleanse articles of perceived pedantry, but acts in an even more pedantic way, devoting himself to changing minute details while leaving long, lecturing summaries about how he is making the language better, more logical, and why those who stand against him are just wrong to not use [what he considers to be] plain English.
• This leads me to my third and final point (other issues could probably be raised, but I've not looked at their edits in any depth): the claim that editors are doing a disservice to readers by not using the aforementioned "plain English", since Wikipedia should look to be as accessible as possible to readers and not make their access to knowledge overly complicated. While I understand where he's coming from, I do not necessarily agree - in fact, by merely using a more varied language we are also educating readers. Nobody is writing in Shakespearean English (fortunately, if I may add!), and most of the terms or expressions replaced are not particularly arcane (they're probably at a B2 CEFR level), so if a user whose native language is not English is "forced" to look a word up, then that is also a learning experience in and of itself (and learning by experience, outside a classroom, can be more useful than we think).

In short, it's almost as if he were trying to turn the English Wikipedia into the Simple English Wikipedia. Perhaps his efforts are best directed there. Ostalgia (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(OP here on a different network) I very much agree with your analysis, User:Ostalgia. Indeed, other editors have pointed this person towards Simple English Wikipedia (eg [322]; I recall seeing others more recently but can't find them right now). WP:RGW seems apt; they have explicitly stated that they want to change the English language by editing Wikipedia ([323]). The problem is that they regard many widely-used phrases as "illogical", and their sole metric for "readability" is google search results, which often leads them to absurd conclusions. Examples of that include their proposal to change "one kind of thing" to "one kind of things" ([324]), or their suggestion to a user that when they said "as much of English does", they should have said "as much as English does" ([325]). The whole basis for their editing is their belief that "more common" = "more readable", and so they will always seek to remove nuance. The harm of many of their individual edits might be fairly minor, and a minority of their edits are actually good, but the fact that they have been pursuing this campaign for many years in many guises despite many requests to stop is the reason I have raised this here. 195.224.241.178 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ostalgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You look like another sock puppet of Kzqj, and you are currently blocked. Yes, I have been pursuing my good campaign for many years, but unlike you, I have never been blocked.

I am often accused of using Google as a linguistic tool. But by all means Google Search can be used as a linguistic tool. Especially the language in Google Books is quite reliable. After all, most of them are scanned paper books (more than 40 million titles as of 2019). Of course, to interpret the results correctly is not always easy. I also use specialized linguistic tools like https://books.google.com/ngrams/ or https://www.english-corpora.org/iweb/, where you can check almost everything, including punctuation. As for "one kind of things" - I did make this edit but I was not very obstinate, and never rereverted it. It is not as absurd as you suggest because "one kind of things" can be understood as "many things of a particular kind" while "one kind of thing" is like "one kind of individual thing", which does not make much sense. If you have only one thing, you cannot have neither one nor more kinds of it. For example, there is only one planet Earth so one kind of Earth does not make sense. You need at least two things in order to use the word kind of, but then only "kind of things" makes sense. But, maybe I was (and still am) wrong. So what? Sometimes I make mistakes, as with "as a president". But who does not? Native English speakers make lots of mistakes because they acquire language mindlessly, just by listening and repeating. After all, logical thinking in little children is very limited. And this is the reason that for natives everything in their language is natural and logical. Yes - by definition - it is natural, but sometimes very illogical, hard to understand, ambiguous and misleading. Dangling modifiers are the best example. Most of my copy-edits are very well explained and do improve articles. For example here, where my edit summary was: It sounds like: "Only REVERT (a bad edit), but do not go any further, e.g. never insult anybody". Are misplaced modifiers so hard to understand? If you "only kissed her" you did not have sex with her, but if you "kissed only her" you did not kiss other girls, and who knows what else you did with her ;-). Another example and its explanation: The sentence does not reflect the intended meaning because the word "ONLY" should refer to "GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS", no to "PREVENTS". You can emphasize the verb "PREVENT" in sentences like: "Fire education ONLY prevents a fire but does not extinguish it." or "Vaccine ONLY prevents illness but does not cure it". Note that this time I am not restoring my reverted edit when (ironically) I placed the modifier in a different (but still wrong) place. To sum up, the real reason for your reverts is the mere fact that I (a non-native speaker) have the audacity to copy-edit and change words. But the English language is as yours as mine. I feel discriminated. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried to be nice and fair with my previous message, but seeing that your reply is a mixture of victimisation and attack (which I would find offensive were it not laughable) and that I'm not in a particularly good mood today, I'll be a bit blunt:

• I would congratulate you on not getting blocked if I cared. Unfortunately, I don't, but since you seem to, I will let you know that falsely accusing people of being sockpuppets will get you blocked eventually, no matter how much you brownnose the admins, so you'd be wise to take that back, particularly since I have no clue about who the guy you mention is, and I have never interacted with him, or with you, on any article, ever.
• I will bless you with the knowledge that I am not a native English speaker, that I have no English (or English-speaking) ancestry, that nobody in my family spoke English, and that I have never lived in, or even set foot on, an English-speaking country, and still stand by everything I wrote above. Your baseless ramblings are irrelevant to me. If you insist on claiming discrimination and going out of your way to get offended, by all means, do, but it's entirely a you problem, and I could not possibly care any less.

Cheers Ostalgia (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ostalgia Please, read carefully what I wrote: You look like another sock puppet of Kzqj, which means that I only suspect it because your profile is very fresh, you never had any interactions with me, and now you are very engaged and analyze my contribution as a potential threat to the Wikipedia as such. You are accusing me of brown-nosing some admin. You are wrong. Start using pure logic when assessing my contribution and I will appreciate your critique. But your arguments are far-fetched. Your theory that "all but" is a stronger version of "almost" is only a figment of your imagination, and your reasoning leaves much to be desired. You wrote: "all but" conveys the feeling that something disappeared in practice So "almost disappeared" means that something disappeared, but not in practice? If last year I saw 100 pigeons in the park, and now I see only 5, then I can say "They almost disappeared", but if their number reduced to 2, I should say: "They all but disappeared"? This is ridiculous. Besides, every time you accuse me of changing the intended meaning you assume that the new meaning is further from the intended one. What if it is closer? The very idea of creating Wikipedia articles is describing something based on what was written in sources. But editors cannot do it by a simple copy and paste operation, they describe something by using their own words, which means the inevitable interpretation, which is subjective by definition. As for Simple English Wikipedia, there is a huge difference between basic English used there and plain English promoted by me here. Sometimes I edit there, but it is not a serious alternative to me. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"a handful", "a few", "some", "several", and "a lot" have meanings which may overlap and which do not correspond to specific numeric ranges. Similarly with "all but" and "almost". In so many of your edits, you seem to be seeking rigid rules which do not exist in English, or probably any language. And once you identify what you think is a rigid rule, you will apply it in ways which are unnecessary, harmful, or even nonsensical. You have something of an obsession with misplaced modifiers, but I've never seen you fix one that is actually misplaced. Instead, you change the cases where the meaning is completely unaffected and only the tone of the sentence changes. Like pointlessly avoiding split infinitives, it only makes the sentence sound stiff and awkward. I've seen you replacing "off of" with "off", which in the majority of cases is a good change, but you've also changed it incorrectly, without any regard to the meaning of the sentence, just rigidly applying what you think is a rigid rule.[326]. And doing things like changing the word "docile" to "mild" because you think it is more "readable" is just preposterous. All languages have quirks that are hard for non-native speakers to grasp, but I've never before met a non-native speaker who believed that a language should be changed for their own benefit. The majority of your edits are harmful, and although the lack of activity on this thread makes any action unlikely on this occasion, I would certainly argue that you need to be blocked if you cannot restrain yourself from attempting to change the English language for your own benefit. 86.187.173.125 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

First a of all, I do not want to change the English language for my own benefit. All I want is to improve readability by using plain English when possible. As for "docile" versus "mild" - yes, I was my mistake. Don't you make any mistakes? Of course you do, but what is worse, you make harmful reverts on purpose. Here is a good example, fortunately your version was rejected by @User:Headbomb. Of course, the only reason of your revert was me. By the way, you wrote: "you need to be blocked". It makes no sense. I need to eat, sleep etc. but not to be blocked. You could have written something like: "you should be blocked". Ironically, you accuse me of language incompetence although you, as User:Kzqj cannot even understand the difference between syntax and semantics, which means that you do not understand the role of grammar in language. But believe me that the sentence Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is grammatically correct. You certainly are not a linguist and (judging by your reasoning) not a philosopher either. If you were even an armchair philosopher, you would certainly understand basic concepts in language. To sum up, I hope you will eventually be blocked, like your sock puppets. Besides, calling me names like zealot is not nice. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, the 85 IP needs blocked for repeated WP:NPA violations, as well as being WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:HandThatFeeds Did I make repeated personal attacks? Please, show me one of them. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations with no evidence are personal attacks. In addition, we have:

• Unlike you I am competent enough to distinguish between syntax and semantics.
• Don't you make any mistakes? Of course you do, but what is worse, you make harmful reverts on purpose.
• Ironically, you accuse me of language incompetence although you, as User:Kzqj cannot even understand the difference between syntax and semantics - this is an insult and sockpuppet accusation combined.

And again, you are here to try and push your preferred form of English dialogue, which is not what Wikipedia is for. You simply do not belong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rosspotter reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Disruptive editing; misuse of Wikidata; see talk page, contribs Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced often out of date links with well utilized Wikipedia templates that pull from Wikidata Official website URL, where I have ensured that Wikidata URL is up to date. How is that in any way disruptive or misuse? Rosspotter (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Many of your edits are against the instructions for the infoboxes you are altering which indicate that the URL template should be used. Additionally Wikidata is risky to use as it can be easily vandalized and the changes not spotted as they will not appear on a Wikipedia watchlist notification. You have to read the article and check the individual field to spot the change. Additionally most of the URLs you are not changing, you're just altering to point to Wikidata instead of using a URL inserted into Wikipedia itself. Canterbury Tail talk 23:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

By this thinking, we should remove the 10 million embedded pieces of media on Commons. In fact, you can see edits to Wikidata entries on your watchlist here, so it's much easier to spot vandalism from Wikidata here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If I change something in Wikidata, it doesn't show in our watchlists here, the same way changing something in Commons doesn't show in a watchlist, or a transclude from another Wiki. I thought what you were saying may have been new functionality, but I just tested it out but no nothing appeared in my watchlist for a watched article. And there is a big difference between Commons and Wikidata in my view, Commons is heavily patrolled and has policies comparable to our own on many things. Wikidata in my experience is more of a free for all (ignoring the fact you can't even leave an edit summary there to indicate the reason for an edit.) Ultimately at the end of the day here there has been push back against Rosspotter altering everything they can find to point to Wikidata, there's no consensus for it, much of it is against the relevant Infobox instructions (which can be altered but consensus would have to happen there.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"If I change something in Wikidata, it doesn't show in our watchlists here" I don't know what to tell you: you just wrong. Go to Special:Watchlist and choose the option for "Wikidata edits". I don't know how you didn't see that, but it's been there for years and was turned on by default. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I had zero idea that option existed, never heard of it before. So okay, apologies today was a learning experience for me there. However I'm guessing that a lot of older editors don't have that as it seems it was introduced after they started editing and didn't auto turn on. Looking at the help file yes Wikidata is turned off by default, so most editors won't see such edits. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries: we're all learning something new every day. That's odd, as I recall Wikidata edits just showing up in my watchlist out of nowhere. But either way, that's the solution for patrolling vandalism there. It doesn't justify making a rash of edits against consensus, as evidently happened here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

An unfortunate thing with that filter toggle, it shows you if there are any changes on the related Wikidata page, not just changes that would be used by the Wikipedia page. But can't have everything I guess. Canterbury Tail talk 23:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, it's one thing to disagree or point to a policy issue. It is totally inappropriate to be passive aggressive and disrespectful to me by posting on my talk page about problems on Wikidata that have nothing whatsoever to do with what was reverted, and to tell me to spend my time dealing with those completely unrelated issues. Rosspotter (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Then people need to stop spouting the nonsense that Wikidata is so great. If it's that fantastic then why was I able to find problems? If you want Wikidata to be accepted here then fix the problems. But don't come here and make multiple edits against consensus. All you are doing is turning people off Wikidata. Frankly I think Wikidata could be useful, and shows promise, but it needs work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself.

• From Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles? Point 1, in part, says "It is appropriate to modify existing infoboxes to permit Wikidata inclusion when there is no existing English Wikipedia data for a specific field in the infobox". Wikipedia has an existing field.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 option 3 says "Permit use of Wikidata for selected infobox fields on specific articles with editor consensus." No consensus was sought.
• Closing summary at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion "There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia". It says "might" not "shall". (This last I got from Rosspotter who was, I think, using it to defend their edits)

Koavf. I've had that turned on to show Wikidata edits for a few years now. However, no Wikipedia editor should be required to do that. Every editor, no matter their home Wiki, should be able to to fully edit an article without having to to go to Wikidata and (possibly) edit in a foreign language. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Why so? So you're opposed to embedding media from Commons as well? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to media from Commons because I don't have to turn anything on here to see when someone makes a change to an article. If they add an inappropriate image to an article it is obvious but not with Wikidata unless you turned on the option. There is, of course, the language problem when following through a link. However, this isn't the place for a discussion on the merits and problems of Wikidata and Commons. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

But if someone changes the media to something inappropriate, you would not know and could not know from your watchlist. You could with Wikidata. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, Commons is heavily patrolled. If the media is changed to something inappropriate, it'll be caught quickly. So that argument is moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan_f1 should be prohibited from editing Ireland-related articles

I propose that Jonathan_f1 be banned from editing articles relating to Ireland. He (I'm assuming) shows a bizarre and obsessive hatred of Ireland and tries to push his biased POV into articles pertaining to every stage of Irish history. I first noticed him on the Battle of Clontarf talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Clontarf#The_fake_%22debate%22) in which he, without evidence, writes, "One thousand years of "historiography"? How about 1,000 years of Irish myth-making vs 40 years of Irish historiography. Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" is being generous: academic history in Ireland is still in its infancy." Why is someone who shows total disdain for Irish scholarship and (going by his edits) seems to spend an enormous amount of his free time obsessing over Ireland allowed to clog up the talk pages of Ireland-related articles? Let him write comments on Youtube videos or something instead, he'd fit in more with the crowd there. ComradeKublai (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

To explicate the context, there was a dispute on the Battle of Clontarf page nearly a decade ago over whether the article should characterise the conflict as one (at least significantly) between Gaels and Vikings or as an entirely intra-Ireland affair. User:Scolaire cites two academic books in support of the former view, and eventually a section was added titled "Historical debate" on the article explaining the historiographical debate. In late August of this year User:Jonathan_f1 posted to the talk page, citing a 15-minute youtube video to not only support the notion of the battle intra-Ireland conflict but to argue that the "Historical debate" section should be removed entirely, replaced entirely with his opinion.

I believe that his aforementioned total dismissal of Irish historiography is grounds for permanently blocking him for editing Ireland-related articles. User:Jonathan_f1 shows open, sneering contempt for all Irish historians, which seems to be why he's willing to dismiss peer-reviewed books in favor of youtube videos when it sorts his anti-Irish POV. Someone who demands that his POV be made hegemony on the basis of youtube videos at the expense of academic sources, cannot be reasoned with. Someone who feels the need to use scarequotes when discussing even the concept of Irish historiography cannot be considered neutral on Ireland-related topics.

It also looks like he's been blocked for disruptive editing in the past. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

They're blocked from article-space now (since November 2020!). This is not particularly encouraging, either. JBL (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not surprising, so now I understand why all of the edits were confined to talk pages. What shocked me was how focused this user was on pushing his POV specifically related to Ireland despite an extreme contempt for the country; I mean, the guy is only willing to refer to Irish historiography in scarequotes. His total dismissal of Irish perspectives seems to create, for him, the justification to cherry pick his sources, such as when he tried to use a youtube video as a source over a peer reviewed paper in Talk:Battle_of_Clontarf#The_fake_"debate". I don't see how this person can be a productive contributor on Ireland-related topics. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In their (mild) defense, on at least one occasion since they were blocked, they seem to have been able to engage constructively with another editor on a topic related broadly to Ireland. Pinging @Bastun: in case they have anything to add. JBL (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw the edit that JBL referred to because the article is on my watchlist. It was wedged into a March 2021 thread, and it was tendentious throughout, including saying that "if some of these articles read like they were edited by Gerry Adams, it's because they probably were." Looking back on his recent contributions, I found this from Talk:Ireland in the Coalition Wars (in true Gerry Adams fashion, the lede states that Ireland was "ruled by the UK"), this from Talk:History of Ireland (1801–1923) (To describe this as a period of "British rule"...is egregiously non-neutral, probably the worst case of non-neutrality I've seen on here), this from the NPOV Noticeboard (this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here), this from Talk:Black and Tans (there is close to a 'zero' chance that historical articles on Ireland, particularly from the Early Modern Period on, are being edited neutrally), this from Talk:Young Ireland (Right, everyone is "ideologically driven" except the extreme nationalist slant that these articles take – this one wedged into a 2007 thread!), and so on.
On his talk page, I see he was blocked from mainspace, but allowed to edit talk pages to give him a chance to show he can work collaboratively. He has used this chance to edit every talk page tendentiously. It is time he was blocked altogether. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Guy, who imposed the block. Scolaire (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just discovered Guy hasn't been active for over fifteen months, so I'm pinging Floquenbeam, who was also involved in the block discussion. --Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to be much help. I was going thru CAT:UNBLOCK, and involved only in the sense that I was responding to their unblock request, and tried to figure out Guy's rationale for the article-only block. I think the discussion is best explained here. If you read that, and follow the link in that discussion to this ANI thread, that probably explains most of it? After declining the unblock request to give Jonathan a chance to work in talk space for a while, I never paid further attention, so don't have any more info than that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(Responding to ping). I think my only interaction with the user concerned has been on the Irish slaves myth article, where they weren't the easiest to work with, but that's no crime and wouldn't merit a ban. That said, the diffs posted by Scolaire are fairly damning, given they happened when they were supposed to be working collaboratively. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a consensus is shaping up that User:Jonathan_f1 should be blocked or censured in some way for tendentious editing. The evidence shows that this behaviour is a longstanding pattern which has continued in spite of a partial block issued to reform it. His obsession with Ireland combined with his vitriol for the country makes it unlikely we'll see any changes. Look at this edit in which he writes "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous," and "What is troublesome about this encyclopedia is that it is always the nationalist pov that prevails no matter what. That might be why not one Irish history article thus far has been nominated as a good article." He later edited this into the (still tendentious and demeaning) form I quoted from above in this post, apparently realising that he gave too about himself away in his original post. User:Jonathan_f1 has a pattern of tendentious editing and an irrational hatred towards Ireland, both of which merit a permanent block. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the video I linked wasn't just a random Youtuber; it featured a talk by UCD professor Elva Johnston (about 1 min. in [327]), who is a qualified expert in the area of Early Medieval Ireland[328], and has produced award-winning scholarship on the topic of Irish ethnic identities in the Early Middle Ages. She disputes the nationalistic spin on Clontarf and even refers to a genealogy chart. The notion that Clontarf was perceived as the "home team" repelling a foreign invasion is preposterous -they were all related to each other!

Insofar as Irish historiography is concerned, there was no such thing in Medieval Ireland nor anywhere else, and we are not permitted to use 1000 year old sources on here. That's why I put historiography in quotes (which were not scare quotes, but more along the kind that jeer at the idea that there is any such thing as a 1000 year old academic consensus).

And finally, that certain Irish scholars are politically and/or psychologically compromised has been observed by not a few Irish historians. Liam Kennedy, who was qualified as an RS on the article Bastun and I worked on, wrote about this in his 2016 book Unhappy the Land, where he coined the acronym MOPE (most oppressed people ever) to describe the Irish victim complex. He writes: "There is an almost palpable sense of victimhood and exceptionalism in the presentation of the Irish national past.." and, “This beguiling [MOPE] framework, which speaks as much to the emotions as to reason, has been enormously influential in shaping historical thought on Ireland, both at the level of folk history and academic writing.”

This should send a signal that editors need to make a better effort in this space to balance controversial content as neutrally as possible, and in accordance with the encyclopedia's standards. That's unfortunately far from the case in too many of these articles (on request, I could cite whole articles in this space that have been bungled to the point where they need to be entirely rewritten).

Look, do whatever you want with me. I rarely edit talk pages these days and I've no intention of editing articles without consensus if/when the block is removed. But other editors should be advised that consensus is often all but impossible in this particular space.

Remember, propaganda is defined as any communication that's designed to bypass reason and rationality. It is not reasonable to believe that the leaders on both sides of Clontarf, who were all related to each other, viewed the other side as a foreign or alien threat. The only reason we're even discussing this is because the Irish (by no means all, but certainly a loud number of them) have an emotional need to believe that there was such a thing as a national character or identity in Medieval Ireland (before the English invasion), when the evidence just isn't there.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to believe someone would lie blatantly about evidence that is just linked above. You, User:Jonathan_f1, were not using quotes to reference 1,000 year old sources but to demean the whole field. You wrote, "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous," and "What is troublesome about this encyclopedia is that it is always the nationalist pov that prevails no matter what. That might be why not one Irish history article thus far has been nominated as a good article." This is an attack on the whole field of Irish historiography in very recent and indeed present times, not a dismissal of medieval scholars as you erroneously claim above. My original thesis which you have failed to disprove is that your contempt for Ireland and its scholarship means that you feel justified in dismissing any sources that don't conform to your (anti-Irish, anti-Nationalist) bias and cherrypicking any that do. I will elaborate below.

You did very much respond to peer-reviewed scholarship with a youtube video. While Johnston's peer reviewed scholarship would count as a reliable source, a social media interview that was edited, uploaded, and narrated by an anonymous youtube user is not. We have no idea who the interviewer/editor is (you certainly didn't list his credentials) and so we have no idea if he is accurately representing Dr. Johnston's perspective honestly. You're also ignoring that you were not only trying to use the youtube video as a source but as evidence that other Reliable Sources and the whole "Historical Debate" section of the Battle of Clontarf be removed from the article. User:Scolaire supported his position with two academic books; you wanted the article purged of everything that doesn't align rigidly with your POV on the basis of a youtube interview published by an anonymous rando.

In relation to the above paragraph and the debate on Clontarf, you also lied about this source, claiming it is "some obscure paper published by a physicist that supposedly lends credibility to the "popular" (read "nationalist") POV." This is a lie and a mischaracterization of the source and its reach. The source was an interdisciplinary network analysis of the most important original source text for the battle; far from just some physicist's opinion, dismissing this sophisticated application of scientific research to the humanities to a random physicist's opinion is lying. Given that a number of media outlets wrote articles about the piece it is actually one of the least obscure academic articles in the field of Early Medieval Irish history ever written.

As for the original debate about the Battle of Clontarf I actually haven't taken a side, except that the "Historical debate" section should stay up and the article shouldn't be scrubbed of everything that's not your POV.

Your obsession with and contempt for Ireland, its scholars, and the facts is obvious and merits a permanent block. Get off wikipedia and start writing youtube comments ComradeKublai (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC) ComradeKublai (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, in case anyone misses my point about the youtube interview: professionally-made documentaries misrepresent scholars all the time, and we have no verification that the youtuber didn't. The interview still wasn't peer reviewed, of course. User:Jonathan_f1 was also not only trying to use it as a Relaible Source but to get other peer-reviewed sources removed from the article. ComradeKublai (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And finally, your reference to Liam Kennedy's book is the perfect example of the thesis I laid out in my first paragraph. You think that you have the right to dismiss and remove academic, reliable sources that contradict your POV because you read in another guy's book that they're inherently infected with a "nationalist bias." No one has an issue with using Kennedy's peer reviewed books and articles as sources, but you are NOT allowed use Kennedy as a justification to dismiss other peer reviewed sources whose conclusions contradict your POV. Sorry, but you don't get to remove Reliable Sources because Liam Kennedy says that Irish academics can be biased. ComradeKublai (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don't remember exactly what was said on that talk page, but I do recall one editor (either you or someone else) telling another editor that there's "1000 years of historiography" supporting the traditional view of Clontarf. If a 1000 year old source is judged reliable then modern scholarship will say as much. But that doesn't represent a 1000 year continuity in historical thought and agreement.

Bear in mind I'm primarily responding to charges that I'm an audacious anti-Irish bigot for putting quotes around the word historiography and writing that Irish academic history is about 40 years old. On the second point I was referencing the great reboot that had occurred some time in the mid -late 20th Century, when Irish history books were essentially wiped clean and a 'new history' was written by so-called revisionists[329].

The network analysis, which you bandy about like it's an unmovable object, states in the abstract that "much modern scholarship disputes traditional perceptions." So if much modern scholarship disputes the traditional/populist pov, how does this one paper dispute much of modern scholarship? This can't be based on your opinion - you have to cite an RS that states there's been some type of sea change on this point.

And again returning to Youtube -the encyclopedia defines a source three ways, the work, the publisher of the work, and the author of the work. If a historian is a reliable source he/she may be quoted from either written work or speech.Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have taken the acid out of your pen after coming under greater scrutiny.

Most of what you wrote does not my actual arguments. You should be able to remember what you wrote, given the diffs I linked, but I'll quote you again here. Your thread on the Talk:Battle of Clontarf was titled "the fake debate," in which you argued that your POV about the battle should be the only one represented in the article, arguing that the "Historical Debate" section should be removed entirely. I explained pretty thoroughly why your use of the youtube interview was problematic, especially belief that it justified the exclusion of other Reliable Sources, so you can read that again if you want to respond to it. You also didn't read my point about the Battle of Clontarf debate- I have not taken a position on it. Nor was I involved in the original debate. I was just shocked by your vitriol and dismissiveness, some of which you tried to edit out to cover up in subsequent edits (see here). It was the frequency and tendencity of your posts on Ireland-related talk pages after stumbling across that one that led me to make this thread.

I am again shocked how you can lie so blatantly about quotes of yours from a little over a month ago that I've already linked here. You wrote, "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous." This is not denigrating medieval fairy tales, its denigrating the entire field of Irish history, those are quite obviously scare quotes, and you aren't saying that the modern study or Irish history is 40 years old, your saying and the attack is obviously not limited to the distant past.

Ironically the source you linked actually removes all justification for your "40 years" claim. If you had read it to page 6 you would have realised that the "revisionist revolution" was started by scholars who went to graduate school in the 1930s. One of the most prominent revisionist historians, F.S.L. Lyons (mentioned in the book you and now I have just linked) died in 1983. I don't know whether you're spouting the nonsense that all of Irish historiography was nationalist polemics until the 1980's (and that's being "generous", remember) out of malice or ignorance, but I do know that you didn't read even the first few pages of the source you linked.

You are unwilling to seriously engage with this criticism and likely never will be. Hopefully the admins take action. ComradeKublai (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's unlikely that admins will take any action now. Your obsession with a single talk page post that was over a month old when you started this thread (and which I adequately answered at the time) means that the evidence I provided of ongoing tendentious editing on talk pages is unlikely even to be seen by admins. At any rate, Jonathan now says that he is not going to be editing talk pages, so the question of a block is now moot. Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What, pray tell, is so shocking here? I identified a deficiency in an article space, attempted to issue correctives in the talk sections, got nowhere, grew frustrated, exhausted and eventually gave up. There isn't anything shocking about this, so let's tone down the hyperbole please.

And yes I read my own source beyond p. 6, and I would recommend you do the same. On p. 20 for example:

"A third reason why the traditional interpretation of [18th Century] Irish history lasted so long is provided by the state of the Irish historical profession. In the years after 1922 academic life, in independent Ireland in particular, was severely underfunded, even by the standards of the day. Nor were universities immune from the culture of patronage that characterised other areas of Irish public life. Irish historians, in consequence, were relatively few in number, and not all of that number engaged in a great deal of research or writing. The result was a climate more favourable to the transmission of received ideas than to their critical examination."

And on the state of the discipline in the 1930s:

"It is of course true that the 1930s and 1940s were seen as the period when Irish historical writing was given new professional standards of accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity. But this was a revolution that took place along a very narrow front, in constitutional, administrative, and political history. New intellectual currents ..in the fields of economic history, social history, and the study of popular politics..were largely ignored."(p. 20)

He traces this historiographical transformation, from its primitive origins to something more academically rigorous, not to the 1930s, but no earlier than the mid 1960s with Louis Cullen's work in economic history (subsection III). It was Cullen who challenged the traditional view of the 18th Century Irish economy as being characterised by 'chronic poverty' (a perspective that's often regurgitated in Wiki articles with absolutely no balance or nuance).

Note that while this writing is zeroed in on Modern Irish history, the same tension between the "traditionalists" and "revisionists" very much applies to Early Medieval writing, as the abstract in your source indicates. Modern academic historical writing involves the critical examination of evidence, not merely rote transmission of stories by scribes. In the Irish Academy this process of modernisation began in earnest no earlier than the mid 1960s, and on closer inspection you'll learn that Irish revisionism didn't fully come of age until some time in the 1980s, about 15 years later (let's not get too caught up on the 40 year remark -even at 1965, we're talking about less than 60 years of rigorous academic analysis).

This should, you would think, lay to rest any accusation that my remarks were anti-Irish or any more demeaning than what Irish historians have themselves written about their own discipline. I was responding to another editor's claim that the traditional view of the Battle of Clontarf enjoys a "1000 year historical consensus", which was intended to intimidate another editor who was challenging the traditional narrative.

In fact there are other sources which describe in intricate detail the ways in which this millennium of so-called consensus has been severely marred by mythologies. In The battle of Clontarf, 1014: a millennium of historical perspectives, Colm Lennon makes the point that "..the events of Good Friday, 1014, have been incrusted with a millennium of mythology, making it very difficult for us to divine what exactly happened on that fateful day."[330]

And I do not, by the way, call for a "total dismissal of Irish historiography." I am saying that Irish sources should be scrutinised more carefully than they currently are.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

References

As someone who has been independent of this debate to date, I have to point out that having read your various contributions and comments here, I can't agree that you're simply "saying that Irish sources should be scrutinised more carefully than they currently are."

Your ideas on Irish historical revisionism are patently beside the point of modern historians having  different POVs on the topic, as that itself defines historical discourse and should not be equated with some presumed concensus on your part. It is also true that the issues  of revisionism within the study of history are certainly not restricted to Ireland with many of the same issues being found in the study of history prevailing in other countries.

You posit that "there actually isn't that much of a debate here" Futher claiming that. "The prevailing view among historians ....is that Clontarf was an internal struggle between two different power bases within Ireland (with Norse and Gaels on both sides) rather than a "united Ireland" under "one king" against "foreign invaders".

I will take it that you  actually don't know that some fifty years have passed since  Donnchadh Ó Corráin wrote that Clontarf ‘was not a  struggle between the Irish and the Norse for the sovereignty of Ireland’ but rather a revolt of the Leinstermen against ‘the domination of Brian . . . in which their Norse allies played an important but secondary role’?

Not only has study of the Viking period in Ireland continued apace in the period since then, but the idea that the battle of Clontarf was solely "an internal struggle between two different power bases within Ireland" has continued to evolve through continued research and academic scholarship.

As an example of this. Seán Duffy who is Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and is one of Ireland's foremost medieval historians, sets out in his 2014 book "Brian  Boru and the Battle of Clontarf" that Brian Boru not only had secured the high kingship of Ireland and that of his own legacy, but that his forces had also defeated the Danish threat and repelled the Viking invasion of Ireland.

Professor Duffy goes into significant  detail in the build up to the battle and  characterises it as a fight for a new kind of high-kingship of Ireland and a highly organised defence against those Vikings who were seeking new lands and dominance in Ireland. 

He concludes that Clontarf was deemed a triumph, despite Brian’s death, because of what he averted - a major new Viking offensive in Ireland

Despite your protestantions and the offering of a Youtube video featuring Dr. Elva Johnston of UCD (a video which seems to repeat Donnchadh Ó Corráin ideas from some 50 years previously), your personal  point of view doesn't  negate the fact that there are a range of current opinions on the High King of Ireland, Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf. If you have issue dealing with such a concept, may I suggest that history as a subject may not be best suited to your endeavours here. Btw I do also have to ask whether you recognise the part quote below taken from an article  on Medium which seems to have much the same approach to Irish-American  history as you appear to have  Irish history here? "I discredit Irish-American pseudo-history for a living (I run a monetized site" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogh Roith (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

One can only speculate as to where you've emerged from, although it is interesting that I had just got done discussing this dispute with an acquaintance of mine on Quora, and now here you are opining absolutely blindly about an issue you scarcely understand. Do you really think it isn't obvious that you just created a Wikipedia account today for the express purpose of jumping into this discussion? And you've also been trawling around the web looking for comments that I've posted on other websites? I don't interact on Medium and have no idea what a monetised website "debunking Irish-American history" is or supposed to be.

This noticeboard has very little to do with the historical debate over Clontarf; it's about an accusation that my edits on this site suggest a "consistent pattern of anti-Irish vitriol and hatred." And they have based this on specific language that I have used on talk pages, such as my description of the various retellings of Clontarf over the last millennium as "myth-making", and my remark that Irish academic history is still in its infancy (by "academic history" I mean the critical examination of primary and secondary sources, not scribes copying down stories). The problem for them is that all of these remarks, from how the Clontarf story has been shaped and re-shaped over the last 1000 years to the state of Ireland's history discipline in the 20th Century, are backed by reliable sources. It's the same language that Irish historians have themselves used to describe these issues.

If you want to learn about how (and why) the Battle of Clontarf was mythologised over the ages -first by Brian Boru's descendants, and then by Irish nationalists -here's another talk by Elva Johnston and three of her colleagues[331]. Note that Dr. Conor Mulvagh also uses the term "myth-making" in the same context (anti-Irish? please.).

Ireland did not exist, in the 11th Century, the way you think it existed. Ireland was not a polity, or an organised society of any kind, nor was Irish culture confined to the island -it was the culture of the Scottish Highlands, which were as "Irish" as Ireland proper in 1014. The Norse in Dublin, Waterford, Limerick etc had been there for hundreds of years by the turn of the 11th C. (they sacked Lambay Island in 795), had created thriving centres of commerce and trade, intermarried with the local populations and adopted Christianity and the Irish language. The battle had nothing to do with "Danish dominance of Ireland" (again, what "Ireland"?) and the leaders on both sides of the conflict had intimate relations with each other. This is not a "50 year old view" -it's arguably the dominant view of modern Irish historians while the version you've recited is a 200 year old nationalist spin linked to Young Irelanders in the 19th Century.

I'm not going to waste any more of this board's time lecturing you about Early Medieval history (this is, again, not what this board's for). And please stop stalking me on the internet. In addition to the creep factor, you are wasting your time -the only site I interact on is Quora, and even there it is sporadic and mainly a means to kill time. But you already knew that.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is so much that is simply wrong in what you write that I could spend weeks responding to each point. But to reply to what is relevant.

1. Academic istorians are not some monolithic block  engaged in group think as you seem to believe

2. If you believe Seán Duffy's (Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and is one of Ireland's foremost medieval historians) position on the topic and which I outlined as an example of  current  thinking, equates to "200 year old nationalist spin linked to Young Irelanders in the 19th Century". Then you simply need to remove yourself from the discussion  of Irish history before you embarrass yourself further.

You appear to be under serious misapprehension that I'm someone who has already been discussion with you on this topic. "Here you are again" &etc. You're wrong. And I didn't create an account "today". I created an account a number of days ago to add some content to an existing  article and in the process of doing so  noticed one of your contributions on the talk page. And from thence to here.

As to any "understanding" the topic at hand. In this thread there has been serious criticism levied against many of your  contributions and behaviour to date. And I agree in many ways with  what others have already  said there. See previous.

I'm quite aware the discussion is not about the history of the battle of Clontarf or indeed any history. In reply to your comment I provided an example of the position of revisionism (on that topic) to counter your claim that your POV is somehow the dominant one, as an excuse for your behaviour to date. You've ignored that and simply doubled down on your own personal POV.

Despite claiming this discussion  is not about history, I see you've taken the opportunity to lecture on that subject at length.  You also seem to be attacking the entire academic study of Irish history and with that tilting at windmills fighting arguments that are not proffered. For example I made no mention of the  "Danish dominance of Ireland" or indeed commented on whether you believe  or not Ireland existed in the 11th Century.

As to the quote from Medium. The reason I asked a question whether you were you familiar with that quote, was the individual who posted that, repeats many arguments very similar to your own over a number of other social  media sites.  Anyone who reads those sites will be more than familiar with that individual and their tirades on Irish history. I presumed incorrectly you would have came across that individual. If you haven't well thats ok.

To finish I'll again reiterate that  for the  reasons already outlined and your apparent lack of knowledge on ongoing historical research, then history as a subject really may not be the best suited to your endeavours Mogh Roith (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuous edit warring, disruptive editing, addition of unsourced content and use of WP:SYNTH by User:Lmharding

User:Lmharding have been engaging in long-term disruptive editing on multiple pages related to LGBT rights claiming the countries impose vigilante attacks and executions as a legal penalty without providing sources or using WP:SYNTH sources where the content outright contradicts or have nothing to do with the claims being made. The user has also engaged in long-term edit warring by continuously reverting the removal of content by multiple users.

The user has claimed to @LocalWonk: that the behaviour would cease and no complaint to WP:ANI is necessary but as the user continues to repeat the behavior, I believe a complaint to WP:ANI is necessary.

The user continues to revert and add the same content that had been removed by both me and @AukusRuckus: multiple times The user has provided no sources for the claims or have used WP:SYNTH sources for example in here a source suspect who was arrested and tortured during interrogation on his alleged ties to the militant separatist organization the LTTE has been used to justify the claim despite having no relevance to the claim of vigilante attacks or any action against LGBT people specifically as the source mentions the person involved only identified as LGBT well after the incident. The user has not yet provided an actual source that supports the claims the LGBT rights in Tunisia as well despite continuously reverting to re-add the content and instead the user simply removed some of the sources but the source present still used makes no reference to the claims of vigilante attacks being a legal penalty. Thank you. -UtoD 07:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just awoken to this notification, and it caught me a bit by surprise. I was still in a process of compiling a wide index of edits by @Lmharding to show a pattern of behavior despite warnings. I am requesting a few hours to finish compiling said index and present it and thoughts in a more coherent manner than I am currently. Apologies for not replying chronologically, not sure what the correct procedure here is when another user doesn't tab out their response. LocalWonk (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I immediately reverted as I reverted in the heat of the moment only realizing what I dsid right after and it was undone. As for Tunisia, there are plenty of incidents of vigilante action but it was sourced as [332] does mention executions torture and other punishments. However, I will revert it. Small setback as a small slip-up. My apologies. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)~

Reply: Hoping that for now this apology is enough for us to move on and not continue bringing up the past as I putting a strong effort to acting better. As for those edits, I admitted my mistake and I undid them. Let's not make a bigger situation out it than we need to. Any past mistakes have been resolved with aukus the editor in question and other then this small slip-up I am doing edits in other categories of articles primarily and the articles have been brought back to any consensus edits. @LocalWonk: there is no need to bring up old edits as we resolved any edits your "compiling" with him being satisfied that I am cooperating so there is no reason to dwell in the past. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I motion to close this, as this editor LocalWonk is now bringing up old and already settling or in the process of settling discussions doing WP:FORUMSHOPPING in a WP:HOUNDING campaign without any context into the fact that they are already being discussed and are being done so civilly without any future edit warring or other guideline regulations other than the two edits I mentioned above which I realized were wrong and immediately self reverted. Please don't punish me for trying to do better WP:NOPUNISH. My WP:FRESHSTART does not mean I'll be flawless or perfect and I have apologized for it. I encourage WP:FAF and to WP:AGF as I am sincerely trying.Lmharding (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lmharding, thanks for your response.

I find it a bit disparaging to refer to me as a 'random editor' — aren't we all? Also, we haven't heard from @AukusRuckus as to if this is their position on the matter, so please let them speak for themselves. Some of these issues persist on the latest revision of the pages, and the issue at hand isn't limited to interactions you've had with User:AukusRuckus.

The rest of this message is addressed to everyone:

Pattern of Behavior

I share @UtoD's concerns. I’ve noticed that User:Lmharding has taken interest in editing various articles related to LGBT rights in various countries and administrative subdivisions. Overall, they seem to edit the articles to portray the situation as harshly and pessimistically as possible, even when that means flattening real nuance about the current reality, and compromising an article's factuality. I’ve organized some questionable edits by article:

LGBT rights in Zambia (Removing information, flattening nuance, not providing new sources to support the change)

LGBT rights in Sudan (Removing information, no change in sources)

LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia (The use of the phrase “with certain death for those who participate” seems to stand in opposition to WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can write about legal penalties and nuance surrounding that, but cannot make such definitive statements about the hypothetical fate of people engaging in certain actions.)

LGBT rights in Mauritania (Flattening of nuance without providing sources to support the edit)

LGBT rights in Senegal (Changing information without providing a source to support said change)

LGBT rights in Syria (Use of language that lacks precision and not fit for an encyclopedia (see WP:WORDS), with contribution “Vigilante executions, beatings torture, and vigilante attacks happen all the time in Syria, including by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham a rebel group.” — this goes without mentioning that the claim has no solid citation to back it — that would be impossible, as the phrase ‘all the time’ makes inferences about the future.)

LGBT rights in Sierra Leone (Nuance completely flattened in this edit, namely that the has no recent history of being enforced, and provided no sources to support the edits. Another source, not previously cited on the page confirms the prior state of affairs described in the article.)

LGBT rights in Eswantini (More nuance was flattened (including the non-illegal status of lesbian acts), and a sentence was contributed that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL; “The only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts”)

LGBT rights in Uganda (Edit warring against two other editors who raised valid concerns)

LGBT rights in Morocco (Changed information, without citing a new source, that contradicts the original source which was left unchanged.)

LGBT rights in Malawi (After being informed by another editor that they were flattening nuance and removing information that was factually true, they engaged in edit-war behavior, undoing the other editors reversion of your work, without addressing their concerns in any meaningful way. See edits relating to a disputed moratorium on 23 August 2022.)

Previous warnings

Lmharding has continued to put catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox, which they have already received pushback on. This problem dates back as far as June of 2022. The mass of edits to comb through is so wide, so I apologize if I've missed anything.

In closing, though their desire to contribute to articles on this topic is appreciated, their edits are not improving these articles (if not violating Wikipedia rules), and they are not addressing concerns raised by other editors. There is also something to be said about their unwillingness to abide by basic Wikipedia etiquette, like tabbing their responses, even in the face of being told by another editor that they have a visual disability which renders tabbing extra important. To quote WP:CIR, "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." I would like for a topic ban relating to LGBT issues to be considered for User:Lmharding to protect the integrity of these articles and to give editors the space needed to begin to repair them. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As for mOst of this edits, they were shortened to clarify, be less wordy or list up to top punishments to get to the point nd to copy the style of other articles which took the same approach. It was not to "flatten" or erase any important information. Other details like id a punishment was "unenforced" was removed if there was no source to verify it Finally, for Malawi it was an editing battle that both sides both me and other editors edit warred and reverted rapidly so all parties involved are equally guilty of violatios there but I apologize for my addition to that situation. Overall, mpst if these are either misunderstandings or old behavior I'm growing out of. 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Lmharding (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding:, I can't accept your contention that you removed statements like "unenforced" because they were unsourced. For example, at LGBT rights in Eswatini, you removed sourced statements here which I restored, with a better source. I thought perhaps the first removal of "unenforced' was due to lower-quality sourcing, but that can't be right, as you used the Beast cite to add "the only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts."

I posted on the talk page about this and received the reply from you:

It was reverted. I did that to try to shorten information down to not overkill in details but in this particular situation, I take my edits back. Disregard your version is more correct.

That was in June. By 3 September, you made nearly the same edit again. Following that, "unenforced" in the table and "female same-sex behaviour not criminalised" were restored, only for you to, yet again, on 29 September remove these points, saying in ES: "(removed original research and unfounded conclusions)". There's also the entirely unsourced "Penalty: 2 years" now added by you. Numerous sources state no penalty is prescribed, and no prosecutions have taken place under the criminalising law.

Normally this could all be hashed out in the talk page as a simple content dispute. But the type of editing detailed here is very widely distributed across the whole topic area, and contributions to talk page discussions only occur up to a point. They may degenerate in to long, drawn-out, somehow impossible-to-reach-common-ground back and forth, or you, LMH, simply abandon them, as here and as here Talk:LGBT rights in Texas#Still waiting: "nullified" claim. There are many other examples, but this reply is already too long. I can supply more if wanted.

I don't know if posting on this board is the right approach or not, but I do not think things can just go on in the same vein: the whole topic area is really poorly served. Your approach to editing and lack of consensus-building efforts do not help. I, for one, feel like I spend all my WP time putting out spot fires, rather than contributing substantive improvements, as I had hoped to. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Added dates AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak for that edit as I would have to research more into my reasoning as it was a while ago and I made 50+ edits since then. I doubt you compartmentalize all your edits. I do not have time right now, but as for the the longer disputes I did go back to the UAE discussion so don't pretend that I didn't. I discussed those edits a few days ago here As for the Texas discussion, I am still in the process of researching hence why I did not respond. There are a lot of nuances to Texan laws, and sadly there is a lot of information to sort to find correct information as you would know being WP:CAUTIOUS. Plus, I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me. But those are again, either old discussions I have responded to or or have been in the process of looking into t. You have reverted and 3RR'd me as well many times breaking your own rules with harassing and time consuming spamming on multiple pages often with your own personal attacks towards me as well, pestering and annoying me trying to prod me. Hypocrisy at its finest. Lmharding (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This kind of response makes it hard to believe that you've changed your ways. What do you mean by "you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me"? Lmharding, trying to collaborate with you has been very frustrating. Is there anything short of administrative action that could convince you to change your approach to content and conduct disputes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Patience and understanding, I am trying to change but again the process is not straightforward, I am not WP:PERFECT and I again want to shed my past but with disputes like this you don't let me. It feels very much like a group tagteam in my perception, hence why he had followed my edits and watched me. I am free to have that opinion. That view has no bearing on the situation so let's get back on focus.Lmharding (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: I make plenty of mistakes and missteps. If anyone looks, they would be able to bring a shedload of diffs here to my embarrassment. Nevertheless, although I will argue my corner, I try to accept constructive criticism. I modify my behaviour. What I don't do, is turn and around and attack those who raise concerns.

If I have personally insulted you (rather than criticised your editing) I apologise without reserve. That is entirely unacceptable and no-one deserves it. If there is something specific that has affronted you that I have not already made amends for, please raise it with me. That said, I believe you may sometimes confuse an editor insistently objecting to your edits with someone attacking you.

Either way, I have tried really hard to understand your point of view; I have been subjected to a fair quantity of what I would call less-than-polite responses from you. This is our very first interaction: [333] In addition to being a little unfriendly, it displays a mistaken understanding of WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. This approach is one that continues to be shown in your editing to this day. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: To help me understand, would you be able to address your thinking in regard to the Eswatini edits that I detailed above, please? This may seem like a small matter, but as a representative edit of your wider patterns that I have found puzzling, it would be helpful to get your thoughts on it. I realise you have made many edits since, but those two I mention in particular were only done on the 3rd and 29th of September. If you click on the diffs I provided, which show the edits, that may help you recall. I'm especially at a loss to understand why they were made when you said you agreed with my restorations in June, but then apparently thought better of it, but without engaging in more discussion. The 2-year penalty addition is just plain mystifying.

(And, if you won't take it amiss from me, I'd like to suggest the consistent use of edit summaries; they act as record of your thinking as well as being helpful to other editors).AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: None of the sources mention lesbianism being legal and but according to [ILGA 2020] there was a law pending that made homosexuality punishable by a minimum of 2 years, but does not mention a top penalty hence penalty of 2 years in jail.Lmharding (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: I have made some comments about your recent article edits on Talk:LGBT rights in Eswatini; thank you for letting me know the reasoning. What I would like to discuss here in this venue, are the reasons you did not think it warranted talk page discussion before you made your edits—especially since you had earlier said on the talk page that you concurred with my view of the sources. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Would like the record to reflect that Lmharding is editing the content of their replies after publishing them, here's an example where they referred to me as a "random editor" (not something I imagined, as I initially thought I did when I first refreshed the page). I am also not bothering to address the (newly) introduced accusations of me participating in WP:FORUMSHOPPING or WP:HOUNDING — a cursory reading of either policy reveals them to be irrelevant to the situation and my conduct, and a deflection from the issue at hand. LocalWonk (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I refer to you as a random user because we have barely talked before. That's not meant as an insult just a realistic observation. Now the hounding and forumshoping comes from the two of you seeming like you gang up on me by collecting up resources together against me might I add communicating outside of Wikipedia to do this which is also against the rules. You also bring the issue to other forums almost like it seems like your shopping to find admins that side with you You are breaking rules here. 13:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well hey, I was wondering when I would see this here. So I would like to comment as the person who gave USPOL DS alerts to both AukusRuckus and Lmharding, and engaged a bit with both of them regarding this dispute, specifically on the Texas LGBT Rights article, a couple of months ago. I posted on the talk there after reading through the dispute with both of them, encouraging them to drop the stick and seek a 3O. I later noted that there did appear to be some disruption from Lmharding, and encouraged Aukus to see if there were other editors wiling to go to ANI with them, as the disruption and disputes were taking place across a wide variety of LBGT Rights articles. Given that, almost two and a half months later, despite assurances that an ANI would not be needed, we are now here, there may need to be some concrete action taken here. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To your point FrederalBacon you said oth of us were typing paragraphs, and hat there was edit warring and 3RR on both sides, either both are guilty or neither. You don't get to pick and choose who should get action against them when AukusRuckus was doing the same thing. It wasn't just "my disruptions" so don't try to edit history. Lmharding (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the some of the edits of Lmharding I agree that concrete action may be required if only due to their behaviour on article talk pages where they often change what they have previously written without indicating changes. In particular Lmharding should :

• Not remove article talk page discussions as was done at [334] even if it has been "reviewed and handled".
• Use strikethrough and insert (i.e. <s> and </s> and <ins> and </ins>) rather than editing their previous entries as they did at [335], [336] and elsewhere including multiple times in this conversation.
• Not remove something of your own after it has been there for 4 days as you did at [337] as whilst people may not have replied it may have affected how someone edits or is planning to edit the main page.
• If they have concerns about what someone else has written on a talk page then they should raise your concerns to allow for retraction rather than removing it for themselves as at [338]
• Take some time to read up on talk page formatting as correct use of indents is important.

Gusfriend (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a general query about this process. Is it acceptable to notify editors who may have had past relevant experience, that this discussion is taking place? I do not want to make this more difficult, but I know there are a few other users who might like to know. They may be able to offer something constructive to the discussion, too. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations.

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations. -UtoD 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a lie I have been working on it, you don't know me personally? Can you read my mind? an you now my intentions in my head? No. The proof of talking offline has been sourced and mentions collection offline through email which is against Wikipedia rules as well as collaborating through the discussions I sourced to talk to only people they agree with and going to other forum to shop for moderators. Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me. I have been changing, other than the slip ups I reverted immediately I have been primarily not even editing LGBT articles temporarily and I have been successfully editing other topics. I take that as a personal attack, please purge your last acccusatory allegations. Lmharding (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you you think redacting the comments of other users in in a noticeboard without any administrative authority to do so will not be noticed? Trying to remove complaints, throwing out random accusations without any evidence and claims like "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me " don't really show you as putting any effort to changing or any intention of collaborating. -UtoD 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC).

I restored your comment, and I agree this is additional troubling behavior from Lmharding. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

An administrator warned Lmharding "Don't remove other editor's comments just because you don't like them" earlier this month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That was an attack on character based on assumptions of my mind and process of thinking. Under NPA that was justifiable to be removed. Don't you dare accuse me of being a liar I have changed, tbut that was a personal snipe obviously against Wiki guidelines. Lmharding (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The only use of lie and liar that I can see, seems to be in your posts, Lmharding. It's understandable that you may resent someone saying they disbelieve your stated intentions; few of us would enjoy that. Still, UtoD is only stating how they view your behaviour going by your history. We are all entitled to make the case as we see it, using reasoned statements and evidence. How do you think editors here feel when they read unfounded accusations from you regarding quite serious WP policy violations? (I know you believe you have evidence of that and provided it, but an entirely appropriate discreet user talk post is in no way improper. Similarly unfounded are the HOUNDING and FORUMSHOPPING jabs.) Nobody redacted your posts. You make a plea for "patience and understanding": Would you please display some towards your fellow editors here?

The best and easiest way to overcome others' scepticism about your intentions is to engage in civil dialogue about their concerns, be open to what they're saying, and expressly state how you'll change your editing. It is not by being defensive, accusatory, and using their slipups against them, nor by insisting everyone believe you just because you say so. I genuinely hate to see anyone upset by comments made, but can't in all honesty read what you removed as a personal attack. You will find others more likely to be sympathetic to your attempts to change, if you show them you are doing so. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping (refactor): Lmharding's comment of 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC) and AukusRuckus response moved up to beneath post it was responding to. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/Housekeeping Hi Lmharding: Would you mind me moving your reply here to go up page beneath the question that it's answering, above? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [Done. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)]

I have gone ahead and moved the above-mentioned response of Lmharding's to be immediately below the post of mine to which it was responding. If not ok with you, let me know and I will change back. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/Houskeeping Can someone look at the edit history of this thread? There is a lot of content, including a comment from myself, that shows up when you click edit, but it isn't displayed here. I don't think anyone maliciously hid others comments, but there are indeed some that are not displayed for some reason. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  LMHarding fixed it, it was an errant ref tag, all good now. Thanks Lmharding. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Lokanath Swami

Not sure what to make of the recent edit history on Lokanath Swami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• BlueQuetzal47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added sourced content, possibly an undue amount, regarding a legal case against Lokanath Swami.
• Loksanga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removed that content with an ES of "libellous action"

I did revert Loksanga's removal once. Should the content be removed, left in place, or c/e? Adakiko (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I doubt that this person is notable, and several editors expressed that opinion on the article talk page. There is no legal case. The dispute regards an internal disciplinary process carried out by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Lokanath Swami is an ISKCON guru who was disciplined for child sexual abuse that took place about 30 years ago. For some reason, this was all investigated again recently. All of the references are documents published by ISKCON. The level of detail in the disputed content is excessive, and consists of lengthy quotations from various ISKCON documents. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this person in any reliable sources that are independent of ISKCON. in my opinion, deletion of the article is the best solution to this dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that both of the editors mentioned in this report are single-purpose accounts dedicated to edits about Lokanath Swami. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the same. I've wasted a half hour of my life looking for reliable, independent sourcing beyond namedrops, and coming up short. I'll take it to AfD. Ravenswing 19:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokanath Swami Ravenswing 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Long story short, the molestation case involving Lokanath is a classic religious authority sex abuse scandal. He was caught and has subsequently admitted to repeatedly touching a female child in an inappropriate manner of the course of about one week. The first authorities within ISKCON to find out were a small circle of his long time associates who tried to minimize and cover it up. As details regarding the abuse have trickled down over the years, more and more followers within the institution have become vocal about their disapproval of his current standing within the institution. I've simply tried to update his Wikipedia entry with some relevant information regarding the scandal. My apologies for any hassle and inconvenience updating this article has caused. I wouldn't be upset if this article were deleted, however, if it is not, I will most likely continue attempting to update the article to reflect his history of child sexual molestation. Thanks for your time. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

On the first part, ISKCON just is not an acceptable source about the misdoings of one of its own gurus. On the second part, the lurid degree of "information" you've sought to include is not remotely relevant. Never mind that your quote names the victim, which is such an egregious action I would not hesitate to support you being indeffed.

And actually, why don't I do that now? You have made no edits other than to this article, and it is plain that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I advocate an indefinite ban for you. Ravenswing 14:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Excessive details removed. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the misconduct of one of its own gurus, you commented, "On the first part, ISKCON just is not an acceptable source about the misdoings of one of its own gurus."

How was that decision made when ISKCON is the only source that describes the account of sexual abuse in detail? In a broader sense, yes, one might argue that institutional authorities frequently take measures to conceal and protect their leaders and misconstrue allegations of this nature. While that has occurred here, to some extent, other authorities within this same institution have also made palpable contributions to hold Lokanath Swami accountable for his own actions; actions which he has confessed to in writing as a result; there is no question of "allegedly" at this point. The quotes and source material I utilized in my most recent round of revisions include details of the actual abuse that are undisputed by any of the parties involved in this case.

Second, I've attempted to edit this page in the past; those edits didn't name names and were removed within hours. I received a blanket statement stating that my edits had been removed in whole or in part because they appeared to have added copyrighted content without proof that the source material is in the public domain, and I was also given a number of additional possible reasons that I needed to review, as well. I've tried my best to use "official" sources that are protected by the public domain. To say nothing of any other intersecting criteria or articles that one should review before changing any article, the article JUST addressing guidelines for biographies of living people is at least a 45–60 minute read in and of itself. I came across the following passage while reading the part labeled "Privacy of names" on the page or article titled "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons":

“Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.”

What you find irrelevant may be valuable or meaningful to someone else. Particularly in situations where spiritual authorities abuse their positions of influence, specifics are crucial. By this time, everyone who is even vaguely familiar with this case is aware of the victim's name. It has been extensively shared for a long time, which is why it appears in the panel's report which is available in the public domain. To be completely honest, the learning curve that you appear to expect people to follow IS feasible, but when combined with the severity of penalties for minor or dubious offenses, it just comes together to form an unrealistic expectation of editing proficiency. I feel as though I'm exposed to a wide range of actions or threats depending on the individual preferences of the administrator assessing a given edit, from having edits revoked for countless, nebulous reasons to having an indefinite ban imposed for spurious infractions. Despite the fact that I personally haven't said anything to the effect, you seem to presume that I have absolutely no interest in contributing to any other pieces on this website. And in a broader sense, you're indirectly but blatantly paving the way for a cycle of violence to continue, one that includes maintaining the reputation of an admitted child molester for the sake of some flimsy pretense of official record keeping, rather than taking the initiative and making suggestions in a simplified, straightforward and reasoned way. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ISKCON is the only source that describes the account of sexual abuse in detail – If that's the only source, then the account almost certainly doesn't belong on WP at all, and certainly doesn't belong on WP in all that detail. EEng 12:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

After my initial edits were removed, I decided to leave the entire text in as the quotation out of a generalized concern that some of your fussier admins may consider removing my edits for altering the content from the source or accuse me of content manipulation by omitting details in favor of a more generalized, unquoted narrative of what happened. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I presume that you have absolutely no interest in contributing to other areas of the encyclopedia, seeing that over the three weeks since you started editing, you haven't done so. Yes, Wikipedia does have a learning curve, and we not only expect newcomers to undertake it, we expect them to welcome correction and move on from there. I would have withdrawn my call to indef you had your reaction been "I'm horribly sorry, I didn't realize, I won't do it again" instead of doubling down with your belief that it's okay to out 11-year-old sexual abuse victims as long as ISKCON did it first.

Beyond that, I reject with as much contempt as I can muster the premise that combating sexual abuse and violence requires describing the events in lurid detail, outing underage victims and only taking the word of an organization with a stake in the outcome for any of it. Your infraction here was not "spurious" -- it was grave, your edits were so egregious that an admin needed to revdel them to prevent people from seeing them in the future, and nothing reinforces my belief that Wikipedia would be better off without you so much as your inability to get it. Ravenswing 14:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

But don't hold back. Tell us what you really think. EEng 14:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I would contemplate replying further if I didn't feel so sorry for you. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than build an encyclopedia and are doing it in a way that causes me to support an indef or other ban. Gusfriend (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why can't building an encyclopedia go hand in hand with presenting a more detailed image of a person who has admitted to assaulting a child? The fact that Lokanath sexually assaulted a child is not in dispute by any side, including Lokanath himself, so if his biography does not mention it, his biography is inaccurate.

I appreciate that the belief at Wikipedia is that information published on Wikipedia should not be presented until someone else has done it first (mainstream media, credible publishing houses, etc.), but ISKCON is substantial, with a million adherents and over a thousand temples worldwide. We're not just a bunch of gullible sycophants in tracksuits drinking Kool-Aid by an outhouse in the middle of the forest. We are capable of having impartial parties perform internal investigations and reporting the findings in a fair, logical manner. The minority party conclusion in the report I cited was composed by individuals with doctorates in educational psychology, legal degrees, and postgraduate degrees in education. They possess the knowledge necessary to conduct impartial, professional research and present their opinions. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument over and over isn't doing you any favors. Wikipedia doesn't have a "belief" that information needs to emanate from reliable, independent third-party sources -- it is a fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia. This cannot be set aside. Period. Full stop. Nor can we ignore your obvious bias as a member of this organization. (And frankly, what manner of credible "internal investigation" could your outfit possibly have conducted where your findings were not brought to the appropriate law enforcement agencies?) Ravenswing 08:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've already expressed a disinterest or desire to no longer communicate with you. You come off as equal parts abrasive and ineffective in communicating without even the slightest personal connection. You've taken it upon yourself to respond when I had directed my communication at another individual. You keep up like this, I'll start to wonder why you find the need to go out of your way to deal with me so stimulating and fulfilling.

On the charge of a credible investigation, I've clearly inundated you with so many lurid details and specifics about the sexual abuse that if you don't have the initiative or intelligence to investigate the account and figure it out yourself, I don't know why you'd expect me to do you any favors. And I'm sorry you don't see the connection between beliefs and requirements, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it. This urge of yours to vehemently pick hairs, or demand an interchange of related words and definitions, is just another reflection of your severe, hollow, overreaching delusion. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, building an encyclopedia and righting great wrongs are not always compatible. Building an encyclopedia is about what can be supported by independent reliable sources in a neutral and appropriate manner but righting great wrongs is often at odds with that and someone who is here to RGW will fall afoul sooner or later. To some extent the best editors on Wikipedia are those that have an interest in a subject (or just an interest in knowledge) but no strongly held beliefs about the area (or at least no strongly held beliefs that have not been published in a scholarly journal, newspaper, etc.) I suggest that you read WP:COI about editing in areas where you may be seen to have a conflict of interest. Gusfriend (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before I begin this report, I will take responsibility for any potential uncivility on my own end and for my violation of WP:3RR as I'm certainly no angel in this matter and if WP:BOOMERANG applies to this report, I'll concede. With that being said however, Fowler&fowler has been repeatedly been using bad arguments on both my talk page and on the article talk of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Arguments include: threats in edit summaries, personal expertise, article ownership, just voting, refusal to come to a compromise, and uncivility. Fowler also initially refused to discuss this at all, claiming that in this revision that I have to specifically start one despite giving him the offer to discuss the change and thus, refusing to abide by WP:BRD. This wasn't the first time he's outright refused to further the discussion as I've previously offered him to talk in the British Raj in these edit summaries. User has also outright lied in his arguments such as in this revision where he claimed that I added flags of "a dozen-odd combatants" despite the fact that in my only edit in the article involving flags was this one where I restored the flags and even in this revision, not all states in the infobox even had flags.

Now I wouldn't be reporting this if it weren't for the fact that this isn't an isolated incident. In a previous ANI, Fowler used the personal expertise argument, claiming that because of his prior experience in Wikipedia and contribution in Featured Articles that User:Snow Rise has "no say in the matter". The major rabbit hole of Fowler's consistent uncivility is within Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka. Despite initially being relatively civil with this discussion, he begins to exhibit hostile behaviors towards such as in this revision where he accuses User:पाटलिपुत्र of xenophobia with his reasoning being because he "despises your POV". He doubles down on this, mentioning it again... even when the discussion was about something completely different and his remark was completely irrelevant. Fowler also personally attacks him here, stating पाटलिपुत्र "abuses it by turning it [Wikipedia] into a blog of your solipsism, whether on a talk page or on regular pages". This wasn't the first time as he has also engaged in personal attacks as early as July 21. Further examples include this and this. Fowler also displays a lack of addressing all the points made on him, leaving short responses in otherwise large comments and tends to ignore almost all points made on him, choosing to only nitpick certain elements of the argument. This can be displayed in both the Lion Capital of Ashoka and Indian Rebellion of 1857 talk pages. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

SuperSkaterDude45, this lengthy report is poorly organized and is simply too much for an outside reviewer to parse. Now, I'm not sure whether a BOOMERANG is called for as I only looked at the first diff you provided, piped in "threats in edit summaries" — but this what that edit summary actually looks like:

Revision as of 10:57, 27 September 2022 (edit) (undo) (thank) Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs | block) (→‎top: not famines between but in its wake (ie immediate aftermath or as a consequence)) (change visibility) Next edit →

Care to explain how that's a "threat"? Did you link the wrong diff? Anyway, you're trying to do too much, less is more. Recommend you submit three [recent] diffs which you consider most egregious along with brief summaries for context. El_C 18:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, in this diff cited above ("xenophobia"), you respond to a seemingly innocuous comment about sources with an incendiary:

This is not the first time I have opposed your abuse to promote WP:UNDUE views of ethnic or historical subnationalisms on WP, which in the India page have veered to xenophobia. No interest at all. You have no idea at all how much I despise your POV. So go to RS/N and tell them I've given you permission to present your case. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What is going on here? Why do you go to such lengths to be so unpleasant to this user instead of responding dispassionately in a matter of fact way to the material in question? This is not an acceptable manner for a veteran editor to conduct themselves, especially for a page that falls under the WP:ARBIND sanctions regime. Also, they don't need your "permission" to present anything to WP:RSN. I'm genuinely baffled. How can any editorial work happen when this is how you act? Respond briefly, please. El_C 18:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this is from July. I mean, it's highly problematic, but maybe it has been addressed already? SuperSkaterDude45, again, this report is too difficult to parse. Can you cite anything recent that you deem egregious? Barring one exception, it simply is too difficult to tell from your report what was said when. It isn't reasonable for you to expect an outside reviewer to go through your links and diffs one by one to figure that out. El_C 18:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Certainly and I'll summarize all of my main arguments:

1. Fowler consistently makes disruptive arguments whenever he's presented with a debate even when he's warned not to do so. He most commonly uses his prior experience as a scapegoat to any opposing arguments. This can especially be seen in my personal talk page 2 days ago and in the other ANI discussion.

2. Fowler engages in personal attacks and threats whenever something doesn't go in his way such as this which was written today. I also just discovered he actually threatened an IP at User talk:117.197.86.219 5 days ago.

3. Fowler also makes disruptive edit summaries such as this one where he threatens someone for merely fixing the grammar of the article and this where he is openly hostile towards anyone that adds flags in the infobox.

Also my apologies for the wrong diff, for the threats section of my original report, I meant to link this one where he personally threatened me as he was going to "take me into the wiki wood shed". I also only cited older examples to show that this isn't a new behavior as Fowler has been doing this for months now. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C: My RS/N remark had nothing to do with asking them to seek my permission. It was in response to their endlessly pinging me and asking me to have a discussion with them on that talk page when I had no interest as their sources were not reliable nor were they DUE. I said to them, "Why don't you take your sources to RS/N and have a discussion with the folks there?" They replied, "I cannot because RS/N requires that a full discussion be first conducted on the article's talk page." It was in that context, I said, "Well, tell them that you have my permission, meaning that I do not object to their taking the sources to RS/N." They replied again, I cannot as "RS/N requires a full discussion ..." This it turned out was not true. In the end I took user:Pat's sources to RS/N myself. The the responding editor SamuelRiv said that the using those sources would be UNDUE.

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Mauryan_Art_(unpublished,_1952)_and_Flickr_picture Later they told user:Pat that the plastic surgery they were doing on images by pasting one set of images on another could not be done on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, understood, that makes sense, then. Thanks for clearing that up. That definitely looked weird out of context. Sorry about that. El_C 01:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

1. How would SuperSkaterDude45 whose only interaction with me is on the British-era-related pages British Raj, Company rule in India and Indian rebellion of 1857 (where they typically add flags and flagicons in infoboxes) know about my interaction with another editor on a relatively obscure page Lion capital of Ashoka in July where I mentioned xenophobia? In other words, SuperSkater's disagreement with me has nothing to do with my remark about xenophobia.
2. As for the British era pages, not just I but RegentsPark also has long maintained that those flags that SuperSkater keeps adding to the infobox don't belong to these pages as there is no scholarly evidence that those flags were used by the empires; in main part this is so because the empires were unions of regions ruled by the British and those ruled by Indian rulers who flew their own flags.
3. As for the "xenophobic," the first time it happened was much earlier, as a matter of fact in August 2020 on the Talk:India page in this thread Talk:India/Archive_49#Glaring_inadequacies_for_a_Featured_Article of August 2020 by a user who uses an Indic script name but calls himself Pat in English.
4. A year before that, the India page had a TFA on Gandhi's 150 anniversary on October 2, 2019. I spent three months revising large parts of the article in plain view of many seasoned editors, including at least four admins. I wrote new sections on Cuisine and Clothing. The clothing section was sourced to two of the major sources, Emma Tarlo's Clothing Matters and Roshen Alkazi's article on Central Asian clothing in ancient India. They discussed four main types of stitched clothes: Shalwar, kameez, pajama, and kurta. For the kurta image, I used an image which had been in the Kurta page for 12 years. It was a picture of our son, who had modeled the different styles of kurta specifically for Wikipedia in 2007 when he was 15. Those different-styled kurtas had been purchased specifically for the purpose of illustrating the styles on Wikipedia.
5. Anyway, as you can see, user:Pat suggested that "an actual Indian" replace the picture of our son, even though none of the alternatives he suggested were wearing a kurta! He then objected to the picture of a Muslim praying in a mosque (because it did not represent a majority-Hindu India); he also objected to a Featured Picture of a church because that too did not display Hindu India. It was in that context that I called him "xenophobic." It wasn't just me, later in the same thread admin Vanamonde93 mentioned that those kinds of edits are what he would normally ask sanctions for. I mean India is a secular republic. In the Indian interpretation, secular means religiously pluralistic. That is what the Constitution of India states, what Gandhi and Nehru stood for, and what we say in the lead. It is only the Hindu nationalists (the Hindutva types) who don't like that notion of India. Look at the alternatives that Pat suggested: all Hindus everywhere!
6. I'm sure if I had the picture of a Jewish synagogue in Cochin or a Parsi (Zoroastrian) fire temple in Bombay, they would have the same objection. It is pure xenophobia. I have over 4,000 edits on Talk:India and over 2,000 on the FA India. If I were routinely abusive, the objecting editors would not have appeared out of the blue 13 years after my start on Wikipedia. I'm reasonably sure they trade notes, as they all have the same diffs of mine. Who they are I have no idea.
7. SuperSkater's admission that they might have violated 3RR is the result of my post on their user talk page warning them. This is their first acknowledgement that they actually did violate 3RR
8. There is a very dangerous trend in the works in Wikipedia. POV-pushing editors endlessly bait editors who create NPOV-content. They then begin an RfC where the POV-pushing "friends" appear. When that doesn't go anywhere, they go to ANI. The dangerous trend is that they are proposing that relentless POV promotion is OK on Wikipedia as long as it is politely done. If on other hand you have created reliable NPOV content in FAs and you lose your cool at endless baiting, it is not OK on Wikipedia.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a reply to @El C: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I don't know how you expect me to follow all of that. Even if you were to provide pertinent diffs rather than links to lengthy discussions, it would probably still be too much. I simply don't have countless hours to put all these pieces together. I doubt you'll find an admin who would, though you're welcome to try. But I'm gonna say this: every time you lose your cool and attack other contributors, you lose precious ground in claiming WP:STEWARDSHIP over WP:OWNERSHIP. And you are doing it way too much, which is not sustainable in the long run, and the sooner you realize that, the better. You simply cannot continue to browbeat, insult, and even threaten other users, especially when they engage you dispassionately with sources and sourced material.

So, you need to will yourself to dial it back. Report what you perceive as disruption to a conduct board (like here, WP:AE, etc.), don't use article talk pages for that; and use the content end of WP:DRR (WP:RFC, WP:RSN, etc.) to figure out what the given consensus is for whatever. If you assert that there's WP:CANVASSING or something akin to it, that would also be a conduct matter. But, again, out-the-blue attacks, or any attacks for that matter, those needs to stop, like, immediately. The only reason you're not facing sanctions of considerable severity right now is because you've had a good track record in past years. But the good will that has bought you only goes so far, and I submit to you that you've used much of it up at this point.

SuperSkaterDude45, it doesn't help matters when you edit war against multiple editors to get your version to stand, especially when you do it to the point of it breaching the WP:3RR bright line rule. As for this latest dispute, I'm logging a warning to both of you, though as a courtesy, I'll go the WP:ARBINFOBOX2 route rather than the WP:ARBIND one. To sum up: improvement is expected from both of you, but Fowler&fowler I'll reiterate that you, especially, are expected to refrain from further NPA and even just CIVIL vios. So please, both of you, try to be patient, make use of DRRs when you feel a content dispute calls for it, report misconduct to the appropriate forum, and above all else, if you're able, bring outside input to disputes (sometimes, even a simple 3rd opinion or a neutral notice on a Wikiproject could do wonders). Good luck. Be well. El_C 01:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• This seems pretty straightforward to me. SuperSkaterDude has been trying to get flags into this article, against consensus, for a while. He edit warred in October 2020 (cf. [339] et al); November 2020 ([340]), January 2021 (cf. [341]). At this point, realizing that he wasn't going to go away, I started a discussion on the talk page ([342]) where he did not get any traction and showed an inability to find good sources. Regardless of the fact that he did not get consensus, the behavior started again (without discussion). September 2021 ([343]), October 2021 ([344]). And now, without discussion, knowing full well that there was consensus against their edits. All these edits and two discussions, none started by SuperSkaterDude (one by me, one by SlaterSteven). Now we have him complaining that Fowler is being mean when, frankly, we've all been overly patient with them.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, had I known that, that'd have made things simpler, at least wrt to the infobox dispute. That is to say: I'd probably would have gone with an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 TBAN of some sort to SuperSkaterDude rather than just a logged warning. But it wasn't articulated cogently like that for me to gain that understanding. The explanation was too confusing and disjointed (numbers/bulletpoints notwithstanding) and sort of expected some familiarity with the overarching dispute. That said, Fowler&fowler's NPA and CIVIL lapses go beyond this infobox dispute, and have been for some time, so I do stand by having something on the record on that. And I hope they heed my advise to self-correct. Which, I'm cautiously optimistic they will. El_C 17:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Alright so here's why this is all completely irrelevant. First off, the October 2020 incident occurred when I was just recently starting my account as it was not even a month old at the time and thus, didn't understand the policies that well back then. Second, the November 2020 incident had a very poor "reasoning" for the exclusion of the flags as Fowler made the argument of "No time to fly flags". Fowler continued to revert regardless by January 2021 despite my offer to discuss in the talk page. Third, the discussion you started up failed to reach a conclusion and again, the fact you cite it as consensus when it was pretty clear that the discussion was never completed and thus, failed to reach consensus. (And still applies to the current discussion as you fail to give a response as of now)

Even if your point was correct, hiding behind consensus isn't a good argument to make considering it can change over time. It's also funny that you cite October 2021 as "edit warring" when in that edit, the Union Jack was already in place by that point and I simplified it's name from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to just the United Kingdom. It's also nice how you omit that right before I began making a compromise with the confirmed flags, Fowler proceeds to claim that the BEIC "doesn't have a flag" in his next message (even though it's listed on a 1851 flag chart of maritime flags). It also doesn't help that right as you were writing this message, Fowler made a massive revert at the History of Pakistan article of 6 months worth of edits and cited "consensus" from 15 years ago, ignoring the fact that Fowler doesn't seem to take WP:PRIOR very seriously. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@SuperSkaterDude45 and El C: Consensus can change but edit warring to change it is disruptive. Generally, when an editor uses edit warring to do so, it means that they are obsessed with the need to make that change but lack cogent arguments that would convince other editors. Your continuous returning to edit warring after a gap rather than raising the issue on the talk page is a poster example of that sort of behavior and I believe that an infobox ban, or even a complete ban from referencing flags anywhere, is the only way to deal with you. Finally, much of your response above (he said this but..., I did this but..., etc. etc.) is tendentious and continuing to engage with you is becoming an annoying waste of time. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Again, it's pretty ironic you state that you need a discussion but you've so far given absolutely no response to either of the two discussions on flags, even after I've offered to make a compromise 2 times in the recent discussion alone and instead wanting to immediately get me infobox banned (Even though most of my edits come from article creations) while also conveniently choosing to not comment on Fowler's actions at all nor at the very least, concluding the ongoing talk page discussion. Not to mention outright lying about my supposed edit warring in October 2021 isn't a good look for your argument. Also do you really think that I want this discussion? This could've literally been resolved a year ago had you chosen to respond in the previous discussion rather than just ignoring it only to later give the justification of "edit warring" when no conclusion was reached. It also doesn't help that I had a problem with Fowler's edits because of his indiscriminant editing and removing flags that were there for over a year with 0 consensus before the topic diverted to yet another discussion about flags that'll go nowhere. I would say more but it's pretty clear you're adamant on deflecting or ignoring any arguments I make so really, any further talk will pretty much go nowhere. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, feel free to act as you see fit. I have no objection to you doing whatever. El_C 16:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

SuperSkaterDude45, you're right about October 2021, you were merely changing a reference to an existing flag, my bad and my apologies. However, picking one erroneous diff out of a series doesn't change the fact that you've edit warred 20 (+-delta) times to insert your changes despite knowing full well that it was against consensus. In a sense, picking that diff is symptomatic of your strategy - deflect, delay, and annoy. Unfortunately I can't issue a ban (@El C:) since I'm involved but, imo, the right thing to do is to ban you from any references to flags, broadly construed. Otherwise, if I may quote the great sage, it will be deja vu all over again. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, oh, sorry, I didn't realize. Personally, I'm wary of converting a logged warning into a sanction without there being a new discovery that's truly egregious. Though, if the problem is that persistent, I suppose it won't take long before it resurfaces again. If and/or when it does, feel free to contact me. But I'll also make it clear, since this is an WP:ACDS matter, that any uninvolved admin should feel free to act as they see fit, including imposing a TBAN or any other sanction. El_C 15:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Lapses in civility are stress markers, and in dealing with them you need to identify who's causing the stress. I mean, "bait the other side til they say something mean and then get them blocked" has been the single best way to win a Wikipedia content dispute since long before that cartoon about sealions was ever published. Fowler&fowler is not the oppressor but the victim here.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is not a good argument and oppressor is not a good descriptor, regardless. And lapses in civility, while also problematic, are not the same as lapses in NPA. Anyway, if it was just about this one infobox dispute, that would be one thing. But there's been a steady descent into NPA vios and casual incivility involving multiple editors, not just SuperSkaterDude45.

I know this because Fowler&fowler has pinged me to several of these incidents himself. Mostly, I haven't attended to his own misconduct in some of these either because initially I thought they were an outlier, or I've been too busy and the disputes looked too complex and daunting, and/or, I just wanted another admin to deal with it, as I've had a good relationship with him over the years and he frequently is the first editor I call upon for India-related advise, an area which he's obviously very knowledgeable in. But at a certain point, something has to give.

And I think that largely due to the complexity of the disputes and the language barrier, it's likely that these problems would just continue on and on. That is, until at some point they'd reach a critical mass much worst than this. So best to nip it in the bud and better late than never, even at the risk of our longstanding collaboration, which obviously I'm hoping can remain in the same good terms as they had been throughout these many years. El_C 02:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting myself: Mostly, I haven't attended to his own misconduct in some of these [...] — what I mean is that mostly I haven't attended to these at all, largely due to that. I remember a few times where I was actually going to intervene in an incident he'd ping me to, but then I saw that there were also NPA vios by him. Thus, I chose to do nothing because I'd also have to take him to task for those, which I didn't want to do. Thus, I preferred leaving it to someone else.

But there is no someone else, it seems, and also, the misconduct has gotten more acute. For example, I've never seen him say something as egregious as: Please don't do this again; otherwise you're looking at a trip to the woodshed (diff). So, I think, if anything, I could be criticized for being too lenient. But, you know, I'll take the hits from both sides, that's something that in general I'm already rather accustomed to. Though, F&f himself has always treated me with utmost respect, including in this thread. And I hope the feeling is mutual. El_C 02:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• El C and RegentsPark It was just some weeks ago on Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka where Fowler was dividing participants into religious conflicts and treating the page as a battleground and discouraging opposing voices by making unwarranted bigoted comments such as: "Buddhists that remain in India are the untouchables who converted to Buddhism in the 1950s: their daughters get raped quite commonly by the Hindus in rural India" (diff). Now that this poor behavior is being observed this often then surely there is a big problem here with Fowler. Agletarang (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• This is a dreadfully messy report, but I've waded through enough of it to come to the following conclusions. F&F does need to moderate his language, because dealing with POV-pushing and OR is an inherent part of editing in the area, and you cannot fly off the handle every time you encounter it. That said, SuperSkaterdude's behavior leaves a lot more to be desired, because they're ignoring consensus, edit-warring, and showing a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus-building and WP:ONUS (which is policy). Their behavior with respect to flags and infoboxes is particularly bad, and I endorse El C's idea of a TBAN above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Main page vandalism

Would someone look at the link on the main page to yesterday's "AotD" "First Battle of Newtonia." When I hover on the link the caption there is a homophobic slur in place of an actual description. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what javascript you're using to show stuff from that page, or what content it's showing, but it looks like some vandals have been blocked. I also protected the page for two days to stop autoconfirmed vandals from messing with it. They'll just go to some other high profile page and vandalize it, but at least it won't be linked from the main page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

User:AirFate was on a vile and nasty spree of vandalism and harassment, and has been indefinitely blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought that Featured articles that appear on the Main Page are protected for that day. Is that not the case? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I opened a WP:RFC in June 2021 at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. I can't remember, or easily find, what happened afterwards (I was unwell later that year). Narky Blert (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a current 30-day trial of auto-semi-protection every other day for TFA to be followed by further community consensus to keep running. I think. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, Narky Blert, and Malcolmxl5: The article was semi-protected as part of the trial. The vandal just made 10 edits to their own userpage and then proceeded to vandalize away. Autoconfirmed is super-easy to game, ECP is probably a better idea. In a way semi is the worst of both worlds, page still gets hit by dedicated vandals, but doesn't get those random helpful edits from the internet at large. We already do preemptive ECP for the super-controversial arbitration related topics, not sure why that couldn't be extended to TFA. 2601:5CC:8300:7140:0:0:0:64F (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though I don’t think the community is ready for ECP of TFA. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:IntrepidContributor reported for Impersonation and Disruptive editing against myself and other editors

• IntrepidContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past several weeks, User:IntrepidContributor has been contacted regarding his Impersonation of my account, in his copying my edits and my signature in order to further his own personal edit objectives on Wikipedia as reported to Ermenrich here: [345]. He has been examined by both User:Ermenrich and Ymblanter who have tried to explain to him about Impersonation. He is apparently displeased with Ymblanter's comments and is currently making disruptive edits/personal attacks directed at other editors such as Slatersteven and myself on the Talk page for Talk: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine here [346]. This does not appear to be consistent with his understanding Ymblanter's successive attempts to explain Impersonation to him on his Talk page here [347]. He has made a long sequence of what appear to be disruptive edits against Slatersteven and myself here: [348], [349], [350]. User:Ymblanter has already notified his Talk page with warning messages here: [351].

Since User:Intrepid appears to have made related disruptive edits/personal attacks against Slatersteven, myself and now Ymblatter and Bbb23 here [352], I'm requesting that a neutral administrator examine what appears to be his disruptive edit conduct for over the last month. He has previously also apparently gone through an SPI investigation by User:Ermenrich here [353] for edits related to another editor on his Talk page who appears to know User:Intrepid from his editing under a different account name which he has chosen not to disclose. There appear to be a sufficient number of yellow flags raised concerning the edit conduct of User:Intrepid that Ymblanter has advised myself to post this on noticeboard here [354]. I've kept a record of most of the links about his editing if further diffs are needed here for evaluation in addition to the ones provided above, and have pinged the other editors involved with User:Intrepid's editing history and previous warning messages to him from Ymblanter [355]. User:Intrepid's Talk page has been notified of this noticeboard discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, if there's disruption, please highlight the most egregious diff. I'm getting the sense that you're trying to do too much with this complaint — less is more. But as for your claim of "impersonation" (diff), it isn't that. They just undid the archive and removed your comment to the bottom, which is something I've done myself countless times. Not saying it was the correct thing to do in this instance, but calling it impersonation is faulty. El_C 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The designation of “Impersonation” was made by Ermenrich and Ymblanter after they were contacted and they could add comments as needed. My own concern expressed at that time was that the edit conduct of Intrepid appeared to be alerted to Ermenrich’s indication that he was part of a prior inconclusive SPI investigation, and that he appeared to be making use of my edits by doing what the SPI page calls a piggybacking sockpuppet. The evidence appears to be growing that the SPI investigation can now be re-opened for a second phase of the sock puppet investigation based on the edit history of User:Intrepid which is now over 500 edits in his new account. Currently we only have your warning to him which you placed on his Talk page that he should be more careful about formatting his reverts of other editor’s archive statements.

The new account opened by Intrepid was made without his indication of his old account name. This is allowed rarely on Wikipedia in the cases where a humble and hard-working Wikipedia editor feels that they have become victimized by aggressive editors under their old account name, and they wish to have a ‘clean’ start under a new account name. At this point, there are now over 500 edits in Intrepid’s new account history which can be applied to see if his editing is consistent with a “Humble and hard-working” editor seeking the protection a second account being granted as a courtesy by Wikipedia to protect him from unfair victimization. His edit history is strongly pointing in the other direction, and he appears to be routinely placing numerous unfriendly accusations (personal attacks) against both administrators and other Wikipedia editors including Ymblatter, Bbb23, and myself. These include the following:

• His Accusation of Bbb23: “I have contested your administrator action in a two-party edit conflict where you applied policy to only one side. In accordance with WP:ADMINCOND, and pursuant to Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances_by_users_("administrator_abuse"), I am expressing concern directly to you here. I believe a good resolution would be unblocking Jirka.h23 to enable all parties to continue the discussion in an orderly and civil manner. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• His accusation of Ymblanter on his own Talk page: “You're still not answering my question. Given that I had prepared a carefully worded response of my own, my revert of Ernest's hasty Wikipedia:Non-admin closure was entirely appropriate. Your assertion that your threat to use administrator action was "in fact" a warning, doesn't adhere to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, especially since you admitted above that you misread my intention. Please either answer my initial question or apologise for threatening to block me based on your misreading of my edit, otherwise I will file a complaint about your conduct here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)”.
• His accusation of myself on the 2022 Russian invasion Talk page: “ErnestKrause, Slatersteven asked what you support, not who you support. Wikipedia editing is not based on voting and this is the second discussion I've seen you engage what looks like that. If I see you engaging on the talk page in this behaviour a third time, I will report it to the administrators and request your removal from this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit history of User:Intrepid is not consistent with a “humble” editor requesting a new account without disclosing his old account name; his edit history appears to be to make aggressive accusations against multiple editors (personal attacks) and make disruptive edits on Talk pages for high page count articles such as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine with impunity. Under WP:Duck, “Administrators may take action against sock puppetry or meat puppetry if there are obvious correlations in behavior.” Looking at the long edit history of aggressive editing by User:Intrepid, he has now apparently gone beyond “obvious correlations in behavior” which can guide the comment that “Administrators may take action”. For example, User:Intrepid could be temporarily blocked until he provides a confidential email confirmation to an administrator of his old user account name in order to confirm that he was not himself previously blocked for these types of aggressive accusations which he has been making and repeating from his new account name. At this time, no one knows if he has previously blocked for aggressive accusations against other editors (personal attacks and disruptive editing). Administrative action following SPI and WP:Duck concerns about User:Intrepid appears justified. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I'll leave it to you then. Good luck. El_C 13:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being the sock master? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Zynthetik on Greater Manchester articles (Specifically leads and short descriptions)

It has come to mine and other users attention that @Zynthetik: has been disrupting the short descriptions by constantly adding things like "An inner-suburb of Greater Manchester, England" instead of "An inner-suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester, England" or when he went on a editing spree of calling places like Stockport, Oldham, Sale or Failsworth Suburban towns of Manchester or suburbs of Manchester. And argues Salford to them isn't a city but a suburb of Manchester and it was joke to make it a city. They seem to think Greater Manchester is a city and not a county. I think after the recent edits on Barton upon Irwell, Salford Quays, Greengate, Salford, Ordsall, Denton, Greater Manchester and Stockport among other articles. They should be given a topic ban on editing either the lead or short descriptions. He has been reverted by myself and others. I will leave this open for discussion but I be infavour of a topic ban on editing anything geographical related-to Greater Manchester, Salford or the whole GM articles. I have notified them of this too. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

What you mean Diffs? It's already explained above. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Help:Diff. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting that short descriptions should be 40 characters or less if possible (see WP:SHORTDESC). Of the 6 options below only the two with a ^ fit that requirement.

• An inner-suburb of Greater Manchester, England
• An inner-suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester, England
• Inner-suburb of Greater Manchester^
• Inner-suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester
• Suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester^

By way of determining existing consensus, what do the reliable sources WP:RS say and has there been a RfC on the naming of suburbs in Manchester or England? Gusfriend (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend:, when the user edited Manchester articles like Barton Upon Irwell and Greengate. They added Greater Manchester and removed Salford despite these being in Salford. If you look back at a discussion on their talk page when I asked them. They argued it was in his and others opinions Sale for one is an inner city district despite the fact a river separates the town from Manchester and Salford isn't a city despite it clearly being one. But then they edited Stockport and Oldham to these: [356] and [357]. There was no concensus reached to change these leads and the editor was heavily reverted. I'll also share a list of his edits from August [358] and his talk with me on his edits here: [359].

There's a lot to read but even a few other editors have reverted them but they still persist. So I think a topic ban on editing leads short descriptions and geographical related things on GM articles should be enforced. They'll only end up doing these more and disruptive editing on GM articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not an admin and my opinion is purely my own but there is a reason that I asked if there had been a RfC on naming in Manchester. Looking at the Greater Manchester page that calls Salford a metropolitan borough, mentions the Greater Manchester Built-up Area, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and more, each of which has their own role to play, is enough to indicate that there may be multiple viewpoints when it comes to how locations are presented even without arguing that the official region containing it, North West England, should be in there somewhere (which I personally think is probably not needed). Without some sort of general RfC (mentioned at WikiProject UK and possible the Village Pump) then you are probably going to have follow WP:BRD at each place as what holds for one locale may not match what holds at the one next door. Of course you should feel free to ignore my advice but I like trying to deal with the root cause of issues. Gusfriend (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Keithgreenfan and Accountability software

Accountability software has had sourcing problems for some time. Recently, Wired published a piece on the topic, which happened to be quite negative. User:Sandstein made some edits, incorporating this source into the article. The new version has shifted the tone of the article a bit, but is (in my and a few others opinions) a fair summary of the independent sources. User:Keithgreenfan has been disagreeing quite strenuously, and has engaged in dispute resolution, which would normally be a good thing. First, we had a fairly repetitive discussion on the talk page. Then Keithgreenfan opened a WP:DRN discussion - which he then withdrew after a DRN volunteer opened discussion - no one else had commented, but the 48 hour comment deadline had not yet elapsed. Then Keithgreenfan opened an RFC instead. About four days later, having attracted one outside commenter (who weighed in against Keithgreenfan's position) Keithgreenfan closed the RFC with a note that they would need to determine a more effective and proactive way of resolving this problem.. I reopened the RFC and was reverted. Is this an appropriate early closure of an RFC? At what point does activity like this become disruptive forum shopping? More eyes on this situation would be appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoping indeed for more eyes on this. I view the current edit as a severe and plainly obvious violation of WP:NPOV. It gives greater weight to the recent Wired article, even though it’s covering a single case of abuse of the software category. Sanstein’s edit redefines the entire software category falsely rather than simply adding to the article by accurately describing the incidents of abuse. Worse, the lede rewrite manipulates the Wired article inaccurately.

The summation of my attempts are mostly accurate. Would have greatly preferred a discussion where we work through disagreements and come up with a reasonable solution, but instead all I got were instant reverts and ignoring of arguments against them. Some of their points were valid.

I view this as urgent and am trying to learn the right methods. Apologies if I’m making mistakes, probably am. I view the desire to keep the RFC open as a desire by MrOllie to not allow editing of the current version of the page, which to me would be a disaster. Anyone who’s ever used accountability software who sees the article as it stands will instantly discredit Wikipedia (unfortunately, justifiably so). Keithgreenfan (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: And [360], now edit warring with both myself and another editor to prematurely close the RFC. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this was a RFC I created. Realized it was the wrong approach and closed it. How can you edit war on a Talk page?? At any rate, if that’s a real thing then MrOllie is the one edit warring to revert my change. Keithgreenfan (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Keithgreenfan, care to explain to the community how three editors responding to an RFC became only one editor responding in your completely inappropriate close of said RfC? And yes you are edit-warring, being generally disruptive and doing a poor job of wiki-lawyering. Suggest you walk away from the page if you are not capable of working collaboratively and accepting the result of community discussion. Slywriter (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Slywriter, it is good to hear this confirmed by a 3rd party. I was concerned MrOllie was essentially ’gaming the system’ to get the outcome he wanted. And, considering I opened the RFC, I am eager to collaborate, just been frustrated that MrOllie and Sandstein have not.

I’ll reinstate the RFC but would love any advice on advertising it more. The reasons I closed was only 1 person responded, and realized there was a better way to handle the situation. Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As the other editor MrOllie mentioned above, I agree that the decision to close the RFC prematurely seems to have been motivated by the fact it was trending against KGF, and that therefore it shouldn't have been closed. (I've closed my own RFC once before but only against the option I preferred and only in a WP:SNOW situation. And even then it was reverted.) Loki (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Loki. Wikipedia documentation can be confusing to someone new in a process like me. It seemed to say there are multiple reasons to close and there’s no time limit - yet now a time limit is being forcibly imposed. No worries, will try to ‘work within the system’. Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You should also be aware that as a general principle "there is no deadline" (see WP:TIND) which means that in most cases it is okay to wait for consensus to be found. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be WP:BOLD but when there is an explicit need for consensus to develop it is ok to wait. Gusfriend (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Gusfriend. I should note I was the one to open the RfC in the first place with this in mind. After I only got 1 response after 4 days I realized it was ineffective and closed it. Also realized there were better ways to handle. To me this is not a casual discussion but a case of obvious NPOV violation. One other editor this week called it vandalism, which I’ve tried to avoid saying. But in reality, that’s an accurate description. Sorry if I’m not following processes correctly, just trying to learn the system and eee if this can get handled with some urgency. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It can be frustrating to wait for a RfC to gain comments but they have a weight that general talk page consensus does not so it is generally worth it.Gusfriend (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block, but nobody has really posted any warnings to Keithgreenfan's talk page. So, I posted a warning to stop edit warring to close the RFC early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that the real problem here is that the subject editor, Keithgreenfan, is in a hurry and is rushing to find a method of dispute resolution that is quick and decisive (but Wikipedia is very seldom quick and decisive). As noted, he filed a case at DRN, and I began the initial steps of mediation, which consists of asking the parties what each of them wanted. The subject editor then requested to close the DRN case because they realized that the DRN process would be slow and deliberative. They then started an RFC. They then went to the neutral point of view noticeboard to publicize the RFC. They then decided to try to resolve the dispute by a handwave because the RFC was not being fast enough (that is, it was slow and deliberative). At this point I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. Let the RFC run for 30 days and warn the user to let the RFC run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

While I think a block is premature given the lack of warnings on the talk page- I think a formal warning from an admin to stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with a side of WP:3RR. I'm not entirely sure yet they realize how much of a problem they are causing by their WP:DROPTHESTICK behavior. This is not how we operate. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have an observation, and that it is that this is an editor who completely means well but is being cluelessly disruptive without meaning to be cluelessly disruptive. They think that there should be a way in Wikipedia to resolve what they see as an urgent problem quickly; they just don't know what it is, and are trying to find it. There are two errors in their worldview. First, the problem isn't urgent. Second, content disputes never get solved quickly. The only thing that Wikipedia does quickly is to block users, and then only when they need blocking. We hope that User:Keithgreenfan doesn't make it necessary for us to block them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon and @Nightenbelle. Robert you summed it up perfectly :). Apologies as I was trying to read up on conflict resolution quickly and determine the fastest method, and obviously grossly misread how 'the system' works at WP. Didn't mean to cause 'disruptive editing'.

Why was I frantic? Imagine a WP article on the COVID vaccine that began "The COVID-19 vaccine is a hoax designed to control people." That's essentially what I'm seeing in the article in question. It's severe and consequential misinformation. But: I guess there's nothing I can do to treat it that way if WP admins don't see it that way, so I'll try to make my case in the RFC and hope for the best. Thanks for the help. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Keithgreenfan I think you have found the perfect comparison here. In your COVID 19 example- this is a topic that is life and death and affecting the entire world population. In that instance- a quick response is appropriate and necessary. While your article is important to you, comparatively- it is not life threatening. And any change or disagreement that is not life threatening- deserves careful consideration and discussion. Not a snap decision. That is what we are saying here- go slow, follow the process- and the article will be better for it. Very few topics get a quick response on WP- they need to be time sensitive and of importance to many people immediately. That's not to say your article isn't important- its just not time sensitive. Make sense? Nightenbelle (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nightenbelle, you’ve been super-helpful and reasonable. With suicide rates and mental health issues skyrocketing, I’m concerned that the current WP article deceives readers into thinking accountability software is *designed* to shame you. It is literally the exact opposite: it’s designed to strip all shame *off* of you! Google ‘suicide rate porn addiction’ and you’ll see what I mean. In other words, WP is now deceiving people looking for a solution into thinking this tool will actually exacerbate the problem. So while it won’t directly kill people like COVID misinfo, it can dramatically affect people on the edge of mental health breakdowns or suicide.

Of course the abuse of the software by a church should be covered, and it’s even fair to quote the girl who felt shamed by their abuse (which I did in my edited version), but slandering the entire industry and deceiving WP readers based on one church’s abuse seems like pushing an agenda to me, and has real world consequences. No worries if you disagree, but I hope you at least get where I am coming from. Keithgreenfan (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This is why I feel a formal warning is in order- You still don't understand what a disruption your insistence on immediacy in this case is causing. Anyway- best of luck. I'm out. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Not insisting anymore, just trying to communicate the concern in the hopes someone understands it. Keithgreenfan (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We understand, we just don't agree. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least things are somewhat moving along nicely on the RFC, although it is super-slow and I wish there were more participants. But I’ll work ‘within the system’ to try to effect change and see what happens. Keithgreenfan (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Kidtommee

Kidtommee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently editwarred on the HIT Entertainment article (see its history) stating that HIT Entertainment is not defunct without providing a source, and instead stating that the cited sources aren't always correct, as well as saying I Just Don't Like It When People Think HiT Entertainment Died In 2016 on his talk page, and telling me to Calm Down! It's Exist Still! in this diff (of course I can't calm down since he's editwarring, and failing to cite reliable sources). Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I Least Give Me A Source Kidtommee (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"Fulfilled" means getting what you want accepted. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Source Turtorial Link? Kidtommee (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I literally sent it to you on your talk page. Again, it's here. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners may also be useful. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm involved, or I'd indef as a promotional editor/not here. At the minimum, needs a a final warning for disruptive editing aroung HIT and Xing Xing Digital. See also, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_The_Xing_Xing_Digital_Article_Gonna_Get_More_Details and the twice declined draft. Star Mississippi 22:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

also, edit warring Star Mississippi 22:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Kidtommee from the article for 3 days for breaking 3rr to reinsert unsourced content. I also have some WP:CIR, or maybe trolling, concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Now indef'd for CIR/trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks to be heading towards TPA removal... –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, it might also seem too harsh to revoke his TPA. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was quite... whatever that was. El_C 00:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that photographic definition of "something else". Thanks all for handling Star Mississippi 02:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced/poorly sourced information in biographies of living persons by Wimpyguy

I saw that Wimpyguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed the birth year in Michael Stipe from the correct 1960 to 1954 for no apparent reason, with no sources, so I reverted and saw on his talk that this is a recurrent problem and that he's also editing other biographies (including of living persons) and changing key details like this. This is totally unacceptable and I can't tell what amount is incompetence, sloppiness, trolling, or sneaky vandalism. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:Wimpyguy#Block. El_C 03:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit, Justin, I didn't notice it was you! Welcome back! El_C 03:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: thanks, C. Nice to be back. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

IP consistently disrupting and personally attacking other editors

Days ago User:23.84.19.247 started a discussion on BLP (which later moved/extended to Talk:Carlsen–Niemann controversy) that was a clear moral objection to the content, and responded to disagreement with uncivility on several counts. The user's talk page (which they have since blanked) is further proof that they are WP:NOTHERE and several of their comments in the talk discussions crossed the line into personal attack. While the matter is mostly resolved now, the editor's conduct during the discussions is unacceptable. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of personal attacks. Blanking a page is not "further proof that they are WP:NOTHERE." It doesn't necessarily mean anything at all. El_C 03:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear - I didn't mean the act of blanking was proof of anything, I meant the contents of the talk page (pre-blank) were exemplary of it.

Diffs:

• personal attack in edit summary
• breaking 3RR
• first of many accusations of cyberbullying on the basis that a 19 year old is a child
• personal attack
• reiteration of above personal attack
• accusation of editor "out to get them" based on a user talk report
• deletion of warnings/reports on the basis of disingenuity and policy abuse
• accusation of being "obsessed with mentioning sex toys" on the basis that it doesn't add value to the article
• undue accusation of personal attack in retaliation to an accusation of the same

I think a clear picture is painted that this editor's only goal here was to push their own moral values onto other editors and, ultimately, the article, and no good faith interpretation was made to anyone who didn't agree with them during discussions. Their comments were unproductive and mostly disruptive. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:23.84.19.247#Block. Right, the rumor of cheating in Chess via a vibrating anal beads (bizarre!), I remember seeing Charlie mentioning it a few days ago. El_C 04:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Self promoter

Kevin Ferry Creative Director (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly adding self-promo to creative director. [361] [362]

• Got it. Incidental 3RR too, so he was gonna get blocked for that sooner or later. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks and serious incivility

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

User Donco is consistently issuing personal attacks on another editor. Even their user page is used solely to insult said editor, as here. The user, in this edit summary, attacks the same editor. In another edit summary, Donco again makes a hurtful and extremely rude comment.

Following an entirely respectful and reasonable request on the user's talk page to refrain from being so unCIVIL, the user simply insults the same editor again, here. Further correct and CIVIL attempts to ask this editor to cease have been met with similar personal attacks, as here.

It seems clear to me that this user is unwilling to be CIVIL. Using your own user page simply to insult another editor is surely egregiously inappropriate.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of reverting the edit Donco made to their own user page as it's an unambiguous personal attack and not what user pages are there for. Further action should be taken in relation to their other attacks. — Czello 13:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure the message has got through. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1113983426&oldid=1113838782&title=User:Donco NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the diffs above, while unacceptable, are not recent. I'd wait on action unless the attacks continue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Various reverts on Kherson Oblast (Russia), Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and aggressive talk against other users on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) and edit summaries. Couldn't tell how much times his reverts and aggressive talk happened. Definitely wp:nothere. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction wp:battleground. Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(dublicate from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion of main title and infobox of article) In the discussion of these articles, this user behaves extremely aggressively, and threatens with permanent bans to those who oppose his position. Please restrict this user from discussions and editing articles for a while. (I admit that my behavior was not ideal either) PLATEL (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No. The two articles are full of fake information, unsourced text and border on or are outright WP:HOAXes. No such oblasts exist. Let me be perfectly clear: I don't mean that these oblasts of Russia are "illegal" or that they're "illegitimate" or anything of the sort. I mean, simply, they do not exist. They were not created. They were not established. Their existence was invented wholesale by a Wikipedia editor a few days ago. Even if you think that Russia's cause is 100% just and that Putin is the messiah, it's still the case that these. Oblasts. Don't. Exist.

Maybe they will in the future and then we can argue about their legality or legitimacy. But when the article was created and as of this writing, they do not exist. The flag was invented (flag from 19th century). The governor was invented (the head of the occupation administration was falsely designated as "governor"). All the other details of these non-existent oblasts were invented.

Yes, Russia claims to have annexed these regions. We have an article for that: Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. But annexation is not the same thing as an oblast existing. This is like if someone created an article on Puerto Rico (US state). Even if you think that Puerto Rico should be a state or that it's territory is 100% US, doesn't make it into a US state. Same thing here.

I've removed unsourced info from the article. Since it's about a non-existent entity, that means that yes, most of the text was removed. The fact that not much is left is not my problem - it's kind of hard to write an article about something which doesn't exist, so sources don't exist either. Unsourced text can and should be removed, especially when it constitutes false information.

Frankly, everyone who is trying to restore this unsourced fake info should be deeply ashamed of themselves and should ask themselves why exactly they're fighting to restore fake info. What exactly is the motivation for this kind of behavior?

If we're going to go with WP:NOTHERE I'm gonna hazard the suggestion that it's actually the editor who created an article on a fake entity and all the accounts (many of them throw away IPs or just-created-throw-away accounts) who are trying to preserve this WP:HOAX that are not here to build an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 14:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If Puerto Rico and the US authorities had signed a document on the entry of Puerto Rico into the United States, then this article would have been written by me and other Wikipedians.

The authorities of the Kherson Region established by Russia signed together with the President of Russia a document on the entry of the Kherson Region into Russia. Now the regions are in the process of de jure registration. This does not mean that the Kherson Region has disappeared.PLATEL (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rico IS part of US!!! Jfc. Volunteer Marek 14:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

But it is not a state. I may not have formulated my statement correctly, but I meant exactly about becoming a state of Puerto Rico. PLATEL (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't a SINGLE source in either article about either of these territories "becoming an oblast of Russia" or anything remotely similar. That's because no such sources exist since the existence of these oblasts was invented by you. Volunteer Marek 14:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Kherson Oblast is a part of Russia?[363]

At the moment, the decree has been signed by President on camera and is in the process of ratification. Yesterday it was ratified by the Constitutional Court, and today by the State Duma.

I added one source and put the template "in creation". The source was a Reuters article. Other sources were added by other Wikipedians, for which I am grateful to them. PLATEL (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as a Russian "Kherson Oblast". There are NO sources, even pro-Russian ones, which say there is. Yes, Russia claimed to annex the Ukrainian Kherson oblast but it has NOT established (yet) a Russian Kherson Oblast. You made it up. And "at the moment" doesn't address the fact that you created this FOUR DAYS ago. There were and there are no sources which support any of this (because it's simply not true), Reuters or otherwise. Volunteer Marek 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

please don't attribute to me what I didn't do. I did not come up with the annexation of regions. I, acting according to logic, wrote about the fact that the REGION JOINED TO RUSSIA BECOMES THE REGION OF RUSSIA. you are trying to say that the REGION JOINED TO RUSSIA DISAPPEARS, as if it is being devoured by a black hole. PLATEL (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is the second time you're trying to pull this innocent act. No. You did not write about a "region joined to russia becoming the region of russia". Here is the initial state of the article you created [364] where you falsely claim that Kherson was an oblast of Russia. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, this really does need extra eyes because the whole situation is completely ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 14:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You can also see the discussion here for some related issues. User:PhotogenicScientist summed it up pretty nicely here. Basically, some pro-Putin accounts on Wikipedia jumped the gun and made up Russian "oblasts" before these were actually established (indeed, before the ink was dry on the annexation treaty). Essentially more Russian-nationalist than Putin himself. You expect this kind of nonsense on Reddit or Twitter but here on Wikipedia it's just an embarrassment which is why I removed it (again, text I removed was unsourced or off topic irrelevancies). Volunteer Marek 14:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I was a member of the Russian Socialist Movement and went to anti-Putin rallies. You attack me, calling me "a greater nationalist than Putin." You should be banned for such boorish behavior. PLATEL (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You created a fake article about a fake oblast before Putin could even establish one. Volunteer Marek 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Putin did not establish the Republic of Crimea, but "adopted it as part of Russia"

Putin will never establish the Kherson Region, because he has already "adopted it as part of Russia" PLATEL (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Beshogur, if you're gonna accuse a veteran editor of being [d]efinitely wp:nothere, you better have WP:DIFFs to support such an extreme claim. Otherwise, it is a violation of WP:ASPERSION, which may be sanctionable. Thanks. El_C 14:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @El C: Where should I begin. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia), accusing users of using multiple accounts, using CAPS, bold, words like "lol", "bullshit", "ffs", calling everything "fake/hoax", and falsely removing stuff claiming it is unsourced, like on Kherson Oblast (Russia). Also, apparently putting a de facto tag are "attempts at legitimizing Russian aggression". I have edited on various unrecognized entities, never seen such thing placing a de facto control being an attempt to legitimize something. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Going to echo EL C here - you need to provide links to specific WP:DIFFS to substantiate your assertions.

  While your link on "de facto" was a good example of this, that doesn't seem like evidence of incivility or a personal attack; rather, an editor stating a differing opinion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Don't think accusing others of attempts "at legitimizing Russian aggression" is an opinion. That's simply accusation. Beshogur (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Yeah? And what about "falsely removing stuff claiming it is unsourced"? That is an accusation. And a false one. I'm gonna ask you to back this one up or strike it. Volunteer Marek 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to pretend that this user [365] (there are a couple more from them) wasn't abusing multiple accounts?

And please, show me, what did I "falsely remove claiming it is unsourced"? This is 100% false.

And yes, the article is indeed fake and a hoax. That's why it was almost entirely unsourced (aside from some off topic sections). Volunteer Marek 14:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur, that is not evidence of Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, which is what the WP:NOTHERE shortcut links to. El_C 15:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Treating editing as a battleground is tho? Did you check his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia)? Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I have not, but WP:BATTLEGROUND is not the same as WP:NOTHERE. El_C 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Ok my apologies. Can I correct? Beshogur (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct what? You've shown diffs displaying some incivility that's not great, but not sanctionable, either. I'd advise Volunteer Marek to dial it back, and also maybe not respond to every single comment here, but he doesn't really listen to me. El_C 15:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I did. Once. Then you made me sad. But thanks for protecting the page. Volunteer Marek 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sadness is a two-way street. But you're welcome. El_C 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Essentially this is pro-Russian bullshit. I imagine at some point there will be some Russian formal incorporation of Putin's fever dreams, but its not there yet. And may never be given the rate the Russian's are running away and/or surrendering. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't JUST "pro-Russian bullshit" (it is), it's 100% FAKE bullshit. It's made up. There are ZERO sources to support the existence of these invented entities. It's not just WP:POV, it's WP:HOAX. But several accounts are edit warring to keep it because they're more pro-Putin than Putin himself.

The article really needs to be reverted back to the version with all unsourced text (including in the infobox) removed and locked. Volunteer Marek 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

please remain neutral in this discussion. I do not consider myself a Putinist, but I created that article not for the sake of intoxication of my own propaganda fantasies, but because of the signing of an agreement on the accession of the Kherson region to Russia between the authorities established by Russia and controlling most of the region, and Russia, which automatically makes the Kherson region a part of Russia. PLATEL (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What ever happened to reliable independent secondary sources? Wikipedia doesn't report on every piece of paper signed by countries across the world just because you see it on tv. We need those sources. VM says they don't exist. I have to agree. Provide the independent reliable sources or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Because we know the physical papers exist means it is still OR. The political back and forth does need to stop though. It's not very collaborative. --ARoseWolf 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't even about politics at this point. It's, as you say "reliable independent secondary sources". Or even ANY sources. I removed UNSOURCED text which presented false info. Even if you think Russia is the most awesome thing ever, the info here is still fake and unsourced. Volunteer Marek 14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Article 2 of the document "Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kherson region on the admission of the Kherson Oblast to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new subject within the Russian Federation dated 30 September 2022 (temporarily applied from 30 September 2022)" states:

"From the day the Kherson Oblast was admitted to the Russian Federation, a new subject is formed as part of the Russian Federation - the Kherson Oblast."

Article 1 reads:

"Kherson Oblast is considered to be accepted into the Russian Federation from the date of signing this treaty." PLATEL (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

source for all regions for kherson media 1 media 2 media 3 PLATEL (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time that some actual (primary, but still) sources have been presented that this is anything more than a figment of your imagination. And this is back dated - it came out today but you created this article four days ago. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I created this article after signing treaties officially created before September 30th and signed on September 30th. These treaties say that Kherson becomes a Oblast of Russia after the signing of these treaties.PLATEL (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? And since the text of these treatises was just released today (like literally minutes ago), how did you manage to create that article based on the text of these treaties four days ago? Volunteer Marek 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am neutral, being neither Russian nor Ukrainian and have no dog in this fight. You on the other hand are Russian and trying to insert content based on a premise which almost the entire rest of the world (apart from Belarussian lapdogs) sees as laughable. RE ARoseWolf above: Fundamentally its difficult to steal/annex a region and announce its geographic borders when you dont even know what the borders are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

>neutral

>lapdogs

ok.

Article 4 of the document "Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kherson region on the admission of the Kherson Oblast to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new subject within the Russian Federation dated 30 September 2022 (temporarily applied from 30 September 2022)" states:

1. The boundaries of the territory of the Kherson region are determined by the boundaries of the territory of the Kherson region that existed on the day of its formation and the day the Kherson region was admitted to the Russian Federation and a new subject was formed as part of the Russian Federation. PLATEL (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but all of that is moot. We have policies requiring the inclusion of inline citations referencing reliable independent secondary sources. Without this information can not be included. I'm not interested in the Russian vs Ukrainian/World POV on this. If it's found in reliable sources then it belongs, if not then it doesn't. Clear and precise. Motives don't matter and there is no reason to be uncivil when policy is on your side. --ARoseWolf 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@PLATEL, notice how I said secondary. The Russian government documents you link to are primary and unreliable therefore they can not be used. That has been consensus for all government documents for as long as I have can remember reading about. They can be used for certain biographical details or matter-of-fact statements but the annexation of these regions are not matter-of-fact in any way shape or form. You will have to find other sources. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ok [366] [367] [368] [369] [370] PLATEL (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion whether it's real or not somewhere else please. Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No. That is the crux of the matter. You restored unsourced, fake (as in "not real") text to an article, which makes it essentially a WP:HOAX. This is the kind of stuff people get indef'd for, per WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ok PLATEL (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

primary court source secondary source PLATEL (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The "court source" does not support your claim. The "secondary source" was not in the article... because it's brand new (and unreliable). Volunteer Marek 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, apparently the joys of editing articles with Volunteer Marek aren't only my own. I spent a good two and a half weeks discussing with this person on the article on Simferopol.

• The discussion. After a (now blocked) user had consistently tried to alter the lead, and I and other users tried to maintain the consensus version, Marek introduced some changes to the article, removing all references to "de facto" Russian control, and almost all to the word "annexation", even renaming the subsection on the subject, complaining that it was PoV pushing and whatnot. After that I tried to introduce a new version, and opened a talk page discussion to try and resolve the issue, pinging all of the users involved (the blocked user, Marek, and user:Mellk. I was immediately accused of pushing "Russian nationalist disinformation" and of violating NPOV, while he at the same time denied that there was a territorial dispute. Marek also justified his removal of the term annexation because "Russia annexed it in its own imagination", and accused those who disagreed with him of trying to obscure the fact that Crimea is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine (which is false as it is present in the lead in all versions). At the same time, on the main article, after edit warring with another user for 2 days he accused him of trying to ""conquer" cities for Russia on Wikipedia". I also provided sources to support my assertion that the territory was considered disputed (including Wikipedia's own list of disputed territories), and that using the term "annexed" was in accordance to NPOV. At this point, in spite of the fact that he had removed the word annexed from his edits, Marek insisted that he didn't actually have a problem with it, but with the use of the terms "administer" (which is false, since my version, which he reverted, referred to Russia's control), and particularly "de jure" and "de facto", which he called "a pure Wikipedia invention and unsourced". My reply was all but ignored and he dismissed the sources as being too few, but when I posted more, he just ignored them. After a while he opened a new section of the talk page, were he once again tried to dishonestly frame the discussion by claiming that Mellk and I were insisting that "Crimea is part of Russia", which at no point was true, and then posted a list of four, as he called them, "random cities", to show that all of them had the name of their country in the first sentence. This was his "evidence" that we were apparently claiming Crimea for Russia. Of course, none of the four cities were in conflict zones, or in the middle of territorial disputes (it's quite ironic given that the entire talk page discussion virtually opened with me giving the example of Nagorno-Karabakh to try and provide a frame for discussion but he rejected it per WP:OTHERSTUFF). I replied by showing him the examples of three cities in similar situations to Simferopol, namely Stepanakert, Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, all capitals of disputed territories, to show him the rationale behind my edits of the article. After that he more or less stopped intervening in the talk page until today. He went for a brief edit war with Mellk while taunting him in the edit summaries, slapped a tag on the article as "presenting Russian nationalist disinformation" and at one point reverted two edits, including a completely harmless addition to the "Notable people" section. Now he's back to reverting. As an aside, there was a single account who came out in defense of Marek's position (an editor who hadn't edited the article in 15 years!), first to point out that Marek's position was not a personal PoV but "quite popular outside Wikipedia", and a second time to suggest that edits by user:Seryo93 be disregarded on account of him being biased due to being Russian. It should be pointed out that Seryo93 presented his own version (i.e. he didn't support mine, and I didn't base mine on his) and based his edits on a book published by academic publisher Routledge. When he was reverted the source was replaced by "Voice of Russia". Oh the irony.

This is the version Marek considers to be "blatant Russian propaganda". If an admin considers it is, by all means, indef me.

• Personal attacks deserve comment. There was no shortage of them. In a previous edit I suggested he was immature and stonewalling, to which he retorted (present in a diff mentioned above) by accusing me of being a "WP:SPA sleeper account that only activated itself in April after this war started" and of not having enough edits to intervene in controversial topics. He implied that Mellk and I were working together in blatantly pushing a (ultra nationalist, irredentist, Putinist) POV. Previously he had implied that I was probably a sockpuppet. On another exchange he accused my position of being "100% bullshit" (which, unironically, is the nicest thing he said about me or my sources throughout the entire discussion) and me personally of being "a WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE". Since he insisted in accusing me of being a SPA, I repeatedly pressed him to have him tell me what my "single purpose" was, to which he finally replied that it was pushing "PoV, OR, nationalist, irredentist. Unsourced". This despite posting some 15 different sources, all Western, including the NATO website, a speech by Boris Johnson, the Brookings Institution and others. On my part I'm also very much guilty. On top of the aforementioned accusation of immaturity, he claims to have found this edit summary offensive. I also called him obtuse and petulant, and told him that I had less respect for him than for the intellect of a slug. I believe that my final "personal attack" was to call his behaviour dishonest, undignified and adversarial. I have no problem accepting my share of the blame, and I am willing to accept any punishment deemed necessary. As I told another user who tried to calm me down, I know using such language is not necessary, but I can't deny I found lashing out kind of satisfying after dealing with a stonewalling, gatekeeping user who repeatedly accused me of being NOTHERE, implies I'm a sockpuppet and claims I'm a SPA activated after the war to push Russian propaganda. Just for clarity's sake, I started editing this year (I usually made a handful of edits every year) with the CEE Spring event, I hardly, if ever, edit stuff on current affairs, and in my only mention of the current war in Ukraine (on my article on the brewery Ochakovo) I referred to it as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, no minced words, no euphemisms... Some propagandist! I guess I'm not getting my extra ration of vodka for the winter, comrades.

The fact that this all I reported here happened between a month and a week ago will probably make it sound like me being vindictive and coming to lash out on Marek after someone else opened a thread. Subconsciously, it might well be the case, for dealing with this person was by far the most unpleasant experience I have had on Wikipedia. But today he once again called me a "sleeper SPA account", and he's not planning on stopping, so I wanted to point out just how difficult it can be to deal with a person who is impervious to sources (even today he claims no sources talk about Crimea being de facto controlled by Russia) and who takes himself too seriously to admit he might be wrong. I think user:El_C is perfectly correct in not taking claims without evidence as proof that someone is WP:NOTHERE, but having a guy with tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia spend over a month accusing me of being alternatively a sock, a sleeper Russian propagandist, and WP:NOTHERE (or all of them together - are we in WP:ASPERSIONS territory yet?) is beyond annoying and tiresome. At this point it's off-putting. Ostalgia (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek's edit warring on Kherson Oblast (Russia)

1. [371] rv 1
2. [372] rv 2
3. [373] rv 3
4. [374] rv 4
5. [375] rv 5

within 24 hours. (and those are the consecutive ones)

edit warring on Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia)

1. [376] rv 1
2. [377] rv 2
3. [378] rv 3
4. [379] rv 4
5. [380] rv 5
6. [381] rv 6
7. [382] rv 7
8. [383] rv8

within 24 hours. (similarly as above) Beshogur (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah with these edits including reverting IP user restoring fake information. Unfortunately there were also a few accounts-who-should-know-better also restoring unsourced text. And yes, this unsourced text was fake (fake flag, fake governor, fake existence). Hell, User:Beshogur, you yourself restored fake unsourced text and also here. The IPs and brand new accounts? They have a plausible excuse, that they don't know Wikipedia policy (plausible but unlikely). What's your excuse? Why did you restore fake unsourced text? This isn't something that you can hide with "no consensus!" behind. Fake unsourced text is fake unsourced text and any experienced user should know better. Volunteer Marek 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And now we have the same crap going on at Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast [384] from yet another account that's barely a few hours old [385]. Volunteer Marek 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh cool, accusing me of using those? Beshogur (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Did I link to an edit by you? Volunteer Marek 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't place it below me then. And sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry reverting is not excuse. You should've asked for protection way before. And regarding those articles, This was the version of that you edited first time (2 days after this). You are removing stuff, so you need consensus.I am trying to find middle ground. Beshogur (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't place it below you. And I did ask for protection (El C protected it). And yes, reverting sock puppets who are inserting fake unsourced text into an article IS indeed a valid reason for reversion. And no, I don't need "consensus" (sic) to remove unsourced text. Especially when it's fake info someone made up. You are not trying to find a middle ground. You are trying to deflect from the fact that you edit warred to restore unsourced fake text into an article. And then had the audacity to falsely accuse me of removing *sourced* text. If you want "middle ground" start with striking your false accusations. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not above being corrected but I believe the restoration of unsourced information is a violation of policy and the offending information can be removed immediately. I don't think that counts as edit warring. --ARoseWolf 15:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: 3RR violation is violation. And those were not even consecutive reverts. There were way more. Beshogur (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but I am saying this doesn't appear to be 3RR because its not edit warring to remove unsourced contentious content. The violation is the persistent inclusion of the content. Cooler heads need to prevail here. I appreciate the attempts as described by Fram below to try and slow this down. Fram is right concerning the encyclopedia. Slow and methodical. In my opinion there isn't anything behavior wise actionable but I'm not an admin so they may see something different, however, I would encourage, as a fellow editor, that everyone involved cool off before coming back and discussing this on the article talk pages, or anywhere on Wikipedia, in a civil manner. That's how collaborative efforts work. --ARoseWolf 16:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You are removing stuff, so you need consensus. hwhat? No, the addition of material requires consensus. The addition of material also requires reliable sources directly supporting it. Though VM, you are much better off getting help from a post at NPOVN or RSN than trying to deal with nationalist trolls on your own. Doesnt leave an opening for things like "you need consensus to remove bullshit". nableezy - 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Turning this into this is acceptable right? Beshogur (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when none of the removed material has sources referring to a Russian oblast. Restoring material without even pretending to have looked at the sources, like say here, is not. nableezy - 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

[386] Shoudln't pretend like this isn't Russian government website. Beshogur (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a government website and primary, not to mention unreliable. It can't be used to support anything in Wikivoice. That makes it poorly sourced and therefore removable. --ARoseWolf 16:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That's why I first redirected and then AfD'ed these. People rush in and add all sorts of unverified, unverifiable, ... information prematurely or incorrectly to a rapidly developing, controversial situation. Claims have been made about the actual borders of the Russian-claimed oblast (the same as the Ukrainian one? Larger?), about the flag and coat of arms (because someone saw a flag in the background of a Putin speech, not really the kind of sourcing we prefer), and so on. It is even dubious if the regions can be described as "annexed", as annexation requires occupation but Russia has claimed parts they don't even occupy. We should be an encyclopedia, not an attempt to be the first to document something in the hope that it will turn out to be correct, and certainly not when tempers around it get this heated (unlike, say, Hurricane Ian, where no one disputes that there is a hurricane and many are killed, and the uncertainty is mainly about the correct numbers and so on). Waiting, slowing down, treating things like this first in existing articles, of which there are plenty (Kherson Oblast, Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine). That attempt by me spectacularly failed though... Fram (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, think its worth a community imposed extended confirmed restriction for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war. Youre not going to be able to deal with the IPs and newly registered accounts that will come in droves over this. It should be applied as broadly as the ARBPIA one, all articles and wider discussions such as requested moves, AFDs, and RFCs, but allow for participation on the talk page. We have a horrible record of dealing with nationalist disputes without somewhat impinging on the "anybody can edit" credo as they always attract trolls from all sides. Better to leave this to editors who have a demonstrated competence of and commitment to our policies. nableezy - 16:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes something like that is very much needed. We have the same crap going on across dozens of articles as some users/accounts try to "conquer" land on Wikipedia for Russia [387]. Volunteer Marek 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree to limit editing of articles related to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to groups of unverified users. PLATEL (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Whereas most of the articles mentioned above should be indeed protected (seriously, in Dudchany, which I have written yesterday night, someone already twice added information "liberated according to unconfirmed reports"), this particular dispute is between two editors with over 20K edits. Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont think thats completely accurate. Yes, Beshogur and VM are in dispute, but that is exacerbated by the IPs and brand new accounts. And youd certainly not have the number of reverts if it were EC protected. nableezy - 16:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not in dispute with someone. Don't put words in my mouth. I reverted him single time. I am saying that we should wait for article deletion result. Beshogur (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, I've already ECP'd both pages following an additional request (permalink). El_C 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, Im saying we should go even wider. ECP the AFD, and impose ECP on all related articles. nableezy - 17:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh I_C. I haven't looked at the AfDs yet, but that might be a good idea. El_C 17:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Now  Done. El_C 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if the article is kept, that does not justify blanket reversions of material that is not reliably sourced. And yes, when you revert somebody and then lobby for them to be blocked you are in dispute with them. nableezy - 16:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur - I'm just wondering. Why did you take sides and jumped in support of the IP -->[388],[389] and another editor --->[390],[391] re-inserting unsourced data and then asking for consensus? Why not ask for consensus without reverting (I'll repeat) to the unsourced problematic version? Why did you revert without inspecting if the info you re-inserted is referenced? I find it problematic, you know? GizzyCatBella🍁 16:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur and you did the exact same thing here and then you came here. That wasn’t the right thing to do, think about it.

Anyway, I agree with the motion of extended confirmed restrictions for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Your "unsourced problematic version" has 18 sources, and Volunteer Marek's version has 7 sources. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, 18 sources. Let's see what they are.

A source from June 2022, supposedly about an oblast created in October 2022. Except it's actually a source about an entity that existed in ... 1944

Then two whole sections with 0 sources.

Then another unsourced section which describes the Ukranian oblast

Then a section on the referendum with four sources, two of them unreliable and none of them about the topic (we already have an article 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine)

Then a section on annexation with one source, CNN. Except that source isn't about any oblasts either even though the text falsely claims it is.

And of course a whole bunch of made up fake unsourced garbage in the infobox.

So yeah, you restored three whole sections which were completely unsourced. One section which had a single source which said nothing like what the article text claimed. And another section with a single source which also had nothing like what the article text claimed.

I guess if we want to be accurate you restored a version that was "mostly unsourced + couple sources being used to lie to readers by misrepresenting their content." Yeah... I don't think that makes it any better Beshogur. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The source you are referring to was the website of the Military-Civilian Administration which was created in June. However since it's accession to the Russian Federation (As ratified by the Duma today) The website has been updated to reflect that. RadomirZinovyev 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• There's a bit of on-wiki chaos here. The number of new and newish accounts making similar arguments, the number of citations to official or low quality sources, and the number of problematic edits/arguments are all concerning, and clearly the more experienced Wikipedians are getting stretched thin. This looks like one or more brave admins need to jump in and start raising some protection levels and handing out tbans. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites Start with extended confirmed restrictions for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war. That will prevent a lot of possible issues. Veterans will find their way to consensus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was about to suggest topic bans for Platel and Beshogur, to be honest. A lot of heat would be removed from the area. ValarianB (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beshogur: reasons for that exactly? Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beshogur Please. Just don’t comment so quickly, cool down, your perspective might change. We’ll resolve it eventually - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @ValarianB I think Beshogur just needs to cool down. This is very emotional topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: what do you mean emotiononal? I have 0 relation with both Russia or Ukraine. Beshogur (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's clear you're a friend of Marek, what discord do you guys share? Care to give an invite?RadomirZinovyev 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @RadomirZinovyev as I understand Beshogur’s emotional reaction due to the development of this discussion your above attack has no excuse. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @RadomirZinovyev, strike that please. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: perspective regarding that two oblast things? I left that topic a long time ago. Beshogur (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  🏖⏰ - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Just ban PLATEL (talk · contribs) temporarily (1 month is enough to make him calm down I reckon?) from editing anything related to the current Russo-Ukrainian war. And spare us from further disruption and collateral damage (I'm not an extended-confirmed editor in English language Wikipedia; I understand the reason why this limit is being proposed below (Volodymyr Saldo page that I'm watching gets vandalized several times a day by anons or apparent socks); however, established editors like PLATEL shoudn't be allowed to contribute to further disorder that we inevitably receive from KremlinBots.Knižnik (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought that I could calmly withdraw from the discussion, after having voiced my position for the billionth, backed up by official documents and other secondary sources, but now they are calling for my ban, apparently, simply because I zealously defended my position.

  Just calm down (ha, I'm talking about calmness) and participate in the discussion, supporting your opinions with arguments and analogies, expressing a neutral, unbiased point of view and not taking a position in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

  PLATEL (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've read this long discussion with increasing surprise. The number of outrageous personal comments Beshogur engages in here, towards several users, is astonishing. First the claim that Volunteer Marek is WP:NOTHERE, unacceptable in itself. Then doubling down below by insinuating Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella, two active long-term contributors, are socks. This combines with a number of heated and ill-judged comments by Beshogur throughout this thread. I move that a time-out from Wikipedia be in both Beshogur's and the community's best interest. Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: did not mean sockpuppet per se. Also I am not an ego machine, I apologized for that mistake. Beshogur (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like much of the discussion here has strayed from the original purpose of this ANI. And that is that Marek has engaged in rather disruptive editing recently, engaging in edit wars, some slow motion, and some more quickly, on pretty much any topic that could possibly be related to Russia and Ukraine. For example, Marek has twice removed Crimea and Sevastopol from List of federal subjects of Russia by population for seemingly no other reason than that other countries don't recognize Crimea as Russian, which is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is recorded in the Russian census. And has provided rather unhelpful edit summaries at times, as an example, from his first removal of Crimea and Sevastopol from List of federal subjects of Russia by population, he wrote this: "Stop trying to legitimize brutal aggression and illegal land grabs." I feel that such editing is detrimiental to the encyclopedia, and shouldn't be encouraged. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The socks and SPAs are active on quite a significant range of other articles to try to push this unsupported POV narrative. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Uncanny edit time differences between Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While GizzyCatBella trying to connect me to some Russian named new accounts and IPs, those two editors seems to edit very closely with eachother. There are 16 articles where they both edited under 1 minute. Should be investigated per WP:INVESTIGATE. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Where am I trying to connect you to new IPs!? And you accusing me of being a sock-pupppet of VM (or the other way around) Calm down Beshogur. Take a step back please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Where did I say sockpuppet? I said it should be investigated by a administrator. Why did you take sides and jumped in support of the IP -->[454],[455] and another editor. I did not "jump" in support of someone I have never met. But both of your edits are very close to each other in timing. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur, this is just blatant trolling and evidence of an inability to contribute productively to the topic area. ValarianB (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not acceptable, Beshogur, please stop. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you are right, Beshogur, something is suspicious about Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella. (rmv attempt at doxxing - Vm) Perksport (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC) — Perksport (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lol. An account with 4 edits but perfect knowledge of Wikipedia table mark up is lecturing others about "suspicious behavior". ... Wait ... wait... I know this one. This is indef banned user User:Paul Bedson. Please just ban and oversight. Volunteer Marek 19:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like accusations to me. And unnecessarily long for "interesting coincidences" (prior to removal). Also you involved another editor for which you didn't even discuss above. Perhaps you should narrow your insight a little and provide more than just circumstantial evidence or supposed suspicions and try not to dox my fellow editors this time. Thanks so much. --ARoseWolf 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Perksport's been blocked as a very likely sock of Paul Bedson. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok probably not. Both users are apparently pretty old and won't risk such thing. My apologies from both. Beshogur (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

🙂👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That was an excellent decision. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Striking out your initial accusation would be a great way to show that you've taken it back, without trying to hide the fact that you said it PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Extended-confirmed restriction for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine War

The community imposes as a general sanction the following for all articles and discussions related to the Russia-Ukraine War (hereon "the topic area")

Extended-confirmed protection: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.

2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.

C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

• Support - as proposer. Language taken directly from WP:A/I/PIA. nableezy - 17:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - about time. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - seems necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Revised version supported as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support How is this not already in place? Cambial — foliar❧ 17:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I agree that such articles should be written only by experienced people in an unbiased manner. PLATEL (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support The logical thing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support also adding 1RR like Syria topics. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems good to me. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Seems appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Support modified wording. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum, but the disruption is coming from experienced editors as well. ValarianB (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum. However, this discussion was opened by an experienced editor accusing another experienced editor of edit warring and potential sock puppet accusations inferred, if not outright suggested, from both sides. May need additional admin assistance in bringing down the temperature if they can't control themselves. --ARoseWolf 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)--Support is unchanged. Thank you for the update Nableezy. --ARoseWolf 19:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "Support but I'd also add a 1RR restriction too do deal with some of the more experienced editors appearing to push a RGW approach here. (Assuming there is not one already) There is a lot of misinformation due to lack of good on-the-ground reporting from this region and all editors need to take breathes before rushing to add in seemingly groundbreaking news. --Masem (t) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This should have been done some time ago.Physeters^✉ 18:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm not reading any of the screed above this section, but as someone who edited this area in the early stages of the war, I can say that ECP is essential here. While this topic area falls under WP:ARBEE, I think there has been enough cause for a new focused ArbCom case. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I saw the discussion at WP:AN and was wondering what to say. I think this will help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest rewording this so it matches current wording of this restriction Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction which I will be updating on the page nableezy found it at after hitting publish on this edit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Eeek, sorry, but with this many supports can I change it at this point? nableezy - 18:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Talk about early Oct WP:SNOW! ;) El_C 19:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Nableezy I think with pinging. Otherwise I would just suggest the closer determine whether the consensus is for the concept - in which case the current wording could be used - or these specifics in which case it should be the wording proposed here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

   Done nableezy - 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment In principle I have no issue with articles concerning the war being afforded this level of protection (you can count it as Weak Support, if you must), but who, and how, defines what exactly falls within the scope of the "area of conflict"? What geograpgical region, what period, what people, etc. I don't usually edit current affairs, however I've had to deal with Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian accounts, angry about certain individuals or territories being even remotely associated with Russia, reverting edits, blanking sections of pages, or changing people's nationalities based on their (the users') feelings. The reverse also happened on one occasion, with a user reverting one of my edits where I stated that a Soviet politician was Ukrainian instead of Russian (the user, however, self-reverted, presumably after checking the source). Since memory politics are also very much a part of this conflict, I would appreciate a little clarification on this issue. Ostalgia (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support, TBH we should probably do something like this every time a war breaks out. Perhaps theres room for a discussion on formalizing that in some way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Note, modified the wording to match the current wording used by the Arbitration Committee. Pinging the editors who have participated @Volunteer Marek, SarekOfVulcan, ARoseWolf, Ostalgia, Physeters, Masem, ValarianB, GizzyCatBella, Malcolmxl5, Beshogur, Curbon7, Dank, Cambial Yellowing, NightWolf1223, PLATEL, and Horse Eye's Back: (I think thats everybody). nableezy - 19:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest that the above ping'd participants only respond if they object to the re-wording, otherwise, it's liable to get busy for naught (I think I'm reading the room right when I say this). El_C 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable from my read of the conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Any disruption in this topic area should not be tolerated. Cullen328 (talk)
• Support Levivich (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Mu - I'd rather ask for an amendment to WP:ARBEE to make this an Arbitration matter, as this falls into that case's topic area in the first place and most violations of this are apt to end up at WP:AE in any event because the line where this restriction is breached is well within the line where the discretionary sanctions regime is. I'm fine with implementing it in the interim, but this should really be done with ArbCom buy-in for ease of enforcement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ARBEE already covers Ukraine. No amendment is needed, per my reading, for any uninvolved admin to wade in and start applying discretionary sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Per what I wrote in the section above. Fine with whatever wording makes sense per arbs or others with more experience setting these rules. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the above to protect against any future wars in these war pages. AKK700 20:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. GrammarDamner how are things? 21:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems needed and appropriate. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. With as much of a hot button issue as the war is, reducing the amount of disruption in the topic area is important. It's a shame this wasn't proposed months ago, but no time like the present. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think the entire thing should be put under GS, instead of just a single EC discussion here, but this is a start. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is very much needed, especially as the situation is (unfortunately) set to go on for quite some time. The number of very new accounts jumping in, often (but not always) with a pro-Putin view is staggering. Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Makes sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support It's a small step towards reducing disruption. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support smart idea! Andre🚐 23:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Honestly should have been done a week or more ago, if not from the beginning of this conflict. Since we knew it was going to draw in a ton of SPAs from every political side. Silverseren^C 23:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously will continue to be contentious. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This obviously will reduce the amount of disruptive edits from new editors pushing their POV stances. However, this will not stop POV/emotional editors who already passes the ECP threshold. – robertsky (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Yes! At least then the unnoticed propaganda-pushing might become more easily manageable. Nythar^T.C 02:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly warranted and necessary to rein in disruption in the topic area. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry to end the streak of supports here. I am an auto-confirmed editor with no extended confirmed rights. Considering everyone else here has the extended confirmed rights, I hope that I can bring some new viewpoints to the table.
  1. Locking all articles, including obscure ones because they belongs to a contentious topic, would significantly lead to a lost of potentially new, productive and good-faith editors. Lots of people are inspired at how fast we are updating these articles. They want to join in our efforts. But with a blanket extended-confirmed protection, that inspiration would be quenched immediately. Can you imagine how long does it takes to gain access to blue-lock articles? 720 hours and 500 edits before you can contribute to your topic of interest. You would need to make more edits than 99.75% of all accounts in existence while being perseverant enough to stay for more than 30 days. That's a lot. Think about all of these good-faith people that are inspired enough to make an account to write on Israel-Palestine articles – and then stopped because it takes way too much grind to gain access.
  2. It would do minimal amount of damage to serious LTAs, propagandists, campaigners and dicks. Think about it: if they want to seriously screw us up and inject their point of view, they would plan ahead. They would make lots of sock accounts. They would build trust. They would even get people to join in the effort (which has happened before a few months ago). In short, if these people has a strong will, there's a way to bypass the security.
  3. It would set a dangerous precedent. If the Russian-Ukraine war articles are blue-locked, why don't treat other large-scale conflicts the same way. It's a slippery slope to "protect all articles", and would fundamentally violate our core philosophy of being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are in fact extended confirmed btw. nableezy - 15:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I intentionally strip myself from extended confirmed right to see through the lens of a newcomer. It also has a nice benefit of not dealing with socks and such. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Per many of the comments above. A necessary first step. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support A justified measure. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - certainly justified. It'll prevent all the run-of-the-mill SPA disruption, allowing enforcement to concentrate on the more established editors. MER-C 18:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Echoing many of the points already made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I keep an eye on 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis as well as a number of other war-related articles I have edited/created. While there is some occasional disruption, it is not sufficient to justify blanket-protecting hundreds if not thousands of articles. I echo what CactiStaccingCrane said above; not only is this bad for Wikipedia now, it sets a poor precedent. The most prominent articles (such as Russo-Ukrainian War) can be dealt with on a case-by-case business. This is a very broad measure being proposed here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure implementation

As much as I enjoy this demonstration of how brilliant my ideas are, I feel like this can be snow closed at this point. nableezy - 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I would do it but this is ANI and i don't wanna get in trouble for doing something I probably shouldn't. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to leave a closure of this proposal to admins. Now, if one were to review protections for related pages at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe, you'll see that ToBeFree started semi-protecting these for one year, and all of us just sort of followed suit. That is why all the pages I protected yesterday were for a year, this is by design.

Personally, I don't think we should have a separate community WP:GS to log these, because keeping everything in one place is simplest. Something akin to WP:ARBPIA's Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Extended_confirmed_protections subsection at WP:AEL I think would be best. Clearly there's overwhelming community consensus to implement the proposal. But the implementation details remain vague, especially in so far as the community amending ARBCOM procedure.

So, I'm happy to close it accordingly as well as assist in upgrading those semi-protected pages to WP:ECP, but do we do it in the way I outline above? And also, do we extend the duration from one year to indefinite? For the smoothest transition, making all of that clear would be helpful IMO. Thoughts? El_C 14:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

In any case, we should not close this before 24h expired, and, given that it was added to the important discussions template, I would wait for 48 hours min. Though it is unlikely to change the result, it will make the close more legitimate. Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about implementation, and I think Ive settled on asking ArbCom to subsume this community imposed sanction in to WP:ARBEE. Would make for lifting it easier in the future too, when it is no longer drawing the heat:light ratio that it is from new accounts/IPs it can be removed by an agreement of 5 rather than brought to AN for a consensus of whoever happens to be at the drama boards at the time. At least one arb is aware of this discussion, maybe we can tempt him to see if there is any appetite on the committee for taking this off our hands at least procedurally. nableezy - 15:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And don't forget deciding on duration: should it be indef, one year, variable? That should be settled beforehand, too. But, indeed, in my experience, ARBCOM has been quick to act at the face of clear community consensus, so I don't really foresee that (subsuming) being an issue. El_C 15:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh hey. The ping in [392] somehow didn't work. I've got used to setting the duration for DS protections to a year, as DS blocks are limited to the same duration (WP:AC/DS#Sanctions) and it can't hurt to re-evaluate the situation after a year. If this proposal passes, though, I'd use indefinite protection instead, as this requires the community to formally remove the ECP sanction in case the protections are no longer desired.

This doesn't need to be settled beforehand, though. WP:A/I/PIA says nothing about protection durations, yet it works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what this restriction is. It's a topic ban for the Russo-Ukraininan war, for every single editor that is not extended-confirmed. With an exception for the talk page.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: 1RR for all articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War

• This was mentioned above, in the discussion, but it did not get attention of its own and has been drowned out by support votes.

• I support this because the editing conflicts include editors that are extended confirmed.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If we are going to put this under both 1RR and EC, why not just put the whole topic area under general sanctions? I'm sure there are some topics that shouldn't require 1RR or EC, and putting the whole topic under GS would empower the admins to use protection as necessary, without any further discussion here. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Follow up: I proposed full GS, and it was removed as the topic area is already under DS. Shouldn't any request for 1RR or EC protection be on AE, not ANI? Or is this considered a narrow scope of the ArbCom case, specifically related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, in which case the general sanction proposal would still be valid? Just trying to figure out what's going on here, it looks like the community is about to impose a General Sanction in an area where there are DS in place, which I don't know if we can do, since ArbCom sanctions usually supersede community imposted sanctions. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Any general sanctions for this topic would almost certainly be redundant with WP:ARBEE, as the entirety of the Russo-Ukrainian war seems to me to fall under that discretionary sanctions regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  And in that case, shouldn't a request for EC go to AE? ANI is not the place to request enforcement of DS, and it seems requesting EC would be related to the DS for the disruption in the topic area. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hence the reason I !voted Mu above. This actually is expansive enough that the proper venue would be WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and amendment, not AE or AN/I (both of which can handle sanctions enforcement; AE is not a hard requirement). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't even see that, so my feeling this is misplaced isn't exactly inaccurate, but AE might not even be the proper place. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Editors can request for sanctions to be enacted at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but since in this case individual admins are authorized to enact sanctions at their discretion, if there is no ongoing discussion there, it only takes one admin to be convinced to act. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (for now) - have to think about it and weight pros and cons. Main problem is that with articles on current events you get a lot of traffic, it can be difficult to update and it's easy to stumble on exact # of reverts/partial reverts/edit conflicts/etc Volunteer Marek 22:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support due to persistent edit warring. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, 1rr is an extremely onerous restriction and its really not practical to impose on a current events topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think 1RR actually helps defuse disputes. Andre🚐 01:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Qexypnos adding disinformation to the articles

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

Please refer to the recent contribution. They did not react at the talk page warning. There is no consensus to add this info, as the topic above clearly shows. A swift block is needed. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They stopped after having made one revert, so may be it is not so urgent now.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack by Ентусиастъ

User:Ентусиастъ posted an insulting personal comment with racist overtones (“Ukroman”).[393] They’ve stated in advance that they won’t respond to my comments, so I’m bringing it straight here. The comment is offensive and should be deleted. —Michael Z. 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocking indef as an egregious case of WP:NPA. We have no place for people with this kind of conduct on a collaborative project, especially not in a contentious topic area. Prior contributions appear prima facie at least constructive, so I'm ok with an admin unblocking the user upon receipt of a convincing unblock request that makes it appear likely that such conduct will not reoccur. Sandstein 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Radosveta Evlog2

Since 29 September, Radosveta Evlog2 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring and trying to promote the dubious theory that the US bears responsibility for the 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks, refusing to use reliable sources, and engaging on soapboxing and personal attacks on talk pages.

Refusal to abide by the reliable sources policy:

• Special:Diff/1113042425: "Such accusations are so intensely moronic they are on the level of blaming Jews for the Holocaust. They are fringe disinformation not supported by any government except Ukraine. Perhaps those sources attempting to further this 'theory' should be placed under quarantine as reliable on all matters related to this wider conflict? The Telegraph etc."
• Special:Diff/1113232943: "Media in NATO countries is actively self-censoring and pushing nonsensical narratives ..."
• Special:Diff/1113250632: "Anglo-saxon media is largely just state propaganda on matters related to this conflict."
• Special:Diff/1113436195: "Anyways, we need sources other than rabidly Natoist whitewashing here."
• Special:Diff/1113887799: "The reliability of Fox news or Tucker Carlson is irrelevant ... and the fact that a well known former US government advisor is being systematically silenced by anglosaxon media makes it all the more important for his opinion to be on Wikipedia. See: WP:NOTCENSORED"

Personal attacks:

• Special:Diff/1113887799: "This sounds too much like WP:JDL based on political bias. It also is either WP:GAME (purpose misconstruing of Wikipedia policy) or a total misunderstanding of them. ... activist editors using any argument possible to delete the sources, including denial of reality."
• Special:Diff/1113888434: "Clear politically motivated disruptive editing"
• Special:Diff/1113889025: "I understand as a Ukrainian this is an emotional topic for you, reason for which you should not be editing Wikipedia on matters related to this conflict."

Kleinpecan (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• No personal attack involved Kleinpecan. Im stating fact. You are gaming the system purposefully misconstruing policy to remove all speculation on who is responsible for the Nordstream 2 incident other than your personal favorite "Russia did it". In a section on "speculation" you literally want the section to only point the finger at Russia. No doubt you will also want to censor Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs opinion "that the whole world knows the US did it" as well considering his statments non notable, original research or whatever nonsensical mental gymnastics you will use to push your POV. No doubt you will say that since there will be media silence on western media outlets regarding his words on Bloomberg, there is no reliable source. This is the pinnacle of gaming the system. Anyways here is vide of Sachs on Bloomberg. https://odysee.com/@TMSLL:6/sachs:b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radosveta Evlog2 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was in doubt given that not all contributions are obviously bad, but this response was a dealbreaker for me. The user is blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. We have enough user pushing conspiracy theories already, and they invariably end their editing career in the same way. We need less of these, not more. Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced additions by Acervo Caruaru

Acervo Caruaru has added a fake Disney remake sequel for Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) with no confirmed sources. Any help with this situation is much appreciated as they’ve added it across multiple pages including List of Walt Disney Pictures films and Template:Disney's live-action adaptations of animated franchises. Thanks for the response. Friendly Mountain12 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Friendly Mountain12, the big bright goldenrod colored box in the edit window of this page requires you to notify any editor you report here. Since you did not do so, I have done it for you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW the same editor has created a spurious looking Wikidata item on the same supposed sequel, with no references there either: wikidata:Q113940392 WaggersTALK 11:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Just about all of Acervo Caruaru's edits have been reverted. I'm minded to block as a vandalism-only account. Any other opinions? WaggersTALK 11:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Fostera12

Fostera12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is the second time in less than a month that I've seen Fostera12 making personal attacks against other editors. Earlier one, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108#Jayanthkumar123 and Fostera12 (in short a content dispute quickly escalated into personal attacks by Fostera12 [394] [395]). This time against @Explicit and @DareshMohan [396] (and to a little some extent myself [397]). It is quite unfortunate that they both had to endure this and DareshMohan was quite upset being attacked and notes he might want to leave WP [398]. I saw DareshMohan contributing great content and new articles. The first time Fostera12 attacked Jayanthkumar123 on my talk page [and others' talk pages], I was not of much help as I just returned back and still reeling in. This one just crossed the line way too much that I can't ignore without reporting. I believe Fostera12 is making it quite toxic and uncooperative environment — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont have any issue with anyone. Kindly put me out of this discussion. My only issue is about simply deleting new articles created by me without checking the wide notability associated with those articles. I never attacked this user DaxServer. I only had discussion with him on Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy as DaxServer was vandalising the page by manipulating the meaning of the text about the politician's embezzlement charges. And he says "I saw DareshMohan contributing great content and new articles", so what about me ? Am I not contributing to great content and new articles? just check my contributions. Dont just personally attack me and corner me. Just because i disagree with you. I did not cross any lines. In fact user Jayanthkumar123 is known for his edit wars in Telugu articles, and shoutings at fellow users, by deliberately typing messages in capital letters. Fostera12 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Fostera12, please be in your limits. Stop judging or making wrong statements against other users. If I had made any mistake or really started any edit wars, I would be warned or blocked, but both the times (Pan-Indian film and Cinema of India) you have been wrong. I have never make fun of others like you. I am not like you to remove the negative comments or messages on talk page to make everything look positive to others. Do you at least know that DareshMohan is a autopatroller, which means he have basic understanding of page reviewing and related stuff. Please try to respect others. DaxServer, this is to inform you that Fostera12 was once blocked from editing. Even then, this user tries to create nuisance targeting a particular user. Nobody here are manipulating anything, everything is sourced. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Today I am speaking in support of "DareshMohan". Because the allegations made by the above user on him. [399] everything is wrong. It is "DareshMohan" who always guides new users like me. "DareshMohan" is one such user who tries to find 25 / 30 years old source and add it to the article. Making such false allegations against him is absolutely baseless. PravinGanechari (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not say anything about Daresh Mohan in this chat. My issue is regarding high notability of an article Sarigamalu that I created. Please check above Fostera12 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is about your approach to communications with other editors when they disagree with you. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh really. Then who is this calling others "half brain". [400] Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Depends on other person's approach also, if any article has notability issues, it should be moved to draft, there is something called as assume good faith, not reckless deletions done by DareshMohan just because he is auto patroller doesnt mean he misuses his authority. Furthermore the person with whom I had initial discussion with user explicit, that user had no objections with my messages but Daxserver had an issue. Daxserver had this issue with me since begining.Fostera12 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would anyone waste their time by targeting a single user, instead of doing their work. Why did you created the article again without a proper reason, as it was already deleted. Your nature of communication and doing improper things is the major problem Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Jayanthkumar123 , I dont know why would any one waste their time, request you please ask them, and kindly do not interfere as you have equally attacked me previously. Thanks for your co-operation please. I am responsible for the article's notability which is now established. I am responsible editor.Fostera12 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Then why did you used my name in the second paragraph (1st reply to Daxserver). You are the one who have always bullied me on every single talk page, the same happened here. Kindly, please stop suggesting me when and where to interfere. Anyone can comment here. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey please stop commenting wrong things. Am I the one who started attacking in the both the cases (Pan-Indian film and Cinema of India). Because of your edit nature, you were blocked in the first case. For the second time, you are the one started everything without understanding the context. You clearly know what had happened in the second case i.e., Cinema of India. The content removed by you was again added. Don't you understand the reasons why the article was deleted. The article lacks two sources regarding it's critical reception. Previously too you made the same mistake, at least follow the regulations and rules. Hope you get it. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

He (1st reply to Daxserver) was praising you needlessly, that is why I used your name. From now on I dont use your name. This issue is about one article that i created and its notability, it has nothing to do with you okay. Kindly dont interfere in this discussion okay, please can u stop. Can you delete the needless information about pan indian film here. Why are you over reacting, Im telling you its not you, please delete the unecessary accusations, and link u posted in the above paragraph. This is not related to you. Hope im clear. Please dont reply to me on this. Why are you abusing me and personally attacking me here? can you please stop attacking me. The article i created is not deleted, it is established now. It is notable, and one admin has already reviewed it. Dont interefere it is not your business to tell me about notability. My sincere and kind advise to u is to follow rules and regulations, and correcting your mistakes. I have made the best contributions here. Another thing is it was me who corrected the content issue in Cinema of India, it was me who suggested the updates, and added corrections which was agreed by fellow editors. I have not removed anything, In fact, I have added additional info over there, please follow that entire discussion. The issue over there was writing an article like an advertisement, either promoting an actor or director or film industry which you normally do. Please understand the concept of tone of an article.Fostera12 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The content I added is purely on the basis of sources. Yeah I agree that you have made contributions on the article, but you were the first person who removed the entire line. Then, when other editors preferred/suggested adding the line with few alterations, you have started suggesting. Until then, you have only aimed at completely removing the line citing it as "advertisement". The nature of above comment clearly states that you are frustrated. Can you give me one reason from the discussion which made to say you like this "Why are you abusing me and personally attacking me here? can you please stop attacking me." Please don't exaggerate the things. This line ---"Dont interefere it is not your business to tell me about notability." indicates your level of respect you give to other editors. Let me clear this line---- "The article i created is not deleted, it is established now." The article was already deleted, but you have re-established now, that doesn't make everything alright. Stop using such ("over reacting") abusive/hatred words against me. Please don't limit/stop/abuse me in commenting here. Thank you. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Promotional sockpuppetry and harassment

• JohnEricHiggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.106.1.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For nearly two years sockpuppets have been repeatedly recreating an article about a non-notable entertainer "William Bishop", as documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bishop (performing artist) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Armaghan_Muawiyah/Archive. One recent not currently blocked account who created a version of this article, JohnEricHiggs (talk · contribs), has today accused someone who voted "delete" in the latest AfD of "gaslighting" and other sorts of nonsense diff. There's been an open SPI for over a month Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Armaghan_Muawiyah involving this account that has not been closed. An IP 81.106.1.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also been recently active, making frivolous undeletion requests diff and noticeboard posts diff related to William Bishop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Notified both the user and IP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m very concerned about your behaviour on this website. It has been reported. Gaslighting is a very series form of psychological manipulation, used by many editors on this sight to try and alter people’s concept of reality. Bullys often don’t see a problem with what they are doing. You must stop, there are consequences in the real world.

Take Care,

NormaJeanGrey (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• There is a case open at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:William Bishop, AfC abuse, I'm not sure if we need all of ANI, COIN and SPI. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Dear Editor,

  This behaviour must stop, you too have been reported.

  I can recommend help if you need it.

  All the best. NormaJeanGrey (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we blacklist the article name? It seems at this point that should solve most of the problems here. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Which exactly name? William Bishop is legit. Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Yeah, I had a feeling it wouldn't be that easy. A man can dream, though :) TomStar81 (Talk) 13:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have salted (in both article and draft space) every iteration of WB "writer", "performing artist", etc. Let me know if I forgot one. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Hang on, the title blacklist would work with a regex of William Bishop, wouldn't it? Without the extensions, it only blocks the creation of new pages, and the valid pages including William Bishop etc. already exist. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am not so sure. Imagine tomorrow certain William Bishop is going to be signed by Arsenal FC and instantly or at least very quickly becomes notable; would it be a good idea that the regex is blacklisted? Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

AndrewTheWikiEditor

AndrewTheWikiEditor has been using multiple IP ranges to remove sourced content from articles. Can someone open a sockpuppet investigation on this? 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:2583:27B1:5453:3A42 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We can look at this here if you will provide provide links and diffs. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. They're on the same page. 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:2583:27B1:5453:3A42 (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know.

I look at your first diff and see AndrewTheWikiEditor adding the word 'songwriter' on 1 August to an article about a musical artist, T-Pain; I look at the history of that page and see nothing untoward, some edit warring with a sockpuppet but no IP editing (it has been semi-protected since 2019).

I look at your second diff and see AndrewTheWikiEditor rearranging the words 'rapper', 'singer' and 'songwriter' on 8 September on an article about a musical artist, Swae Lee, their only edit to that page; I look at the page history and see an IP meddling with dates, no indication they are the same person.

I look at your third diff and see an IP adding the word ‘songwriter' and making a couple of minor copy edits on 2 April to the Swae Lee article, no indication that is related to AndrewTheWikiEditor's edit on 8 September in your second diff.

I look at your fourth diff and see an IP removing the words 'and rapper' on 30 September from the The Instrumentals (T-Pain album) article; AndrewTheWikiEditor has never edited that article.

This is very thin gruel. I don't see any basis for any action here. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, especially as songwriter, singer, rapper, dancer, and other such labels are constantly edited by IPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

He restored and change "rapper and singer" to 'rapper', 'singer' and 'songwriter' when another IP said to look at Artisty section. 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:2583:27B1:5453:3A42 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So? That's not evidence of anything other than a very mild content dispute weeks apart.

Your diff - 8 September : AndrewTheWikiEditor changed text from 'singer, songwriter and rapper' to 'rapper, singer, and songwriter'.

Your diff - 1 October : IP 2601.196 changed text from 'rapper, singer, and songwriter' to 'singer, rapper and songwriter' saying 'look at Artistry'.

There's nothing actionable here. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive User

Seepsimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I was going to report him to the edit warring noticeboard after he broke the 3rd policy and engaged in an edit warfare with two users including me but I've came to the realization that this user is not really here to be productive. For example, he removes a full-stop at Al Worthington article. [401] He vandalizes C.W. Henderson article by adding another letter "S" when it's just one magazine. [402] At Sool article, he forgets to add a reliable article: [403] He's been warned countless times to stop vandalizing articles. [404] This is just a brief history of this disruptive user. The user seems to be new but doesn't seem to be following the repeated warnings he received.

I updated the population census of Somalia from 2014 to 2022 and added other references not related to the census. This disruptive user pulls up, undo all my revision and makes a big accusation that I vandalized the article and provided unsourced content. You be the judge here. [405] I warned him and told him to properly review the references before you make such bold edits. [406] He just randomly undo someone's revision and then make a false accusations. Another user noticed this and undo's his revision and let's him know that it wasn't vandalism and that he just committed Bad Revert. He then undo's his revision too making claims [407] "Restored revision. You are removing reliable sources with out additional references" not realizing the updated census of Somalia includes Somaliland and forgets that I've included other references not related to census. He could've only removed my specific addition but no, he commits Bad Revert. I've warned him for his edit-warring after undoing his revision the second time which was almost two days later. [408] He doesn't care and breaks the third policy almost within 24 hours. He copies me and posts the same thing not once but twice within one minute. [409] Ayaltimo 09:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ayaltimo It seems like you have not informed the user that you are reporting about this ANI discussion, although it is noted above in red and in the editing page, so I have done so for you this time. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 I was planning to but I see you beat me to it. Thanks anyway. Ayaltimo 09:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ayaltimo You are so smart enough. You are the one who is vandalizing, and at the same time you are the one who is reporting me here. You are removing the most reliable sources and adding poor unrelated sources to Somalis inorder to write what you wants. How many reliable sources you have removed at once there, it isn't one nor two but around 7 reliable sources. I didn't add or remove anything, I only reverted the last reliable sources you have removed before and this isn't vandalism or bad revert Please stop making violation on the wikipedia page. Plus don't take as evidence my mistakes that I have made when I was new to wikipedia. Now I am advanced wiki editor. I am always ready to respect the wikipedia rules and law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seepsimon (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Seepsimon Again, please don't don't lie and learn the term Vandalism on Wikipedia. Please explain how my sources are unreliable? It's from the UN estimations and how is this source unrelated to the population section? I was updating the 2014 census to 2022 census. I removed only one source related to Somaliland because the Somalia's updated census also includes Somaliland. Don't know where you got seven from. You've also removed two other references unrelated to our dispute. You did a bad bad revert without discussing it on talk page but instead you think it's okay to engage in an edit war not with one user but two. This is why I reported you because you're not being honest and mature with your reverting. Ayaltimo 05:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive User

Ayaltimo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user is vandalizing. He is removing the most reliable sources and adding poor unrelated sources to Somalis inorder to write what he wants. I didn't add or remove anything, I only reverted the last reliable sources he had removed before and this isn't vandalism Please stop him from making violation on the wikipedia page. And now he is reporting me here to you that I am the one who is disrupting wikipedia. He is so smart enough. At the end, I am always ready to respect the wikipedia rules and law and I am here to guard the wikipedia pages that I have created and the wikipedia pages that is vandalizing by such disruptive users. Thanks for your review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seepsimon (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate move reversal

A RM of Belarusian ruble was closed and moved [410], TheCurrencyGuy reversed the move to their preferred spelling [411] saying:Page move request was made out of spite and not genuine concern for content. [412]. This doesn't seem like an appropriate way to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Sorry in advance if this isn't the right forum for this sorta thing—blindlynx 14:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved the article back and left some reasoning at the talk page of the user. Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it time to seriously look at this user's overall conduct? It doesn't seem drastically different than prior noticeboard discussions and blocks. Star Mississippi 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I only looked at this incident, but of course any uninvolved administrator is welcome to have a broader look. Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The move requester, @Bayonet-lightbulb, has since admitted that it was a knee-jerk reaction and that they now agree with the "rubel" spelling, thus meaning the RM is now without support. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not, and in any case, it is not up to you to decide. Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The only appropriate ways to challenge a good-faith closure of a requested move are (1) civilly discussing the issue with the closer and asking them to self-revert and (2) following a discussion with a closer, opening a discussion at move review. It is not appropriate to summarily revert a close of a requested move simply because one disagrees with the closer, particularly so in a DS area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The move requester has since admitted they were in the wrong. They moved the article after very little actual discussion was made. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There were other participants in the discussion besides you and the move requester. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN User:TheCurrencyGuy from currency

• TheCurrencyGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7th time we are discussing this 3-month-old WP:SPA's currency-related disruption at a noticeboard (3 of those threads were started by TCG). A WP:TBAN from currency, broadly construed, seems necessary to prevent any further disruption. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• • • This is at least the eighth time, because Levivich is not listing a dispute at DRN, which I had to fail because TCG was commenting on the other editor rather than on article content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_221#Egyptian_pound Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support and if that turns into a site ban due to him being an SPA, that is no net loss. Star Mississippi 19:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It is demonstrably provable that I am not an SPA. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support After looking into the history behind the original page move, and recalling some of the prior threads on this noticeboard, it appears that TheCurrencyGuy is chronically unable to collaborate in a positive manner. It doesn't matter whether TheCurrencyGuy is correct or not in this particular conflict. The problem is that TheCUrrencyGuy's actions caused this disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely what matters is the resulting content. If content is incorrect or misleading it ought to be corrected, I have tried to improve coverage, that is all I am guilty of. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Preventing disruption is more important than being correct, see WP:WRONGVERSION that codified that idea. Masem (t) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - among other things, they just now claimed that the move requester moved the article. Once they've edited other topics enough to prove they know how things actually work here, we can look into letting them back into the topic. As it is, I'm not sure an outright block isn't called for, but we can try this first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  But it is true, I contacted them on their talk page and they admitted the entire affair was a knee-jerk reaction. User talk:Bayonet-lightbulb TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Respectfully, replying here to every comment is not going to be to your advantage. Defend yourself in one statement, but please, try to take on what people are saying. You are not currently headed in a good direction. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support In my 13+ years of editing, I do not remember any disputes about traditional currencies. (Cryptocurrencies, yes.) In the four months since TheCurrencyGuy began editing, these disputes have proliferated. This editor has absolutely bludgeoned Pound sterling and Egyptian pound. They have edit warred, and despite their denials, they are an SPA. I have concluded that this topic ban is best for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have partially blocked TCG from this page for a week for bludgeoning of this discussion despite much helpful guidance not to.He has access to his talk and other areas of the project. Should any admin feel this is no longer necessary, feel free to modify the block

Star Mississippi 23:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Qdrx82 is clearly a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, Special:Diff/1114136852 in particular seems to be an admission that TheCurrencyGuy is controlling both accounts and briefly forgot who they had logged in as. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted there, we need to determine whether this is socking, or a Joe-job - and I'd have to suggest that the latter seems very likely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I almost hope it's a joe-job as as unfair as it is to prevent me from defending myself. would be an exceptional lack of Clue. Star Mississippi 01:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with that account whatsoever. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The SPI has now been closed - 'unrelated'. So almost certainly a Joe-job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment I had issues (wholly mine) with this pblock and am about to log off for a few days. Explicit permission for any admin to fix this in addition to adjusting it if a different consensus evolves. Star Mississippi 03:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support in the hope that they don't talk themselves into an indef ban. Gusfriend (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment All of the prior incidents have been resolved and where I was in the wrong I admitted my mistake. I am a relatively new editor and I am learning all the time. I would however reject the claim I am an SPA. I have a diverse range of interests, but I prefer to focus on one topic at a time rather than being eclectic because it allows me to focus. My temporary block a while back was due to an edit war with a user intent on retaining misleading information in an article. Some of the past incident notices were, I admit, my fault, but others, the majority of the initial ones, were a result of the poor behaviour of a now-banned user.

This latest incident arose because I filed a move request @ Polish złoty on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME viz. WP:RELIABLESOURCES. User:Bayonet-lightbulb had a kneejerk response and filed a competing request against Belarusian rubel. I do not believe sufficient grounds were reached to move that article as only a single source was ever cited by supporters of the move and no actual discussion followed despite my attempts to engage.

I absolutely reject Cullen328's claim that I "bludgeoned" those two articles. All I sought to do was bring them into line with fact. In the case of Egyptian pound I was fighting a battle to keep factually incorrect/misleading information out of the article. In the case of that article one user had been perpetually reverting any edits of a demonstrably incorrect notation for 16 years, if THAT is not bludgeoning I do not know what is. I sought to resolve the issue through engagement on the talk page. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You are just displaying more of your battlefield mentality. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So you are quite happy to allow inaccurate information to proliferate? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not try to put words in my mouth. I want any problems with inaccuracies to be corrected by editors who do not behave disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You admitted as much. Christ almighty. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I am a Jew. Please keep your religious figures out of this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in what religion you do or do not practice.

While Wikipedia is a secular space, one is not prohibited from using common expressions that reference Christianity. Otherwise common phrases like “Hail Mary” “fight the good fight” or “A wolf in sheep's clothing” would not be permitted. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"I have no interest in what religion you do or do not practice" would also not be permitted. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy I am simply asking that you refrain from referencing your Christian deity in debates with editors with a multiplicity of religious backgrounds. Do you really consider that unreasonable? Mohammed and Buddha and Confucius and Ahura Mazda and the countless Hindu deities should also not be trotted forth to support an argument on a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. TheCurrencyGuy seems incapable of understanding that believing they are in the right isn't an acceptable justification for this sort of behaviour. Not when it comes up here time and again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, to be honest. I don't see anything but a continuing time sink going on here. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately this very thread have shown that this is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately, having looked at the other six disputes listed by Levivich. I concur with Cullen328 that TheCurrencyGuy bludgeoned the Egyptian pound dispute. When an editor both is the initiator of multiple disputes and is reported in multiple disputes, it is evidence that the editor is combative. I thought that I had gotten the two editors in the Egyptian pound dispute to mostly agree when TheCurrencyGuy provided a long complaint about the other editor. I don't see any other way out. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  What was I supposed to do in that instance? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • When a moderator says "Comment on content, not contributors", because the purpose of the discussion is to improve the article, answer the questions about article content. When you have been asked not to discuss other editors by name, do not discuss other editors by name. The issue wasn't Matthew S, but the Egyptian pound. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Wow. Does not play well with others. A time out is definitely needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm just reminded that this is the editor who believes You're just shifting me back toward my belief that there needs to be a different general wiki with no American English in it. This is either a topic ban, or a site ban as with that belief I'm not sure he's going to be collaborative elsewhere Star Mississippi 01:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would have no objection to a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looking over the previous threads (and TCG's comments in this thread), a topic ban is clearly needed. Wouldn't necessarily oppose a flat-out site ban either, but let's try a topic ban first and see if TCG can collaborate constructively elsewhere. SkyWarrior 02:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a site-ban, because a topic-ban hasn't yet been tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support TCG cannot continue their WP:IDHT and unrepentant currency-related hostilities any longer. The last straw is that unilateral non-admin reversion of a discussion outcome; ArbCom has just this year heftily t-banned somebody who tried the exact same anti-consensus tactic. A topic ban from currencies to me though is a bare minimum, to at least soothe the area most inflamed by TCG's conduct. Given how utterly against the basic principle of consensus TCG seems to be, I'd prefer a harsher sanction to get at the root of TCG's problems, but I can't come up with any better ideas yet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. I don't know if non-Admins can contribute here, so feel free to revert if not. As may be seen from their talk page, I have crossed pens with TCG many times in the past few months and done a lot of informal mentoring. At this stage, I don't think the "I'm new here" story washes any more. My more fundamental concern with a T-ban is that this editor has contributed a lot of new RSs and in so doing has significantly improved many currency articles. The problem with their editing is arrogance: they are convinced that they are right and any other perspectives are just wrong, urban myths, sloppy writing, "as everybody knows" or whatever (and they aren't always wrong in that assessment). So the problem is that they don't seem to have any negotiation skills or ability to recognise that when a different view is presented, it is done in equal good faith. So if is possible I would support a t-ban in main space but oppose a t-ban in article talk pages. I don't know if they will actually want to contribute any more if t-banned but contributions at talk pages that propose and justify requests that an edit be made might just work. If the only option available is negotiation, then maybe negotiation skills will be learned. (I'm not sure if a site ban has actually been proposed but if it has, I would definitely oppose it as premature and unjustified by any events.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Non admin (such as yourself and I) are always welcome to comment and contribute here. It is the same as being involved with AfD, RfC and the other back end elements of Wikipedia which rely on consensus. In fact, given the sanctions and issues, the more people helping determine consensus here the better.

  I like your thinking about talk pages.Gusfriend (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The IP reverts my every edit and calls me a zealot

• Lognomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• Eh!_Eh!_Aah! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• Kzqj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• 46.208.131.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.187.235.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.187.173.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (current)

This user, editing from the IPs and usernames linked above, keeps reverting all my current edits and clearly wants to revert my every edit I have ever made. They accused me here in another section of making harmful edits. Here is a good example of their unfounded revert, fortunately rejected by another user. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, this is WP:LTA/BKFIP. Handy comparison: CU-Confirmed sock. Recent festivities. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow I felt like a cornered animal. So your positive response makes me feel much better.

User:HandThatFeeds in already closed section claims that this is me who should be blocked, for repeated personal attacks.

First of all, the user Kzqj certainly does not understand the difference between syntax and semantics, look here. Several participants in our discussion tried to explain to Kzqj the difference between syntax and semantics but their efforts were in vain.

Besides, Kzqj insulted me many times, for example:

I note that the Polish IP that started this thread has posted in several locations recently with silly questions about straightforward English usage link

You have not understood the meaning of the words in the sentence. You are evidently not capable of understanding them. link

It so happens that the user Kzqj reverted my edits many times, then they got blocked, and then all of a sudden a new IP (86.187.235.123) appeared, and started to do the same. I am not equipped with administrator's tools, so I can only guess. But when the IP 86 accuses me of being of a sock puppet of Vikom, everything is okay? This is double standard.

But let's suppose that the only IP86 is 86.187.173.125. Here is what they wrote:

You, personally, are unable to properly understand why one would choose to say "all but" instead of "almost". That is not because of any inherent problem with the phrase; it is because of your level of English. [...] link

Again, thank you :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.215.210 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, BKFIP is community-banned. There's no need to debate if they're right or wrong this time; that would be playing their game. I didn't even read that whole thread; it's all fruit of the poisonous tree. The IPs you reported are a bit stale so an individual block would probably target the wrong person. Blocking 86.187.0.0/16 might slow them down, at the expense of some collateral damage. So there isn't much else to do right now. Please report their next IP (if it's "fresh") or account to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP. They'll be back sooner or later, but hopefully will have moved on to a new obsession. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is my new discovery (reported to Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP):

• 195.224.241.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user reverts all my edits in the same distinctive way. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

User keeps removing reliable information from scholarly, peer-reviewed sources

User:Skllagyook keeps removing scholarly, reliable, peer-reviewed material from the Bamileke people page, claiming that the present belief of their origin is fringe, but they have no evidence of the material being fringe. They also keep claiming that the information and the researchers are unreliable, but the research is peer-reviewed and published in scholarly journals. It is my belief that their personal opinion of the subject matter is outweighing the facts and sources that I have been presented on the Talk page. They also removed the information before we reached a consensus and refused to respond to the additional research found, that proves the origin is not a fringe belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuinanTheListener (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I note that more than one editor has removed what you keep adding. You added content to the page, it was reverted; you should have then discussed at the talk pag rather than attempting to reinsert the material. I see that a discussion (started by Skllagyook) is now taking place, but you should not be inserting your material again until there is a consensus to do so. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was not aware of that rule. They did inform me of that only in their last response, and I have not added it back. Howeve, I would like to note that when I did initially add it back, it was to add the updated sources. In the discussion, I have provided current, reliable sources from peer-reviewed journals and scholars in the field, which are also being ignored by Skllagyook. GuinanTheListener (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  • @GuinanTheListener: Early on, in one of my early edit summaries, I asked you not to edit war/reinstate your disputed material and to use the Talk page instead to reach consensus first. But you reinstated it anyway, after which followed a few-days-long Talk exchange. I did not ignore your sources. I explained in the Talk discussion more than once why they (including the updated sources you had added), or most of them (most of which were either by non-specialists, non-peer-reviewed, or both) seem to be problematic, and at the very least should not be represented as though they represent an established scholarly consensus as your edits represented them. And you have, for the most part not engaged with what I have tried to explain. I said in my last reply that it would be best to involve a third party (or at least one). I will also reply to tour last message in the Talk page later when I can. Skllagyook (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    I engaged with every claim you've made about the sources not being reliable. I presented the credentials of reliable researchers, whose work is supported and cited by other specialists in the field, and a peer-reviewed journal, with more coming. You have not engaged at all with my question of why you considered the material fringe without presenting what you considered "the definitive mainstream academic opinion" to move the conversation forward in good faith. However, I agree that involving an unbiased third party would be most beneficial. GuinanTheListener (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    • • @GuinanTheListener: I have asked USER:Austronesier, who often edits on related topics, to take a look and they may reply in Talk later. I also messaged USER:Doug Weller. Skllagyook (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

        For the sake of transparency, I've read the exchanges between you, USER:Austronesier, and USER:Doug Weller. I do not believe they can serve as a non-biased third party, as their responses to you already show a clear point-of-view. GuinanTheListener (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

        You’re wrong. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      Also, it appears we've been debating two different things. I was under the impression that we were discussing the origin theory of the Bamileke people as a whole. If your stance is that there is no concrete evidence of where exactly the Bamileke language began, I agree with that stance. Even Blench states that experts in the field can't state with certainty where it and some of the other Bantoid languages originated. GuinanTheListener (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      If you get consensus on the talk page first I won’t block you from the article. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Skllagyook: You shouldn't have pinged me though. I usually respond to alerts in WP:FTN, WP:RSN and also the project pages WT:LANG and WT:ETHNIC about fringe pushing and WP:CIR-issues in language and ethnicity-related topics, but now I've been cast into the canvassed–biased corner ;) -Austronesier (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Austronesier: I'm not sure I understand. I did not expect an ANI report to be made about this by Guinan. I had told them I would try to involve a try try find a third party and wished to avoid a report. And then they reported me. But perhaps pinging you here was a mistake (I did not know). And if it is problematic/inappropriate, my apologies. I was going to wait for you to weigh in on the Talk page, then reply to Guinian as well (or perhaps reply myself before you did), and then, depending on the outcome, possibly go to WP:FTN. Are you no longer able to participate in the Talk discussion as a result of my pinging you here? Skllagyook (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Skllagyook: No, feel free to ping me when you believe my expertise (which is historical linguistics and Insular SE Asia-related topics) can contribute to a discussion. Doug Weller regularly does so. Certain people may construe this as WP:canvassing since defending the position of mainstream scholarship can be perceived as biased—that's a common rhetoric strategy encountered in fringe topics. –Austronesier (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Austronesier: I see. Thank you for the clarification. But would your area (about which it's ok to pinge you) also include historical linguistics generally, or only that of Asia and not other regions? I also noticed that you have edited on the topic of population genetics. Skllagyook (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a specialist on the subject, I don't even have an interest in it, so I will not comment about content. I will, however, point out that International Journal of Humanities and Social Science and English Language, Literature & Culture, two sources cited by the OP, are well known as predatory journals, that is, they charge authors to have their works published, they do not offer editing services (or charge for them), and despite their claim of peer review, no such thing happens. You could potentially publish a bunch of rubbish under a made up name like Biggus Dickus and I'm not sure they would care.

Also, the claim of you being in touch with France's Department of Culture is far-fetched, but not nearly as far-fetched as them [allegedly] replying in the name of "historians, cultural anthropologists and researchers across Africa, France, Canada and China".

As I mentioned, I'm not commenting on content, but judging by the quality of the sources and the grandiloquent claims, either the OP is trying to consciously sell snake oil, or he is absolutely and naïvely convinced that he struck gold with a fringe theory but is actually being taken for a ride. Either way, this could well WP:BOOMERANG on him. Ostalgia (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The articles I was referred to, am currently working my way through and translating are indeed from historians, cultural anthropologists and researchers across Africa, France, Canada and China. These countries appear to have completed the most cultural research on the Bamileke people. I personally have not read any mentions of these journals being problematic nor questionable from any source, reputable or otherwise. But if you have, can you please post links to the claims here? I'm all about receiving new information in order to maintain an accurate POV. GuinanTheListener (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not doubt the possibility that people from those countries or regions might have conducted research on the Bamileke people, but about an institution, any institution, claiming to speak for them. That doesn't happen. As for the journals being problematic, you'll find that their publishing houses both show up on Beall's List. Now the list isn't without its detractors, but you'll also find that one of the aforementioned journals is published by Science Publishing Group, whose infamy has apparently led to them not only being afforded their own Wikipedia page, but being outright blacklisted from Wikipedia (you can't post links to their website, or that of their journals, at all). The other is just as bad, and a look at their website (International Journal of Humanities and Social Science), while not the most "scientific" method, raises a few eyebrows by itself - they can't even spell their name right in the low-quality, bizarre picture that serves as the centrepiece of their main page.

After Beall's list stopped being updated in 2017, other alternatives popped up, like Cabell's blacklist, but it's under a paywall (I don't think anyone outside institutions pays for it). Having knowledgeable and experienced people around you should help you detect these predatory deals. Most academics, at various points in their career (especially at the start), get emails from these dodgy journals offering to publish their work (I know I have!). If you have any luck, your colleagues, your doctoral advisor or anyone more experienced will tell you not to touch them with a stick, and you learn as you go. At some point you start going a bit by gut yourself. I'm afraid I don't have magic, free, self-updating tool I can provide you (if someone does, by all means, let them share!).

As for inserting links to articles on Wikipedia, you add a pair of brackets [[]] on either side of the article name. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, the way you were able to create a hyperlink for (WP:BOOMERANG), can you show me how you did that? I've been copying and pasting them, but I don't yet know how to create them myself. GuinanTheListener (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Question in Archived WP:ANI About Our Lady of Medjugorje

I was just pinged by a post by User:Red Rose 13 in an archive of WP:ANI, which I know is an archive, and so is supposed to be read-only except in unusual situations. I don't think that this is an unusual situation, but good-faith confusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102&type=revision&diff=1114078231&oldid=1109723808&diffmode=source Red Rose 13 asks me to clarify the nature of the topic-ban and/or interaction ban. It appeared to me that the thread about User:Red Rose 13, User:Governor Sheng, and Our Lady of Medjugorje was archived without final action on or about 11 July, so that there isn't any topic-ban or interaction ban. If the would-be parties avoided the topic and avoided interacting with each other for three months, then I think that the community can resume leaving them alone. But I am posting this here because I think that it reflects good-faith ignorance of how an archive is used. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, regarding Red Rose's input, my thinking was we were both banned until January, not June 2023... Governor Sheng (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And yes, the ban was voluntary, so to avoid any official sanctions as far as I recall. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me that your reading of the thread is correct, Robert McClenon – there was no formal closure and I can see no sanctions against either Red Rose 13 or Governor Sheng logged at WP:RESTRICTIONS. Both editors agreed in principle in that thread to avoid editing Our Lady of Medjugorje until after 23 December this year, and it would probably be a good idea for them both to stick to that – I imagine it wouldn't go down particularly well if they ended up at ANI again due to not following that suggestion! – but as far as I can see they are not formally either topic banned from Our Lady of Medjugorje, or banned from interacting with one another. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of talk-page comments on ketogenic diet

On the ketogenic diet talk-page article Colin has removed an entire conversation claiming "per BLP, remove personal attacks on cancer treatment researchers". [413]. On my talk-page the same user also left a comment telling me "Do not call named scientists "quacks" and "not real scientists" [414]. I take offense to this because I have not personally attacked anyone, I have attacked dodgy sources, not people. If you check the conversation I have not specifically called any researcher or scientist a "quack" in person or by name. Indeed I have not called anyone a "quack", I said two papers were because they were published in possible predatory journals and are making far-fetched claims. It is clearly not a BLP violation to give an opinion on a talk-page that a fringe source is "quackery".

Colin was promoting two dubious sources one published by the dodgy MDPI journal "Nutrients" and another dubious source (in the journal Aging (journal)) that was advocating anti-tumour effects in humans from rodent models (the review paper was 2 pages long and cited only 7 sources). Both of these journals have been criticized as predatory. As explained on the talk-page there is no clinical evidence that a ketogenic diet is effective to treat cancer and that paper is using very bad science. Per WP:MEDANIMAL we shouldn't be making those sort of claims in regards to effects in humans. I have improved the article by removing these weak sources and adding a good source (a systematic review) which notes this [415]

In regard to the unreliable papers, Colin has not apologized for recommending these sources even after I pointed out they are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I think most experienced medical users would agree that the review published in the Aging (journal) is of very poor quality. I do not see how it is a violation of BLP to criticize a paper on a Wikipedia talk-page or call a paper "quackery". If you look on Wikipedia talk-pages, this term is used all the time for papers on covid denialism, anti-vaxx papers and all kinds of nutritional woo. I don't see how calling a paper "quackery" is a personal attack. It is very dangerous to be claiming there are "anti-tumour effects" in humans from limited and unreliable rodent studies, that was all I was trying to get at. I do consider these papers dubious as most would. If we can't give opinions on talk-pages then what hope is there?

I want to point out that the MDPI journal "nutrients" is often quickly deleted on Wikipedia or rarely used because much better high-quality sources exist. Just one example, if you check the fructose article, a Nutrients journal was recently removed there as the journal is suspected as predatory. If you check the conversation that Colin removed you will also see his comment to me where he said "Please take your plant based quackery off this page and go be insulting elsewhere." [416]. That would actually be a personal attack and incorrect because the paper I cited on the talk-page is a reliable source published in a decent journal [417], contrary to the unreliable papers Colin is promoting that use almost exclusively animal studies.

The issue in regard to the unreliable sources has now been resolved as I removed them off the article so I don't want to hash out a conversation about edits on this article but I believe that no BLP violation has been made here on the talk-page. The only personal attack I can see is Colin telling me to take my "plant based quackery elsewhere", then deleting the entire conversation. I would like a third opinion on this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This editor made a good edit to the Ketogenic diet, summarising a recent systematic review. But they spoiled things by dumping on the talk page a rant about quack scientists. In this post they said "The idea about an "anti-tumour effect" from a ketogenic diet is clearly quackery" and that "Real scientists would not use this kind of language" and went on to name and personally attack a researcher in this field. For background, the ketogenic diet is a 100-year-old diet invented by renowned neurologists to treat epilepsy. In recent years, it has become popular for weight loss or sports nutrition. Hence a view by some it is a fad diet. Psychologist Guy clearly believes anyone thinking this diet might possibly help with incurable brain cancers is a quack. Hmm. Clinical trials: Cancer + Ketogenic diet lists dozens of trials at leading hospitals. Sure, this is not a treatment in normal clinical practice, but real proper scientists and oncologists are taking it seriously and doing what science does. It is possible they conclude it isn't helpful. That's science. Not quackery.

You can read about my lack of medical qualifications on my user page. I created WP:MEDRS but other editors, who know more about research and journals made it the guideline it is today. I'm more than happy for editors to enlighten me if a journal has shortcomings and positively delighted if they add/replace material citing the highest quality sources. What I take issue with, is editors who think Wikipedia is a forum where they can make personal attacks on real living researchers trying to find cures for the incurable, whether that's with rats or humans (gotta start somewhere). As I said on the talk page, their edit to the article, which I don't challenge, could have been made with summary "Summarise conclusions of recent systematic review." It's what they dumped on the talk page that is the problem. It is cheap and easy for some anonymous account "Psychologist Guy" to call a real named scientist a "quack" and "not a real scientist". That belongs on Twitter, not Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 21:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw User:Psychologist Guy's edit because the article is on my watchlist. Rather than just replace a few sources with one that is more recent and possibly more WP:MEDRS compliant, the editor left a vicious, and almost certainly a libellous rant about a named research scientist on the article's talk page. The accusations of "quackery", made in part because the scientist in question had "used rodents" as animal models in her research, made me feel ashamed to be an editor. Before User:Colin deleted the rant, rightly in my view, because it violated our BLP policy, I was contemplating reporting User:Psychologist Guy's behaviour here. I propose a boomerang and praise to User:Colin for their timely intervention and issue a warning - if not a block - to User:Psychologist Guy. Graham Beards (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't support a block on current edits, because they didn't restore the BLP violation and asked for a third opinion here. We are all entitled to be "wrong on the internet" from time to time. The irony is we are "on the same side", as it were, anti-quack, pro-science. -- Colin°^Talk 22:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I believe you and Graham are mislead about how much pseudoscience has filtered into this topic. Outside of epilepsy, most of the "field" of ketogenic diet would be considered "fringe" or "quackery", with massive conflict of interest. The majority of scientists are not conducting this kind of research. I have indeed called two papers "quackery" and I stand by that, I did not attack the authors by name. I have been careful not to call anyone by name that word but the stuff in those papers is not high-quality.

If you click on this link that Colin cited [418] and go and look at most of the clinical trials you mention, i.e. example the first one [419]. You will see massive conflict of interest with most of these trials. The Principal Investigator for the first trial on that list is Jeff Volek, PhD. Jeff Volek has been described as a "pioneer" of the low-carb movement and has appeared on many keto and Low-carb podcasts disputing varius dietary guidelines. He has written two books advocating low-carb diets (one of those books promotes cholesterol denialism), he has been funded by the Atkins company to conduct some of his research. He runs a website called "Virtahealth" which claims a ketogenic diet can reverse many diseases and put type 2 diabetes into remission long-term which is clearly false because we have no long-term data. The website is filled with pseudoscientific claims. Here is an article by him dimissing the saturated fat guidelines [420], in that article he attacks Ancel Keys and reccomends Gary Taubes. That is the level we are at, conspiracy theorists promoting cholesterol denialism (these people actually think having a very high-blood cholesterol is a good thing).

Another clinical trial, priniciple investigator Eugene J Fine [421], this man is featured on many low-carb websites, example the conspriacy theorist website "dietdoctor" run by Andreas Eenfeldt [422], turns out he is another cholesterol denialist. Another Pavel Klein, M.D. [423]. Who is this man? Another low-carb advocate who tours the country attending low-carb events, here he is at Low-Carb USA (he was a speaker) [424]. Another example, Jethro Hu [425], he is another low-carb speaker who attended something called the "Metabolic Health Summit". Sounds good right? Well no, it is a pseudoscientific low-carb conference, speakers include paleo advocate Robb Wolf (!) author of The Paleo Solution, Aseem Malhotra [426] and Andreas Eenfeldt, all cholesterol denialists telling people to eat red meat all day and put butter in their coffee.

I could cite about 20 more of these but you get the idea, this is not guilt by association that is what these researchers do. These are not objective researchers, they are promoting the "fad diet" of keto outside of their clinical trials. Hopefully in your spare time you can just Google search "Jeff Volek" and others and see what he believes. You have tried to separate the scientific clinical trials from the modern fad diet promoters of low-carb/keto, but you will find if you dig deep there is no separation. Many of the people doing these clinical trials are the same people writing books, attending conferences and posting on social media that Keto cures everything from cancer to heart disease. This sort of misinformation is damaging. There is a lot of pseudoscience here and the majority of the time they cannot get published in high-quality journals. That is why they use MDPI and Frontiers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I occasionally make the mistake of taking a look at ANI, and I hesitated to comment, and will probably regret it. I can see and mostly understand how editors on both "sides" feel, but I think this dispute is ripe for deescalation. I'm not seeing anything block-worthy, nor would I want anyone to be made to feel ashamed to be an editor here. Simply removing a talk page discussion in which there had already been multiple editors commenting was a less ideal solution than using either Template:hat or Template:redacted, so I can understand the complaint. But since editors all seem satisfied with the actual page edits, this is probably best just left as-is. Psychologist Guy was, for the most part, making a case against using a brief opinion piece in a predatory journal, and instead for using a peer-reviewed secondary source, particularly since the content is about human health. I can understand that he would not feel like that would merit a warning, and Colin's language directed at him was actually harsher than what Psychologist Guy had been using. Psychologist Guy repeated the name of the author of the opinion piece several times, but mostly to identify the citation. He used some strong language to describe the cite as being fringey, and it is within reason to regard such material that way; editors can disagree about it without violating policy. I see language like that used pretty frequently to characterize poor quality source material. It was a heated discussion, but not particularly directed at the source author, and I don't think it rises to the level of a BLP violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have called two papers "quackery" that were published in weak sources, maybe I should have used the words "bad science". I just typed a lot above because I am not sure other editors understand how much pseudoscience and "bad science" has invaded this subject area. Everday on social media is someone claiming the keto diet can cure almost every disease, there is a lot of bad science out there about this topic. It is disturbing and also alarming that the people promoting this kind of views like Jeff Volek are the ones conducting the trials. You can just Google search a lot of these authors and see they are publishing keto books for weight loss or attending low-carb conferences. They don't offer any high-quality evidence, then it boils down to rodent models. But I agree this was probably a waste of time. I have nothing against Colin or Graham Beards they have clearly made a lot of good edits. I am more interested in finding out if using the term "quackery" is a BLP violation on talk-pages. If it is then I won't use that term anymore on talk-pages. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it is. I would say: don't call a person a quack, or their work quackery, or bad science, etc... unless you're citing/quoting a source who says that. Editors' personal opinions that papers are quackery or bad science etc. are irrelevant. Our opinions about sources are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of other WP:RS. So if other RS say this is quackery or bad science, quote them, and then it's not a BLP issue. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so I warned this editor on the article and their user talk page not to make personal attacks on scientists, per BLP. As Levivich says, we can review sources and their appropriateness for our articles without personal attacks on the researchers. WP:MEDRS gives us a framework to do that. What counts is what our best sources say, not our own judgement or personal views on diets (plant based or ketogenic, say). I initially rejected Graham Beards suggestion that a block might be appropriate, since the editor had not continued posting BLP violations or restoring material (that, Tryptofish, our policy requires to be removed, not merely hatted). But their post at 00:10, 5 October 2022 above demonstrates the classic mistake at AN/I of trying to convince admins that your disruptive behaviour is justified by being right (about them being quacks). I lost count of how many BLP violations occur above. We can't do this folks. I know, per Tryptofish, some old school WP:MED editors had a habit of sounding off about quacks in a blunt and name-calling manner, but well, at least two of them are banned now. This isn't the vegan-skeptics-against-dairy forum, Psychologist Guy, and ranting about scientists by name is not allowed here.

I think we are at the stage where an admin has to make a clear "stop this right now" notice, and if further posts of this kind occur, then a block. Some of the text above does not belong on Wikipedia and should be reviewed for deletion imo. I'm as anti-quack and pro-good-science as the next WP:MED editor but this is not how we should be behaving in 2022. -- Colin°^Talk 09:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

46.17x airport article disruption

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

46.177.213.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – unexplained deletions after final warning, including: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Adakiko (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is in fact a whole series of IPs involved in this. So far I have seen: 46.176.69.25 - 46.177.222.145 - 46.176.78.200 - 46.176.75.107 - 46.177.47.120 - 46.177.60.36 - 46.177.47.127 - 46.176.84.102 - 46.176.85.205 - 46.177.206.58 - 46.177.207.194 - 46.176.65.242 - 46.177.210.142. With suspicion towards the blocked user XB12345. The Banner talk 08:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Contribution links:

• • 46.177.213.79
  • 46.176.69.25
  • 46.177.222.145
  • 46.176.78.200
  • 46.176.75.107
  • 46.177.47.120
  • 46.177.47.120
  • 46.177.60.36
  • 46.177.47.127
  • 46.176.84.102
  • 46.176.85.205
  • 46.177.206.58
  • 46.177.207.194
  • 46.176.65.242
  • 46.177.210.142
• XB12345 (talk · contribs)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess one needs to identify the range and block it if possible. Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a /15. An edit filter might be an option, or two /16 partial blocks. The amount of involved pages makes a partial block impractical, too, though. I haven't looked into this deeply, but it seemed complicated enough to move it here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In general, the common thing between the IPs is this: Removes links to other Greek airports even when referenced. Removes maintenance templates (source requests) from Thessaloniki Airport and from links to this airport. Also removes random links from other Greek airports. Has the opinion that suspended routes to Russian airports are cut. Recently the IPs went into removing suspended destinations from other airlines as if they were already cut. The Banner talk 11:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)