::::- Palmer talk about China in the 13 th century which includes the Song Dynasty specifically with the economic figures
::::- Palmer talk about China in the 13 th century which includes the Song Dynasty specifically with the economic figures
::::- The revenue of song dynasty are inside the song article; I simply compared them to the revenue of the Byzantine Empire which are in my source and these numbers are common knowledge
::::- The revenue of song dynasty are inside the song article; I simply compared them to the revenue of the Byzantine Empire which are in my source and these numbers are common knowledge
::::- Your history of conflict and WP:OWN is seen in your talk page and your behavior with the song article
::::- Your history of conflict behavior and WP:OWN is seen in your talk page and your behavior with the song article
::::- New Accounts appeared suddenly supporting you ; I suspect Meatpuppets which is a very grave situation.
::::- New Accounts appeared suddenly supporting you ; I suspect Meatpuppets which is a very grave situation.
::::
::::
::::- Again I call on you to cooperate ; I m sure the arbitration here perhaps prefer that solution; I m not seeing it from a western perspective; I respect China Culture and I m immersing myself in it ; but facts are facts. [[User:SeriousHist|SeriousHist]] ([[User talk:SeriousHist|talk]]) 08:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::- Again I call on you to cooperate ; I m sure the arbitration here perhaps prefer that solution; I m not seeing it from a western perspective; I respect China Culture and I m immersing myself in it ; but facts are facts.
High Regards and Happy New Year by the Way.
[[User:SeriousHist|SeriousHist]] ([[User talk:SeriousHist|talk]]) 08:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
== [[User:Tagishsimon]] incivility at teahouse and unresponsiveness on talk page ==
== [[User:Tagishsimon]] incivility at teahouse and unresponsiveness on talk page ==
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)
Reported user blocked indef, but unrelated (?) to that, the OP (FlightTime) is formally warned against WP:EW and WP:BITE. IP editors are not lesser than veteran editors, the latter of which do not get special exemptions or allowances due to their tenure or for any other non-policy reason. El_C15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'be blocked for two weeks. Perhaps in that time Baraniscool will come to realize that they need to communicate with editors raising valid concerns regarding their edits.-- Ponyobons mots21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FlightTime You've also disrupted these related articles. I see you were also edit warring without communication on Fat Old Sun (an article I have been fixing up at the moment and improving sourcing), so you deserve at least an admonishment if not some other WP:BOOMERANG-based sanction. As I write, Machine Head (album) says it was released on 31 March 1972, but the infobox says it was released on 25 March 1972. Which is it? And this is supposed to be a good article. Can you please fix your errors? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @FlightTime has also been warned very recently about edit warring and being disruptive on other articles as discussed at El C's talk page. This appears to be, at the very least, a recent pattern. --ARoseWolf13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think FlightTime has been almost but not been quite disruptive for some time, but I can't remember a (recent) time they had sanction-worthy behaviour, always stopping short of it. I do recall blocking them once years ago, but it was reversed as being draconian. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo and Ritchie333: as linked by ARoseWolf above (live, permalink), the brazen expectation on FlightTime's part that they are owed special treatment in an edit war, and their immediate attack against myself when I obviously declined this — that's concerning to me. Concern which I believe FlightTime needs to address. Since, if this is their modus operandi, it's a serious issue. El_C16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly: I'm unimpressed with FlightTime's response to this (including the utter failure to address any of my notes), but I'm writing in haste, so I'll leave this comment as placeholder and will return to this soon (probably a few days). In the meantime, non-admins need to stop trying to archive this report. Twice is enough. And though the first time was understandable, this latest (2nd) one most certainly is not. What are you doing, Mattdaviesfsic? Are you even reviewing the threads that you're WP:NAC-archiving? Anyway, I highlighted No, not resolved above, so hopefully, we can avoid a 3rd NAC. El_C09:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies if that was wrong in retrospect, but in fairness, the thread has been open for 9 days, and as I closed it the last comment was 2-3 days ago (which in my mind says "done and dusted"). Not only that but the first close/archive was not my doing - that was Softlavender - which I never saw in any case. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe leave clerking to uninvolved admins if you are unable to correctly review threads at the admin noticeboard. There is no clock and if the thread remains open for a couple more weeks, so be it. That is not your call to make. El_C10:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never closed the thread. FlightTime marked it "resolved" on 21:21 21 December [1], and I one-click moved it to the archive at 03:09 24 December [2], as there had been no activity on the thread for a day a half and the question about FlightTime had been responded to by Ritchie333 without further response. I was fine with El C reviving it and marking it not resolved, and I thanked him via the thank button [3]. I agree that Mattdaviesfsic should not be closing or archiving threads when they are clearly not resolved. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but no, it has not run its course. But it still gonna be a day or two till I'm more available. If there is a pattern of FlightTime not only edit warring, but edit warring with extra-WP:BITE against IP editors (as shown in the link I gave above), then that needs to be addressed and remedied. Them stonewalling me here falls short, in my view. El_C11:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked FlightTime's edits for the past week or so since I saw the edit-warring as reported above. They stopped edit-warring then and I've not seen any sanction-worthy behaviour since that time. Ritchie333(talk)Iam(cont)14:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your metric? A single week? I mean, I get you might wanna get on their good side, but I, at least, am not intimidated by their aggression.El_C15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I'll strike that and close with a formal warning. FlightTime might have chosen to ignore me here, but if it is found, in a few weeks or months, that they are violating WP:BITE and WP:EW—regardless if they also attack admins who stand against that misconduct—sanctions will come into effect. El_C15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
some weeks ago I've opened a report regarding the user Keremmaarda, however, it was moved into IncidentArchive1144 [1] and no action was taken. There were several users that were concerned about the uncivil demeanor that Keremmaarda was exhibiting himself. Everyone who criticized his behaviour was accused of being unneutral. I don't want to ping everyone that's been involved because that would go too far, but those are only some of the uncivil comments (disregarding the actual article the report was about):
Are you practicing nationalism?
all the editors who object are Albanian
Am I to blame here?
Now tell those who deleted the same things before a consensus was reached. Thanks (in response to Ostalgia, who criticized his behaviour)
You are not impartial (in response to PoliticDude, who criticized his behaviour)
No, these quotes are from the discussion that developed in the previous report, which was backed by diffs. It got archived due to lack of activity after a few days. I tried to mediate in the discussion but was less than impressed with the response I got from the user in question. Ostalgia (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the quotes are from the archived discussion. You also made some comments there but as Ostalgia correctly states, I think it was an accident that it was moved. Thanks AlexBachmann (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sections auto-archive after a period of inactivity. So if no admin was willing to take action, that's it. Unless you can show improper behavior that has continued since then, we'll likely see the same outcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this user breached every guideline on Wikipedia that can be breached and that’s it? @Super Dromaeosaurus has already noticed that they continue with this behavior. Every participant in the previous report was absolutely shocked by his attitude towards everyone. How can such clear breaches of the most basic Wikipedia guidelines can simply be dismissed? AlexBachmann (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, while guidelines and rules are usually respected, and while those who flout them are usually punished, people breaking the rules and getting away with it is something that happens all the time, and I've seen worse from established users, even from administrators. Even more importantly, while I would endorse a block of the user in question, and it's likely that an admin would as well, lots of things just fall through the cracks at ANI, and you should not be surprised if this ends up getting shelved due to lack of admin involvement (to give you a personal and recent example, I reported someone about a week ago after they continued breaking the rules in spite of three warnings and two temporary blocks, yet the report got allost no attention and was simply archived - it happens). Ostalgia (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was going to just let this go since you didn't seem to be initiating any problems since the last report. But the above WP:IDHT snarky response is exactly what you've been dragged to ANI. You seriously need to dial back the rhetoric and assumptions that you're always right, and everyone else is wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm tired of all this. You find an answer to every reaction and declare me guilty. I don't understand what topic this discussion is continuing on. If I said anything bad or violated any rules, I apologize and request that the topic not be prolonged any further. (I don't even know which rule I broke, in fact I don't think I broke any rules). I'm sorry if I made any wrong moves. Keremmaarda (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not respond to any of your claims or continue to defend myself, I just left it to the opinions of other editors and admins. I also stopped defending. If the problem is that I think I'm right, if that's really the problem, I won't talk any more. (I had already stopped talking) Keremmaarda (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why your edit summary included not just a comment in Turkish, but a translation of the section title into Turkish as well? signed, Rosguilltalk20:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. iPhone has automatic page translation. That's why it translates the page to Turkish and Turkish appears in the edit history. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks like this thread is finally getting attention, I will put my two cents. This has wasted me a lot of time because they do not understand well many of Wikipedia's policies. On this page [4] they've added a source claiming a very small size (15,000) for the Ottoman army which contradicts every single contemporary source and cited source on the article. This user lacks an understanding of what primary and secondary sources are. They've stated that Wikipedia does not care about primary sources and is not used[5]. They also reject all contemporary sources in the article and call them exaggerated without any foundation [6]. I can say a lot more, they've also engaged in WP:Original research (arguing why they think the other numbers are unrealistic and failing to provide a source for their personal analysis when I asked them to, also OR comments like It is not possible to provide logistical support for 250,000 people., Where will you march 250,000 people? They need food,[7]) and WP:SYNTH (used a source talking about 1476 to argue their point regarding this 1462 battle [8]). I've been dragged into starting a DRN report, which they are not talking in [9].
As the article features some numbers for Ottoman losses, they've stated I would remove the military losses of the Ottoman army and add that "military losses were insignificant, but many supply animals such as horses and seves died"[10]. This is POV-pushing. They've done this in other articles. On this one, they've reduced the size of the Ottoman army from 80,000 to 15,000 [11]. They claim that Demetrio Francione, who was a 16th-century historian that lived one century after the event of this article, is not a proper historian and added their own preferred source instead [12]. They reject the sources they dislike in order to argue their point. I can't help but be worried about this edit from them [13] according to which a 3,000-strong army defeated a 50,000-strong one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the dispute at Night attack at Târgoviște, I believe that a topic ban from Ottoman history for Kerenmmaarda is an appropriate sanction. I am particularly concerned by edits such as Special:Diff/1188021822, where a source is given that describes the forces of a different battle than the one that is actually the subject of the article. Similarly, arguing that we cannot cite secondary sources because those secondary sources cite primary sources is a misreading of policy. Taken together with the consistent POV perspective that accompanies these errors, this behavior becomes tendentious. Had Kerenmmaarda been properly notified of WP:CTOPS, I would have imposed this as an arbitration enforcement measure. I have left them a CTOPS alert notice for future reference. signed, Rosguilltalk19:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a topic ban and, if the behavior continues, a complete ban. I previously warned Keremmaarda for his behavior on October 25 (see this diff). It's also worth noting that Keremmaarda deleted this warning and our subsequent discussion from his talk page (see this diff) so others may not be aware he has officially been warned months ago about his behavior.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OJIV (talk·contribs) is a single-purpose account that focuses on articles related to Radhika Sarathkumar, including the production company they founded (Radaan Mediaworks) and of late, the television show Ponni C/O Rani. Their edits on that article are generally helpful, but they massively overlink terms related to Sarathkumar [18] and ignores the MOS for using italics for television shows [19]. I've been leaving messages on their talk page about this starting in early December [20] starting at polite messages and leading to final warnings [21] with messages on how they need to change their editing style.[22] They have not responded to any messages nor adjusted the problematic edits. I'd like an admin to review this and consider a partial block on either the Pooni C/O page, or article space entirely to get them to discuss and follow the MOS. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zero response to any messages for quite a while and they've been around for 6 months or so. Polite messaging, as you can tell, has gotten zero response, hence a more direct message and hopefully something that would get them to communicate. All that's needed here is for OJIV to say they will start following the MOS and respond to concerns. Their editing shows their either don't see the messages about this or don't care. This is when a block is needed to get them to discuss their edits. Ravensfire (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the editing practices of users Homerethegreat and Marokwitz are both biased and disruptive. Specifically these users appear to be editing with a pro-Israel bias, and making these edits on pages directly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict — a designated contentious topic.
Additionally, both users have been making a high number of edits, with number of edits made since Oct 7th being over 2,500 for Homerethegreat and over 1,000 for Marokwitz, almost all of these edits directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I personally don't think this can or should be tolerated or ignored if their editing is consistently low effort, biased, disruptive, and pushing a WP:POV — which it seems to me that it is.
You are a user with a total of 622 edits, focusing on the ARBPIA topics since November 5, which is interesting since you have only received edit confirmed rights two weeks ago [24]. Be aware that this could very easily lead to a WP:BOOMERANG, with your EC rights being revoked.
Before complaining here, you have made a false accusation of "disruptive editing" against me here [25], failing to provide evidence, failing to assume good faith, and casting aspersions even though all I did was reply to a discussion on the talk page.
Since it is a WP:CTOP topic area, you're more likely to get a rapid response if you take it to WP:AE. It'd be important to have specific diffs demonstrating the problem, though. Remember that simply having a bias is not in and of itself actionable (most editors who edit articles on contentious topics do have opinions on them; it would be hard to be fully informed without forming opinions of some sort.) What you'd have to demonstrate is that their biases are affecting their edits in a way that leads to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So before anything, Joyeux Noël! (it means Merry Christmas in French) Hope you're having a good holiday. Just on a personal note I think it's always best to begin in positivity which is an important part of the holiday spirit, so basically hope you're having good holidays wherever you are :).
So regarding the diffs you presented, I think it's important to note that I believe we are all here to improve Wikipedia and at times we have differences which is understandable. As I do recall I think in one of the diffs you showed I explained to you the issue and I do not recall you answering or addressing the issues I raised...
I saw the statement written by @Marokwitz and I think it is possible that a wp:boomerang can happen and indeed there is an issue here regarding you having edited in the topic without being an EC. I must say I feel that I have tried to act in goodfaith in the talk discussions and I do not feel the same goodfaith has been enacted with me.
I hope that we can progress beyond this and work together as I have indicated in one the diffs where you haven't answered (I assume in this age when we are peckered with info it is difficult to keep track). Again, happy holidays and Joyeux Noël!Homerethegreat (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it troubling that @Arkon recommended @IOHANNVSVERVS take this up with AE, yet user @Kire1975 instead took the initiative to do so, and is now canvassing both this post and the NPOV post on an uninvolved noticeboard. I'm with @Marokwitz, I think some jets need to cool off here. Mistamystery (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which one is the uninvolved noticeboard? what is this canvassing you speak of? can you provide diffs? cooling off is fine, but there is still a legitimate problem here. Kire1975 (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. You already acknowledged the overreach and thought this matter was settled. Outside of commenting on another user's appeal, the user you are targeting was not involved in any fashion with the topic ban matter pertaining to nableezy and the other users.
"Homerethegreat is now here seeking sanctions against User:Nableezy at WP:AE" is not an accurate representation of what has occurred. Nableezy received a 90 day TBAN from the Arab-Israeli Conflict topic. They appealed. Homerethegreat made a comment as an involved editor, expressing their views on the appeal. They're allowed to do this; there is nothing wrong with that. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology, I appreciate it. I understand it's tough at times and that's alright. I would be happy if you could also point out the apology and clarify the matter in the other report which you opened on me. I won't lie, I do feel hurt, but I hope we can turn a new page and start anew. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You feel hurt? You would be happy if... "It's tough at times." Joyeux Noel. Happy New Year. Looong walls of texts on dozens of pages accusing everyone of being NPOV because they don't support your POV.
I did not want to come here as I do believe this editor is acting in good faith, but as they appear to lack the skills to edit in a collaborative environment, I think it's time to consider p-blocking them from the Help Desk and Teahouse. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Questions shows the exact same repetition in questions that came up in this prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown, which also includes information on their November block for much of the same disruption. this discussion is also fraught with issues we've seen before from this editor.
They ask many many questions which exhaust editors' time, resources and patience especially since they do not seem to take the answers on board and just ask again. I don't think this is a factor of their language skills as they can contribute productively in article space, which is why I'm hoping this can be resolved with just a p-block. Thoughts? Suggestions for other outcomes? Note they do not edit the Teahouse as often, but I would not want to see this as an invitation to raise the same questions in a different forum which is why I suggest a p-block from both and encourage them to make use of article Talk, which has been asked of them many times. StarMississippi22:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I am loathe to penalise people for asking questions they don't know the answers to, JackkBrown has been essentially posing the same questions over and over for a good nine months without demonstrating an application of what they've learned to later questions. On a daily average we can expect to see one or two questions from them, to the point where I don't bother answering anymore. While I'm a little leery of a p-block in the event that there is a question that is novel and not related to the MoS, it seems to be the best decision, unless there's a way to guarantee that questions relating to the MOS are forbidden. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have other editors that ask repeated questions that don't get blocked (re: Middleton family). If you don't want to answer the question, skip it and let someone else answer. Or, perhaps a T-Ban on MOS questions (anywhere) instead of an outright block? RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think *everyone* who use the Help Desk wishes we could limit Srbernadette. But they just log out and ask anyway and refuse to address the basics like wrong info/date in the field, so unless there was an edit filter on the Middleton family, I'm not sure it's possible. Also, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_3#Srbernadette so I'm very much consistent in the "these are a drain on limited volunteer resources". I would be fine with a T-Ban, but when they inevitably break the T-Ban ( based on history, no bad faith), they'll end up blocked. I'm trying to avoid that. StarMississippi02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be possible to reduce that editor's pestering the Help Desk by wrapping Middleton family in span style=".mw-parser-output span.cs1-visible-error {display: none;} ". Might be against a rule somewhere though. Folly Mox (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy if the Middleton editor learned to use edit requests instead of coming by the help desk every five or six days. I seem to recall other users instructing them on how to fix things, to which they claim they are unable to do it themselves. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support reluctantly. I too am loathe to sanction editors for asking questions, but JackkBrown's behavior is pretty egregious. It's a difficult decision because I have absoutely no doubt that they are acting in good faith and want to improve the encyclopedia. They have been quite prolific, making over 40,000 edits in just over a year. Unfortunately, 1,387 of those edits have been questions to the Help Desk, and which, as noted above, have mostly been asking the same small set of questions over and over again, mostly about whether a particular word should be italicized and/or capitalized. This fixation on small typographical issues would not be an issue if they didn't keep cluttering the Help Desk with these questions. Right at this moment there are 36 threads on the Help Desk; four of them were started by JackkBrown, which is not an unusual situation. CodeTalker (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The repetitive questions about trivial italicization and capitalization matters waste volunteer time. The editor has been repeatedly advised to use their own best judgment. Their focus of attention is Italy and the Italian language and they expect volunteers who do not speak Italian to provide judgments on obscure issues related to Italian usage and vocabulary. Most irritating is that they repeatedly insist that Help Desk volunteers explain why some random other editor did some trivial thing like italicizing or not italicizing some specific word. It has gotten ridiculous. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this time around. They have been offered an abundance of friendly help and advice to avoid falling foul but, despite acknowledgement and thanks, seldom puts it into practice. Their attitude to anything is to expect other users to do the leg-work for them, particularly when it comes to looking up simple MOS policies or guidelines. I should assume good faith, but I think they're following their own personal agenda and targets, rather than considering the collaborative improvement of WP as the primary goal. As well as the issues mentioned above, they've stretched the limit when it comes to lecturing people on what they should be editing; ignoring basic policies (especially WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS) when they don't fit with their way of working; and filling up page histories (and their personal edit count) with rapid miniscule edits, often with no effect on content, about which they have been offered advice previously. Apologies for seeming to rant: patience has been stretched rather thin by this user. Bazza (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rather than an outright ban/block, how about a limit on the number of questions they can ask, such as "JackkBrown is limited to a maximum of 2 questions per week at wikipedia help forums (including the help desk and teahouse)"? That way they can still use these forums, but it should reduce the volume of questions to a more reasonable level. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want to pile on in this ANI thread, so I'm not officially "voting" on the above, but I would support this proposal if it came with some promise from JackkBrown to consult the various policy and MOS entries that are being used to answer their questions before they may ask again. The overall issue is more than just quantity: less frequent instances of trouble working with others and blanket refusal to engage with specific norms are instances nonetheless. The communication and time of other editors is still being intently disregarded for what are still very unclear reasons. I would not say it's acceptable, for example, to be wholly tendentious and dismissive of another editor's dignity if one limits themselves to doing it only twice a year—while these issues are much more minor than that, rate-limiting is still an inadequate solution to an underlying problem that may manifest elsewhere.Remsense留10:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the event of this pblock, I would add Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as it seems they may be relocating questions there—as opposed to either reading the page itself or asking on individual article talk pages—which does not address or solve the problem. Remsense留02:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: I was wrong to ask the last question, I checked it myself and the term should not be written in italics; there was no need to ask it. The other questions I asked are legitimate, in fact there have been some very good discussions (so you aren't right). JackkBrown (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds: so you can (plural) say whatever you want about me, but I can't say a user isn't right? Sorry, I should shut up otherwise I risk being blocked for expressing, educationally, my point of view, I don't do that anymore, sorry... However, the only two questions I have asked, namely "Capitalisation(z)of ancient" and "Curiosity", are entirely legitimate and, contrary to what you claim, I have never asked them elsewhere. JackkBrown (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not at risk of being blocked for expressing [your] point of view, you're at risk for repeatedly asking similar questions over a period of months, and apparently ignoring the answers. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of this users edits have been reverted, and with good reason, they're disruptive (click here [28] and Ctrl + F "reverted", your screen will turn yellow).
I only reverted your edits from 3 articles only after it I didn't.. Last time I only reverted an edit it chola invasion of Kedah only once, I didn't revert it after you gave me the reason for removing them
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitrary "Username does not conform to policy" messages from IP
This afternoon, an IP of 197.26.103.153 made several messages to seemingly random Arabic (?) users (see Special:Contributions/197.26.103.153), telling them that their usernames do not conform to WP policies. None of these "users" seem to have ever made edits, so I wonder whether these are purely tests and that none of these users actually exist? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking in Google Translate, a lot of those usernames appear to be on the same template ("furniture transfer in XXX", although the translation might be approximate), while other appear to have names of museums (and thus not necessarily conform to username policy). Some of them also appear to have user pages (e.g. User:نقل عفش بالرياض, apparently describing itself as a furniture transfer company in Riyadh), so there might be more to it. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)17:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, a lot of these actually don't fit the username policy. It would be great to have an Arabic-speaking admin look at them (and, if possible, review the IP block if it turns out the warnings were indeed legitimate). ChaotıċEnby(t · c)19:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that an Arabic speaking administrator is required here, but rather that the help of any editor fluent in Arabic and willing to assist an administrator would be very useful in this situation. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin comment) Possibly coincidence, but up to at least 2016 there was a persistent commercial spammer on English-language Yahoo! Answers who posted ads in Arabic for a removals company in Riyadh. Most were caught by a filter, but 1 or 2 a day might get through. Narky Blert (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User MichaelZ. Is trying to silence everyone that post sources that Ukrainian counter offensive of 2023 failed. I understand that he is Hero of Ukraine with the Order of the State, but still.
In WP:GS/RUSUKR is quite clear That Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments. Now, to explain my comments. ISW made so many claims on start of Counteroffensive, how it will be smashing win, Russians will take one look at Leopards and run awy. What we got is failed counteroffensive, and ISW blaiming uncut grass for fall of Counteroffensive. If you are insulted by that Michael, I am sorry.
'' Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has therefore concluded that the situation has worsened fur Russia.
The ISW report went on to state that Russian soldiers were under constant Ukrainian artillery fire, and that Khodakovsky was unsure "whether distressed and exhausted Russian forces will be able to defend against a future Ukrainian offensive in this sector of the front."
3 Zaluzhny did send his army into one of most dense minefields in the world, with minimal aircover, how is that despuited fact (response was to line ''. Did not the Ukrainian command, who had every bit of information about their own resources, knew that? Well, Zaluzhy would be an incompetent idiot if he did not.''
I've been following those 2 pages closely for a while. Although I agree that the 2 cases in the Battle of Marinka page were not helpful (questioning the reliability of a clearly reliable, albeit somewhat biased, source), I strongly disagree with your judgement and reverts in the counteroffensive page. Both examples (3rd and 4th) are legitimate concerns. The concern about soldiers going on a "suicide mission" in Krynky is backed by the NYT article in a previous section of that page (there's also a publication from Odessa media, which I heard, that calls the operation "criminal" [I still have to find the article though]). The other comment about the Black Sea Fleet is actually a good argument which I haven't really thought of. None of his comments were particularly disruptive, therefore, I urge you to self-revert the latter 2 cases, especially since you've arguably been involved in WP:FORUM yourself. I also don't believe his actions in general warrant another sanction. Simply giving him a well rounded response in the battle of Marinka page convinced him. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me elaborate on clearly reliable, albeit somewhat biased, source: clearly reliable for reporting facts and covering the territorial changes, the analyses are another story. And about the "suicide mission", haha, I thought you meant the battle of Krynky, not the counteroffensive in general. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, though. Kanikosen is not ECP and therefore limited by "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." I'm not going to take any action here, because I've already partially blocked this editor for disruption in a separate area, but those talkpage comments don't strike me as "constructive", more WP:BATTLEGROUND. Black Kite (talk)18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one doesn't address the content, but attacks the editor. Also, this comment was made in an RfC discussion, which is a violation of WP:GS/RUSUKR ("However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions (which) include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.") and which they could be blocked for. At this point, they just need to back away from the topic area. Black Kite (talk)18:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Yeah, I can't defend Kanikosen in the RfC case (I thought that comment was on a random section). About the "attack on editor" comment, I don't think it was actually an attack, but simply a case of not WP:AGF. It could also have been a criticism to multiple people in general. You could consider him "lucky" that he said that to me, who understood his frustration and tried to "explain the game" in a well rounded way. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This very reply by Kanikosen show battleground behavior. While they might be right about the content, it would probably be best if they were removed from this topic. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈18:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People do these "oopsies" all the time. Everyone can get heated and "loose faith" in editors and think they're just trying to push their POV. I've seen a bunch of heated discussions already with ECP editors calling each other pro-Russian/Ukrainian or calling that they're pushing propaganda. At the end of the day, we just have to take a break, and chill out with some fresh air for some hours. I don't see a need to punish this editor even more. He's already shown some acceptance by letting other editors erase his comments if they think they are disruptive. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Marinka_(2022%E2%80%932023)&diff=prev&oldid=1187954834] I am not attacking any editor or wikipedia user, but responding to ISW comment above me. 2 years in the war ISW to me is in rang of Russian TAS. They made to many mistakes and predictions, and they wait weeks to admit when situation is not favoring Ukraine. For RFC comment, I didn't see it's RFC topic, I saw high praise of Zaluzhny from one editor and responded that he is the one who ordered counteroffensive, and that he knew minefield that waited his lads. And he still send them there with no air cover. There I am guity as charged. I am fine with me being blocked as rule was broken. Kanikosen (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attacking any editor or wikipedia user Yeah. For RFC comment, I didn't see it's RFC topic, I saw high praise of Zaluzhny from one editor and responded that he is the one who ordered counteroffensive 👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that editors who disagree with you are "pro Ukrainian" is battleground behavior and not conducive for improving the project. While it's understandable that a newish editor cannot see why that is, your replies here worry me, Alexis Coutinho. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pro-NPOV and pro-reliable sources. So is Wikipedia.
WP:NEWSORG: “ Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.”
WP:RSBREAKING: “Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution.”
If you are pro-NPOV why are you blocking other editors to write counteroffensive failed, when there is nothing breaking there, for more than a month all major newspapers, plus leader of Counteroffensive Zaluzhnyi admitted it failed? Kanikosen (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a conversation about enforcing general sanctions, not a place to bring your content dispute (but if you prefer, why are you insisting that the conflict’s result be determined based on only one side’s objectives?). —MichaelZ.14:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but if you prefer I don't, the place to discuss that was in that talk page and it's mostly done. This is a conversation about enforcing general sanctions I know, what I'm trying to highlight is that, imo, the discussion started incorrectly. Similar to "the ends don't justify the means", this situation is more like "the means/content don't justify the start". More like a technical argument of wrong venue (I know this is the right venue, I mean the tone/feeling), incorrect judge or improper prosecutor... In other words, while there was indeed an issue (I still don't think it's enough for a sanction), the process shouldn't have been started and carried out like this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I properly deleted violating comments. The violator restored them and made it clear they refuse to abide by the general sanction. If getting uninvolved admins’ opinions at ANI was wrong, then what in your opinion was the right thing to do?
So reviewing the facts of the violation is the wrong “tone/feeling,” but your casting aspersions against non-specific “some of your comments” is supposed to help correct this?
I’m sorry, but I respectfully suggest you accept that I disagree with you when you I deem random complaints like “Didn't Zaluzhny send his army to die in most dense minefield on the planet?” and “So Ukrainians eliminated Russian cruise missile capabilites of Black sea fleet? Black sea is safe for Ukrainian ships? Ukraine got around 10 minutes more warning depending on on ship location and that is all” to be a constructive comment about edits to the article that somehow should be an exception to the rule that non-EC users are not allowed to make edits.
You’ll notice that permissiveness has now led more non-EC users to chime in with non-constructive comments on the same thread, and non-EC users have started a new thread on the exact same topic, amounting to nothing but protests and forum talk, where the subject of this ANI discussion is racking up their record. —MichaelZ.18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I properly deleted violating comments. Not completely. The Black Sea one was at least a good argument which could have been used in the "derailing" RfC discussion by other EC editors, though yeah, he shouldn't have posted in a RfC. The one replying to my Operation Barbarossa comment was a legitimate concern, though potentially lacking WP:AGF, which I'm trying to explore. Yeah, sure, the "suicide mission counteroffensive" one was potentially "toxic" and shouldn't have been posted in a RfC. Thus I agree with 2/3 of your deletions. The violator restored them and made it clear they refuse to abide by the general sanction. Well, he could have thought that you were making a mistake and that his comment didn't violate anything (the reinstated wasn't in the RfC and was the most "tame" one). After having all his comments bluntly deleted it's understandable, though not justifiable, that he would be frustrated/angry and feel potentially challenged, especially if he already know your general POV. If getting uninvolved admins’ opinions at ANI The way you phrased this section doesn't make it seem that you sought others' opinions, instead, it sounded more like a cold and closed accusation. what in your opinion was the right thing to do? When I started writing this comment I thought of: nothing, wait or let other less involved editors do the deletion. But I reconsidered and understand that deleting only the most pressing comments at first and giving more human-like explanations in the deletion edit summaries would be best. You know that everyone hates being "brute forced into submission" with vague explanations of rules. It's just like those automated blocks that don't give any detail pertaining the specific case and the person feels like they can't do anything/they're powerless. In other words, it would have been better to be gentler at first since the editor didn't do anything grave like personal attack to editor, hate speech, swearing, etc. Only then if the editor insists after a human-like, helpful, fellow editor explanation that clearly shows good faith, you would proceed to blunter language and ANI. That's my opinion and it's assuming both of you didn't have any "beef" with each other beforehand.
I’m sorry, but I respectfully suggest you accept that I disagree with you thanks for phrasing it like this, it lets me concur with you in this aspect without making anyone "look worse". You’ll notice that permissiveness has now led more non-EC users to chime in with non-constructive comments on the same thread... Yeah... Though I think it's still manageable. The discussions on these pages are mostly nearing completion. After a while they'll most likely be "chill". But this isn't really an argument against you.
All in all, I think the current version of the talk page is ok (considering the deletions and reverts). But I agree that we should be more attentive to future non-constructive comments, though I believe we should let actions be done a little bit more at other editors' discretion, especially when they are the ones being replied with such comments. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your replies here worry me Huh? Saying that editors who disagree with you are "pro Ukrainian" is battleground behavior I didn't deny that nor justify it. I just disagreed with your suggestion to "remove him from this topic". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
those talkpage comments don't strike me as "constructive" At least one of them is, a bit. I mean, I've seen much more disruptive comments coming from other non-ECP users before. Compared to those, Kanikosen's comments are quite "tame", though, yeah, still not above (the constructiveness) average (which is what I think you would expect from to post constructive comments). At least they weren't insistant (a well rounded response by me seemed to "have done the trick" in the battle of Marinka page). In my opinion though, what's more disruptive are walls of text from ECP users engaging in WP:FORUM, something that I might not be exempt from either. Still, with all due respect, I don't think Michael Z would be the most adequate person to engage in deleting his comments. I wonder what the other editors in those pages think of this and if any of them indeed consider those few comments as disruptive. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to me, and I can mention plenty of military officers from western counties and Nato, offensive was doomed to fail from the start. No airforce. And when they encountered first minefields, they knew that Tokmak plan will not work. I am just saying what everyone who was not in school of Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon knew, Russian will not take one look at Leopards and run away. Entire offensive was based on Russians looking at Nato gear and running away. If my comments are disruptive or against rules, then delete them. Kanikosen (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please specifically name those sources you allude to in this comment. Not only their names, but their qualifications which would enable us to publish their opinions (only subject experts can be cited), and the published sources of their opinions. What you know is not sufficient, nor are you opinions or analysis valid sources of information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Douglas Macgregor to Markus Reisner, from Scott Ritter to Marinko Ogorec, from Daniel L. Davis to Ray McGovern you have plenty of military officers saying from day 1 of counteroffensive it's sucide as you have no air superiority and worst, 0.8 to 1 numerical disadvantage. I don't claim or claimed they need to be put in article, just stating my point why did I say in comment that Zaluzhnyi kew he don't stand chance in hell for counteroffensive to work, but he sign order to send them into certan death. Same as Michael Z. idea that counteroffensive is stil going strong is not valid opinion or analysis? As he is one using blocking aproved editors to write counteroffensive failed.
When extreme proUkrainian admin and editor delets comments from talk page that Ukrainian offensive failed, and you have sources for that in every major wester newspapers from multiple users on talk page, what should new edditor do? Kanikosen (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is not a constructive comment, and prohibited by WP:GS/RUSUKR. The user is hijacking this discussion of their violations by starting a content discussion, and piling on the violations right here on ANI (and I’ll add, citing anti-Ukrainian crackpots that appear on Russian state propaganda broadcasts).
@Kanikosen, I object to the insulting label “extreme proUkrainian”: please apologize and delete or strike this comment.
I deleted violating comments according to the spirit and letter of RUSUKR: “D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.” —MichaelZ.18:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is not a constructive comment, and prohibited by WP:GS/RUSUKR. The user is hijacking this discussion of their violations by starting a content discussion He was literally replying to a request by Beyond My Ken for sources (partially, he didn't provide their qualifications), and defending his thought process. citing anti-Ukrainian crackpots that appear on Russian state propaganda broadcasts come on man, this is what I'm talking about with you being "too involved" with the subject (Ukraine war). I think it would be more productive if you stepped back and let the other admins handle this, or alternatively if you refrained from making comments that showed significant personal "involvement" with the subject. please apologize and delete or strike this comment. Please don't allude to being an angel. You've also made insulting remarks towards Russians at times. I think both of you should apologize or retract those more insulting/battleground comments. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make it clear that several sources, probably majority, do suggest that the counteroffensive failed. The reflist at the bottom of Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive#Comments (ignore the Putin ref) shows examples to name a few. Though I admit that the statement that the general "knew from the start" that the operation was doomed is a bit more delicate and would really benefit from actual citations/quotes here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has a pattern of trying to use constant reverting to force through her preferred edits. At present, she is involved in edit warring to force a particular edit on The Chosen (TV series), while casting aspersions that there is some sort of collusion going on to avoid 3RR rules.
Prior to the reversion cycle, the cast list descriptions of certain characters referred to them as "apostles". [37]
She again reverted to her preferred change, this time accusing me in her edit summary of colluding to avoid 3RR [42]
I explained to her via the talk page that consensus via editing was to the version status quo ante and asked her to leave it as such while WP:BRD ensued and reverted to status quo ante[43].
At that point, she reverted a third time [44] and insists there is no consensus until discussion is complete.
I pointed out that two separate editors have reverted her changes and asked her to put the article back to status quo ante until a discussion determines a change in editing consensus [45].
My issue is twofold - first, this user has a tendency to try to force through edits in this type of manner and seems to believe that a given change is valid until a discussion determines otherwise, ignoring existing consensus that has been arrived at both through editing (previous and current) as well as previous discussions. And second, using edit summaries in a manner disparaging to other editors (WP:ESDONTS). I will grant that her statement may come across as relatively mild (Tag team reverting so one editor is not dinged for edit warring is not kosher), and I've certainly been called worse in the past. Ordinarily, I'd simply ignore that part of it. However, when taken in context of the whole, what she is suggesting here out in the open is that there is collusion going on when in fact it is specifically two separate and unrelated editors voicing the opinion that her edit is not accepted at present. That's exactly what consensus through editing is, and she's using it to make accusations that are simply untrue.
NOTE: I want to make clear, this is about the behavioral issue and not the content dispute. Were it simply the content itself, it would be inappropriate to bring to this forum. I also did not take it to the edit warring forum as there were other issues involved. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless asked specific questions, I will only add to this discussion with what I put at the article talk page, beginning with the first entry when I started the talk topic:
"Disciples, not Apostles
The 12 men following Jesus in the show are not Apostles. They are not referred to as Apostles. "Apostles" as a label was not given to the 12 Disciples until after Jesus' death, resurrection, and the Holy Spirit descended on all of them, as recorded in the Book of Acts. The Chosen is a show based on the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Acts is not one of the Gospel books. The cast/character descriptions need to match what's happening in the show and the literature the show is based on, not what was written about the Disciples/Apostles in books not included in the Gospels or in the show's content. Butlerblog, for whatever reason, is set on keeping the description of the 12 students/followers of Jesus as "Apostles", but not once have the writers referred to the Disciples in the show as Apostles, nor has that been reflected in the script. In fact, there was no such thing AS an apostle in Christendom until after the events of the Book of Acts took place. I believe using "Apostles" in this article isn't just incorrect, is anachronistic and changes the narrative of the show. A4M2 02:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Radiant Fellow & Butlerblog: Yes, Jesus chose them to be His Apostles, but for the future, for a later time. The 11 (not 12 because of Judas' betrayal and suicide) became apostles later, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. They could not be apostles while Jesus was still on earth because while He was there, they were his students, His disciples. Apostles are emissaries. Jesus commissioned the disciples to be His emissaries AFTER He had resurrected. Even in the body of this article, they are referred to repeatedly as disciples, not apostles. Dallas Jenkins, in interviews, refers to them as disciples, not apostles. The actors themselves, refer to their characters as disciples, not apostles. This link to Angel Studios' list of the cast in the show refers to them as disciples, not apostles. [46] Their characters are disciples in the show, therefore, they need to be referred to as disciples in this article as well. The article is about the show, so we need to stick to the facts of and about the show based on sources (like the cast list from Angel Studios - and others elsewhere online). We can't justify using "apostle" because it was uttered once in the show. Repeated use of "disciples" to describe the 12's characters in cast lists, scripts, and by the writers themselves is evidence enough that "disciples" is correct and "apostles" is not. A4M2 16:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Butlerblog: and @Radiant Fellow:, you are reverting without discussing. Your repeated reverts are not the way to come to a consensus, so why you claimed in an edit summary there was already consensus makes no sense. Your quote of one instance in the show and script where "apostles" was used vs. the multiple times "disciple(s)" is used in the show, as well as the multiple cast lists found online that say "disciple" (including from Angel Studios, see link in my previous comments above) is not persuasive. Attacking me in your last comments and trying to make a case against me as an editor is not discussing the issue and topic at hand. Please stick with the facts of the show, the actual scripts and cast lists that refer to the characters of the 12 as disciples (not apostles), and go from there. If you revert again without actual discussion and consideration of the very valid points I made above, I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring and just being plain stubborn in a POV manner. I don't want to do that, but at this point feel as if you are intentionally forcing my hand that direction. Please, if you have strong evidence other than one utterance of "apostles" during the three seasons and 24 episodes that "disciples" isn't accurate, then bring it here so we can talk about it. Thank you. A4M2 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)"
ButlerBlog is insisting "apostles" is correct when it's not. Every cast list online, including the originating studio that helped produce the show itself, names each of the 12 men as "disciples". Other cast lists online show the same. I included a link in my comments above to Angel Studios as a reliable source that can be used to support use of "Disciple(s)". The director of the show calls them disciples, the actors themselves refer to their characters as disciples, the script repeatedly refers to them as disciples. Can someone explain to me why one instance of the Jesus character referring to the 12, in future tense/context, as "apostles" makes for a good argument that the cast list in the article should also refer to them as "apostles"? I'm willing to change my mind, but I can't find anything that brings me to the place of consensus "apostle" is accurate for the sake of the article. And why I'm now blocked for the first time ever is astounding to me. I'm pinging the blocking administrator (@Black Kite:) to also, hopefully, read my commentary here and possibly reconsider. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have partially blocked Alaska4me2 from this article only for a short while, as their latest edit took them over WP:3RR. They need to remember that even if they believe they're correct in the content dispute, "being right" does not mean you can edit-war. Black Kite (talk)18:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite:, I'm not at all familiar with what's reasonable or usual and customary when blocking someone with no previous blocks over about four years' time of editing. Is two weeks typical and considered a short while in Wikipedia? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure; I certainly wouldn't block someone completely for two weeks for a first offence, but when it's a partial block from one article only the length is saying "have a break from this article, please" which of course wouldn't really be useful if it were a very short block. Black Kite (talk)20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, @Phil Bridger:. I started the conversation after the first revert back to the incorrect wording. When claiming consensus that didn't actually exist, the other individual reverted back again. I'm not defending my use of another reversion, far from it. I'm defending that the incorrect wording shouldn't have been reverted back and reasons for keeping it that way were weak. E.g., non-existing consensus, and one instance of the word "apostle" being used in a completely different context. Also, saying the status quo version is correct (even when it's wrong) solely BECAUSE it's the long standing status quo seems like a strange argument for not instituting an appropriate correction. Especially for an article being considered for Goof Article status. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger:, I see that now. But please realize, I'm not taking a side for my benefit, for the benefit of winning an argument. My intent was never that. It was to make a needed correction because the evidence and at least one reliable source supports the correction. After ButlerBlog named me at his own talk page as the source of the problem at the article and article talk page, I just asked them whether they would have made the change in the wording because of the evidence I was able to provide that adequately supported that change IF the reversion hadn't occurred and a good conversation was truly attempted on their part. It will be interesting to see what their response is to that legitimate and important question. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaska4Me2: RE: After ButlerBlog named me at his own talk page as the source of the problem at the article and article talk page... You mean in the discussion where you accused me of making personal attacks without evidence?[47] Please note that making accusations of personal attacks without supporting evidence is itself a form of personal attack (WP:WIAPA). You made a similar accusation on the article talk page.[48] It's one thing to address editor behavior on a user talk page; it is quite something else (inappropriate) to do on the article talk page. Your unfounded accusations are not helping to de-escalate this in the least. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Butlerblog: I'm genuinely sorry you are so heated about the whole thing, that you think anything needs to be de-escalated. It's been hours and hours now since our disagreement started, and if you are truly escalated (or maybe not now but were when you wrote your last comment a few hours ago), that's a pity and I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe it's the term "edit war" that fires people up; I've never thought calling editing differences expressed through changes in wording and content "edit warring" is a good idea. If the objective is to keep people calm and spending time in Wikipedia enjoyably, then even the disagreements can be a learning experience rather than putting such a negative and fiery label on it that suggests battle. To be clear, I was never escalated or angry, just confused why you would want to revert back to something so obviously incorrect. If you were escalated-angry or even mildly upset-escalated by my actions, please except my humble apology. I never want to cause anyone else to feel that way. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify for you that I'm not heated. While I believe your contrition is in good faith, you're avoiding the issue that you escalated this into. You seem to think that by "escalate", I somehow mean "hurt feelings" or "anger", which is not at all the case. Escalation means that you've taken what started off as a content dispute and escalated it into something else, and it's the "something else" that you continue to avoid and have not addressed. I'm not sure at this point if you're just WP:NOTLISTENING or if it's intentional WP:GASLIGHTING to avoid the issue. It started with your edit summary suggesting there was collusion in reverts to avoid 3RR [49], which was unfounded. You then made multiple unfounded accusations of personal attacks. On my TP and the article TP, you accused me of making personal attacks [50][51], yet when asked, you provided zero evidence. Making accusations of personal attacks without evidence is itself a form of personal attack. The accusation on my personal talk page came after my opening this ANI discussion, in which you also claimed that opening this ANI discussion was a personal attack. ANI is for addressing behavioral issues, not content disputes, and as I pointed out at the very top of this, the unfounded accusations is the behavioral problem that warranted this. Instead of addressing that, you dug in with those additional, after-the-fact accusations. If you're apologizing for anything, it should address your unfounded accusations. While I'm not seeking an apology, some acknowledgement that you understand our WP:CIVILITY policy is warranted so that we know that you actually understand the issue here - and if you don't, then we need to address why. Consider striking your comments on the article TP in which you made specific accusations previously noted per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: As I noted in the above discussion, this user has a pattern of civility issues. Although @Alaska4Me2 is on a partial block from the article for 3RR reasons, she's still commenting on the article talk page in which she continues to cast aspersions regarding my intent. Even though I have pointed out above where she has, without evidence, accused me of personal attacks, she is now doubling down on her accusations of collaborationcollusion followed by overtly accusing me of WP:OWN: It would be great if you actually came here to discuss rather than acting in proxy for another editor who, it now seems from all appearances, feels he has ownership over the article.[52] I don't want to pursue an IBAN, but she really doesn't seem to get the point about the WP:CIVIL issues. Would you consider expanding the current block to include the article talk for now? I want to be optimistic that she'll eventually WP:GETTHEPOINT and hope that we can move forward productively.ButlerBlog (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing that last request as I have respectfully requested @Alaska4Me2 self-impose it (whether they do or not is up to them). At this point, I consider the entire matter closed and hopefully we can move forward productively from here. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, all of my contributions to Wikipedia have been founded on others' writings and have included extensive citations.
I am an award-winning writer who has had 3 books published by an academic press.
I believe that the foundation of all knowledge comes from primary sources, followed by secondary sources. (Before there is criticism, there needs to be something to criticize.)
In the contributions I have made over the last 3 years to Wikipedia, my aim has been to help introduce the Public to Theosophical ideas that remain largely unknown. I contend that these ideas are often quite difficult to understand. While the Wikipedia articles under question would benefit from secondary sources as well, that in no way negates the importance of presenting the ideas of Theosophists themselves, so these ideas can, at the very least, be understood by the diverse people who partake of Wikipedia.
I believe my writing is terse, cogent, and well-researched. Those who have criticized my contributions have failed to contribute anything substantial (i.e., in terms of breadth or length) to the articles Sanat Kumara and Initiation (Theosophy), yet they do not hesitate altering what I have written. Should my critics sincerely wish to help elevate specific articles, rather than dissecting, and dismantling or censoring my contributions, I would encourage them to do research themselves, to come to understand the subject matter more profoundly, and to present secondary sources of their own choosing to expand upon the articles. RayofLightning (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything RayofLightning says in the above response indicates someone who is an adherent of the philosophy/religion in question (adherents consider it a philosophy, while scholars of religion consider it a religion because it is based on faith and not facts) who is here to right the great wrong that people don't know enough about their preferred philosophy. They admit to using WP:primary sources -- i.e. the writing of his co-religionists -- in preference to secondary sources; such sources may indeed be used, only with great care, but WP:Reliable sources are meant to be independent, and clearly those sources are not. Being a believer in the subject of an article is not necessarily a reason to be banned from contributing to that article, but the editor must be able to write from outside the subject with a neutral point of viewFurther, there is no necessity for critics of RayofLightning's contributions to be contributors to articles about theosophy, indeed, authors with no inherent connection to or deep interest in the subject are probably better positioned to determine when an editor's contributions manifest a WP:POV problem.I believe that RayofLightning is a pro-Theosophy WP:SPA who is unable to write from a neutral point of view, regardless of his publishing history as an author (not every book is indicative of an ability to write to Wikipedia's specifications), and should be placed under a topic ban regarding Theosophy. I would support such a proposal if someone were to present it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the above editor declaring that they are "an award-winning writer who has had 3 books published by an academic press" is a blatant Argument from authority, which not only is invalid in Wikipedia's terms, but which is null and void due to the editor using a pseudonym, which makes it impossible for us to evaluate the quality of those books, and the status of those "academic press" publishers, who most likely have a totally different criteria and standard for publication compared to ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise for "karmon particles" [57]. Plenty of people have tried to put a scientific veneer upon esoteric beliefs, but those attempts should not be repeated in wiki-voice. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of clarity regarding "the contributions [RayofLightning has] made over the last 3 years": they did indeed start editing three years ago but I hope they haven't made anybody think they have three years' experience here. On May 9th, 2021, they made their first two edits, both inappropriate changes to The New Land that were quickly reverted. They didn't edit again for well over a year, not reappearing until August 7th, 2022. With 319 edits in 32 months, they're averaging less than ten changes a month and should be given the same guidance and treated with the same skepticism as all brand-new users. City of Silver21:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RayofLightning's comment above suggest to me a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of wikipedia - a tertiary source, using existing published secondary sources for any analysis - and to the policies the community has agreed on to ensure that articles are suited to that purpose. A topic ban isn't going to rectify that, and I'd have to suggest that if RayofLightning's objective is to "help introduce the Public to Theosophical ideas that remain largely unknown", they would be better off employing their writing talents elsewhere, where they aren't constrained by such requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here. RayofLightning has shown that they either ignore or fundamentally misunderstand our policy on original research. [58][59][60] But over and above that, they are a very obvious 'believer' in theosophy who wishes to write on Wikipedia from a theosophic perspective, not from a neutral point of view as determined by secondary sources. E.g., we have a good article (current revision) on the theosophic concept of Masters of the Ancient Wisdom (to me a GA on WP is anything that is reliably sourced and that gets the gist of a subject across in a neutral way; such articles are rarer than one might think). Now just look at the POV disaster RayofLightning turned it into [61].Perhaps the first issue can be solved, since it's common for newcomers (and I agree with City of Silver above that RayofLightning should be treated as a newcomer) to misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. @RayofLightning: we strictly present the point of view of secondary, independent (in this case, that means academic) sources. Primary sources are only used to illustrate analysis already found in and cited to secondary sources. We do not give editors the freedom to analyze and interpret primary sources for themselves, no matter their expertise. These rules (found in WP:OR and WP:NPOV) are not open for discussion. Do you think you could abide by them when editing Wikipedia?As for the second issue, I believe it is very likely to continue causing problems, since apart from turning to primary sources, there are other 'traps' one can fall in on Wikipedia when one wishes to write from a certain philosophical or religious perspective (e.g., failing to observe due weight when reviewing secondary sources). It would probably be a good idea for RayofLightning to edit other topics for a while before coming back to theosophy. I propose a topic ban on theosophy, broadly construed, appealable in one year on WP:AN. I agree with Andy that if RayofLightning wishes to continue writing from primary sources, by far the best solution would be for them to look for another place to publish their writings. However, just in case they choose to stay and agree to follow WP policy re primary sources, the topic ban would be helpful in steering RayofLightning to a subject area where it would perhaps be easier for them to edit in a policy-compliant way and thus learn how things are done on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use of sources by User:GoutComplex
Over the last year I and other editors have tried to get @GoutComplex to understand how to use sources and what kind of sources are appropriate on Wikipedia. These interventions can be seen on GoutComplex's talk page.
I recently had to revert two edits by GoutComplex, which I think illustrate the problem. The first was on the article for Ancestor veneration in China. His edit reads: Ancestors and the Mandate of Heaven were thought to emanate from the Dao, especially in the Song dynasty.[62] This claim is supported with a citation from page 272 of the book Empires of the Steppes: A History of the Nomadic Tribes Who Shaped Civilization by Kenneth W. Harl. The relevant section on that page reads: This emperor Taizu, the third to take the name in the tenth century, imposed unity over southern China and forged an imperial order based on Neo-Confucian precepts.45 He aimed to break the power of the Tang regional elites who had monopolized office and ruled as regional hereditary dukes (li). Civilian bureaucrats henceforth were chosen by merit upon passing an examination system based on the Confucian classics . The wide dissemination of block printing of Confucian classics enabled many men of humbler origin to study the texts, pass the examinations, and so enter imperial service.46 Mandarin officials from the highest to lowest levels shared a set of philosophical precepts that put correct rule (zheng) at a premium. All were expected to master the canonical texts in order to achieve harmony with the way (dao), especially the proper conduct and veneration of the ancestors. The source does not say that ancestors and/or the mandate of heaven "emanate[d] from the Dao", nor does it say this phenomenon was particular to the Song dynasty.
The second edit was on the article for Taoism, which reads:
Chinese Manichaeism took inspiration from Taoism throughout both of their histories as well as forms of Buddhism, including Chinese Buddhism.[63]
This edit cited page 231 in the same book by Harl. That page reads: The faith, while an imperially recognized religion in China, never won over a Chinese emperor. Many Chinese would have viewed Manichaeism as a pale imitation of Buddhism or Daoism, the two most popular faiths among the Chinese masses. Manichaeism, just like Judaism for the Khazars, offered an advantage that it was not the faith of a neighboring imperial rival, but this advantage was likely a benefit rather than a reason for the kaghan’s conversion. Again, the source does not at all back up the claim being made in the edit.
Harl is a scholar, and while he is not an expert on China, his sources are standard English-language secondary works on Chinese history. While this is an improvement on GoutComplex's previous use of poor quality sources, the discrepancies between what is claimed in his edits and what actually is contained in his sources are disturbing. Finally, Harl's book is not on Daoism nor Chinese ancestor worship, so it is a poor choice of source for claims on those subjects.
Many of GoutComplex's edits have been reverted by other users, and it takes time to check his sources to see if they back up his claims. I am not confident that GoutComplex is able to produce encyclopaedic content that is properly grounded in reliable sources. I would note that a week ago GoutComplex added a citation to a book titled History of Art: The Western Tradition to a section on ethics in the article for Stoicism,[64] so unfortunately I don't see any sign of improvement. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GoutComplex—it's clear you know how to read and reply on talk pages, but you have only ever made one reply to feedback on your talk page. Is it not rude to ignore the detailed, personalised feedback you have been given by volunteers who have had to put in a lot of work to correct your mistakes? — Bilorv (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the comments by Retinalsummer. My first interaction with GoutComplex was in October, when they edited Anglo-Saxons, History of Anglo-Saxon England and Saxons referencing an anthology of 19th-century literature and were reverted by myself and two other users. I explained on their talk page that a book about the 19th century is not a good source for a statement about medieval history and was disappointed that they did not reply to my advice or to most of the other messages left for them.
4 and 5 October edits with poor quality sources
On 4 October GoutComplex made 19 edits referenced to the History of the World by Jeremy Black (not listed). On 5 October they made 6 edits based on The Economics Book and The Literature Book (see website).
Looking at recent edits I see that on 24 December they made 12 edits between 20:50 and 22:02, sourced to History of Art: The Western Tradition. The edits relate to ancient Greece or Egypt, where a book on the history of art in general is generally not as reliable as one on ancient Greece or Egypt. An edit to Stoicism has already been mentioned.
The first edit [65] is to Mycenaean religion, where the existing sources are works on ancient Greece, so adding a source about general art history for a fact about religion does not improve the article.
The one article about a work of art edited is Pergamon Altar, [66]. The text added is H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort and Bernard Ashmole wrote that they were certain that the Greeks who used the altar did not believe in the reality of the events depicted on it, and that the art on the altar was based on previously told myths popular in Pergamon. The source says For sheer skill in carving, for the size of the figures, and for the quantity of sculpture it is unsurpassed and when one considers the technical knowledge and the thought that must have been devoted to it the result is pitiable. It is like a mythological dictionary: all the facts are there, but it is empty of life; and this, since almost every figure is in violent action, is not a little surprising. Lack of belief is the reason . For artists of the Archaic period, the beings depicted were real; in the Classical period there might have been some suspension of belief, but the scenes had at least some symbolic meaning and were essentially if not literally true. Now even this seems to have evaporated: the events depicted, though with dramatic bravura, have clearly never taken place: the beings have never existed. - H. A. Groenewegen - Frankfort and Bernard Ashmole Art of the Ancient World. followed by The powerful characterization of the three main styles of Greek sculpture, given above, does not hide their preference for Archaic and Classical art.[1] The edit misrepresents the source as it changes an argument from artistic quality into a statement of the authors' certainty. The source also does not say that the altar was based on myths popular in Pergamon. TSventon (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon To add another layer to the last example you provide, it does not sound like the authors of The Western Tradition are presenting that quote as something to be accepted uncritically. …does not hide their preference for Archaic and Classical art is the textbook suggesting that Groenewegen-Frankfort and Ashmole have a bias which colors their judgment, something which did not influence GoutComplex in their use of the material. It's not good practice to include a source text and ignore the context provided by the book that's quoting it. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Janson, Horst Woldemar; Janson, Anthony F. (2004). Touborg, Sarah; Moore, Julia; Oppenheimer, Margaret; Castro, Anita (eds.). History of Art: The Western Tradition. Vol. 1 (Revised 6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. p. 159. ISBN0-13-182622-0.
Talk page is full of warnings by different users, which they don't seem to have paid much attention too, as their edits really haven't changed. If you click here [67] and Ctrl + F "reverted", you'll see a lot of yellow on your screen.
They just recently made more disruption at Pashtuns. They made a edit [68] under the edit summary "Added some more crucial information about the origin if Khalaj" - except they forgot to mention the part where they removed sourced info about scholarship currently considering the Hephthalites to have been Turks.
Another edit just right afterwards [69], where they added the info "This believe has been further supported by The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 which attests the Bactrian tribes to be ancestors of Pashtuns." And suspiciously with no page, so I did a quick Ctrl + F on that source (page 771), and it did not fully support what Afghan.Records added; "The Panjshir then provided a route to the Paropamisadae mountains and to Kabul. The district of this route was Fo-li-shi-sa-t'angna, i.e., *Parshistan. Its inhabitants were probably the Parsii and Parsietae tribesmen - possibly Pashtuns." No mention of Bactrians, and it only says "possibly". Didn't check the rest of the info added, nor the two other edits, they might pose the same issues. EDIT: Their response to this ANI report makes it hard to have WP:GF imo, the evidence is literally right here; "Previously forgot to add the page of one of the 4 sources. Now fixed, if you have any objections go to talk page. Also, accusing me of miss representing sources is a claim and shows one inability to read properly without being biased."
So in other words, they tried to push the same stuff about the Khalaj (minimizing Turkic connection, increasing Iranian/Bactrian connection) when they first started editing and edit warring at Khalji dynasty back in April 2023 [70] (down below), which led to their block [71]. See also [72]
On 24 June where they randomly commented on others background and tried to back up their own statement with badly cited non-WP:RS[74]
On 13 September at Ghurid dynasty[75] they added (cherry-picked) a bunch of non-expert and non-WP:RS citations to push an Afghan/Pashtun origin, completely ignoring the current scholarly consensus mentioned in the article.
Third change again after failing to get consensus on talk page discussion [85]
Fourth change today again after failing to get consensus on talk page discussion [86]
The talk page discussion shows this has been opposed by multiple editors, a consensus has not been reached to change the article. This is an area covered by three ARBs – E-E, Infoboxes, and A-A.
Previously Death Editor 2 problems in AE areas include:
and their talk page [87] shows a history of problems.
The above is for an account only ~8 months old, with 1,413 edits.
Their previous account User talk:Death editor shows similar problems and should be considered.
I've rv't this twice (November 12, 2023 [88] and December 23, 2023 [89]), five weeks apart but someone else can rv them this time, either way this conduct in an 3xAE area needs to be resolved. // Timothy :: talk05:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Political disputes over borders and refugees between Armenia and Azerbaijan may persist, and another war could break out between them - but not over Nagorno-Karabakh. There the dispute was between Artsakh and Azerbaijan. Artsakh no longer exists and all of Nagorno-Karabakh is under the undisputed control of Azerbaijan. Sources and consensus reflect this - there are six or seven other editors who have weighed in against you now. Sorry you just don't like it' -@PrimaPrime. You are entirely alone in your opinion that the conflict is somehow ongoing and you are engaged in a frankly bizarre campaign to keep the article that away. Your own sources say it ended, the other editors say it ended, it's just you and only you. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently @MarcusTraianus: has made significant undiscussed changes, including restoring the previous content Death Editor was blocked for without attempting meaningful discussion on talk page or DR.
They posted Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Is the conflict over? so they are aware this is a CTopic and that this change is being discussed/disputed and another editor @KhndzorUtogh: objected (see four messages on talk [90]) and reverted the changes lacking consensus [91], [92] (this was two edits in the same rv't).
MarcusTrainanus then reverted to their changes after KhndzorUtogh objected without meaningful discussion or consensus [93].
Two other changes MarcusTrainanus made were reverted [94], [95] by @Nicat49: but the changes were restored by MarcusTrainanus without discussion or consensus by MarcusTrainanus [96]
The above shows MarcusTrainanus is 2x over 1RR and has ignored the previous objections to these edits.
Neither KhndzorUtogh or Nicat49 has violated 1RR.
Dispite violating 1RR and other editors objections, I have not reverted the changes made by MarcusTrainanus. Requesting rollback to point prior to MarcusTrainanus making undiscussed changes (and restoring their changes after objection) and consideration of full protection unless a consensus is reached for the changes on the talk page.
Two different locations involved here. One range is New York City, the other is Detroit. The Detroit IPs sometimes make good-faith changes supported by cites, and sometimes they vandalize. This recent BLP violation stands out, and this one. They have picked sides in some culture war I don't understand, prettying up Ciara and Drake while throwing shade on Megan Thee Stallion, Kim Petras and Keke Palmer.[106]
The NYC range also hates on Kim Petras and Megan Thee Stallion, and puffs up Ciara and Drake. The ranges behave the same. Overall, this person is a net negative to the project. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, regardless of who is correct in this little edit-war (the page has been protected), this isn't acceptable. 79.185.70.5 and 79.185.70.47 blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk)14:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive cosmetic bot User:DogTraining01
User:DogTraining01 registered 29 December, and since then has made 483 edits, not a single one of which improves an article. They appear to be a program which replaces words with synonyms, or expressions with similar expressions. This could be driven off a dictionary, and run automatically. A few examples:
Afaict, all 483 edits by this user are of the type shown in the first example, without exception. User DT01 neither responds to messages left at their Talk page, nor do they complain about the fact that I've reverted probably one hundred of their edits. Please block. Mathglot (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree, this user is WP:NOTHERE and hasn't changed articles for the better. I consider adding euphemisms and fluffy, ineffectual text to be disruptive, and, especially after several warnings, it's hard to assume good faith anymore. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK13:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of their edits made the article slightly worse, because some words, while being synonymous, are inappropriate in the context, and they also removed some of the wikilinks in the process. We'd need to revert almost all of their edits. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not true to say that they've never responded to messages on their talk page. They did here, saying ok,i am really sorry, i will not repeat. Then they proceeded to continue doing exactly the same thing. I've blocked from article space indefinitely pending an explanation of what exactly they're trying to achieve here. Spicy (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect AI use to do the rephrasing rather than any attempt at actual understanding. The edits come in tight bursts on seemingly randomly chosen articles, something a genuine human editor seems unlikely to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Well, they used the visual editor, and I think that it would be easier for them to automate the edits through some API without using the visual editor. Probably just clicked Special:Random, chose random sentence in the article and rephrased it (without looking at the context). At least that is my impression from skimming through 200 of their edits and reverting roughly 80 of them, because they were changing the content in the quotes or removing wikilinks or just making the text harder to understand (with the same meaning of the content). Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spicy, David, and DS for correcting the record wrt UTP response and VE use. That implies manual edits, and the theory about "random" + AI seems possible, too. But whatever method they used, the result is what counts, and as it was pointless, problematic, bot-like, and unmotivated by any desire to improve the encyclopedia, it ended as it should. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content dispute moved to talk. Uninvolved user reminds everyone to try to resolve disputes directly by contacting the user and notifying them before coming to ANI. Andre🚐00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] Would it be self-referential humor if I undid this close? EEng
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Levivich has just undone [111] a close on Talk:Self-referential humor that was specifically requested at WP:CR, with his only stated pretext being that it was not an RfC, even though formal closes are not reserved for RfC's, and in contravention of the normal procedure for undoing closes as outlined at WP:CLOSE. He has now also taken to unwarrantedly removing [112] other users' comments that express a contrary point of view. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained on the talk page. If you want to enable harassment by restoring those edits, go ahead. Don't ask me to believe that all those different IPs and brand new accounts are anything other than one troll. WP:DENY is the only tool left when RFPP is declined. Levivich (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't SPI IPs and accounts. Ironically, the last time I tried that, Bbb called me an obvious sock, I went to ANI about it, which is when I saw the thread about you and got involved in your arbcom case. That whole series of events was a big mistake by me. And here we are again, small world eh? :-) So no, not doing that again, no SPI. In all seriousness, best way to stop the disruption on that page is to ECP it. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, although not always, and CUs can confirm whether a named account is editing from a range, see WP:CUIPDISCLOSE. Either way, I suggest we err on the side of AGF for now and keep the talk page posts. GiantSnowman15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My AGF tank is empty on this one, I know other editors' mileage may vary on that. Anyway, it's obvious to me that they know how to beat a CU since they're using a wide variety of (I assume non-public-proxy) IPs. Levivich (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've honestly no idea what it even is that you're referring to as "harassment", unless your definition of "harassment" is just "voicing a contrary opinion". And my understanding is that the rule is "one person, one account", but not "one person, one IP address". Editing from multiple IP addresses usually isn't considered socking. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to say that I consider it a little suspicious that D5E6, an IP with no previous contributions, has turned up to participate in this ANI discussion immediately after it was opened with a relatively trollish comment (obviously, Levivich’s objection wasn’t based on the use of the template) BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing that a hatnote at the bottom of Self-referential humor receives more IP editing from different IPs from all over the world, and brand-new accounts, than anything on the WP:TOP25 (go ahead, compare the page histories and count the different IPs). It's incredible, it's the most popular article for IPs, and they don't want to change anything about the article except for the hatnote. Who wants to buy a bridge in Florida? Levivich (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because most of those are semi-protected? And it hasn't just been IP's, or even brand-new accounts, if you check the page history. This really just shows what a waste of time the link is as there's been little page activity on anything else for months, and your only real contribution has been to hallucinate a long-term consensus and harassment issues. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth:
"Ashburn is a major hub for US Internet traffic, due to its many data centers. Andrew Blum characterized it as the 'bullseye of America's Internet'."
I'm not sure an Ashburn geolocation means much. I've seen other geolocates point to Ashburn, a small town outside Washington, DC
Editing from multiple IP addresses usually isn't considered socking. Incorrect: Editing while logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, when done deceptively or otherwise violating the principles of this policy, may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts. Using multiple IPs for false consensus or evading 3RR or anything like that is sockpuppetry. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, particularly "or otherwise violating the principles of this policy". It completely disputes what you said. In fact, anything that would be sockpuppetry with named accounts could be considered so with IP addresses, from my reading. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the same person can edit from multiple IP's, as an IP editor is just anyone not logged into an account. It's only a problem if done deceptively. Which is different for multiple accounts being used simultaneously by the same person, where users are expected to make explicit that they belong to the same person, even if there's no overlap in their editing patterns. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my reading of it. What it says to me is that anything that would be sockpuppetry with named accounts can be construed as such for IP addresses. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned on the talk page two days ago that if you want to challenge a close you're supposed to take it to AN, and he didn't respond. And his last edit there indicates he's not really amenable to discussion. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably something that went in the wrong direction from the outset. The advice to make a request for closure was probably unhelpful, and the closure was completely inappropriate (basically one user saying "it could have gone either way, so I will impose my personal opinion as Correct"). Yes, the next step could have been to request that the closure be overturned at AN, but dispute resolution might have been a better approach from the beginning. Bringing Levivich's behaviour here was probably unwise as it now focusses attention on the behaviour of all others in that debate: with the best will in the world, it's hard to believe the debate includes as many participants as it does accounts + IP addresses, and it's difficult not to feel there's been some bludgeoning going on. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it can not be, thats a supervote. The closer can do absolutely nothing novel such as offer their own interpretation of guidelines and precedent. If they want to do that they need to comment, not close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed at the closer's talk page, where he explained that guidelines are explicitly a factor in determining WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, and that some arguments in the discussion were based on blatant misinterpretations of the guidelines. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: you deleted your comment, but it mentioned that this is some kind of joke. Using Wikipedia to make jokes is disruptive editing and there's a template for warning about it. If there is some kind of joke being made, let's look at warning or blocking the people doing that. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the template isn't for warning about "making jokes", but rather for "making joke edits". There's a huge difference. Beyond that, to be disruptive something has to interfere with Wikipedia's mission of informing and educating (or whatever it is we're doing here). Humor, even in an article, that doesn't interfere with that goal isn't disruptive. And in many or most cases well-wrought humor actively promotes the project's goals by increasing the reader's pleasure in reading. Now I'm going to stick this right in your face by telling you that there are three (at least) intentionally amusing turns of the phrase, or verbal juxtaposition, in Sacred Cod: "red herring"; "natural habitat"; "stepladder". (There might be more but I can't bring them to mind.) Now you tell me why they shouldn't be there. (The article's currently under siege so best to use the permalink I just gave.) EEng01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No answer, though there's no question you saw this [113]. Huh. Look, here's a few more to make it easier for you: "unusually large florist's box equipped with protruding decoy lilies"; "House perch"; "arranged fracas"; the "Pilfered Cod" poem; "duration of the crisis"; "Sacred cow". Disruptive? NPOV? Explain to me how. Go one. Let's hear it. EEng18:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see on examination that EEng supports making jokes in Wikivoice in an article. That's not a lion's den I wish to delve into considering how popular EEng is. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I do not support "making jokes " in Wikivoice in an article. I do support enjoyable writing that may bring a smile to reader's face now and then. EEng01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. To me, {{uw-joke1}} through {{uw-joke4}} are common sense interpretations of policy and not seriously disputed by anyone. Nobody should be intentionally making jokes in a Wikipedia article. That could be confusing to a reader and is unprofessional. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity was not a factor in my mentioning EEng. I don't know him personally (I believe that I live on a different continent), and sometimes agree with him and sometimes not. I just mentioned him because, in this case, he made a comment that I agreed with. This seems like very large mountains have been made out of very small molehills. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm warning new editors for making jokes with standard templates, shouldn't the same apply to any editor? There's leeway in talk pages and user space, but I don't see why experienced or popular editors should get a pass to violate things that templates warn against.
I also wanted to add that recounting a joke for illustration or even humor is not what I would call making a joke. Recounting is ok in an article, having the text of the article be a joke is not ok. If the distinction makes sense. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert Kerr (right) plays the bagpipesThis was such a great joke and it fills me with sadness to know that there are people out there who would volunteer their time to remove it. Seriously, the world is such a dark place, I cannot fathom why, why anyone would want to extinguish joy. If it puts a smile on someone's face, even if it's not your face, and is otherwise harmless, just leave it be. We need all the smiles we can gather. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that was indeed a great joke and should've been kept. But there is a line between "puts smiles on people's faces" and "risks confusing new readers", and self-links in what is supposed to be a purely informative section (See Also) risk falling into the second category. If everything might just be a hidden joke, it becomes hard for readers to take the encyclopedia seriously (unlike your example, where the joke doesn't actually add any misleading information). ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, that makes it a little more clear but it's still not ideal, people might just read it and not realize that's already the article title, especially since several have close titles (e.g. Self-reference). ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing is people not getting the joke; that would be harmless in my view. (Same as people not understanding the "(right)" in the caption.) But I think it's a stretch to imagine that people might not know the title of the article they're reading. It's right at the top of the page even when they scroll down, in giant font. I think pretty much everyone will "get" the "main article" for "other examples" being the same article, given that it's about self-referential humor. And if they click on it, they'll be taken to the same place. (Someone on the talk page made a good point that the link target should be the "Other jokes" subsection and not just the article, to make it truly self-referential.) Levivich (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is not "right at the top of the page" when people scroll down for everyone, that is only the case on specific skins, on specific platforms. Making the link point to the "Other jokes" subsection would be a big improvement, as people won't be sent at a completely different place in the name of a joke. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that not everyone will "get" a joke and this can lead to confusion. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia in my view. I know this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, but we have readers of different levels of intelligence and cultural/linguistic context. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone will "get" any joke. That's not a problem. Because not everyone will smile, no one should smile? That's not my philosophy. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if someone got a smile from inserting subtle Polish jokes in Polish people? It might even be a Polish person who thinks it is amusing, but that does not mean everyone will. I think we should have a principle and stick to it. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harm is also subjective. Many of the most often retold and funniest Jewish jokes were coined by Jewish comedians. Hardly hate speech. To get to my point, it is that inserting a joke in Wikivoice is fundamentally inserting the editor's own voice and perspective, which is to me a violation of NPOV, and perhaps other policies. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any choice of words or expression or ordering of material, any image, any quotation, anything, could potentially violate various policies. The question is whether they actually do. inserting a joke in Wikivoice is fundamentally inserting the editor's own voice and perspective – why is that necessarily so? You're just saying that. EEng19:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the issue. If the role of Wikipedia is to inform people, jokes that might get a smile from a few people but confuse a few other people aren't helpful. In, say, a webcomic, where humor is to be expected, a joke that some people might get but not others is absolutely acceptable (and to be expected, honestly). In something like Wikipedia, where people go expecting information (at least in wikivoice) rather than jokes, it is more distracting than anything. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just don't agree with equating the benefit of making someone smile, with the supposed detriment of momentary confusion. I will trade 1 smile for 1 momentary confusion any day of the week. Levivich (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia worked on this principle, we'd have virtually no encyclopedic value pretty soon. "It's okay to confuse people if it's funny" is pretty clearly WP:NOT. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can make the same slippery slope claim about allowing anyone to edit. "All or nothing" is poor logic, every time. It's possible to have some jokes without having too many jokes, even if some of the jokes are bad and should be removed, it doesn't mean no jokes. Just like even though some edits are bad and need to be removed, it doesn't mean we should stop all edits. "Slippery slope" is poor logic because it can be applied to any situation at any time. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the "slippery slope" argument, I am arguing against the principle itself. "Slippery slope" refers to extending the principle further than its current bounds, here, I am talking about applying the same principle, in its current bounds, all across Wikipedia. If all articles have potentially confusing meta-jokes like this one, Wikipedia will be more confusing. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to worry about all articles having jokes as there are almost 7 million articles. If any part of your argument involves articles other than the one article at issue here, it's a slippery-slope argument. An argument that if we allow this joke here, we also would have to allow that joke there, is a slippery-slope argument: as you said, extending the principle further than its current bounds (which is one article). Levivich (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Index page to 'Dr Bentley'. @Levivich: This faux index is from 1698 and takes the piss out of its subject. Mightily. ('Dr Bentley—His singular humanity to—foreigners—p.14' is particularly on the nose...) ——Serial19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're strawmanning my argument. I'm not saying that anything containing jokes isn't a serious work, I'm saying that the jokes introduced here are potentially confusing and do not have encyclopedic value. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make me look up what the joke was to show that it's relevant, being confusing to the easily confused. I have to go and cook dinner now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Lexicographer - A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words." (2) "Oats - A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." - Samuel Johnson. Neither joke detracts from the seriousness. Narky Blert (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it now, but I distinctly remember, when the penguin joke hubbub was happening, someone wrote something somewhere (helpful citation, I know) compiling examples of the long history of jokes in reference works, including serious print encyclopedias of yesteryear. (The Samuel Johnson dictionary was on the list.) Levivich (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've change my mind after thinking a little more about it, I think I agree with you now, introducing one self-referential joke into an article isn't equivalent to saying all articles should be riddled in incomprehensible jokes. And, as my username, it's good to embrace a little bit of chaos and whimsy occasionally! ChaotıċEnby(t · c)19:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And even if they don’t get a joke like the penguin one, the most it will do is cause them to wonder for a moment why we felt the need to point out which one was the piper; no harm caused, and for the rest it brings a little joy to their life. BilledMammal (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still sad that something adorable and with no risk of confusion at all, like the penguin joke, got removed, but that potentially confusing self-referential links are kept under the same principles. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only people likely to be confused by the self-reference link are the ones who are confused by the entire concept of self-reference. They are exactly the people for whom including this in the article is likely to be the most helpful, because their confusion should be a signpost to their enlightenment. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it would've been better for an uninvolved administrator to do it, rather than one arguing on the opposite side of the discussion. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)18:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I closed the referenced discussion here. After the close, several editors came to my talk page, and after discussion, I declined to undo my close. Levivich undoing my close without discussing it with me, and for the sole reason that it was not an RfC (which would be news to folks who close non-RfCs at CR) is completely inappropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors had already tried that. An AN appeal would have been feeding the troll. Tbh, I was hoping that in reviewing the total circumstances, you would have come to see that the close should have been undone, because it constituted feeding a troll, among other problems. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you read that discussion and see trolling. Editors engaged in PAG-based arguments and then one of them requested a close. I obliged and closed the discussion. Overriding that process, and then deleting !votes because you think that one person was trolling is not cool. I have restored my close and you can bring it to AN if you want a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've unrestored your close. At this point it would be best for you to recognize that at LOT of experienced editors find it was inappropriate, and step back. EEng01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as an experienced editor, you should know that the reason we have close reviews is so that several involved editors can't decide that they're going to overturn a close outcome that they don't like without broader community input. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as an inexperienced editor, you need to stop playing eager beaver and closing discussion's on issues you don't understand. You're not going to get to be an admin this way, trust me. EEng18:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I is for addressing disruption and getting admin eyes on things that need attention ASAP, not for publicly insulting editors acting in good faith. We are all here to build an encyclopedia. I'm a reasonable person and if you have criticisms of me, I'd appreciate that they be constructive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me what ANI is for, editor-with-literally-one-fifteenth-the-experience-I-have! My criticism was completely constructive: I told you to stop closing discussions on issues you don't understand, and someone's just gone to your talk page to reinforce that point. But instead of taking that on board, you're fishing at Talk:Closure requests for a "peer review". You've already got your peer review right here in this thread: you screwed up. Now, everyone screws up sometimes, but not everyone keeps denying it despite clear evidence. EEng21:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thread is not an RFC and should never have been closed. And it should have never been listed at WP:CR. If someone wants to establish an official consensus, they are free to create an RFC about including the link. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was bad advice. He should have suggested a formal RFC. RFCs tend to be a more orderly survey plus separate discussion, and closers can generally see through any BS or socking; plus someone could note to the closing admin if an IP-hopper was posting multiple votes, or canvassing or something of that nature was occurring. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely not true. Non-RfC discussions can be and are routinely closed. Sometimes that's all you need to establish consensus amongst editors having a conflict, and RFCBEFORE makes clear that all alternatives should be tried before opening an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SL didn't say non-RfCs are never closed; they said this particular discussion should never have been closed. Please pay attention. EEng18:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion had petered out on the 8th. It was listed at CR on the 20th, in the section for non-RfC closures. (If only RfCs can be closed, why does that section exist?) On the 29th, three weeks after the last contribution to the discussion, Levivich decided to reopen it, ostensibly because he didn't agree with the outcome. I don't see how DENY is pertinent without evidence that comments were disruptive or made in bad faith, and I find it disingenuous to use WP:RBI as justification for deleting talk page comments without reporting the editor who made them, or at least indicating who the LTA behind them is (there should have been some effort at satisfying the "B" in RBI). Now the discussion has been re-closed, and re-opened again. And yet no editor has started an RfC there despite the lack of one having supposedly been the root of the problem all along.
So the Troll Goal is to sew sow discord amongst editors, sometimes, as here, by taking a kernel of a content dispute and inflaming it. My goal was to stop that, so I hate to see this ANI thread reaping discord. Now that socks have been blocked and the content is being discussed by good faith editors on the talk page, perhaps an {{atop}} is in order? Levivich (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cookiemonster1618 has been under a three-month topic ban for 'all pages and discussions related to eastern and northeastern African peoples and languages, broadly construed' since 23 November 2023 [114]. In the ensuing five weeks, the user has made more than 180 edits relating to languages or peoples of northeast Africa (list [115]), & a further 90 that are questionably in violation. On 27 November, Cookiemonster1618 was reminded once of the ban [116], & stated that they had forgotten & would observe the ban for the future [117]. They now apparently dispute the meaningfulness of the core terms of the ban—Northeast Africa is not a region [118].
The initial ban arose from disputes between Cookiemonster1618 & other users. I should note for full transparency that a dispute with me was included in the reasoning for Cookiemonster1618's temporary ban, tho I did not participate in the ANI process & did not seek any sanctions of this user at that time. These problems included a failure to take other editors' interactions in Talk pages in good faith, unjustifiable accusations of vandalism, threats, & generally argumentative interactions with other editors. In the time since the ban was effected, Cookiemonster1618 has become involved in another personal dispute with user Michael Effiong, for which they came to ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#User:MichaelI_Effiong). Admin User:Star Mississippi warned Cookiemonster1618 that a failure to change their style of editing might lead to a broader topic ban. Several times in this period, they have posted generic disruptive editing warnings (Template:Uw-disruptive1 to the pages of new users when the edits appear to be in good faith, if problematic in ways that are typical of new editors ([119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]).
Today, I made a comment on Cookiemonster1618's page concerning edits that I believed to be in violation of the topic ban. They accused me of stalking them & trying to find excuses to blame them. User:ScottishFinnishRadish placed an editing block on Cookiemonster1618 for a period of 53 days, in accordance with the terms of the original ban: 'A violation will result in a block for the remainder of the topic ban duration or one month, whichever is longer.' This of course makes sense as a first step. However, given that Cookiemonster1618 has violated the topic ban so egregiously (an average of four times a day at a conservative reckoning) & has not been able to engage other editors more civilly, I request that they be banned indefinitely, pending a proposal for how they would engage Wikipedia differently. Pathawi (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I am still limited in on wiki time and do not have time to explore the continuing issue. I support whatever action is necessary here. StarMississippi14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cookiemonster1618 requested an unblock following SFR's 53 day block. I have declined the unblock request. See User_talk:Cookiemonster1618#December_2023 for rationale. As to an indefinite block, I'm a bit on the fence. I believe Cookiemonster1618 to be a productive editor based on cursory review. But, the problematic behaviors need to stop. If they are incapable of understanding that Eritrea is in northeast Africa, when the topic ban is to be "broadly construed", and there is nothing in Africa that is more northeast than Eritrea, then there is a potential CIR issue at hand. I'm hoping for improvement. Hoping. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think (& hope) that Cookiemonster1618 can become a productive editor, & I agree that on balance they've got mostly productive edits tho they're overwhelmingly of one nature: bringing Wikipedia into line with Ethnologue. However, problems like that which led to this editing ban have been occurring consistently for their entire editing history. They've been involved in Wikipedia since May. In early edits, they had very normal new editor troubles with appropriate sourcing & citation, but responded to questions & suggestions on their Talk page with exasperation & sarcasm [125]. In June, they were involved in a number of conflicts & edit wars—see the several different conflicts at [126], during which they were resistant to recognising verifiability criteria, threatened other editors, & repeatedly made personal attacks. The first of these problems has improved dramatically in the ensuing months—largely because they've stuck so closely to Ethnologue as a source—but not consistently (note this in September [127], where they are insistent on using a perennially unreliable source, despite having discussed the source with me three times). The other two issues have not improved at all. There is also a common pattern from June thru the present:
Cookiemonster1618 lashes out at other editors with accusations or threats,
states that a problem does not exist in the first place (23 June 'And what conflict? I haven't had a conflict with other users.' [128]; 31 December 'there is no such thing as a region called Northeast Africa' [129], then
becomes apologetic when an admin gets involved [130].
In July, Cookiemonster1618 was blocked for consistent addition of unsourced content [131]. While blocked, they solicited edits from another editor [132]. Again, this is of a cloth with the more recent pattern of just ignoring the Northeast Africa topic ban.
Throughout the months, there are repeat fairly wild accusations of vandalism (often in cases where other editors are in the wrong, but not vandalising) & a fair bit of edit-warring. This is obscured from a cursory overview by Cookiemonster1618's practice—as is their right—of removing discussion of conflicts from their Talk page. If you check before each major blanking of that page, you'll find a record of edit-warring or other problematic editor interactions. I don't think that this is going to improve by just waiting 52 days. Pathawi (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but I'm willing to WP:AGF for now. Given this thread, I think it likely that visibility about the situation has risen. If problems arise again, we can address it then. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be some socking going on at a newly created article titled Arvin Abdollahzadeh. Several "new" users have attempted to remove the CSD tag without adequate explanation. I've reverted all of their attempts, but everything seems highly suspicious in my opinion. CycloneYoristalk!21:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The block of a registered account hasn't slowed things down--now it's a team of IPs. See report here from December 26 [133]. More eyes on this, with possible user sanctions, reversion of poorly sourced and/or copied content again, followed by a lock. Thanks and HNY. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page semiprotected for a month, let me know if any more accounts pop up and I can reset it to extended confirmed. As I'm acting in an admin capacity, I'd encourage anyone who wants to approach this as an editor go through and see if anything should be trimmed from what's currently there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, European Union Fan has a point that isn't being answered by the other edit warriors, except to point xem to another talk page after pointing xem to that talk page:
This seems to be a case where someone has followed the advice to take it to the talk page, and been met with Kafkaesque take-it-to-the-talk-page-where-I'll-tell-you-to-take-it-to-another-talk-page responses and silence and reversions with advanced permissions editing tools and templated warnings and blocks. And no-one has stopped to think "Hold on! What's the year being reported on by that U.N. report that we're pointing to, again?"
DublinDilettante (talk·contribs) has a worrying habit of unsourced political claims, I noticed that they repeatedly edited War against the potato beetle to claims about MOS:TERRORIST despite it not being in the sources amongst other claims and then made hostile remarks about needing to follow sources because of the country it is.
The David McCullagh one is particularly egregious; adding "in pro-NATO circles" in this diff where there are no mentions of NATO in the citation at all, and upon being reverted, instantly returning it without comment beyond the edit summary. From the diffs you've provided, and from having form for WP:NPA violations such as this, this feels like a case of WP:RGW. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)13:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. All their edits have been reverted, since they clearly prefer their own personal opinion above that of cited WP:RS (eg [140]).
Although I did take it upon myself to fix a lot of articles missing short description in the transport space, you can take a look at my contributions and see that I had a lot of other contributions of varying length and complexity.
You can also take a look at my latest contributions and see many different subjects, including ones that do not relate to history, current events or the Israeli-Arab conflict FoodforLLMs (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If adding a short description is considered a worthless change in the eyes of the administration, then who is going to add descriptions to all these articles?
In my mind it both helps the UX by helping users search, it's a non trivial change because it requires adding 5-6 words which need some thinking, and it aligns with WP:NNH.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Introduction
The rumors that I am out to delete everything started after I nominated user User:Greg L's page and subpage [141] for deletion as WP:FAKEARTICLE. I was too focused on the policy versus the human, it was ill-received in the discussion and I have not made any similar action in the future and have kept professionalism to a maximum since then. This subsequent rumor has gotten out of control for me, involving a network of users, which is why I am researching and uploading this post.
I have informed the editors per the talk page notice.
User:Greg L
Subsequent to that, Greg L has been exclusively editing pages related to me since 10 days and makes rumor-spreading posts about me on other peoples pages like calling me "single-purpose editor" [142], with little basis in my edits. History of Greg L: [143]
Editor MLee1957 intervenes, like he did in his previous dispute that led to creation of the fake article. Those two conflicts are the only history of edits by MLee1957. History of MLee1957: [144]
Coordinated and very similar posts in different places (contribution history has a more exhaustive list):
MLee1957: "A company that delivers critical electricity to thousands of customers is far more notable than some random Dairy Queen" [145]
Greg L: "many thousands of users is far-cry from some random Dairy Queen or “Al’s Tire-O-Rama” in nearby Belcourt on State Route 10. A utility seems reasonably notable to me" [146]
Greg L raises a "motion" to end the AfD early [147]. I was not even the one who started it, rather it was started by another editor after the PROD was undone by MLee1957.
I presonally made the mistake of renominating this discussion right after it was closed as no consensus with no prejudice, due to ignorance of what "no prejudice" means exactly. The discussion was speedy-closed, again, after participation from Greg L and MLee1957.
For the next 10 days, all of his edits except one consist in:
Following me
Follow me to other deletion discussions I was involved:
Undoes uncontroversial redirect or merge maintenance actions I performed (random changes, small, old abandoned articles which do not pass standalone notability):
In general, I would like to note that User:A. B.'s posts about me on his talk page are really condescending. (User talk:A. B.) I would also like to note history of bigoted comments towards South Asian editors reading up on his talk page, telling someone "In particular, only add content that is unambiguously referenced by a source whose reliability will be obvious to non-South Asian, non-Muslim and non-Hindu editors. Leave no ambiguity to be exploited.". [166]
For the record:
I take this spurious accusation of bigotry seriously. For context, here is the entire exchange to which बिनोद थारू is referring:
This involved a Bangladeshi IP who was being hounded by an Indian editor, Aman.kumar.goel in connection with sectarian disputes. Both turned out to be socks.
@A. B.: No worries; the link Binod provided (repeated here), didn’t even contain the purported verbiage. Such experiences almost makes you want to become a politician in Washington, D.C., where there is a more professional, collegial atmosphere and no one twists your words out of context. Greg L (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randykitty
Their only encounter with me prior were disagreement over standalone notability of journals. [167][168]
After I got reverted, I have since then stopped redirecting or merging journals to lists and assured them of that that, [169] this user now threatened me with a ban for what vaguely is redirect as a merge.[170] This is presumably following comments left by A. B., themselves feeding off the rumors by Greg L.
Misunderstanding
Finally, I want to seek input to clear up misunderstandings that help fuel this rumor. The misunderstandings are around the policy WP:BLAR requiring a merge tag on the talk page (also I always make my edit comment as "redirect" instead of "merge" in those cases through the merge extension).
Also the definition of uncontroversial which I hold to mean old, small, not stand alone notable, random articles that are not in a network.
Conclusion
I am making this post to help extinguish this rumor about me that I am "out to delete articles" and provide that I can help with article quality maintenance without rumors and threats looming over my head. The cases where my redirects/merges were controversial (Academic Journal), only a revert was sufficient to let me know. More generally after a AfD conversation with BeanieFan11, I have learned it is not useful touching networks of identical articles (like sports events), rather a wider discussion than AfD like RfC or project is needed. I now use the random article button exclusively to edit instead of a chain of posts, as the latter provides an incentive towards bias and misjudgment.
I follow any suggestion of further improvement. I disagree with any punishment towards me because I have only assumed a passive and collaborative role in my editing since 10 days in spite of constant pressure. Expressions being thrown like "the community is tired of you" are inappropriate in light of 10 days of attack posts made on others talk page by Greg L and dogpiling in discussions by closely-related account MLee1957.
For the purpose of stopping this rumor, I am seeking for:
A command to the editor A. B. to stop following my post history and over scrutinizing my posts.
A command to the editors Greg L and MLee1957 to cease all contact with me.
Prevent Randykitty from banning me because that decision is clouded in bias by two previous arguments about academic journal notability and dogpiles on this rumor campaign.
The main thing is user Greg L and quasi-identical user MLee1957 only editing on my pages for 10 days straight and spreading attacks/rumors about me on others people's pages. This led to rumors that I am "out to delete" everything amplifying, and overly scrutinous reverts, ban threats from the users affected.
Action sought as a result of this discussion:
A command to the editor A. B. to stop following my post history and over scrutinizing my posts as a result of rumors.
A command to the editors Greg L and MLee1957 to cease all contact with me.
Prevent Randykitty from banning me because that decision is clouded in bias by two previous arguments about academic journal notability and dogpiles on this rumor campaign.
TL;DR (by someone who has fallen victim to the complainant)
What this is about is User:बिनोद थारू (his first name translates to “Binod”) has a long history (his contributions) of being a single-purpose editor tendentiously deleting articles from Wikipedia. As for his underlying motivation, it appears to be revenge, as evidenced by this permalink of a discussion on his talk page, in response to Admin:Liz, which shows that one of his first contributions to en.Wikipedia got AfD'd: …because my article do not get reviewed or get nominated for deletion like my first one (where you took sides against me I recall).
Since then he’s been a single-purpose editor disrupting Wikipedia by rampantly engaging in deletion of content.
First he was using AfDs. After get a track record of failing on those…
He resorted to PRODs, which require no discussion but are for uncontroversial deletions of content. Obviously, he met push-back on that stunt.
Then he started redirecting articles, but in the process, didn’t transfer any of the material and associated citations from the redirected article to the target article. An example of this was redirecting Riding Facility, Riem to 1972_Summer_Olympics, so when readers are in the Venues section and click the link in this line item: • Riding Facility, Riem – equestrian (jumping individual, eventing cross-country), modern pentathlon (riding) …they were just taken to the top of the article they were on.
He even AfD'd my own user page, talk page, and one of my sandboxes with a very scientific article I’m working on. I have zero idea how he found such obscure places since his edit history shows no interest in science. But that’s how he got on my radar screen and it was obvious that he was annoying large swaths of the wikipedian community by wikilawyering.
In the process, numerous editors, ex-admins, and admins have gone to his talk page to try to get him to desist but he just deletes their comments (look for the negative reds) with edit comments like Remove comment from my talk page that led to a false rumor and Reverted 1 edit by GDX420 (talk): Misinformation. Both Admin:Liz and User:A. B. (and I and many others) have been trying to get Binod to change his ways to no avail.
As for User:MLee1957 being a sockpuppet of some sort, MLee1957 responded to a request for feedback I posted on Talk:Neutron star and appears to have taken an interest in Binod’s activities, as do many others who are impacted by Binod’s behavior. A December 2023 sockpuppet investigation concluded, as regards MLee1957 and myself, that the evidence clearly indicates two people in two separate places. Binod opposes anyone who is pushing back (with the exception of Admin:Liz as Binod knows better) at his objectives.
I’ve told Binod in AfDs that his reasoning for the AfD (lacks citations) is no justification; that’s why we have {{citation needed}} tags. Having been corralled by MLee1957, Liz, A. B., myself, and whoever else he has taken to task here, he has—for the last several days—dedicated himself to simply tagging the blazes out of articles. I can only guess that he finds that unsatisfying and wants to go back to deleting content unimpeded.
I, for one, had no enthusiasm for initiating an ANI on all of Binod’s behavior, which is disruptive to the project, and I suspect the same goes for Liz and A. B. and the many others impacted by having their labors nominated for deletion or simply deleted. But Binod started this ANI, and I figured I’d give you the background here.
The community needs to find a better way to put an end to disruption that doesn’t require truly absurd amounts of time to isolate ourselves from destructive editors who refuse to get the point. I’m a now-retired senior mechanical engineer; I didn’t start this ANI and I have no intention of allowing Binod dictate how I must spend my New Years Day and the several days thereafter.
It occurs to me that if User:बिनोद थारू desires not to have their contributions scrutinized by many other editors, then posting to ANI is not exactly a good way to accomplish that. Beyond the excessive deletionism you discuss, I am seeing a lot of WP:BADNAC warnings on their user talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what world is a resolved talk page issue (WP:BADNAC) more worthy of concern than ongoing 10 days of stalking, personal attacks, racism ([171]) and harassment campaigns? बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a point if we took you at your word that what these editors were doing was stalking you rather than running around putting out all the fires you have started. And I see nothing obviously racist in your link. Also, for someone who wants to be known as not "out to delete everything", you sure have started a lot of deletion discussions in very recent days. Moving on from deleting all past individual Olympians to deleting whole Olympic events, now? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indef बिनोद_थारू with a boomerang for disruptive editing which extends far beyond the behavior behind this report. I have not looked into Greg L's editing, but see no reason to at this time. StarMississippi21:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce बिनोद थारू's decision to quit Wikipedia, I have indefinitely blocked them. If they change their mind, they can appeal, but they will need to address the serious issues that came up in this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without undoing all the other edits as well? I doubt it, but the number is only in the 50-100 range, small enough to do individually with some patience. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the redirects they did and reverted the ones where it seems like there's a chance that the article they redirected is actually notable, or where the information is useful and they failed to merge it. Encourage other editors to look through as well as I may have missed some things. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I endorse the indef block per the concerns raised above. I especially am concerned about the false sockpuppet accusations that were levied by बिनोद थारू. —Locke Cole • t • c01:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biography of Sangram Singh, an Indian 'wrestler, actor, and motivational speaker' came to my attention some time back as being poorly written, poorly sourced, and unduly promotional. While I've endeavoured to rectify the worst of it, this has proven somewhat difficult, due largely to the efforts of User:StarFish2022, who has repeatedly restored such content, or added similarly-worded promotional content. Given the promotional editing, and the fact that other than an abortive effort to create an article on an investment company (which seems to have failed through lack of demonstrated notability), StarFish2022 has made no edits to any other article, I recently posted the BLP Introduction to contentious topics template on their talk page, and left a message drawing attention to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, and asked whether they had any connection with the article subject. [172]. This drew no immediate response, and since the problematic editing continued, I left another message on their talk page further advising them of relevant policies, asking them to use the article talk page rather than continued adding the contested material, and once again asking as to whether there was a conflict of interest. [173]
StarFish2022's only response to this is to today add even more improperly-sourced and badly-written promotional content, [174], and to send me an email where they state that "the edits I am doing is said by himself to post the edits so please don't remove it." This appears to me to be a clear admission to be editing on Singh's behalf, and given the apparent refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia policy (or inability to understand it, which has functionally the same consequences), I thus ask that StarFish2022 be blocked from editing the Sangram Singh article. What further action, if any, that needs to be taken will probably depend on any explanation StarFish2022 offers as to their connection with Singh. Given StarFish2022's behaviour, the subject matter, and apparent evidence of past promotional editing (see the article talk page), it seems entirely possible that undeclared paid editing may involved, in contradiction to WMF terms of use: if this is the case, further sanctions will clearly be needed. I will of course inform StarFish2022 of this thread, and would advise them to take careful note of relevant policy before responding here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good-faith errors identified and acknowledged, rollback voluntarily handed back. The signature issue is/was trivia but fwiw is also resolved. Time to move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notwithstanding a largely constructive interest in page patrol and reverting vandalism, there are a lot of sloppy judgment calls, mostly the result of haste and apparent lack of discernment--see the thread I've opened at their talk page [175]. My introduction was here [176], followed by an automated warning. Part of what's troubling is that a week later, they're defending the restoration of unsourced WP:BLP fluff [177], presumably after reading edit summaries here [178]. At any event, continuing to defend this is a red flag. Subsequent edits of interest include [179]--again, defended at their talk page with "the edit changed the name of a person with no source, is that also normal?"; entering disruptive arenas and making the wrong reversions without doing research [180]; [181]; reverting a good faith talk page self-edit [182]; kneejerk reversions of editing in progress at a draft [183] with correction [184]; restoring unsourced WP:BLP violation [185]; proper reversion of unsourced trivia [186] followed by restoration of same [187]; quick to react here, without explanation [188], [189]; again, reacting too quickly and without explanation [190], [191]; I don't know why this was reverted and the editor warned [192]; restoring unsourced WP:BLP ethnic designation [193].
I've looked at several dozen edits out of over 2,000. At any rate, I question the granting of rollback privilege today, and more generally, the continued use of anti-vandalism tools without more evidence of awareness of the road conditions. Too many edits, too quickly and without deliberation over article history and context. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I appreciate your feedback, and that of the community, please take into account that quick decisions can be the result of misunderstood edits. Please also take into account that many of my reverts were fine. I would appreciate comments/questions.
Alright, here's a comment: that is a lot of bad edits. Your goal cannot be to have "many" of your reverts be fine. It must be that ALL of your reverts are sound. If you are regularly churning out bad edits, then you need to be hands off on things like rollback or tools until such time as you demonstrate that you can exercise the judgment and care for errors to be very rare. Ravenswing 22:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geardona, if "quick decisions" are causing you to make a lot of serious errors, then the solution is to slow down, ponder the situation with more care, and make your edit only when you are highly confident that it improves the encyclopedia. This applies especially to biographies of living people where editors are obligated to get things right. Removing vast swathes of unreferenced BLP content is often a good move. By restoring that unreferenced content, you are giving your personal endorsement of the accuracy of that content, and should be adding references to the reliable sources that you used to verify that content. If you cannot verify unreferenced content, then do not restore it. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through their contribution history and many of the reverts are appropriate. The pace is awfully rapid though, so Geardona should definitely slow down and be more cautious. Most of the reverts are to IP edits; IPs make a lot of useful and constructive edits as well, often fixing some other editor's malicious changes, so except for obvious vandalism, it's better to check the validity of a change before undoing it. Schazjmd(talk)23:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geardona, Even while this discussion is ongoing you are continuing to make bad reverts. This revert [195] has no basis in policy, plot sections of articles do not require sources per WP:PLOTSOURCE.
Incorrectly reverting edits is really harmful to the project - it upsets good faith editors, results in vandalism and bad edits being reinstated, and can remove useful content. You need to be getting these reverts near 100% correct. If you want to continue recent changes patrolling you should slow down and focus on reverting blatant vandalism. Before trying to revert edits based on more complex ideas (like WP:V or WP:RS) you probably need to spend some more time learning policy and how editing works (ideally by writing some article content), because it appears that you are attempting to police other people's edits without really understanding how things are supposed to be done. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, are we done with this? I don't want rollback anymore, I will go do something other than RCP. Happy?
Geardona, your signature could give new editors the impression that you are part of a formal appointed Tech Support team. Please could you change it? NebY (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed rollback per this thread and this request. They've acknowledged the feedback in requesting removal of the tool, so we might be on the way to calling this resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see this close, with one addendum: Geardona is understandably concerned for their editing status, and would like to move on to other pastures. But I see little concern for the users they've templated, or an effort to revert misbegotten warnings. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, what needs to happen, revert all of my templates, (or just nuke my contribs) at this point I’ve had enough of this and would like to put it behind me as fast as possible. Thank you, Geardona (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had enough of this ani stuff, I now want to fix it and put it behind me. Now, what do you want me to do about the templates? Geardona (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this user is damaging the encyclopaedia. In his last two edits to the List of Italian dishes page, he has changed the Italian word "caffè" (in Italian language it's spelled with an accent) for the second time (I warned him the first time) and added a non-Italian pizza ("stromboli"; "place of origin: United States"). I propose an infinite block. JackkBrown (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Concern for User:TheAmazingPeanuts
Hello, I had no idea where to place this. I don’t know exactly what this falls under, and have never had a problem with a user previously.
I absolutely hate to waste any energy on this, but somebody has to get TheAmazingPeanuts under control. A portion of his edit history is dedicated to policing what does and what doesn’t count as “a single” from full-length record releases, even when the song is very clearly receiving a sustained amount of airplay indicating that the song has been sent to radio as a single. They’ve previously admitted himself that they probably aren’t the best evaluator of this criteria, yet almost daily they continue to revert well-intentioned edits simply trying to provide information about what is being promoted from an album.
I’ve read up on the criteria on Wikipedia that ascertains whether a song released on an album is a single or not, and I must say that it is highly outdated. AllAccess no longer provides reliable information as to what is a single and what will be released as one in the near future, which can maybe be attributed to Mediabase's recent partnership with Billboard, the magazine behind the flagship singles chart in the US. And if this website truly prides itself in presenting information of ALL branches of knowledge, maybe don’t let one person control the information that gets picked or not. Where is the community? I won’t mention the other behaviors that I noticed in the specific user because it’s simply not necessary, and that would be more of a judgement of their character behind the screen than their actions here on Wikipedia. I’ve assumed good faith previously and fell back, but the user has continued with this behavior which indicates A. they’re stubborn, B. they just haven’t taken the time to determine what defines a single in today’s industry, or C. they’re just a flat out troll, and honestly I’m leaning towards C. This whole debacle makes it very confusing for music fans to, again, keep up with what is being promoted from their favorite albums, and what is to come next. I feel the user is acting in their own self-interest and publishing what they believe is a single.
I've tried to approach this honestly and as clearly as possible. I hope that the staff is able to understand where I’m coming from and why this frustrates me as a fan of music. And I know I am not the only one that fights for songs to be considered singles judging by the edit history on the articles with such conflict.
Is there any place where you or others have attempted to discuss the matter? This notice board should not be the first step in a content dispute. Zaathras (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, for me this situation originated in September with a dispute regarding what songs were considered singles on Travis Scott's Utopia album. I discussed it then and I will discuss it again, because there comes a point where it seems like the individual is going out their way to blur the lines of what a single is.
Hits is not a reliable source; there's never been a discussion on this website. At WP:SINGLE?, it says a song that was referred to as a single by a random media outlet should not be classified as a single. I have started a discussion on the talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitsDailyDouble is not a random media outlet. The Wikipedia page you provided for it quite literally states that it is (or was referred to in 1997 as) the "most successful tip sheet in the music world". SongQuarters is considered a tip sheet, and even as a defunct website is still listed as a source on various Wikipedia pages I've come across over time. I can understand not using Hits "Rumor Mill" as a source because that's all it is. Gossip. Rumors.
All in all regardless of sources, the single criteria needs to be revamped, simple as that. Whether that is giving the OK as soon as a track reaches top 40 on a radio format or just indicating the month that it began taking off at radio as when the single was released. The way it is right now just seems extremely fickle. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion, not a fact. There's still a need for discussion about whether the website is considered a reliable source; just because you think it's reliable doesn’t mean everybody else thinks it is. That's why we have talk pages. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, you're missing the point. My goal is not to impose what I think is reliable or not. I'm trying to bring about a serious open discussion about what indicates a single on Wikipedia, and why you feel so responsible to determining what isn't? 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. My concerns were placed here for a reason, and I said all I would have needed to say over there right here anyway. Will be sure to head over there if I have anything to add but as it is the inconsistencies speak for themselves. The criteria in general needs to adapt. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this may not have originated as an intent to have a content dispute, it seems to presently be one (concern over reliable sources, etc.)—so perhaps another venue is presently in order. Remsense留06:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was and is with TheAmazingPeanuts continued (and mostly ineffective) vigilant behavior on this site. The single discussion was the origin of me saying something about this. He caught a case of sockaphobia with me because of the edit war brought on by the initial situation. It was bully-like behavior. I'm interested in continuing that discussion as well but I can't really just go off the cuff with it.
He has a history of being inconsiderate and condescending. It's why he came through so quick to turn these concerns into debate. Eventually Mr. Peanut is gonna go too far and truly crash out on someone here, and when it happens, well... That's all I need to say in this talk page. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I'm just being upfront. That's who I am. But if that's disruptive to you then you do you and I'll keep doing me. Sometimes you need to be disruptive when you're fighting for a cause. I'm sorry if that's something you don't have in you. Stay blessed. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) This really should have gone to a different venue like dispute resolution, because as far as I can tell it's a content dispute. The filer has not provided any diffs of questionable conduct. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all edits by ITZQing (talk·contribs) consist of changing spellings e.g. names of cities in Ukraine. This has included changing Kiev to Kyiv in historical contexts despite the current consensus against this as well as changing Kievan Rus' to Kyivan Rus'. I have had to give them several warnings on their talk page about this and after this edit I gave them one last warning. I see now after this there are still issues with this despite the warnings. They said they use regex to make the edits and some of their edits such as this where they replace all instances of "Odessa" with "Odesa" include altering titles, source names and quotes. Mellk (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are basically involved in an edit war with consensus. This is pretty clearly NOTHERE, but a block until there is an understanding or a tban might work. While some of their edits conform to consensus, the purpose of this account seems to be to forcably overturn a clear consensus they don't agree with. I think the info on their userpage also indicates they have no intention of working within consensus. // Timothy :: talk06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My editing is period-specific, including the years in which the character (if this is a biography) lived. But there are many pages that need to be edited, and there will be mistakes in the process, so I will not interfere with others checking me, and I also hope that the wrong edits can be fixed. Alexei (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is from ITZQing signing as Alexei. I left a warning at user talk that there must be no more changes to place names without a link to a discussion showing consensus for the change. According to the comments above (which I haven't investigated), a significant number of changes are against consensus. That would be very disruptive and is not the way Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there are pages that require heavy editing (older spellings, such as brand spellings "Ukrayinska Pravda" to "Ukrainska Pravda") where do discussions need to happen? Or ask the administrator to do it? Alexei (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general procedure is to start at the relevant article talk page. I guess that would be Talk:Ukrainska Pravda where there could be a proposal to find all "Ukrayinska Pravda" in articles and change them to "Ukrainska Pravda", with a couple of example links to articles where that would occur. You would want to first start with Special:WhatLinksHere/Ukrayinska Pravda and propose to change those. It looks like there could be well over a thousand articles given User:ITZQing#Regex for search. In that case, a proposal at WP:VPR would be more appropriate since it would get more attention. If consensus agreed with certain changes, the next step would be to ask for assistance at WP:BOTREQ. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, to follow on Johnuniq's comments, if you can NOT obtain consensus following a conversation, that doesn't mean to go ahead and make the edits anyway. That means to walk away from the article, and accept that consensus is against you. Ravenswing 22:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user seems to only be here to promote themselves. They have persistently tried to create an article about themselves and it was deleted multiple times and when it was EC salted they moved on to the talk page of said deleted page to continue their self promotion. They do not get the point and just will not stop. I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Seawolf35T--C08:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz blocked for 72 hours, and judging by their subsequent messages on their talk page, I don't hold out hope that an indefinite block isn't in the immediate future for this person. Daniel (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User: Yotrages
Content dispute. No personal attacks on the pages linked claiming personal attacks (and no diffs provided). Cannot agree that the charge of disrupting to prove a point is obvious from the diffs provided. As this is a content dispute and no evidence of "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problems" have been provided, parties are directed to the article talk page to resolve. If they are unable to resolve between themselves, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution provides direction on content dispute resolution procedures. Daniel (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All I've been doing is to make the page better, and you think I'm owning the page! I properly asked you not to add it to his article because it's already added to Toya Delazy's page, so there's no need for it to be in Rema's. Those outlets you mentioned are only from South Africa, that's why I said no one knew internationally. You reverted all of my edits and some other editors too, that's what I will call owning the page. and if you think I'm wrong look at Wizkid, Davido's article compared to his, and you'll get what I'm saying. The page doesn't also describe his career sequentially, so I make it better but you reverted it. You also said I'm rude, but you've been lessoning me all day, telling me to look at this and that, that I've seen since the day I started editing, that's really rude and it hurts me. Yotrages (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2024
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor has been making significant wholesale changes, including some slow-moving revert wars for a while now, with not once editing an article talk page. Like, literally, has never edited a talk page. I have indefinitely blocked with a message that makes it clear they can request an unblock at a time when they commit, in writing, to using article talk pages to collaborate about their editing when disputed as per WP:BRD/WP:DR. Talk page message here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made better represent the historical reality of the region at the time. Suggesting the region was named Palestine would not be historical correct since the region was only named as such by the Roman Empire in the 2nd century CE. ([213]) is WP:DUCK to a banned user. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence: Removing the name "Palestine", not the name of the region until 132 CE as Syria Palestina. Have put this page forward for a protection request due to an edit war and use of the name Palestine for polemic, rather than historical, reasons ([214]).
And This page was edited to say "Palestine" as a political statement. The name Palestine did not apply to the region until 132CE, when it was changed by the Romans. The name of the province was Judea. This page should be locked to prevent further edits for political points ([215]).
Content dispute. This isn't a "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem". Parties are directed to the talk page (Talk:Siege of Svetigrad) to discuss as required. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for content dispute resolution procedures. Note that OP is likely to be topic-banned from this article as per a section above ('Dismissed report regarding User:Keremmaarda') in the coming days, unless consensus significantly changes. Daniel (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been engaged in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to POVPUSH in the lead of Economy of the Song dynasty. Originally they expanded page numbers of existing sources while adding info on the statements attached, which made it seem as though the source supported the additional info, even though they did not [216]. They then engaged in an edit war with multiple users [217][218][219][220] until they accused me of sockpuppetry [221][222]. They never filed a report against me. Despite warnings about edit warring and original research [223] they have returned to significantly expand the lead specifically to prove that the Song dynasty's economy was not greater than that of Europe's [224]. Not only do the sources not support the user's additions and even contradict them, one of them is an outdated general history text on European history, while the other does not mention China or the Song dynasty at all.
Ex. User's addition:
According to another source; while China was a very advanced and prosperous country at that period of time with a steel production of around 100,000 tons plus urban cities with millions of people; it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe or India or the Islamic World; Europe who boosted around 100 million people in the 13th century was founding its universities of Cambridge and Oxford, building its great cathedrals , proclaiming the Magna Carta , achieving great wealth with the cites of Pisa and Venise, preparing the Italian Renaissance and the discoveries of the New World plus launching the Crusades and the City of Constantinople was still the center of World Trade between East and West and the capital of the very wealthy Byzantine Empire.[225]
The source:
By 1300 the "rise of Europe" was an accomplished fact. The third of the three segments into which the Greco-Roman world had divided, the one which in A.D. 700 had been the most isolated and fragmented, now some 600 years later had a civilization of its own. It was still only one among the several great cultures of the world, such as the Islamic, Byzantine, Indian, and Chinese. It enjoyed no preeminence. The Chinese empire, for example, in the thirteenth century, had cities whose population reached into millions. It had an affluent merchant class, great textile manufacturers, and an iron industry that produced over 100,000 tons a year. The arts and sciences were assiduously pursued. Government was centralized and complex; it issued paper money and employed a civil service recruited by competitive examinations. Books on religious, technical, and agricultural subjects, including whole multivolume encyclopedias, were printed in enormous numbers, even though the lack of an alphabet and the thousands of Chinese characters made it difficult for literacy to become widely spread. The Venetian Marco Polo was dazzled by the China that he livedin from 1275 to 1292.A History of the Modern World to 1815 tenth edition, p. 46 (they misspelled the name)
The book is a general history text with a particular focus on European history despite its name. The user opted to use an outdated edition (7th) that is over 30 years old. Their edits show lack of competency in grammar as well as citation style, leading to misformatted references and sentences in the current version [226].
When challenged to provide quotations as support [227], they failed in both cases [228], offering a quotation that is not the same as the added info and no quotation at all for the second source. Besides the OR, SYNTH, and COMPETENCY issues, there is also the WP:COATRACK behavior and the content is simply not DUE in a lead. They are now accusing me of WP:OWN[229]. Qiushufang (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their response and language to warnings about OR also doesn't bode well for continued dialogue - see how they talk about "truth" and puffing themselves up:
First thing to show you your WP:OWN" which is forbidden 🚫; you removed first my contribution which say your assumption is based on one source which is the truth ; second Palmer is a classic but I m willing to discuss it on the talk page ; but when I described Europe achievements who are facts you removed them also ; third byzantine fiscal revenue are even in Byzantine article in Wikipedia; I simply compare the two empires revenues ; finally as for the comparison with Europe it is already in the article; I showed only respect for China ; I read a lot and see a lot of documents and movies about China like kingdom or qin empire so stop and open yourself to compromise I m ready to discuss[230] - WP:OTHERSTUFF reference to Byzantine article, the comparison between Byzantium and Song dynasty is never made in the source, and references to movies about China as an appeal for compromise on OR and SYNTH.
After looking at some of their other edits, they aren't any better on other articles, see Pamela Joan Rogers. Continuous unsourced additions with unencyclopedic language: [231][232][233][234]. When challenged, they add sources which do not support the attached info [235]. A Google search doesn't turn up anything either. They are again reverted by others [236], and SeriousHist reverts them again [237] until people give up or don't notice and settle for fixing their shoddy prose [238]. Afterwards they went back again to add in unencyclopedic language [239][240] not supported by the sources provided. Qiushufang (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello from the first I asked them Talk:Economy of the Song dynasty to work together; they did not respond ; then a lot of suspicious accounts showed up .
They removed first
- the fact that I said they were using one source to claim the song economy was the most prosperous in the world ; they removed it also it is a fact that it is based on one source.
- Second I used Palmer and common knowledge to show China was not particularly superior to other civilizations.
- Three I used the Byzantine Empire Fiscal figures in 1025 ( treadgold) and compared them to Song Dynasty fiscal revenues ( Byzantine Empire revenues were higher ; my figures are not contested they are present in my source and also in the Byzantine Empire Economy in Wikipedia) ; they removed everything not even trying to reach consensus, I begged them many times to go to the talk page or to wait for the community to discuss to no avail ; I leave the decision to your wisdom. It is true I m not always very active on Wikipedia but I know when to add important information; for example on Elizabeth Tudor which is a major article I added both the establishment of British Colonies in North America and the Eastern trade company ; both were missed entirely not even mentioned.
I believe they are behaving as they owned the article WP:OWN" .
Also if you see their talk page it is full with conflits with other users and war edits which is not the case in my edits in general; it is only in this article that I was faced with such a problem ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qiushufang
Anyway please be the judge and I thank you in advance; again I m ready to work with all people to make Wikipedia better. I believe in cooperation and good faith; happy new year for all SeriousHist (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only talk section involving SeriousHist is two years old and the only response to their contributions is a user stating that a source they provided does not support their claim. The same user reverted them for doing the same thing again in October 2023 [241]. All edits and reverts involving SeriousHist I provided for that page happened in recent months after the brief interaction on talk. This kind of deliberate misdirection has been typical of my experience dealing with them - changing page numbers as though they supported added material, addition of sources as though they support content when they do not, failure to provide quotations from sources that support material added, and ad hominem attacks like OWN or MEAT or SOCK when challenged. Qiushufang (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are facts the difference between us is that I go to the talk page in good faith to try to resolve the issues and I never faced an issue like I faced with you ; sure I m not perfect but I m a team player which you are not ; my talk page prove it ; your talk page prove it ; in spite of all that for the 100 times I m ready to work with you on common ground if you accept to cooperate in good faith and stop WP:OWN which is for me the most disturbing aspect on Wikipedia; I had cooperation on Elizabeth Tudor and we did it unanimously; in Pamela Rogers ; an article changed by many contributors who totally rewrote or deleted my edits sometimes ;we cooperated and we were able to reach some missing information and to find consensus; same on other articles.
Supporting quotations were requested for the claims made here: "these numbers were relatively higher than the annual income of 500 tons of silver of the Song Empire" and "while China was a very advanced and prosperous country... it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe".
No quotations which support these claims were provided. Neither in the reversion edit summary or talk section: Many have asked why China did not generate as Europe , in these centuries the forces that led to the modern scientific and Industrial world is a completely different sentence from "while China was a very advanced and prosperous country... it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe", nor does it support the rest of the additions. Nor is it related to the topic of the article, Economy of the Song dynasty. What does this have to do with the economy of the Song dynasty?
Here you did not provide a quotation at all for the claim that these numbers were relatively higher than the annual income of 500 tons of silver of the Song Empire. I know you cannot provide a quotation because I checked the source and neither China or the Song dynasty are mentioned even once in the text. The author did not make claims or state anything about the subject of the article. This is what is called an original analysis and antithetical to how Wikipedia works per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
An editor is not required to cooperate or compromise with another user to find common ground on baseless information created via original analysis while pretending it is not. Qiushufang (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.@SeriousHist: Do you or do you not understand what this sentence means? That other editors have not taken specific issue with your unencyclopedic language, consistent misrepresentation of sources, and addition of unsourced content is not a badge of approval. It simply means they did not care enough to deal with it beyond reverting you. Which is not even true. You have already been warned for it and reverted multiple times for the same issue. Qiushufang (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again first you reverted the fact that I put your assumption about song dynasty being the most prosperous in the world was based on one source
- Palmer talk about China in the 13 th century which includes the Song Dynasty specifically with the economic figures
- The revenue of song dynasty are inside the song article; I simply compared them to the revenue of the Byzantine Empire which are in my source and these numbers are common knowledge
- Your history of conflict behavior and WP:OWN is seen in your talk page and your behavior with the song article
- New Accounts appeared suddenly supporting you ; I suspect Meatpuppets which is a very grave situation.
- Again I call on you to cooperate ; I m sure the arbitration here perhaps prefer that solution; I m not seeing it from a western perspective; I respect China Culture and I m immersing myself in it ; but facts are facts.
Can someone please address Tagishsimon’s ongoing incivility, biting, and failure to assume good faith towards people asking questions at the teahouse? I notice looking through his talk page that he has never once responded to a concern raised there regarding his conduct. I hope I’m reporting this properly, and I think there is a policy requiring me to notify Tagishsimon, which I’ll do but I don’t know the right template (hopefully someone can fix it for me). Cynidens (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I don't understand how that's relevant to the diffs I've sent. I of course completely agree with WP:DENY, but the diffs I've presented show that quite a few people have expressed concern about his bitey conduct towards people at the Teahouse or at AfC. No one expects him to respond to the obviously NOTHERE & troll messages, but there are plenty of good-faith editors, or at least people who we ought to assume good faith of, in those links. I'm sorry if this is causing trouble or wasting time or anything; I've never made a comment at ANI before (thankfully). I'm just trying to address Mattdaviesfsic's request for diffs, and I don't wish to be involved further. sawyer * he/they * talk01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to keep in mind I'm relatively new and certainly imperfect in comparable ways, and I don't want to dissuade Tagishsimon; I think they are very good in their work in the Teahouse overall.
That said, having seen patterns represented by the above examples, it often feels like they do not particularly enjoy volunteering at the Teahouse. If they have tone problems that need to be addressed—I don't feel comfortable saying whether they do—they are of a sort where the line is never crossed in any given thread, but perhaps it is often straddled when one zooms out. Sometimes, it may seem hostile or bite-y from the perspective of a total newcomer. Remsense留07:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: may seem hostile or bite-y from the perspective of a total newcomer - well it clearly seems hostile and bite-y from the perspective of experienced editors too. Also, see my comment below. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I've tried to phrase my specific thoughts in as unassuming a way as possible, I don't mean for them to detract from anything anyone else has to say.) Remsense留12:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That message seems completely appropriate; your post was indeed pointless. After you discovered your idea didn't work, you had nothing useful to contribute; yet you did so anyhow. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, TS's answer didn't provide a solution, either. I've often wished people at Teahouse wouldn't answer questions they can't provide an actual solution for, as other hosts may assume they can skip over that question because they see it's received responses and assume its been resolved. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23, can you clarify that by DENY you mean "this clearly is a troll making baseless complaints"? Because I could absolutely see someone, especially someone new, feel reluctant to complain here because of possible repercussions. The base problem seems to have some validity, to me, and @Tagishsimon appears to be ignoring this. Am I missing something? Valereee (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not precisely. I was accusing the OP of being a troll/sock whose first and only real edit (their second edit was to notify Tagishsimon) was to post a complaint at ANI about an editor with no diffs and yet wikilinking policies and guidelines. My assumption is they have something against Tagishsimon but can't do anything about it because they are already blocked. I have no comment about the complaints of others about Tagishsimon's conduct at the Teahouse, but the OP has achieved their purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hey i actually kinda have a horse in this gba barbie game
from what i've seen, i don't think tagishsimon's big issue in the teahouse is outright unhelpfulness, but a lack of civility and a tendency of telling people that they've done wrong in one message, and only telling them what they've done wrong later on, if ever
except in a question i asked about changing my signature that is in archive 1206, but i can't get that archive to load for some reason, but tagishsimon's answer was "the colors are bad, change it", which while true (i checked, the contrast was kinda not good), was admittedly really unhelpful as that was already step 2 of fixing the sig, but i'm not a helpful asker myself, so i won't really hold it against them
that aside, i think tagishsimon would be fine if they answered questions right away and a bit more bluntly, and went to their talk page sometimes
I've always taken the approach that the Teahouse should be a place where, as annoying as you may think a question is, a host or editor should always respond in a knowledgeable and kind way. It has been an honor to be a host at the Teahouse though I haven't been there as much lately. It's very important to keep that page free of bite-y and snide comments. New and inexperienced editors are always looking for help and we advertise the Teahouse as a place to go to receive advice in a relaxed environment where hosts and good faith editors are ready to help them. Regardless of what happens with this I would encourage anyone responding at the Teahouse and reading my words to remember that every user is a human being and most think they are doing what's right (good faith). If you are feeling like you can't respond with knowledge and kindness then take a break and let someone else respond. It's okay to not respond. --ARoseWolf13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ARoseWolf here. Teahouse responses should be both informative and kind. Sometimes editors burn out dealing with similar stripes of ignorance over and over (this happened to a very long-term and respected ex-admin not too long ago). This is the converse of the related problem of relatively new editors giving inaccurate advice to extremely new editors, which also manifests at the Teahouse.Tagishsimon's tone isn't something I'd start an ANI about, but I have considered on multiple occasions making a request on their usertalk to practice a little more kindness. Folly Mox (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that multiple users have done that, and been ignored.
Teahouse can become very frustrating because those working there respond to the same things over and over again. But for the people coming in there to ask that same tedious question you've answered 1000 times, it's not their 1000th time asking it. When you start to feel like you can't answer that same tedious question one more time without BITING, when multiple people have raised the same concern, it's time to take a break from hosting. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has a horse in this race, i had a draft decline today by him/her/they for "bullshit-citing" which is wholy unusefull for me and i disagree as the citations are accurate for the draft in my persepective. I beleive he/she/it might have declined it souly on the basis there are alot of citaitons. TagKnife (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The manner Tagishimon did so is in no way appropriate. Being right isn't a license to say something like This seems to be a full-on WP:SYNTHspam article for someone's new code, replete with huge roster of bullshit-baffles-brains cites.Catalk to me!14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this comment was really unhelpful for me, and I had a discussion with deadspace who helped me understand what changes were needed and the issue with the citations.
Along with that Tagishsimon dropped by a left and another unhelpful comment in the Teahouse where me and deadspace discussed said topic. His comments carry an unhelpful nature and a belittling attitude. TagKnife (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your tastes, but we're not concerned with your tastes. The (class of) behavior still contravenes site guidelines. Remsense留15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to be honest. Sometimes the 'teahouse style' of supportive communication fails because the new editor comes away with the impression that they can make a few small changes and get their improper article approved. That seems to be what TagKnife has just said above. It is more kind to be clear and get them to stop wasting their time on what will almost certainly be a fruitless endeavor. MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off-topic, so I won't belabor the question, but—I suppose I don't understand at all the point that's being made here. I wish this sounded less glib, but if you don't think the Teahouse approach is worthwhile, then isn't the correct position "don't volunteer at the Teahouse"? It's not like there's some larger issue that's radiating from it. Not liking the way the Teahouse is meant to handle new users isn't an excuse to try to "tough love" newcomers within. If that's not the point, then it's a point that's irrelevant for this discussion. Remsense留17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: I believe it is always possible to be both honest and polite at the same time, without resorting to more aggressive tone. "...almost certainly be a fruitless endeavor" - you never know, you can't say that before you thoroughly search for the sources yourself and come to the conclusion that the subject is not notable and it would be a waste of time to try and create an article about the subject. And even if you know that there are not enough reliable sources on the Internet to support the notability, you could just say something like "I've searched for reliable sources, but wasn't able to find enough coverage and came to the conclusion that the subject might not meet notability criteria. Feel free to search the sources yourself, but bear in mind that this task would be very difficult." I think the response like this would be both honest and polite at the same time. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a Teahouse regular, I can say that I'm not impressed by some of Tagishsimon's behaviour displayed at the Teahouse, a lot of which straddles on WP:CIVIL. I can accept occasional blatant tactlessness over at the Help Desk, but that's something I think we should shy away from at the Teahouse. This isn't the first time someone's been dragged over their behaviour at the venue on here, though I certainly hope this is the last time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 10,598 edits to the Teahouse, and take that welcoming space very seriously. We should bend over backwards to welcome, assist and gently correct good faith new editors who make commonplace errors. It is also true that Teahouse hosts as a group need to deal with new editors who are here to promote either themselves or an employer/client, or to non-neutrally push a point of view. The challenging task for the Teahouse host is to craft a response to such new editors that is both polite and firm. The new editor must be informed in clear, unambiguous terms that they are welcome to contribute neutral, verifiable content, but that they will simply not be permitted to promote anything or grind any axes. I think that Tagishsimon has a good understanding of our policies and guidelines, but too often. the editor forgets the "polite" aspect of the "polite but firm" formula. I hope that the editor gets the message. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I decided I wouldn't get too involved in this, but having seen the above discussion and Tagishsimon's subsequent activity, I'm concerned. He never responded, either on his talk page or on here directly, which tracks with his long, consistent pattern of completely ignoring other editors' feedback on his behavior. As Tenryuu stated, he seemingly waited until this discussion was archived and continued on the Teahouse like nothing happened, despite Valereee asking him to take a break from hosting. His attitude has not changed either, looking at this comment on the Teahouse made ~6 hours after Valereee's comment on his talk page. Seems like a textbook case of flying under the radar. sawyer * he/they * talk03:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call for help: Removal of Sock puppet misinformation and POV-pushing edits
@Milktaco, an infamous sockpuppeteer, wrote two sections called “Repression of Chams,” and “Ethnic Minorities” in the Human Rights in Vietnam page. It’s been there since 2014.
Could someone please remove these two sections? After that, the title "rights of specific groups" should be removed too, since there is no need to have that pluralised title anymore.
Please read this Talk page to understand Milktaco's awful behaviour. It has been called out before:
Talk:Racism_in_Vietnam
Levivich (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Seriously, the world is such a dark place, I cannot fathom why, why anyone would want to extinguish joy. If it puts a smile on someone's face, even if it's not your face, and is otherwise harmless, just leave it be. We need all the smiles we can gather. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I closed the referenced discussion here. After the close, several editors came to my talk page, and after discussion, I declined to undo my close. Levivich undoing my close without discussing it with me, and for the sole reason that it was not an RfC (which would be news to folks who close non-RfCs at CR) is completely inappropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
