Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wefa and nothere

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENSEX TBAN: Wefa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  No, and this is the sort of thing your side is tripping over when it comes to "thought crime." That green quote does not state that transgender identity does not exist. It states that conservatives believe it doesn't exist ... which, in point of fact, many do, and there are a whole whopping lot of concurring academic and scientific sources, so perhaps you can spare us the insinuation about "all" the sources on the topic; they are merely "all" the sources with which you agree. In a field dominated in several directions by personal belief, declaring a side to hold the only settled, objective truth is at best badly premature.

  There are many subject areas on Wikipedia involving conflicting beliefs: religion, politics, history, race relations. We do not seek to impose orthodoxy: not on whether Sunni or Shia is the legitimate strain of Islam, not on which entity legitimately owns Kosovo, not on which percentage of African descent makes an American "black," not on hundreds of other contentious questions. To call the mere introduction of such a view "inherently disruptive" ... well, perhaps disruptive to a side wanting its view of things to be considered unquestioned orthodoxy, sure. Is that genuinely the Wikipedia you want? Ravenswing 18:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Can I have a link to the Ethiopian bam discussion. dronebogus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose We don't TBAN people just for having unpopular opinions. Jtrainor (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Artificial break

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

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

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

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

  I think that comment reasonably disqualifies their opinion in this matter, not that their argument (based on opinions on the perceived reasonableness of Wefa’s views on transgender care, ignoring the fact that they’re delivering them in a WP:BATTLEGROUNDy way) was all that great. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. IMHO, just the idea to put transgender care and Josef Mengele in the same sentence would justify a TBAN from all gender-related materials. —Sundostund (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• 'Oppose no serious violation, he expressed himself, let's move on instead of targeting him for his opinion.Lmharding (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose: I tend to agree with Ravenswing's view here. I would warn them per Levivich but removing them the first time they screw up in expressing their views isn't going to result in articles written from a wide ranges of edits. If they haven't been taken to ANI in the past them give them some leeway and help them learn what is/isn't OK. Springee (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Their statements are simply explanatory toward them not being able to properly edit in this topic area. Also, what I've gathering from the comments above is that we have a significant amount of editors (at least in this discussion) that are openly bigoted toward the LGBT community. A lot of this is very mask off in showing said editors' true colors. Silverseren^C 22:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's clear from their comments here that this is not an area in which they are capable of constructive collaboration, and I think some gentle guidance towards topics they are more suited for would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Warn This is complex and I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments from the support side. Beyond the hate speech, I read Wefa's words more in terms of "resignation", someone who considers themselves defeated, but will remain unbent no matter what...one great big middle finger at consensus...but that appears to be it...I'm struck that to date, we've not been presented with evidence of disruptive activity in the realm of content creation or content discussion (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, what is the consequence? We are asked to support this on the basis of preventative action, but we have no evidence of acts ... we are asked to infer that these statements are strong indications of a willingness to act (whereas the words, on face value, reflect the opposite). I'd argue the subtext to Wefa's outburst is to seek to prove that no dialogue (by their definition) is possible - by being "censured" they are confirmed in their point of view. They more or less consciously recognise they cannot meaningfully dispute scholarly consensus on the issue and they are unable to dispute community consensus. So this gesture. I would support a TBAN if there was evidence of them being shown to impede content creation or content discussion. I'd note that the London Review of Books last month published a letter in the most prominent position of the letters' page from a transphobe with a cogent, critical reply. It's a fine line, but talk pages and ANI are not a school, a public library, a newspaper, a university, or a board room ... it's the engine room (or maybe ANI is the janitor's closet). We should place this in the context of the consequence of the action, not our own perceptions of the somewhat nebulous possibility of where this might lead. Yes to admonish and warn, at this point, but refrain from stepping beyond our own frameworks to provide this editor with that they seek: proof of their righteousness. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose or Warning, at the mostNo, please, no warning after this discussion, which is waaaaay enough, actually excessive. I agree with Ravenswing and Levivic. I don't see any disruptive behaviour - they didn't touch the article namespace, they just expressed their views on the talk page. Reminding them about WP:SOAPBOX would be enough as really there's nothing sanctionable here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC) ; edited 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support The issue to me is not one of hate speech or having the wrong opinions but simply whether the user is here to build an encyclopedia, and in particular whether they can be trusted to edit the topic area constructively. Therefore, to say that they have been "warned" about their comments is insufficient because it's not really about whether they'll say them again or not, it's that by those comments they have already shown that they will not be able to edit constructively in the GENSEX area. Pinguinn 🐧 07:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature: they haven't edit warred or pushed their opinions into any articles, so a topic ban would be an overreaction imv. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A TBAN would certainly be quite harsh in this instance, as this isn't a case where there's been repeated or similar conduct across several articles. Further, this has only been demonstrated on the one talk page. I would advocate for a warning and suggest that they perhaps tone down their opinions. Nevertheless, they are absolutely still free to hold those opinions and express them respectfully in a discussion, which they have been. Going on the offensive and calling them "transphobic" or other pejoratives isn't contributory--that is behavior that constitutes WP:NOTHERE, not Wefa's. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 17:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  My understanding of "respectfully" does not include comparing the other editors one is in "dialogue" with to supporters of Nazi torture, but clearly perspectives differ (the relevant sentence being, There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.) Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  And you once again show that you're trying to get rid of an editor merely because of them expressing an opinion you don't like. Which isn't what topic bans are for, they're intended for protecting the encyclopaedia from editors who have repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. Which Wefa hasn't, all they've done is express an opinion you don't like, on a talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but I am generally able to express a controversial opinion without comparing those I am in dialog with to supporters of genocidal torturers, and also without threatening to engage in a righteous edit war against the admin supported ... propaganda arm that apparently dictates Wikipedia content. Perhaps my abilities in this regard are exceptional.

  But regardless of this, the purpose of a topic ban is never punishment but always to prevent further disruption. And if this editor were to put oar in GENSEX waters again, there is every reason - based on their own comments - to expect further disruption, and no reason to expect anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  They did not threaten to disrupt articles, so repeating that over and over again, in spite of having been corrected by others, is a deliberate misinterpretation by you, in an attempt to, as I wrote above, get rid of an editor merely for daring to express an opinion that you don't like. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you don't see a threat to disrupt in Wefa's edits on this topic (of the form "I could edit disruptively on this to fight the cabal - but really I shouldn't have to because right-thiking people would see that I'm right") - then I can't see that you were reading the same comments I read. Also, your repeated and unsubstantiated assertion that my reading s a deliberate misinterpretation ... in an attempt to ... get rid of an editor merely for daring to express an opinion that you don't like - that's an WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA violation. Please don't do that.

  I also find it telling that you have repeatedly ignored the most basic point at issue, namely, whether it is disruptive to compare those one is in "dialog" with on Talk to suppoeters of genocidal torturers. Is that a question you'd like to take to the Teahouse, perhaps? Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't see it as a threat to edit disruptively, just a hypothetical discussion about what someone could do, just as others have pointed out previously. And you don't seem to understand what topic bans are for, they're for protecting the encyclopaedia, and prevent further disruptive editing, while personal attacks, harassment and other kinds of unwanted editor behaviour are handled through warnings and blocks of varying length, not through topic bans, especially not against editors who have never even edited an article within the very wide area the topic ban is sought for... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you don't think discretionary sanctions are used to prevent disruption caused by an editor's patterns of incivility that are specific to an ACDS domain - well, then, you aren't someone I would ask for an explanation of what topic bans are for. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Pattern of incivility"? Where's that pattern? I see one post on an article talk page, a post that was removed by another editor within two minutes of being posted. And one edit makes no pattern, so how about sticking to the truth? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Full Ban under WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. Like, c'mon people! He's calling trans surgeries "mutilation" and comparing doctors to Mengele! Just earlier today, someone was quickly reported to ANI and banned for posting How many genders do you have? And what is your favourite drug? on my talk page. If that's across the line, than I have no idea how Wefa is anywhere near the right side of it. The things Wefa is saying are not and should not be analyzed as just a problem in the GENSEX topic area. They are a personal attack on every trans editor on the project. Loki (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Many people (possibly a majority of the world) would consider removing a healthy 15-year-old's breasts to be mutilation, and would have a low opinion of any doctor who performed such a surgery. Is it your view that all these people should be banned from editing Wikipedia? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  So are you also pushing the conspiracy nonsense Korny? That's the exact sort of pseudoscience and conspiracy pushing that Wikipedia has WP:FRINGE to deal with. Silverseren^C 01:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If they generalize their outrage and assert (with a broad brush apparently including patients of all ages) that "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time - yup, they ought to be banned from participating in discussions of topics where they cannot restrain themselves from deriding editors who disagree with them.

  Furthermore, the view (expressed here) that "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and ... nothing else is at odds with the reliable sources that show, in fact, that transpbobia, anti-trans violence and anti-trans attitudes are still causing the deaths of young trans people. Ironically, these are precisely the same young people that your supposed possible majority are allegedly trying to protect from mutilation. Because the feelings of those flat earthers "gender realists" are apparently of greater importance than the lives and mental health of trans youth. Ugh. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  This user is talking about a full ban, not a topic ban. Neither of you answered the question, which is not surprising since it wasn't directed to either of you. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  People who can't restrain themselves from making bigoted comments about vulnersble minorities should not be editing Wikipedia, period. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. And you know this is a bullshit argument. Over 40% of Americans think the election was stolen. In the 50s interracial marriage was unpopular. At one point racism and slavery were positively viewed. What's popular is not an indication of what is correct. What you may be trying to say is that you think this, in which case you should just say that. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Like I said, this is not a poll on whether transphobia is in the Overton window. It’s about a user making inflammatory comments about a subject they clearly don’t have the necessary knowledge and professionalism to participate in. Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I of course wasn't talking about the correctness of the viewpoint, just its bannability. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, a viewpoint is not bannable on Wikipedia; expressions of a view point can be bannable (as in this case, IMO, and in the recent RfA "expression of a viewpoint" pretty much incontrovertibly). Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Does it make sense to ban the expression of a viewpoint that's held by most people? (Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that that's the case here.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The number of people holding a viewpoint isn't relevant, what matters is whether or not it is expressed disruptively. If I were to write "cis people just need to sit down and shut up" that would have a disruptive impact somewhere between me stating that "I think the views of cis people are overrepresented in this discussion" (non-disruptive), on the one hand, and referring to "jack-booted goose-stepping gender skeptical thought police" (highly disruptive) on the other. Wefa's comments we are actually discussing seem quite clearly to fall on the "jack-booted" end of the spectum I just outlined, which is what makes them inherently disruptive.

  And in the hypothetical example I just gave, I don't think the question of how many people agree with me about the gender-skeptical thought police would be relevant to Wikipedia Talk page norms. Do you? Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would actually consider only the first of your hypothetical statements to be truly disruptive. Anyway, it seems like your views on banning are less extreme than Loki's. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, we’ve been over this, stop strawmanning people. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Who did I strawman? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, we’ve been over this. No sealioning or playing dumb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I literally have no idea. But thanks for the insightful contribution. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  This? This right here is why I called out Korny before, and got dragged to ANI over it. This kind of "polite POV pushing" needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  If they say it on Wikipedia, yes, absolutely! I'm sure a majority of the world believes gay sex is sinful, but that doesn't get you out of getting banned for telling other users they're going to hell. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we're sure as hell not some weird kinda democracy where we're weighing the personal opinions of every person in the world before we can do anything. Loki (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support These comments aren't okay, and I'm not seeing a clear understanding of that. If people use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to spread hatefuly views, they should expect sanctions. Tamwin (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Korny, That Coptic Guy, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Ultimately he went on an off-topic rant and has been warned about soapboxing. It shouldn't need to go any further than that, and I don't find it appropriate to ban someone for holding fringe views (if they can even be called that), especially when they have seemingly abandoned editing that article. If he disrupts the project in future we should return to this discussion, but I don't see anything rule-breaking at this juncture. — Czello 14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing mainstream, science based on-wiki consensus to support for Mengele - You either get that or refuse to - doesn't break WP:CIVIL "rules"? (Backs slowly away) Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not to the point where it warrants a T-ban. It warrants a warning, which he's received. — Czello 18:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It warrants a ban from the whole project. WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, and a calmly phrased personal attack is still a personal attack. Loki (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE is an essay, i.e. the personal opinion of one or more editors, not a policy or even a guideline, and thus carries no more weight than the personal opinion of any other editor on the project. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but it's a well argued summary of the implications of other Wikipedia policies. There's no policy that says I can't cite an essay as support for my arguments, in fact some essays get cited very often. Loki (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, and they often get cited as if they were policy, which I think some editors forget they're not. — Czello 07:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Frankly, it's quite sad that a couple soapbox comments have drained this much editor resources in this discussion. We need to learn to just move on. This will never gain a consensus to topic ban, and admin needs to close this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think there might be a stronger consensus in favor of a TBAN if the votes that defend Wefa on a “free speech”/“it’s just his opinion and a perfectly reasonable one in most of the world etc” basis were disregarded as invalid misunderstandings of the case. Dronebogus (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Congratulations, your comment highlighted the main problem with this ANI case, i.e. a small group of editors who allow only one opinion, and try to get rid of everyone who does not share that opinion, by chasing them away or making concerted efforts to get them topic-banned, indeffed or burned at the stake. Your proposal that all !votes of editors who don't share your view should be disregarded is the direct equivalent to how authoritarian states are being run, with elections where people can vote only for one party... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thomas.W certainly phrased it a good deal less caustically than I might have. It is not that we do not comprehend the situation; it's that we do not agree with your POV on it. I'm not sure what about that is so very difficult to understand. "It’s just his opinion and a perfectly reasonable one in most of the world" is not a claim of free speech; it's a refutation of the premise that there is an orthodox shibboleth at stake, the defiance of which is self-evident reason to impose a topic ban. I'm not sure what about that is so very difficult to understand. Ravenswing 07:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  The view that trans people do not really exist, or if we do exist our existence is a pathology and should be treated as such, is not perfectly reasonable...in most of the world. But that is directly implied by anyone promoting "gender-affirming care=Mengele". If you or any other editor actually indends to defend "gender-affirming care=Mengele", not for free speech reasons but because it is an alternative view worth considering, I'd appreciate them doing so openly and based on sources rather than through such oblique byplay. Newimpartial (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are, as usual, misrepresenting the case, Wefa expressly wrote about puberty blockers and other gender affirmative care in children, who because of being children can't legally approve of such things themselves. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wefa's statement, there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children, is by no means limited to children. Indeed, I am unaware of any jurisdiction where "primary sex surgery" (not mastectomies) is offered to anyone under 18, so Wefa must be including gender affirming care for adults in this rant (although because Wefa never gives any sources for these strenuously held beliefs, we may never know for sure what is meant). Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  That was a nice piece of creative editing. You "accidentally" omitted the rest of that sentence: ... (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children ..., showing that he was talking about gender affirmative care of children.. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, Wefa is applying the Mengele argument to all gender-affirmative care; unlike what Graham Linehan somwetimes says, there is no exception that perhaps adults can do what they want. The rationale for Wefa's argument concerns gender-affirming care of minors (though no rationale for opposing gender-affirming talk therapy or social supports has been provided), but the scathing denunciation appears to encompass all gender-affirming care. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's your interpretation of what Wefa wrote, not what Wefa actually wrote, and you can't topic ban someone based only on your personal interpretation of what someone has written. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I may be mistsken, but I think editors can actually receive a topic ban for this kind of highly opinionated commentary. I fact, I'd say there are precedents [11] [12]. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, you are mistaken, since there's a huge difference between the cases you linked to and this one, since both of the cases you linked to involved repeated posts plus multiple personal attacks, none of which fits this case. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  This case did include multiple posts and at least one personal attack (comparing one's interlocutors to supporters of Mengele). Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is getting boring, you are once again deliberately misrepresenting the case, there were not multiple posts, only one (the post on their own talk page does not contain anything that is even remotely worthy of sanctions...), and he did not compare anyone taking part in the discussions to Mengele ("gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time") (my emphasis), so why don't you stop? The only thing you achieve by continuing this silly game is to make yourself look bad. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Once again you have eliminated key context. The quote reads:

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

  There are two sides depicted - those who support the Mengeles of our time and those who oppose them. Mainstream medical authorities and their standards of care, backed by the admin-supported left wing on Wikipedia, are the supporters of Mengele (my previous phrase) in this rhetoric. That isn't a personal interpretation of mine - it is the plain meaning of the comment.

  Also, I will remind you that the follow-on Talk page comment included the following:

  "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

  Now I happen to be nonbinary in my gender identity, and Wefa has just denied that I exist. Please explain to me how this is not remotely worthy of sanctions... Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  A: How you can read that quote as Wefa comparing you or anyone else who took part in the discussion ("interlocutors") to Mengele is totally beyond me, because that's not at all what the text says, and the word "support" is nowhere to find in Wefa's text, making it just a personal interpretation of yours.

  B: The majority of all people, whether you look at humankind as a whole, at the United States as a whole, or at individual states, or any country of your choice, do without doubt recognize only two genders, biological male and biological female, and if even mentioning that belief is worthy of sanctions then we are now living in Orwell's Oceania. So what's next? Thinkpol? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  A: the key words are You either get that or refuse to and the context of the excerpt we have both been taking about is Wefa's objection to his admin-supported left wing opponents on that Article Talk page. I don't know what you think Wefa's point was on that talk page, but the plain meaning of the comment is as a comment about those opposing him on the Talk page.

  B Please see Legal recognition of non-binary gender. And if US public opinion were a reliable source, we would have to credit young earth creationism as a legitimate account of Earth's origins, and the flat earth as a reasonable alternative hypothesis. According to the reliable sources, non-binary gender exists. You can mention anything you like, but asserting the non-existence of some of your fellow editors is an WP:CIVIL violation, as was demonstrated in the WP:ARE filings I linked previously. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Newimpartial: I don't see this subdiscussion of ours going anywhere worthwhile, for multiple reasons, including that someone might get the idea that I'm transphobic, which I'm not, I just can't see that Wefa's edit merited a topic ban, or even worse, since some are calling for a site ban. And I can see that you feel hurt by this discussion, and I have absolutely nothing against you, and don't want to hurt you, but at the same time I can't see how recognizing only two genders equals asserting the non-existence of people who selfidentify as something else, we all exist regardless of if people accept how we see ourselves or not. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  You're kidding, right? I suspect if you took an opinion poll worldwide, you'd get a plurality backing that notion at the very least, if not variations considerably more vicious. As far as discussing the subject generally, our private opinions are not (and should not be) pertinent to the encyclopedia. You want to hear mine, send me e-mail, because where Wefa screwed up -- and for which he should properly be warned and admonished -- is in the inappropriate use of an article talk page as a rant forum. Ravenswing 14:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – Per LokiTheLiar, this case may very well warrant a full ban from the project, according to WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, and I would be ready to support it. Just to make it clear – I voted earlier to support a TBAN from all gender-related materials, due to the fact that the editor in question equalized transgender care and the experiments of Josef Mengele. —Sundostund (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning, per Levivich Paul August ☎ 02:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose bans largely per Ravenswing. I'm not seeing true evidence of disruption or evidence of likely disruption in the future. The Mengele comparison was uncalled for, but this seems was a single ill-advised comment in the context of some pretty broad and generic statements of opinion in regards to not getting consensus for their view in a content discussion. This is different to the incident unfolding further down on this page, where an admin wielded their personal beliefs about transgender topics as a discriminatory cudgel to beat down another editor without provocation. I think we should let it go with a warning. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban; support warning. This user's comments were inappropriate. But they very plainly do not meet the threshold for WP:Disruptive editing, which is the explicit requirement for a WP:TBAN. Going through the criteria for disruptive editing, I see no evidence of tendentious edits (persistent additions or deletions), failure to satisfy WP:V, disruptive cite-tagging, "repeated" edits made without consensus-building, or deliberate disregard of community input. The requirements for disruption, and therefore for a TBAN, are clearly not met, and I don't believe I've seen even a single editor make a policy-grounded argument in support. Other editors here have repeatedly failed to WP:AGF, by incorrectly claiming that Wefa compared "other editors" to Mengele, or by assuming that future contributions will be disruptive, when no evidence for past disruptive conduct has been shown (an isolated soapbox comment does not IMO qualify). I see an editor who made comments within the context of feeling antagonized or marginalized, while publicly announcing they they were renouncing editing the article; far from signalling an "intent to disrupt." DFlhb (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC); edited 22:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ravenswing and Tom. Five minutes ago I saw a user call every inhabitant of the USA "barbaric" and "perverted" because they disagreed with the existence of the death penalty; no-one seemed to care. One reference to Mengele in a fit of anger does not a TBAN make. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please read the above discussion. This is not a discussion of a single edit, this is a discussion of a pattern of edits on that talk page and literally on ANI with the same disruptive political POV and zero intent to constructively discuss content. There are multiple people here arguing that it's a one-off, and I have no idea where they're getting that from. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  They haven’t engaged in any disruption in the GENSEX area in the whole month this thread has been open. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Arguing that an editor has stopped disrupting an ACDS area doesn't seem especially relevant when they have also stopped editing the encyclopedia, bar a handful of edits, over that time period. Indeed, I don't think I've previously seen the argument that a topic ban wasn't required because an editor has almost stopped editing. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  It was one talk page edit, one user talk page edit on the same day, and one edit to this ANI where they said they'd disengage, which they have done for a month. I don't see a pattern (and I would feel differently about this if I did). Levivich (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is a war zone of reverts by multiple editors, and ridiculously long. Fix those issues first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Instead of a repeated pattern of disruption, we have: 2 content dispute posts [1][2], 1 disruptive wall of text, the ANI notice (no section topic?) then the DS notice (???), a user talk request to uncollapse followed by a user talk protest of being accused of holding a transphobic position (LoT was by Daily Dot, but this was taken personally), and then finally a borderline response at ANI and a withdrawal of the uncollapse request 3 days later. This not vote has been open for 3 weeks; it's used up far more time than the evidence. Going to ANI as soon as an editor, who you don't want to work with, just makes one mess in a DS topic is not a good idea, and this case is a great example of that. RAN1 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Other editors (including the proposer of the gensex tban) let us know their personal opinions without being banned. I believe the deletion of the comment was inappropriate, as "POV" is not one of the justifications for deletion mentioned in WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Close

This discussion has been ongoing for a month now and has not been concluded. Can an administrator please close this? Thanks. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree please close this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Disagree. I truly believe that we'd be sending a very negative message, if we close this discussion without a proper conclusion. The time length of the discussion can't be an excuse to do that. —Sundostund (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Any close would involve a proper conclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, the message that closing this would send is that there was no consensus for any level of sanction. Which would be entirely accurate. It is demonstrably not the "conclusion" for which you were hoping -- proper or otherwise -- but on sheer headcount, supporters for a tban/cban haven't even achieved a majority. How would that "conclusion" change by dragging this out further? Ravenswing 19:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Whoever closes this, please note that WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE that several of those who support a ban give as a reason for supporting is just a partisan essay trying to circumvent both Wikipedia's disruptive editing policy and the banning policy, not a policy or guideline, and thus carries no weight whatsoever. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any sign of consensus that HATEISDISRUPTIVE is a partisan essay trying to circumvent both Wikipedia's disruptive editing policy and the banning policy - that seems to be simply your own opinion. I would also note that the expression of FRINGE views on GENSEX topics has been fairly frequently a ground for a topic ban on said topics; one example of such a ban, which was passed at ANI earlier this year, is this one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's an essay, meaning that there's no doubt about it carrying no weight whatsoever regardless of if it is seen as partisan or not, and I see it as partisan since it tries to circumvent Wikipedia policy, and is referred to not only by editors who support a topic ban for Wefa, against Wikipedia policy (see discussions above), but also by editors who support a siteban, with some of those editors even having written it, and continuing to plug it as if it were policy even after it had been pointed out to them that it carries no weight here. And in my opinion it can't get more partisan than that, that is writing an essay that tries to circumvent policy and then using it as if it were policy when trying to get another editor banned. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Clearly you believe that editors wrote HATEISDISTUPTIVE were trying to circumvent policy and then using it as if it were policy. However, as far as I can tell both elements of this - that the essay tries to circumvent policy, and that editors are citing the essay against policy, as if it were policy are just things you happen to believe rather than being based on evidence or community perception/consensus. It has been pointed out to you that editors disruptively maintaining FRINGE views in the GENSEX domain have been topic-banned by community consensus here and at WP:ARE. Your idea that such topic bans are against Wikipedia policy is an opinion you have asserted here, but without any basis that I can recognize. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  C'mon, why else would anyone write an essay that in bold letters claims that "Expressing hateful views is a form of disruptive editing" in direct contravention to the disruptive editing policy that says that "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia", and then use that essay to try to get another editor banned? An essay that also conveniently ignores the fact that disruptive editing according to the DE-policy requires "a pattern of editing" (just like the banning policy requires having repeatedly violated rules), as you very well know since you repeatedly claimed that there was a pattern of sanctionable posts made by Wefa, when in fact only one of them contained anything even possibly sanctionable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Editors have previously been banned for denying that trans or nonbinary identities are "real" and need to be respected, e.g. this topic ban and this site ban. Your repeated denial that Wefa's similar comments contained anything even possibly sanctionable is so flagrantly incorrect that it really ought to disqualify you from commenting on the issue at hand.

  Also a point of reading comprehension: in asserting that Expressing hateful views is a form of disruptive editing the essay by no means contradicts the policy language defining disruptive editing as a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Rather, it is pointing out that the expression of hateful views disrupts the development of the encyclopaedia. I would have thought this was too obvious to need to be spelled out, but there you go. And yes, I personally think it is safe to connect three points to draw a pattern, though I recognize that editors can reasonably disagree about pattern recognition. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  "... it really ought to disqualify you from commenting on the issue at hand". Am I the next on your list of editors to get rid of? As for the rest, you have too much imagination, and see things that aren't there, that is make very odd and twisted interpretations of what Wefa wrote, and then claim he has written things that are nowhere to find in his text (as can be clearly seen in the wall of text in the main body of this case). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Am I the next on your list of editors to get rid of?" Woah. First off I agree with Tom on the fact that stating anything other then policy as reason for a ban is extreme to say the least. But on the other hand Tom that kind of language implies that Impartial is Wikipedia:Hounding you? Reading through this thread a couple of times I was fully backing you Tom but that first statement caught me off guard.Td^she/her 19:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Whether or not a decision is made to sanction Wefa's conduct, the comment "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and ... nothing else is pretty clearly sanctionable, and is very similar to the comments for which other editors have already, in fact, been sanctioned. It also seems obvious to me that the reasoning given - that transphobia does not exist because, ontologically, trans identity does not exist - is inherently disruptive when an editor's POV is expressed in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I stated above, the explicit requirement for a TBAN is Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. Both the cases you link to clearly meet the threshold for disruptive editing, going by the criteria (unlike this one), and both also clearly meet the threshold for a sustained pattern of direct personal attacks of named users. Neither of these thresholds are met here, and as I pointed out in my comment above, no one has made a policy-based argument otherwise. Essay-based arguments obviously have no enforcement power.

  Stating that a user is "disqualified" from participating in a discussion is also pretty iffy under WP:UNCIVIL, and is an unproductive tone; let's take it down a notch, yes? DFlhb (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Tom, it takes a really scummy person to call an essay condemning hate as "partisan." You should re-think your position on things. 2601:199:417E:31D0:D4F2:E0A9:5E5C:1E77 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If it had been simply "an essay condemning hate" I would have of course had nothing against it, but it isn't, it's an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• • • It is perhaps worth noting that the essay says, This essay does not attempt to create any clear definition of hate speech [...] Whether speech is hateful can be assessed by common-sense application of prevailing community norms. I think that vagueness can be applied to the general theme of the essay. While this obviously limits its application, I suppose we can presume that those citing the essay are arguing 1) What Wefa did was hate speech/hateful activity and 2) This is "disruptive" to our collegial environment. I don't agree with this view as I've indicated above, but let's not miss the forest for the trees by arguing about technicalities. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

    Hate speech is an extreme violation of WP:UNCIVIL, it’s a legitimate block reason. Dronebogus (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hang on. An IP, who never contributed to Wikipedia before, comes here, on a page no IP-user could conceivably ever have heard of (ANI), purely to post a direct personal attack, and nobody bats an eye?

  This raises questions of either WP:SOCK (actually, it's the very first criteria listed there), or WP:CANVASS. DFlhb (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  just report them then. Dronebogus (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  A sockpuppet investigation would require me to suspect a specific account of being behind the sock, which I cannot. I defer to admins here to know what the best avenue is.

  I believe ANI is the correct place to encourage admins to block that IP account, which clearly qualifies under WP:LOUTSOCK given how obscure ANI would be to anyone not already familiar with Wikipedia. The IP's contributions plainly violate WP:SOCK (which is policy), especially the WP:SCRUTINY and the "circumventing policies" criteria; as well as WP:NPA ("really scummy person" was explicitly directed at a specific editor). DFlhb (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree the violation was relatively minor and months old; a TBAN will be purely punitive at this point, which is not the point. There is no consensus here and a lot of editors have just used the discussion as a forum to take sides on Wikipedian free speech issues. Dronebogus (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree Ironically, a discussion stemming from a violation of WP:NOTFORUM has turned into a quagmire. One substantially composed of the very thing it was supposed to sanction. There is little doubt that, even with the inevitable "no consensus" close, Wefa will be watched very, very closely, and will be unlikely to repeat their NOTFORUM scree without some very swift, well supported action, as this whole episode should serve as a final warning. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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

User:OliveYouBean

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

Today, I got an email from another user to keep me from engaging in polemics with that type of user. I was offered to report the matter to the administration immediately. So, I did that.

At the beginning I will say that I assume goodwill, however, actions by User:OliveYouBean have the hallmarks of trolling, edit-warring, and even signs of vandalism in article of Adelaide.

User pushing new changes to article (also using edit-warring - per Wikipedia:edit-warring, 100% clear reverts, without partial reverts or attempts to compromise). New changes are actively discussed on the talk page. The user doesn't even try to apply Wikipedia:CYCLE (if there is new edit, later is revert by other user = first must to be discuss and consensus to new changes).

The user appropriated the article. I added content to article + sources - this user deleted it with destricpion of changes "rev edits by subtropicalman, there is no consensus for these changes and discussion on the talk page is still ongoing". However, when he added disputed information and incorrect sources to intro - I have no right to remove it.

User enter new disputed changes in intro without any consensus. There is a suspicion of breaking a rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: favoring one selected group of the population who had no influence on the construction of the city and they constitute the margins of the population. User pushing text about this to the first paragraph of the article and intro of article [13]. He write in destricpion of changes: "rv, there is no consensus for these changes", however, there is no consensus that this text is in the first paragraph of the introductory part of the article. We are dealing here with extremely perfidious trolling and misappropriation of the article. The user either does not know what he is doing or deliberately creates such manipulations to stuff his POV.

Further offenses

User OliveYouBean restore in the intro a text with an aboriginal name [14][15]. There is no consensus on the use of a name of city center as the name for the entire Greater Adelaide. According to the discuss and per many sources, Aboriginal name apply only for the centre area. This name is added to Adelaide city centre [16] by other user, with whom there was an earlier discussion. User OliveYouBean stil restore this in the intro, without consensus, against sources.

User OliveYouBean removed templates inserted by another user - templates have been inserted correctly. The content of Traditional Owners in the introduction to the article is still debatable (still under discussion), and the sources have also been questioned. Verification of the sources showed that they are inconsistent with the content of the article and a breaks rule of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is clearly explained on the talk page. The sources do not show what is written in the article. User OliveYouBean deleted templates twice (including [failed verification]) [17][18]. In this case, we are dealing with vandalism - deliberate deletion of correctly inserted templates.

The user on the talk page did not follow the comments on the sources, and even proved that he was breaking the rules of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. User inserts different sources from different cities to create a larger area together, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia rules - Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS / Wikipedia:No original research.

These are serious offenses. It does not matter that someone may have a different own opinion. Each user must obey the rules and guelines of the Wikipedia.

User OliveYouBean appropriated article: removes my content with sources from article without consensus, he himself inserts new controversial content and says I can't remove without consensus.

User OliveYouBean inserts incorrect content with the Aboriginal name of the city center even though the matter was clarified in the discussion and the content was moved to corerct article of Adelaide city centre by other user [19].

User OliveYouBean removed templates inserted by another user - among others, a template about the defectiveness of sources.

The user is unreformable, he conducts a discussion by means of edit- warring, removes content with sources without consensus, himself inserts content without consensus + wrong sources. Removes bad-source templates. The user is not willing to compromise. The user broke a number of Wikipedia rules within 2 days, including all of Wikipedia: Core content policies. It is doubtful that it would be possible to continue further discussion without his POV-pushing, vandalism (remove templates, remove data with sources) , and without edit-warring.

I am asking for help in this matter. I cannot solve this problem myself. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading talk:Adelaide, seeing OP’s prior blocks, and reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Subtropical-man disruptive editing suggests that an Australian Aboriginal curvy stick is needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the issues on this topic. The Aboriginal issue is very extensive and very controversial. There have been several lengthy discussions on this in several articles (mainly about the largest metropolises in Australia), after which other users felt that Aboriginal names should be removed. In one discussion there was no clear consensus, however the consensus was tending to include aboriginal names, but only to which there is no doubt, and if the sources clearly state what area they cover. This does not apply to the Adelaide article as the sources clearly indicate that the Aboriginal name only refers to the center. Aboriginal name was entered into the article of Adelaide city centre by another user [20]. Everything was cleared up and it was ok, but the user:OliveYouBean decided to put this name back in the first paragraph of the article's intro, although the name does not apply to Greater Adelaide (which is what this article is about). That's one of the issues on this topic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As previously noted, that I am helpless with such disruptive users, who based own changes on their own opinion (POV) instead of Wikipedia rules and then I am bitter and annoyed, because Wikipedia does not provide the appropriate tools to counteract such disruptive activities. This time, after good advice from two users (including the advice of one administrator) I decided not to get involved dispute with this type users (who are overtly and deliberately breaking the rules to push their new changes), but to ask for administrative or mediation assistance. So, I did that. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You missed my point. You are the problematic person here and a WP:BOOMERANG is indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I come from this from a neutral point of view, but I want to note this is a consistent behavioral pattern from the user in question, judging from the more recent ANI Dispute regarding them that I created and you participated in. Sam Walczak ^Talk/_Edits 17:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just seen this now. Firstly I'm not a dude so please use she/her, not he/him. Sorry if I was doing something wrong, I'm still relatively new to editing. I saw there was some back and forth on the article and a discussion on the talk page, so I thought I should revert back to the version before that started happening while there still wasn't a consensus. I tried to contribute to the conversation on the talk page (providing sources to show why content was relevant to the lead). I probably shouldn't have reverted the second time because it seems like that escalated things. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OliveYouBean, it is not "just" about two reverts. Here are serious allegations.

• You have entered content with an Aboriginal name that is incorrect and has been moved to the correct article (twice).
• You deleted templates that were correctly inserted by another user (twice). You are not allowed to delete templates until the problems are corrected or there is consensus that the problem no longer exists.
• You have restored the faulty sources, manipulated. You broke the rule of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS / Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• You made clean reverts, complete reverts, not considering that you reverted several edits done on a few issues (each with a description of changes, explaining exactly what is being changed). Without any attempt to improve the lyrics or looking for a compromise. This is typical Wikipedia:Edit warring.
• You removed the content along with the sources from the article without consensus. Typical appropriated article: you removed my content with sources from article without consensus, you himself inserts new controversial content and says I can't remove it without consensus.
• You breaks a rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: favoring one selected group of the population (Aboriginal people) who had no influence on the construction of the city and they constitute the margins of the population (1.6%). Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all, you pushing text about this (from fourth paragraph of intro of article) to the first!!! paragraph in the intro of article. This is extremely non-neutral. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man: what actually happened, as anybody will see who follows the links you provided, is that OYB made a grand total of two edits to Adelaide. First one that reverted a number of edits by you; you reverted most of it back to your preferred version; she then made a second, much more minor edit to the article, to which you reacted with extraordinary aggression. You posted a diatribe to the article talk page accusing her of all kinds of violations, gave her a "last warning" for edit-warring (!) containing the same attacks as on the article TP, reverted her edit with an aggressive edit summary, and immediately started this ANI report without waiting for a response from her. To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks. I agree with rsjaffe that your conduct has been unacceptable, especially since you have already had warnings and blocks for failing to assume good faith and to be civil. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bonadea, you wrote "To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks". This is doubling attacks? Listing a few problems is an attack?
• My report here was about 7 issues, but she just wrote about the reverts, omitting any other explanation to other problems. I reminded this user what it was about in several points[21]. I did not use any profanity, I did not use any personal attacks. My comment above complies with Wikipedia rules.
• I listing problems is not an aggressive changes or "attacks". One of my questions: why she was removing templates like {fact}/{Failed verification} from the article? Can I ask such a question? That's the simply question, but some of you think it's an attack or incivility. I have presented a few complaints against the user, and await an answer to each of them. I created a report here, not because I want to punish user: OliveYouBean or block she, I only expect mediation - a person (like admministrator) who will help solve the problem and keep order. A person who will protect the article against arbitrary deletion of correctly inserted templates. A person who will verify the sources and make sure that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are not violated. If Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is wrong place for such requests for mediation, please link to the page where such a request would be a good place. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  First, this is primarily a content dispute, and should be handled as such. Second, the only thing here actionable at ANI is Subtropical-man's behaviour.

  The comments being made by Subtropical-man have included:

  • Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all. Using the scare quotes there is entirely unnecessary, and suggests that they dispute the legitimacy of Native title.
  • because the Kaurna people are just a curiosity. I don't know quite what to say to this, it seems to be quite racist actually.
  • Political process in Australia or/and Australian customs you can use at home (in Australia), but not in an international project. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible for most people in the world, so such controversial information should not be in the intro.: This is not consistent with the policies and guidelines, including ENGVAR, and by the same logic, delete most of the mathematics articles, as they include topics which are "incomprehensible for most people in the world". Also, Native title in Australia stopped being considered controversial by the mainstream at least a decade or more ago.
  • Even, if your federal or local government recognizes the Aboriginal people as "gods", then we will include this information in the religion section: This comment ridicules reconciliation efforts. I have never seen Indigenous Australians referred to as "gods", and I would think that they'd rather not be either, just given some respect, which Subtropical-man doesn't seem to be doing.

  I think a TBAN should be an option here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but how would you feel if someone wrote: I think a 'TBAN for any comments in ANI for User:Mako001' should be an option here. Why? you manipulate quotes, you analyze quotations out of context, you carefully analyze each word by user (with intermediate knowledge of English) to find any problem, you not assuming good faith (per Wikipedia:Assume good faith), you are not wondering about "what the author wanted to say?", that's why you even accuse other users of racism. See how easy it is to write such an opinion? The rest of the explanations in the comment below. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think here some users forgetting completely that even if there was a dispute (on the content or not), there are two sides. Some users here treat unusual comments by one user for something worse than the vandalism of the other user. I think there is time to clarify the matter. I also remind you that my English is "intermediate" in terms of quality, so it may contain grammatical errors and you should consider "what the author wanted to say". The most was written by user Mako001, so I will mainly refer to his comment.

• Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all - Mako001: "Using the scare quotes there is entirely unnecessary, and suggests that they dispute the legitimacy of Native title" - please explain what the problem is?
• because the Kaurna people are just a curiosity - Mako001: "I don't know quite what to say to this, it seems to be quite racist actually" - quote taken out of context. Do you understand that the discussion concerned inserting information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? The information about Kaurna people in the introduction to the article is just a curiosity, it was not these people who built the city and currently they constitute 1.8% of the population. There is no mention of larger groups of the population in the introduction to the article, so we even have here presumably a POV rule violation. There is nothing racist here.
• Political process in Australia or/and Australian customs you can use at home (in Australia), but not in an international project. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible for most people in the world, so such controversial information should not be in the intro - Mako001: This is not consistent with the policies and guidelines, including ENGVAR, and by the same logic, delete most of the mathematics articles, as they include topics which are "incomprehensible for most people in the world". Also, Native title in Australia stopped being considered controversial by the mainstream at least a decade or more ago - again you don't understand the context. I wrote only about the issue of entering "traditional owners" to the introduction of the article. In the intro of article, there should be no data controversial, debatable, unclear. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible (or even confusing) for most people in the world. I don't mind adding such information to the section in the article.
• Even, if your federal or local government recognizes the Aboriginal people as "gods", then we will include this information in the religion section - :Mako001: This comment ridicules reconciliation efforts. I have never seen Indigenous Australians referred to as "gods", and I would think that they'd rather not be either, just given some respect, which Subtropical-man doesn't seem to be doing - here maybe I have actually used an example that is too abstract. Is it wrong? Does it break Wikipedia rules? I have been taught that abstract examples stir the imagination, so the listener looks at the matter from a third perspective. The above text was supposed to stimulate the imagination that even if this group of people will be recognized as gods, such data will not be entered in the intro, but in the section (for example Religion) - these are standards of Wikipedia. To intro of articles about cities in Wikipedia, no data is entered about the faiths of a certain group of the population.

and here's the problem. The user Mako001 takes the quotes out of context, does not understand what the author wants to convey, and suggests TBAN based on a misunderstanding of the situation. ..and what did this user say about the unlawful deleting "sources" templates by other user ? - nothing! If there should be an opinion - then I am asking for neutral opinions from neutral users, the user Mako001 has proved to be extremely biased. Besides, I wasn't looking for opinion here, but for help. I was looking for a person who will protect (do not confuse with Wikipedia:Protection policy) the article against arbitrary deletion of correctly inserted templates because one user deleted the source templates twice. A person who will verify the two sources in the article and make sure that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are not violated. Do I require a lot? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: ANI is not a place for you to discuss article content issues. You do that at Talk:Adelaide; you did in fact open a discussion there, but you are misrepresenting other editors' contributions to that discussion and their article edits – so far, nobody has agreed with you, and if there is a consensus it is against your removal of content, which means that your repeated arguments about edit warring and WP:CYCLE are at best disingenious.

Above, you say Do you understand that the discussion concerned inserting information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? No, the discussion was started by you because you proposed to remove information that had been present in the article for more than a year. You have been removing the info, and when it was restored you moved it down a couple of paragraphs; your edit summary here contains personal attacks against an editor who had simply restored the version that you wanted to change, and that is unacceptable. It's inconceivable to me that you do not see that you attacked OYB there, as well as in this very ANI thread. You need to apologise for your attacks and make more of an effort to assume good faith. You also have to stop restoring contested edits while there is ongoing discussion, particularly if you are the only editor who is arguing in favour of one side – this unblock discussion is relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 15:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, regarding the discussion: I used an unnecessary word of "inserting" in explaining the matter. The point is that do you understand that the discussion concerned information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? This is what I ment. About the context in which I wrote it. And yes, I started the discussion, but that's good because there is place for discussion. In my description of changes I have included very key words that should turn on the red lamp, for example: Breaks the ... Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Removing templates inserted by another user. Sources = failed verification, suspicion of ... Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS). I can see nobody cares, it is not important to break Wikipedia rules, it is important that someone too boldly wrote about it!?!?

Also, I want to inform you very kindly, that version by user OliveYouBean and your restored version[22] contains content along with manipulated sources (the content does not agree with the sources), which I informed about both in the discussion and in the description of changes. You got involved with the case of article of Adelaide (not only in ANI), but you didn't check any problems with breaking Wikipedia's rules, you only attack my person... and this is unacceptable. It is clear that you regard any of my remarks on OliveYouBean as an attack (for example, your words: "To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks" (sic!?!)), and it's inconceivable to me that you do not see you do exactly the same to me. I would also like to inform you that you are currently very aggressive towards me, and totally break Wikipedia:Assume good faith, especially since you not only ignored the erroneous sources, you even deleted the correctly inserted templates ([failed verification][dubious – discuss]) added by another user[23].

I would also like to remind you that my new changes did not remove the content about Kaurna people, but as you mentioned above - only moved the content "down a couple of paragraphs" (still within the intro of article). It is one thing to delete the content, and another to shift the content. Users don't need to ask for permission or seek consensus to move the content down three paragraphs.

After thinking about it, maybe I used the description of the changes too bluntly, sorry for too blunt words. Maybe I should be more calm during writing a description of changes in spite of such a clear breach of the rules by other user. My bad, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mako001, it feels like subtropicalman has made some statements about Indigenous Australians that are at best ignorant, like using the word "Aborigines" (in this edit summary), a word which is considered offensive. I'm not sure if this is a language issue because I noticed on their user page that they're not a native English speaker. I'm trying to be generous because this may just be that they don't know how their words are coming across. I did ask them not to use that word and they haven't used it since then.

On the other hand, I didn't realize they'd had previous blocks. bonadea is right that they're definitely misrepresenting the situation on the content dispute in terms of where the consensus sits. While technically they haven't broken WP:3RR they have tried to make changes to the same effect six times (I think I've counted right: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]), each time removing the same content from the lead paragraph (sometimes putting it elsewhere in the article). The last time that they attempted to make this change was the edit summary where they accused me of trolling, edit-warring, vandalism, WP:SYNTHESIS, and breaking WP:CYCLE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V (an impressive list of crimes, I am surprised I was able to commit so many wrongs in just two edits). It feels like while they're following the letter of the law, they're not exactly following the spirit of it. OliveYouBean (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remind you once again that my English level is ~en-2. My level of English does not allow me to communicate easily. I use a translator a lot because I only know a limited number of English words. The translator automatically translates the Polish word "Aborygeni" into the English word "Aborigines"[30]. Maybe it is worth writing to Google to improve its translator. Second thing: in the beginning I deleted the sentence about Kaurna people, but then I looked for a compromise and only moved the content from the first paragraph of the intro to the fourth paragraph of the intro. These are a completely different kind of change, move is not deletion. Third thing: As I wrote above, maybe I used the description of the changes too bluntly, and I apologized for that.

However, I regret to recall that the problem of sources still exists, and you don't feel responsible at all, you did not apologize for removing the template informing about the wrong sources. Is this the way ANI should look like? Everyone carefully analyzes my edits to find any problem and... I reported the problem of break the Wikipedia:Core content policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research) and no one reacts and no apologies? This is supposed to be a neutral approach to the matter? Attacking a single user and doing nothing about the reported problem? In order not to waste time and prolong unnecessary discussion, I have a simple question mainly for users who have spoken here before (but also to other users): what are you going to do about the problem of sources in this article breaking the two fundamental policies of the Wikipedia? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That question concerns article content. Article content is not discussed at this notice board. The fundamental policy violations have in fact been committed by you, Subtropical-man, in that you have been aggressive in discussions and edit summaries, calling good-faith edits "vandalism" ("my bad" is not an adequate apology), and edit warred against a budding consensus on the article talk page. You promised not to edit war when you were last unblocked, you know. If you have been using translation software, that might partly explain why you have problems with the policy based arguments made by multiple other editors in the talk page discussion. But that also means you should absolutely not make any claims about expressions being "incomprehensible to many people", and it is yet another reason for you not to edit war against the emerging talk page consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 12:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, I do not agree with first half of your opinion. This is page of "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents", I used this page to report incorrect actions in an article, first of all about remove templates that inform about incorrect sources, as well as to break two Wikipedia policies in relation to these sources. As mentioned above, I was not asking for a penalty for the user OliveYouBean, but for a response to the problem. Is this page used only for reporting conflicts between users? It is possible, however, that another page would be better for this report, for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I do not know. Second: "The fundamental policy" is only three: Wikipedia:Core content policies, the rest are just additional rules and guidelines. I have not broken any of these fundamental Wikipedia principles, on the contrary: here I am discussing the respect of these principles in the article. This is just a correction to your text. Third: you wrote: "my bad" is not an adequate apology" - I apologized twice, not just using the words "my bad". Please read more carefully. However, I partially agree with the opinion that due to my poor English, I should try to be more reserved in discussions. I think that with the help of translator I understand most comments, but I must admit - not everything. Sometimes I have to guess what's going on. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know why you think I'm the problem here. I'm not doing anything different to the other users who have reverted your edits or engaged with you on the talk page. You're accusing me of breaking Wikipedia's policies and introducing new content to the article, but I've just restored the article to the stable version as per the consensus on the talk page. Is there a reason you've singled me out in particular here? Is there something in particular I did that none of the other editors have done? It doesn't feel good to be accused of vandalism and edit warring when I'm just trying to follow what other editors are saying. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• OliveYouBean, you wrote: " I would like to know why you think I'm the problem here" - basically because when I was doing this report (8 October 2022 UTC) you were the person doing the reverts. I don't know any other explanation. Personally, I don't have any negative feelings towards you. This was a reaction to the current actions in the article. You wrote: "'I've just restored the article (...) per the consensus on the talk page" - not exactly. There was no consensus on the Aboriginal name used in the article. On the contrary, it was explained that the name referred to only the city center and not all of Adelaide, so this information was transferred to Adelaide city centre by other user[31]. So, you have restored the wrong content in your edit, twice. Moreover, you deleted templates inserted by another user twice, also without consensus, which is a serious violation of the rules. So, you restore old version with one wrong sentence back and deleted two templates, so your change naturally can be considered harmful to Wikipedia. I would like to remind you that the issue that is currently being discussed in Talk:Adelaide is the removal of the sentence about Kaurna people from lede of the article. Maybe that the discussion showed a greater consensus for leaving this information in the article than for deleting it but your "restore version" only move information about Kaurna people in the first paragraph of lede, in my version it was the fourth paragraph of lede. So, your "rollback" has changed almost nothing in this regard. Your edit made three changes: introducing one wrong sentence to article, removing templates about defective sources, and moving content about Kaurna people from the fourth paragraph to the first paragraph. I recognized your change is harmful, and since you continued undoing, I reported it here. As for the use of the word of "vandalism", it is generally a matter of interpreting the term "vandalism". If someone deliberately - for example - removes source templates from an article (against discussion and without consensus), some users may consider it vandalism. De facto the only thing that divides a destructive change into vandalism or non-vandalism is the intentions/good faith of the user that makes this edit. It's easy to forget Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I was nervous at that moment so didn't think about assume good faith. I used this word incorrectly, it was my mistake and I apologized.
• I would also like to point out that your changes were not exactly the same as other users because my changes have changed over the course of the discussion. Your edit made three changes, which two of which are wrong. So you can't say that you was doing exactly the same thing as the user before you. Editions was similar, but the result was slightly different. The user in front of you undone my other changes and you undone others. However, it is the responsibility of the user who restores the stable version to take into account indirect changes, e.g. inserting templates. You tried to do something similar to another user, but did not notice that this user may have made an error. Even if you want to restore the content that complies with the stable version, it is your responsibility to check everything and made edit it 100% correctly. Not knowing the rules and making a mistake by another user do not justify you to make a wrong change by you. Also, I would like to inform you about an important sentence in Wikipedia:Stable version, I am quoting: "Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning". So, intrusive restoration of the stable version is prohibited in the Wikipedia.
• In conclusion, we both made mistakes. I hope we both learn from this discussion to prevent similar mistakes in the future. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok so I've got three points and after that I'm going to stop responding here because I don't think this conversation is going anywhere and this isn't the place to discuss content disputes.

Firstly, "There was no consensus on the Aboriginal name used in the article. On the contrary, it was explained that the name referred to only the city center and not all of Adelaide, so this information was transferred to Adelaide city centre by other user[32]." You're right that the name refers to the city centre, but the consensus of every user except for you was to include it. If you disagree, that's a content dispute and the conversation belongs on the talk page, not here.

Secondly, I was fully aware of the changes I was making when I did my reverts, which I explained on the talk page. You're again claiming that my changes were against consensus, and you're saying that they were harmful. Ok then, talk about that on the talk page. Again, that's a content dispute and the conversation belongs on the talk page, not here.

Thirdly, you are right that I was using "stable version" incorrectly. I should have been saying that I was reverting to the consensus version. That's my mistake, I'm still not 100% on all of the vocab here. OliveYouBean (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• OliveYouBean, you wrote: "Secondly, I was fully aware of the changes I was making when I did my reverts, which I explained on the talk page. You're again claiming that my changes were against consensus, and you're saying that they were harmful" - once again you did not understand what I am writing about. I'll explain it one more time, one last time. I understand that you wanted to restore a piece of text (about Kaurna) that was supported by a stable version or consensus, however, you must have restored the text (about Kaurna) along with the templates about sources. Even if you wanted to restore deleted text (about Kaurna), you were not allowed to delete templates. You could have pasted the templates manually. That's easy, just copy the template code (like {{Failed verifi.....) from the left window (my previous changes) and paste into the right window (your stable version) - see link. Wikipedia is not only about automatic reverts, many changes are done manually. Just use the [Show preview] button before saving, enter the template code and save. Simple.
• You wrote: "I don't think this conversation is going anywhere and this isn't the place to discuss content disputes. (...) Ok then, talk about that on the talk page. Again, that's a content dispute and the conversation belongs on the talk page, not here" - I fully agree with you. Overall, the topic of this discussion is exhausted. The rest of topics is content disputes, for that the place is in Talk:Adelaide. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@OliveYouBean @Bonadea If you look at the diffs that I have provided below, Subtropical-man is well aware that they have been using a racial slur for months and continue to do so. They have been asked not to by several people, including an Aboriginal Wikipedian. Them pleading ignorance based on their translator is simply false, as they have argued before that they should be allowed to use this word and will continue to. Poketama (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe @Sam Walczak Poketama (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Further discussion is here: Talk:Adelaide. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 04:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical-man

per Wikipedia:BOOMERANG

I have only had time to skim this discussion. With a disclaimer that I've had extended disputes with them, I believe Subtropical-man should be topic banned.

•The most obvious reason for this is that they extensively use the racial slur 'aborigine' in their edits and refuse to stop. They have been doing it for months with many, many people calling them out on it. They have argued in the past that they should not have to stop using this word, so their statement here about it being a machine translation error is false. They are well aware that it is a slur. If I was using the n-word on talk pages because my translator did it I would be swiftly stopped. Examples: (search for 'aborigine') https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sydney https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=1089970651&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth&diff=prev&oldid=1080133107&diffmode=source (in edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide&diff=prev&oldid=1114342636 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1105523833

•They have no connection to the topic or Australia, but have extensively commented on it over this year and repeatedly deleted Aboriginal names and content from articles. They do not contribute to articles on Australia besides deleting this content.

•They take an extreme viewpoint that information about Aboriginal people is "useless" and irrelevant because they are not relevant to modern communities. This is a prejudiced viewpoint, its hard not to see it as such. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth&diff=prev&oldid=1080136308&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1105751414 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1106040401&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OliveYouBean&diff=prev&oldid=1114796848 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaide&diff=1112101164&oldid=1111986176

•They have continued to make edits that go against an RFC that they contributed to but did not agree with the outcome of, as noted in this diff where they dispute the closer. (The closer noted the RFC supported the well-cited inclusion of Aboriginal placenames in the lead of articles) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poketama&diff=prev&oldid=1105513669&diffmode=source

•Due to their unfamiliarity with the topic, they often make ignorant deletions based on 'lack of evidence' when there are citations and it is a well known fact. For example most people in Sydney or Adelaide learn which Aboriginal people are originally from the region in primary school. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1106042422&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaide&diff=prev&oldid=1114691260

•They also take quite a combative approach to discussion and have been asked to not do this in the past and been taken to ANI recently, and blocked last year, but continue to do so. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Subtropical-man/Archive_1#Unblock https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1097143966 (in the edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1104910497 Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane&diff=prev&oldid=1114276927 Poketama (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling all of this, I wasn't aware that there was a broader context to what was going on.

With regard to the use of the word "Aborigine" that's incredibly frustrating. For them to blame it on using a translator here even though they've previously tried to argue that it's a normal word they should be allowed to use is disingenuous at best.

I have been trying to assume good faith about the content dispute, and it seemed like it boiled down to a referencing issue (hence their accusations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS), but after I added a reference which pretty much spelled out exactly what the article says they still tried to insist the referencing wasn't sufficient. The fact that they've done this on multiple articles before makes me think they either a) don't have the understanding to edit in this area or b) are trying to push a POV that Indigenous Australians aren't relevant.

I would support a topic ban. I can see in their block log that their unblock has the summary "with a short leash ... per commitment to adhere to WP:3RR regardless of other editors' behavior [33]". I think there could be a basis for another indef block because they have been belligerent and edit warring since this unblock, but unless there's issues with their editing in other areas I'd rather just go with a topic ban.

Also @Poketama: could you please sign after the diffs? I was a bit confused who had posted this at first. OliveYouBean (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It is both a) and b). They continually make nonsensical arguments because they don't understand the topic, don't have English fluency, and don't read the article, but they also are explicitly pushing their POV (as they even say on this thread they do not think Aboriginal people are relevant).

This discussion is a good example of their bizarre behaviour. Poketama (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow... it's so bizarre to see them make the exact same arguments two months ago that they're trying to make now. This diff in particular is almost word-for-word the stuff they've been accusing me of doing, accusing people of breaking WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. OliveYouBean (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• First case. As I mentioned, I use the translator for most of the longer comments. I don't have time to correct correctly translated words that are used around the world. Sometimes, when I have more time and I remember that there was something about these people, offended at the word "Aboriginal", then I correct the word. So I have also used the preferred word many times.I don't use the word Aboriginal on purpose, I just have more important problems - e.g. that the grammar of the sentence is correct and that my comment is understandable to other people at all. It with every sentence translated in Google Translator I have to change the correct (normal, not offensive, non-vulgar) words because they may be offensive to someone!?! This is absurd. I wonder if there was a tradition in Poland that it is forbidden to write about Poland in English language because it is offensive, would English Wikipedia remove all articles about Poland because it is offensive to Poles? I doubt it! I would also like to remind you that these names were used in Wikipedia by many users - which Poketama knew it very well: [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. So, many users used the name of "Aboriginal", but since I am opponent the changes made by user Poketama, when I use that word of "Aboriginal" , must be "slurs"!?! Very clever Poketama, very clever.
• Second case: most links (like [61][62] etc) by user Poketama mean nothing. Poketama believes that if I make any argument that the information in the introduction to the article about the Aboriginal tribe who did not build the city and constitute a fraction of the city's population is redundant, he considers it an ethnic attack or something and that I attacking these people. Please take into account that I am from Poland and I see the problem of Australian articles from a third person perspective. I can see that Australia's current policy of honoring Aboriginal people is currently affecting netral Wikipedia.
• Third case: user Poketama pointed out that I may be non-neutral on this topic, but the truth is that it is user Poketama who exhibits cleary POV behavior, inserts massively Aboriginal names (including debatable ones) into the introductions of articles about various cities and other places, as well as information about Aboriginal tribes. I remind you that not to the section on history, but to the intro to the article.
• I would also like to point out that in the two big discussions (in Perth and Sydney) I was right - the controversial passages from the article were removed by consensus. It's not that I'm lonely and only I have that opinion.
• I would also like to point out that user Poketama used a personal attack accusing me of using "slurs" in name of this section of discusion ("Subtropical-man's conduct and use of slurs). Occasional use of a name from Google Translator which may be offensive to a certain group of people is not "slurs". I change the section name to neutral. Also, do not forget that because you have created a thread against another user (with whom you have a conflict), while you create of your actions which may be break the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (mass insertion of information about a selected group of people into the intro of many Australian articles), as well as the motive: the desire to get rid of the user who noticed this problem - it is fully justified that you to be subject to Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. It is not unusual to have information about the historical inhabitants of a place in an article on a city.
  2. Why are you continuing to double down on using slurs?

  Poketama (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• 1. My English is not good, but please stop pretending you don't know what's going on. I have repeated many times in discussions, I do not mind added informations about Aboriginal peoples in articles, e.g. in the History section. I am only opposed to your mass insertion of this information to intro of the article.
  2. Where? please give me a quote. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

     Aborigines is a slur. It's "Aboriginal Australians". Levivich (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

     I think the word Aborigine is complicated, hardly used, and outdated; Capital A Aborigine is better than aborigine, or Aborigines, or aborigines. But it’s not a slur - and only offensive depending on its context,

     These are the slurs that will get you into trouble with the whole of the small country town (with an awesome football team) I am from; It’s the country – everyone is related to everyone 😊.

     Hmm. The Amnesty article does not say offensive or slur

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians#Difficulties_defining_groups is ocn

     ‘Aborigine’ is generally perceived as insensitive, because it has racist connotations from Australia’s colonial past, and lumps people with diverse backgrounds into a single group. You’re more likely to make friends by saying ‘Aboriginal person’, ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Torres Strait Islander’.

     But this Aboriginal lecturer disagrees and thinks it's theatre

     https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-15/dillon---political-correctness3a-an-impediment-to-reconciliati/3731552

     In reality people have lots of different opinions Article about young creatives

     “Even though they require capital letters, consider these words adjectives. For example, try to avoid just saying ‘Aboriginals’ or ‘an Aboriginal’. You should always follow with a noun, for example, ‘Aboriginal person’ and ‘Torres Strait Islander people’. Do not use the outdated term ‘Aboriginie’.”

     Reconciliation.org.au)

     "Ensure that the following terms are avoided when describing/referring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as they can perpetuate negative stereotypes:  ….. Aborigine …."

     Indigenous X

     “Aborigines has largely disappeared in favour of Aboriginal people/s (except for a few older people who haven’t kept up with the times and a few racist commentators trying to make the point that *checks notes* they are cartoonishly racist).”

     So, to the style guides

     1. Amnesty style guide states Indigenous Peoples Always capitalise the word Indigenous when referring to Indigenous Peoples and Aboriginal when referring to Aboriginal Peoples. Distinguish between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Use ‘Aboriginal person’ or ‘Torres Strait Islander person’ if referring to a singular person. Do not use the nouns aborigines, natives, islanders or indigenes
     2. The Guardian Aboriginal (only use as an adjective, never as a noun. Never “Aborigine”) Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander peoples (not “people”)[
     3. Australian Government Style Guide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Using ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ is most often considered best practice. ‘Aboriginal’ (and less commonly accepted variants such as ‘Aboriginals’ or ‘Aborigines’) alone is also not inclusive of the diversity of cultures and identities across Australia, for which reason it should be accompanied by ‘peoples’ in the plural. Similarly, as a stand-alone term, ‘Aboriginal’ is not inclusive of Torres Strait Islander peoples, and reference to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be spelt out where necessary.·The acronym ATSI should be avoided as this can be seen as lacking respect of different identities. First Nations and First Peoples Other pluralised terms such as ‘First Nations’ or ‘First Peoples’ are also acceptable language, and respectfully encompass the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and identities.
     4. ABC (National Broadcaster) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander references Always upper case Aboriginal and Indigenous in reference to First Nations people or cultures. Avoid using Aboriginal as a noun. Avoid Aborigine outside of quotes. Where possible, describe people the way they wish to be described. This could be a specific community or language group: a Yuin woman, a Bundjalung elder. It could be also more general: the Torres Strait Islander woman, an Aboriginal man. Avoid regional descriptors (e.g. Murri, Koori) unless it’s a stated preference. In collective reference: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, First Nations communities, Indigenous people, etc. See entry First Nations, Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Torres Strait Islanders are a distinct group and should not be described as Aboriginal or TSIs.
     5. (Left Wing  Political Insider News letter (good read)] Aboriginal Australians should be identified by their country or language groups at first mention if known, eg a Wiradjuri-Yorta Yorta man, a Noongar-Badimaya woman – or take your cue from how they identify themselves. The term “Aborigine” is outdated and offensive; Aboriginal should only be used as an adjective. Indigenous Australians is an umbrella term that covers both Aboriginal people from the Australian mainland and Torres Strait Islanders
     6. BBC Style Guide Aborigine Means indigenous; earliest known inhabitants of a particular country. Use a cap (Aboriginal) if the reference is to the indigenous Australians; otherwise, aboriginal.
     7. Style guide: The Age, SMH, AFR, Brisbane Times, WAtoday Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people There is a wide  diversity within Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, which includes a broad range of nations, cultures and languages. Opinions often differ on the most appropriate ways to refer to people. When talking generally, terms such as Indigenous Australians (always capital I for Indigenous people in the Australian context), First Nations people, First People/s or First Australians  may be used.Aboriginal people is acceptable when not talking about Torres Strait Islanders.Do not use the outdated term Aborigine, which offends many people. Black in reference to Indigenous Australians is also considered offensive by many. It should not be used as a noun. Adjectival use should generally be avoided but is allowed when it is considered and respectful. When writing about individuals, respect their preferences. It is often best to refer to some one by their language/cultural group (a Wurundjeri man, a Warlpiri woman .Others may prefer to be known by a regional term, such as Koori (plural Kooris) in Victoria and parts of NSW. Some elders may use Aunty  or Uncle  as a term of respect. Aunty Joy Miles would become Miles  on second reference. Use lower case for elder, traditional owner, stolen generations

     That was a fun dive. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I find your shifting stance on the offensive term "aborigine" to be rather troublesome, and honestly it, along with the overall super-combative tone, is inching towards the basis of a topic ban proposal.

March 30, defends right to use the word - "I wrote about used word of "aborigines". Maybe in Australia it is a taboo or similar, but in the world this word is widely used, it does not break any Wikipedia rules, no one has the right to stop me from using the word of "aborigines"... and this issue can be considered closed. Of course, the topic of the use of the Aboriginal name in the article may still be debated."

May 26, acknowledges the word is problematic, asks for alternatives - "Note that my native language is Polish. I have English at the intermediate level. I don't have time or desire to learn rare words, so I use a standard and neutral word from the dictionary. In any dictionary, 'Aborigines' is a normal word. But ok, how do I write about Australian Aborigines in a single person? Aboriginal person? Other?"

Aug 20, still using it - If there is to be more information about aboriginal clans (which has no meaning for a modern city), we must to add information that the Aborigines constitute only 1.7%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the population of Sydney and the majority of the Australian population are of British origin." (and more, search for the term in the page)

Oct 5, still using it - next trolling by user Poketama, Moved this isformations from intro to history section. (Brisbane#Early history). Poketama, please stop pushing all information about the Aborigines to the introduction of the article.

Zaathras (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I think your examples spoil the full picture of the discussion thread. In the last quarter I was very active on this topic, and despite the huge amount of comments in various discussions, I only used the name of "Aborigines" maybe a few times. This is certainly not a sufficient reason to talk about topic ban concerning Aboriginal peoples at all. Besides, Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of the word "Aborigines" to Australian Aboriginal peoples. Maybe it is worth changing the rules of the Wikipedia first and then "to order and punish"?!? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have any general opinion on this (as yet) but I find the criticism They have no connection to the topic or Australia, but have extensively commented on it over this year and repeatedly deleted Aboriginal names and content from articles somewhat bizarre. Is it being asserted that having a "connection to a topic" gives an editor an entitlement to edit it. If anything, the opposite is preferable. Could you clarify the point you were trying to make? DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Having outside input is great and helpful when the user has knowledge of the topic. Subtropical-man does not have any knowledge of the topic so they continually make basic mistakes and need correcting (which they usually ignore), as well as using slurs. It's a matter of WP:COMPETENCE. Poketama (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  knowledge of the topic? WP: COMPETENCE? I have a question, how much knowledge about Aboriginal people do need users to see that you are massively added content about a selected group of people (who did not build city and are 1.9-2.9% of the city's population) to the lede article? No additional knowledge is needed to verify the POV. You favor Aborigines because that is where Australian politics is going, and you cannot understand that Australian politics should be applied to Australia, not to neutral Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, favoring one user-selected group of people is contrary to POV. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  You favor Aborigines..., there you go again... Zaathras (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Zaathras, This Google Translator is starting to terribly irritating me. In general, in the discussion, I have problems with the word because of his fault. If the translator translated correctly, there would be no problem with that word at all. As soon as I saw the error I corrected it [63]. It is inconceivable that in the 21th century translator translates to text that may be offensive to some people. This is work of Translator: [64]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Block needed Bludgeoning plus inveterate use of racially-charged language.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support: Seriously, disputing the existence of native title is not considered acceptable in Australia. Persistently using a term which they have been told is offensive is not acceptable on Wikipedia. And I don't buy the "translator did it" thing either. Google (and any other translator) will not give you a slur or even somewhat offensive word as the translation of a non-slur or inoffensive word. They are using 'aboriginies' deliberately. Why, I even had to override my autocorrect to type that word.

  Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, on second thoughts, let's see if a TBAN works. That would be more suitable here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sympathetic to the proposal, but it's not clear (to me, at least), what the proposed TBAN would cover (Australia-related broadly construed?). FWIW, there's a vast and easily accessible literature on the appropriate terms to use when discussing the peoples of Australia's first nations [65] [66] [67]; repeatedly claiming otherwise appears as WP:IDONTGETIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that anything related to Indigenous Australians (including Native title in Australia and Traditional Owners) should definitely be off-limits. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Subtropical-man: Can you please explain how your translation tool was able to output the word "aborigines"? Specifically, what tool did you use, and what word (in Polish presumably) did you put into it? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mako001:, as I wrote in the previous discussion thread, I use a Google translator a lot because I only know a limited number of English words. The Google translator automatically translates the Polish word "Aborygeni" into the English word of "Aborigines" - please see: [68]. Interestingly, in the Polish language, the word of "Aborygeni" applies almost always to Australian indigenous peoples, it is not a wildcard word. As an example and proof I will give description of the word of Aborygeni in the most renowned Polish encyclopedia - Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN. So, Google Translator automatically translates the Polish word of "Aborygeni", which only applies to Australian indigenous people, as word of "Aborigines", which is offensive to this group of people. Even (in the earlier discussion thread) I wrote, and I quote: "Maybe it is worth writing to Google to improve its translator". I guarantee that if the Google Translator would automatically translate the Polish word of Aborygeni" to English "Aboriginal people" - this thread of discussion would not even exist. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  The Google translator automatically translates the Polish word "Aborygeni" into the English word of "Aborigines"

  When you know the word you're selecting is going to translate into an offensive term, and continue using that word, you cannot simple claim it's a translation tool error. You are choosing the input term while knowing the output will be offensive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  However, it is worth paying attention to one key matter: even if I neglect corrections after translator work, it does not mean that I intentionally and deliberately insert an offensive word just to offend someone. This is a key difference! Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bullshit. You have been told REPEATEDLY that it is offensive, so the onus is on YOU to NOT type that word into the Wikipedia. You are responsible for what words are included when you hit that big blue "Publish Changes" button below, so if you do it after being told, then yes, you are being "intentionally and deliberately" offensive. Zaathras (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please do not use swearwords.Secondly: You did not understand point what I was writing about. You don't make a distinction between two things: obligation and intention. Neglect corrections after translator work it's a completely different act than "intentionally and deliberately" inserting offensive words for one purpose: to offend other people. In order for you to understand that these are diametrical differences, I will give you a real-life example:

  1) the driver who has been asked to drive careful several times, hit a pedestrian

  2) the driver deliberately ran over a pedestrian to kill

  The first driver will be accused of causing an accident due to careless driving, the second driver will be charged with murder. So it is clear that depending on the intention, the classification of the act changes. It was never my intention to deliberately offend Aboriginal people. I even wrote about it few times before. I was inserting content from the translator without proofreading caused, inter alia, by not attention to detail and haste, but never out of wanting to offend these people. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. Do not utter this racial slur on the Wikipedia again. That's all there is to it, and if you can't understand that, then WP:CIR must be considered. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I understand. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I think a TBAN would be sufficient. There are multiple ANI threads about Subtropical-man, his edit warring, and his aggressive discussion style, going back as far as 2012. In 2015, one of these threads was closed with the comment "Final warning: Anything remotely close to a personal attack or canvassing by Sub-Tropixal Man[sic] will lead to a block next time." In September 2020, STM was indef blocked for personal attacks in connection with LGBTQ topics, and was unblocked in June 2021 after a commitment not to edit war or blame other editors. Six months later this sub-thread from December 2021 includes requests for a TBAN from AfDs after multiple personal attacks and a failure to assume good faith in pornography related article discussions, but there was no consensus there. This thread from July this year reported that STM had attacked another editor after an edit that had to do with administrative divisions of Malta(!). That again ended without any sanctions, but with yet another strong caution, "Just stick to the issue at hand and leave all the personal commentary out." The current thread shows very clearly that STM is not capable of doing that.

The problems with STM's behaviour also include WP:IDHT. Taking the use of the word "aborigine" as an example, STM has claimed to have an extensive and thorough knowledge about English, such as "in the world this word is widely used" (30 March 2022), "I don't have time or desire to learn rare words, so I use a standard and neutral word from the dictionary. In any dictionary, 'Aborigines' is a normal word." (26 May 2022), "It may be clear to Australians, but not to the rest of the world." (21 Aug 2022) – and to have a very poor grasp of English, to the point where they use translation software, e.g. here, 15 October. This is a WP:CIR issue; being incapable of understanding that one's own personal knowledge gap might not be universal, even when multiple people from different parts of the world have explained that it isn't, is a lack of competence, plain and simple. A little higher up in the discussion, there's another IDHT moment, where they returned to the content discussion over and over again, despite being asked not to discuss content at ANI.

If there is consensus for a TBAN and against a block, I'd suggest a topic ban on Australian topics, broadly defined, and a civility restriction with the understanding that any new personal attacks would lead to a block. --bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

--bonadea, I do not agree with your opinion. You were too negative towards me from the very beginning discussion. I would like to remind you that initially I had problems with canvassing and edit warring. I have improved in this regard. I have never used canvassing anymore and I have never broken the WP:3RR anymore. So I made a mistakes and was able to improve my behavior in two issues. The last problem is my tone of the speech, but this has improved significantly compared to what the ANI concerned in 2020. I agree with some of the people here, and I think that I should focus even more on improving my speech style. Regarding your TBAN proposal, your proposal here is also a large abuse. There is no substantive basis for imposing on me a TBAN for whole Australia topic. Problem here is with the Aboriginal peoples, there are no problems here with any other Australian issues. If you can't write a comment without prejudices to a given user, without aggressives... at the same time breaking Wikipedia:Assume good faith as well as insulting the user by using 3-letter abbreviations of his username - then you should abstain from commenting. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it a bit ironic that you would accuse people of not assuming good faith given you seem to have accused so many people of vandalism and bias. "If you can't write a comment without prejudices to a given user ... then you should abstain from commenting." is good advice, and I think you should follow it. Things probably wouldn't have escalated to this point if you'd stuck to discussing a content dispute on the talk page instead of accusing editors of breaking every policy and guideline under the sun and taking things to ANI.

Personally I only favour a narrow topic ban on content related to Indigenous Australians, but you really need to change how you talk to people you disagree with. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: I apologise for abbreviating your user name – it did not even occur to me that it could be seen as an insult, and my only reason for doing it was to make my post briefer. I won't do it again, since you dislike it. The best way to avoid acting on any unconscious prejudice is to include evidence in the form of diffs, which I did in order to show that this has been a long-term issue within different areas of the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

--Bonadea, ok, however, your diffs have no chance to show one key issue - improvement in the behavior that occurred in two old problems: canvassing and 3RR, and partial improvement of the third. I still have to work on the third problem - however, this does not mean that there is no improvement compared to 2020. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support block outright until or unless they make a DEFINITIVE commitment to stop using the ethnic slur mentioned above. After that, topic ban from Australian and Indigenous peoples of Australia topics, broadly construed. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Zaathras, while the issue of the Aboriginal people is debatable in my case, the issue of the general Australian theme is not. Please explain why you are agitating for TBAN for the whole Australia topic. Wikipedia is not democracy or pure voting. Your votes must be documented by arguments. You have not given a single argument for TBAN for the entire Australian topic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Your general demeanor and attitude when discussing this topic is disruptive and dismissive, best of you find something completely removed from the topic area to focus on. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, it is worth pointing out that virtually all larger Australian geography articles relate to Indigenous Australians. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support block 1st choice, TBAN 2nd choice - A block per WP:CIR is my first choice for two reasons: (1) anyone using a machine translator to edit here does not have the requisite English fluency to edit the English Wikipedia, and (2) per bonadea's links above, it doesn't really matter what topic area Subtropical-man edits, they seem to be unable to do so without being seriously and repeatedly disruptive (probably because of the lack of English fluency, AGFing). Levivich (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Levivich, over the past 12 years, I have made thousands of changes to articles, and my changes were conform to standard English. It is one thing to have long discussions in English with multiple users (and support yourself with a translator), and another to make small changes to articles with no need to use a translator (smaller changes + less content = more time to use correct English). My English level is sufficient for many less complicated edits, and even for creating simple articles (like Hilton Valencia, Malta Freeport, Sport in Barcelona, Gibraltar Cable Car and almost 100 others). So writing about Wikipedia: Competence is required it is offensive to me and largely untrue. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Supporting a block mainly per WP:CIR issues but statements like You, Australians forget where you are. I've noticed it before. So maybe I'll explain: English Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an Australian encyclopedia. [69] demonstrate some real civility and WP:NPA problems too. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Block and TBAN: Block for now, but TBAN from the topic of Indigenous Australians (see below for formal proposal of TBAN). If they wanted to, they could easily have stopped using 'aboriginies' ages ago. It's not that hard to reverse translate 'Indigenous Australians' (or anything besides 'aboriginies') into Polish, and then check that it stays the same when going back the other way. Simple. But no, they want to argue that causing death by reckless conduct isn't murder. Yeah, sure, but both are criminal. At this point, a CBAN is starting to seem like it might be appropriate, but I hope it doesn't come to that. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

TBAN for Subtropical-man

I see that consensus seems to be increasing for a block, but a block can be easily appealed (they've done it before), and then we'll be back here again. I therefore propose that User:Subtropical-man be indefinitely topic banned from anything related to Indigenous Australians. This would remain even if the block recommended above is successfully appealed. To make it clear, this is the minimum that I support, and stronger sanctions may be appropriate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Note:Similar proposal made by Bonadea, but split off to here since consensus for a block (not a CBAN) is approaching, and it's best to keep them separate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Repeated use of ethnic slur despite months of warnings and editing against consensus on the issue of aboriginal names. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support however, amend TBAN as: "all issues, broadly construed, related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and South Sea Islanders." --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  South Sea Islanders too? (Indigenous Australians covers the first two, and TBANs are, by default, broadly construed). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Goldsztajn:Pinging, re: South Sea Islanders? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

New proposal

Statement.

I was surprised that it got so complicated. I created a thread in ANI because I wanted to report irregularities, but... I am being judged.

I would like to remind that a few years ago I had problems with canvassing and edit warring. I have improved in this regard. I have never used canvassing anymore and I have never broken the WP:3RR anymore. So I made a mistakes and was able to improve my behavior in two issues. So I can improve my behavior.

The my last problem is my tone of the speech/comments, but this has improved significantly compared to what the ANI concerned in 2020. I agree with some of the people here, and I think that I should focus even more on improving my speech style to less aggressive version. Also, I used word "Aborigines" several times.

It was never my intention to deliberately offend Aboriginal people. I even wrote about it few times before. I was inserting content from the translator without proofreading caused, inter alia, by not attention to detail and haste, but never out of wanting to offend these people. Yes, I did get information from some users that "Aborigines" is a rude word but I didn't think it was that important. That's why I downplayed / belittle it. Sorry. Please accept my apologies.

Now, after reading the arguments in this discussion, I know it's important. I will try to never use the word "Aborigines" for any person anymore. I will also try to use a less aggressive tone of speech, including avoiding longer discussions until my knowledge of english will be better.

Previously I did improve my behavior (canvassing, 3RR) , and it will work this time.

I think that TBAN for any topics of Aboriginal people is unnecessary. I not only will to never use the word "Aborigines" for any person anymore but I will try to avoid this topic of my own free will.

I am willing to improve my behavior. However, I propose for me a block for one month because despite everything I feel remorse for my actions.

Please accept my proposal. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Poketama

per Wikipedia:BOOMERANG

User Poketama who exhibits POV behavior, inserts massively Aboriginal names (including debatable ones) into the introductions of articles (mass insertion of information about a selected group of people into the intro of many Australian articles) about various cities and other places, as well as information about Aboriginal tribes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane&type=revision&diff=1112693447&oldid=1112602158

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darwin%2C_Northern_Territory&type=revision&diff=1112248319&oldid=1109284219

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geraldton&diff=prev&oldid=1112880603

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide&type=revision&diff=1113437701&oldid=1112930251

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boonwurrung&diff=prev&oldid=1107503584

etc

The link changes look good (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide&type=revision&diff=1113437701&oldid=1112930251). I would like to point out that many users should not be fooled.

User added sources are often manipulated. The perfect example is Adelaide: [70]. Evidence of the manipulation of sources is now provided in Talk:Adelaide#Traditional Owners.

Also, I also remind you that many Aboriginal names (even if there is some source) are incorrect or disputed, as can be read in the three large discussions on this topic Talk:Perth, Talk:Sydney and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Often the names only cover the center, or only refer to names from one tribe, while other tribes use a different name for the same place. There are many problems, and the problems are vast. The user knows it very well, because he participated in many discussions on this topic (including those related directly to its changes).

There has been a lot of discussions about the changes made by the user Poketama, some serious and some less serious e.g. Talk:Boonwurrung#Point of view or Talk:Brisbane/Archive_6#Meanjin_(and_other_spellings). However, waiting for the next changes of this user, which he is trying to push his Aboriginal texts into every possible article is tiring and takes a lot of time for other users.

Needless to say, for the Poketama user, all other users who have a dissenting opinion than Poketama, they are reported to ANI. Today, user Subtropical-man, previously User:Skyring / Pete: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1110456560

Main problems of user Poketama:

• mass insertion of information about a selected group of people into the intro of many Australian articles is typical favoring one group of people and subject to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• added manipulated sources, some just break the Wikipedia:Verifiability, others also Wikipedia:No original research (including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS).
• Wikipedia:Personal attacks against User:Subtropical-man and User:Skyring / Pete, various prejudices against User:Subtropical-man and User:Skyring / Pete and also breaking the rule repeatedly of Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not gonna spend much time disputing this. I use quality sources, when Aboriginal content is not backed up by fact or verifiably disputed I don't add it (for example, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide do not have the Aboriginal name in the lead sentence because they haven't been verified as widely used by the Aboriginal community). It's not a case of NPOV because there is a large amount of content on other cultures on these pages and I try to add to it when I can, what Subtropical-man is disputing is a sentence or two of Aboriginal content in a page full of European history.

I have not reported everyone to the ANI who dissents from me, there are quite a few users who have different or opposite opinions from me but work in good faith and collaborate to make the articles better. I and a lot of other people have spent a lot of time trying to work with you.

The Adelaide example you are providing as definitive proof of manipulation is based on your misunderstanding of English and the topic, you are disputing whether a source says 'traditional owners, traditional custodians, First Peoples, whatever' when these are all interchangeable terms with the same meaning. Poketama (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. In the Perth and Sydney articles, there was consensus do not to use Aboriginal names and in Brisbane other users have pointed out to you about problems with aboriginal names for this city. It is not your goodwill - as you write above, it is a consensus (among others) against your idea to include such names in every intro of Australian article. It has been proved in these articles that these names are too problematic and debatable. It was decided to include additional information (explanation) in the Etymology or History section, because there is no place for such debatable issues in the intro of the article. However, you were not impressed by these two consensus, as you insert controversial information about Aboriginal peoples in many intro's of articles.

Second: as already mentioned in another discussion, "Traditional Owners" is a legal concept (legal definition, in the act) and traditional custodians (colloquial term) is not a legal concept. They should not be used interchangeably. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Accused of anti-Azerbaijani censorship

Savalanni (talk · contribs) is adamant on including the ethnicity of the subject of the article Death of Hadis Najafi. I have objected to this on the grounds of whether it is actually relevant and on the grounds that the source used is subpar and does not fulfill WP:RS. The discussion on the talk page did not lead to much; no further reliable sources were given, Savalanni has continued to reinstate the edit (without changing any sources), and I (and Wikipedia as a whole) have been accused of anti-Turkic and anti-Azerbaijani censorship. I am looking for anyone to help clear up what's acceptable or not; am I in the wrong for asking for the information to be supported by reliable sources? Are the sources provided reliable (did I make the wrong call)?

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know. Beodizia (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Beodizia (talk · contribs) I have never claimed that you are anti Azerbaijani or anti Turkic, please read them carefully again: They may be sign of such things, but hopefully not! Read them again. I have given sources like TRT and GunazTV about her Azerbaijani ethnic background, there are many such sources. They are valid sources from my point of view. Why you have deleted them initially whitout any discussion? But after my reverting and asking you to go to talk page you have written in talk page. But the discussion was ongoing there you have again deleted the source content, why? Why you are not waiting for Admins reaction and decition? Savalanni (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Savalanni: Since the content in dispute was added by you I reverted the article to how it looked before the addition of that content. I don't have much experience with conflict resolution on Wikipedia so it is possible I acted wrongly in this regard. I also reverted because I'm trying to keep all the sources used reliable. You did accuse me of being anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkic: "Is it not a sign of anti-Azerbaijani or anti-Turkic thoughts to censor her real ethnic background", "do something against this Anti-Turkic censoreship in Wikipedia", "The motive is clear: avoid mentioning of her Azerbaijani background in Wikipedia, it does not matter how". TRT is not an acceptable or reliable source - the article on TRT on Wikipedia states that it "has received criticism for failing to meet accepted journalism ethics and standards for independence and objectivity". I can find very little on GunazTV so I also doubt that it fulfills WP:RS; hopefully someone else can weigh in on that one. The other two sources you added do not mention any ethnicity. I still do not see the relevance of having the ethnicity in the article at all, especially since the majority of the available sources do not mention it. Still feel that it is in poor taste to argue about this so hopefully someone comes along and sorts this out. Beodizia (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beodizia: It was just one question, nothing more. You must please remain positivist and interprete my comments positively. Please read them again and try to see them from positive point of view. About TRT: based on one sentence in TRT wikipedia article (nobody knows who has written that there and why) you say TRT is not relible source! I could also find many such claims against BBC, CNN and VOA and claim these are not valid sources and so delete 80% of Wikipedia articles content! About GunazTV: The fact that you could not find much about it is not important. Because you are not the criterion in Wikipedia. From my point of view this is a valid source specially regarding such discussions related to Iran. There is also only one source about other details of Hadis Najafis life (from Radio Zamaneh); you but agree to keept them in spite of this fact that most of other sources never included such details. But in case of her ethnic background you refuse to accept the given source, saying most sourced have not included it! It is clearly a big paradox in your thinking way and argumentation. There are many such logical problems in your argumentations here. I have answered already about your other claims in the talk page of Hadis Najafi, please refer to that discussion. Savalanni (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just reiterating the same responses and clarifications over and over and I am not really interested in being attacked further so I'm not going to bother keep discussing this until an admin or other outside party weighs in. To those outside parties my concerns are 1) I feel like Savalanni went a little over the top in arguing with me, 2) is information concerning her ethnicity relevant in the first place? and 3) are the sources used to support the information Savalanni wants to add (TRT and Gunaz TV) reliable? I have for the record also asked about Gunaz TV at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gunaz TV. I already assume TRT is not reliable based on what is said in its Wikipedia article. Beodizia (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

very helpful. You have not read at all what I have written here. You repeat your groundless argumentation full of paradoxes here and in talk page. Please read them and then answer. Savalanni (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Savalanni: What's the point? I point out how you accused me of essentially racist censorship - you claim that I read those passages wrong (how could they be read any other way?); I point out that Wikipedia does not appear to consider TRT a reliable source - you don't care; I question the reliability of Gulnaz TV - you say that it is reliable in your opinion. I think ethnicity is far less relevant than details of a person's personal life - you clearly disagree. It seems to me that your fixation on the importance of ethnicity trumps the importance of ensuring that the sources used are reliable. Someone else will weigh in on this issue here and on the reliability of Gulnaz TV on the other page eventually, it's pointless to continue this argument until then. Beodizia (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beodizia: I agree, it is fruitless to argue with you. Savalanni (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am still being accused of censorship and "fear about people getting information" (1) and of having some anti-Turk agenda (2). I think this flies in the face of WP:AGF. Savalanni: As I have made clear several times, my concern is not to keep information out of the article - my concern is to keep the information that is in the article well-sourced and ensure that it is relevant. You don't, as you claim, have many reasons and soureces to prove them - you have a TRT source (not reliable) for the songs and the Gunaz TV source (awaiting someone to comment on) for ethnicity. Please stop insulting my character and insinuating that I have some weird agenda. As a response to There are many similiar information based on similar sources and reasons in this and in many other articles inb Wikipedia. You show never any sensibility against them. Why?: I have been on Wikipedia for four months; I mainly write articles on women and was horrified by what is happening in Iran. I wished to ensure that the articles on these victims were cited as reliably as possible and only contained verified information. I've only worked on quite a limited amount of articles. Beodizia (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Those words were not against you, they were about the current Wikipedia's policy (or mainstrem EN Wikipedia users) in regard of Turkic related articles. Mentioning you was one simple example to understand the topic. You may have just followed these negative trends in Wikipedia. And about Source: Who says TRT is not reliable at all? I need the reason for it. Savalanni (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I won't comment on the behavior, but only on the content.

If one considers TRT unreliable, they should definitely consider Gunaz TV unreliable too, because the latter is just a joke compared to the former.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus about the reliability of TRT World: Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.

But the Turkic identity issue is not a miscellaneous one, in my opinion, considering the policy of Panturkism widely-adopted by the Turkish governments.

Please also note that TRT World is the International and English language version of TRT. The local language versions (such as the Azeri one used for this article) are of much less professional standards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources we clearly see that "TRT World" is considered to be reliable for topics like death of a woman in protests in another country based on the following sentence (where no interest of the government of Turkey could ever be existed if we have no illusion): For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.. see also [71] Savalanni (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• As I have written earlier there are many sources which mention the ethnic backgrund of Hadis Najafi, it is not only GunazTV or AZnewsTV. Please as an exmaple refer to: The Caspian Post [72].Savalanni (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Savalanni, now that the discussion is returning to the content of the article and a discussion about sources, it seems more clear that some of the earlier comments have distracted from a productive discussion about the article, e.g.
  • 13:12, 9 October 2022 [...] Is it not a sign of anti-Azerbaijani or anti-Turkic thoughts to censor her real ethnic background? Hopefully not. [...] Why you do not accept the reality? Why you try to censor the reality? Is it not a sign of anti-Turkish thoughts? Hopefully not. [...] Hopefully Wikipedia Admins see my wrtings here and do something against this Anti-Turkic censoreship in Wikipedia
  • 13:32, 9 October 2022 [...] Why in the similiar article Death of Mahsa Amini and thousands other article the ethnicity is relevant but in Death of Hadis Najafi it is not? The answer is simple: because she was of Azerbaijani Turkic decent and this is considered to be a big problem in Wikipedia.
  • 13:47, 9 October 2022 [...] The motive is clear: avoid mentioning of her Azerbaijani background in Wikipedia, it does not matter how.
  • 20:39, 9 October 2022 (directed to Beodizia) [...] I think there is one senibility about what is related to "Turk". There are many similiar information based on similar sources and reasons in this and in many other articles inb Wikipedia. You show never any sensibility against them. Why?

I appreciate that after I asked you [73] to focus on the content, not editors, you stopped making comments to Beodizia that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as a personal attack, and had caused the discussion to shift away from the article and the quality of the sources. From my view, ad hominem statements about editors can make it more difficult for editors to work together, and can be damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, but I am hopeful we can all work together productively in the future. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr I thank you very much for your very good and professional way and manner of working in Wikipedia. I think you are one of the rare users in EN Wikipedia who behaves logically and soft. I and many other users had and have very bad experience here in EN Wikipedia against the users who want to edit Turkic related articles. They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supporters in a very bad way ... . I and many Turkic rights activists can give you thousands of examples for discrimination againgt Turkic people in this "free encyclopedia". I know one could say Wikipedia works based on rules, there is no systematic discrimantion against no body, and blah blah blah ... . But I and many other know that these claims are not true. We have one analogy in the real world: US had and have very advanced law system and Judiciary with very good rules and laws. But we know that Black people were and partly are under extreme pressure, discrimination and attack in that system of laws!

But about the topic and article: I have written in some other occasions that these sentences were not against a specific person. They were towards the EN Wikipedia in regard of Turkic related articles as whole and towards the typical "you" in EN wikipedia. The discussion were not initially about the validity of sources, it was about whether writing the Azerbaijani ethnicity of Hadis Najafi in the article is relevant or not. Please refer to that discussion [74]. Savalanni (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, just wow: They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supportes in very bad way ... And you are directing those words towards the contributors of the English Wikipedia. These are definitely against WP:NPA. We may be free to harshly criticize the Iranian/Turkish/Azerbaijani/US governments here at Wikipedia, but not the contributors of the English Wikipedia even collectively using generic pronouns (though not necessarily the contributors to other language editions of Wikipedia or other WMF projects). Please keep this in your mind. I personally won't tolerate more abusive behavior on your part. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Savalanni, when I added the standard discretionary sanctions notice to your Talk page at 20:18, 9 October 2022, I had hoped you might review the linked Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom decision, because it includes principles that are also guidance for navigating challenging topic areas. At this point, four editors in this discussion have expressed concerns about your conduct, and while you have explained that you did not intend to make personal attacks, this discussion has identified ways that some of your communication can be disruptive even if it is not aimed at a specific editor. I think at minimum, this discussion and all of the links to the conduct policies and guidelines in the various comments should serve as a warning about how to edit here collaboratively and productively. Beccaynr (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr thank you for emphasizing this again. I have actually read that content and found out at least that it is not really relevant in my case, because I am not interested in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. The aim of the links and the descriptions in that case were not fully clear. But I shall read them again to understand the sense of it, I am sure I shall find helpful content there. And regarding this topic: I have identified one clear discrimination issue in Wikipedia, I try to communicate this with responsibles here. I think there is not a working mechanism in Wikipedia (at least unknown for me) to protest against discriminations in Wikipedia, if you know please let me know how to proceed in that in best way. But real worlds experience from e.g. USA (having one of the most modern judiciary systems in the world) history shows us that there is no clear method to avoid system-based discriminations other than to protest against them, see e.g. Discrimination against Black people and their protests and reactions to it. Wikipedia is become a paradise for Pan-Iranists. They are fully satisfied with the content in Wikpedia. Even extremists among the Pan-Iranists are fully satisfied with the content of Wikipedia, because the articles have been written according to their wishes and ideals and Wikipedia reflects only their point of view and their perspective. On the other side we see extreme censorship against Turkic culture and heritage. Wikipedia should find and select an optimal way in between, not so that it satisfies Pan-Iranists and discriminizes the Turkic people. And at the end: being alone here does not necessarily mean that I am not right. I think one person may be alone in a discussion and his/her oppnents may be many, but nevertheless he/she can have right! See the history, you find plentyful of examples for this interesting fact! Savalanni (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Savalanni, the template on your Talk page refers to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, and the linked ArbCom decision states: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. Wikipedia has a variety of options for dispute resolution, including the NPOV Noticeboard, and there is advice in the one against many essay, but I encourage you to start with the guidance for editors from ArbCom for topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions.

There are several concerns about your conduct discussed in the section below, and from my view, broadly asking if you are WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia. You did stop making comments directed at Beodizia when asked, and you stopped edit warring after I restored the status quo to the article, but some of your ongoing comments about broad groups of editors seem to suggest an WP:USTHEM and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that is not constructive. If you are willing to adjust how you communicate, so your concerns are raised with evidence and in the proper forums on Wikipedia, without personal attacks against individual editors or groups of editors, this may help address the concerns raised by multiple editors about your conduct. We all make mistakes, and learning from our mistakes is part of being here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr, thank you very much again for your helping me to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner. Very helpful links and articles to read and learn with very helpful writing manner. Really thank you. I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring against Turkic related materials here. If I compare the quality and effectiveness of the discussions above of "Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni" and below it, I find miles of distance and difference beween them. Really I have started to search in your contributions list to find and read your other comments and the texts written by you in other occasions. They are written in fantastic way and are solution oriented whithout traces of violence, full of kindness. Hopefully other users including myself look at them and try to learn how to treat other users. Have a nice time. Savalanni (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. The SPI should hopefully reach a conclusion soon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni

• Comment There are no excuses for Savalannis WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS comments, which they won't even apologize for nor admit. These comments (especially the one made at 19:03) makes me suspect that they may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I stand by with I said, and would also like to add in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POV, WP:TENDENTIOUS. Why you ask? Well take a look at Savalannis first two comments here [75]. Somehow they see a section named "Solidarity with Iran" as a place to spew their ethnic-related POV. Not only is this completely off-topic, but also very distasteful, have some respect for the people protesting and risking their lives. Not only do they use the term "Pan-Persianists" (whatever that is) the fact that they in that very thread fabricate that Persians make up less than 40% of Iran and refers "Persia" as "Farsistan" (whatever that is) makes me suspect that he is ironically the one that has something against other groups, namely Persians. I have been around long enough to know that this is a WP:NOTHERE user. A indef block or at the very least a topic ban would be the right thing imo, let's not waste more time on these kind of users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

About your claim againt me about WiR comment: Please refer to that discussion there again and please remain positivist and view them from positive point of view. It was just a pre-cuation: I can not understand that a Kurdish Woman named Mahsa Amini, an Azerbaijani Woman named Hadis Najafi and many people from other ethnicities are died in Iran protests, but I am wondering why we should consider all of them as Persian? Iran is a multi-ethnic country. Who sees Iran only as land of Persians, he/she ignores 50 Million other ethnic peoples like Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluches, Lurs, Arabs, Turkmens, ... . It would be a clear disrimination to do so. My discussion in that page was about this rightful fact. Please read this reliable source Iran Is More Than Persia. Most of what I have written here you can find in this and in similiar sources. Savalanni (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The title of that logo has nothing to do with ethnicities. That woman is from the Qajar period when the whole country was called Persia. Iran is a relatively new name in English. The Iranian government asked the international community to call it "Iran" in 1935. That woman predates it and that's why that logo has been named as such. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, also it's clear that Savalanni still doesn't get that the topic was about soldarity with Iran, not a platform for to spew their ethnic-related rants. And thus perhaps a lack of WP:COMP as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think HistryofVIran has not fully understood my reasoning way: it is solidarity with Iran and it must remain as such, it should not be changed to soldarity with Persia! It is the point. As you may know I am not really your opponent, I am sure you are also not mine. We better solve our issues with logic and kindeness. I have looked at your page, you come from Rasht. I love your hometown Rasht, it is one of the best cities in Iran with friendly and open minded people, I was many times there. It was for me really a pleasure to stay at night in that fantastic city. Specially if I recall my memories at road going towards that fantastic city and if I recall the traffic shield of "reduc your speed" near that beautiful city, I feel me really satisfied. Really perfect city with good memories. I think we are allowed also to speak a little bit about our common ground not always about our differences. Hopefully it is allowed in Wikipedia to speak about such things some times besides the main discussion topic, if not, please inform me. Savalanni (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pleae consider this fact that the user: HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. Savalanni (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

9 times actually. And so what? That doesn't make your conduct less disruptive. Interesting, first you called me a pan-Iranist/pan-Persian/pan-whatever, then you tried to sweet talk me by praising my city of origins, and now this? Can you make up your mind? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I have never called you or any one here Pan-Iranist, ... . You or any other one can never prove it. If you read them again precisely I have always referrd to an unknown group, you may say there is no such a group here in Wikpedia; then I have referred to "NONE" from your point of view, and referring to NOTHING should not be punishable. The problem is solved so simply! Discussion about your blocking history is the mentioning of reality which is important to address and to inform users who may come here to read the discussion and to vote. Regarding praising your home twon Rasht: yes, beautiful city, I like that city and even I had plans to move there permanently. In Rasht, the majority of the people are Gilak, with Azerbaijani population as the second largest ethnic group. They had never problems with each other in form of ethnic conflicts. Azerbaijanis of Rasht have around 70 mosques and Hussainiyas in this city according to Vadud Asadi whos Azerbaijani family lives in this city in fifth generation (his great grand father immigrated there before 71 yeras). I wonder if you are originally really a Persian or a Gilak? If you are Gilak, some people would expect from you that you become active in Gilak related articles too. Savalanni (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

My ethnicity is none of your business and plays no role in this. Also, no one here cares what you think about Rasht nor your obsession with other ethnicities, it's irrelevant. The more you comment, the more you keep proving that you're WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I tried to make the atmosphere a little bit friendly, but it seems that you do not accept it. Sorry, but the soul of your activities seems to be a little bit brutal with no considerable amount and sign of kindness. No problem! Before your trying to ban me from Wikipedia, I was active in Wikipedia in normal way to create new articles and to add content (see my global activity too), but after that I am here in this discussion page to defend myself. It means WP:NOTHERE can not be applied for me, because the evidences for it are mostly produced directly or indirectly by your actions against me. It means you withdraw this unjust nomination, I shall again concentrate me on effective activity in Wikipedia; my first priority now is to defent my rightfulness here. Savalanni (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef per my nomination. EDIT: Savallani has now either resorted to WP:FOLLOWING me [76] or he's a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalelizade. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran my response to your re-comment after "EDIT": it is not true. I have interest in Turkish history and I have seen that you deleted three Turkish scholars from the list, without reason for two of them. But the reality is that before that you have followed me here [77] and you have attacked me personally naming my English skills as "broken" because of my typing error. I have corrected my tpying error later [78]. Your behaoviur means WP:HOUNDING of me. Savalanni (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice try, but I edited the Mazanderani people article as far as back in 2014 [79]. You are clearly just trying to throw back the rules you have violated towards me. I have muted you on notifications; I'm done entertaining this, I'll await an admin to deal with you. WP:BLUDGEON this thread as much as you want, it won't save you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I can also simply create a topic named: Indef or topic-ban proposal: HistoryofIran, and nominate you for blocking. I am sure I can find more material than you to nominate you for blocking from Wikipedia forevr. I have checked your contributions, unfortuanly full of struggle with editors of Turkic related articles, not a good sign. Savalanni (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure you can, but there are various diffs here that support my argumentations / proves my point, including this comment right here and the one below. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your account HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. But mine never been blocked in English Wikipedia. I think nobody shall block me in Wikipedia upon the request of a user who itself is blocked 5 times. Savalanni (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran You corrected me in a previous comment (thanks for it!) that your account has been actually blocked 9 times!. Very impressive! I would have a question: why you do not learn from them how to behave yourself in Wikpedia in better way? I think one or two times blocking would be enough for most users to change their behavour and learn, but in your case you have been blocked 9 times but you continued your disruptive behaviour here in Wikipedia. I think your attacking me here is the continouing of your disruptive behavouir in Wikipedia. Savalanni (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A retaliatory filing would not reflect well on you, and likely sway more people to agreeing with a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not meant it as retaliation. I have meant that it is possible for any user to nominate any other user for indef ban here! This means it does not necessarily carry meaning or importance. Savalanni (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a palce to try to limit other thoughts than your own with fabrications and with personal attcks againgt others who think different than you. What I have written has reliable sources, see as an example this one: Iran is more than Persia. Savalanni (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support regrettably. They started their Wikicareer with canvassing in order to keep a specific article (Death of Hadis Najafi). Just after the article was kept, they started pushing their ethnicity-related edits on the article using poor/unreliable sources. They attacked the entire community of the English Wikipedia multiple times calling it Pan-Iranist, Pan-Persianist(?), anti-Turk, anti-Azerbaijani, racist, etc. They seem to have a battleground mentality: Just look how they behaved in a thread about WiR and turned that irrelevant topic into an ethnic battlefield! I think their account is a single-purpose account used mainly for editing the Hadis Najafi article and will most probably be abandoned after a while, but in the meantime, wastes a lot of good-faith contributors' time. The sooner they be shown the door, the better for the community and the project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  I have expected such a comment from you here. Do you pursue me in Wikipedia? I think your comment here is in my favor! Because you mention my work of generating new articles! I have generated this important article Death of Hadis Najafi, you wanted to delete it but I have defended it successfully! Savalanni (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Don't pick another fight. You already have too much on your plate! 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  According to Wikipedia's recommendations I have tried to be bold. I think you do not know the difference between "fighting" and being Bold. Savalanni (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Pestering, badgering, bludgeoning, and hounding is not the same as being bold. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @ Wikipedia Admins, @Jimbo Wales: please stop happening of such discriminations against Turkic peoples and their opinions, culture and interests in EN Wikipedia. Please see how a small user group destroy the face of Wikipedia with censoring Turkic related topics. I guarantee you that nobody in Turkic world trust and read Turkic related articles in Wikipedia anymore, day to day the situation get worse. I warn you to stop Pan-Iranists with their anti Turkic propaganda in Wikipedia before it is too late and before Wikipedia has completely lost its worth and reliability being a biasless free encyclopedia, in regard of topics like Turkic history and Turkic society and Turkic culture. Creating a new online encyclopedia is very simple for the governments of 7 Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it. Savalanni (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Indef The above comment, accusing the entire English Wikipedia of discrimination, tells all — to users with an nationalist agenda, everyone else looks like a bigot. But, if this user is not blocked, would they be topic-banned from Iran and Turkic peoples? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please read my comments again. I have never accused anybody or Wikipedia entirely. It is unfair to interpret them in this way! I am referring to an obvious problem in Turkic related articles in Wikipedia, which are the result of destroying activities of a small group here. If you are intersted in evidences to prove it, I can provide it, but you should give me the needed time, I gather the information and evidences and present them to all. For doing this I need special rights and a shield against attcks from that group. Savalanni (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support: This user, Savalanni, has unfortunately been trying to make edits only for his desire and not to help wikipedia. H2KL (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) striking sock of a blocked user per recent SPI — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  The account user: H2KL is a Sockpuppet of user: Khabat4545 and is blocked [80] short after writing this comment. Savalanni (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - based on Savalanni's comment above [81], there is clearly expressed interest in reviewing policies and guidelines "to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner". This discussion can serve as a warning about conduct that can be disruptive and potentially lead to sanctions, including blocks or topic bans, to both deter and prevent future disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In the very comment he says "I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring againg Turkic related materials here." Which just goes to show they aren't going to change anytime soon, which goes without saying. It was literally just yesterday they called us a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" and whatnot. WP:NOTHERE indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I agree that referring to a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is an unacceptable and unhelpful way to communicate concerns. The sanctions proposed here also emphasize what may happen if disruptive conduct continues. There is a lot to read and understand about Wikipedia, and I favor providing some time to a new user who says they want to learn. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support either a topic ban from Turkic and Iran topics or an indef block, which are probably the same thing for this user. WP:NOTHERE applies. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef the vast majority of edits registered at "user:Savalanni"[82] were made at Death of Hadis Najafi, were they seemingly instignated an edit war[83] and have been solely concerned at ethnicizing an ongoing protest movement against an authoritarian regime, in violation of WP:RS and WP:DUE. In addition, they are also insisting at spreading allegations about a so-called "conspiracy" (??) by "pan-Iranists" (??) on Wikipedia against "Turkic people" (??). That is an egregious violation of WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS. As can also be seen above, they have also used pro-Turkish government propaganda sources such as TRT and pro-Azerbaijani separatist (GunAz) "outlets" during their ongoing campaign, with the former even being listed at WP:RSN for parotting the stances of the Turkish government. Looking at the compelling evidence, it becomes apparent that they are not here to build this encyclopaedia, are trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for conspiracy theories and WP:SOAPBOX, and are therefore wasting the communities' time. Take a look at the hundreds of drive-by editors who have appeared on Wikipedia over the past few years pursuing the same sort of WP:NOTHERE throughout various topic area's and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Some more examples of user:Savalanni's egregious conduct:

1. "@ Wikipedia Admins, @Jimbo Wales: please stop happening of such discriminations against Turkic peoples and their opinions, culture and interests in EN Wikipedia."
2. "I guarantee you that nobody in Turkic world trust and read Turkic related articles in Wikipedia anymore, day to day the situation get worse. I warn you to stop Pan-Iranists with their anti Turkic propaganda in Wikipedia before it is too late and before Wikipedia has completely lost its worth and reliability being a biasless free encyclopedia, in regard of topics like Turkic history and Turkic society and Turkic culture. Creating a new online encyclopedia is very simple for the governments of 7 Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it."

I wonder who the head of this "pan-Iranist and pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is?! Who are its members? Could you tell us? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am sure you are coincidentally here in this page to improve merely the quality of Wikipedia and practically your comments here can not be biased at all! You have no connection at all to the user HistoryovIran (who has been blocked 5 times in Wikpedia bacause of disruptive behaviour!). Look here [84]. User talk statistics: number one: your own talk page, number two: User talk:HistoryofIran. Top articles statistics: Iran, Persian, History of Iran, Iranian peoples, Azerbaijani, ... (all directly related to Iran or Persians or to the other side)

From your new comments here I can understand your love of Turks and Azerbaijanis (including me): pro-Turkish government propaganda, pro-Azerbaijani separatist (GunAz) "outlets" , ... . Savalanni (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic block, weak support indef user seems to have WP:IDHT about aspersions and one against many. In this report they have cast aspersions against the majority of EN-WP in several of their comments. If they cannot engage without assuming anyone who disagrees with them is racially/ethnically motivated, I fail to see how they can contribute positively. I tend to agree with their assertion that our articles are skewed to one POV in middle eastern history- however- the approach this user has taken is completely inappropriate. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Nightenbelle thank you for your constructive comments. I fully agree with you that my initial approach in confronting with the existence of bias in some WP articles were false. I have accepted this fact already in my discussion above with the user Beccaynr, no doubt about it. This kind user has given me very valuable links to read and learn, and shown me how to deal with other users here in an optimal manner. I am now in learning phase. I did not know initially how to confront with bias or discrimination in Wikipedia's articles, but it seems Wikipedia has some mechanisms for this. Savalanni (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm going to recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON. Responding to practically every comment in this discussion is unlikely to endear you to anyone 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:2D80:51A0:9D62:35A0 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the point, I have read important parts of that article, very informative; good to know. It means I should minimize my comments in a discussion, and do not comment except when I am spoken directly for example with @. I will consider it. But this point shows us clearly that editing in Wikipedia is not that simple as it is normally claimed. You need to have at least B.Sc. in Wikipedia Editing or even M.Sc. in Wikipedia Editing to be able to edit in Wikipedia in expected form! Who has a Ph.D. in Wikipedia Editing, they can even do train others as a Professor and show how to edit in expected way. My level now is student of elementary school in editing Wikipedia! Savalanni (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Let's wait for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Equaform. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Indef: Persistent ad hominem attacks have been their primary response to criticism. That's bad news, as it suggests that they may not be capable of collaborating effectively. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Paid Editors for Double Elvis

Two editors who appear to be meatpuppets are blatantly trying to force non-neutral articles into article space.

• Slazarus09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PomKiwi220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Double Elvis Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Disgraceland (podcast) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jake Brennan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Slazarus99 created the three articles. Then User:Onel5969 moved them into draft space as undisclosed paid editing. PomKiwi220 then gamed autoconfirmation, and then moved the articles back into article space. User:Timtrent nominated the three articles for deletion. There are content issues and conduct issues here. AFD is a content forum, and the podcast and the production studio appear to be notable, but some action should be taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So they're admitted notable subjects? If the issue is UPE and POV writing in the articles, then tag those issue areas or the articles can be stubbed from scratch if they are written non-neutrally. Otherwise, they are on notable subjects. Taking them to AfD was clearly the wrong move if they're notable. Silverseren^C 02:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Luckily it looks like the SPI will allow the AfDs to proceed on merit, not conduct, which should help. Star Mississippi 16:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

So I'm confused as to what happens at this point. Clearly you can see that at least for two of these pages (Disgraceland and Jake Brennan) they are of notable subjects. The third, Double Elvis Productions, was quite literally in a national publication this week. What am I supposed to do at this point? Slazarus09 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Nothing. You're welcome to contribute, which I believe you have done on all. If you have more to add, feel free, but otherwise you wait out the discussion. If you're still unblocked at the end and they're kept, you may edit them if you truly do not have a COI. I would suggest you tread carefully especially with others editing the same articles. Star Mississippi 02:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Page author checking in here. I do not know User:PomKiwi220 so I can't to speak to why they tried to move the articles into article space. After receiving the first edits I have not had enough of a chance to both rewrite the articles to strip them of their POV and also disclose the indirect paid editing. In full transparency, I wrote these pages without anyone asking or prompting - and as you'll see from the sourcing they are all of notable subjects. If per user:Robert McClennon you need to take some action, please do so against me and not these pages. I am admittedly a beginner and so am still learning how to navigate things. Thanks for your patience and for not taking unnecessary action. User:Slazarus99 (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slazarus09 (talk • contribs)

@Slazarus099 you say In full transparency, I wrote these pages without anyone asking or prompting but you disclosed a Conflict of Interest. Can you clarify? FWIW, I AfDed Brennan but did not act on either Disgraceland or Double Elvis as I thought there was a claim to notability. I do believe Lazarus is more likely than PomKiwi to be editing in good faith, but if the articles are in mainspace, Edit Requests should be used. Star Mississippi 03:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping fail. Now @Slazarus09 Star Mississippi 03:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Silver seren - I am bringing the matter here because AFD is a content forum. An error in the filing of the AFDs does not mean that we should ignore the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Slazarus09 - I wonder about the accuracy of your articles if you guess at the spelling of a surname that is spelled right out for you in a sig block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The conflict of interest I mentioned has to do with being a fan of the show. That strikes me as a conflict of interest but as someone new to wikipedia editing I clearly do not understand the rules.

Now that I understand what's happening I can create corrections, but leave it to you all to decide what to do. Of note though, I've tried to approach with best intentions and it's extremely difficult to catch up to the right way to do things. Slazarus09 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Being a fan does not give you a COI. Minkai (talk-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not directly replying to the message, but why is it saying there's no signature when there clearly is one? Just wondering, cause it seems like a bug, and I'd rather make sure it gets seen The Shamming Man has appeared. 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

—because Slazarus09 is signing as Slazarus99, apparently by typing in the code rather than using 4 tildes? Slazarus09, if you want to change your username, go here to request it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks for clearing that up, guess I didn't read that correctly, sorry about that The Shamming Man has appeared. 01:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I truly don't know how to do the wiki code correctly and had signed it Slazarus99 because the person who was critiquing me incorrectly identified me that way and in the process of responding late at night I miswrote it. Slazarus09 (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

alrighty, just remember you can use 4 tildes (~) after a response to sign it. The Shamming Man has appeared. 02:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Got it! And I also just figured out I can quite literally click the "reply" button and it makes it super easy. See, I can actually learn this stuff Slazarus09 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruption of DRN ruling, neutrality issues

There has been an ongoing dispute at the page Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for some weeks, involving the insertion of POV content at the beginning of the lead by Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that is directly contradicted by well-cited other content and thus WP:BALANCE, among other issues. Initial talk page discussions yielded no progress, so the matter was then taken to DRN, at the suggestion of admins RegentsPark and C.Fred here.

Due to repeated failure to respond promptly to DRN moderator Robert McClenon's queries, in what was recognized as deliberate sabotage of the process, the moderator closed the case. His ruling was that I had the right to edit the page as I see fit, and in the event of further conflict, I would have the sole right to create an RfC if I so chose, with assistance from the moderator to ensure neutral wording; if that was interfered with, AN/I. I had no opportunity to implement this, as Srijanx22 completely ignored this ruling, creating an RfC of his own which completely fails to be neutral (textbook bad question for one, and fails to mention the sources that contradict his additions, some of which I mention here under "Sources not presented"). His stalling-out of the DRN process to failure, followed by this snatching of RfC, back-to-back, were recognized by both myself and the DRN moderator as grounds to file here.

This matter involves two discussions and a now-paused edit conflict, but going through both would help to get the picture. IMO, while the immediate concern is the halting of an illegitimate, non-neutral RfC that Srijanx22 had no right to create, which leaves out a slew of sources from the view of potential participants, the wider issue here is BALANCE regarding two opposing narratives, the determined avoidance to abide by such, and the stonewalling refusal to address it that has been a pattern over multiple discussions now. Sapedder (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the outcome of that DRN. @Robert McClenon: for clarification just in case, but I'm certain they didn't mean that you had the sole right to create an RFC; that wouldn't be a reasonable outcome of a DRN. What they were telling you was that you could go ahead and make your edits (as anyone can do) and if those edits were reverted or if there was more conflict, you could use an RFC to resolve the issue - essentially the normal way to handle discussions that have broken down. That doesn't prevent the other party from opening an RFC themselves. And at a glance, I'm not seeing what's non-neutral about that RFC - it seems to just be asking which of two versions is preferred. You can make your argument for your version (and present any additional sources you think ought to be considered) in a comment on that RFC, which is how it's normally done. Looking at your talk page, it looks like Robert McClenon's conduct concerns about Srijanx22 are more focused on misrepresentation of sources (ie. presenting them in a way that goes beyond what can be considered a good-faith disagreement or accidential misreading, to the point where it looks like they're misrepresenting them intentionally.) You should focus on that and summarize the specific ways you feel Srijanx22 has misrepresented the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The DRN case is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_223#Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale.

My concerns during the mediation were about failure to participate in the mediation process, and I have the uneasy feeling that Srijanx22 was being strategically silent in order to get out of DRN while taking advantage of DRN to set up an RFC. I don't have any specific problem with the RFC, because I haven't checked the sources. I didn't check the sources because I wanted the participants to present the sources. I have the uneasy feeling that Srijanx22 was maintaining strategic silence in order to game the system, but I can't cite any guideline to that effect.

When I open an article content dispute for moderated discussion, one of the rules always is that participants are expected to reply within 48 hours. Exceptions can be made if an editor knows that they will be unable to take part due to real-life involvement, but timely responses by the editors are necessary for disputes to be resolved within two to four weeks. I had to comment on 4 October and again on 7 October that User:Srijanx22 had not commented in 48 hours, and then in four days. I thought that they might have taken a long wiki-break, in which case the case could be closed. During the period between 2 October and 9 October, Srijanx22 made one edit, that being to keep the moderated discussion open.

After a reminder, I requested each participant to present one proposal to revise the lede of the article. Srijanx22 offered two. Then, again, they did not edit between 9 October and 12 October, and I closed the case, advising Sapedder that they could edit the article, since the other party was not discussing. Either Srijanx22 did have reasons why they could not take part in dispute resolution, in which case they could have offered an explanation, or they may have been maintaining strategic silence in order to take the initiative when the DRN was closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

DRN is voluntary, and a DRN moderator can't make any binding ruling; only an RFC can do that. I don't have an issue with the neutrality of the RFC as worded. I haven't checked whether Option 1 correctly states what the sources say. I have the feeling that process was gamed, but cannot cite a guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am busy in real life and editing only to reply here. I see Sapedder failed to discuss this issue with me before coming here. He falsely claims that the RfC is not neutrally worded though Aquillon and Robert McClenon have confirmed that is not the case. I am not the one misrepresenting any sources. Sapedder falsely claims that it becomes a misrepresentation of sources if his "sources not presented"[85] when I exactly pasted the version he proposed here on DRN. Nobody is stopping him to modify on RfC.

I have my own concerns about Sapedder's history of being disruptive, assuming bad faith and making personal attacks often even after many warnings. See the evidence here.

If you don't know the subject then you can think about an editor trying to get rid of the word "militant" from the first sentence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Sapedder is doing that on Jarnail Singh bhinderanwale since 2020,[86] and made 7 reverts in August - September 2022 to enforce this POV pushing.[87]

What if someone is claiming that David Duke is not a figure of the white supremacist movement because Duke denies himself being a white supremacist? Sapedder uses this illogical argument for Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale by saying "JSB disavowed Khalistan".[88]

Why Sappeder shouldn't be sanctioned? It's clear that Sapedder lacks the ability to neutrally edit this subject. He made DRN toxic enough by falsely accusing others of having a "POV" dozens of times,[89] and falsified scholarly sources to be "tertiary".[90][91] This misconduct, together with this spurious ANI report speaks of his own misconduct and should result in a topic ban from Sikhism. Out of his 750 edits, all of them are about Sikhism, especially Khalistani movement-related articles and he was admonished for personal attacks and edit warring one year ago as well on ANI.[92] Srijanx22 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I see Sapedder failed to discuss this issue with me before coming here. Given your lack of participation in the DRN, I think Sapedder acted in good faith to come here first rather than attempt to discuss the matter directly with you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Check again because I participated in DRN for nearly 1 month and it was agreed there that RfC will be next venue. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Srijanx22: See Robert McClenon's comments above. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Srijanx22 is trying to confuse the jury (the Wikipedia community) in saying that they participated in DRN for nearly 1 month and it was agreed that RFC will be next venue. Ultimately, nothing was agreed, because Srijanx22 failed to participate in the DRN in a timely manner. Sapedder not only had no reason to try to discuss with Srijanx22, but could assume that Srijanx22 would not be responsive, just as they were not responsive to me as moderator. Srijanx22 had a right to post the RFC, but participated inconsistently in the DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In response to the initial comment: @Sapedder: There is nothing in the DRN ruling that says you have the exclusive right to open a RfC. It says that RfC is a remedy available to you, but it doesn't say it's available to you alone. I don't see anything in the RfC that renders it non-neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred, the ruling reads as follows: If they are reverted, they may submit a Request for Comments, or may request my assistance in preparing a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Before I was even able to take any action, the right to formulate an RfC, including with Robert McClenon's help, was disruptively denied. Essentially, I can't make much use of the ruling as of now, besides simply making my edit and hoping it doesn't get reverted (unless perhaps if an admin can ensure this). The RfC clearly makes no mention of the sources I pointed out that contradict Srijanx22's attempted additions (like the ones under "Sources not presented" here). These sources were presented repeatedly in the talk page discussion and the DRN, and were at the heart of the matter. This could have been prevented if Robert McClenon and I set up the RfC, and the failure to include those sources for potential participants may have influenced at least one vote already, as the contradicting sources were not made known to them. As pointed out by other editors here, Srijanx22 gamed the system by collapsing the DRN through deliberate nonresponsiveness, then rushed to create an RfC that omits a slew of inconvenient sources and denies me my own given options, causing a double breach in procedure. Sapedder (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the word 'ruling' to refer to my close of the DRN. DRN is a voluntary non-binding process. I have opinions, and I can offer to help. I can't stop an editor from doing anything. I find the conduct of Srijanx22 to be distasteful, but I don't think that they violated any guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Roadmap, then. The point is, it was at least a solid plan of action, complete with help from a neutral 3rd party, that could have elevated the process past the square one of constant reverting, which we're possibly back at otherwise. Sapedder (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see how it’s generally “disruptive” conduct in an informal sense. However based on your report no rules were actually broken so there’s nothing for administrators to do here. Participation at DRN is not enforced in any way, and anyone can start any RfC they want at any time. The RfC itself needs to be a simple, neutral question that gets put to the community, it doesn't take any opinion regardless of who started it. It makes no arguments either way. If that was not the case here, it would be a problem, but it’s not. I agree that the RfC is neutral and valid and all interested parties should make their arguments in the responses. If a followup or parallel RfC is needed, there’s nothing standing in the way of that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Swarm, C.Fred, in that case, given the circumstances, before any followup or parallel RfC:

1. Could I make my own modifications to the current RfC (which you or any interested parties may review), mostly to include the sources and statements that were omitted that conflict with proposed content? Ignoring sources and WP:BALANCE was the whole core issue to begin with, the deliberate omission of those sources strikes at the currently worded RfC'S very purpose imo. The current RfC framing "which version is better" doesn't reflect the core issue or context, and implies equal footing between the proposals; one (mine) is just the stable, long-standing lead, and one is trying to add heavily disputed content. A better, more specific framing would have been something like "is this content suitable to add in spite of these sources?" or something imo.

2. Also given the circumstances, may I invite back any editors that may have voted to take a second look at the RfC once it includes the aforementioned sources, and review their vote in light of them? Sapedder (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Do not edit the RfC. It is neutral, you are straightforwardly arguing that it should be made less neutral. That is not going to happen. You can make whatever points you want there and it is the community who will decide whether they agree with you. Yes, you may invite interested parties as long as it does not appear to be gaming the RfC. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I mention this because the user prominently presented their sources, then highlighting snippets from them in bold in the RfC, while permitting no such opportunity for the ones mentioned earlier, as a mod-assisted RfC would have. That's not neutral. Neither is failing to mention that my "proposal" is in fact just the long-standing lead, and that this is a conflict over adding a sentence's worth of disputed content, not two new versions. Regardless, as permitted, I will just invite back relevant parties for a second look. It will not be gamed to death like the DRN was. Sapedder (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disclaimer:- This will be a long post with multiple diff's from past few days so the administrator who will be reviewing it needs to be patient

While, I am generally not from those who posts at ANI (unless someone is a outright vandal); but now it's getting out of a tolerable zone and not only with me, this user is frequently doing it to multiple articles with battleground mentality, random uncivil rants, tangential shift of discussion etc.

1) To begin with - F&f appeared on 2 October 2022 at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor (a article they never contributed to in the past) and posted there in typical of battleground mentality that since the Pakistani editors are away and now this page is turned into a Hindu nationalist one - [93], I asked them in a polite tone about their problem with the page and they replied in typical uncivil tone abusing historian K. S. Lal as a R. S.S. hitman [94] and asked me to remove the quotebox - I did that to avoid getting into a futile argument as can be seen here:- [95], [96]

2) The editor though, showed no pause and used a comment from different article altogether to remove the entire section - [97] While, its nearly impossible to deny the large-scale temple destruction by the Ghurids in Ganges Basin, they started misusing the WP:Tertiary argument to remove a selected section which they aren't comfortable with (see here as I explained the whole argument - [98]

3) Leaving aside it for a moment the editors behaviour of assuming ownership of the page is something which can be seen even today - where they removed sources from still widely cited and respected ABM Habibullah and K.A. Nizami regarding the indentity of Muhammad of Ghor's assassins and labelling them as dated (they are from last 60 years (1970) and (1951) and not from 1770 and 1751 - diff (possibly to remove the bit that Hindus assassinated Md. Ghuri with Ismailis) and again here with "not so civil" edit summary - [[99] (omitting his well known debacle in Mount Abu 1178)

4) Even tolerating all these, the editors thuggish behaviour and branding others as Hindu nationalists, playing dangerous Hindu nationalist game, R.S.S Hitaman [100], [101], [102] and self-bragging about his own contributions with zero-regard for any other are just among many of their uncivil ranting - [103] and [104]. These instances are substantial enough to get them blocked, bar edit waring, assuming ownership of pages, battleground mentality among the others.

5) Their bad faith accussation on me for defaming the Muslim community (in general) and so on. diff, ignoring that they themself has the neck of whitewashing the destructions by the Muslims rulers as attested by पाटलिपुत्र; here - ([105])

For the record - I never edited any articles related to Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists apart from historical pieces and adding reliable content from WP:HISTRS is vilifying according to them, Isn't Wikipedia not supposef to be censored ? Unfortunately they still got a very light warning from the admin for this [106]

6) If anyone thinks that I am the only one who is having issues with this user then don't worry here is another one from a Bollywood actor - Akshay Kumar article where they were agressively pushing for adding about the actor so called Hindu nationalist bending [107]); despite being opposed by regular contributors there (isn't it absurd that adding Hindu nationalist bit on a actor page is due, {WP:BLP flys under the raddar}, but adding a religion part on a medieval ruler biography which is a normal protocol in historical article is not ?)

7) There battleground mentality, uncivil ranting, pov pushing was quite obvious there as well which even annoyed senior contributors there like Shshshsh & Krimuk2.0, see here - [108], [109] and [110]. (they promised to give both Krimuk2.0 and Shshshsh a good run for the money and not even counting it as a threat - [111]

Conclusion:- This is possibly second time F&f is having a trip at ANI in less then a month, leaving multiple instances of his uncivil tone which have flyied under the radar. There has to be some limit and this isn't restricted to a certain kind of pieces either - it's going on multiple fronts. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous thread from early Oct is at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Fowler&fowler. The admin mentioned (quoted?) as having given him "a very light warning" is Vanamonde93. Packer&Tracker, I find mobile diffs too visually jarring to easily parse, so I (and I suspect many others) are unlikely to review your complaint closely until these are converted to normal diffs. El_C 12:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments of Fowler&fowler

I was going to post at AE to request that Packer&Tracker (talk · contribs) be topic banned from medieval India-related topics broadly construed, but they beat me to it and brought our dispute here while I was asleep. They have been blocked before for tendentious editing on controversial Hinduism-related pages such as Persecution of Hindus. Let me begin with their last bone of contention, the page of Akshay Kumar, a Bollywood superstar, where I have painstakingly collected a total of 15 sources, all highly reliable, 13 from newspapers and news magazines (including BBC, Caravan Magazine, The New Yorker, South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, and a host of Indian newspapers and one from Nepal, all have very likely passed muster at RS/N) and two journal articles. Together they make a decisive case that the actor has promoted Hindu-majoritarian views in some of his films and in interviews granted to the media. Here are the references: Talk:Akshay_Kumar#F&f's_sources_on_Akshay_Kumar's_political_canvassing_for_the_Hindu_right

BLP concerns cannot be employed as a kind of universal trump card to make any living person immune from criticism. To say that I do not know about due weight when I have spent my 16 years on Wikipedia pursuing just that, on a large number of South Asia-related articles (including the flagships the FA India and History of Pakistan) does not add up.

At the Muhammad of Ghor too I have collected highly reliable sources: Talk:Muhammad_of_Ghor#F&f's_modern_introductory_broad-scale_history_books_on_South_Asia_and_Islamic_societies I will add diffs of Packer&Tracker's edits promoting original research to promote the Hindutva view later. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of you should explain the problem or problems briefly and present a limited number of diffs (non-mobile) alongside brief summaries. These ought to be prioritized with both the recent and the egregious in mind. Otherwise, the chances of an uninvolved review of either complaint drops considerably. I'd also recommend to limit boldface (P&t) and unnecessary links (F&f), because it just makes each post jarring to look at. El_C 14:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Do what you must user:El_C and other administrators. I will not go out of my way to cater to what you find necessary to make life easy for yourselves. I am tired of relentless POV pushing by Hindu nationalists, equally tired of cautious pussyfooting administrators on Wikipedia who refuse to do the work they need to for examining the record of a blatant POV-pusher. It is apparently easier to penalize productive editors with a long record of NPOV for minor issues of behavior than do the work admins need to do to maintain a reliable encyclopedia. Editors such as I get baited again and again by POV-pushers until we blow up. I'm done. I will shortly make an announcement that I will stop editing the major South Asia-related articles. I will also ask user:SandyGeorgia at the India WP:FAR that it be delisted because given Wikipedia's priorities, it will never be stable. Pinging @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Bishonen, Abecedare, Sitush, Bb223, and TrangaBellam: I'm sure there are many others, but I'm done. If you want to permanently ban me, be my guest. Wikipedia has done me no favors, none at all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a pity that is happening with you El_C because I thought we had a good relationship going all the way back to Kashmir. But c'est la vie. Nothing personal is meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I'm not gonna do anything. I'm perfectly content in leaving both of you to your own devices. You can take my suggestions at face value or ignore them. It's all the same to me at this point. El_C 15:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm with El_C on this, that briefer, with minimal non-mobile diffs, will make this easier to parse. I'd also add that, Packer&tracker, you rewrite your post without the egregious attacks they include ("thuggish behavior", "whitewashing", etc.) and without throwing the kitchen sink at fowler. Note that Fowler has a long and respected history of editing here and bringing up multiple allegations will, fairly or unfairly, not wash. If you have a beef with fowler, that's one thing, but listing everyone's beef, nope. Fowler, I can only say that El_C's advice, both here and in the earlier ANI report, is well meant and worthwhile heeding. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Looking through some of the diffs above, this appears to be similar to the previous report in having been prompted by Fowler's brusqueness. Unfortunately, the problem they mention regarding topic in question does exist, one of those perennial issues Wikipedia is not good at dealing with. WP:ARBPIA offers some tools for admins, but that doesn't solve the valuable resource of editor (including admin) time. ARBPIA combined with the usual issues around celebrity BLPs is not an appealing prospect for anyone. I am a bit surprised at the request Fowler posts a shorter comment, as their first one here is a reasonably short one. CMD (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You misread, CMD. It can be 1 sentence. I said: Both of you should explain the problem or problems briefly and present a limited number of diffs (non-mobile) alongside brief summaries.

Obviously, Fowler&fowler's 3-paragraph response is relatively brief, but has zero diffs currently (though, he promised to bring some later for some items, which is fine). And obviously Packer&Tracker 10-paragraph OP is not brief, but has diffs (though once I realized they were mobile diffs, I stopped reading).

I contend that if the two complainants subscribe to my 1-sentence advise, fully, they'll increase the chances of an uninvolved review of either complaint. Which I think is sound advise. But they don't have to do it. They're both free to believe that I'm wrong, or to just not bother, whatever it is. Again, it's all the same to me at this point. No good deed, etc. It is what it is. Added: Packer&Tracker's shortened complaint below still uses mobile diffs. Okay. El_C 04:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, @Chipmunkdavis and El C: I will post diffs, although I have no heart for this. Wikipedia is impotent in the face of bias. It is the main reason it is not considered reliable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, don't do it for me, Fowler&fowler, since I'm done here. I was just explaining my position, and puzzlement, at your vehemence in response to my rather standard advise. That's it. El_C 13:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Beg-pardon for inconvenience on my part - regarding mobile diff. I did it now in my recent post. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Good. That's a promising sign, Packer&Tracker. I'm still out, though, obviously through no direct fault of your own. I wish you both success in finding an amicable end to this. El_C 14:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait, no, it didn't work, Packer&Tracker. Here's are simple ways to do it using your first diff as an example: [112] (mobile) → [113] (desktop). Or alternatively: Special:MobileDiff/1116035193 → Special:diff/1116035193. And piped: diff → diff / diff → diff. HTH. El_C 14:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Putting it on hold for a moment, the editor's deceptive notice of quiting S.Asian article and last line of it ? Is such behaviour valid ? (saying that male user wrongly disguise themself as female ?) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Packer&Tracker, I agree, that entire thing in the new notice at the top of Fowler&fowler's talk page that reads (in part): very likely there are also males posing as females for reasons best known to them (emphasis added) — I have no idea what that's about, but on the face of it, it sounds quite inappropriate the way that's worded ←[[Added: ES] But whatever, in light of him inexplicably taking that action in the first place as a response to my rather standard and neutral advise (and seemingly the mentality that he's owed something from me), I'm gonna leave all that to others. If I could have nothing further to do with all of this, that'd be ideal for me. Ultimately, It's Not My Cross to Bear. That said, you, however, should not continue to edit a user talk page after said user had asked to stop. That, too, is inappropriate. //Out (well, hopefully, this time). El_C 17:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I would not post at their talk page, but even in their recent reply, their never ending brusqueness is still intact, where they dragged poor User:पाटलिपुत्र and vented out by branding him/her as "inveterate POV-pusher" - special:Diff/1116644991 I won't be surprised that it will be swept under the carpet as well among many other of his random personal attacks (their nescience about Md. Ghuri but still a desire to counter my so called "Hindu right" narrative is apparent from a number of factual error, pov, plethora of verbiage they inserted in lead which I will point out once they will be finished) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C:: I have reverted my user page and user talk page to the respective versions of the days before this ANI began, the rationale being expressed in this diff. Although it was not an expression of vehemence but rather of extreme despondency. I apologize deeply to all concerned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Some diffs →[114], [115] , [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [Please briefly go through, to get a better picture of it]

1.) Firstly regarding Akshay Kumar's article and for pushing Hindutva branded lead, every public figure at one point or other have political leanings but that doesn't mean that their lead will cover that part or a random comment (to teach about native Indian rulers over the Turks in the discourse of school) at film promotion worth a inclusion in article. Unless the actor is very clearly involved with a political party, it would be all but pov-pushing

→ This part is best explained by the involved senior editor there - [121]

→ The main issue with Akshay page as well as the others, I pointed out apart from WP:OWN behaviour is uncivil commentaries, let's assume that I got it wrong [122], don't think the other editors who shares the same view got that wrong either - [123] & [124] (both are veteran editors around for over a decade)

2.) Now coming to Muhammad of Ghor's article - they are indeed right that they posted decent sources, but they didn't mentioned that 70% of them didn't even mentioned the subject on whom the argument was supposed to be (Md. Ghuri and if it does then it was extremely brief to the point of being vague)

3.) It's clear case of misusing the tertiary source policy to remove only a selected chunk of article (religion section) by deviating the main argument. (look at tiresome posting on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor where Muhammad is not even remotely mentioned in most cases); I am open to discuss that part considering F&f bring something explicit to the table about the subject. I actually conceded rather easily on removing K.S. Lal quotebox to avoid a needless bother see - [125] & didn't even reverted blanket removal of religion section [126] untill today where they introduce a pov-factually incorrect lead (entirely different from the body) [127] only to get reverted by पाटलिपुत्र. (see here [128] - I explained their factually incorrect addition in 5th & 6th point)

4.) To sum up my part; I won't be proposing a T-ban as that's never a solution but keeping aside his pov pushing [129], batteground mentality [130] which concerned other much senior contributors as well despite their (F&f's) competence as a editor. Leaving all these points aside, their uncivil conduct and frequent bashing of their colleagues as Hindu nationalists, abusing historians as R.S.S. hitman and then playing innocent card is not acceptable.

5.) Every editor doesn't matter despite the seniority/juniority factor, must need to be civil and accomodating during discussion regarding contentious topics (by staying relevant to the topic and not deviating needlesly) which is apparently my main concern leaving aside all other issues. Yes, as RP said, the user has been around for years but that doesn't mean that they can get so many free passes, infact that's even more unfortunate. I included other's beef (briefly) with F&f only to highlight that off late it's going on at several fronts and I am not the only one who is complaining about it.

→Conclusion:- Please take a look at their recent notice of unwatching S.Asian articles as well on their userpage where they used verbals yet again, apart from their usual brusqueness, they also accused (indirectly me) that some male editors here wrongly disguised themselves as female - that's just baloney and blatant personal attack.∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's statement

Please do not post in this section. Post in the section below.

• First, the page of the actor Akshay Kumar and whether (in the reliable sources) he is linked with Hindutva and with promoting India's Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi, and whether I am violating WP:BLP as alleged by Packer&Tracker.

Akshay Kumar

• Sources describing Akshay Kumar's support of Narendra Modi have been in place in the article for at least two years. Here is the diff of my edit from September 2020, citing a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report that had mentioned, "(Former prime minister Stephen) Harper campaigned in 2011 alongside one of Modi's biggest celebrity backers, Bollywood star Akshay Kumar, who was later given a special grant of Canadian citizenship." (diff)
• As to whether I am riding roughshod over BLP and maligning the actor, here is a diff of another editor, user:Shshsh, who has long edited that page, stating: "For the record, if your contribution is fair, balanced, and well in place, I will be the first to support you just as I supported the citizenship section." (diff) and my reply (diff)
• For the specific question of "Hindutva" and whether the actor has promoted it in words or deeds, a topic that has received significant media attention in the last two years, I have created a separate section on the article's talk page, listing 13 reports from reliable newspapers or newsmagazines, including The New Yorker, South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, Haaretz as well as many South Asian ones.diff and two journal articles diff) These mention the actor's promotion both of Hindutva and the current national government in India headed by Narendra Modi. I haven't added anything to the article yet, nor even drafted anything.
• Whether there were no obvious issues of WP:PROMO in the article, here is another recent diff of Shshsh stating: "Okay, thank you for cutting the POV pushing. The last edit about acclaim should also be reverted. Agree?" diff.

Muhammad of Ghor

Not relevant to the discussion now (12:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC))

This will take more time, but I intend to make the case that user:Packer&Tracker has been promoting views of Indian history favored by the Hindu right. They have been using dated and dubious sources, and thereby engaging in WP:OR in the aid of fringe views. I will do so by editing the article now with an "inuse" banner in place, so the issues can be seen very clearly. More coming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC) OK, I am done and will soon take the "inuse" banner down. I have spent the greater part of the day (it is nearly 1 AM here). It shows you how difficult it is to point out bias and how much work it takes even when one's attempt is unsuccessful.

Religion section and Hindu majoritarian bias

(title created 15:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC); note: I removed the Religion section per an administrator's comments about another article with similar issues of bias where I had also removed some recently added content(diff and diff) and its relation to WP:ONUS; so it is not currently there in the article, but my removal has been disputed by Packer&Tracker)

1. I was alerted to some major changes in the article in early October 2022, when as a result of Packer&Tracker's edits, a "Religion" section had been added. It gratuitously vilified the Islamic conquerers, engaged in original research, and promoted WP:UNDUE content associated with India's Hindu majoritarianism. Here are some examples from the added Religion section:
   • "Chronicler Minhaj al-Siraj, in his Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, stated that Muhammad of Ghor (along with his brother) ordered a massacre of all the Ismailis across the Ghurid empire and purified the region from their 'infernal impurity'" (original research, quoting a 13th-century historian Minhaj)
   • "According to the contemporary chronicler Hasan Nizami, Muhammad of Ghor destroyed idols in thousand temples in Banāras (Kashi) alone and converted them into the 'house for the Musalmans'". (OR and quoting 13th-century exaggerations per modern sources)
   • "During his conquest of Ajmer, Nizami stated that the Ghurids ('Army of Islam'), slaughtered thousands of cow worshippers and sent them to the 'abode of perdition'". (Original research, adding examples of undue weight.)
   • "According to Juzjani 'about three or four lakhs (300,000–400,000) of infidels who wore the sacred thread were made Muslamans during this campaign'". (OR, quoting 13th-century chroniclers)
   • "When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing impetuously down the face of the mountain of blue. The army of Islam was completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Kaffirs swiftly departed to the fire of hell." (Quoting medieval chroniclers to vilify Islam)
   • Elsewhere as well in the article, medieval chroniclers are employed for adding details that go unmentioned in modern histories, adding material of undue weight.
2. I have rewritten the lead, now moved to a subpage of mine (diff). I have added modern sources to support the lead (As my interest in the Muhammad of Ghor article is related to connecting it to the FA India's upcoming FAR, all sources except one have been published after the last FAR in 2011). (diff) The sources and the rationale for using them in WP:DUE were discussed in detail on the talk page. diff (Updated 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC))
3. The modern NPOV scholarly view on religion is in the second half of the third paragraph of the same lead. (diff) Most citations have quotes from the sources.

• The POV promotion will be apparent upon comparing the Religion section in #1 with the rewritten lead in #3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (updated 15:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC))

No longer relevant to the discussion
PS Last night when I was rewriting the lead, Packer&Tracker posted on my user talk page throughout, not allowing me to edit. (diff) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Packer&Tracker's previous blocks, warnings, and editing-patterns

1. They were blocked on March 29, 2022 for two months from editing Persecution of Hindus by admin Bishonen. (diff
2. They were warned on 11 April 2022 by admin RegentsPark on their edits on Prithviraj Chauhan and its talk page; the warning ended with, "(you're likely to end up with a topic ban on South Asian history because that tone is not productive.") diff)
3. The were blocked the following day for 31 hours (diff) for making personal attacks on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan. (diff)
4. I don't post on their talk page anymore, but in the past when I did to discreetly point out some errors of syntax and coherence in their edits on Kashmir Files, they reacted by either resorting to sarcasm,(diff) or removing the thread altogether.(diff). ( Generally, they seem to do a lot of content blanking on their talk page, though it is possible they do not know about archiving.)
5. In conversations, Packer&Tracker can be slippery (as in this exchange with an admin: diff, diff) or overload their interlocutor with so many responses that a rational reply is precluded. (See an admin's remark: diff)
6. Another example of overload. On 17 October, 2022 19:34 I corrected a typo: 1148 to 1173 per a source: diff. At 19:36, Packer&Tracker made a talk page post complaining about the typo among other things while I was editing the page last night (diff)

No longer relevant (12:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC))

user Akshaypatill Akshaypatill (talk · contribs) has emerged to edit-war on the Muhammad of Ghor page, removing my 80+ edits of last night. (diff) They have been warned by admins before for WP:HOUNDING me. (diff) On October 9, they did the same on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor. (diff) The same day user:Akshaypatill was given a barnstar by Packer&Tracker for "Random Acts of Kindness." (diff) I've scratched this in light of Packer&Tracker's reason that it was in response for receiving a book, which seems credible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC) A few minutes ago, Packer&Tracker has joined Akshaypatill in edit-warring on Muhammad of Ghor.(dif) (Updated: 11:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My behavior

1. I have sometimes been accused of being brusque. As proof of this diffs are offered, and quite often the same diffs seem to make the rounds, attempting to measure the empty portion of my glass of charity and civility on Wikipedia. What is seldom mentioned or simply taken for granted is how full that glass is. I have an extensive history in South Asia related topics which despite WP:ARBIPA is riven by scores of disputes. There are also scores of examples of my cooperating with other editors to build encyclopedic content. Although I usually make amends in instances of intemperate language, I agree, collegiality is non-negotiable. I apologize and will continue to make an effort to improve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Patliputra

पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs), (the Indic script in Sanskrit is transliterated as Patliputra in English) has not only contributed text on temple desecration to the Muhammad of Ghor article along with Packer&Tracker but has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles, 2. of attempting to reconstitute pre-Islamic Indian artefacts, 3. displaying xenophobia and open Hindu majoritarianism, 4. baiting me to edit war, keeping careful tabs and taking me to ANI; they have done so three or four times, and when the decision has not gone their way, they have persistently queried the administrator to the point that the administrator closed the thread.

1. Comments of other editors on copying and pasting, and image spamming ( diff)
   1. I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
   2. पाटलिपुत्र, Johnbod and F&F are absolutely correct. Even if it is allowed, simply copying and pasting is a poor editorial practice and makes for poor readability. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
2. On reconstitution (diff):
   1. @पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style "reconstitutions" are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi. The Sanchi capital has more than enough surviving structure that the reader can infer the size and composition of the crowning wheel, in my opinion. ... And again, to reiterate, any depiction of a restored or original state must clearly look like a drawing/illustration, be labeled as such, and have minimal detail, and should preferably come from an RS or be a copy. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
3. On xenophobia and expression of Hindu majoritarianism(diff):
   1. "An actual Indian" पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
   2. "The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
   3. "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      1. (Administrative response): The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for. The article discusses religious pluralism in India at great length; the images in question are entirely appropriate, and if they're removed, it should not be for the reasons given above. ... Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Persistently querying an administrator on an ANI decision (diff)
   1. This page is not a proxy for ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
5. They have continued to bait me in ways that are sanctioned, appearing on the FA Darjeeling a week ago (a page they had never edited before and on whose FAR user:Dwaipayanc and I had worked for six months), and—without previous discussion on the talk page—adding a large map in the infobox a few weeks after the FA passed the review, during which the decision not to have any map in the infobox was made. (diff)
   1. Upon my reverting their edit, they opened a talk page thread diff. Luckily I was able to find a compact map and avoided a long discussion.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

1. I became involved in this dispute on Muhammad of Ghor because it is a WP:VITAL level-4 article about someone who is commonly thought to be the "founder" of Islamic rule in South Asia. It is linked to the Delhi sultanate and to the FA India, where his invasions are described in more general language. India is to have its third FAR in 16 years. In fits and starts, much work has been done. Sections or subsections on Education, Visual Arts, Cuisine, Clothing, and Environment (Energy) have been added. The leads of a large number of articles that have bearing on it have been rewritten some of which I have listed in my comments above my statement.
2. The "Religion section" added by Packer&Tracker is unsustainable in light of the injunctions for WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. There is a wide gulf between that section and even the quick slapdash summary I have thus far attempted diff (again) in light of modern scholarship.
3. The talk page discussion on religion between user:TrangaBellam and user:Packer&Tracker (mainly) does not seem to be making progress. Packer&Tracker has, however, stated that they have not made significant edits to Delhi Sultanate which is also affected by similar bias; I take their word for it.
4. Statement of Proposal
   1. Proposed that Packer&Tracker:
      1. Voluntarily stay away from editing the article Muhammad of Ghor until a consensus has been reached in the talk page discussion between TrangaBellam and Packer&Tracker on the text of the lead; I am continuing to work on an NPOV version of the lead of Muhammad of Ghor on a subpage of my user page: User:Fowler&fowler/Muhammad_of_Ghor.
      2. Or: Voluntarily stay away from editing Muhammad of Ghor until two months have elapsed, whichever period is shorter,
      3. Or failing both: Be partially blocked from editing Muhammad of Ghor for two months (similar to the manner they were partially blocked from editing Prithviraj Chauhan in April, though the issues then were somewhat different.)
   2. Proposed that a no fault two-way interaction ban be implemented between user:Patliputra and I.
   3. How the closing admin addressed my behavior issues is up to them, but I can assure them that I will sincerely make a more concerted effort to avoid brusqueness in all my interactions on Wikipedia and I offer an unconditional apology.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Updated (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC))

Discussion continued

The warning is old, when I had just started editing Wikipedia and knew nothing about any Wiki policies back then. I had apologized for the mistake.[131] Fowler have thanked me on multiple instances since. [132][133][134][135]. It's only when I differ with him, he brings the warning in discussion. Apart from that, I have reverted Fowler's edits only once. Also, I had been discussing the issues on the talk page, even before the edits. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

→ @Fowler&fowler: Well, you can't accuse others of edit waring when you have been guilty of it yourself just like on blanket removal, regardless this is just another of your ploy to deviate from the topic - the due concerns on my part is already listed in detail at t/p and onus is on you to clear your part (again factal inaccuracy, pov pushing, unrerather then accusing others.

→ So, You are now using my 7-month old block to tilt it your way ? (When I was barely 300 edits old) - It's been 7 months and around 4k edits on my part afterwards that went largely in a collaborative manner

→ If I start dugging in then, your personal attacks, repeated brusqueness might fill up a page with plethora of diff's (the fact that you have already been on ANI for it twice within a short span is another absolute given), though I choosed to be relevant by only highlighting your recent brusqueness, one of you removed from your own user page a hour ago as well, only diff. is that you get away frequently with such behaviour, though others generally don't.

→ Please reply to my concerns at talk page regarding your edits instead of using blocks and warnings issued half a year ago in contrast to it, the one your recived for it is a bit recent as well- diff. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC) @Fowler&fowler: Just for the record my random act of kindness award to User:Akshaypatill was for providing me with Andre Wink 2020 book's pdf and that's only communication I had with him in a year of editing and got not interset in your past interactions with him/her either.

→ The issues with your lead (factual inaccuracies, pov pushing, unrelated verbiage, omitting military debacles of the ruler are already highlighted by me at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor

→ You will be the last one to complain about blanket removal of other editors, when you yourself do it multiple times.

Please don't deviate from topic, my concern about your sourcing as well is already in detail explained at talk page. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

P&t reply

Just for my clarity on the recent post by User:Fowler&fowler

→ The user only picked a few of diffs from user:Shshsh to make it appear that they were all but civil throughout the argument and as far as I can see they were blatantly opposed for pushing their pov:-

→ "Who cares? He's an actor, not a political figure. You better keep your enthusiasm with Hindu nationalist movements away from articles on actors. Everyone has opinions (honestly, I didn't know all that until you just said it here but as I said, who cares anyway), Raj Kapoor did, and Dilip Kumar did, and so do the Khans, but they are actors - it's not what they're known for. I think a sentence about someone who's been public about the party they vote or something could do, but other than that, unless it gets significant coverage much to the point where they clearly become known for that, it's hardly notable" →[136]

→ Their uncivil behaviour - "Are you kidding? Is this an ego trip against other editors or actual willingness to contribute and improve this page? I think your history shows more words than actions, and this hostile explosion of ego here is exactly why many reputable WP editors do not wish to collaborate with you and have often complained about your own POV pushing. Please be warned here that your threats will not be tolerated any longer.

As for sources - it's never only about sourcing - WP:DUE is a huge part of writing articles. Please also note WP:BLP. They will lead this article, as will WP:CON. You should know that already. You do your job and others will do theirs', and we always have WP policy and other routes to achieving consensus and bringing a broaded number of opinions to fore" →[137] - this one came after F&f promised to give them a good run for the money: see [138] -

→ Here is another involved senior editor who opposed their battleground attitude and pov pushing, see "LOL. This isn't Twitter. Kindly take your battleground mentality there" by Krimuk2.0[139] - battleground mentality.. (It's very easy to add a few line to make it appear as you want but on broader picture, there antagonistic behaviour was not a sweet headache for the involved editors)

2): Now on Muhammad of Ghor page, their wild allegation that I am using sources from right-wing scholars is anything but another attempt to deviate from the topic sources i added there are from major scholars of medieval India and bar K.S. Lal none of them are even remotely close to it - the sources which donot agree with their pov, they do call them dubious, unreliable and dated.

→ The editor is not knowledgable about the subject (Md Ghuri) which is apparent from insertion of their edit - [140] and instead accused other for being pushing unreliable cruft, for which I explained them on their talk page:- [141] (lead summarizes the body which is quite a basic norm)

→ I did this with their own high quality tertiary ref. and cited the other 3 as well whom they called dated and sub standard - just for the record those 3 "dated sources" were from (Satish Chandra 2007), (Md. Habib 1981 ed Nizami), (David Thomas 2018) the first two are/were major scholars of S.Asia and explicity of medieval period and the last one is from David Thomas who had his life researching about the Ghurians.

→ I didn't even changed the running name in the article (Mu'izz al-Din to Muhammad of Ghor) without consulting all involved editors there and actually improved on factually incorrect inf. there which was there since its creation namely - his only daughter which never got any mention, his forged gravesite, his brother's death year - 1203 not 1202, his C. Asia campaigns (created Battle of Andkhud) and against the Ghaznawids post his rout at Mt Abu - 1178 (created Siege of Lahore (1186), Had I have been only intersted in pushing only a Hindu right version, there was no meaning of creating Battle of Andkhud and Siege of Lahore (1186) which are not related to this movement by any means. (actually removed far fetched Hindu right forged version of Prithviraj killing him in Ghazna)

Lastly →Please remove the forged and uncivil notice of not editing S.Asian articles as it was nothing but most likely a stunt to get commiseration of others which barely lasted for 24 hours . ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I had posted a lengthy review of their "pov", "factually incorrect, "verbiaged", "absurd comparison" lead which doesn't look any distant from a pov blog and is anything lead of a neutral encyclopedic articles with WP:OR (pov) as well like :- easy victory- Tarain (1192), expunging a military debacle which ruined all his plan for conquest of western India; listed them all. (the lead generally is a summary of citations in the body and not a place to introduce pov, factually incorrect, unrelated verbiage either)

→ The core of there edit comes from copy-pasting Richard Eaton (2019) whose basic factual inaccuracies I listed on the article's talk page with multiple contradicting reliable sources from top scholars like Andre Wink, Satish Chandra, C.E Bosworth, K.A. Nizami, Md. Habib, Aniruddha Ray, David Thomas etc, do have a look at it as well. (no issue in citing Eaton's earlier works bar this one - despite my general disaccord with his scholarship regarding religion bit)

→ I have given up on their brusqueness (listed several instances in last few days itself not from me but other editors as well, which they cherrry picked to make it appear that their pov lead was getting upvoted by senior editors)

→ My frequent posts on their talk page was more primarily on their forged and uncivil notice of quitting S. Asia articles particularly with last few lines where they as usually were making uncivil commentaries on some editors and the bona fide of it turned to be a deceptive one. Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Packer&Tracker, could you please write shorter comments? This discussion is difficult to go through because of its length. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: It's not easy to explain about the issue with proper context in less words. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure (likely)

→ Disclaimer:- This will be most likely my last reponse here, it will be a long one addressing all the issues, bear with me

→ While, I don't think that it's very necessary to reopen old wounds here (on warnings and blocks - I recieved half a year ago); although I do agree that my conduct at Persecution of Hindus especially (that time) was deplorable and the two month block was warranted, having said that it's been some time since then (7months) and over 3,500 edits which mostly were in line with WP policies, including appropirate use of Red Warn & Twinkle tools (mostly), F&f is bringing them up here largely to deviate from the premier issue I and some other senior editors had with them - all in recent past (last week or so, including two reports at ANI one of them already ended with a warning)

→ You can't expect a consensus to build over night (on their remark that it's not going anywhere with TB); when you yourself frequently advocate that it took months in some contentious cases, though, early days but I am alright to engage with TrangaBellam (after few days to press upon the argument of including Religion section) given their rational and to the point arguments, though I do not agree with them on their take on historian Andre Wink, but that's content dispute and will be resolved (hopefully) there without much drama (optimistic)

→ I do agree, my post on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor (clarification on typo i.e. 1148 -1173 - not certain about 1173 as well coz Minhaj al-Siraj and Firshta had 1169, another error in Eaton-2019 as Ghazni was not permanently annexed untill 1170 which he claimed in 1148, although this is not the only blatant factual error, see the whole thread for better picture) especially overnight could have been slightly better worded (first few lines) - but this doesn't seems very equitable (overloaded bit) coming from someone who was without anything accusing others of faking their ethnic/ gender identity (male as females/Pakistanis as Indians or vice-versa diff:- (not just overloaded it was degrading enough to warrants them a block there itself)

→ The frequent and tiresome accusation on me for promoting a Hindu right pov doesn't sit very well either with someone who created Battle of Andkhud & Siege of Lahore (1186) - two of his military campaigns which no one from Hindu rights (who are only intersted in his Indian campaigns - namely Kaydhara -1178, Tarain-I & Tarain-II and other naive/hillarious argument of his 17 failed invasions) have any idea about or if they do, it's very shabby one (both of them were rated as B-Class articles immediately on first review, which suggests that I do have a decent knowledge about the subject)

→ Now to brought down the curtain on my part, as they want me to get blocked from Muhammad of Ghor or stay away for two months (an article where I recieved a anti-vandalism barnstar diff and improved on it's gruesome factual inaccuracy with proper WP:HISTRS) & also on Delhi Sultanate (Heck, I barely contributed there apart from reverting vandals or just replacing a blog with proper RS - diff - it's clearly in line with their recent vow to root out the so called "Hindu nationalist bias" or according to them "villification of Muslims" from the lead of these articles - as they couldn't succeed in their ambition at Muhammad of Ghor (reverted by another editor as well against whom they used a year old hounding warning to get away); Anyway, their lead was - factually incorrect, povish with dispensable veribage, asburd comparisons & so on - listed them all here with contrasting RS.

→ There is no reason to support there filmsy argument of using so-called up to date sources, even if there are blatant inaccuracies in them, neither the sources, I added up in counter were from a century or two ago, most of them were from last 50 years and many were from post-1990 period.

→ I am contented to cooperate with anyone given the arguments are rational, to the point (not posting tiresome collection of unrelated sources, like they are doing which mentions about subject brief and vaguely - big no to Eaton 2019 -given the number of basic inaccuracies already highlighted, alright with his previous works) and have consensus among multiple reliable sources. It's a wrap on my part here (hopefully). ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

OR claims

→ For general persecution of the Ismailis:-

However, on his way from the Punjab, Muizzuddin was killed on bank of Indus river by a band of Karamatians, which we have seen were a fanatic sect which had absorbed many features of Hindu Buddhists beliefs and which Muizuddin had persecuted in his life time

(Satish Chandra 2004; pp:-28)

→

The suppression of revolot in the Punjab occupied Mu'izz al-Din's closing months, for on the way back to Ghaza he was assasinated, allegedly by emmisaries of the Isma'ils whom he had often persecuted during his life time

(C.E. Bosworth 1968; pp:-168) (Hindu right don't care about hosility of Sunnis over Ismailis either)

→

This area of proselytization presumably included Sindh, which had been annexed to the Ghurid territories. However, Muhammad Ghiyath al-Din (d. 599/1202), Al al-Din’s successor, reacted violently to the Ismaili presence. Juzjani records:-In every place wherein the odour of their impure usages was perceived, throughout the territory of Ghur, slaughter of all heretics [Ismailis] was commanded. ... The area of the country of Ghur, which was a mine of religion and orthodoxy, was purified from the infernal impurity of the Qarmatians [i.e., the Ismailis].

It was at about this time that the Ismailis again lost their power in Multan, for in 570/1175, Sultan Mu^izz al-Din Ghuri ‘‘delivered Multan from the hands of the

Qarmatians.

(Shafique Virani; 2007; pp:-100)

→ Destruction of temples in Kashi:-

We do not know much about the first Muslim raid on Benares, by Ahmad Nayaltigin in 1033 AD, which appears merely to have been a plundering expedition. When Muhammad Ghuri marched on the city, we are merely told that after breaking the idols in above 1000 temples, he purified and consecrated the latter to the worship of the true God

(Andre Wink 1991; pp:-333)

• Shihabuddin captured the treasure fort of Asni and then proceeded to Benaras, 'where he converted about thousand idol-temples into house for the Musalmans

(Mohammad Habib 1981; pp:-116)

• We are told that Jaichandra had almost carried the day when he was killed by an arrow, and his army was totally defcated. Muizzuddin now moved on to Banaras which was ravaged, a large number of temples there being destroyed

(Satish Chandra 2007; pp:-67)

→ Large-scale conversion of Khokhars/Buddhists:-

The frontier tribes were the first difficulty. Sultan Mahmud had established garrisons and forts in their territory but there were still Buddhists and Shihabuddin realised that nothing short of their conversion would solve the problem. So the Tariyah infidels who lived in the hills between Ghazni and Punjab, and considered the slaying of a Muslim as path to paradise were brought in the pale of Islam through kindness and through force. About three or four lakh of the infidels who wore sacred threads were made Musalmans during this campaign

(Mohamad Habib; 1981, pp:-133-134)

The quote box and massacres was already to K.S Lal and I removed it myself before the blanket removal, in any case since the section is already removed this is rather basless accusations, I am not intersted in arguing much either here as my closing comments are already put in earlier. I don't want to stress much over it and isn't intersted in wasting more time but since it's allegation of putting OR, thats why this was posted (hopefully it's last one before admin take a call) No inention of vilifying anyone. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

sockpuppet indian users

I agree with Fowler&fowler, there is lots of Hindu nationalist editors whom are abusing their editing responsibilities above Afghanistan and Pakistan historical articles, possibly they are one group or sockpuppet users including ∆ P&t ♀√, Utcursch, Akshaypatill. They revert everything with reliable sources and pushing their POV on it. if Wikipedia become a POV information of powerful users then nobody will trust on Wikipedia’s informative articles. Please take some serious legal action on it and don’t let to Wikipedia become a place of POV of powerful users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.112.23 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC) struck sock comments--RegentsPark (comment) 21:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Accusing others of sock puppetry without evidence is considered a personal attack. Don't do it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

no one is crazy to accuse others for sock puppetry unless who seen something wrong, you can check their recent contributions and it will tell everything and that’s evidence, such as now also the RegentsPark as a indian user are supporting thier indian editors for vandalism and pov pushing in a proxy way, why you guys can’t see the truth, these things made Wikipedia a false information resource for whom looking for information or reading, every Indian editors are edit articles for their own POV and racism or nationalist beliefs, for example the user ∆ P&t ♀√

Removed 13,704 additions with reliable sources from article Muhammad of Ghor [142]

In order to support their indian user Akshaypatill’s POV editing (unexplained removal) and User:Packer&Tracker are tryna always hide her/his disruptive editing and nationalist vandalism with random no related WP codes and that’s not make any sense actually, on the Muhammad of Ghor’s article user Akshaypatill started unexplained removal of 13,704 with reliable sources additions without engagement on talk page with other editor and it turned into a edit war [143] [144] and the edit war continued by User:Packer&Tracker [145] on behalf of Akshaypatill, it’s happens while both of them ignored the bold, revert, discuss cycle term and they violated the three-revert policy, this is a proxy game and I really tired of this much nationalist editors and racism in Wikipedia

Pataliputra's statement

One more dispute, again triggered by Fowler&fowler's inflamatory approach to collaborative editing.... Fowler&fowler is a valuable editor, but unfortunately a recurrently incivil and bad-mannered one, leading to much unnecessary disruption. His expertise in some areas of South Asia is undeniable, although he seems fairly out of his depth in matters related to ancient history and art (one example), and repeatedly resorts to "wild OR" as pointed out by User:Johnbod [146]. His typical battle lines revolve around the Muslim vs Hindu issue, and anyone contradicting him will be immediately branded an "Islamophobic" [147] or an "Hindu nationalist" [148] (for the record, I am related to neither faith, and have no relation whatsoever to India despite my user name). When in disagreement, Fowler&fowler is unfortunately rude, brutal and inflammatory, and content disputes which could be resolved by the usual discussion process inevitably heat up because of the rabidness and the invectives. Fowler&fowler has received numerous administrative warnings already for his systematic un-Wikipedian editorial behaviour, including recently 2 warnings for edit warring [149] (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and [150] (by Admin User:Bishonen), and 1 warning for personnal attacks and incivility [151] (by Admin User:El C), to no avail. I dislike having to post here, and I personally value Fowler&fowler as a Wikipedia content contributor, but the behavioural issues have been going on for too long: some more radical measures have to be taken to make Fowler&fowler finally understand that incivility and personal attacks are unacceptable behaviours on Wikipedia and are extremely disruptive. I will not comment further, and will not respond to the predictable litany of abuse that will be crafted in response to this post. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to Fowler&fowler's "Patliputra" statement above

A few comments on User:Fowler&fowler's "Patliputra" statement above, which was predictably crafted in reponse to my post:
1) Fowler&fowler writes that I contributed text on temple desecration to the Muhammad of Ghor article along with Packer&Tracker" [152]. This is basically untrue. As far as I am aware, I did not contribute a single word to Packer&Tracker's paragraph on Religion, about which Fowler&fowler has expressed a full list of issues [153]. Furthermore, I do not have any opinion about this specific paragraph, the details of which are beyond my area of expertise. The only remotely related content I added was derived from the Ghurid dynasty article, related to the military campaigns, using sources such as Asher (2020) [154]. This content essentially remains in Fowler&fowler's last preferred version of the article [155] and has not been challenged. So much for the attempts at depicting some sort of "Indian/Hindu coalition vs Fowler&fowler" (and again I have no relation whatsoever to India despite my user name).
2) All other elements provided by Fowler&fowler (1 to 5 [156]) are besides the point of this ANI thread, and seem to confuse a few Talk Page discussions, over a period of several years, with actual Wikipedia offenses.... Hopefully, we are allowed to have Talk Page discussions on Wikipedia, and sometimes even disagreements. This has to be done factually, in a cool and civil manner without making personal attacks. This is what I have always endeavoured to do, but what Fowler&fowler has repeatedly failed to observe as shown by his multiple Administrative warnings ( [157][158][159].... and these are only the recent ones). Again, I appreciate Fowler&fowler as a contributor, but he has to understand that civility with other users is non-negotiable. In so many instances in the past, Fowler&fowler has made amends and made beautiful promises not to continue personal attacks, only to break his promise as soon as discussions heat up a bit. In order to prevent such recurrent toxicity, a clear message has to be sent by Admins that Fowler&fowler's incivilities and personal attacks are unacceptable. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• This comment is beneath one of Pataliputra's, but only because this is the bottom of the sprawling and chaotic thread. I address all the participants here and not just Pataliputra.

As encyclopaedists, our task is precis: we summarize complex matters clearly and succinctly. If you can't write a simple, clear summary that includes clear citations with evidence of all the claims you make, you are in the wrong hobby.

When dealing with editors from India I feel it would be unreasonable of us to exclude mobile diffs. Those of us in Western Europe where everyone has access to a desktop computer with reliable wi-fi need to consider that not everyone has our advantages. A high proportion of Indians are trying to contribute from mobile phones or tablets because the alternative is not to contribute at all.

And while I'm talking about cultural relativity, civility standards vary from place to place and in India, they are often relatively high. Personally it has been my experience that editors originating from India tend to display, and expect, higher standards of civility than might prevail elsewhere. What to me might be a relatively mildly uncivil remark is more offensive out there.

I think Fowler&fowler's unconditional and very handsome apology, above, is very helpful and I wish Pataliputra would (a) accept it with good grace and (b) reciprocate in similar terms for their own behaviour. I can certainly see benefits to a two-way iban between these editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Even though mobile sucks, mobile diffs should never be excluded as a rule. No one should be forced to convert them to desktop. Here, however, this was only recommended so as to increase the chances of an uninvolved review. A recommendation which the OP has chosen to adopt. I think it's fair to tell a user whose complaint has 20 mobile diffs, that these display terrible on desktop. Why should they not know? El_C 03:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, let us not patronise Indians. They are fools if they think they can write an encycopedia using a mobile phone. The use of mobiles is more likely to be a convenience, their convenience. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the point was that some don't have an alternative to mobile, in India more so than the West. But in that instance, if they are diligent enough, it can be done. That includes converting mobile diffs into desktop — which otherwise, is liable to get inconvenient to them, when few if any outside reviewers bother to look through their (mobile) diff evidence. El_C 08:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I find your words very offensive. I'm an Indian and have used and am currently using a mobile device. But you'd never ever find me using mobile diffs or anything like that even when I edit via mobile, because I personally do not find that easy to parse and expect that it is similar for others. Because someone has chosen to not do that does not give you an opportunity to bring the entire community under a single blanket and call them fools. The problem with Indians editing using mobile is not that "they are fools", it is that the foundation has chosen to ignore the editing needs of what is now a majority demographic of Wikipedia visitors — the mobile users. Your outrage is misplaced. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

^That^ 🐻ears repeating — it is that the foundation has chosen to ignore the editing needs of what is now a majority demographic of Wikipedia visitors — the mobile users. El_C 12:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone's technically minded. If you asked me to convert mobile diffs to desktop ones, I would go and look it up because I wouldn't know how, and some editors wouldn't bother to look it up. The risk with implying that mobile diffs won't get looked at, is creating a disincentive to report issues.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, if someone lands on a mobile diff and they want to see the non-mobile version, all they need to do is scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the "Desktop" link. Or they could do as I do and load User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion in their common.js and they'll always see non-mobile diffs, regardless of whether the person creating the diff made it mobile or not. CodeTalker (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is reality, S Marshall, not an ideal type. Mobile diffs won't be looked at so much, certainly not +20 of em at once, because mobile overall is poorly optimized. In this case, though, since the OP did express an interest in converting these to desktop diffs, I instructed her on how to go about it. Which appears to have worked out fine. El_C 19:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

LTA suspicion on today's featured article

Recently many TFAs are extended-confirmed locked because of vandalism caused by auto-confirmed accounts. It seems that there's someone that is dedicated enough to intentionally lock these articles up, seemingly just because they can.

Evidence: Megalograptus, Borodino-class battlecruiser, Sayfo, Second Punic War (4 most recent TFAs), and more. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Undoubtedly so. It looks as those these were handled at the time, what else would you like administrators to do? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

We could block the range Special:Contributions/99.76.0.0/19, which seems to host most of the recent trouble. The person also uses various IP6 addresses which are blocked as they appear. Some of the sleeper usernames were registered more than a year before the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet. Yes, I recognise an LTA that has been active this weekend on that range. There seems nothing of merit in the editing history for many months so I've blocked for three months. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The LTA rampage is still ongoing... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Details? Diffs? And what do you think administrators might do that hasn’t been done already? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Should all FAs be ECP'd due to that? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Preemptively? You can start a conversation about that at the village pump bearing in mind there's already been a discussion about the protection of TFAs. In the meantime, TFAs get protected if the need arises. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan

On 16 October, as part of NPP patrol, I redirected an article created by this user, Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council to Polytechnic University of the Philippines, since I felt there was not enough in-depth coverage of the subject from independent sources to show notability. The editor had not edited in several days, and when they returned to the project on 18 October. Their first action was to use the rollback action to reverse the redirect. They then proceeded to nominate 20-25 of stub articles I had created (see their history, either through CSD, PROD, or AFD. Obviously, these were done in retaliation. These AfD's should be speedily closed, and the user should at least be warned of their behavior. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. While some of the nominations may be valid, some of them clearly aren't, and the nominator clearly didn't do even a simple BEFORE check. Merely because something is a stub does not make it deletable. I think retaliation is the likely driving force behind this conduct. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was able to find sources to support the notability of several of these AFD's. For example:

• Wheatfields, Apache County, Arizona, called a "a community".
• Vopolo Havoka, Arizona, described as a "small village".

It took me about 10 minutes to find this information, but if I was doing a proper WP:BEFORE, it would take much longer. But if you look at the edit history of User:PogingJuan, these AFDs were all made a minute apart. Are all these places notable? Some will pass WP:GEOLAND, and some will not. But targeting one editor is not nice, and the stench of vexatious AFDs is strong here. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll add to that: Wagoner, Arizona is actually a rather well known little ghost town, and I quickly found a few sources including "Ghost Towns and Historical Haunts in Arizona" by Thelma Heatwole. I also discovered it to be an important site of the Walnut Grove Dam collapse, which at least on the brightside these AfD's got me to create. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was reviewing one of PogingJuan's articles during NPP, Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council, I asked them to remove one obvious puffery ("diversified") which was done, showing that they're usually open to feedback. However, looking at the page history IMHO the user has performed not ideal rollbacks. I'm not familiar with rollbacking, but after quickly reading through WP:ROLLBACK I'm afraid I have to disagree with PogingJuan's reverts. The user has repeatedly rollbacked Onel's edits with no explanation. Here the editor rollbacked a deprod, which doesn't fall into appropriate Wikipedia:ROLLBACKUSE and might potentially be a misuse IMHO (please correct me if I'm wrong), further, WP:PROD states PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time so I'm unsure if the action is entirely appropriate. Further, these diffs IMO are inappropriate usage of rollback, including rollbacking redirects, 1, 2. Unfortunately I'm a bit unsure about the use of rollback here, but WP:NPP, blank and redirect is a choice for non-notable articles, that IMO doesn't fall into obvious vandalism (criteria 1) widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page per the WP:ROLLBACKUSE page (even if the latter is plausible IMO, which isn't probably true for a prolific NPP reviewer, the editor didn't include any explanation at all for the revert). Further, IMHO it would be challenging (or perhaps very impressive and unlikely) to do a proper WP:BEFORE for the AfDs in one minute, so some of these might be hasty and rushed. Therefore, IMO a warning might be suitable for this user, many thanks for your help and time, if anything I said was inaccurate or misleading please let me know! Thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• These AfDs are clearly retaliatory, clearly done too quickly to satisfy WP:BEFORE, and, regardless of whether some might (accidentally) have merit, flooding AfD to get back at an another editor is clearly disruptive and constitutes harassment, so I've procedurally closed them all. Some of them were heading towards delete or redirect, so I expect there might be some pushback there, but I think it's important to draw a clear line in the sand when it comes to harassment, and have noted in the close that other editors are free to re-nominate them. I'll leave this thread open to discuss whether any further action is needed. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe, could you reconsider this mass procedural close? Although some of these AfDs were entirely without merit and all were opened for the wrong reasons, you've also disrupted a number of ongoing discussions that must now be re-opened and re-discussed, and for what purpose? To send a message to the nominator? This seems counterproductive. It would make more sense to re-open the ones that weren't headed for SNOW keep and warn the editor. –dlthewave ☎ 09:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I must second this. These were all mass-created from GNIS in exactly the way that has, frankly, brought on such runs of AfDs, and it's clear from the discussions so far that lots of these are headed for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

+2. The elephant in the room is that it's been long-known and periodically brought to AFD that many of these Arizona places mass-created by Onel5969 are actually non-notable or misidentified content. Many of these need deleted or redirected, and prematurely closing these AFD where there's already valid delete or redirect !votes is just adding a layer of bureaucracy. I've requested on Joe Roe's talk page that they reconsider opening some of these AFDs back. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

+3. Mass-production of hundreds of articles from a single database source while failing to do any additional sourcing results in a lot of junk. Already 193 articles Onel5969 made in Arizona have been deleted, with more having been redirected. Ignoring legitimate votes and continuing to put the burden on those who want accuracy rather than context-free one-liners is inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 13:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave, Mangoe, Hog Farm, and Reywas92: I realise you and others have done extensive source analysis on some of these articles, and I'm sorry that I've disrupted those discussions. However, I think in this particular case it is warranted, because, yes, it is important to send a message to the nominator that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and it's important to protect AfD from disruptive flooding, and to prevent the outcomes being thrown into doubt as fruit of the poisonous tree. If we discourage mass creation of articles without prior due diligence, we must surely also discourage mass creations of AfDs without due diligence.

As I've said, you are welcome to renominate these articles immediately. Alternatively, I won't object if somebody wants to selectively (not en masse, please) undo my closes of those discussions that could have been heading for an outcome other than keep. However on the whole I stick by this as appropriate enforcement of WP:HOUNDING and WP:POINT, supported by the consensus of editors above. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I support Joe's point. The good faith of others doesn't somehow mitigate or lessen the need to respond to the bad faith harassment that started the discussion. Starting a new, clean, discussion without bad faith harassment should (hopefully) lead to a better outcome all around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeated sourcing issues (unsourced, non-RS, failed verification, etc.) editing Nazi-related articles

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

Lightiggy makes many edits to Nazi-related articles and these are just the ones that I have noticed, because they are on my watchlist.

• Repeatedly added incorrect and unsourced information to Stefan Baretzki article, stating he was convicted of a different crime than found guilty of (murder). (March and June 2022)
• In Padule di Fucecchio massacre, removed content cited to a reliable source, claiming it's incorrect but not citing any source for that claim.
• In Theresienstadt Ghetto they added multiple paragraphs related to a different concentration camp. (September 2022)
• Repeatedly added unsourced content to Flossenbürg concentration camp, then when called out cited ww2db, a self-published website, and jewishvirtuallibrary, which is rated unreliable at the reliable sources noticeboard. (September/October 2022)
• On another article, added content that failed verification (that cited to mauthausen memorial) and cited an unreliable source (master's thesis). Here is their reaction when brought up on their talk page. (October 2022)

While it's understandable that editors might not immediately be familiar with reliable sources, it's expected that they would acknowledge their mistakes and rectify them going forward. Other editors such as Beyond My Ken, Obenritter, and Kierzek have posted on their talk page regarding issues with their edits. I've reverted their harmful edits to pages on their watchlist, but I do not have time to go through the rest of their thousands of edits on pages I don't watch. I don't know how to handle the situation given that Lightiggy doesn't seem able or willing to change their behavior, despite my interactions with them going back to March 2022. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding to this, I looked through Lightiggy's contribs. This edit [160] is just weird, adding a lot of spaces to the infobox and changing how a date is written. This one [161] just seems to extend on how the children died. Both of these edits remain current as I write this, so I don't know if they could be considered vandalism. Overall, I see a lot of edits to Nazi-related articles, which means that he is really interested in the Nazi Party. I think that we should consider a topic ban (if possible) The Shamming Man has appeared. 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the adding of spaces is an automated thing because of visual editor. I've seen it from editors before; it's not deliberate. — Czello 20:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I make these edits all the time. It's a lot easier to read (when editing) when the spaces are consistent between infobox parameter and entry. Our eyes do a lot better with standard whitespace around equal signs and the like. The date formatting also seems like a standard change (mdy to dmy). --Engineerchange (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, nevermind. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Some of these edits were due to misunderstandings.

Regarding the edit for the Padule di Fucecchio massacre article. That edit was due to a confusion.

The original statement said "Only three Nazi war criminals have ever served jail sentences in Italy for war crimes, Erich Priebke, Karl Hass, and Michael Seifert."

I was confused by this, since the the article listing Nazi war criminals who have served time in Italy for war crimes does give the names of a few other Nazi war criminals who served time in Italy, such as Herbert Kappler and Walter Reder.

Regarding the edits to the Theresienstadt Ghetto article, I listed those men since they committed crimes at in Small Fortress, which is located in Terezín, the same town where the Theresienstadt Ghetto is located. Lightiggy (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As buidhe has indicated, several of us have repeatedly tried to explain the use of proper RS to Lightiggy to no avail. This is particularly troubling since many of the Nazi-related pages this editor makes adjustments to are of a sensitive nature and require more professionalism (pardon the use of this term here, as I realize Wikipedia is open to all) and caution than most. Not sure what the corrective action might be, but this editor fully substantiates the claims hereby about the editor in question and stands concerned in much the same manner as buidhe. --Obenritter (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to this list, for clarification: ::List of Germans convicted of war crimes committed in Italy during World War II Lightiggy (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the reliable sources issue, I admittedly didn't read the reliable sources guidelines until today, when buidhe warned me about some of the other edits I made. I am not sure what to tell all of you, other than that I'll make sure in the future to avoid this problem. Lightiggy (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the facts as set forth by buidhe and with the comments by Obenritter. I have mainly had dealings with Lightiggy on the List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust where they added people indiscriminately and tried to add a few others, which do not meet the criteria for the list (see its talk page). They do not seem to have a good grasp of WP:RS, nor WP:NOTEVERYTHING and especially the sub-section WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Kierzek (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case, if you are unsure about how to proceed, I will take a short break (at least a week or two) from editing any articles related to the Holocaust, aside from anything minor such as grammar. I will reread all of these sections regarding the rules. Lightiggy (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of reliable sources, I can't really add much discourse. But, as a passerby to Lightiggy's edits to one single page Henry Wirz and a comment I made back in September 2022 about it reflect what looks to me as a blatant ignoring of suggestions made by peer editors (copyright, reliable sources, edit summaries). There are at least 3 comments about Lightiggy not doing edit summaries (one by me), and at least two comments of acknowledgement (suggesting they'll work on it), which as far as I can see up until this incident report were flatly ignored. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Eduardog3000 edit warring to add Ukrainian regions to Republics of Russia

Eduardog3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Eduardog3000 is edit warring to add unsupported changes to the Republics of Russia infobox. These are the same notional regions that recently underwent an extensive AFD. Diffs:

Previous edit to add these as part of Russia by another editor.

Edits by by Eduardog3000:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Cambial — foliar❧ 20:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My edits addressed your stated issues with the page.

My edit notes:

Edit 1: Updated infobox to match map

Edit 2: Added source, which was already elsewhere on the page.

Edit 3: Al Jazeera: "This month, the Russian president also signed laws admitting the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics, Kherson and Zaporizhia into Russia after referendums denounced by Ukraine and its allies as “shams” with no legal consequences."

(for edit 3 I changed to a different source than that of edit 2 per edit 2's undo message)

Only edit 4 was a direct undo because I felt edit 3 satisfied requirements and your reasoning for reverting edit 3 was incorrect (addressed in edit 4's note). I wasn't aware of previous revisions when I made the first edit, but after that was undone I addressed the reasons for undoing rather than just blindly undoing over and over.

And the AFD you mentioned wasn't about the DPR's status, it was about it having separate articles for 2014-2022 DPR and 2022- DPR. The result was that Donetsk People's Republic contains information on both and recognizes it's current status as a Russian republic. In line with that as well as the source mentioned above, my changes to this page were supported. eduardog3000 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

User:80s Sam

80s Sam (talk · contribs · count) This user is a net negative. Editwarring, changing what they don't like to their preferred version, not discussing anything, not heeding warnings, many warnings just today. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be connected to this AN post. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth, highly personalized conflict with Sundayclose; the use of templates as weapons and lots of ANGRY ALL CAPS communications. This looks like a "it takes two to tango" kind of situation, and I'd like to hear from both sides and seeking a mutual "chill out" period based on what I am seeing from this. I will notify Sundayclose as well; the entire situation is not a good look on either party. --Jayron32 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks for the ping. 80s Sam has a long history of changing timelines according to their personal preferences (mostly without any sourced support in the articles), and being reverted by multiple editors. As just one example, consider The Beatles, all within a few days. Note that the reverts are by several editors:

• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  

For these edits alone, 80s Sam was asked by several editors (in both edit summaries and on their talk page) to discuss and seek consensus before changing timelines. 80s Sam has never attempted discussion on any issue whatsoever. 80s Sam has edited for three years and, until the last few days after many reverts, requests, and warnings, never left an edit summary, never responded to warnings, and never attempted any discussion. Look at 80s Sam talk page and you'll see many warnings for many policy and guideline violations from numerous editors. I'll be happy to discuss with more detail if needed. I certainly don't mind a "chill out" period if 80s Sam can agree to simply leave timelines alone unless there is a clear consensus for the changes. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Even after this discussion began, 80s Sam was notified, and I made my comments here, 80s Sam made another change to a timeline with a false claim of "all cited": [162]. Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Thank you for the diff's, all that work and we're still waiting for some kind of Admin cmt's or something.. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Glad to help. Thanks to you for bringing the issue here. I also appreciate Jayron32's input. I suspect admins are waiting to see if 80s Sam responds, which I fully understand. Based on his history, I would not bet a dime that he will do so. I continue to revert his changes to timelines if he refuses to discuss. That's the only thing I know to do at this point. Sundayclose (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I will say one thing, Sundayclose: "Refusing to discuss" is not an exemption to WP:EW, and it has happened often in the past that both parties to a conflict are blocked if they both edit war. Please keep that in mind. If what you say is correct, people who aren't you will also agree and prefer your version of the articles in question. --Jayron32 10:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Pratyeka leaving aggressive comments towards new page reviewers

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

---

I moved two articles created by Pratyeka (talk · contribs), Baomo Yuan and Nanyue Yuan, to draftspace because they were created without any sources. Pratyeka proceeded responded to those edits with this:

What is the point of this, it just makes it a pain to expand. What a waste of everyone's time. I will expand it, move it back please. I have been editing Wikipedia longer than you were out of diapers, literally. prat (talk)
 I have reverted it myself. Now I have to waste time re-creating the interwiki links. NEXT TIME PLEASE DO NOT AGGRESSIVELY ATTACK, MOVE AND DISCONNECT PAGES THAT ARE CLEARLY UNDER CREATION BY EXPERIENCED EDITORS. prat (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Besides that, they also called my draft move "garbage" as well as removed the notability tag I added to the article.

VickKiang also made interactions with Pratyeka. Pratyeka then said that this was "wasting people's time".

I at first thought that this was a newer user frustrated with their articles being draftified, but to learn that this was actually an administrator who has been on Wikipedia since 2003 talking down to new page patrollers for performing quite standard procedures was surprising. I don't think I can trust someone so aggressive towards regular experienced users to be an admin. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This should not be the attitude of a representative of this project, an Admin belittling and YELLING at newbies, why? Re-call maybe, IDK. I do know this isn't good. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

IMHO I also disagree with that NEXT TIME PLEASE DO NOT AGGRESSIVELY ATTACK, MOVE AND DISCONNECT PAGES THAT ARE CLEARLY UNDER CREATION BY EXPERIENCED EDITORS, which is inaccurate, though I should note that was addressed to WaddlesJP13, not myself. Just a note on the timeline when the NPP actions that happened- WaddlesJP13 converted the page to a draft 30 minutes after its original creation. Per WP:NPP, Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. They waited for more than 15 minutes, which might be viewed by Pratyeka as slightly hasty but not against the guideline set by NPP IMO. Joseywales1961 tagged after one hour, which was soon reverted. I then tagged two hours after creation using Page Curation, which was removed without improvement. IMO these patrolling actions probably are acceptable patrolling per WP:NPP. Waddles then retagged notability, which was again reverted, I AfDed the article afterwards. If my NPP patrolling is incorrect or hasty please let me know. Also, in the subsequent comment, the editor said Now it is populated by IGNORANT CREATURES who belive PICTURES OF GARDENS ARE IRRELEVANT, major TOURIST ATTRACTIONS are non-notable, and have NO COMMON DECENCY. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that even if I did move the article to draftspace while they were actively working on the article, it should be their responsibility to make sure the article has all its important content and/or is sourced before publishing it, or at least add an under construction tag after doing so. I've deletion-tagged/draftified many other articles (way past 15 minutes) for this same reason, though anytime I was confronted it wasn't with such an attitude. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"I have been editing Wikipedia longer than you were out of diapers, literally." – I really hate it when people do this, trying to show how high and mighty they are by their edit count and how long they've been on Wikipedia. Get off your high horse. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I hate to say it/admit it, but Pratyeka is technically correct. He did join Wikipedia almost 3 years before WaddlesJP13 was even born. 118.107.244.40 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. People shouldn't use how long they've been on Wikipedia or how many edits they have as a shield from criticism and/or trying to gain an upper hand in a dispute. WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and all that. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, now I feel old. I joined Wikipedia when WaddlesJP13 was 2 years old... Why'd you have to point that out? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a very aggressive edit summary as well. Can’t believe this is an administrator. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E10B:9E79:8159:43B6 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

__I am sick to death of deletionists and policy thumpers.__ You can have my resignation, which I previously gave but someone did not process. Good luck finding anyone else to provide leading coverage of COVID stats as it emerged (check), pioneer important articles like Bitcoin (check), fly at short notice to Wiki conferences (checl) , report malpractice within the Wikimedia foundation (check), vote for years (check) or generally put up with WAY TOO MUCH ADMIN FOR THIS SORT OF THING TO GO ON EVERY DAMN TIME I GET MOTIVATED TO ADD SOMETHING. Wikipedia USED TO BE FUN. Now it is populated by IGNORANT CREATURES who belive PICTURES OF GARDENS ARE IRRELEVANT, major TOURIST ATTRACTIONS are non-notable, and have NO COMMON DECENCY. Please accept my resignation. Wikipedia has lost its way. prat (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BN is thataway. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pratyeka: What exactly do you mean by "no common decency"? You've been belittling people over the draftification of stub articles. I've had my articles moved to draftspace before, it's not that serious. I just worked on them until they're good to be articles. Judging by your userpage history, this is your third time "resigning" from Wikipedia within the past four years. If you're hesitating quitting Wikipedia, then don't. Just accept the ever-evolving guidelines, let people do their jobs, generally treat people better, and don't come off as entitled to disobeying the three aforementioned things simply because you've been here for a longer time than most people. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

An adminstrator creating unreferenced articles in 2022 is unconscionable. Attacking hard working editors doing their best to maintain quality standards is unacceptable. Repeated rage quitting is not adult behavior. If you want to retire, do so with dignity. I have never had an article that I started or that I made a significant effort to improve deleted. That is because I do my best at all times to edit in compliance with the policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia a top ten website worldwide for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The tools have been resigned at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. CMD (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree that their actions were not acceptable. Creating a new page with no references, moving it back once it was moved to draft, objecting to correctly placed tags and doing all of that with aggressive statements is not something that fits within community standards. If they had not resigned their admin then I would supporting efforts for a de-sysadmining. Gusfriend (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe I am the "Ignorant creature" who believes 'Pictures of gardens are irrelevant". This is about Zhan Yuan, which I accepted while NPP reviewing. The article however is very short and has a gallery of 19 photos. First I tagged it with {{gallery cleanup}} per WP:GALLERY. This editor removed the tag. Next I tried removing most of the images with a suggestion that there be a link to commons, but that too was reverted with a disparaging edit summary. MB 16:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the too many images and have removed some which duplicate what is in the remaining ones and I have added the commons link. I will shortly work on improving the related page merge. Gusfriend (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Draftify

Pratyeka's response above is obviously far from what we'd expect from an admin and suggests there were some deeper frustrations at play. But losing a Wikipedian of nearly 20 years is never something to be just shrugged off, and I don't think the sequence of events that led up to this was ideal either. @WaddlesJP13: You moved both articles to draftspace with the canned edit summary Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace, but what made them "not ready"? Those words link to a list of rather vague criteria, none of which appear to apply to these two articles, and even if they did, they wouldn't help Pratyeka ascertain how to make the article "ready" in your eyes. Your follow up message on his talk page, also automated, says that it was because they lacked sufficient sources, but Mccapra had already addressed that by adding {{unreferenced}}. And while I'm not saying we should apply different rules to different editors, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that an admin and experienced editor was probably intending to add a citation in response to that, if you'd given him more than 16 minutes to do so? Did you have any reason to suspect that there is not in fact a "a garden in Guangzhou" named Nanyue Yuan (all the article claimed at that point)? And given you moved both articles to draft 20 minutes after Pratyeka's last edit, how did this meet they criterion that there should be no evidence of a user actively working on [an article] before moving it to draft? All in all, I would call both of these moves a misuse of draftspace, and the fact that you've draftified many other articles [...] for this same reason hardly makes things better.

Pratyeka has been an admin since 2003, so has spent the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia not having his new articles patrolled, until we unbundled autopatrolled from sysop last year. Part of the motivation for that was the suspicion that some admins had drifted away from current expectations when it comes to article creation. But another was the hope that, by re-exposing our admin cadre to new page patrol, they would start paying attention to the process again, like the vast majority of editors who have no choice but to pay attention to it. Unfortunately, most active admins simply opted to re-grant themselves autopatrolled, but this incident illustrates both dynamics well. In the "old days", creating a stub without a citation was fine. In the much-more-recent days, creating a stub and adding a citation half an hour later was also fine. And even if I think the reaction is way over-the-top, I can understand Pratyeka's frustration at the swift, seemingly arbitrary removal of his newly created articles from mainspace. If that frustration is enough to throw away two decades of commitment to this project, how on earth do we expect new editors to react to it? – Joe (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong thing to focus on wrt this incident. I think the point is that when faced with the need to adapt, a legacy user —who also happens to be an admin, though appears to have used it seldom (one block, zero protections, etc.)— should not respond to corrections with such scorn. Their comments, with the all boldface and even entire sentences in all-uppercase, are an inflammatory and uncomfortable read. Which, for me at least, doesn't amplify the message, but instead does the opposite by diminishing it.

I joined EN in 2004 and became an admin in 2005. When I came back in 2017 after almost a decade hiatus, I was making quite a few mistakes, both as an editor and an admin, but I took whatever corrections in the spirit in which they were intended. Which, creditably, was overwhelmingly encouraging; charitable to excess, even. So, I thanked whomever for the feedback and tried not to repeat the same mistake twice.

Years later, I re-granted myself the autopatrol perm because I knew about it getting unbundled (and in doing so also briefly became Gandalf). Anyway, I don't want to pile on, since Pratyeka has already resigned their sysop, and I don't want to grandstand, either. But I think this incident is more about poor temperament and a sense of entitlement that a legacy user who is also an admin can make quite intimidating to those editors on the receiving end. A problem which itself seem to stem from a refusal to learn and adapt. That is, it's less about what the specific impetus was (i.e. Draftify, etc.), but rather, more about all the rage and rage quitting. Above all else, it's just sad to witness. El_C 09:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think these were reasonable draftifications. The reviewer saw two unsourced articles, created more than 30 minutes previously, that simply said "this garden exists" (here here). And the article creator had been editing several other articles since creating them. --bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, there isn't actually a policy basis for moving articles to draftspace because they lack sources, especially when they're being actively worked on, especially when they're stubs that contain no claims likely to be challenged. And I know there's a wide range of opinions on how long is too long to wait for improvements to a new stub, but... 30 minutes? Good grief, have you never been interrupted when working on an article? Or made a cup of tea? – Joe (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good grief, not another uninformed "policy" explanation please. "Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace" The articles were recent and had potential, but unsourced articles don't meet "Wikipedia's quality standards". The move to draft was perfectly within policy. Fram (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I have, in fact. In one case the article was promptly prodded, in another it was maintenance tagged. I wrote slightly snippy "Give a guy a chance to work on the damn article" responses, but that was because both the prod and the tagging took place less than thirty seconds after I created the articles, AND I didn't walk to the tea kettle before already making sure there was at least one reliable source cited in each. Even so, I didn't throw a major ragestorm. WP:CIVIL doesn't come with a carveout of "This doesn't apply to you as long as you're sure the bastards deserve it." Ravenswing 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It's really not that much to ask to include at least one source when first creating an article. We should expect nothing less. It's not 2004 anymore, and WP:V is not optional. Moving unsourced and unverified articles out of mainspace isn't "misuse of draft space", it's exactly what any experienced editor should do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: It may indeed be too much to ask. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Trying to get Wikipedians to agree on changing something, even a single word, is like trying to herd cats, while standing on one leg, blindfolded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course I have been interrupted while editing, and I have also been carried away / pulled down a rabbit hole of other articles to the point where I forgot which article I was working on in the first place. There's nothing strange about that, and it seems a little unreasonable to expect all other editors to predict whether the editor who is now editing a different article is still working on the unsourced one, or if they have in fact forgot to do the minimum required thing and add a source. If I had had a microstub draftified in this way I'd have felt rather silly for forgetting to include a source in my new article before I started editing other articles; then I'd presumably have added a couple of sources (and rather more content) and returned it to mainspace after doing that. Look, having an article draftified is not a huge black mark against a forgetful editor. It's a service to the editor. Similarly, over-eager draftification (which I don't believe this was) isn't a capital sin either. The aim is to have policy compliant and reasonable articles in mainspace. --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I'm not sure what else I would've had to add in there, the article was an unsourced stub. If the creator wanted to indicate that it was being worked on they should've made the indication with an under construction tag or else a move to draftspace is inevitable. I don't see a reason to publish an article before it has anything worth keeping. Besides, they've been on Wikipedia for almost 20 years, they should've known the sourcing guidelines and the draftification procedure in the first place. If the problem was something other than poor sourcing, then I would've clarified that, but the poor sourcing is already indicated in the default message. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good job bringing the issues with this legacy admin to light. They created Llandovery Falls this year, which says "made famous after being depicted on Jamaica's first one-penny stamp on the series Pictorial Stamps." Hey, what does the copyrighted source say? "made famous after being depicted on Jamaica's first one-penny stamp on the series 'Pictorial Stamps'." PHY-Level Collision Avoidance, "PLCA provides guaranteed maximum latency along with improved throughput and access fairness". Source: "PLCA provides a guaranteed maximum latency along with improved throughput and access fairness". Just like "reconciliation sublayer defined within IEEE 802.3 clause 148, meant to achieve deterministic performance out of CSMA/CD for half-duplex, mixing-segment (i.e. multidrop) networks featuring a low number of nodes." is rather similar to "reconciliation sublayer, defined within 802.3 clause 148, meant to achieve deterministic performance out of CSMA/CD for half-duplex, mixing-segment (i.e. multidrop) networks featuring a low number of nodes.". The louder people shout about the great work they have done and that they shouldn't be treated like this, the more likely it is that further inspection will reveal serious issues (see e.g. Doug Coldwell for another recent example). Fram (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

+1. I've been here nearly 18 years. Like many another oldbie, I bristle at being questioned by and having to justify myself to relative newbies. Nonetheless, they have the right to hold me to account for my edits, and I have the duty to respond. People have been pushing the "longevity/barnstar count exempts me from having to follow the rules" garbage for a very long time, and a lot of the more painful ANI/ArbCom cases have come from this syndrome. In any event, my reaction after reading Prat's raging here and over at BN is a solid "meh, whatever." The guy's been averaging fewer than ten mainspace edits a month for the last five years. Somehow Wikipedia will survive the ragequit all the same. Ravenswing 12:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sadly I'm not surprised to find the editor's understanding of copyright is poor. I saw on their BN posts something about 'I recently had a great historic photo deleted by someone abusing copyright rules for a national government' and 'I'll bet nobody looks in to the deleted photo (abuse of copyright for censorship) or does anything about the constructive suggestions'. I was wondering what on earth they were talking about since I saw no mention of this here or on their talk page, and then I realised I was looking in the wrong place. Not surprisingly, this happened on commons not here [163] although Pratyeka seems fairly confused about the difference since they said [164] 'Nationalism has no place on Wikipedia' in their reply on commons. More importantly, despite their accusations both on commons and but also now here that there was some sort of abuse on behalf of a national government, I see zero evidence of that. I cannot see the deleted image but commons is of course a repository of free content and in many countries governments do retain copyright over their work. From the description, the tagger on commons seems to be correct that the tag used does not apply, I guess why the admin on commons actioned the speedy. From their comments, Pratyeka seems to think we can or should ignore copyright (see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Optus blocking TPB.jpg) if it has some sort of overriding interest but of course that is not how commons, copyright and free licences works, indeed Pratyeka's comments seem to have shades of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Here on en, if this particular blocking notice was important enough we could like use it under NFCC, but not there. And while not legal advice, I suspect keeping a repository of such images would be fine under fair use in general. Note that while it's possible the deleted image would be PD-ineligible like the Optus one, that doesn't change the fact the tag was wrong, and so there's no reason to think that the speedy tagger (or the admin who actioned it) was doing anything but correctly identifying something tagged with an incorrect licence. In other words I'm fairly sure Pratyeka has no evidence of any sort of abuse on behalf of a national government and so has made personal attacks here on en about something that happened on commons. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Shall we close this thread with a guidance to prat to take care about copyright and civil discussions? They have resigned their bit on their own; and that's to their credit.... Good faith close perhaps here? Lourdes 13:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with that. El_C 13:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not. That's textbook Super Mario effect. Resigning the bit is not even relevant here -- though glad it was done. How would we respond if a new user wrote what prat wrote? That's how we respond to prat; after all, they've been editing since some editors were in diapers. Prat doesn't need "guidance" after 20 years to follow copyright and civility, this should be closed with a warning to follow copyright and civility policies and not to create unsourced mainspace articles. After all, what is the value of 20 years experience if you're still making unsourced stubs and then biting NPPers' heads off when they draftify? I'll gladly trade that for a teenage or first-year editor who does things right. I'm far less worried about losing prat than I am about losing WaddlesJP13, and everyone else should be, too. Priorities. (Waddles, sorry you've had to deal with this and thank you for continuing to volunteer here.) Levivich (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I was plenty critical of Pratyeka in my comment above. The point, though, is that their sysop was resigned under a cloud, so I'd expect that to be mentioned in the close summary — it being the key event. The rest doesn't need to be belaboured, the resignation is sanction enough. Sure, they need a refresher on 2022 EN; and guidance towards that, yes, even after 20 years (of intermittent activity) can actually be good. Obviously, alongside that they'll need to keep their cool and not COPYVIO if they are to be considered YESCOMPATIBLE. I don't think there's much more to it than counter-scorn at this point, though. El_C 14:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

the resignation is sanction enough That's textbook WP:Super Mario effect. The resignation is not a sanction at all. The point of a warning is to document that policies were violated and further violations will likely result in sanctions. A voluntary resignation of the admin bit does not accomplish this, and should not be treated as if it were a sanction. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do I get the sense that whatever I say, it'll be another that's textbook WP:Super Mario effect? Oh well, I don't really have much more to add atm, anyway, so go for 3...? El_C 15:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I started this subsection to discuss the out-of-policy draftifications that led to his resignation, which hasn't been resolved at all, so please don't. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I'll reiterate again that I don't think this is the best time or the best venue to engage in that. El_C 14:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

And they werent' "out-of-policy", repeating such claims don't make them any more true. If you want to claim that someone acted out-of-policy, quote the policy which they violated. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

OMG not again. Could the Draftify is / is not policy argument please be taken to WP:VPP or wherever? El_C 15:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, without comment on Pratyeka's edit-summaries, please do take the basic policy argument to somewhere where it can be discussed. Joe Roe makes the point that losing editors isn't great. At the moment, editing in main-space can be a bit of a nightmare. It's an environment where any newbie will find themselves sandwiched between reversion by people with ownership issues who resent intrusion into "their" area, and reversion by over-enthusiastic vandalism hunters who send passive-aggressive "welcome but please don't" messages. If they also find their new articles lingering as drafts at AfC for months, get into misguided arguments with new page patrollers, and feel that everything they write gets draftified while they're still improving it, they are likely to give up. Even the Teahouse is a grumpy place nowadays. It is much harder to criticise than to build: I notice that many Wikipedians either drift away, or degenerate into semi-admin roles in AfD, noticeboards (me!) and anti-vandalism patrolling, and stop actually contributing real text; this is sad. We have lost the concept that articles can grow from poor to good via mediocre: at the moment we simply delete the mediocre for not being good enough. There are pluses and minuses about both the "draftify" and the "improve-in-situ" approaches, and their relative merits should be discussed, but not here. Elemimele (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've started a potential discussion place if anyone is interested in the general question: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Draftify_things,_or_improve-in-situ (hope it's appropriate, El_C) Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Like @Elemimele . El_C 16:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Being on Wikipedia for 20 years does not entitle one to temper tantrums or to prattle with indignity at the most basic of checks and balances. Perhaps it's best that an admin resignation was made here. Losing editors isn't great, but when an editor loses the ability for civil, level-headed discussion, that isn't great either. Criticalus (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption of biographies

212.228.225.94 (talk · contribs), returning from recent block for more of same. Requesting reversion of edits and longer block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

See also 212.228.213.255 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reported them at WP:AIV as this doesn't seem to merit an ANI filing (unless it's declined there). It's just an IP who's continuing the same disruptive editing that they were previously blocked for shortly after their block has expired. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Support extending block. The AIV filing was declined for non-obvious vandalism, but I agree that based on edits like this one and these that the IP is making claims about people, at least in some cases BLPs, without providing appropriate sourcing. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Since May 2022, 70% of the edits (156/222) in this range 212.228.192.0/18 have been reverted. Could this be ZestyLemonz? – Archer1234 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Crickets. The vandalism continues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked 212.228.225.94 for two weeks. 212.228.213.255 has not had any edits for 10 days. No other IPs are active in this range: 212.228.192.0/18. Are there other IPs continuing with vandalism that you suspect are related? – Archer1234 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you—-I don’t see anything else. I’m away for the weekend, but appreciate the update. Cheers. 66.30.216.14 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

User Prototyperspective violating WP:NOTWEBHOST

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

Back in early September, an article created by Prototyperspective was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. As the AfD noted, the article was a clear POV-fork of other content, contained considerable WP:OR, and was otherwise entirely unsuited for Wikipedia. Some time later it came to my attention that the deleted article was now in user space, almost unmodified, as User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. I initially tagged it for speedy deletion under db-g4 - ' substantially identical to the deleted version...' but the speedy was declined (not by Prototyperspective). Given that I still considered that db-g4 applied, I then started an MfD discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. As might be expected, Prototyperspective has argued against deletion there, as they are entitled to. It has however become apparent, initally as a result of comments made there by Prototyperspective, is that the disputed page is being linked to, by them, on Reddit. Prototyperspective has stated that "others outside of Wikipedia" [165] have been reading the page, using this as an argument for retention. That, in my understanding of policy, is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and at least arguably, given the phrasing used on Reddit, a WP:FAKEARTICLE.

At the root of this issue is Prototyperspective's refusal to accept the result of the original AfD, despite overwhelming consensus. This refusal is ongoing, and, in Prototyperspective's latest post to the MfD discussion used as an explicit justification for retaining the content: "... many others have confirmed that they think [it useful] too...its contents are relevant to discussions...the page shouldn't have been fully deleted...". [166] Since absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy legitimises employing user space as a platform for hosting fringe content for the benefit of Reddit readers, and as a means to circumvent article deletion, something clearly needs to be done. The MfD discussion is ongoing, so it probably isn't appropriate to pre-empt the result, but at minimum Prototyperspective needs to be told, in clear and unambiguous terms, that they are not under any circumstances permitted to link their user pages to social media in this manner, that they are not permitted to use social media to continue Wikipedia content disputes, and that user space is not provided for the furtherance of such disputes. Or for the propagation of the users own personal views to outsiders, whether on UFOs or on anything else. Given the ongoing refusal by Prototyperspective to accept the consensus at AfD, and what appears to be a general inability to accept that fringe-POV-fork essays on the subjects of UFOs aren't appropriate encyclopaedic content, it should also perhaps be considered whether a 'UFO' topic ban might be in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Already stated that I didn't know about WP:COPYARTICLE when I moved the page from draftspace to userspace and that this policy warrants deletion, sorry. I don't know why you think I was violating "Wikipedia is not a social networking service" there though. The MfD already points to deletion of the userspace page which I'm okay with and am not arguing against, at least not anymore. (Also I'm not 'using' "social media to continue Wikipedia content disputes", I'm allowed to link to Wikipedia articles and I'm doing so because these were relevant to the respective discussion and because the page was useful.) As I have clarified, in the discussion, I wasn't "using this as an argument for retention", but mentioned this to address your mentioned AfD, not to argue for keeping the userspace page (something being useful etc doesn't warrant keeping it as userspace page). Also see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Again: what is being done is that the userspace article is getting deleted, in line with WP policies. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying you are linking to wikipedia on social media "Because these were relevant to the respective discussion and the page was useful... So you're admitting that you wrote a wikipedia article, and then tried to reference to it elsewhere to further your own arguments. What you've done is essentially tried to borrow 'credibility' from wikipedia by using it to platform your views? GabberFlasted (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstood me there. I didn't link it to "further my arguments". It simply was useful in a random discussion I had on the net, it was a useful resource there and instead of posting a lengthy comment I just put a link to the page there.

It's completely unrelated to any arguments, and I didn't make an argument for keeping the page saying it's useful to others, everything below the ____ at the MfD was only to address AndyTheGrumps mentions of the AfD, plain notes that weren't meant as arguments to keep the userspace page and I stated that explicitly multiple times there.

I don't really understand your latter allegations, see WP:AGF, it doesn't even make sense to "borrow 'credibility' from wikipedia by using it to platform your views" if it's a userspace page, it's certainly not what I meant to do or anything I thought of or anyhow related here. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec) "I'm allowed to link to Wikipedia articles". Irrelevant, since it isn't a Wikipedia article. "Also see WP:RS and WP:NPOV". Why? What has that got to do with anything? And yes, linking user pages to social media for "discussion" is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, regardless of how much waffle is used to argue the contrary. If you want people to discuss your flying-saucer-woo essay, find somewhere else to host it - there are plenty of websites that accept such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean when I meant you aren't addressing points in the AfD, these discussions just bloat up without discussing the actual points raised. I meant Wikipedia page there and I'm also allowed to link userspace pages. One is allowed to link Wikipedia articles in discussions. For example if I discuss pet food, it's very normal to link article pet food if it has some section relevant to the discussion instead of putting everything in the comment or copying things from the article to the comment. I already stated in the MfD that I'm currently looking for such a website and that I'm fine with that deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"I'm also allowed to link userspace pages". Have you ever actually read WP:NOT? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Proto actively trying to improve the article? Userfying a deleted page to allow it to be brought up to snuff and reinstated is a relatively uncontentious action. Or at least used to be, I may not be up on current practice but see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content (an essay not policy, but does correspond with common practice at least back in the day). --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Prototyperspective has explicitly told us, repeatedly, that the deleted article was being linked externally on social media for the purpose of 'discussion'. Not improvement, a discussion about UFOs. And no, nothing has been done to address the many issues raised during the AfD discussion - unsurprisingly, since Prototyperspective has refused to accept the result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if he's not doing anything with it (I was AGF-ing that he was seeking help from others linking to it off site) then it doesn't belong in userspace. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes for the purpose of the discussion at the external website, not the discussion on Wikipedia. Many things have been done to address the few issues raised during the AfD (so much that they can be considered solved now), I wrote that I planned to keep working on the page but that I'm fine with deletion of the userspace page anyway. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Proto, if you truly are fine with it going away, consider slapping an author's request CSD tag on it. Would probably go a long way towards showing you understand the issue and want to adjust behavior to community norms. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Many things have been done to address the few issues raised during the AfD...? That response alone makes me even more convinced that my suggestion that a 'UFO' topic ban might be merited needs consideration. Absolutely nothing has been done to remove the fringe POV-pushing, synthesis, cherry=picking of sources and general vacuous crappiness of the original article. It is the same junk it always was. Nothing can usefully be salvaged from it. Not by Prototyperspective, or by anyone else. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy-theory peddling misrepresented as an article on 'academic research'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Among the things I did was removing a newyorker reference (not reliable), removing a paragraph that had unreliable references, adding a section about the status of the field, adding more info about criticism, adding more info about Mick West, and so on. I didn't cherry-pick, I searched quite long for more refs about criticism by "skeptics" (and even more so by other academics) and iirc invited others to add more info about such or anything else they consider to be missing there. I take note of Nothing can usefully be salvaged from it and conspiracy-theory peddling misrepresented as an article on 'academic research', again referring to WP:RS (and WP:NPOV and even WP:FRIND which I tried to meet per WP:AGF but apparently failed(?) even so I still don't exactly know why which I asked about but okay). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: Done, added a CSD to the page.

I'm fine with deletion and as already stated at the MfD already looking for another appropriate Wiki to put this instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump: Am I to understand that there exists a policy under which it is forbidden for me to show other people my userspace drafts? I have never heard of such a thing and I am not sure what the utility of it would be. jp×g 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested such a general policy exists. I haven't. What I have suggested though is that, regarding the specifics of this case, the recreation of the article and its subsequent linking to Reddit violated WP:NOTWEBHOST. The content wasn't in any meaningful sense a 'draft'. It was deleted content only there because the article creator refused to accept the result of the AfD, and because the article creator wished to present the deleted content to outsiders in a 'UFO' forum. Prototyperspective is of course free (subject to licensing conditions, since the article had been edited to some extent by others) to post it on a blog, on another Wiki, or elsewhere. Just not on Wikipedia, in circumstances where less-attentive readers might think it is an actual, current Wikipedia article. User-space content masquerading as articles gets deleted all the time, as a matter of course, and generally there is little fuss made over such deletions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump

Over the past few days, this user has acted with incivility regarding the AfD for Liberland in which he was warned. He has edit warred on Vit Jedlicka trying to remove his officeholders infobox with the reason being that the position isn't real - even though all micronationalists have either an officeholder or royalty infobox (e.g. Carolyn Shelby, Travis McHenry, Igor Ashurbeyli etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Provide diffs? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted Diffs? I'm not sure what that means, sorry. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Diffs: Special:Diff/1116096998, Special:Diff/1116097990. But Andy's already been warned for this (Special:Diff/1116097938) by Tyw7, and Andy has calmed down with the sweary namecalling since then. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that the only source for Vit Jedlicka holding any office in regards to the zero-population 'micronation' of Liberland is Jedlicka himself. It isn't an 'office'. No such office exists, except in the imagination of Liberland supporters. The 'office' comes with no powers. Or even, it would seem likely, a physical office. At least, not one on the uninhabited island. It is an imaginary self-conferred label. And as such, entirely inappropriate self-promotional content ineligible for inclusion in the infobox, per WP:BLP policy. And if WP:BLP policy is indeed being violated elsewhere, that doesn't justify doing it in this case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• MicroSupporter asked on my talk page for my advice/intervention regarding this situation; my reading is that in fact MicroSupporter is in violation of both WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE here. I had hoped giving them this advice on my talk page would lead to them taking a step back and addressing the content dispute in the appropriate way, but instead they opened this ANI case before I finished my response. WP:BOOMERANG applies at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I apologise. I was just acting how I'd seen other micronational WP:BLP's. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I made the above comment having only been aware of the situation at Vit Jedlicka, and not the Liberland AfD. I still think that the situation would benefit from editors taking a step back and picking up with the next step of WP:BRD, but want to acknowledge that the case of incivility identified in Levivich's diffs as a reasonable basis for starting an ANI discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think your first instinct was correct, Ros, because the diffs I linked were from five days ago. I'm not sure they're a reasonable basis for starting an ANI today. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump behaved inappropriately calling someone names ("halfwit", linked in OP's link to acted with incivility) and told them multiple times to "fuck off" (linked in same discussion). AndyTheGrump was then warned by Tyw7. Since that warning, I can find no further examples of incivility in AndyTheGrump's editing history. Since the warning worked to fix the problem, what else do we need to do here? --Jayron32 15:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I clearly could have chosen my words more wisely back there - but it is difficult to exercise restraint after having ones views repeatedly misrepresented. As should be noted, I didn't actually !vote for deletion at the Liberland AfD. Instead, I left a comment suggesting that the article wasn't following WP:NPOV policy, in that it had been repeatedly misrepresenting self-promotion as objective fact. A subject being Wikipedia-'notable' isn't grounds for the sort of BS we've seen there, with in one case the so-called 'Minister of Justice' of the imaginary 'nation' adding himself to the infobox. [167] Somehow though, I'm the one being accused of 'bias' by MicroSupporter? So yes, I lost my temper. I suspect many people would, under the circumstances... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Are we allowed to tell people to fuck off if we calm down after, or not? Sorry, I'm new and trying to learn the rules. Level two wikimancer (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. But if it was not appropriate, there may be consequences. Be absolutely sure of no good faith on the other side, and of this being proportionate escalation after earlier messages, by other people. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I see, so WP:NPA is limited in scope to good faith editors. For instance, because I believe you answered in good faith, I'd get in trouble for calling you a half wit. But if I thought you weren't here to build an encyclopedia, then saying that SmokeyJoe is a half wit would be ok? Complex rules! But I'm catching on Level two wikimancer (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You'd think that a new user would be a level one wikimancer, but I suppose we're all learning new things every day. Parabolist (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Telling people to fuck off is not a personal attack, it is an uncivil way to tell them to go away. If you tell me to fuck off, you are not insulting me, you are not calling me names, you are just saying rathe forcefully that you don't want to interact with me in this or that discussion. Calling someone a halfwit, on the other hand, is a clear personal attack, it is saying something negative about the other. Nothing complex about it, just make sure that you don't ask about X (in this case, "fuck off"), and then jump to unwarranted conclusions about Y (in this case "halfwit") as if they are the same. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

There was indeed actually a request for comment, WP:FUCKOFF, about the general usage of that term. As a result of the RfC, a consensus seems to have developed that just using the term "fuck off" is not considered a personal attack - as Fram said. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

But it is incivil regardless, and not all incivil things are personal attacks. There are lots of ways one can violate WP:CIVILITY policy, and personal attacks are but one of them. --Jayron32 17:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I rarely have seen the civility policy enforced beyond the most egregious violations. The fact we have a page called Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing speaks to some of the contempt that a lot of our long-time users have towards civility. And for the most part, we collectively accept it, whether or not we explicitly do so. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

To answer Level two wikimancer's initial question, 'Are we allowed to tell people to fuck off if we calm down after, or not?', the answer is most likely 'it depends', so try not to. As for what it depends on, opinions will differ. Some will say it depends on the circumstances (I'd argue that it probably should, but I would, wouldn't I). Others will say it depends on who says it. Which might also be a legitimate consideration on occasion, though it can certainly look like favouritism. And then there is an element of luck. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, not all of whom respond in the same way. WP:ANI, where most such cases get reported (if they get reported at all) is a hit-or-miss sort of place, with unpredictable outcomes depending on how a thread is started, and who responds. Things can often go off at a tangent, with the initial complaint rapidly getting buried under other matters, often for very good reasons. And a little uncertainly about what exactly the consequences will be isn't necessarily a bad thing. If Wikipedia were to ever try to lay down precise rules about exactly how uncivil contributors were permitted to be to each other, it would most likely to encourage people to resort to maximum-permitted-incivility as a matter of routine. Or at least, encourage some of us. And trying to create such rules would be doomed to failure anyway, since it is entirely possible to be excruciatingly uncivil to someone using nothing but the most polite language. Not having hard and fast rules hopefully encourages some people to think about the broader consequences of what they say, rather than merely dragging out the rulebook and applying permitted terms just because they can.

As for Fram's point above about personal attacks, the same considerations apply to some extent. The general rule (in as much as there are rules, which again aren't always a good idea) seems to be that you can be rude about what people do ("that was halfwitted"), but not what you think they are ("halfwit"). Or at least, if you are going to do the latter, do it in Wikipedia's preferred terms, preferably with Wikilinks (WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR etc...), and with some evidence to back it up. So yes, I shouldn't have called MicroSupporter a halfwit. Not only was it impolite, it was unnecessary, since I'd got the evidence on my side over the matter concerned.

Ultimately though, Wikipedia is created and maintained by a disparate bunch of volunteers, with all that entails. Mostly the same stuff that applies to all human endeavours, anywhere. Being rude to each other is something people do, all the time. Possibly it's an inevitable side effect of being such effective communicators. Or maybe its the reason we developed language in the first place. (I wish I'd thought of that when I was studying anthropology at university...) Seriously though, although it might possibly seem a good thing to be perfectly polite to each other, all the time, it isn't going to happen. People have flaws. So the stuff they do will be flawed. This project certainly does, and in my (obviously biased) opinion, contributors' incivility to each other doesn't even come into the top half-dozen things wrong with it. So try not to be ruder to each other than is sometimes necessary (and yes, sometimes it is necessary to tell potential contributors that they lack the competence to do anything remotely useful here...) but don't kid yourself that eliminating incivility is more than an utopian dream. Or that anyone would necessarily want to live in that particular utopia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

From my point of view, to answer @Level two wikimancer: excellent question, no it is not allowed, WP:CIVILITY is not just policy, it's a core policy and one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Telling someone to "fuck off", unless it is said in jest between friends, is never civil. HOWEVER, saying that, Wikipedia also does not punish. See WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Things like blocks or bans are enacted for patterns of behavior, refusal to accept responsibility and modify one's behavior voluntarily, "doubling down" on bad behavior, etc. AndyTheGrump was warned to stop, and has multiple times conceded there were in the wrong for losing their temper, and has also not repeated the behavior. From a Wikipedia policy point of view, that's sufficient. We have no reason to block them, because there's nothing to stop. Blocks stop bad behavior; bad behavior which has stopped on its own doesn't need a block. If AndyTheGrump does this again tomorrow to someone else, and then the day after to a third person, then we can start having a conversation about blocking or banning them. But not after an isolated incident of incivility. --Jayron32 17:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked MicroSupporter for edit warring on Vít Jedlička. Their conduct in the micronations topic area is approaching POV pushing. I would suggest a topic ban --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Have been unblocked as per review on my talk page. I apologise for any wrongdoings once again. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Guerillero seems to have misread the dates or something. Again, my apologies for the incivility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see the 'micro' story is taking a toll not only on article space :) It's starting to become clear that this whole situation is starting to resemble WP:PSCI. Our collective response seems like we're still in the early stages of grief, though. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

My grief (generally expressed in the phrase 'good grief') is more concerned with the state of 'macronations' these days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I can fully understand Andy's frustration after having edited in that field myself, but deciding to give up on the micronations since it was bad for my blood pressure, in spite of me normally being the calmest person on earth. The Liberland article is about a totally imaginary "micronation", created and kept alive only to make money from selling "passports", "offices" and memorabilia, and thus purely promotional, using Wikipedia as a free advertising platform. So IMHO the article should be deleted and salted ASAP. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, such zero-population putative 'micronations' tend to fall through the cracks in Wikipedia's fringe-topic-treatment policies. They become Wikipedia-'notable' through media coverage that is more often than not filler copy written for entertainment rather than objectivity. 'Man starts imaginary country' is more interesting to readers than 'Man talks nonsense about creating imaginary country so he can sell useless citizenship certificates for Bitcoin' or whatever. Either notability criteria need changing, or NPOV policy needs to be enforced more thoroughly - which mostly comes down to not presenting fantasy as fact. WE could make a good start by removing the thoroughly dishonest 'infoboxes' from such articles, given that they inevitably contain promotional BS rather than verifiable fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  They appear to be using the infobox for recognized countries, which is absolutely a bad approach. A simple box to identify who created the micronation, when, where, and estimated size would be a neutral approach, anything else is going to be claims that can be discussed in the body but not treated as facts due to the purposes of Microstation. Masem (t) 15:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hoax or not (spoiler: it probaly is), Liberland is still notable enough to exist on Wikipedia. Gatekeeping it is inappropriate. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Could you clarify what you mean by 'gatekeeping'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  People trying to delete it off of Wikipedia for the sole fact that it could potentially be a hoax (just like many other micronations on Wikipedia). I think Liberland's article definitely needs restructuring so it looks more like a micronation and the controversies of Liberland should also be visible on the article, but I don't think it should be deleted. The problem with micronations is some claim to be fantasy, and some claim to be serious (in reality they're all fantasy though, regardless of what they claim). This causes great difficulty of finding things to write about on the micronations that claim to be serious. I hope that makes sense. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thomas.W doesn't seem to be suggesting that the Liberland article should be deleted because it is a 'hoax'. He says it is promotional. Which it is. And the question then comes down to whether it is appropriate to cover the subject on Wikipedia, given that the sources available are either entirely promotional themselves, or lacking the objective coverage necessary to write an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia isn't obliged to have articles on anything, and whether we do so or not is, quite rightly, mostly dependent of the availability and usefulness of sufficient independent sources. I'm of the opinion that in almost all circumstances, it is better to have no article on a topic than a bad one, if the bad cannot be made good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I can't see how Liberland's article is promotional, it just lacks the information on how its a micronation. Most of the articles about Liberland seem to be making them ick out of Liberland, which means they're definitely not promotional articles if they're not getting the serious coverage that they want. The article needs restructuring, but I don't think it should be deleted. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  In what sense is Liberland a 'micronation'? The territory claimed is an uninhabited island. It has never had a 'Liberlander' population. It consists of nothing more than a website, and a series of claims to existence. In a sense, all nations are social constructs (even the largest and most powerful ones), but this particular one seems only to consist of a 'claim to existence' that nobody but its promoters take seriously. If indeed they actually do, as more than a means of attracting publicity. Imaginary elephants aren't pachyderms. Imaginary 'micronations' aren't nations, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to pretend that they are. If you want to publish micronation-fanfiction, try Wikia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm getting Poyais vibes from all of this. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• User:EEng. I know it's getting a bit too long now, but shouldn't unrecognised micronations be on The List. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

   Done A most appropriate addition to that most important list. EEng 16:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about articles nominated for deletion

I am a Mexican editor and since three years ago I've been writing and creating around 200 articles on Wikipedia, including the majority of Real Madrid seasons, a good bunch of Juventus, A.C. Milan and Internazionale seasons, even Nottingham Forest seasons, PSV and Sporting Lisboa, and of course I've been helping with uncountable edits to other users articles. Other pages that you probably reviewed or read, those articles include prose, several sources and of course report-links.

The problem is, early October 2022 I started to write articles about my native country Mexico, the 1994-95 season with 19 football teams and plus another cancelled campaign. I followed the same WP:NSEASONS requirements, I properly included several sources, as I routinely do with my european teams articles. I've never had problems with my past 195 articles, but, suddenly after three years, I've received 10 nominations to delete my Mexican football teams articles by The Banner (talk · contribs) . Naïvely I followed the process, it was abhorrent, I've explained one time, two times several times my artciles were properly sourced, but by an incredible deletion score of 1-0 with the same user . GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) voting in my AfD discussions through a two weeks span, they were deleted by Star Mississippi (talk · contribs) through Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_October_19#1994–95_season_articles.

This is clearly linked to the undeniable fact that the three persons cannot accept a Mexican editor write popular articles with many views, following a Jim Crow strategy' they even don't read my articles, just nominate and delete them always the same three persons (1 nominates, 1 votes, and 1 deletes the same three always). They acted against my 200 articles only after they've realized I am Mexican. I have 18 articles deleted, they are doing the same for the other 200 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Football.

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, you are doing something wrong. You've made blatant personal attacks against several editors, accusing them of racism, because they had the gall to nominate some of your articles for deletion based on Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability. I strongly suggest you refactor your post to remove any insinuation that your were targeted because of your nationality as opposed to a relatively recent consensus-driven shift in notability criteria for sports/athletes. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm going to second this. Calling these editors racists, to be blunt, is a personal attack. I'm also changing the title of this section, as this again is a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not surprisingly, Football in Baltimore is not popular, of course you want the 200 football articles deleted. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't care about the articles in question. I care about your continued personal attacks. Stop with the racism calls immediately, or you're going to be blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Heaven forbid that Wikipedia editors apply notability policies and guidelines, or that we don't treat association football articles as immune to the same. JPxG is correct that there've been sweeping changes to sports notability guidelines (after years of abuse, with some footy editors being among the worst offenders), and it's entirely possible you were unaware of that. But if you're unable to assume good faith, and you reflexively jump to the conclusion that the only conceivable reason anyone could take one of your articles to AfD is sinister intent, then Wikipedia will just have to soldier on without you. Ravenswing 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like it was changed back, should I change it to "Personal attack from HugoAcosta9"? @RickinBaltimore The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  See everyone, after I wrote 200 articles I showed with exhibitions those three friendos are acting against a Mexican editor and they deflected the truth labeling as personal attacks. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please read the behavioral guideline WP:AGF before you continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I can write with fear anymore over here. I will never published another article on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  @HugoAcosta9: no one here is being racist, or biased against articles from Mexico. As @JPxG states below, the notability guidelines for sports articles are much stricter now; please take a moment to review the link they provided to understand the changes. (And before I get accused of racism myself, check my user page – I'm actually south of you.) –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Read 1 out of my 200 articles, if you want 1 article unsourced, then I allow you to delete all of them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not the one nominating the articles for deletion ;) I'm just saying that the nomination, even if it may have been mistaken, has nothing to do with your nationality or any other personal characteristic. I understand it's distressing, but please avoid attacking other editors because of it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Close as forum shopping and suggest p-block from DRV which he's bludgeoning (again) with bad faith comments and arguments. Star Mississippi 18:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• @HugoAcosta9: A few months ago, some rather sweeping changes were made to WP:NSPORTS, so while I think it is unlikely that you are being specifically targeted, you are not wrong in perceiving a sudden increase in sports-related AfD nominations. jp×g 18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  With the difference they are lying about me writing that the 200 articles are unsourced when you red those they are sourced with 6-7 references, and using only 1 vote to delete my 200 articles from the same user. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strictly spoken, I am not informed about this discussion. I was pointed to WP:AN for a non-existing discussion. But with some searching, I did find the personal attack. The Banner talk 18:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  False. I properly noticed you in your talk page. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Just read your own edit on my talk page. The Banner talk 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

    I noticed you based on real claims, on the contrary, you deleted 10 Mexican football articles based on false claims, then you want my other 200 being deleted precisely the 200 european football. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The claims of racism and so on are unacceptable, but on the other hand I would be upset as well if someone started AfD´ing articles like 1989–90 Real Madrid CF season. Believing that this isn´t notable and no sources would exist for this club, the champions of the Spanish competition that year and one of the 5 biggest football clubs ever, is not racism but is a staggering display of ignorance, or lack of any WP:BEFORE and common sense. Fram (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio... The Banner talk 19:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look... Fram (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on what evidence? I carry no water for HugoAcosta9, but your seeming assertion that he committed copyvio with no other ground than a lack of sourcing is dealing in bad faith. If you think this is copyvio, prove it with a link. If you can't (or more likely haven't bothered trying), retract the accusation. Fram is exactly right: Real Madrid is one of the most prominent and popular sports teams in the world, and seeking to delete one of their season articles without the slightest attempt at WP:BEFORE is as egregious as if you sought to delete the 1990 New York Yankees or the 1990 New York Giants seasons. Ravenswing 19:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang per CIR - Hugo is being disruptive at AFD, disruptive at DRV, and is levelling accusations if racism against numerous editors who disagree with him (including me). Totally unacceptable. GiantSnowman 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Says the one man-one vote over my 200 artciles which unable a deletion. I showed you did not read my 200 articles and you vote to delete them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I did some looking around, and this editor is virtually accusing anyone who disagrees with them a racist at virtually ever venue I checked. It's not just here - it's talk pages, AFD, DRV, etc. as much as I'm very sympathetic to people who feel they're receiving racist comments towards them...I haven't witnessed a single person say anything racist. Most didn't comment on race or the editor at all. This editor just appears to default to accusations of racism or "not reading the nomination" to anyone who dares doubt him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Agree, I wasn't aware that closing an AfD was a "Jim Crow Pattern". I understand he's frustrated, but this is spiraling beyond necessity.

Star Mississippi 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm neutral on the AFD nominations (I dont edit in sports enough to know) and I know he must be frustrated, but he can't be bogging down good faith discussion with bad faith aspersions at every venue like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

False. You have no evidence that my 200 articles deserved to be deleted, just deflected the real matter, Mississippi delete pages with a 1-0 AfD consensus. 1 vote is not a consensus over two weeks of discussion. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Zero evidence of what? I just told you I was neutral and not taking a stance on the AFDs. This is exactly the problem. You throw accusations around that don't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

he's already gone, buddy. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, saw his comment and responded before I read the rest of the thread. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

200 articles deleted with 1-0 consensus over two weeks based on false claims is acceptable to you, well thats not good faith from you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe instead of fighting this, maybe you should work with these other fine souls to fix the issues in the articles? The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere. I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  That also works, however what does that mean for the AfD's? The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oops, just seeing that he was blocked. I won't waste further time responding. But regardless, it doesn't mean anything for the AFDs. They can continue on. The article creators participation aren't essential. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Star Mississippi 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Any chance you or an uninvolved admin might consider revoking TPA? Thanks either way Star Mississippi 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sir Sputnik did.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you both. There was no way that was going to end in any positive manner. Star Mississippi 21:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Banner conduct

Good block. But what about the WP:HOUNDING by User:The Banner? It is acceptable to go through someone's contributions when you notice problems, it is not acceptable though to nominate articles for deletion just to further bait an already distressed editor, and it is very hard to see things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989–90 Real Madrid CF season in any other way. Either the editor really believes the topic isn't notable, in which WP:CIR comes to mind, or they just try to rile up Hugo Acosta, in which case it is WP:HOUNDING. Fram (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• • I was about to say Good Block, with respect to the OP, who threw a boomerang at a non-existent kangaroo. But I see that the subject has changed. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• You know, just because person A does something wrong, doesn't mean that person B didn't. Hugo clearly had gone off the deep end with his spurious and unfounded accusations of racism, and his refusal to back off that accusation. He wanted to die on that hill, and it looks like he was granted that wish. So, he was unequivocally in the wrong for accusing people of racism where none existed. However, the non-racism-accusations part of the complaint appear to have merit. Yes, we have (wisely) tightened up our WP:NSPORTS requirements in recent months, but just as the tightening of those requirements means that people cannot spam entire batches of non-notable sports articles across Wikipedia, that does not mean that people are empowered to spam spurious AFD discussions all over Wikipedia without a modicum of WP:BEFORE and common sense. AFDing season articles of literally the most successful and well-covered sporting franchises in the world is beyond-the-pale irresponsible. It isn't racist, but it's also a really shitty thing to do, and just as care and consideration needs to be undertaken before creating articles, equal care and consideration needs to be undertaken when nominating articles. La Liga is not Billy's Backyard Soccer Jamboree, and I find the "I think they are copyvios" is an unconvincing. Accusations of bad acting without evidence is casting aspersions and unless you can provide the source of the copied text, such claims are baseless. Being falsely called racists doesn't mean what you did is right, and like Fram above, I think we should not sweep these problems under the rug. --Jayron32 16:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

+1. I agree that HugoAcosta dug his own grave, but he had cause to be angry. The Banner filed a heap of AfDs that were just this side of spurious, targeting teams that are among the most successful in the world, and often going after championship seasons -- the analogy I've used in some of those AfDs is that even an American who knows nothing about sports might well hesitate long and hard before going after 1990 New York Yankees season. The "suspected copyvio" charge was just icing on the cake, and obviously there was no attempt at complying with WP:BEFORE. We would not tolerate such antics in a newbie editor with 200 edits, and it's appalling to contemplate that the perp here is someone with over a hundred thousand edits and who has filed well over a thousand AfDs. Some consequence needs to happen here beyond "Gosh, what a shame," and The Banner would be well advised to have some serious explanation for this egregious conduct. Ravenswing 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree - the petty, POINTy nominations by The Banner of clearly notable topics is incredibly disruptive and I agree this constitutes hounding and needs resolving. GiantSnowman 19:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think - if possible - @The Banner should be banned from making AfD's for 24-72 hours. Once this period is done, we can go forward with a possible decision for a long-term solution. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger. A big portion of my Afds are honoured, with. the articles removed. The Banner talk 19:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@The Banner not only did you not give a reason for afd'ing the articles but they are extremely notable articles.Td^she/her 19:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you have quite a mediocre record at AfD. AfD tools report that in the last thousand nominations you've filed, the eventual result matches yours just 57% of the time, which is not much better than random chance.

But we are not talking about AfDs you filed five years ago -- although given your recent behavior, a closer examination of your record is appropriate. We're talking the AfDs you filed against articles on highly notable subjects that HugoAcosta created, where you demonstrably did not perform WP:BEFORE, where you levied unsupported and likely unfounded accusations of copyright violations at him. Do you have an explanation for those? Ravenswing 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Another vote for temporarily banning User:The Banner from AFDs and further punishment if he continues, the AFDs he's just put up are are at best ridiculous, and at worst incendiary. Ortizesp (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Jayron and Ravenswing, repeated untenable nominations are bad enough, but AfDing so many that are obviously notable is beyond disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• COpying my comment from one of the AfDs. I think The Banner's conduct at the ongoing AfDs needs evaluation and handling by an uninvolved admin, which isn't me. While I have no issue with Fram's responses, the AfD isn't the place for the discussion. (Will notify both momentarily. Star Mississippi 14:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic and becoming disruptive, Jip Orlando (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also believe that all involved admins should be punished for not even questioning what he was doing at the time. it is very obviouse that not only The Banner was involved. Tdshe/her 19:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Comment as closer of some and Keep !Voter in others. There is already a DRV open and if consensus forms that my close is wrong, that's fine. But I don't see what "punishment" you'd be looking for. Star Mississippi 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I wasn't looking for something harsh just a day ban at most from afd's as the proof of not looking at the articles and following Wikipedia:BEFORE doesn't really help you seem like it was done with Wikipedia:Good faith. Not to attack any of the editors or saying any of you haven't done insanely great things for the site but I see this as a lapse in judgment that led a user to get very upset. Tdshe/her 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC) This seems...rather extreme for an DRV trending towards an "endorse" close currently. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Sergecross73 as seen above at least three others have seen The Banner's actions as extreme and not adhering to Wikipedia:BEFORE I think that a one day ban from AFD's is more then fair as he still after several hours hasn't given a good reason as to why he set those afd's up.Tdshe/her 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I was referring to your comment about "all involved admin". Not entirely sure who all you meant by that, but that part seemed extreme regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I meant the other admins that voted then archived the article within minutes of the afd going through. While i understand why you think its extreme if we are going to punish User:The Banner for Wikipedia:BEFORE both all admins should also be brought into the situation as they also helped him remove these articles without looking or they would have opposed the deletion.Tdshe/her 20:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I'm still confused to who exactly you're referring to in these situations. Who exactly do you feel should be blocked, and for what exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC) as per above. "I've never had problems with my past 195 articles, but, suddenly after three years, I've received 10 nominations to delete my Mexican football teams articles by The Banner (talk · contribs) . Naïvely I followed the process, it was abhorrent, I've explained one time, two times several times my artciles were properly sourced, but by an incredible deletion score of 1-0 with the same user . GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) voting in my AfD discussions through a two weeks span, they were deleted by Star Mississippi" Tdshe/her 20:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC) You want to block an AFD participant for a good faith AFD !vote with no past pattern of disruptive AFD participation? That's insane. This is an awful approach. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I specifically said that he deserves a one day ban from afd because several other user have called him out for Wikipedia:BEFORE. This is not good faith in the least as he still refuses to give a reason despite being called to give one several times. If this is Wikipedia:Good faith I call to him to give a viable reason for why he set those afds up but until then there is absolutely no proof of it. Tdshe/her 20:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Okay, I feel like we're not talking about the same thing again. You said you want "all related admin" to be blocked. Please list every name of every admin you feel needs a block in this situation. What admin deserve to be blocked? Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I don't think you understand the situation well enough to be proposing sanctions @Thedefender35 and suggest possible advisement from @ARoseWolf and others working with you. That said, while I regularly check in on overdue AfDs, a one day "ban" isn't something I'd argue with if consensus evolved for it. Star Mississippi 20:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Unless there's some sort of long-term pattern of bad closes or past warnings about this, the only punishment" that makes sense would be overturning your related deletion/closes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Sergecross73, I feel the same. And while I disagree with how Hugo handled this, I have zero issue with a DRV being raised. I'm not infallible. Star Mississippi 20:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Star Mississippi I have been watching the situation for a day at this point and I watched this page waiting for a good reason for why User:The Banner sent those afds in. As of now he still has yet to do so. I don't believe him being an admin should give any reason to why he shouldn't be punished for a very obvious breach of policy. As an admin if a new page reviewer did this it would be a big deal. It very obviously doesn't matter how much experience you have mistakes can be made, the issue isnt that its the fact he seems to be doubling down and refusing to give a viable reason. Tdshe/her 20:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC) thedefender35, The Banner is not an administrator. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Understood. Tdshe/her 20:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Thedefender35 Literally 2 days ago you asked for to a topic ban from answering questions at the teahouse and help desk because you were being disruptive. You were giving out incorrect and poor quality advice due to having essentially no understanding of policy and guidelines and not understanding how this site operates [168]. Why on earth did you think it would be a good idea for you to comment here? Do you honestly think that in 48 hours since you were topic banned would have gained sufficient WP:Competence to be proposing sanctions on another editor? Your proposal for sanctions has no basis in policy, and is utterly ludicrous - what on earth is a 1 day topic ban supposed to achieve? Why on earth should admins be "punished"? Blocks and bans are used to prevent disruption, not as punishment. A load of people have told you to stop with the involvement in administrative areas, myself included, but you just don't seem to listen. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC) ok first off if you are gonna Wikipedia:HOUND me go to my talk page Tdshe/her 20:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Can someone HAT this up to The Banner's last comment? It's off topic and bordering on disruptive. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Fram and others about TheBanner's possible HOUNDING behavior (I was very surprised to learn that this is an experienced editor after going through the batch of Spanish football club season articles AfDs they started yesterday). I'm also concerned from the post above that TheBanner doesn't understand their behavior was very likely inappropriate (asking us not to shoot the messenger?). I'm not recommending any sanction, but I would like TheBanner to consider how to handle themselves better in the future. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That sums up my thinking as well. Whilst I am note sure about a symbolic 24 hour AfD ban at the moment I would certainly be willing to entertain a sanction if issues recur. Gusfriend (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't do that here. "Symbolic bans" are not anything worthwhile. Either we believe that TheBanner will continue to be disruptive, and issue some kind of sanctions, or we believe that they are capable of self-regulating and modifying their own behavior, at which point we let them do that. Symbolic bans are pointless. --Jayron32 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season, where they nominated the article with patently false claims (and ones that are not really relevant for an AfD anyway, what matters is if sources exist, not if they are in the article), and where they apparently still can't admit their fault or withdraw the nom, even after 8 other AfDs in the series have been closed as "speedy keep" with a comment by the closer that they were a "waste of time". This is not some heat of the moment mistake by The Banner, this is an ongoing refusal to see or admit any issue with their behaviour, which has resulted in the meltdown and subsequent (well-deserved) block of a productive editor. Letting them get away with a silly 24 hour AfD ban or a severe "tsk tsk" is extremely mild for this kind of behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

On the flipside, that's an older nomination, before TheBanner was made aware such nominations were being disruptive. Digging backwards isn't helpful; we know they have a history of this; I just am not sure that before this discussion they didn't know they had a history of problems. Don't misunderstand me here. What they did was wrong. But giving them the opportunity to self-correct should be done here. Blocking or banning should come only after a person has been given the opportunity to do better. @The Banner: Do you agree to stop making these kinds of nominations? --Jayron32 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at the bottom of the AfD indicates to me that The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive. Star Mississippi 14:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is not a newbie editor: this is someone with a hundred thousand edits, sixteen years of experience and many hundreds of AfD filings. At this stage in his Wikipedia career, The Banner should not have to be instructed not to disrupt Wikipedia by filing spurious AfDs or levying unfounded and unsupported accusations at other editors. Nor should he be pulling defensiveness or deflection, as above in this ANI or on the AfD Fram links; the stance that would have helped in either venue was humility and abject apology, withdrawing his remaining open noms, and as Drmies says below, to take these concerns seriously.

At this point, especially with him weaponizing AfD to drive out a productive editor, I'm no longer up for a token slap on the wrist. Let's give him a month's ban from AfD, broadly construed, and see if that gets his attention. Ravenswing 15:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Work up a formal ban proposal, put it to discussion, and let's see what the consensus is. --Jayron32 15:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:The Banner--this is a good time to take those concerns seriously. Being defensive is not likely to help you. I've known you for a long time and I want to keep you on board here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

My intention was nothing more than protecting the quality of Wikipedia. I am willing to stop looking as football articles, as it is clear that a critical look at (the quality of) them is not appreciated. I am not willing to get a formal ban because others come up with some silly made-up stories over how bad I am and what bad intentions I had. That Hugo now has a block OT, is due to his own behaviour, including accusations of racism and apartheid. I will walk away from football articles and will not care about substandard articles. To put a date on it, the rest of the year, minimum. I hope there will also be a look at the behaviour of "the other side" because to my feeling that is harassment and hounding. The Banner talk 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbieP and EB1911

ArbieP has been shoe horning into hundreds articles mentions of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. He is splitting existing refs, adding pointless nods to EB1911. An encyclopedia article over a hundred years old is not a presssingly important source and is only added to promote their project. He has been informed by various editors that this is not constructive editing for the benefit or improvement of the WP articles. He is clearly not concerned with the well being of WP articles and doesn't particularly care. Anna (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to some diffs that are actually problematic? Because looking at some on the first page of his history they seem fine. Things like replacing broken links to ones that work. Jahaza (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be partly a content dispute about external links for John Keats?[169]? I see some places where ArbieP's additions have been questionable (like those clustered around Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot), but others seem to have been correct and neutral or useful. Jahaza (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Promote what project? (and is "their" intended as a gender-neutral singular or a group?) The only active project I'm aware of is the one I've adopted: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification, which is a long-term attempt to bring legacy EB1911-copied text into compliance with current verifiability policy. Other than that, I believe "nods" to EB1911 are appropriate if (a) a citation is needed and there is no appropriate primary or secondary source available (b) the online text contains illuminating further reading. ArbieP is a valuable contributor and I regret attempts to sanction him (pronoun implied by name). David Brooks (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeopathist

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

---

Could somebody take a look at

• Dr.V.R.Unnikrishnan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ?

They seem to be using their user/Talk page as a cv/brochure for quackery, and have recently started editing the homeopathy article lede to say it's "scientific". Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

misuse of user talk page as a webhost and advertisement. Venkat TL (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I deleted their userpage as U5, and removed the promotion from their talk page. Unfortunately I don't have any more spare time this morning, so if their disruption continues someone else will have to handle it, or you'll have to wait a little while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you. All clear for now. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Sheep8144402 automated cosmetic editing

User:Sheep8144402 has been making a lot of rapid cosmetic edits to base User talk pages using AWB [170]. This is sending a lot of unwanted "You have new messages" notifications to users. Additionally these edits are a violation of WP:AWBRULES point 4 since they do not have any visible effect on the page. 2409:4071:201C:5419:0:0:7B2:50A5 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be fixing lint errors, a task undertaken by wikignomes and which is generally a good thing. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Why didn’t you attempt to discuss this with Sheep before posting here? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:9013:50B8:AF43:FF87 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This feels like a mild boomerang encoated in "well technically" wood. Coolman2917 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like WP:LINT specifies that these are valid repairs and encourages them to be automated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

At WT:LINT, it was discussed before that these edits do not violate WP:AWBRULES. However I do agree that Linting User talk pages should be left for bots so as to avoid sending new message notification. It would have been better to discuss with Sheep first instead of bringing this directly to ANI. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that Sheep has now submitted a WP:BRFA – Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SheepLinterBot. This should resolve the IPs concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Rodericksilly

Hello. This user has repeatedly shown unprofessional and rude behavior over the Patrick Troughton Article, more specifically on its image. Consistently removing it, Violating the 3 Revert Rule. and Ignoring talk page warnings by blanking the talk page. I am unsure if this is the proper place to report this incident but I would like to know if something could be done about this. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour block from that page would be in order, or a warning on their talk page could work too. Coolman2917 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If he's blanking the page and not taking the other warnings into account, then I don't think this one will be different. I think we should do a 24 hour block and see what happens. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 15:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD: So it looks like the edit war cooled down after the RfC started on talk, and you then chose to restart it, citing 3RR? Which a) isn't grounds for a revert (reverting to "enforce" the edit-warring policy is in most cases edit-warring) and b) isn't even accurate. Roderick hit 3 reverts but did not pass it. I'm not at all excusing his behavior here, but you're the one who has more recently made an inappropriate revert. If either of you reverts again, I will partially block that person from the article.

By the way, for future reference, WP:ANEW is the preferred place to take an edit war. Also, editors are allowed to remove (almost) any messages from their talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

185.30.88.0/22

185.30.88.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you Ctrl + F "reverted" on the contributions of this IP range [171], the right side of your screen will almost be fully yellow, that's how much this IP has been reverted, which is no surprise, looking at some of their edits. It's pretty clear that this IP range is operated by a single person, or at least like-minded people.

Their most recent "contribution" was today, writing this nasty anti-Iranian forum-like comment here, which they titled "Persian fascism and racism made Nizami a persian,whereas he was and is Azerbaijani Turk who created during Turkic Seljucs";

This is the fake and racist persian manipulation, as such this page’s value is eeual to toilet paper.

If I look even a bit further back, other blatant disruptive edits such as these come up, where the IP blatantly pov-pushes in a GA article [172] [173]. Or here for example, which is just pure vandalism, "göt" means "ass" in Turkish [174]

They have already been blocked for 3 three months at Zabukh due to disruptive editing. I think it's about time they get an overall block, as they are clearly WP:NOTHERE, and seem to on a nationalistic mission. If they think Wikipedia has the same value as toilet paper, why not help them on their way out? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Is this (Special:Contributions/185.30.88.0/22) related to your post at User talk:Johnuniq#Thoughts? I have not had time to review the contribs but in general my thoughts re disruptive IPs have hardened and, if disruption is evident, I would support blocking for six months or longer. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Masonjcole

This user has been given multiple advisements of policies and things that need to be done on NFL roster templates and player pages. Most of these advisements of (seemingly) gone ignored. This editor has had multiple posts to their talkpage and has made zero attempts at communication or acknowledgments of what he's been advised of. This editor has continued to do or not do what he's been advised of on his talkpage. On example, NFL roster templates have a count for the number of players on each listing (active, reserve, etc.) as well as the date the template was edited. Despite multiple advisements on their talkpage this editor continues to do this, see these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Advisements of the count were made on this editors talkpage and the editor briefly began doing it but chose to stop again.--Rockchalk717 19:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

judging by the edit tags, he is on computer, so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (or whatever it's called) does not apply. I believe a topic ban should be considered, as he seems to add random free agents to team. This isn't NFL Blitz, last time I checked. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Cordyceps-Zombie

Cordyceps-Zombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given this user's current edit-warring over on Suella Braverman's article (which I brought up on the BLP noticeboard), it's clear that this user is acting trollish and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I think a look through all of their contributions is necessary at this point – QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, keeps accusing other users of sexism and racism without any reason. Action needs to be taken ASAP. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they have been given a 1 month block for disruptive editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, insists that the name she uses on her own website, and in all her own controlled social media, is not her name and anyone who disagrees is sexist and racist? They've just been issued a one month block which I think is generous. I think they should be indeffed which would force them to explain their actions and confront why their current edits are wrong to restore editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Given their continued trolling after the block, the block is now indefinite. Edit - And talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a strange hill to die on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• This user has made over 21,000 edits and created some 162 articles. What the hell made them go berserk and set it ablaze over such an obviously stupid troll? Is their account compromised? jp×g 07:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's an area they would normally edit in anyway. It's not like the article is out of left field for them. They seem to have just latched onto this one piece of trivia over why her mother named her the way she did and become obsessed with it and ignored what name they actually use and call themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 10:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

From the looks of past edits, this does not seem out of place for this user. As I say, I think other articles and edits made by this user should be looked through thoroughly. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Jtrainor and XfD

User:Jtrainor has spent most of the past several years making nonsensical AfDs. Consider the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast physics: near unanimous keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laundry room: clear keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decoloniality (2nd nomination): keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Donziger unanimous keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (6th nomination): SNOW keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie's careers: near unanimous keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars creatures (3rd nomination): near unanimous keep.

We have to go back to May 2019 to find an AfD that wasn't an obvious keep. Most of these AfDs find the participants wondering what the deletion rationale even is.

Today, after zero edits since January, Jtrainor showed up at ANI to oppose a GENSEX Tban [175] and then two minutes later created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive with the rationale: This essay itself, ironically, is disruptive, as people have been quoting it in assorted arguments around Wikipedia as though it's some sort of policy. Time for it to go away. I find it hard to believe this user is here to build an encyclopedia. At minimum, they should not be allowed to continue nominating things for deletion. Their other recent edits include complaining people don't think LBJ is racist and edit warring over a NPOV tag. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm allowed to have different opinions on what deserves to be deleted or not than other people. That is why we have the XfD system, so the community can form consensus. And I am allowed to lurk as I please-- this is a volunteer project, not a job. And given people in that very thread have been linking that essay as though it's a policy, I certainly believe it is disruptive. You are, of course, entitled to !vote as you please. However, trying to boot someone out of an entire area of Wikipedia simply because you disagree with them and not because of any actual policy violations is quite beyond the pale. Jtrainor (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but nominating them for deletion just because you don't like it is getting pretty disruptive. Until you learn how the XFD process truly works, your nominations will end in the article that was XfD'ed being kept. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Nominating things for deletion without any basis and contrary to policy, over and over again, is disruptive and you absolutely can be sanctioned for it. Your response here just further demonstrates why sanctions are needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• This does not rise to the level of sanctions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• I am inclined to disfavor sanctions, this just looks like an inexperienced editor not really familiar with our standards making silly mistakes. We've all been there. That said, Jtrainor's responses here could convince me to support a ban from nominating stuff for deletion if it seems like he's unwilling to learn. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call him inexperienced. Over 3,000 edits; warned about AfD nominations back in 2011. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  3,000 edits can still be inexperienced if a person is making only a few edits per month, because they often won't have the opportunity to apply the feedback they receive and thus fail to solidify their learning and lose it. That seems to be the case here with JTrainor. It's still disruptive, but not really a competence issue and easily enough fixed. I hope JTrainor notes that the community feels his nominations are often low quality and takes that under consideration before making new ones. He should also note that if the community unanimously decides against him on further nominations, it would be good to withdraw it rather than run it the full seven days. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Does the user have any form of actual content creation that they've done? Looking at their contributions, outside of said AfD nominations, they seem to primarily just remove content from articles and, even then, they very rarely do even that. Sure, we have editors who are useful to the community by only dealing with vandalism or otherwise helping out with behind the scenes stuff rather than doing any content creation. But this editor doesn't seem to be doing as such. They just seem to create pointless busy work for the rest of the community. Silverseren^C 23:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• That the editor infrequently makes bad arguments for deleting a page at some venue is not a behavioral problem. In general, their AfD stats indicate that they are "right" at AfD just above a majority of the times that result in a consensus, which I expect is lower than most long-term editors. But, frankly, making less than ten bad nominations for deletion over the past three years is nowhere near the level of the urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems that warrant an ANI discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Jtrainor was warned about drive-by AfD nominations and failing to do BEFORE in 2011, 11 years ago. That is the very definition of a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support him being topic-banned from participating in XFD discussions, as his deletion rationales are untenable. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  It was deserved at that time given that only 5 of the 17 articles the user had nominated for deletion and ended with a consensus were deleted or redirected. If we look at the numbers post-2011, the user is still batting under .500 (13/29) on articles the user nominated for deletion and ended with a consensus, but we generally don't ban people from nominating articles for deletion unless they're doing it en masse, which this user is clearly not doing.

  The issue with this user's recent MfD nomination was not really a matter of failing to grasp what the community will sometimes do at MfD; the community has previously deleted an essay on what MEDRS is not based off of the claim that it constituted a totally bad representations of policy, so the line of argument made at the latest MfD was not completely unprecedented. The fact of the matter is that the community didn't buy the argument that WP:HID is so flagrantly contrary to established policy that it should be deleted (or removed from the projectspace), but this isn't reason to TBAN someone. While the editor should strive to make stronger arguments in the future, civilly making good-faith arguments that at least have some potential claim in precedent need not warrant a TBAN, even if they are poorly reasoned, unless poorly reasoned arguments are made on such a scale that it becomes burdensome to the project. And, frankly, we're nowhere close to even approaching that point; a TBAN is nowhere near a narrowly tailored solution here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. While it's true that some action ought to be taken in order to prevent people from abusing deletion processes, a topic-ban proposal is making a mountain out of a molehill. In the years of 2020, 2021 and 2022, Jtrainor has made a whopping five contributions to AfDs. For reference, per WP:OFD every day there are somewhere around 79 per day. Since there are an average of 4 !votes per AfD, that means that there have been somewhere around 115,000 in that period... of which Jtrainor comprises 0.004335009537%! This is not a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. This is a rounding error. None of his !votes, that I can see, have been particularly abusive or disruptive. If you want to dig all the way back to 2006, you can make this out to be a problem, but if we pwned everyone who said something stupid once in 2006, I don't know who we would have left to edit Wikipedia. The fact that you've mentioned his comment on an ANI thread in the original post of this thread (in fact, opening your post with it) does not make sense to me either: it's not suspicious in any way for someone to go a while without editing Wikipedia, and doing so is not evidence of malfeasance. jp×g 07:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't be calculating the scale of someone's behavioural issues by dint of their share of the global pie of such things. We get depressingly vast numbers of conduct issues, and chronic behavioural issues occur with editors having a very small slice of them. More generally, @Trainsandotherthings @Rsjaffe you both cite the 2011 warning (coupled with the basis of this complaint) as indicative of a chronic issue. What is the nature of the 2012-2018 stint in terms of severe issues. This complaint was bought not merely in terms of someone bringing AfDs they shouldn't, but them being downright "nonsensical" - did they continue doing so in the meantime, or is this a newly (re)occuring issue?

To the subject, @Jtrainor - why did you believe that editors misusing/misciting an essay was grounds for deletion of an essay? Why did you believe that was the essay being disruptive? More generally, you say you're allowed to have different deletion positions to others - definitely a truth. One I experience. But what do you say to the complaints that your nominations are nonsensical and not even close to policy - that is, that your viewpoints aren't different valid interpretations of the rules, but just different viewpoints without also complying with deletion policy? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've seen this sort of thing in the past in deletion arguments, etc about assorted pop culture topics when people would vote delete with WP:FANCRUFT as their only reason, so I tend to be extremely leery of people quoting essays as a sole or almost sole reason to !vote for or against anything. Especially when the essay consists of content that your average person would find highly offensive to be aimed in their direction during a talk page discussion. Jtrainor (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think this is sanctionable yet. Buuuut the fact he's now been taken to ANI over his XfD behavior now puts somewhat of a stain on his record, and he'd do well to be more judicious in the future.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, you can bet I'm going to return to lurking for quite some time after this. Being dragged to WP:ANI by the kind of person that digs through a decade of edits to look for more stuff to complain about is not terribly motivating. Concerning a stain, not so much. I certainly don't view it as one, considering, as other editors have pointed out, the complaint is silly in the first place. Jtrainor (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Being wrong is not a reason for sanctions. Jtrainor is unequivocally wrong in their beliefs about many things, but we don't sanction for being wrong. We educate and explain, and if they don't wish to be educated, then whatever, but you can't sanction someone for just being wrong. --Jayron32 14:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  ... unless it falls afoul of WP:CIR to the degree it becomes disruptive. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  ... No, they're perfectly competent, they just have idiosyncratic ideas. Annoying =/= disruptive. --Jayron32 17:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Look, all, let's actually talk about this without mincing words. Jtrainor nominated a popular essay for XFD, an admittedly bad nomination, and people took unjustified offense at that one nomination, then started playing detective with their edit history trying to build a case to drag them to ANI for. Please don't do this kind of thing, it's not becoming of anyone. No, I'm not defending Jtrainor for the stupendously bad nomination of WP:HID for deletion; it wasn't going to be deleted. But there's nothing even CLOSE to disruptive about this. This is a total nothingburger. --Jayron32 17:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• The opening statement that Jtrainor has has spent most of the past several years making nonsensical AfDs is a pretty big exaggeration. There's not really anything to see here. I strongly agree with Jayron32 that trawling through an editing history like this is unbecoming. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, their comment about my edits to Lyndon B. Johnson is rather strange, as that has nothing to do with XfD whatsoever. Jtrainor (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

IP block Problem

I Have GIBE. But It's Not Working In EnWiki. What can I do?–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Global IP block exemption doesn't work with local blocks. If you need IP block exemption locally, follow the instructions at WP:IPBE. Further questions can be directed toward the help desk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Long term disruption by 68.37.42.31

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

This IP user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing, and has done nothing but disrupt the encyclopedia for over a year now. Their edits are sometimes a bit humourous, but disrupting Wikipedia is no joke, and this user needs to find some other outlet. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

They lost interest for 4 months after being blocked for a month, a 1-3 month block should convince them to find a new hobby. RAN1 (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

3 months it is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Emailmesbah

Vandalism by User:Emailmesbah

Ref: Contributions/Emailmesbah previously noticed by other users @ User talk:Emailmesbah after their return user seem to have continued with spamming behaviour against articles of some of Pakistan's politics & politicians by inserting urdu language pejoratives. Ref dif.: [176] & [177] still to be reverted.

• Though not directly related to above user, I also suggest/ request to add article Lettergate to watch list for NPOV. IMO Politically vitiated environment likely to continue affecting related Pakistan politics related wp articles.

Bookku (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Bookku, I reverted the vandalism after confirming through Google Translate that it was a WP:BLP violation. Please revert this type of thing yourself whenever you see it. Because this happened four days ago, I am not blocking but instead left a BLP discretionary sanctions notice. If any other administrator thinks that a block is necessary, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)