Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InverseZebra (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 12 November 2022 (→Transphobia from InverseZebra in Talk:LGB Alliance: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    Aarp65 disruptively creating categories and pages about names

    I became aware of User:Aarp65 just a few minutes ago when they added "Category:Surnames of Vanuatuan origin" to Jimmy. I noticed that this category page was also added to David (surname) and John (surname) which are of biblical origin, and George (surname) which states that it has many origins, none of them Vanuatuan.

    I then noticed that Aarp65 had put "Category:Surnames of Marshall Islands origin" on Joseph (surname), Peter (surname), Philip and Samuel (name).

    The next thing I noticed is that for the past two months, User talk:Aarp65's talkspace is filled with at least 25 mostly successful speedy deletion nominations for creating categories and other pages. More pages have been moved to draftspace as suitable and several disrupted editing warnings posted by User:Uricdivine, User:Leschnei, User:Joy, User:Pppery and especially User: Liz.

    As far as I can tell, Aarp65 does not state reasons or cite sources for the creation of so many of these pages. Probably because they are factually incorrect. In my opinion, this user is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. Warnings have already been given, so if the consensus agrees, I propose a discussion about the possibility of a WP:TBAN on creating categories and pages having to do with names and surnames, etc. for this user. The exact topic could be decided later. I hope this makes sense. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly, Aarp65 knows a lot about this topic and most of their contributions are very productive. I take back my WP:NOTHERE accusation but these categories and 25 warnings in 2 months are genuinely concerning. I'm going to try to talk to them more about it in their talkspace. Nothing urgent needs to be immediately addressed by others here, but I don't think it should be closed until a response can be had. Again, suggestions welcome. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Jimmy is a DAB page. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of adding such a category to surname pages, it should not be added to a DAB page per WP:DBC. Narky Blert (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) It's either too late or too early. Origin-type categories are fine (indeed, recommended) on DAB pages also categorised as surname or given name pages. Narky Blert (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted a whole bunch of their recent edits, as they were indeed bizarre and non-constructive. Things like this, this, this, or this are just some samples of the type of edits. If they don't or inadequately reply, a topic ban from categorisation (or name categorisation) may be needed. I mean, on a long disambig where none of the entries are for Samoans, they still proclaiml that the name "Meredith" is of Samoan origin.[1]... Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering that this is continuing while this section is open, with Raisi (disambiguation) created today and added to e.g. Category:Zimbabwean surnames despite nothing on that page relating to Zimbabwe; can please some action be taken? Letting someone continue to add such fake information to Wikipedia while this iss being discussed at ANI doesn't look good (on us, and even less on them). Fram (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've DABified Raisi (disambiguation) (which was a needed page) and deleted the Zimbabwean category as unsupported. Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Any suggestions on how to avoid or minimize further such issues? The editor involved seems unwilling to join any discussion about it, giving little hope of improvemeñt. Fram (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For a specific problem like this, the time-honoured solution is digging through contribs, and if necessary following the usual escalation procedures aimed at persuading or forcing nuisances to stop. I have no solution to the more general one of under-, excessive, or over-precise categorisation of DAB-with-surname and surname pages other gnomishly than fix when found. (A moderately common case of over-precision is labelling a Germanic surname as specifically Jewish/Yiddish when it is not specific to that community. Bernstein and Kahn (an unusual case with two distinct etymologies) are models of how it should be done.) Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another strange DAB creation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wodarz&oldid=1118543166 (current version) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a weird one; notably in the mismatch between title (Wodarz) and lede (Holetschek). It has already, and correctly, been WP:BLARed into an {{R from surname}} page. Holetschek exists, and is another recent creation by Aarp65; a good one, which I've minorly tweaked. Narky Blert (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I just added a Level 3 warning before I noticed Fram's proposal below. He's definitely been warned. Kire1975 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And another bizarre edit: Ranseier was redirected to Karl Ranseier, which itself is a redirect to RTL Samstag Nacht. No reasons given. Kire1975 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And this: why does "Category:Malagasy given names" exist? Even if it had more than one entry, Aarp65 should at least give a reason for it? Every new page gets added to his impressive list of "Written pages" created on his username. Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban (user:Aarp65)

    I propose that Aarp65 is topic banned from all name-related pages (articles, categories, templates...) broadly construed. Their recently granted autopatrolled right should also be removed again. They have been warned about their problematic edits in the past. During the above discussion, they created Lipovsky (disambiguation), with 4 completely unsupported categories, created multiple unnecessary name disambiguation pages (with only one bluelink), added name categories unrelated to the contents of the page they were placed on ([2]), and so on. They show no indication of changing their approach or participating in this (or any) discussion. Expecting other editors to check all their edits and revert this many of them is not useful. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Their recently granted autopatrolled right was removed once before? I'm not sure what that is or where to find evidence of that. Can you put that in the discussion please? Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, originally they (like everyone else) didn't have it, it was granted in June or so, and should now be removed again. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "again" is the problem, it suggests that it has been removed before. 66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a colloquialism in some American regional dialects. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know -- Kire1975 misunderstood Fram, and Fram didn't understand the nature of the misunderstanding, but at this point I'm pretty sure everyone understands everyone else or doesn't care. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Aarp65 does seem to have some expertise in the field, or at least a lot of experience working on this topic, but the prominence of the multiple "Veteran Editor" badges in their infobox makes me think they might be just trying to create so many tiny little name pages and DAP's so they can bulk up their numbers to increase their "rank" like this is a video game. Of course, all we can do is speculate on what they're doing because they are ignoring so many warnings and invitations to participate in this ANI discussion. I don't want them to be TBAN'd but what else is there left to do? It's disruptive, not productive and makes a lot of work for other editors to fix. Kire1975 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - They have not responded on their talk page or here about the valid concerns raised, and are instead continuing to create these articles with the same issues, for example Nganga (surname) was created just a few minutes ago, and these categories were added to an article that in no way supports those categories. Since this discussion has opened they have not used a single talk page of any kind, but have updated their user page well over a dozen times since then. There's absolutely nothing wrong with displaying pages you've worked on, but it's not okay to ignore the basic concepts of collaboration and verifiability in that pursuit. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and it's still going. No discussion or addressing the issues, but they're still adding to their trophy case. - Aoidh (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still adding categories that make no sense and aren't supported by reliable sources. This edit added Category:Surnames of US-American origin, a category they created that seems to be full of names that did not originate in the United States. It seems like they're seeing if someone with that last name lives in country X, and adding "Surnames of X origin" without actually checking to see if that name originated in that place or not. - Aoidh (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Aarp65 has also created many navigation templates about names. He clearly just dumped names in there, without checking where the links were going. Request to fix links to disambiguation pages went unanswered and seeing that he is still doing this, something has to be done. I can't see if (s)he ever responded on talkpages. The Banner talk 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Still ongoing, [3]. Not only the randomness of the cats, but even the bizarre placement of the two cats, all creates extra work for others from an editor who has absolutely zero inclination to adjust their approach or to discuss the concerns. Can this please be enacted? Fram (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user

    I have come across this user's articles and they are horrendously written. The English is awful and completely broken. I am unable to even attempt to make corrections to some of these articles. Sure English isn't everyone's native language, but this user for some reason has auto patrolled rights, meaning the articles he's creating are not even being checked or reviewed properly. How Wikipedia can allow this is astounding, there should be a basic level of English required before such articles are published. Two examples of poorly written articles that I cannot even attempt to try and fix: David Mark Hill and Samuel Hartsel. The Hill article did not even correctly name the execution method which I had to correct: [4]. There are many more. Please can an admin review. Inexpiable (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I usually find that the non-native English users are better than the native editors whose English is just bad. The former are usually happy to be corrected but the latter often take great offence at anything that could be construed as criticism of their writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are indeed practically unreadable and would definitely have benefitted from an NPPer tagging them with the copyedit template. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that their prose is atrocious, and that their autopatrolled status should be revoked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - WP:CIR. Very inappropriate for them to be an auto-patroller. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joe Roe gave the user the AP right last year. I'm reluctant to revoke the right without Joe's views.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folks, before we discuss removing perms or any sanction, perhaps we could give our colleague the opportunity to respond first? AFAIK, this ANI thread is the first time these problems have been raised? It's kind of rude to jump straight to talk of sanctions without even talking to the user first, particularly when it's someone who has donated thousands of hours here. Before any of the rest of us give our opinion, shouldn't we hear what MATF has to say first? Levivich (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three comments. First, we should definitely allow MATF to respond before any further steps are discussed. Second, please remember that the AP flag isn't really a right; while some stigma likely attaches to its removal, fundamentally it exists to benefit reviewers and readers, and has no benefit to the holder. Third, I would like to hear from MATF whether they have used machine translation to assist them at any point; some of the phraseology strikes me as similar to the meaninglessness that google sometimes produces. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that hearing from the editor for clarification is a good idea, but I also agree that revoking their autopatrolled status is called for and shouldn't be dependent on it. First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Their status can easily be changed back if it appears to be warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • MATF has created 1,152 articles. I just spent a half-hour 45 minutes fixing a relatively simple one, John Harllee (admiral). If that's typical, we're talking about volunteers spending something like 500 800 hours cleaning up after their mess. That's a problem that's significant enough to warrant acting first, and listening to explanations later. Please, would some admin remove their autopatrolled flag? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There appear to be some major content issues here. For example, the article Talmadge L. Heflin states

      In 1983, Heflin won the election for the 149th district of the Texas House of Representatives. He was honored by the Alief Independent School District which it was renamed as the Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

      The source [5] however states

      Mr. Heflin served on the Board of Trustees of the Alief Independent School District from 1973 to 1980. In 1982, the district honored his service to the area with the opening of Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

      The article implies that he was honoured for winning the election, rather than because he served on the board of trustees, falsely states that something was "renamed" when it was actually a new school being opened, implies the school naming occurred after the election in 1983 when it actually took place in 1982 and it confusingly suggests that the school district turned into a elementary school somehow. There are other examples of exceptionally poor writing,

      In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly.

      Is an extremely convoluted and confused way of saying he lost an election, which somehow avoids actually telling us what the election was. The article is also full of grammatical errors and nonsensical sentences, MOS issues ("politician" and "business" should not be linked), and a plethora of categories that are not verified in the article text - the article contains no information on his involvement in the energy business, his religious beliefs or his non-fiction writing.
      @Beyond My Ken perhaps it would looking into running a bot to unpatrol their article creations after they were granted the right? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm continuing to look to their articles, and indeed you are correct that grammar and construction errors are the least of the problems; the information itself has in many cases been corrupted. I would suggest that all of their articles be moved to draftspace, where they can be worked on without being generally accessible to the public. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beyond My Ken: Are they actively creating bad articles without responding here? If not, removal isn't urgent, though I agree it's likely to be warranted. AP removal isn't retroactive; any articles they've created would still need to be manually reviewed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't seem to have edited since last night. I understand the principal of not acting unless there is a need to stop ongoing activity, but I think the need here is obvious enough (as I continue to review their articles) that lifting the flag is warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the editors above that the issues here go beyond spelling and grammar errors. I attempted to copyedit David Mark Hill before giving up in frustration. At the time I found it, the article stated He had his own The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints church. This was sourced to [6], which says The Hills' Mormon church helped pay their mortgage, utilities and groceries - obviously that doesn't mean that he ran a church!
      The next paragraph is extremely convoluted, difficult to understand and leaves out important context: Hill had began to act as a spree killer after receiving a notice from his wife to file a divorce against him. He was involved in some murders which had resulted three people being killed, in which he was suspected that Hill was the murderer since he had visited a department of social office. It was stated that he also assaulted a person which was his daughter. He killed them since it was for taking his children away from him, in which there was a restraining order against Hill. The actual story, from [7], is Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.
      I can understand why autopatrolled was granted because many of their articles are brief stubs where these issues with writing coherently aren't as apparent (e.g. Nicolas Becker (sound engineer), Andy Lewis (screenwriter)). However, considering the factual errors and general incomprehensiblity of their longer creations I don't think it is appropriate for them to hold this right. Spicy (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did the admin who granted them this permission actually review any of their work? Every single article I’ve checked so far has been plagued with the above mentioned content issues. Now I’m seeing that they’ve created over 1000 articles? This has the potential to be a massive problem. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:FC3F:FA47:1CA0:2CF8 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought the same, but then looking at their page creations before they were granted the autopatrolled right, a lot were stubs with short sentences or lists of films/shows obscuring their language deficiencies. So if Joe just looked at a handful of the stubs on Academy Award winners he wouldn't have noticed anything egregious. The typos and sentence construction chaos are only really apparent when MATF attempts to expand beyond a stub. Perhaps in the case of serial (notable, sourced) stub creators AP grantors should look for any larger page creations/expansions by the user to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the user right. There is sufficient evidence presented here. Additionally require that all future articles from this editor are created as a draft. Per Beyond My Ken: First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Donating thousands of hours here has never been a hurdle to stripping of special rights if the content quality is a serious problem and creating unnecessary work for others. Furthermore, autopatrolled is the one right that accords absolutely no benefits to the user whatsoever other than giving them another hat to wear. NPP has been acutely aware of the abuse of the auto patrolled right for a very long time. Their best suggestion to date is to deprecate this user right which having become a contentious issue has already been recently removed from the sysop bundle. To suggest that it would increase the workload of the reviewers (the usual contra argument) would be a straw man - articles of the quality expected by auto patrolled users only take a second or two to review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with removal of AP as the first step. Per WP:AUTOPAT, "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles". It's quite clear that this editor is not producing "clean articles". I just spot-checked six very quickly and could not identify any major problem without comparing them with the sources. But 5/6 need a copyedit cleanup minimally, with things like Born in Bentonville, Arkansas. (The sixth was a two-line stub). MB 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According the autopatrolled right based on a random look at a few stubs (if that's what happened) is not the best way to go. Stubs, however clean they might be, are not sufficient to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the requirements for producing a fully fleshed out article. I do recall that mass creating stubs to obtain the autopatrolled right has been deliberately used in the past by users with a specific agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's an agenda here, I haven't glommed on to it yet. The articles I've reviewed and fixed so far are about minor politicians and officials, both Democrat and Republican; the encyclopedia would not be affected in any significant way if they were all moved to draft to be worked on.
    The problems I've seen are misrepresentation of what sources say (apparently because of misunderstanding), stilted writing, incorrect use of idiomatic constructions (especially in the use of prepositions), convoluted and awkward phrasings, use of infobox parameters that don't exist, nonsensical facts (such as a legislator being suceeded by three people), categorization not supported by text in the article (almost as if MATF has personal knowledge they're using), inclusion of unnecessary information, failure to update information from more recent sources (a person is reported to have 4 brothers, but a correction in the same newspaper changes it to 3 brothers; both sources are cited, but the article still said 4 brothers until I corrected it), etc., all of which are, I think, neither deliberate nor malign, but nevertheless result in sloppy articles that are well below the expected standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that, but from the results, they don't seem to be spending any significant amount of time crafting them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, is everybody waiting for the user and/or Joe Roe to weigh in here..? I've removed the autopatrolled right. Bishonen | tålk 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you. I hope we'll hear from the editor soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two active ANI discussions right now regarding users granted autopatrol rights by User:Joe Roe making bizarre and disruptive edits. It also appears in his talk page from 18 days ago that he intends to ignore ANI discussions? Looks like he had a spot of trouble regarding a third autopatrolled user here. Kire1975 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not "ignoring ANI discussions". I haven't been editing for a few days, and by the time I saw the pings in this thread, it had already run its course and I didn't have anything to add. WP:AGF, please. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going to weigh in here briefly on some of the articles; I'm the one that's moved a few articles of MATF from a temp page to mainspace. However, I don't have AP, so all of those pages went through NPP regardless of MATF having AP at the time. The work I've seen from MATF is rewriting bad Billy Hathorn content; crap that's already got a plethora of issues beyond just copyright, and how copyright rewrites are usually done is by simply taking the content and rewriting it, not remaking an article entirely from scratch. We usually only check for copyright issues; we're not NPP 2.0. Regardless, I find the other problems troubling, but I don't think that we should be jumping to sanctions beyond AP revoking just yet. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Five questions: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? (4) Why did I receive and emailed link to this discussion? I am not an Admin and have no special privileges here (as far as I know). (5) Am I eligible for AP status? FINALLY: why did this page disappear a few minutes ago when I tried to post the above? WEIRD! Shir-El too 13:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you received an e-mail with a link to this discussion, why don't you ask the editor who e-mailed you why. Your other questions make no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23Bbb23: the sender was wiki@wikimedia.org! The other three questions make sense if you view this problem as a possible trend, not just an isolated incident, and make good sense in an era of 'fake news', 'fake images' etc. Wikipedia may be this planet's best source of free, relatively unbiased information, which some minds can't stand: it makes them vulnerable. The 5th question is now moot; I looked it up and don't want it. All the Best! Shir-El too 15:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shir-El too: I can answer that last question: it's because you added your comments to a version of this page from ~6 hours ago, effectively reverting to it. Then Beshogur reverted you. I'm guessing the email you received included a linked DIFF instead of a link to the current discussion, like this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user. Woodroar (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Cheers! Shir-El too 15:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three answers: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? No. It bears very few of the hallmarks of AI article writing; also you'd not teach an AI how to learn by having it do something else. (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? No. There are far better ways of doing both. Writing crappy articles is a function of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit and goes with the territory. The cock-up theory is always better than the conspiracy theory. (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? Very few, even assuming we could do anything. In this particular case, not granting the Auto-Patrolled right would've made discovering this annoying-but-minor (in the scheme of things) event happen earlier. It wouldn't've prevented it because anything that prevents this type of thing also prevents people from creating good articles too. — Trey Maturin has spoken 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I know this is late but this is the evidence that I will provide: For Vanamonde's third comment, I write the articles in my own words and I don't use a machine translation unless I have to which I would use it for the articles that's in other different Wikipedia languages that included Àngel Casas. I would say that with my writing, I would change up my words with searching up another word to "insert word here" in a website, where I would use that word instead. With the Talmadge L. Heflin, I didn't mean that the school was renamed after him when he won the election but I don't know since like sometimes I don't notice. I didn't see anything wrong with my writing. The article Talmadge L. Heflin was a rewrite to get rid of Billy Hathorn's copyright version along with Teel Bivins and Flip Mark. You'll notice when I create them rewrites, I put recreated without copyright and what I do is I copy the categories from the archive version of Hathorn's to make it easier. Then I write it with using the cited sources in my own words. If I'm not editing in like a Saturday or for a few days then I'm like away from the computer since like I'm in somewhere else and while I'm away, I write articles in my Google Docs and then when I finally come home, I would copy-paste then fix it and then make some changes but this is how I write and with Hathorn's writing I use them but I avoid its copyright and make it my own words, but I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English.

    With the David Mark Hill edit with the church removal I saw, it had said The Hills Mormon Church which would have meant he had his own church and with the Mormon church link it had redirected to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, in which its also known as Mormon church. With the sentence in the Talmadge F. Heflin article, "In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly" (which is already removed), well I didn't know what election it was but I included it since it was sourced but I don't entirely have access to newspapers.com articles but just stuff that's already clipped, like I clip another thing since there is something clipped in the article and so on, I only have the free version of it. That newspaper article came up while I searched up Talmadge Heflin and it had mentioned the surname Heflin and I just took it as a ref. I didn't mean to cause disruption with my writing but if the community says there are issues with my articles then I would like to fix it if the community gives me a chance to improve it and see what they think. I just include info that's already sourced and just add them, which I saw with the Sally Wheeler article.

    With the Neil Haven Klock article, I’m gonna revert some stuff until consensus is made because according to the Louisiana House Members source it says who preceded, served alongside and succeeded him but Beyond My Ken goes along with the obituary, but the Louisiana House Members verifies that he served as a member of the legislative with other info too. It didn't say he left office during 1942 other than the obituary, since it says his term ended in 1944 and the legislative keeps the correct track of the members and years when I see it and it's verifiable. Klock was succeeded by three people according to the Louisiana House Members pdf, even in the archive version of the article, it says that he was succeeded by three people and it was sourced so I added it and just went along with verifiable Louisiana Members pdf, this is an answer to the nonsensical facts thing that has "such as a legislator being suceeded by three people". With T. J. Hooks, I’m gonna revert more stuff too until consensus is made since Hooks served along with E. A. Wilson for which they had both represented Lake. He and Wilson were succeeded by two people, according to the Florida House Membership. The one that Beyond My Ken decided that could stay is William A. Hocker, a politician who has a blue link and was succeeded by Hooker. Also there is this reason that they said was "They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that.", well those articles were created normally, since it was because I created them in google docs when I didn't edit for a week so I copy-pasted them and made them into Wikipedia articles when I came back and had lots I made in google docs and I still have some leftovers that includes Donald Jonas, Vernon Peeples, Bob Terhune and many others too.

    Well now I see Beyond My Ken states that "I created seven articles yesterday" which was the (27th-28th), well the first two were from Google Docs, the third-fifth were Billy hathorn's rewrites since I was gonna be gone and I took my time into writing them and the Georgia's politicians stubs were created easily since I couldn’t find anything else but I found information in the pdf so I used it since it was SOURCED. Then I left to go somewhere else. The 16th had ten articles they say and most of them were from my Google Docs and some like Barry Oringer and William Wood (screenwriter) were created instantly. The article Taky Marie-Divine Kouamé was created when I woke up, since she won a medal in a notable event and had coverage too. The article Bo Callaway was recreated since it was gonna remove lot of stuff except the beginning so I rewrote it without copyright, that I'm adding more info. The 15th is when I came back, since I started off with Andy Detwiler who I written in my google docs and then the rest I wrote in google docs mostly. This is all I could say if it makes sense. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I really hate to say it, but WP:Competence is required, and MaTF's long comment above speaks volumes about their lack of competence in writing acceptable English (as well as some basic misunderstandings about American electoral procedures); I won't embarrass them by pointing out the many basic errors it contains.
    I believe that it is necessary for the following actions to be taken:
    1. Move all the articles listed here to draft space. Editors who have fixed any of MaTF's creations can move them back into article space, and reviewers can whittle away at the rest of the list over time.
    2. Topic ban MaTF from creating articles more complex than the most basic stub (their stub articles seem to be OK) or extensively re-writing existing articles. I'm not quite sure how such a TB would be phrased, but I do think it's necessary. They can continue to do other non-textual work around Wikipedia - there's plenty of that to be done that doesn't require extensive ability to write acceptable English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    But can I try improving my articles like I've seen many copyedits in my articles, but can I get a chance to fix them and then see what the community thinks. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • MATF, that manner of paraphrasing sources is completely inappropriate. You need to understand what the source has said, and construct your own sentences summarizing that material. If you carry out word-for-word replacements, you're going to alter the meaning of the text and produce incomprehensible content, and you're also not avoiding copyright issues at all. If you're not using machine translation, and English is your native language, I'm sorry to say I don't know what advice to offer you; but you need to be able to understand the sources you're using, and if you lack the ability to do Wikipedia isn't the best hobby for you.
      I don't think a TBAN will achieve anything here: the issue appears to be with any non-trivial content. Either MATF can fix this approach; possibly be reducing the speed at which they work, and by taking the time to understand what they're reading and writing; or they can't, in which case, what are they doing on Wikipedia? I would suggest that MATF be required to work on and fix any five articles of their choosing from among their creations, and if they can address the issues here, we can work out a system of probation. If they're unwilling or unable to do so, we need to consider a site-ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't care about the AP role but I just want to still create articles, but I need to improve the others first. Can someone check how I did with James Sturch. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @MoviesandTelevisionFan: Your changes to James Sturch were improvements as far as they went, but another user (Larry Hockett) still had to make further changes, correcting some pretty basic errors in English phrasing. It doesn't speak well to your ability to fix the problems with the articles you created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MoviesandTelevisionFan: If you'd like, take a look at the list on my talk page of your articles which I have worked on. While not perfect, they may give you more of an idea where your mistakes lie if you compare their condition now to how they looked when you stepped away from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do that, thank you. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved Nick Mackey to draft as some content was unintelligible, user has made numerous efforts to improve this with zero success “resigned for which he was probed from a reason" “"he was resigned due to being investigated from some issues” ”he was resigned from his duty due to being investigated from his fabricating hours" now “In 2003, he was resigned.” WP:CIR is appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That article has been worked on by several editors and is now fine. I've moved it back into mainspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a situation where, rather than a TBAN, having a mandatory AfC draft submission for all their articles would be appropriate instead? SilverserenC 21:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As a reasonably active AFC reviewer, our workload is heavy enough without having more than the few mandatory AFC users we have already. All this would achieve is moving the problem around the various willing horses. Mentorship, assuming that still exists, would be a more immediate feedback and education loop. AFC has a large backlog and our role is to accept drafts that have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. We are not meant to strive for perfection, though some reviewers do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've indefinitely blocked the user from article space. Frankly, I don't think that's sufficient because they will just create work editing badly in draft space. I would prefer a topic ban from article creation in any space, and if my prediction is valid, I can also add draft space to the pblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Bbb23, I'm not sure there's consensus here for such a drastic action. Also, it does seem both unnecessary (given that the editor has accepted the criticisms here) and counterproductive (given that they've expressed the intention to go back and correct problems with their articles). – Uanfala (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Admins can take actions on their own discretion, which I assume was the case here. As for MaTF's intention to fix the problems with their articles, given the nature of their comments here, I do not believe that the editor is capable of correcting the type of mistakes their articles are replete with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to get the attention of what I'm gonna say. In my opinion, I think that I should create articles in draftspace that way it could be reviewed by AFC reviewers. I will read the guideline correctly and take my time into creating articles in draftspace. I'm just asking for a second chance from the community and this will be all I will say. I will mention that I should get access to edit namespace again but I would mainly just edit a bit and also add refs. I would still like to improve my articles in namespaces so I can fix it, but I didn't mean to cause disruption. I'm gonna stay back and come back for a few days to see what happens. Thank you! Please ping me if necessary. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @MoviesandTelevisionFan: Is English your first language? If not, how would you rate your proficiency in English? — Trey Maturin has spoken 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    English is my first language. This is how I write in English. I apologize if I'm not intelligent at it, but this is my English. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then that is a very serious problem for us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe English is MATF's native tongue. Sorry but... Just got through cleaning up some of their articles. I came across Eloise Hardt on my own. The others I sought out. I will clean up/clear up as many as I can. A list of articles MATF created or worked on is here. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MoviesandTelevisionFan (Non-administrator comment) Hi! I wanted to give a few suggestions to you since I was at one point in your boat with regards to newer articles. Firstly, I will not be making any comment about age or grade level but if you are under 18/21, I suggest you read WP:YOUNG, it has a bit of guidance aimed at those under 18/21. Secondly, if you say that there are problems with your English, I'd suggest you find a wikitask that you can do that does not require making your own prose (like typo fixing or anti-vandalism work). If you are not comprehending a source then you should not be adding the content from that source. Some sources use extremely specialist terms that only a handful of people (like doctors, mathematicians, historians, etc.) understand, and no amount of reading those sources will make you suddenly understand them. Lastly, it is important that you understand your limits. From WP:CIR: Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Wikipedia. If one specific task you are doing is causing problems to the project, then you should cease such task and select another task that you would be able to help with. If you are unable to do that, I am afraid admins may come in and place sitewide blocks and bans. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus for mass move to draftspace?

    • Request - We've had numerous editors here examine MaTF's articles, and the consensus seems to be that, other than very basic stubs, their articles are in need of serious attention. Could an admin or page mover who has the ability to do bulk moves please move this list of articles to draft space? I am a page mover but I don't have the automation or semi-automation capability to do such a mass move. After it's done, I will move the 15 or so articles I worked on back to article space, and I hope other editors who fixed MaTF's articles will do the same.
      (If there's another method of accomplishing the same thing, then that's fine too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beyond My Ken there are userscripts to do mass moves. Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Moving_and_merging. – robertsky (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any consensus for a mass move to Draft. Your list has over 1,000 articles going back over a year. MB 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So it would be your preferred course to leave 1,000+ badly written and sometimes inaccurate articles (less those fixed by other editors already) in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will fix them randomly, as opposed to moving them to draft where editors actively vet possibly problematic articles? That hardly seems helpful to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Moving the articles to draft space to allow active editors to triage them seems sensible given the level of incompetence demonstrated in the creation of the articles. There are a number of editors currently working on mitigating the damage done and if moving them to draft space helps those editors willing to put in the hard work then I support the move. Not everything has to be complicated and bogged down in process, especially when the ultimate result will be better (comprehensible) articles for our readers. -- Ponyobons mots 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      BMK, with respect (I mean that), I don't think you need to be so hot and heavy with MB. A mass move of over 1000 articles needs a clear consensus - it's fine for someone to question whether that consensus is there yet. I looked at one of the articles today myself, and did some copy editing, which essentially involved restructuring every sentence. I agree that draftifying is probably a good idea. Let's just try to avoid snarling at each other while we discuss what the best course of action is. Girth Summit (blether) 22:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think perhaps you read more into my comment than I intended, or I did not express myself well. If MB took offense at it, I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now hived off this section of the discussion to serve as a formal discussion of whether there is a consensus for a mass move of MaTF's un-fixed articles to draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Larry Hockett, Brunton, Teblick, MurrayGreshler, Spicy, and Girth Summit: Please see my previous comment on this thread. Apologies to other editors whose efforts I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I removed an article that I rewrote. If possible, it may be a good idea to introduce a length-based cutoff - I haven't seen any evidence that there's anything wrong with all of the basic substubs in the format "[X] was an American [occupation]. He won an Academy Award for [Y]." Spicy (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the sub-stubs I've seen have been fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Urgh - I just looked at Nate Monaster, and it's not just poorly written, but it seems to be full of factual inaccuracies as well. The second sentence runs as follows: He was nominated for an Academy Award for Lover Come Back and That Touch of Mink and a win for Pillow Talk, and Mink won him the Writers Guild of America Award win for Best Written American Comedy, which he shared with his partner Stanley Shapiro. At first, I thought this would just be a copy-editing job, but then I checked the sources - as far as I can make out, he didn't write on Lover Come Back or on Pillow Talk. I can't read all of the sources, but the ones I can see only mention the nomination for That Touch of Mink. In short - put me down as supporting a mass move to draft space. Girth Summit (blether) 09:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose strongly moving these articles to draft. NPP is the first port of call for every new article. The fact that this has been subverted by a holder of the AP right means that they should first be marked 'unreviewed' and put back in the NewPagesFeed where they will receive the appropriate first attention by vetted New Page Reviewers. Their triage will ensure their future destiny be it Draft, or any one of our deletion processes. Contrary to what is often misunderstood (including by the WMF to whom I had to explain this yesterday in a planning meeting with them), moving to draft does not automatically increase the workload at AfC; that only happens when the creator submits the draft. Beyond My Ken's work on this delicate issue - where the creator should never have been accoderd AP - has been excellent, but mass moving to draft is not the immediate solution. With their backlock at an astounding low of around 500, the NPPers have more than enough time to process a 1,000 stubs and other inappropriate articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kudpung: Thanks for that information. Can articles be mass-marked "un-reviewed" or does it have to be done one by one? Beyond My Ken (talk)
    @Beyond My Ken: unless a bot or a script could do it, it would need to be done one-by-one. I know this means seeing the pages twice but it's the proper way to go and would avoid inviting any new precedents that we might regret later. So proper in fact, that I don't mind doing some of it myself. The NPPers could take care of the reviewing or I could even do that on the fly too while marking them ureviewed but the New Pages Feed has to the the first logical stop in the correct workflow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: It's worth noting that Moving to draft will not give MTF the benefit of any doubt because he is blocked anyway. There is the possibility of a little known system at NPPNE. If nothing comes of that, the articles can then be PRODed along with any other unsuitable ones. That would give them 7 days exposure to the wider community which they wouldn't get as drafts, and after that they would be deleted. That would also ward off any accusations that NPPers are using draft as a backdoor route to deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the article space block extend to drafts? If not, or if there was a way to make it so that it doesn’t, then moving the articles to draft would enable MTF to carry on working on them. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless Bbb23 has extended the block, it's just for editing mainspace at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I suggest that a move to draft is the ideal solution. It allows them to be checked before being moved back, and it will also give MTF a chance to work on them and demonstrate that the mainspace block is no longer necessary. Brunton (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I mean it's just embarrassing how poorly written these articles are, not just that but the information also seems to be incorrect in most of them as if he didn't even bother to read the sources. Good job I found this user before he did even more damage. The admin who gave him auto patrolled rights really messed up here I'm afraid and should be called out for this serious error. I'll help go over some of his articles but it will take up a lot of time to go over all of them, a lot of unnecessary damage here that could have been avoided if his articles had been thoroughly checked before he was granted this right. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As pointed out above, at the time MaTF received the autopatrol flag, he had xreated primiarily sub-stubs, which -- as far as I've seen -- are acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      AP is supposed to be granted based on a reliable history of creating "clean" articles. Wikipedia:Autopatrolled says an editor should have written at least 25 "articles" and specifically says redirects and dab pages don't count. It shouldn't be necessary, but that could be changed to also say the articles should at least be Start-class. MB 05:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the attitude of New Page Reviewers expressed in the section below, I do not believe that Kudpung's suggestion to not move MaTF's articles to draftspace, but instead to mark them as needing review would be an adequate solution, as the problems with them won't be fixed, they'll just be rubber-stamped back into mainspace, because the subjects are notable. Therefore, I request that an admin assess this discussion -- which has been ongoing for 10 days now -- to see if there is a consensus to move MaTF's articles (the ones that remain on the list here) to draftspace. My assessment is that there is a consensus (4-1) to do so, but I think an admin should make the call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, despite about a dozen or so editors working on MaTF's articles for almost 2 weeks now, there are still about 800 on the list which haven't been fixed or checked and passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Request withdrawn. Admins seem to have more important tasks to do in any event. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another aspect of the problem

    Another aspect of the problem with MaTF's articles is that they appear to be being approved at Articles for Creation in a state which is not actually up to Wikipedia standards. User:Ingenuity just passed Paul Bolster, J. E. Jumonville Sr. and Paul Taliaferro despite all three of them required editing to fix basic errors of grammar and style - and this despite Ingenuity being aware of this thread. Is there a problem with AfC's standards? Why are articles that are not up to Wikipedia's basic standards being approved? Or is the problem with this particular reviewer? Who is responsible for seeing that AfC's standards are sufficient to protect the encyclopedia from mistakes such as these? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You can take a look at the AFC reviewing instructions, specifically WP:AFCPURPOSE. From the guidelines: Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace. All of the above articles pass WP:NPOL and would easily pass AfD. The purpose of AfC isn't to decline every article that has grammar mistakes. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress; not every article in mainspace has to be perfect. If you feel that the requirements to pass AfC should be more strict, feel free to open a discussion at the AfC talk page, which is probably a more appropriate venue for a discussion like this. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What's missing is the content of the box in the workflow diagram before the article even gets to review: "Correct and submit for review", which is to be informed by (green box) "Communication: reviewer comments / in-line message / AFC discussion / User talk page / Tea House / IRC". Did any sort of communication take place between you, the reviewer, and MaTF? If not, why not, when there were basic problems of grammar and style in the article? If there was discussion, why weren't the errors pointed out to MaTF?
    Perhaps I'm naive. I thought that AfC reviewers were actually doing something to protect Wikipedia from badly written articles, and not simply checking off boxes on a checklist by rote. You seem to believe that your job as a reviewer to to approve anything that doesn't fail preset criteria. I see your job as being to make sure that badly written articles stay in draftspace until they're fixed. Your way lead to our having to re-check over 1,000 articles written by MaTF, so I don't see it as a very successful methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We accept articles that would survive an AfD discussion. Articles with spelling errors don't get deleted. The queue is too big for us to be holding drafts over every issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These were not "spelling errors", the articles had bad grammar and basic style mistakes. We are a reference work used by millions of people. We cannot afford our articles to have sentences in them such as
    "In 1991, Taliaferro was pleaded guilty of bank fraud by a federal jury. It had resulted him from being suspended of the Oklahoma Senate."
    We sound like something written for little children when our articles say things like
    "He attended Eastern Baptist College, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in 1966. Bolster also attended the University of Mississippi, where he earned his master’s degree in 1967. He attended the University of Georgia, where he earned his doctorate degree in 1972. He also attended the Georgia State University, where he earned his law degree."
    We are better than that, and we should demand that new articles meet our standards of quality.
    You say your queue is too long, and I'm sympathetic. But when articles like that are thrown into Articlespace they're no longer in any queue at all. There's no additional process to check over articles for basic problems except blind random chance - AfC is the process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we as a community already held the view that the bar of "mainspace acceptable" was far below "well-written". This is the quality you get when you entrust the general public to write an encyclopedia. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me to a policy which advocates that Wikipedia articles should not be written to a basic standard of quality? What the heck is Draftspace for if not a holding place for articles that aren't ready for prime time? If we're not going to check the articles out properly before they move into the encyclopedia, we may as well get rid of it altogether. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the most important parts of Wikipedia is that it's a work in progress. This is said pretty much everywhere. I don't know, "bad grammar" is not a decline rationale on the AfC script. There isn't even a consensus for what should be incubated in draft (page movers draftifying is usually an arbitrary decision or based on unspoken precedent), so what are meant to act on? —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @VersaceSpace: Don't you think that "This is the quality you get when you entrust the general public to write an encyclopedia" is a rather inappropriate attitude for a New Page Reviewer to have? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. there's a difference between me having an opinion and it affecting my work, and my attitude at NPP vastly differs from that at AfC. I'm also not accepting any imperfect articles through AfC, since I'm autopatrolled and the articles I accept don't enter the NPP queue. Users without AP can more freely accept drafts because they still get manually reviewed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You make good points. But, the community has simply been reluctant to empower one editor, NPP or AFC, to gatekeep articles on notable topics from mainspace. Most of the large-scale issues such as this are taken care of at AN/ANI. A reviewer could get into trouble for doing the exact same thing an AFD or ANI consensus might do about these problem articles/editors. Because individual editors don't have that mandate. Some power users good at argumentation maybe could get away with doing what you suggest, but you can't fault an average AFC/NPP editor for not going that route. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I gather that the attitude is that if the subject is notable, any old piece of garbage article is better than none at all. That's ... sad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an attitude, it's the state of the community consensus today. You know as well as I (maybe better) that we have a spectrum of editors on the project from include everything to delete everything. The balance currently is to not allow an individual reviewer to keep articles from mainspace using other excuses not to do with notability of the article (I assume, for fear that deletionists will overrun AFC/NPP). I don't know why this surprises you since this is the state with AFD as well where if an article passes notability, other issues rarely if ever result in deletion or draftification. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue is fundamental as the essential feature of Wikipedia is that it's quick and dirty. This was the big breakthrough after it was found that the perfectionist model of Nupedia was an utter failure. This approach of making a weak start and then refining the content has long been enshrined in the policy WP:IMPERFECT which explicitly says that " Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." That's why we have the article grading system in which the Start level says "Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use." So, if there are grammar issues of this sort, the article should be graded as Start class and left where the relevant projects and copy-editors will find it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't going to comment as I figured I was just missing something, but this sub-section kinda reinforces my feelings... Are these articles really that bad? I checked over a random ~15 from xtools, all had some grammatical issues and some had some trivia in them, but overwhelmingly seemed fine. I see an example of actual error above, but not many of them, though that's not to say they don't exist; much of the focus in this section has been on the grammatical quality. It doesn't seem much worse than the avg article I stumble across when I use Wikipedia as a reader. The examples BMK cites above, like In 1991, Taliaferro was pleaded guilty of bank fraud by a federal jury. It had resulted him from being suspended of the Oklahoma Senate I don't this are that bad. a) it conveys the information clearly, even if the grammar is broken; b) it's an easy copyedit job, including for an interested reader who stumbles across it, giving them an easy in into the world of editing. I think WP:IMPERFECT is aptly cited: Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. Unless there's a pattern of greater errors (i.e. of matters of fact and sourcing), IMO remove autopatrolled from the user and let them continue; NPP can deal with articles, or tag them as required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the face of such determined resistance to a minimum basic standard of quality, I'm dropping the entire matter, at least as far as I'm concerned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Welcome to the club, meetings are Thursdays at 6 in the WMF office basement; please bring a snack to share. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose as an inclusionist and someone who's expressed horror several times at particular AfC rejections, I should welcome the revelation above, that AfC reviewers are applying only the standard of notability sufficient that the article would probably clear AfD. But there are several areas of concern with MoviesandTelevisionFan's articles (those that are not stubs) beyond grammar and spelling errors that can be cleaned up in the ordinary course of copyediting.
    • For one, the standard of English is so low, it's hard to understand and requires emergency fixing by some other editor(s) at the cost of whatever else they may have planned on working on. Samuel Hartsel in the version by MoviesandTelevisionFan flagged in Inexpiable's original post, containing the headscratcher He had a brother who was Joseph Hartsel, in which he had died in 1901 for which there was consensus that he was murdered and was considered deceased but there was proof to show that he was strucked by lightning while his body was found in 1903. The article has now been fixed, but I made a note to myself to try to sort out from the sources what on earth happened to Hartsel's brother, what people thought when, including whether there were doubts about his being dead, and how in any case this was relevant to Hartsel. It goes far beyond "in which he" when the editor should have written "who", or "strucked" for "struck" into CIR territory.
    • Beyond that, as noted by Spicy with examples from Inexpiable's other example, David Mark Hill (again, I've linked to MoviesandTelevisionFan's version of an article that others have now fixed), the editor has misrepresented the sources, based presumably on imperfect understanding, but nonetheless that means the articles have to be checked for accuracy, too. This is similar to the concern with machine translation: the work is so poor that it may mislead the reader. Regardless of good intentions, we have to fix such articles or remove them. This is the other reason competence is required. Wikipedia is writing for publication, and real people with real descendants and real historical achievements are potentially being misrepresented in inaccurate articles.
    • I don't doubt anyone's good faith here, including anyone not appreciating why these articles were draftified and re-mainspacing them, I dream of horses for nominating MoviesandTelevisionFan for autopatrolled and Onel5969 for seconding a year ago. MoviesandTelevisionFan has shown willingness to fix the problems with the articles and has responded frankly to questions here. Unfortunately their responses demonstrate that they aren't up to extended writing in English, and also that there may be an issue with self-assessment: they've said here both I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English. and, in response to a question, English is my first language. Maybe a definition issue with first vs. native? Maybe it really is a writing problem? But we operate in writing here.
    • There are also copyright issues. As Vanamonde93 noted above, MoviesandTelevisionFan doesn't have a good grasp of how to rewrite text that is copyvio or overly close paraphrasing. But according to Sennecaster, they've been recreating articles by Billy Hathorn. Billy Hathorn was indeffed for copyvio in 2011, unblocked in 2013, and community banned as a serial copyright violator (and sockpuppeteer) in 2015. MoviesandTelevisionFan's initial statement above refers to using the archive version of Hathorn's as a starting point for categories and text, then rewriting to eliminate copyvio. Other than that there has been a massive copyright investigation for Billy Hathorn's articles, I didn't know what happened to them, but following the trail from a thanks message on MoviesandTelevisionFan's user talk, I see that they created Noreen Corcoran after it had been deleted as a Billy Hathorn article that had not been cleaned up by April 2021. By "archive version", does MoviesandTelevisionFan mean versions of deleted articles at the Wayback Machine? In addition to accuracy, any articles they've recreated based on Hathorn's work also need to be investigated for copyvio of the less obvious lexical substitution type. Any of those that haven't been thoroughly rewritten by other editors should be at CCI until they're pronounced clean, and there may be need for revision deletions. (Sennecaster thanked them for working on Hathorn articles, but from what has emerged here, we can't assume they fixed the copyvios adequately.)
    • As I recall and as alluded to by Sennecaster, there were other problems with Hathorn's articles, including IIRC notability concerns and poor sourcing. If MoviesandTelevisionFan has been working based on Hathorn's articles, we shouldn't be so sanguine that their article topics are notable.
    Since CCI is horribly backed up and in any case just looks at that; both NPP and AfC don't check for accuracy and can't be expected to do either the extensive copyediting needed or the deeper check for copyvio of the rewording type; and since some editors have already thoroughly redone some of the articles, I recommend they be segregated as a special project list in either draft space with a big notice at the top or some poor blighter's userspace. And in drafting future articles, MoviesandTelevisionFan should not work on any more Billy Hathorn articles, or create any biographies requested by someone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume that MTAF's been taking them off of archives or mirrors, or rewriting them before they get deleted. When I checked the rewrites for copyvio, nothing read as a copyvio or close paraphrase. I couldn't reword the sentences another way, so they were able to pass under the threshold of originality. I went back and rechecked Flip Mark, Talmadge L. Heflin (both fine), Clarence Addison Brimmer Jr., and Bo Callaway which had some suspect text I should have rewritten before moving but was subsequently CEd down. There's not really an efficient way to track down anything else I approved without manually searching individual pages. I apologize for not catching this sooner, or telling MTAF about the full extent and problem of Hathorn articles. I would suspect though that only longer rewrites and more complex sentences need attention on the copyright end, as much of what is written in those articles still falls below the threshold of originality that would push it into close paraphrasing. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking. I am not remotely blaming you here, or even MTAF. But what we have here is someone with poor English skills (in the written dimension) who has recreated articles that were deleted for good reasons, and in doing so has used paraphrase techniques that both introduced inaccuracy and made checking for copyvio more complicated. It's not a matter of notability—although Billy Hathorn was not a good judge of that in politicians, outside politics he may have been perfectly capable of judging notability, and in any case actors, for example, have since had several years to accrue further roles and further press—if these articles cannot be segregated and stubbed/checked (with revision deletion likely needed), the Billy Hathorn aspect is a good argument for mass deletion of those nobody has rewritten and taken responsibility for. They should definitely not be re-mainspaced on the basis of apparent notability if they derive from Billy Hathorn. Anyone who recreates a deleted article from an archived version (and MTAF says above that he started with an archived version and reworked it ina document file) should realize it's a dangerous proposition; it's probably spelled out as a no-no somewhere in our voluminous PAGS. This is why reconstructions exist on places like Deletionpedia, Everybodywiki, and Wikia/Fandom, because Wikipedia deletes things and doesn't allow simple re-creation. @Ingenuity and VersaceSpace: Please note this dimension of the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Billyball998 is sealioning

    I think that Billyball998 (talk · contribs) is using WP:Sealioning at Talk:Book of Daniel. They are a case of WP:1AM and WP:SPA. They are pushing a Sangerite interpretation of WP:NPOV against the academic consensus (the consensus claim is verified by no less than four citations). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Billyball998 is raising a legitimate point Tgeorgescu's approach to excluding the description of the views of religious scholars has been problematic across a number of different articles. Interaction with him tends towards bludgeoning and often involve incivility. The only reason one could disagree with the "scholarly consensus" is because one is either "severally misinformed or a religious bigot".
    It does look like Billyball998 is a SPA, which is bad. Someone with tools should probably look at it to see whether it is a sock puppet and take appropriate action. However, the 1AM issue is a red herring. Tgeorgescu drives contributors with different views away from these articles and then claims that any new ones who show up are 1AM. Jahaza (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryken, Leland; Longman, Tremper (2010). The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310877424. The consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that the book was composed in the second century B.C., that it is a pseudonymous work, and that it is indeed an example of prophecy after the fact. N.B.: Ryken and Longman have an axe to grind against this mainstream academic consensus, nevertheless they report it for what it is.
    And... I did not revert Billyball998. Two other established editors did that.
    As I stated at WP:DRN, I am not against citing the Medieval Rabbi Rashi. I just oppose citing him as being on a par with modern mainstream historical research.
    They may cite Rashi using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but they should leave the mainstream academic view undisturbed. My verbatim statement was:

    I am not principally opposed to citing Rashi, but there should be no implication that his dating is on a par with the modern, mainstream academic dating. WP:NPOV is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article.
    — User:tgeorgescu

    The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.
    — User:Ian.thomson

    Same applies to those "religious scholars": they are often not modern mainstream historians, so they should not be consulted for the voice of modern mainstream historians. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try to avoid the content dispute per se here, including the problems with academic consensus as a concept.
    You've now replied five times in 30 minutes to this comment, which is part of why I mention bludgeoning. Twice I've tried to reply and had my comment edit conflicted out.
    You say that you're not opposed to including other views, but you don't seem to work towards a mutually agreeable version, or edit the page in a compromise way to include them as historical or minority while restoring information about modern academic consensus. This seems to be its own kind of sea lioning, where you claim that you want to include those views, but oppose their inclusion in practice. Jahaza (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jahaza: Can you mention examples from the past wherein I have opposed including "religious scholars" using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? I certainly did oppose citing them in the voice of Wikipedia, or as being on a par with modern historians, but I don't remember that I would have WP:CENSORED "religious scholars" per se. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One hour later: my understanding of WP:TPG is that talk page posts can be edited as long as they have not been replied to. Is my understanding wrong?
    And I would gladly be considered "the bulldog of the academic consensus", although more often than not I am the canary in the coalmine. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Wikipedia. There is no need to beat around the bush, the end result is the same: you will be blocked and banned if you don't abide by it. We don't need fundamentalist claptrap masquerading as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Either you kowtow to WP:CHOPSY, or Wikipedia is not the proper place for you. User:tgeorgescu
    • I think that this sort of discourse can stand on its own to show the chilling effect and the WP:SYSTEMIC bias that has been bludgeoned into articles on Sacred Scripture throughout enwiki. This topic area has a third rail and if its WP:CABAL rejects anything that isn't CHOPSY then I consider it to be intellectually bankrupt and not worth my editing time or effort. I really do avoid anything related to Scripture because of this pervasive attitude and WP:OWN of articles across the broad topic area. I can testify that it has a chilling effect against any actual Christian scholarly views being represented.
    Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

    Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia. --Ermenrich (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

    You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

    Attempting to picture WP:CHOPSY as an Anti-Christian cabal is hilarious. Most Bible professors from CHOPSY are either Christian or Jewish, but not of the fundamentalist sort. Such accusation is not far from the idea that liberal Christians are not Christians at all, or from the idea that Catholics aren't Christians. You could equally well claim that the historical method is the mark of the beast.
    Someone has to tell the newbies as it is: what's wrong with kowtowing to the academic consensus? Aren't we all expected to do that? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that conservative/traditional (so called fundamentalist) religious positions are not ipso facto sub-scholarly/anti-chopsy, the big 6 regularly publish conservative/traditional religious positions. Chopsy is about adhering to scholarly standards, not a rejection of religious views. I of course do not advocate for citing as evidence poorly sourced or other sub-scholarship, but published works that, for example do not implictly disqaulify the possibilty of prophecy, are not sub-scholarly, and are often published by the big 6. For example the porter young article you cited from oxford. Even Collins does not inherently reject prophecy, he makes claims as to why he doesn't believe it to be prophecy (J.J. Collins, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993)) p. 26. I will post this on the talk page in question (Talk:Book of Daniel) also. Billyball998 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The historical method (aka methodological naturalism to many) rejects genuine prophecies as attestable historical facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the historical method.. and it is not the criteria of chopsy as evidenced by the fact that chopsy do publish works that leave prophecy as a potential, such as the porter young work. Do you have a source that wikipedia abides by methodological naturalism? I know for a fact chopsy doesn't. Billyball998 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That applies to the World War 2? I would love to publish an article how elves and fairies influenced the battles of WW2. Or does it apply only to the Bible? Then I would love to publish an article that leprechauns have dictated the Book of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:Chopsy still applies... i doubt chopsy would consider your article, because of poor scholarship and citations, not inherently because of your beliefs, unless you could apply proper scholarship to your claims. Billyball998 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer from Dr. Ehrman: I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge. But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis. For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead. You could come up with a different theological view of it. Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors. But he can't tell his followers about this because Zulu told him that if he does, he'll increase his eternal agonies. So that's another theological explanation for what happened. It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances.

    Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah? Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy. Well, yeah, O.K., it's crazy; but it's theologically crazy. It's not historically crazy. It's no less likely as an explanation for what happened than the explanation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raised Jesus from the dead because they're both theological explanations; they're not historical explanations. So within the realm of theology, I certainly think that theology is a legitimate mode of knowledge. But the criteria for evaluating theological knowledge are theological; they are not historical.

    “The historian has no access to “supernatural forces” but only to the public record, that is, to events that can be observed and interpreted by any reasonable person, of whatever religious persuasion. If a “miracle” requires a belief in the supernatural realm, and historians by the very nature of their craft can speak only about events of the natural world, events that are accessible to observers of every kind, how can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order-that is, a miracle- occurred? – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 193)

    “Since historians can only establish what probably did happen in the past, and the chances of a miracle happening, by definition, are infinitesimally remote, they can never demonstrate that a miracle probably happened. This is not a problem for only one kind of historians, it is a problem for all historians of every stripe. Even if there are otherwise good sources for a miraculous event, the very nature of the historical discipline prevents the historian from arguing for its probability.” – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 196)

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that I am involved here, I thought I should chime in at least briefly. I see a clear consensus against Billyball998's proposals, and agree that they have been a bit strident on the talk page, but I don't think they have been truly disruptive. I have great respect for tgeorgescu, and agree with him substantively almost all the time, but he tends to be a lot more proactive than I am. I am content to simply keep saying "no" to Billyball998 unless and until they provide us something more compelling than the argument to date. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been participating in discussions concerning Biblical articles for several years. I often find myself agreeing with what tgeorgescu is saying, but he is rather quick to start threatening other users. The conversation gets heated for no real reason. In this case, Billyball998's list of sources does not seem to reflect mainstream opinions. I would personally avoid citing Kenneth Kitchen as an authority on the Old Testament's historicity, since nobody seems to agree with his views. Dimadick (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    seaLioning, at the Book of Daniel? Seems we've really walked into a certain large feline's den in this one, folks.
    All that aside, I agree that @Billyball998's proposals here are WP:FRINGEy and depict a serious lack of competence in this editor space. In reply to @Dumuzid I am content to simply keep saying "no" to Billyball998 unless and until they provide us something more compelling than the argument to date. I think eventually that does get tiring, and becomes a pretty clear drain on editor time and resources. Eventually we have to do something to allow editors to spend more time on, yknow, actually improving the articles. TBANs are meant to be preventative in exactly cases like this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed. The language you quoted was from a couple of days ago when I was more hopeful of a denouement. There's a reason I described tegeorgescu as "proactive" rather than doubting his judgment; it seems like time has shown him more correct than I was. Billyball998, your insistence that we keep running in circles on this really is becoming an issue. I would implore you to find another area of the encyclopedia on which to work, at least for a time. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand that continuing the standstill-argument isn't productive, please see my last comment on the page in question from yesterday to attest to this. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussions end up being not productive in large part because tgeorgescu et al. have driven off any editors with different views than their own that are not fringey. Jahaza (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:tgeorgescu - It appears that you are forum shopping. You opened this thread at 1909 GMT, 3 November, after opening the FTN case at 1654 GMT, 2 November, and then also opened the RSN inquiry at 0039 GMT, 5 November. (You didn't file the DRN case that was closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that really counts as forum shopping.... Each thread appears to be covering different aspects of this situation. Forum shopping would be if he were taking the same issue to different places to attempt to get a single outcome. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: Understood. Then you may close any of the discussions opened by me. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    See [8]? They're hopeless. They're not even good for rough ashlar. They lack any WP:CLUE. I propose giving them a topic ban for lacking WP:CIR. Hint: there are now 5 (five) WP:RS which all verify the WP:RS/AC requirements. Some people never learn. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the scope of the proposal, so we don't have to guess after looking through? Is it specific to the Book of Daniel, or will a broader topic ban be needed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Far too soon for that. As mentioned above, there are also problems with the way tgeorgescu carries on discussions (I still haven't got used to the way he uses quotes) so I would not use any interactions with him as evidence against another editor. As for the content, while there may be an academic consensus on the dating, that is in itself not a reason to put it in WP voice, and we have no policy that requires us to do so. (WP:CHOPSY, cited above, is tgeorgescu's own essay.) StAnselm (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am fine that instead of writing "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd century writing" we would write "The consensus of mainstream historians and mainstream Bible scholars is that the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century writing". But according to me, that is a distinction without a difference. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose i think its a reasonable proposal, even if you disagree with it, i am not pov pushing or an SPA. also obviously the spurious SPA ban on my account was lifted fyi
    Billyball998 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While I think Billyball998 should accept a consensus against some/all of their points, the simply unacceptable approach to discussion taken by other editors should also be taken into account when assessing BB998's statements. It also looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that a very mild BOOMERANG might be needed; considering this warrantless and gossipy message on a noticeboard frequented by many editors who are already inclined to support the very standards tgeorgescu is aggressively defending. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The majority of "facts" about Ancient history enjoy a lesser amount of WP:RS/AC than the Book of Daniel written in the 2nd century BCE. That would mean a free pass to maim most Ancient history articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is true. Does not change the fact you violated a core policy (biting newcomers) and without demonstrating any patience with someone who is clearly trying to understand policies they were only just informed of. You are very right that your objectives aren't the issue, but your approach in this specific circumstance was. You are clearly a trusted editor and I'm glad you pushed back against something that broke policy, but the last few days of bickering could have been avoided. I hope you don't get sanctioned and would disapprove of it, just as I disapprove of something towards our new fellow editor (for now). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is, assuming that their inability to get a WP:CLUE is sincere (genuine) and not fake naivete. As I said: I did not revert their edits, and there were more editors telling them how we do things around here. Did you see [9]? That was their 8th edit at en.wiki and does not seem at all like how a newbie would edit their talk page. So cut me some slack that I do not believe that they are intellectually unable to get the point, they just pretend to do so. Interesting is that Étale.cohomology (talk · contribs) had a similar POV at [10], [11], and [12]. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, it's not "interesting," since @Bbb23 has stated that technical data shows that they're not the same user[13]. Implying that someone is a sock-puppet of another account after an administrator has cleared them seems quite improper. Jahaza (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jahaza: Do you know that there is a substantial difference between technical checkuser data and WP:DUCK? They were cleared of using the same IP and browser, not of having similar edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, their edit histories are not very similar at all. Please AGF. Jahaza (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As the saying goes, AGF is not a suicide pact. They usually use the visual editor, as any newbie would, but not at their 8th edit ever. WP:DUCK again at [14]. Yet another WP:DUCK: [15]. Blatant WP:DUCK: [16].
      I think that now it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they do have the same POV. Are they the same person? How would I know? But it is absolutely certain that they share the same POV. The only difference is that they have declared Also I am not Jewish or Christian just fyi. at [17] while the indeffed accounts proclaim Jesus. And if they are neither Jewish nor Christian, I don't understand their motivation, e.g. for Muslim apologists it is very fashionable to bash the reliability of the Bible. For the Baháʼí Faith, the inerrancy of the Bible is not relevant, and Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I am also not muslim or mormon... as I said my motivation is an academic one because I don't believe this issue is an established fact and I believe it should be presented neutrally using wps voice. The edit 108 was an edit of the content you posted on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billyball998&oldid=1119574987 Billyball998 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am considering some sort of WP:BOOMERANG proposal to prevent tgeorgescu from engaging with newcomers. His behaviour even in this thread has been less than ideal, and he has a long history of biting new editors, particularly ones with Christian convictions. I appreciate that his motives are honourable, and that he is certainly here to build an encyclopedia, but the way he is going about it is, IMO, unacceptable. StAnselm (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Christian convictions is not the stuff that irritates me. What irritates me is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for religious fundamentalism. There is a difference between rendering a fundamentalist opinion with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (of which I am fairly tolerant) and engaging in religious propaganda, mainly through removing mainstream historical information from religious articles. The only difference between Billyball998's edits at Book of Daniel and outright vandalism is that Billyball998 took time to argue their POV at the talk page. Otherwise, their purpose is the same as the purpose of fundamentalist vandals who maim religious articles, namely deleting mainstream Bible scholarship from Wikipedia. And your argument holds if they are a newbie, but I have my doubts about that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise there is a a problem with naive editors making edits like that to biblical articles, it's the way we treat them that's the issue. Calling them "fundamentalist vandals" is part of the problem. Yes, their edits should be reverted, but with gentle explanations. Don't you see that the very fact that you posted a thread here is an indication of biting? And even if you have doubts about the editor being a newbie, you're still not assuming good faith? StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like your very first response to Billyball998 on the article talk page was "Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Wikipedia." If that's not WP:BITE, I don't know what is. StAnselm (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why that strong reply? Because the same POV had been pushed very recently by other editors and IPs. Whether they are or not a newbie does not change the above affirmation that I consider them hopeless as an Wikipedian. And, yes, when I began to edit Wikipedia, I was hopeless as an Wikipedian, but I was simply not obnoxious as to get banned. I have matured intellectually, and only then I could become a reliable editor.
    So yeah, there are three possibilities: WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and a very improbable coincidence. These are my reasons for considering that they are not a newbie.
    8 October Jesus is God of gods 003 (talk · contribs)
    18 October Jesusisourfreedom (talk · contribs)
    1 November 174.242.209.149 (talk · contribs)
    2 November Billyball998 (talk · contribs)
    That's the timeline of the same POV-pushing at this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those accounts made unverifiable unsourced claims, I would urge you to point to any edit that I made that was factually untrue, or unverifiable. I did not push any pov, i am not a Christian, I want to remove the bias that exists towards one of multiple scholarly theories, there is no reason to assume Collins is correct when it is a debated issue even and especially within biblical criticism. Billyball998 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [18] says that the sources you have provided have failed to make the case for your POV.
    Also, not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim, not Mormon, but purely academic interest... do you understand that even if that's true, it still is hard to believe? People with an academic interest are generally speaking not overzealous POV-pushers. Especially when defending someone's else's scholarly POV (yup, it is a POV belonging to conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists).
    And less than 10 hours after the POV-pushing edit warring you offered us WP:THETRUTH of the same POV-pushing. That's also hard to believe. See [19]. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am making no claims as to the truth of any of the views, I am advocating neutrality, saying that the c. 165 bc date is debated, is not pov pushing, i would argue that unwavering commitment to SR Drivers theory, and trying to write it as fact, is actually pov pushing. also fiveby did not review the sources, and he is not the be all and end all. Please make actual arguments against the sources (and individually) that people can check if you want them to be disqualified.
    As far as my ability to produce evidence for my claims... its almost as if, as I've stated, it is a debated issue amongst scholars, and I didn't make that up. Billyball998 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In order of not beating around the bush: you have failed to produce any WP:Verifiable evidence that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia (about the dating of Daniel). And you had the huevos to call Collins's judgment extreme supposition. Well, for more than a century that's the only mainstream academic view about the dating of Daniel. Other views are simply WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have failed to produce any WP:Verifiable evidence that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia (about the dating of Daniel).
    The verifiable citations I have provided? What exactly is your claim against them, all of my citations are within the last 60 years, except some of the ones borrowed from Collins.
    and where did I call Collins' theory extreme supposition? thanks. All the scholars ive cited are scholarly, even if they are minority, they are not fringe. Billyball998 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries from Book of Daniel:
    Restructuring to keep elements under correct headers, improving flow, removing jargon/unclear (?) ("wisdom circles") defining positions on authorship, added hyperlinks and citations, removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically, added minutia, additional positions, and evidence concerning modern biblical criticism scholars, aswell as rewording of some appeals to authority (ie. "some scholars believe..." in place of "the consensus is that…").
    please see the talk page "consensus", please edit if you feel you can better summarize something instead of undoing. moving elements under correct headers, improving flow, removing jargon/unclear (?) ("wisdom circles"), defining additional positions on authorship, added hyperlinks and citations, removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically (OR)(?), adding minutia, additional positions, and evidence concerning modern biblical criticism.)
    And you have to produce real evidence that in 2022 AD there is a debate thereupon raging in the mainstream academia. Sources from 60 years ago don't count to that effect.
    If you claim that you have an academic interest then I don't have to explain to you which sources count to that effect. If you fail to get the point, then it is a false pretense that you have an academic interest. Does publish or perish tells you anything?
    This is very neatly explained at Scientific consensus and arguments from authority on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Collins does not assert that Daniel was authored under the maccabean/hashmonean dynasty, it actually goes against his dating... if it is supposed to mean "at the same time as early Maccabean revolts", it should say that but still that would be synthesis. Especially because Collins estimate of 168-165 bc is not completely with the early Maccabean revolts (which begin in 167 bc)
    For you to claim a source is outdated, you have to demonstrate why, you saying they are outdated does not make them outdated. Scholarship in this area has not changed fundamentally in the last 65 years. Scholars in this study routinely cite scholarship even older, see Collins, Flint, etc.
    I agree with the point of the video which talks about how a theory can be 'accepted as the consensus when the amount of evidence is overwhelming, and no one can find a serious flaw', this is not true of SR drivers theory. Criticism of the theory represents true scholarship, backed by evidence, not denialism, or anti scholarly fringe theories. Billyball998 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i think we should move further discussion back to Talk:Book of Daniel. thanks Billyball998 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what Google shows for the search terms Maccabean period: "The main phase of the revolt lasted from 167–160 BCE and ended with the Seleucids in control of Judea, but conflict between the Maccabees, Hellenized Jews, and the Seleucids continued until 134 BCE, with the Maccabees eventually attaining independence." So, may I ask, is c. 165 BCE during the Maccabean period? Or this: "The Maccabean Revolt of 167-160 BCE was a Jewish uprising in Judea against the repression of the Seleucid Empire. The revolt was led by a country priest called Mattathias, and his military followers became known as Maccabees." tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically speaking, "macccabean period" is not a term historians (as far as I know) use. There is the hashmonean dynasty, which begins in 140 bc. The first revolts began in 167 bc, whereas collins claim is somewhere from 168-165. In conclusion, I would say c.165 bc is not within the "Maccabean period" (a misnomer) and also Collins claim does not even fall completely within the revolts.
    If you are claiming that the first maccabean revolts are called the maccabean period, you should provide a citation, but there is still the other issue.
    Now i will try not to continue on this page because this is not the subject of this page, please know in the future I will respond back on Talk:Book of Daniel. thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You stated removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically (twice).
    So, not only your interpretation of WP:RULES such as WP:RS/AC and WP:NPOV is confused, your interpretation that a controversy is raging in the mainstream academia is also confused, and it is you who have used misnomers twice, according to what you said yourself above. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not using the misnomer... I am stating that removed the statement that "Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period." Eitherway, the point is i was not calling Collins position supposition, only the faulty wording of the article. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange, since you did not use quote marks in order to show that it isn't your own view. And even if it isn't your own view, the claim that it is an extreme supposition is highly off the mark. Anyway, your interpretation of WP:NPOV is confused because when the consensus view of the mainstream academia is that something is fact, then it is also a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. I have edited for a long time and I don't know any exceptions from this rule. Since you demanded a WP:RS, here it is: Wessels, Anton; Jansen, Henry; Hofland, Lucy (2020). The Grand Finale: The Apocalypse in the Tanakh, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 978-1-7252-7601-7. Retrieved 5 November 2022. The Hasmonean dynasty ruled Judea from the Maccabean revolt in 167 BC until 37 BC. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has not been demonstrated that there is a consensus, offhanded comments are not proof of a consensus, like in the porter young, or peter flint works. My point in providing the sources I have has been to demonstrate a lack of consensus. The video you provided from 16:27 onward might be helpful in understanding my assertion. And please remember consensus does not mean majority, it means its virtually undebated, save for pseudo-scholars and sub-scholarly holdouts.
    Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable
    WP:RS
    I don't want to continue the debate about the "maccabean period" because it doesn't seem particularly important, but ill just say that the level of control that the hashmonean dynasty had waxxed and wained, and most people probably would not characterize 167 bc onward as a "maccabean period", it was one of multiple powers. Thanks Billyball998 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not make the call about what counts as WP:RS/AC. I have WP:CITED to that effect one full professor and three associate professors, all four published at prestigious academic publishing houses. You have WP:CITED an unpublished Master's thesis as if it would count as WP:RS. As Warshy has explicitly told you:

    That is precisely what I said. Anything argued in an unknown Master's thesis is inherently sub-scholarly and unfounded vis-a-vis the high-bar biblical criticism claims that are trying to be advanced here. The simple attempt to try and make someone look up into some unknown thesis dug up from who knows where is really preposterous in my view. Since you have noone here even slightly agreeing with you on any of your claims, it is high time you stopped beating this dead horse here, in my view. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    I suggest you take their advice to the heart, before admins indef you for trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have listed many more sources, any sources you don't believe to be appropriate please argue why in the appropriate location. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But no WP:RS claiming that such controversy is raging in the mainstream academia in the 2000s, or in the 2010s, or in the 2020s. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: @tgeorgescu: You need to learn the difference between a content dispute and a conduct dispute. RAN1 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They violate WP:DEADHORSE.

      Let me spell out for you the basics on the dating of the Book of Daniel, and I won't even bother dropping the names of the reliable sources, since this is all rather elementary for anyone who knows some history of the period. I also don't have time for it, and this whole thing is already becoming tiring and boring to death, as anyone looking from the sidelines knows, and as I have already pointed out to you. As I already said, the Book of Daniel did not make it into the Prophets section of the Hebrew Canon. For Jews, in general, the Book of Daniel is rather unimportant as a so-called "prophet." For Christian messianic theology, on the other hand, it is fundamental, because without it there is no basis whatsoever for the Book of Revelation, which is the basic text of Christian apocalypse. However, Jews of the Second Temple period did not start speaking and writing in the Aramaic language before 200 BCE. The Mishnah, which is the basic Jewish religious law collection of the period, did not begin to be compiled before 200 BCE, and it is written still completely in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. The Book of Daniel, is the only book of the Hebrew Bible that has substantial parts of it written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. These two basic points make any dating of the Book of Daniel before 200 BCE completely improbable. I again, for the last time, strongly suggest to you that you just drop the stick and back away from this dead horse. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

      Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My respone to this quote on the page in question, copied here so as not to misrepresent that the above claims are true:
      Your suggestion is noted. You should know that portions of the Mishnah are written in Aramaic, portions of Ezra are Aramaic, it has also been documented for a very long time that Jews were speaking Aramaic as early as 530 bc in the elephantine papyri (see G.R. Driver "The Aramaic of the book of Daniel). Billyball998 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh boy, you're trying to pull wool over our eyes. Fortunately, Wikipedia has Hebrew language#Displacement by Aramaic. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, nothing written there contradicts my statements. Also please remember that Collins and almost all scholars believe that Daniel's Aramaic was written well before the Hellenistic era, asserting otherwise truly is a very minority view. Warshys argument is not a logical (imo) or widely accepted one. Billyball998 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      See also https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1707-aramaic-language-among-the-jews tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sawyer, John (2012). Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. Taylor & Francis. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-134-80139-8. Retrieved 6 November 2022. By the second century BCE, Aramaic was being used by Jews for religious purposes too, as can be seen from the Book of Daniel (2:4–7:28), which was composed c. 160 BCE [...] tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) DEADHORSE is not an excuse to ignore policy. I linked two very relevant policies in my oppose, and it's necessary for you to know them. RAN1 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @RAN1: About WP:CONSENSUS: at the talk page of the article, nobody else agrees with Billyball998. About WP:CIVILITY: I did not called them names, at most I said that their interpretations are confused. Also, I do not beat around the bush, but I presume that isn't incivility. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What I meant was that content disputes are resolved through consensus, but ANI handles incivility problems. RAN1 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You called them "hopeless" and "not even good for rough ashlar" meaning incapable being fashioned into a masonry stone, a metaphor for uselessness and/or stupidity. This doesn't exhaust the pointed personal criticism deployed and doesn't even begin to discuss the repeated accusations of sockpuppetry without substantial evidence. I suggest you drop the stick here and take the content dispute back to the talk page where it belongs. Jahaza (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I just saw your message, and I'll take your advice to the heart. May someone close this topic? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, you need to be cognizant of the difference between an essay and a policy or guideline. DEAD HORSE is an essay (as have been a number of other pages you have suggested are being "violated". Jahaza (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jahaza: Billyball998 has lost the article talk page dispute, the WP:RSN dispute, and the WP:FTN dispute. It is high time to admit that removing the mainstream academic consensus from the article has definitively failed. They may become a productive Wikipedia editor only after publicly admitting that their attempt has failed. Otherwise they are just wasting our time with peddling claptrap. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is entirely untrue,
      (RSN: Book of Daniel is asking you to reformat your appeal, no one has even looked at the sources because of how you asked.
      the one comment on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Book of Daniel is disagreeing with you (I believe).
      The talk page discussion is still underway, consensus is not reached Billyball998 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Billyball998, I was preparing to disagree to some extent with tgeorgescu, but that was after seeing you blocked as a SOCK. There is no way i would now because it would be completely unproductive. There are eleven pages of talk archives for that article, much filled with arguments similar to your own. Editors such as warshy are clearly tired of having to drag out the same sources and explanations over and over. The discussion has sprawled across four noticeboards and there is clear opposition to your edit and arguments. This is certainly WP:FRINGE content that would require careful handling and agreement from multiple editors. It will not be reflected in the article as you have proposed, and after a clear warning from some admin i think a topic ban would be appropriate if this continues. fiveby(zero) 01:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, i disagree with the fringe characterization as the criticisms are supported by clear scholarship, please keep in mind fringe does not mean minority or even extreme minorty, it relates to the attitude towards scholarship. That being said I understand that I was not able to convince other editors. Have a nice day/evening/night. Billyball998 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This user is clearly a pretty large drain on editor time/effort, and provides very little in the way of benefit in improving this article space. a TBAN would be a good way to incentivize the user to improve other areas of wikipedia where they can be more impartial, and perhaps return back to this topic at some later date. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a topic ban at this time. What I can see is that User:Billyball998 has views that are not supported by academic consensus and can be considered fringe, and that User:tgeorgescu is using a bludgeon to "win" content disputes. They have not made a case that the support of fringe viewpoints by Billyball998 is tendentious or otherwise disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Robert McClenon above. Also, coming to ANI with a content dispute and citing WP:DEADHORSE is rather funny. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Concern about behaviour during an ongoing RfC at Republics of Russia

    The talk page of Republics of Russia has been turned into a mess by Jargo Nautilus and Cambial Yellowing during a delicate RfC. The diffs:

    • At 23:44, 28 October 2022, Jargo Nautilus (JN) made a totally unprovoked and incomprehensible personal attack on Seryo93, an editor who had not even posted anything in that RfC: I caught him blatantly lying … he was gaslighting me and other editors on purpose.[20]
    • At 00:01, 29 October 2022 JN stood on a soapbox: If it comes to the point that Wikipedia actually ends up endorsing some of Russia's criminal actions, then I will boycott this website,[21] Russia has brought its downfall upon itself by electing the criminal Vladimir Putin,[22] Russia ... a lawless wasteland of bandits[23] while also being unnecessarily rude to me:Gitz's logic regarding sourcing is a bit nonsensical.[24]
    • I noticed but didn't particularly mind JN's soapboxing and rudeness. However, three days later I noticed the personal attack on Seryo93 and I thought it was unacceptable. I replied to it [25] and I also collapsed the off-topic and soapboxing remarks.[26] I contacted JN on their talk page to address these issues.[27] JN denied any wrongdoing and deleted the whole thread becauseThis is ultimately a waste of time, so I am wiping it clean.[28] Waste of time notwithstanding, JN stared a long conversation on my talk page (this one).
    • Immediately before starting that conversation, JN removed from the article talk page both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it.[29] JN also removed the collapsible box I had applied to their remarks, and heavily edited their remarks or removed them altogether from the article talk page.[30] Note that these comments had been posted 3 days and half earlier and I had already reacted to them by applying the collapsible box.
    • I reverted JN’s removal of both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it, and I explained You shouldn't delete comments! And collapsing off topic comments is fine. Have you ever read WP:TALK?.[31]
    • JN made a partial revert of my revert: they deleted their personal attack on Seryo93 and left my reply to it in a collapsible box with the title "off-topic."[32]
    • On my talk page Deepfriedokra commented Jargo Nautilus Please do not edit other people's talk page contents. Please do not change your own talk page comments after they have been responded to.[33] While they were probably meaning "article talk page" rather than user talk pages, the message was clear.
    • Encouraged by this, I restored the status quo ante - both JN's personal attack and my reply to it. I also restored JN’s soapboxing comments in their original drafting. However, I didn't restore my collapsible box on them[34]. So this was now the talk page as it used to be before my intervention and before JN edited and removed both their old comments and mine.
    • However, Cambial Yellowing (CY) restored JN's edited version of their own comments and explained restoring unreplied comments to version by the editor who wrote them[35]. CY also left a warning on my talk page (vandalism)[36] and commented on the article talk page that It's generally acceptable for an editor to amend their own comments to which there has not yet been a reply. So your editing of another editor's comments is not acceptable[37].
    • I believe that JN should not have edited and removed their comments because it had already been three days (not a "short while" per WP:TALK#REPLIED) since they had posted them, and because I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box. CY doesn’t agree and we had a discussion on this here, where CY speaks about my inappropriate refactoring and pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy. CY was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved.
    • CY has been both uncivil and tendentious in that talk page since the beginning of the RfC. They had tried to modify the opening sentence without consensus in a way that strongly affected the ongoing RfC[38][39] and had engaged in edit warring on a related issue[40][41][42][43]. Once I had expressed and argued for a view different from theirs in the RfC, they replied that If you're not keen on that policy [WP:OR] this may not be the website for you[44] provoking the reaction of a fellow editor Furius, it comes across as rude and patronising.
    • Apart from restoring JN's edited comments and reproaching me for not respecting talk page guidelines, CY provided JN with "good advice" on their talk page[45]. CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again because your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor. Worse still, CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar because of WP:IUC: you may find this section - part of WP:5P4 - of interest (note point 2(d)). Obviously CY was wrong: even if Seryo93 had lied in the past (which none of us have reason to believe) it would be entirely inappropriate to call them a liar in an RfC where they have never posted.
    • I think that this is just battleground mentality, disregard for talk guidelines and lack of civility on CY's part. I contacted CY on their talk page[46] and they reverted because Not of interest[47]. So here we are.
    • Final note. I'm not a Putin supporter, but I find JN's view that Putin supporters should be permanently prohibited from editing Wikipedia simply appalling. Wikipedia does not discriminate editors on the basis of political views, as I tried to explain to them in this conversation on my talk page here. IMHO these two editors should be prevented from editing in the EE area.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement Jargo Nautilus

    Firstly, I have not replied to the RfC in days. Secondly, I am not in "cahoots" ("you and your pal") with User:Cambial Yellowing. I have had no direct contact with that user (except very recently at my talk page). Thirdly, I am very busy at the moment and probably can't reply to this thread for the next three weeks. Fourthly, I would hardly describe your own behaviour as appropriate, including the fact that this dispute was started by you when you collapsed my comments. And also, for over a day I believe, I didn't actually respond to you. You spent a considerable length of time arguing with Cambial Yellowing in my absence, and that isn't my fault because I didn't ask him to argue with you on my behalf. So, even though you may view Cambial Yellowing's actions as an escalation on my part, they actually had nothing to do with me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Gitz, your logic yet again does not track. You originally collapsed my comments on the charge of being "off topic" and "soapbox" (charges which haven't been verified by a third party, I will add), so I deleted the parts that I thought might have caused my comments to be flagged, since I was under the impression that you wanted me to remove the offending parts. However, remarkably, after I did this, I was only met with more outrage from you. Apparently, you actually wanted me to keep the information there, perhaps in order to make me "look bad". I'm not sure how it makes sense that you are angry at me for simultaneously "writing inappropriate things" and then subsequently deleting those things after I was told that they might cause offence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The first edit (deleting my comments) was my original attempt at conflict resolution. Gitz has highlighted this as a "crime" or an "escalation" for unknown reasons. Clearly, with that edit, I was attempting to improve the situation, not to worsen it. I deleted the parts that I thought might be considered "soap-boxy". My comments hadn't been replied to yet, so I figured it was okay to delete them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have not commented in the "Republics of Russia" article ever since I deleted some of my comments on November 1 (it's now November 4). Ever since then, I have only been interacting with Gitz at his user talk page. As I've said, my time is limited at the moment. | Update: I have commented on the talk page again after three days of absence, on November 4. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement Jargo Nautilus #2 - In light of the fact that no administrators have commented in this ANI discussion after two days and yet it is already impressively lengthy, I'm going to have to conclude that this ANI discussion has only served as a platform for derailment rather than as an actual attempt at conflict resolution. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Other comments

    This extremely verbose comment from Gitz6666, which I have skimmed but not read, is I assume occasioned by reminders to both Jargo Nautilus and to Gitz6666 of the importance of observing WP:TPO, and especially so during a contentious RFC. The template used was Template:Uw-tpv2. Both editors edited each other's comments. Gitz6666 first hid Jargo's rather prolix series of comments, citing OFFTOPIC but neglecting to err on the side of caution.[48] Jargo then removed two of his own comments, to one of which Gitz6666 had responded, and removed Gitz6666's response.[49] Gitz6666 restores; Jargo then removes his own comment and collapses Gitz6666's reply.[50] Gitz6666 then removes the collapse, and changes Jargo's other comments to an earlier version.[51].

    The only reason any of my comments about this are on article talk, is that Gitz6666 insisted on responding in a thread on article talk. The content of that discussion, in which Gitz6666 merely seeks to justify ignoring WP:TPO, is relevant context.

    I reject Gitz6666's specious accusations above, including a fabricated charge of "edit warring" and the claim that I suggested Jargo was "justified in calling a fellow editor a liar" - a phrase and a notion of his own invention. The charges he makes are refuted by the diffs he purports to adduce in support of his claims. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please explain what did you mean when you said note point 2(d) (per WP:IUC) in your conversation with JN quoted above? Who was the liar you were referring to? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no reference to a liar: that's yet another example of the complete fabrications you've made in your comments on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gitz, I would advise to avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You have accused me and Cambial Yellowing of collaborating, which is not true aside from what can be seen publicly (which is not that much; I've interacted with you -- Gitz -- more than I have with him). This comment of yours was especially direct in this accusation -- "you and your pal". And the phrase "your conversation with JN" in your statement above is seemingly suggestive of this accusation. It certainly wasn't much of a conversation; Cambial Yellowing left two medium-length messages at my talk page, and I left one medium-length reply, and that's it. It's more of a brief "chat" if anything. Indeed, Cambial Yellowing's messages to me are not strongly relevant to the statement that he has made above, which means you are going into WP:TALKOFFTOPIC territory. | EDIT: Also, what is this quote -- "good advice" -- in the segment at the top here a reference to? Is this another accusation? I have been searching through the history of this three-way dispute and I can't find that precise phrase anywhere else but here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of Seryo "lying", you can see what I am referring to in the most recent discussion on his talk page. Effectively, he repeatedly kept misquoting another user by changing the wording of a phrase that they had said -- specifically changing "in Europe" to "in the world". This incident occurred in a discussion on Talk:Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now had time to go through Gitz6666's bullet points above. The level of obfuscation, distortion, and outright fabrication in Gitz6666's post is so extreme that I am left with the impression Gitz6666 is unable to edit in this topic area without resort to totally inappropriate conduct. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG for Gitz6666 in the form of an indefinite article ban and a twelve-month topic ban in the Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict areas.

    Re: the above -

    Gitz6666 claims that I left a warning on [Gitz] talk page (vandalism)[119] and commented on the article talk page. This gives the false and inaccurate impression that a) my warning was for vandalism and b) that I commented on article talk right away. In reality my warning was the normal template for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments" personalised with "It's always best to strictly observe WP:TPO, and particularly so in a formal RFC. Where comments have not been replied to it is generally acceptable for an editor to make amendments to their own earlier comments." My comment on article talk was made later and only in response to Gitz6666 starting a thread on talk after he had first responded on his talk page.

    Gitz6666 claims that I was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved. Gitz6666 gives no evidence for this groundless, dishonest claim. Leaving reminders on two editor's pages for the same thing - editing each other's comments - would be no way to "muddy the waters" were that someone's aim, but Gitz6666 does not let mere logic get in the way of his fabrications.

    Gitz6666 claims comments on talk were uncivil and tendentious. The only talk diff they refer to in this paragraph is this one, a response to Gitz6666's suggestion that rather than requiring RS that support southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, I ought to have RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation. Gitz6666 is at this point moving into sealioning territory. My response pointing out the absurdity of approaching sourcing this way (assuming something is true until RS deny it) remains accurate. The part Gitz6666 says he objects to is justified and objectively true, and I'm happy to repeat it here: "Content must be reliably sourced. If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you."

    Gitz6666 claims that CY provided JN with "good advice". He puts the phrase "good advice" in quotes, despite that the phrase is entirely his own invention. Gitz6666 claims that CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again. In reality I pointed out to Jargo that I had restored his comments to the last version created by him, and to check this was the right version.(see here)

    Gitz6666 then claims that CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar. This is not a distortion, but an outright fabrication, as can be seen from the diff. I began Regarding the comment in this edit summary, linking to where Jargo says Indeed, as far as I can tell, it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.. I pointed out to Jargo that lying is considered uncivil in Wikipedia conduct guidelines. I made no comment about another editor, Seryo, whom I know nothing about, nor about whether anything is "justified" – a word and a phrase of Gitz6666's own invention.

    Gitz6666 says he contacted CY on their talk page, which is true, but they neglect to mention that I already indicated in the thread Gitz6666 started on article talk that I was not interested in attempts to justify ignoring WP:TPO in a contentious RFC. Given that Gitz6666 had seen that, it should be unsurprising to him that I had no interest in his doing so at even greater length and with even more specious arguments on my talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I have not actually edited any of my statements in the RfC at "Talk:Republics of Russia" after Cambial Yellowing messaged me on my talk page, so it's a bit of a moot point how Gitz is suggesting that Cambial Yellowing was inviting me to cause more trouble when I basically haven't caused any further trouble over there. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close this complaint without action. The discussion at the RfC does not seem very problematic, given the contentious nature of the subject. I did not check a lot (tl;dr, sorry), but few first diffs by the complaining contributor are not convincing, or at least it is not clear why they would warrant any administrative action. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Indefinite article ban and twelve-month topic ban for Gitz6666

    Given the extensive degree of distortion, omission, and outright fabrication that Gitz6666 engages in in his OP here, some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate in this instance.

    I note that Gitz6666 is already indefinitely blocked on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias for incompatibility with the Project, irredeemable violation of Wiki etiquette, and block evasion (Italian), disruptive edits, and edit wars (Spanish).

    On the article talk, Gitz6666 has pushed a POV that is a common talking point for the English-language editions of Russian media: that Russian constitutional law has established southeast Ukraine as part of Russia. Gitz6666 does so

    • here, saying the member states of a federation are determined by the federal constitution, not by international law or international consensus
    • here, saying In fact it is obvious that the constitutive elements of a federation are determined by the federal constitution rather than international law or international consensus
    • here, suggesting sourcing policy ought to be turned on its head in saying Do you have a RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation?
    • here, saying I have been asked to provide sources to support the claim that, according to Russian constitutional law [the regions of southeast Ukraine] are federal subject of the Russian Federation [emphasis added]. In fact Gitz6666 was asked for sources which directly support the notion of southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, which of course do not exist.

    Gitz6666 has previously been civil, and his pushing of this "Constitutional law establishes fact" line can best be described as WP:Sealioning. As he has now escalated this POV-pushing to a crass attempt at WP:SANCTIONGAMING in which he fabricates actions and quotes by other editors, I propose an indefinite article ban on Republics of Russia and a twelve-month topic ban on Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict articles. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - At this point in time, I don't support banning Gitz outright. Requesting him to get banned would make me no better than him, who has just recently requested to get me banned. I believe that the best course of action right now is to de-escalate the dispute between the three users involved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am an uninvolved editor who does not wish to become involved in this matter. I would like however to point out the very similar threads here and at Arbcom in late June 2022. I *was* involved in those, and still believe that Gitz misrepresented a source, as I discussed there (and do not have the bandwidth to re-litigate). As above, Gitz was filing a complaint about someone pushing back on his inevitably prolific pro-Russian spin. Perhaps that may shed some light on the matter. I will find and post links. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Links:
    • Arbcom Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. I'd be happy to oblige, but this is not the place to do so. Therefore I've just posted this comment on the article talk page. I hope it will help create some interest in an RfC that is languishing for lack of contributions. So far we have had no less than 18 comments from Cambial, 23 from Jargo and 20 from me, thus bludgeoning the discussion and hampering the participation of other users: everybody's contribution is welcome. From now on, I'm abandoning that RfC. I suggest that Cambial and Jargo do the same.
    Instead of replying to Cambial about contents, I'd like to ask them the following:
    1. Are you sure that it was appropriate for Jargo Nautilus to edit their off-topic comments, remove them and remove the collapsible box? It had been more than three days since they had posted them, and Jargo did not used any <ins> or new timestamp when they edited them. Most importantly, I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box titled off-topic and soapboxing comments. In the edit summary I had explained collapsing off-topic and soapboxing comments per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.[52] Are you sure that, in doing so, I hadn't already replied to them (per WP:TALK#REPLIED)? I gave you my reasons on this[53] and you replied that No-one is interested in pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy.[54] Are you still sure you were right in point of policy?
    2. In a conversation with Jargo on their talk page you said the following about editing their own comments in the box: if no-one has replied to them by all means remove/edit them. After you had restored Jargo's edited comments, you wrote to them Please check that this is the version of the comments you wish to remain, as your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor.[55] If I understand you correctly, you were encouraging them to further edit their comments. Or do you have a different explanation for your suggestion?
    3. You quoted our policy on "lying" as incivility per WP:IUC on Jargo's talk page. You also chose the subject "Fibs" as the name of the section you opened there.[56] Let me understand your reasoning: Jargo deletes from the talk page their personal attack and my reply to it, and in the edit summary Jargo writes that it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.[57] You then feel the need to contact Jargo on their talk page to let them know (my words) "no, look, it's not just annoying: if Seryo93 was telling fibs that would have actually been against policy!" Does that make sense to you?
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Brief answers to questions: 1. Yes. Your editing of Jargo's comments does not fit any of the exceptions to WP:TPO. 2. I was neither encouraging them nor discouraging them. Your interpretation of that sentence is sufficiently removed from usual English meaning that one has to assume that either a. your level of English is insufficient to edit this wiki or b. you are WP:GASLIGHTING to try to make another editor's actions appear utterly different to reality. If Jargo had edited their own comments, that would have been acceptable given that no-one had replied to them and your immediately preceding inappropriate editing of the same comments. 3. If an editor lies that is considered uncivil. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment #1 - Gitz, your comment would make sense if I hadn't already abandoned the RfC four days ago. I haven't commented there since November 1 (except for a brief comment on November 4 saying the same thing I'm saying now). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to highlight the fact that Gitz wrote a 2,427‎-character essay within the RfC merely seven minutes before writing above that he is planning to abandon the RfC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment #2 - Based on what Gitz has written above, it seems that they are unwilling to resolve the dispute. Some of their claims just don't make sense. For example, they unilaterally (i.e. without approval from an admin or another experienced third party) collapsed some of my comments in an "off-topic" template, and they told me on my talk page that the comments were inappropriate (according to Gitz). So, I deleted around 70% of the comments that had been collapsed by Gitz, leaving only the parts that I thought were core to my point. I don't see anything wrong with this particular action. It doesn't make sense that Gitz views the deletion of these parts as some sort of a crime, especially since he was the one who told me that those parts allegedly did not belong on the talk page and needed to be hidden/removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it would be very much appreciated if some admins and/or experienced users were to help us clarify the point of policy here above addressed (point 1 of my last comment, comment#2 of Jorge's reply). 1) Do involved editors have the right to apply a collapsible box to an off-topic discussion/off-topic comments? 2) Once the collapsible box has been applied, has the author of the off-topic comments the right to modify them, delete them, and remove the collapsible box from the talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) P.S. Note that there is no real dispute between us about the off-topic/soapboxing nature of the comments: the point under discussion is how best to react to these kinds of situations, which I imagine are recurrent, per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.; edited 12:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gitz, it would be appreciated if you would stop rehashing points that haven't been verified by admins or experienced users. That would be a good start. Indeed, if you are wrong about some of your points, that would not be a good look. So, I would advise waiting until experienced users arrive and letting them tell their opinions, rather than predicting the things that you think they will say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite amazing, but not surprising, that in response to my pointing out the fabrications and distortions in your original post you respond with more of the same. You claim, Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. You provide no evidence for this whatsoever: nor could you, given that it's a fabrication on your part. This is about you trying to push a completely inappropriate, Russian-government-centric POV. It's also about your pointless, unhelpful (bordering on uncivil) contrariness towards another editor and your inappropriate editing of their comments. It's also about you making things up here at ANI.
    On the pushing of a Russian-government-centric POV, I've already provided diffs above where you directly state that what we include as Republics of Russia should be determined entirely by the Russian Constitution (e.g. [58][59][60] Another editor has pointed out above that you have been pushing this POV on other articles. I also note that you have pushed a similar Russian-government POV at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, suggesting we don't need a source saying that [alleged Ukrainian killing] was a war crime[61], and that the representatives of the Luhansk People's Republic called it a war crime[62] (you cite TASS); editors Volunteer Marek,[63][64] and Adoring nanny[65] have had to remind you that the opinions of Russian or Russian-puppet politicians do not establish fact.
    On the contrariness towards another editor, you really shot yourself in the foot on this one. Having read Jargo's comments, I see quite how absurd your actions actually were. To wit (and for the benefit of admin):
    • Jargo writes a series of posts. [66][67][68]
    • You respond to one of them (about international vs constitutional law). [69]
    • Jargo gives his view on Russian constitutional law, and writes another series of posts. [70][71][72]
    • You reply to an earlier, unrelated post. [73]
    • You then collapse Jargo's comments about constitutional law (but not your own), claiming they are "soapboxing" and citing "off-topic". [74]
    • Jargo, having seen that you hid his comments about constitutional law (but not your own), and your citing of "off-topic", deletes the parts he thinks are not directly relevant and condenses the rest. [75]
    • Jargo then deletes the earlier, unrelated post and your reply to it. [76]
    • You restore the earlier post to which you had replied (and your reply). [77]
    • Jargo deletes his earlier post (and collapses your reply). [78]
    • You uncollapse your reply and restore Jargo's earlier post. You also change the series of posts by Jargo, that you collapsed citing off-topic, to their earlier version (the version that you hid saying off-topic soapboxing). [79]
    • I remind first Jargo to observe WP:TPO and WP:REDACT,[80] and then you to observe WP:TPO.[81] I also stress to Jargo that with his own comments he should edit only if they have not been replied to.[82]
    That you chose to first hide a series of comments as off-topic soap-boxing, and then, when the editor changes them to try to be more on-topic, you edit their comments to the version you claimed was off-topic, shows a level of contrariness that suggests you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Your series of fabrications in your original post here suggest the same. I have therefore struck my proposal above and propose an indefinite block. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Behaviour during the ANI discussion

    Gitz, what is this? With this edit, you have amended a comment onto the end of Cambial Yellowing's comments, and you have not signed it. At the moment, it looks like something that Cambial Yellowing has written, rather than you. Please explain your edit below, and if there has been a mistake, then please fix it promptly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that's a weird mistake - I had intended to add that "post scriptum" to my comment. I'm now moving it to where it belongs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Gitz6666 is NOTHERE

    Gitz6666 has been pushing common talking points of the Russian government public relations machine at at least two, possibly more articles. A number of editors have also indicated POV-pushing on Gitz6666's part at this noticeboard and at Arbcom. Gitz6666 has also collapsed replies to their comments citing off-topic; when the editor who wrote these replies tried to focus them on the topic, Gitz6666 insisted on changing them back to the version Gitz6666 had claimed was off-topic: this shows an extraordinary degree of contrariness or editing other's comments just for the sake of it – highly disruptive. They have also made a series of fabricated and unsupported claims about other editor's actions here on ANI. Together, these strongly suggest Gitz6666 is not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have already been blocked on the Italian and Spanish Wikis for similar reasons.ITES I propose a similar block on this wiki. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This proposal looks like Battleground retaliation and raises questions about Cambial Yellowing's ability or willingness to collaborate respectfully with good faith contributors on complex and controversial subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While your input is always interesting Specifico, your own inability to collaborate on far-less controversial topics, even though you claim to have expertise in that topic area, indicates you would be a poor judge of the nature of other editor's actions. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently Cambial has serious problems with civility and is incapable or receiving the slightest criticism without overreacting, attempting to undermine the interlocutor's credibility and making personal attacks. The topic of this discussion is Cambial's, Jargo's and mine "inability to cooperate", not Specifico's. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gitz6666: The topic that you started this under was in fact "concern about behaviour". Much of the behaviour you went on to describe turned out to be fabricated, to be sure, but the ostensible subject was different to "inability to cooperate". Neither Jargo nor I have had a problem collaborating or discussing, despite contentious disagreement, with each other or with other editors on the page. It is only you that has caused extensive problems both at that page and others, which have led to your complete ban on two other wikis. It is only you that has been difficult to collaborate with, continually pushing a notion that "Russian constitutional law establishes fact" without regard to the content policies of this website. It is only you that has moved from a simple reminder to respect the talk page guidelines, in a series of bizarre escalations, to the extensive series of fabrications about other editor's actions that you make on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So far you've used the word fabrication, which implies intentions, no less than 12 times in the course of this discussion, yet you have failed to share even one single diff showing a lie on my part. My account of our interactions was correct and, I believe, it shows your disregard for our policies and guidelines (TALK, CIV, NPA, AGV) and your battlefield mentality (NPOV) meaning your inability to cooperate in the EE area. Moreover, your remarkable behaviour during this discussion (I propose tban! - I support tban - silence follows - I propose nothere! - I support nothere - silence and coughing from the audience – more personal attacks, more accusations) is verging on the bizarre and suggests that it's time for an admin to handle the matter, possibly with some consideration for the high level of distress and discomfort shown by all editors involved.
    Finally, since you mentioned my history on it.wiki and es.wiki, I intend to publish a short explanation (with diff) of these events, which I will post on my user page, so as not to burden this discussion with other irrelevant materials. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I referred to fabrications, not lies. You have made various statements above which are demonstrably false. I make no judgement about intention, but it would be interesting to see you try to explain how some of these statements were not intentional. It is again unsurprising that you exhibit such a degree of unselfconsciousness that you inaccurately accuse others of having failed to share even one single diff, after making an OP in which you make accusations for which you offer not a shred of evidence. Given that the diffs you appeal to above are your comments on this noticeboard in this section, linking them seems redundant, but for completeness they are your OP (I detail the fabrications in a post below it); your response to another post (you ask Who was the liar you were referring to? – given the number of times you've linked to my 2 comments at Jargo's page, you cannot be unaware of the fact that I made no reference to any "liar"); and this post (you claim Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article - again you offer no evidence). Your bizarre speculations about an imaginary "audience" speaks to the performative nature of your posts here, which suggests they are designed largely to waste editor and admin time. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Audience" refers to the community and to the admins who will read and hopefully see through this better than you and me, including the semantics of "fabrication" (as distinct from lie and not implying ill-intentions) that you've just... fabricated![83] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I referred to fabrications, not lies.
    Let's not play rhetorical games. If you accuse someone of fabrications, you are accusing them of making up something they know is false, aka lying. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible to say things that aren't true, and also believe them. Gitz for example firmly believes that Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia, apparently, and that a Russian law proves that this is so. He is now complaining that these assertions weren't received as he thought they should be, shrug. As civilly as I can, I would like to say that a thing does not become true merely because Putin said so and Gitz believes it, and has posted wall after wall of text about it. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 04:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this thread is now turning into a workshop on the notion of "fabrication". As the discussion is quite long and few editors will read it carefully, I'm forced to rectify Elinruby's claims: I've never said the things they attribute to me. It's pure (intentional? unintentional?) fabrication. Some of them are too generic (Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and others are entirely false (He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia), not to say insulting. They are not a reasonable interpretation of my claim that the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would Russian public law make Ukrainian territory part of Russia? For purposes of the Russian secret police, perhaps, but for purposes of the English-language Wikipedia Putin's flights of fancy are not RS for our encyclopedia. I was mercifully uninvolved in the original dispute here, and don't know who did what to whose hatnote; frankly I don't care and think you should be ashamed of yourself for whining about it here. It's hilarious that you complain, in an utter lack of self-awareness, about the length of a thread largely made up of your own walls of whatever. You routinely post torrents of legalese that exhaust those who disagree with you into just wanting you to go away. And yeah, by the way, by your own definition, you just accused me of making stuff up. But never mind all that. My point is that if you are going to maintain that the massacre at Bucha was exaggerated (see also All Russian war crimes are only "alleged") or that children taken from their parents aren't *really* kidnapped (see "interests of the child" 22:13, 5 June) because Russia passed a law that made it legal to take them, then any reasonable person would expect you to meet with a certain amount of exasperation. However "civil" you may be in your utter certitude that you are correct, you insert stupefying amounts of spin into the encyclopedia. I have dealt with hundreds of editors on dozens of highly contentious topics, and you're the only one in all these years that I have ever had to instruct to stop speaking either to me or about me. Rectify, my left foot. Obviously, it is no longer reasonable now to expect you not to answer me here, which is why I have tried so hard to stay out of this, but kindly refrain this time from the dissertations on my talk page. I have watched you intimidate or discourage one good editor after another and am unlikely to change my opinion that you are a serial bully who for some reason truly believes in irredentism, and a net negative to the project who should at a minimum be topic-banned from anything to do with Russia. Now if you will excuse me, I feel the need for a shower. Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When does a crime ever stop being alleged? Even some people who were historically sentenced to death in the United States eventually became rectified of their convictions decades later. Crimes are never 100% proven nor disproven. Even the court of law's verdict is merely an opinion. Hence, placing the descriptor "alleged" before every Russian war crime is semantics. The Russian war crimes will never be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (unless captured in video footage). Most war crimes never get proven or punished. | Clarification: This is an argument against Gitz's suggestion that the Russian war crimes haven't yet been proven, so we must describe them as "alleged". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this formulation is much better than Reading through some of the comments left by Gitz here, I think I am losing brain cells by the second, so I'm going to stop now before I need to be placed in an intensive care unit.[84][85] It's a pity you don't understand the notion of personal attack. This, for instance, is another recent one: Hopefully, you can help yourself on how to become a better person and find your way onto the right side of history.[86] You have no right to write things like these on this platform and I hope the closing admin will not let them go unnoticed.
    • I also hope the closer will uphold WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and provide some clarity on how WP:TALK#REPLIED should be interpreted in a case like this.
    • Shouldn't Cambial's funny headings be removed from this thread per WP:TALKHEADPOV? Or is it better to leave them there because they are another sign of disregard for WP:TALK?
    • Regarding the off-topic stuff mentioned by Elinruby and Jargo (Bucha, kidnapping, "alleged", etc.) if asked by a good-faithed editor I can provide diffs showing that my comments have been grossly misrepresented here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't let him goad you, JN. It's true that you need to find another place to vent; we talked about that. But don't answer him here or he will request clarifications and diffs and claim to be misunderstood until you're suddenly the mean one because you "hate Russians". Or are "fooled by Ukrainians" or whatever. Gitz, it's a pattern with you and the diffs are right there, but as far as this particular thread goes, I ask again, *Why would Russian public law make Ukrainian territory part of Russia?* it's the mind-bending nature of this conviction of yours that is the heart of the issue here, I think. Can I declare myself a country and pass a law that says that your account no longer belongs to you? How about if I appropriate the International Space Station, let's say because a legend in my country says that its inhabitants have always been destined to rule from up in the sky??? I would almost be ok with you believing this stuff. But you keep dragging people to AN/I for supposedly being rude to you when they won't let you convince them how right you are. Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, this is not the appropriate place to respond to Gitz. He is clearly trying to start trouble. My previous response was merely about the one point he was making. Meta discussions are neither needed nor wanted. Indeed, my original point still stands... at which point do we draw the line between something that is "proven" versus "unproven"? As I said, even people who get executed on death row can eventually be deemed not guilty fifty years or so later. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gitz, you would benefit from acquiring a sense of humour. That's the great thing about the country where I live; humour abounds. In that sense, I see nothing wrong with "funny" headings per se. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Elinruby, the question you asked twice in bold, as if you were shouting something very topical, urgent and conclusive, actually makes no sense, neither here (where we discuss behaviour) nor in the RfC at Republics of Russia. It is obvious that Russian public law cannot make Ukrainian territory part of Russia: no one has ever argued otherwise. But Jargo, Cambial and I were not discussing about Russia–Ukraine border nor about Borders of Russia: we were discussing about Republics of Russia. And it is precisely Russian public law that regulates the constitutive elements of the Russian Federation by determining, among other things, which republics are member of the Federation and how they are called. Analogously, Provinces of China lists Taiwan Province despite the fact that the People's Republic of China does not rule on that territory. So your argument is irrelevant and in any case it does not belong to this discussion. I suggest you continue to discuss in the user talk pages with editors complaining about your sanctimoneous insults[87] and long rant[88] instead of bringing them here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 8 November 2022 (UT

    Well it certainly made no sense to me when at 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC), in this very thread, you said I was "insulting" and my remarks were "not a reasonable interpretation of (your) claim that the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law.". So....if nobody let alone you ever said that Russian public law was our RS for whether or not Kherson and the Donbas were of Russia, which one of the other words in that sentence did you say or not say? The man on my talk page is not part of this and perhaps he misread or misspoke. Or perhaps you did. I am all AGF over here just waiting to hear how it is that "the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law" actually clearly means "Russian public law cannot make Ukrainian territory part of Russia: no one has ever argued otherwise." and yet-- didn't you just now draw a parallel to Provinces of China, where you say that Taiwan is listed? Maybe *you* should go talk to the man on my talk page, and the two of you can put you heards together....shrug. You can withdraw your complaint at any time, you know. You're the one that wanted other people chastised. If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help. I told you that before. But from here it really does look like you are denying that you said something that you clearly did say. 13:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)
    If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help. OK, I'm done with this, I'm out. I will no longer reply to these editors. I'm not withdrawing my complaint: I'm still asking for administrative oversight and action, and I'd like them to include also the behaviours held here during this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've participated at the RFC-in-question, over a week or so ago. FWIW - So far, nobody has tried to push me into changing my position there. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil behavior from User:AndyTheGrump

    User:AndyTheGrump has been engaging in various forms of uncivil behavior over an issue which started at Talk:Flying car, but has since spread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and FT/N. The behavior has mainly been targeted toward User:Steelpillow, as both have been in a dispute over the contents of Flying car.

    The uncivil behavior started when Andy assumed bad faith and reported Steelpillow to FT/N. Throughout the FT/N and elsewhere, Andy has accused Steelpillow of engaging in historical revisionism ([89] [90] [91] [92] [93]). I requested Andy to provide evidence of Steelpillow's alleged history revisionism, but he refused to do so. Furthermore, the discussion at User talk:AndyTheGrump#Personal attacks makes it apparent that Andy is not willing to listen to warnings. - ZLEA T\C 00:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, I didn't 'report Steelpillow to FT/N'. FT/N isn't a behavioural issue noticeboard. I started a thread there on a matter I considered of relevance to the noticeboard, asking for input from others. This was after attempting to have a discussion over what I thought was a fairly simple matter, which resulted in me being told to "stop bashing your PoV rhetoric". [94] Perhaps ZLEA could explain how that wasn't uncivil? As for historical revisionism, the immediate locus of the debate appears to be whether a machine built in 1901 (two years before the Wright brothers' first flight) should be included in a list of 'flying cars' in an article of the same name. Given that the clear consensus amongst mainstream aviation historians is that Whiteheads machine (and others he built or claimed to have built, before and after) never flew, and given that the description of this machine as a 'flying car' seems to originate with a 1901 newspaper report widely regarded as more or less invention, it seemed questionable at minimum for Wikipedia to be including it in a list so entitled. And frankly, I was surprised that someone with Steelpillow's experience didn't see what the issue was. In trying to get a clear explanation I have been faced with endless bluster about a supposed Wikiproject aircraft 'consensus' on lists, which seems to actually consist of nothing more than an essay written almost entirely by Steelpillow, with no real evidence of discussion relevant to the specifics of the case, let alone any actual consensus. Meanwhile though, my curiosity was aroused, and it became clear after a little Googling that Steelpillow had an external webpage heavily promoting the fringe Whitehead-flew-before-the-Wrights claims. [95] I was initially reluctant to bring this up, but given Steelpillow's endless stonewalling, and refusal to actually explain why Wikipedia should be presenting fringe claims as fact, it seemed prudent to do so. Not that it made much difference, since little in the way of actual explanation for this has been offered beyond endless attempts to assert Wikiproject ownership on the article, and a claim that "There is no policy that forbids it, no case to answer." accompanied by accusations of engaging in an " error-riddled personal crusade".[96]. How exactly wasn't that uncivil? And how exactly wasn't Steelpillow's accusation that " the WP:FRINGE police are now wanting to turn our aircraft list style guide on its head, on the basis of one paranoid theory about one entry in one aircraft" uncivil? [97] I await ZLEA's explanation for why I have been reported here, but not Steelpillow? And why is ZLEA claiming that I failed to provide evidence of historical revisionism, after I informed them that the matter was being discussed in the FT/N thread? I provided the evidence. I merely refused to engage with Steelpillow in inappropriately spreading the same discussion over multiple pages. ZLEA is being less than impartial here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't pretend to be impartial. You've managed to tick off more than a few editors in the past 24 hours, including myself. This discussion is about your behavior, not Steelpillow's. I won't deny that Steelpillow has also engaged in uncivil behavior, but it's you who has caused the most trouble. If you actually read Steelpillow's website, you will notice that it doesn't claim that Whitehead No. 21 flew before the Wright Flyer. In fact, the last paragraph makes it clear that he doesn't care who flew first, only that the dispute should be settled once and for all. The case of who flew first has been the subject of legitimate controversy for a while, especially after the Wright brothers' contract with the Smithsonian. It's probably worth noting that the claims that Whitehead flew first were supported in the 2013 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. For the record, I personally believe it was the Wright brothers who flew first, but I cannot deny that others have provided evidence of others flying before them. While some of the claims are fringe, the Whitehead claim is by no means one of them.
    You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but the diffs I provided show that you have not been engaging in civil discussion about the matter. - ZLEA T\C 02:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't pretend to be impartial. Fine. Don't then. I'm sure people can take that into account. Meanwhile, I suggest you take note of how this noticeboard actually works. Which very frequently involves discussions regarding the behaviour of individuals other than the contributor initially named. And as for me causing 'the most trouble', if suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't describe non-flying things as flying is really 'trouble' worthy of reporting at WP:ANI, Wikipedia is truly screwed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Characterizing someone as pushing historical revisionism is not a personal attack. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Mackensen, criticism of view does not equal to criticism of person. depicting criticism of view as criticism of person itself may amount to undue personalization. I would advice reducing direct interaction for a while. Dispute seem to need regular WP:DRN and WP:RFC.
    This is uninvolved non–admin opinion. Bookku (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, cars that didn't fly can't have been "flying cars", no matter how much someone wants them to have been. I trust that will be the result at FTNB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Andy criticizes Steelpillow's views isn't the issue, it's how he does it. Andy was very quick to assume bad faith in the beginning, as well as here and here.
    And for the record, a "flying car" is simply the name of a type of aircraft which is designed to drive on the road. The term "flying" is not literal and is used in several aircraft type names and does not mean that the aircraft has to actually be built and fly in order to be described as such (other examples being flying boat, flying saucer, and flying wing). - ZLEA T\C 03:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if someone mixes a potion, and says that it cures flatulence, calling it a "healing elixir" we should recognize it as a legitimate medicine because they say it heals? What about, you know, reality? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "flying" is not literal..... Not in Gustave Whitehead's case, no. Not according to WP:RS. Actual RS (eg. the Royal Aeronautical Society, for a nice summary of what has also been said elsewhere [98]), rather than a Janes article that was later disowned by the publisher. [99] However, I find it hard to believe that anyone should seriously argue that readers won't expect to find actual flying cars in a list entitled 'flying cars'. Or has WP:WEDIDNTMEANITLITERALLY become policy somehow, without anyone noticing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken We should recognize it as the reliable sources recognize it. I have yet to see a source which refers to unbuilt and unflown aircraft as "claimed aircraft" or similar. AndyTheGrump If you want to insist on taking the term "flying car" so literally, then Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster technically counts. The Flying car article makes it clear that a flying car is a name for a "type of vehicle". - ZLEA T\C 04:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZLEA, @AndyTheGrump, if "flying" in "flying car" is the issue here, maybe you two can settle down on "roadable aircraft"? 'Cause if some aircraft hadn't managed to get airborne, it's still an aircraft, just unsuccessful one. a!rado (C✙T) 07:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It strikes me as odd that the OP is claiming the uncivil behavior started with Andy. The linked diff presented in support of that assertion is Andy's reply to an uncivil remark from Steelpillow. This report is quite one-sided, and the OP should have taken better care to present an accurate picture. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to Andy's uncivil behavior. I was aware of Steelpillow's uncivil remark, but I did not see a pattern of such behavior from him. Feel free to correct me if I missed something. - ZLEA T\C 04:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as a spat rather than an actionable civility problem. There was incivility on both sides, and Andy’s explanation of the context speaks for itself. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrespective to ATG's behaviour, ZLEA's original post is just ridiculous.

    • "The uncivil behavior started when Andy assumed bad faith and reported Steelpillow to FT/N. " What is it supposed to mean? WP:FT/N discusses not users, but fringe theories. In that sense, it is similar to, e.g. WP:RSN. Is it possible to assume someone's bad faith by going to RSN, NORN, and similar noticeboards?
    • "Andy has accused Steelpillow of engaging in historical revisionism". I think ZLEA needs to go to a library, and I am sure they will be surprised to learn that "as many professional historians pointed out to the President, rather than falsifying or white-washing the past, revisionism is simply what good historians do." In other words, contrary to what ZLEA claims, the term "historical revisionism" has no obviously negative connotations.
    • In the statement " to promote your pet exercise in historical revisionism" the core claim is not "revisionism" (which is a pretty neutral term), but the words "your pet exercise in " (i.e. that is an accusation of engaging in original research). Are such accusations considered PA?

    I think this report should be ignored as frivolous, and the user who submitted this report should be warned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    All other points notwithstanding, I think we all realize that Andy was using "historical revisionism" with obviously negative connotations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Steelpillow here, the butt of AndyTheGrump's rudeness. If I have in turn been rude then I am glad to apologise. There is a fine line between robust defence against bullying and falling into the same trap oneself. I have already redacted one example, thanks to the intervention of another editor, see here. I would also reproduce the following lists of links from that brief discussion:
    Examples of the repeated abuse, doubting my good faith, accusations of wacky conspiracies and deliberately misleading and lying include:[100][101][102][103][104][105][106].
    [AndyTheGrump] has been warned[107][108] but continues to be defiant[109][110].
    Since that post, his rudeness has continued. So you can see that this is about far more than spurious claims of historical revisionism - claims which are not even relevant to the article in dispute. Indeed, AndyTheGrump has seized on a minor difference of historical opinion (over a claasic aviation controversy) to build a clear hate campaign against me and claim that I am deliberately attempting to subvert Wikipedia. This refusal to assume good faith lies at the heart of his rudeness and his endless digressions, some of which have already found their place above here. If anybody can isolate my specific rudeness from those walls of text, please do point them out to me and I will happily apologise for them. But, since AndyTheGrump stands proud in his violations of WP:CIVIL, I feel that there is a significant issue with his behaviour. Had I not taken a night's asleep for the last eight hours, I would have raised the issue here sooner, myself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. A "hate campaign"! Have you tried reading the comments from uninvolved editors above? Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only those AndyTheGrump has scattered everywhere, but I do not regard him as uninvolved. When someone accuses you straight out of lying through your teeth and, repeatedly over multiple discussions and in highly charged emotive language, of subverting Wikipedia, what better description can you offer? Did you check all the diffs I provided? Note that they give the lie to the claim made somewhere above that I started the rudeness. There have been more since that I can collect for you, if that would help? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq said Have you tried reading the comments from uninvolved editors above? and you (@Steelpillow) replied Only those AndyTheGrump has scattered everywhere, but I do not regard him as uninvolved.
    Maybe you (@Steelpillow) should consider reading the comments from uninvolved editors, at which point you will see that describing this as a "hate campaign" is a bit off base. Both you and @AndyTheGrump need to step back from this and cool down. It's an internet encyclopedia.
    Sometimes the best way to de-escalate a dispute is for one of you (it literally does not matter which) to disengage. If you're the first person to do so, it does not make you weak and it does not admit fault. it makes you a reasonable human being who understands when things get out of hand. If either of you step away from this dispute, and find that no one is backing up your position, it may be that the position was not worth defending in the first place. If no one else steps up to defend it, among all the many zealous people on this website, it probably was not worth defending. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a "bullying campaign" or "harassment campaign" would be more appropriate to following me around from discussion to discussion with these accusations? Call it what you will, the diffs are there to be acknowledged. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It will be readily apparent to anyone looking into the relevant editing history that 'rudeness' began with this post from Steelpillow: The first-to-fly controversy is utterly irrelevant here. Please stay on topic and stop bashing your PoV rhetoric. An editor as experienced as you should know better. Thank you. Even ignoring the rudeness, it is frankly bizarre. Of course the 'first-to-fly controversy' was relevant. It was the reason I'd started the thread, since Whitehead's 1901 (i.e. prior to the Wright's first flight) inclusion in the list was clearly incompatible with the established perspective of mainstream aviation historians. I was being accused of 'POV rhetoric' for suggesting that Wikipedia content should reflect the mainstream view, rather than that of Whitehead's supporters. As for following Steelpillow around, it would not have been necessary if Steelpillow had not misrepresented a debate about the inclusion of a specific item on a list as some sort of conspiracy to demolish a Wikiproject style guide. I have nothing against style guides, as long as they are used as such. As 'guides' rather than a set of 'rules' to be enforced in order to shoehorn inappropriate content into articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the editor who warned both AndyTheGrump [111], [112] and Steelpillow [113] about incivilty. AndyTheGrump rejected the warnings, quoting DTTR [114], and when I commented that being a regular doesn't negate the requirements of NPA, and that he should comment about the subject, not about the editors [115], banned me from his talkpage [116].Should certain editors be given immunity from having to be civil or from casting aspersions against other editors? Should these editors be protected at the cost of sanctioning any other editors who dare to raise questions about personal attacks, as User:Paul Siebert seems to suggest above - if this is the case then en:wiki as a whole has a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point have I asked for immunity from anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Post of @Nigel Ish helped me revisit, understood where they are coming from and appreciate they took immediate and impartial interest.
    Those who are regulars do have more moral responsibility to follow WP:NPA faithfully and give primacy to dispute resolution mechanism.
    WP mechanism to avoid harshness and incivility need improvement and also improvement in calming down process to give deescalation a due chance and time gaps to reflect upon. Bookku (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While you undoubtedly were well-intentioned when you issued those warnings, DTTR exists for good reason. Templated warnings to regulars generally serve to raise the temperature without really helping anyone. Moreover, given that you aren't an admin, you were issuing warnings that you couldn't enforce. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware that DTTR was policy and over-ruled WP:NPA - has anyone told WMF that the UCOC doesn't apply here. Please can someone tell me the policy-based reason why I am not allowed to warn others about civilty issues. It is clear that you think that my opinion is worthless - presumably you think that my contributions are worthless too.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has suggested that you aren't allowed to 'warn others about civility issues' when appropriate. You warned me. I responded, so you know I'd seen the warning. I merely asked you not to keep posting further warnings, since I was already well aware of Wikipedia's (rather confusing and contradictory) attitudes to incivility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to say that I'm with Nigel Ish here. If regulars who know the rules continue to break them, then repeated warnings are clearly in order. DTTR is nonsense, and the idea that regulars are somehow outside the normal rules is an exceptionally dangerous route. After framgate things definitely improved here but recently we seem to be drifting back to the bad-old-days. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what?! When did this turn into a referendum on your contributions? All I did was offer a very mild criticism of your actions which included an explicit acknowledgment that you were acting good faith. To answer your question, no, there is no policy-based prohibition on templating regulars. I never claimed that there was. But the fact that you can do something does not automatically mean that you should. It's possible to make a situation worse without violating any policy, and that's exactly what happened here. I am sorry if my very polite criticism of your well-intentioned actions caused you to conclude that I consider your opinion worthless. Have you stopped to consider how Andy might have felt when you dropped a pair of templated warnings on his page as if he were a newbie? Warnings = criticism, so you need to stop issuing warnings if you can't accept even the simplest criticism of your own behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that we are responsible for our actions and need to avoid hurting people feelings unnecessarily. However, these a massively important issue here, the drift back to regarding incivility by regulars as somehow acceptable. Nigej (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that incivility by regulars was acceptable. My allusion to DTTR should not be misunderstood as an assertion that regulars should be allowed to be uncivil. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigel Ish: Stating that one should not drop template warnings on regulars ≠ stating that regulars have free reign to do everything we have warning templates for. Warning templates are not the project's exclusive means of handling user conduct. They are made generally for new or unknown users as they find their footing in the project. You and I and the sun and the stars all know that templating a regular will A) not inform them of anything they don't already know, and B) most definitely upset them, particularly when a dispute is already happening regarding the matter. If you're having a heated argument with someone, you wouldn't stop the discussion to say "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" unless you were deliberately trying to upset them. I hope I'm adequately expressing that warning templates are great and all but they don't exist in a vacuum, and if you know a template is only going to upset the regular, without informing them of anything, you probably shouldn't paste it to their talk page. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GabberFlasted: this was a very well-stated explanation, but it does not appear to have been well-received. @Nigel Ish: is there a reason why you are responding to us at your userpage instead of engaging in the discussion here? I genuinely do not understand why you think that we do not want you to comment here. I never said that your opinions/contributions were worthless, yet you have accused me of holding those beliefs. Neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever claimed that DTTR was policy (in fact, I explicitly agreed that it is not policy), yet on your userpage you are claiming that DTTR has been promoted to policy. That statement is plainly incorrect. I write this comment with some hesitation given that you seem to be interpreting every comment as negatively as possible, but I am frankly perplexed by your reactions. Please discuss your concerns with us and make a sincere effort to understand what we actually mean. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop pinging me. I have removed any comment from my user page about behavioural issues on Wikipedia as my thoughtappear to be so objectional to everybody here and do not intend to engage further in this discussion unless I have to as my opinions on the use of WP:DTTR to protect established users and the toxic environment here have been thoroughly rejected. Continuing the discussion here will not be helpful, as this discussion is no longer about any incident, and will merely inflame the issue further.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF is this diversion doing here? Poking NigelIsh is obviously going to further upset a colleague who is already badly upset, which may be taken in the context of all those pious words about not upsetting other regulars. It is also unhelpful to prolong a dead thread about something else, when there are more relevant places to discuss the likes of DTTR and, for my money, WP:TTR. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not poke anyone. It was never my desire to attack Nigel Ish or even to upset them. I had been hoping to resolve the misunderstanding amicably, but I have respected their desire to let the discussion die. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Close as a clear content dispute without action and WP:TROUT ZLEA - This is another example of content disputes spilling onto ANI. Nothing here is actionable in the slightest. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So in your point of view, the requirements of Wp:NPA do not apply to certain superusers. Clearly there is no point in mere mortals in raising any concerns about behaviour. I suppose I should be glad that I have not already been banned from the whole of Wikipedia for not totally agreeing with certain users.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we compromise? I take the slap on the face with a wet fish on your ZELA's behalf, and you find something else to be overly-dramatic about instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tell you @AndyTheGrump that describing @Nigel Ish as "overly-dramatic" is also not a great look for you. I would refrain from saying things like that. If they are true, you should, in general, allow uninvolved users to say as much. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would second this suggestion while also pointing out that Nigel Ish should dial back the over-the-top rhetoric. See their userpage for an example of the problem. Nobody has suggested running them off the site, yet they are acting as if their future on Wikipedia is under threat. I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, especially not in a such a blatant fashion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From their rhetoric, you'd think Nigel Ish wrote Wikipedia:Unblockables, but I would point them towards WP:TINC which is, in essence, a direct response to that kind of rhetoric. No one is trying to deprive anyone else of rights, no one is running anyone else out of here, no one is silencing anyone else. Incivility poisons discussions, that much is clear. And a lot of users here are at fault for participating in that incivility. But escalation of discussions always to drama boards like this or over-exaggerating everything to a personal attack is also poisonous to discussions. Overcoming incivility means not participating in it, not getting rid of everyone who was ever not nice to you so that wikipedia can be full of people who agree with you always. This is not meant as an endorsement to @AndyTheGrump or @Steelpillow or anyone else to do whatever they want. It should be clear enough that the community will be watching both of their behavior pretty closely after this episode... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigel Ish: clearly NPA should apply to superusers, but I don't think we should be applying it so liberally for things like this. I am sorry but i disagree with you on whether it should apply here. It has nothing to do with the "level" of users involved. I just don't think the comments from anyone here are bad enough to merit sanctions from WP:NPA. Perhaps a warning to be more CIVIL to both users, regarding specific things that both users have said. But I disagree with you on whether anything more is warranted. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You, along with User:Paul Siebert were not simply saying that the NPAs didn't rise to a level that admin action was required - which is a matter of debate, but were demanding action against editors for raising the issue in the first place. If there are no channels available to raise concerns (i.e. not allowed to warn other editors on their talk pages according to how DTTR is being enforced as policy, and not allowed to raise issues here or else risk sanction) then ordinary editors are reduced to the level of nobodies with no rights.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but was I really "demanding action against editors for raising the issue in the first place" ? I said we should WP:TROUT the proposer for bringing a content dispute here. Have we really gotten to the point on this website where applying a silly joke template to tell people to be a bit more cautious about what counts as ANI-worthy is seen as "demanding an action" a la sanctions? I have never recommended any formal warnings, formal actions, bans, or blocks in this thread.
    I also never made any comment whatsoever on whether warning templates should or should not have been used. I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
    I think we would all be a lot better off if there were fewer threads at ANI, and if people used WP:3O and WP:DRN more often. There are plenty of other channels to use to resolve disputes like this, and shame on everyone involved for not employing them. No one here is being reduced to the level of nobodies with no rights. There were plenty of other things that could be done instead of bringing this to ANI. No one is "being deprived of their rights" here.
    Overall, I would like to point out the problem with some of the behavior here. Drawing uninvolved editors (like myself) into the dispute with heightened rhetoric and high stakes accusations is the beginning stages of WP:BATTLEGROUND. As if everyone who is not with you is against you. Let's just talk about this reasonably, and allow others to disagree with whether sanctions are merited. Please and thank you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shibbolethink@ Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are happy to sanction multiple breaches of WP:AGF and even accusations of outright lies in breach of WP:NPA Moreover you think that shooting the messenger is called for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what? I'm sorry @Steelpillow, but WP:TROUT is hardly a bullet wound. Please just cool your jets. I am sorry that I disagree with you on whether these things merit sanctions, but it is not a statement on your personal worth or conduct as an editor. I would disagree with the tone and civility of some of AndyTheGrump's statements, but I would also disagree with the tone and civility of some of yours. And I don't think either of these raise to the level of sanctions per NPA or AGF. Please respect my right to disagree, thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. Of course I respect your right to disagree, I was more concerned to confirm that you were on top of the behaviour issue, and you have done that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelpillow, I wanted to follow up on this. Above you say Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are happy to sanction multiple breaches of WP:AGF and even accusations of outright lies in breach of WP:NPA. This is akin to a journalist asking the president So, you like killing yemeni children. How does that feel, to be a child murderer? Do you see what I mean? I would urge you to avoid this in the future, please. It may feel good, or it may make people agree with you already agree with you more, but it does very little to de-escalate a situation or achieve consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With due respect, I put up the diffs demonstrating those abuses and you responded by saying they were acceptable. That does not feel at all good, especially when you confirmed it, but we have agreed to differ so please let it pass. For what it's worth, my fellow editors on the ground supported me here for a reason, and ANI has been letting all three of us down shamefully. One of them is far more upset than I am. So it goes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be mad if I am trouted, I could have worded my original post a little better. However, I will defend my decision to bring this issue to AN/I instead of WP:DRN, as this is not simply a content dispute. - ZLEA T\C 17:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Steelpillow collapsing discussions

    See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lists of aircraft, where Steelpillow has twice collapsed relevant content posted by other contributors as 'Off-topic diversion'. This appears to me to be an attempt to control discussion and to assert ownership of the page, in a manner incompatible with WP:COLLAPSENO. Would I be justified un un-collapsing the content? Or (preferably) could someone else do so, since it would seem preferable not to increase the heat even further? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    From my perspective, these were just increasingly acrimonious diversions. If others here do feel that I collapsed content relevant to improving the WikiProject's style guide, I'd be grateful if you only un-collapsed the directly relevant content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alsoriano97

    Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User edits in portal namespace: [117]

    This case was initially filed at WP:AN/3 as a follow-up to a previous edit-warring sanction, but was referred to WP:AN/I by the handling admin due to complexity and scope.

    • Alsoriano97 was blocked less then a week ago for edit warring and violating 3RR as a result of this discussion.
    • On 4 Nov, Alsoriano97 reverted a entry relating to the 2022 FIFA World Cup [118]. No reason was provided, with the nonsensical edit summary Uhm….
    • The removal is reverted by the original editor [119]. Given that no reason was given for the removal of a legitimate entry, this seemed to be reasonable. Subsequently, the entry is removed again [120], with no edit summary.
    • Given the nonsensical and unjustified removals, I re-added the entry, while amending the wording of the entry [121].
    • Afterwards, the entry is edited by a number of editors to further correct wording and content. Despite the subsequent edits by many editors, Alsoriano97 removes the entry again [122], claiming A "deputy minister" is certainly unnotable.
    • I reverted this removal [123], and told Alsoriano97 to gain consensus on the talk page, creating a new entry for the discussion .
    Clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again.
    I further issued a warning relating to edit warring on Alsoriano97's talk page relating to the removals.
    Please stop removing a clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again. You may gain consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2022 November 4.
    • In response to the edit warring warning, Alsoriano97 removed the warning with the following edit summary.
    Ridiculous your tear down mania against me lol. No lessons you can give.
    In response to the talk page discussion, Alsoriano97 wrote the below.
    do you really think that a boycott by a deputy minister is a "clearly notable event"? Do you know what a "deputy minister" is? Do you know that the World Cup has not even started? Do you know that people don't come to Wikipedia to "play"?
    Both replies contain egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general.
    • A further reply by Alsoriano97 on the talk page has shown he is not willing to discuss or compromise relating to the subject-matter of the entry.
    It's still irrelevant. "Announce"? Come on, I'm sure it can wait until the day of the game, right? That's what can be remarkable. Everyone announces many things and Wikipedia is a serious place. It's just that the boycott is still being done by a deputy minister from a subnational (although sovereigb) entity. Do you know what rank that is.
    Alsoriano97's tone again breaches WP:CIVIL.
    • While 3RR has not been reached in this case, given that it has been less then a week since Alsoriano97's last block for edit warring, and taking into account Alsoriano97's egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF in connection with the edit warring conduct in this case, I feel that it is worth further examining Alsoriano97's conduct and considering further sanctions.
    • Alsoriano97 has also directly challenged and dismissed the legitimacy of his last block, claiming it to be a tear down mania against him and that there were No lessons that could be given. Given this dismissal, and his pattern of behavior before and after the block, I believe that the previous block has not had the intended effect and will not be sufficient to stop his disruptive conduct and edit warring activities.

    Background:

    • Alsoriano97 has a history of edit warring, civility issues and tendentious editing on Portal:Current Events going back many years.
    • A search by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.
    • An AN/I filing was previously opened against Alsoriano97, where Alsoriano97 was warned to not further engage in the above issues.
    • Alsoriano97 has been previously blocked for 3RR violations on Portal:Current Events.
    • The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.
    • Alsoriano97 frequently removes or makes uncivil comments for entries which do not include the country of where the event occurred.

    Previous Discussions & Warnings:

    Recent

    1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive460#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
    2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Alsoriano97 (Long Term Violations of Edit Warring, WP:CIVIL & Tedentious_Editing)
    3. Portal_talk:Current_events/2022_November_4
    4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#"Too_local"_attempted_assassination_on_Nancy
    5. Wikipedia:Current_events_noticeboard#Do we really have to place countries all the time?

    Significant

    1. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
    2. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Warning
    3. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Use the summary box before making an edit!
    4. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#May 2021
    5. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your use of the word "Domestic"
    6. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_2#Revert of Current Events
    7. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
    8. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Matt Gaetz
    9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action)

    Carter00000 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alsoriano97’s first and only comment Let me explain. First of all, when I say "don't give me lessons". Have you seen your Talk Page? Have you seen the conflicts you have provoked in Wikipedia with other editors in such a vulgar way? Have you forgotten when in the last ANI, many editors criticized your attitudes? Do you really think you can give lessons on how to be a good editor? I can't even do it myself! Why did you come to Wikipedia? What contributions do you want to make? Or just problems with everyone? This is a serious place, away from personal whims.

    Secondly. We communicate in writing. What you may misinterpret does’nt mean that it’s exactly what the person meant to say. You have to be more mature and assume that, often, we will read and listen to things we don't like without that implying that we are being disrespected and that the person is rude. Do not mix things up. It’s very serious and reckless to treat a comment as uncivil gratuitously and lightly.

    Thirdly. You consider certain questions I have asked you to be uncivil. Simple questions! How should I, from now on, ask you questions?

    Fourthly. "against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general". On what do you base your assertion?

    Fifthly. Let the other editors and administrators work. Stop going to the "last instances" without even trying, in a friendly way, to get someone to explain you. Stop "playing court", out of respect for those you are forcing to resolve this.

    And lastly, and very seriously. Practically all your last contributions you have made are to open processes against my edits or removing my contributions to try to provoke an edit war only and exclusively against me. This is called harassment, and it is very serious. This nomination is a clear example of it, a nonsense. What exactly is your goal? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you forgotten when in the last ANI, many editors criticized your attitudes? Do you really think you can give lessons on how to be a good editor? It is basically never a good idea on wikipedia to try and use personal criticisms of those critiquing your behavior like this to defend your own actions. Which basically your entire reply is about someone else, and does very little to apologize, acknowledge, defend, or even explain your own behavior. That's not a good look. Your reply here is very much an example of incivility, and I say that as an uninvolved editor, with no bearing on any other user's behavior here. I have no idea how anyone else has behaved in this dispute, but I can clearly see that your reply here is bad news. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it uncivil to state a fact? They can criticize my behavior, but I can't criticize their? Just because an editor opens an ANI, he/she is presumed to be right and correct? And those involved have no right to defend themselves or explain themselves? This is a serious question. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They can criticize my behavior, but I can't criticize their? Not what I said. There's a way to do so tactfully while primarily addressing the meat of their accusations en face. In general, it is best to allow others to expand upon whether or not the proposer's behavior is questionable, since you should primarily be focused on telling the rest of us why you are not a problem user.
    Just because an editor opens an ANI, he/she is presumed to be right and correct Also not what I said. Absolutely the proposer's conduct at ANI is questioned and examined in the dispute, same as the accused. This is to discourage frivolous reports, and to make sure our sanctions are equitable and fair. I described why you as the accused should be focused on telling us - the uninvolved users why your actions actions are A) actually not problematic, B) problematic but not to the point of sanctions, or C) problematic but have mitigating factors, etc. etc.
    And those involved have no right to defend themselves or explain themselves? - The exact opposite of what I said. You should be explaining yourself and your own actions.
    In general, your style of asking questions like this creates a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment of pitting you against others in an adversarial style, which portrays your emotions as heightened and volatile. I would suggest you find a less confrontational way to discuss these things. Finding a way to talk about topics with other users without upsetting them (and keeping your cool) is a core virtue on Wikipedia, and something with which you appear to be having some difficulties. Figuring out a better discursive style would go a long way towards improving the tone of discussions and how other people respond to you on this website. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A few lines above I say this: We communicate in writing. What you may misinterpret does not mean it is exactly what the person meant. You have to be more mature and assume that, many times, we will read and hear things we don't like without that implying that we are disrespected and that the person is rude. And I don't say that in vain. I emphasize it because someone can make the mistake of thinking that a person is being challenging or aggressive when his or her objective is not, in any way, that. You can be sure that my intention is very far from turning this space into a battlefield or a cockfight, and I'm sorry that it can be understood that way.
    Nor can you pretend that in the face of certain statements that are being made I cannot take them with disagreement. And being dissenting is not synonymous with being rude. And I'm glad that you say that the conduct of the ANI proponent is also scrutinized. I hope and expect that it will be.
    About your statement of portrays your emotions as heightened and volatile. This ad hominem accusation is a very serious one that deserves a lot of tact before being issued. You don't know me, nor have you followed my work on Wikipedia, and four written paragraphs cannot define the personality of any editor. Statements about the menage of emotions, which have an inevitable connection to mental health, cannot and should not be made in such a gratuitous manner, especially in the face of written language. I'm especially calm, and I'm sorry, again, that I could be misunderstood. But, no doubt, subjectivity often plays against us. I take your advice that I should cool down, but, and it is scientifically probable, you can't cool down something that is already cold. On other occasions I've been able to debate with other users and they have never defined me the way you have. Again, I apologize.
    In the other occasion that I was opened a process in ANI, I apologized because I recognized that Carter and the rest of editors were right when they evaluated my attitude (I insist, uncivil attitude usually very punctual). On this occasion I'm certain that Carter is wrong, and that his intentions, this time, exceed the requirement of strict compliance with the manners of a good editor. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsoriano97 no one can know your intent if you do not state it. We are left only with an interpretation based on what you write.
    Re: This ad hominem accusation is a very serious one that deserves a lot of tact before being issued Just trying to help you understand why this has happened to you several times. If you are uninterested in that advice, I cannot help you. I never said anything about your personality as an editor, I only described why what you write here is not likely to be received well.
    Overall, I am uninterested in having an extended and long conversation about this if you are not interested in improving the reception of what you write here. If you think you have done nothing wrong (which is the impression I get from your reply), then I cannot help you. You may feel free to have the last word, I will not reply. Have a great day. Please do not ping me in this conversation after this (directed to everyone, not you in particular) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be wrong often and I recognize it whenever it happens, but I'm sure that this time I will not. I think it's important that you read what the IP user writes a little further down and you will understand, maybe and only maybe, why this discussion has me particularly indignant. In any case, I appreciate that you had the will to want to convey to me how what I wrote could be understood. Advice is never in vain. Have a nice day. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I think it's about time we blocked Carter00000 as a timesink who is incapable of working in a collaborative environment. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to state that about 50% of Carter00000's edits are attempts to get other editors sanctioned, almost all of which are meritless and lead nowhere. Their behaviour towards Alsoriano97 is, in my opinion, little more than harassment at this point. In the short time they have been here this user has filed two rejected arbitration requests [124] [125] a multitude of meritless ANI threads (some examples [126] [127]) obviously frivolous edit warring reports [128] etc. Their modus operandi when involved in a content dispute is to try to find some reason that the opposing side should be blocked or sanctioned and file an administrative request, rather than trying to discuss and build consensus.
    They are guilty of all the misconduct they accuse others of. They file complaints that others are edit warring, while edit warring themselves to reinstate contested edits [129] and insisting that other editors need to reach a consensus to revert them [130] [131]. They accuse others of being uncivil, while themselves making unfounded claims accusing others of editing in bad faith [132] or being negligent [133]. They have just received an AE topic ban for exceedingly poor conduct [134].
    The actual content edits made by Carter00000 are a minority of their contributions and are certainly not worth the constant drama and timewasting they cause trying to get others sanctioned. It is trivial to find examples of poor quality, incorrect or problematic edits. Here [135] they reinsert an item which is completely wrong and is unsupported by the provided source. Here they are edit warring to reinsert utter cruft that does not belong in a global current events portal [136] [137]. Here they are removing an item on the basis of WP:OR and unverified sightings [138]. etc. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly, anon, I'm wondering what exactly led you to be here? You aren't involved, you weren't notified by Carter00000 (as I was), and you don't appear to frequent ANI. I think you should log in before anyone gets any strange ideas about who you might be --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gimmethegepgun I don't have an account and I have never had an account. If you are going to accuse me of wrongdoing provide some actual evidence, rather than just casting aspersions. There is no requirement to have been notified of a discussion to comment, and many of the notifications by carter00000 look to be canvasing anyone who might hold a grudge, rather than appropriate notifications [139]. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that you need to be notified to comment. I'm saying that the lack of notification, combined with a lack of edits in ANI (suggesting that you likely don't routinely follow events here), makes it altogether strange that you even found this, let alone decided to research and comment on it --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't pretend to have looked into all of the protagonists' edits, but I see that this dispute involves Portal:current events. Why do we have such a page when this is an encyclopedia not a news outlet? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure what the purpose of this comment is. If you can't be bothered to comment on the actual dispute, and are just using it as an excuse to complain about P:CE, you should probably just start an RfC about that instead. Ionmars10 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a comment on the actual dispute. It would not have happened if we followed policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Would it have, though? At most, you might be able to argue that a single dispute like this is an example of a broader problem with P:CE. Even in that case I'd still recommend starting an RfC and making your case there, since you're not gonna get a long-standing, highly trafficked part of the wiki deleted without seeking comment from the community as a whole. But really, I don't see how the nature of P:CE itself is relevant in this particular dispute. As far as I can tell, this user just happens to hang around there a lot and is engaging in generic edit-war behavior. If they weren't causing trouble there, they'd probably just go somewhere else on the wiki. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Just pointing out that claiming that I have "generic edit-war behavior" and that "this user just happens to hang around there a lot" is, again, totally unknown the way I work. Fortunately I've many things that occupy my time outside of Wikipedia. The important thing is to know how to make everything compatible. And I guess these unsubstantiated statements don't help this discussion. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My addition of an item about the recent $2 billion Powerball win was just reverted by him. I'll admit a little bit of fault for not checking the revision history to see it had already been added and removed. However, I would like to point out that my version of the text put the jackpot in a global context by noting that it was the largest lottery winning anywhere in the world, ever, which should alleviate concerns about this only being of interest to Americans. Although that shouldn't even really be necessary, given how many items are just "thing happens in country X". Even ITN specifically tells users not to Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive, and this also applies to P:CE per this page: Significance of a subject [on P:CE] follows the same rules as for "In the news" ... (although ... slightly more inclusionist). Ionmars10 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend that you pay attention to my edits and you will see that what you are saying is totally incorrect. If this lottery had taken place in Greece or Thailand I would think exactly the same, but this is not debated here. If there's more traffic from American editors who add news of very low notability to Current Events (taking into account the consideration of the USA as a "super nation" for many Americans and that it's a Portal at the English Wikipedia), it's logical that it will be more visible the people who try to avoid an Americancentrism that many are still unable to recognize. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I don't want to forget. I also invite you to look at the countless times I have not removed news about the US, participated in US related nominations in "Candidates" to facilitate them being posted in Ongoing, RD or INTR and in favoring certain US personalities or events in this country to be in Year in Topic. As a tip. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so this is a push to "counteract" American-centric news, eh? You'll find that that's not a great reason for reverting other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute unworthy of administrative attention. An item was added to the current events portal, which was removed by Alsoriano97 citing lack of significance. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD at that point the editors seeking inclusion should have started a discussion to gain consensus for inclusion. The item was added again without consensus and without addressing the concerns raised (which is fair enough, you say you didn't notice the prior removal or objections of other editors), so it was removed again. This needs to be resolved through talk page discussion at this point.
    The only person who's actions here are out of line are Carter00000's, who used this as an excuse to continue to harass Alsoriano97 with inappropriate edit warring notices [140] (two reverts stating a reason for removal is not edit warring by any reasonable definition) and who still does not appear to have understood how BRD and consensus works and is still insisting that editors need to gain consensus to revert what are obviously contested changes [141]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kbrose

    Repeated removals of valid content from automatic number announcement circuit without consensus. User has already been warned on the article's talk page but continues excising valid, factual information here, here, here. Looks to be gaming 3RR by keeping just under the radar in revert frequency, while using misleading edit comments like "cleanup" to disguise that he is repeatedly deleting all of the test numbers, including well-known system-wide facilities on major incumbent carriers. Last stable version before this user began his content-removal spree and the associated edit war looks to be this; yes, this has been going on for a month, despite the intervention of multiple users. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    By "multiple users", it seems you mean a shifting IP and an account with a total of 30 edits in five years. Perhaps the provided explanation (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) is valid? Since this report was added, another independent editor has joined in by again reverting the list of ANAC numbers. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: I'm the uninvolved editor (though at that point I may be involved). As far as I saw, Kbrose is simply enforcing WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and the "shifting IP and account with a total of 30 edits in five years" (because I couldn't word that better myself) is trying to disrupt that. Regardless of whoever is at fault, I feel like everyone, including myself, has been assuming bad faith against each other, something we can hopefully fix. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 08:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to check my edit history; I've had this same IP address for a year. The user who first noticed Kbrose's repeated removals of content and attempted to fix the problem is not me. This has been going on for a month with multiple users attempting to get him to stop, or at least agree to some sort of compromise where a few of the main system-wide numbers for major incumbent carriers (Verizon, Bell Canada, British Telecom, Telstra and the like) are left intact with the small, local numbers omitted. That small handful of examples does not a directory make, no matter how long this one individual continues with his my-way-or-the-highway removals of valid, factual and useful info. The numbers are needed for installers to determine which line they're plugged into in the analogue landline world. They're not a hack or crack.
    I'm asking that the pending changes reviewer and rollbacker permissions be revoked from this user until such time as he is no longer removing valid content and no longer engaged in this edit war. I looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_permissions but it just seems to send me here. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    more than 1,000 possibly bad edits

    The last 1,000 and more edits by experienced editor User:Dicklyon used an automated editor to impose their view of comma treatment, which in at least some cases is completely wrong grammatically, and which also changes bluelinks to existing articles into redlinks, disconnecting them. I noted one such bad edit at their Talk page, but now I see they have made more than 1,000 edits in their campaign, and there may be a huge number of errors implemented by them. I don't happen to have "rollback" feature so it would not be convenient for me to roll back all of their edits, and it is a bigger cleanup problem than I can tackle right now myself. Could others please speak to this situation and how it can be fixed, please? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC) P.S. Please see this diff at their Talk page, in which I notified them of this ANI section at their Talk page, and where I see they had quickly replied to my first posting, and I requested they to continue here. There, they stated that they would fix all the problems, but I pointed out that without some further discussion showing understanding of the multiple types of problems caused and/or willingness to roll back ALL of the edits, that offhand I would rather expect they might fix some but not all of the errors introduced. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of us have fixed a good number of articles in this series of edits where they showed up in a maintenance tracking category. I'm sure we can get through the rest without a mass rollback. Dawnseeker2000 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now I see (but did not just read in detail) a discussion section on their page. I'm not clear if Dicklyon is making fixes, as their edits all show the same type of edit summary as the bad edit I noticed. Are they using the same edit summary??? Why would they not change the edit summary to indicate they are fixing their previous mistaken edits???
    But, anyhow, which kind of errors are you "fixing"; would you be catching all the situations where disconnections were made? I understand that two-comma treatment "Bob Smith, Jr., House" or zero-comma treatment "Bob Smith Jr. House" is grammatically okay, though currently many editors prefer the latter. And I understand that "one-comma" treatment "Bob Smith Jr., House" (which is what Dicklyon was implementing instead of two-comma treatment) is completely wrong. But simply changing the bad treatment into zero-comma treatment does not address the disconnection issue. This applies to numerous NRHP list-articles which were set up with "two-comma" treatment, linking to both bluelink articles and to redlink articles. The linked pages would have to be moved to zero-comma names, first, before perhaps changing two-comma links to zero-comma ones. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There were some articles in this situation that were listed at Category:Articles with missing files and myself and at least one other editor took care of it. I did not roll back any (just fixed manually) but I see that Sumanuil rolled back about 10 to 15 articles. Dawnseeker2000 06:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That category would not identify any of the problems I am talking about. So their editing spree must be causing even more kinds of problems than either of us know about. I scrolled back by 1,000's in their edit history 12 times and did not reach the end yet... they have made more than 12,000 edits with a faulty process! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don, the faulty process (not reviewing the semi-automated edits closely enough to catch these errors) was limited to 1200 rapid edits on Nov. 8 as far as I know. On the previous rounds of case cleanup and comma cleanup edits, there were some transient issues that were discovered, discussed, and fixed. If you have reason to believe there were any significant number of unaddressed errors before that, please point out one or two so we'll know what you're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the problem with automated or semi-automated edits. When it works, it's great. When it doesn't, it can introduce hundreds of new errors in minutes. Is speed really worth it?Sumanuil. (talk to me) 06:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think I introduced "hundreds" or errors, and it took hours, not minutes. But yes that's a risk of not careful enough use of semi-automated edits, and it's a slower process to fix. Sorry. I'm on it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another problem is that they change the name of the linked-to article in one place (e.g. a NRHP county-level list-article, but not at other places (at disambiguation pages showing the place as either a bluelink or as a redlink with a supporting bluelink as required by wp:DABRL) and at other list-articles such as a list of rectories or Elks buildings or other building-type-specific lists.
    And, now I recall, this editor's doing something very similar to NRHP pages has caused problems before, which were discussed out, and they promised NOT to do it any more without following a procedure to list all the pages changed at a work page set up specifically so that the second-level problems introduced by their zeal could be monitored and fixed. That work page is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Hyphens vs. dashes issues, created specifically because Dicklyon had been charging ahead changing hyphens to dashes. Now, their charging ahead with changing two-commas to zero-commas creates the same problems. (Because existing bluelink target pages need to be moved, leaving redirects behind. And where target pages are redlinks, a redirect would need to be created, too, but those would be deleted automatically, so the workaround was to create that worklist which would allow for one to go back later and create the necessary redirects.) I doubt this is easy for others to immediately understand. But Dicklyon once did understand, and agreed to cooperate in a workaround process, which they are not doing here.
    This is irritating. Could they be enjoined not to do any edits of these types? Or any mass-editing campaigns, or what? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don, I've continued to list redlinked articles with dashes there in case you or someone creates the articles with hyphens. Did I miss something? Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's not draw & quarter him. Yes, there were some errors introduced, but these can be taken care of. As an AWB user, I create similar situations, and that is why I monitor the various tracking categories. If you're an editor with a goal (commas) then speed can become paramount, and I see he was saving pages at a rate of around 20 per minute on at least one occasion tonight. If you're an editor with a goal (typo-fixing, for example) and you also are focused on not populating those categories, the edit rate drops dramatically. Based on the article about him, he's 18 or 19 years older than I am, and I know my eyes fail me here and there. Dawnseeker2000 07:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "these can be taken care of"??? by whom, how? Some/many/most of the errors introduced do not show up in a tracking category which could be addressed. You probably don't see all the types of problems caused, and I probably don't see them all either, because the edits are hitting completely different kinds of articles and situations (e.g. inside redlinks vs. inside bluelinks vs. outside links) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Speed can become paramount". For heaven's sake, why? Are the Internet Comma Police hovering over our website, threatening to swoop down and send Wikipedia to Comma Prison if the "errors" weren't changed immediately? These kinds of mass changes can most certainly wait for a consensus before they're made, and if errors are introduced they should certainly be corrected before moving on with the grand project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sympathetic to what Dick is trying to achieve - the Jr. comma debate was settled many years ago, and most article titles now match that. But it does look like this mass edit was done without due care and attention, and most likely with the myriad different combinations of offsetting commas and other constructs, it isn't really possible to do a mass edit of this nature without verifying each and every one for breakages. Dick, you need to commit to slowing down and doing this task carefully, or else a topic ban on mass edits may be incoming.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Amakuru, it's not just that they would need to look for breakages where a bluelink was changed to a redlink. There also needs to be redirects set up from valid two-comma versions to also valid zero-comma versions, and that is different than a breakage. And they were doing neither, they were introducing completely bad one-comma errors!!! (This is not entirely easy to explain, sorry. But basically their approach (if they were actually making two-comma to zero-comma changes) is also setting up future disconnects/breakages which you can't see yet, so further action like the work page workaround is needed.) Their edits are not being part of any solution; they are the problem now, and IMHO they should not be allowed to be involved in addressing the Jr., and Sr. business at all (which would gradually be "fixed" naturally without them). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see they have made more than 12,000 edits with a faulty process, causing multiple types of problems. Their very latest few edits included one more of the type I identified, too, it is not as if they have changed over to being a fixer. Can 12,000 or however many of their edits 20,000? 50,000? be rolled back, ASAP, before other edits are made to those articles and then rollback cannot be used? This is on the scale of a pretty big bot run, and they have been running an unapproved bot in effect. If one does that, wouldn't one get blocked??? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kill-It-With-Fire (mass undo) is a thing now, so it doesn't matter so much if edits happen after theirs. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, is it appropriate to remove commas before Jr. or Sr.? (e.g. this edit) Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nythar, it is not completely simple. In that edit, they made one change which is okay (in shifting to a now-somewhat-preferred form, but not really a necessary change), in a case where there was no comma following the "Joe Smith, Jr." But also they made one change that introduced grammatical error, where there was a comma following it. In the second change, in effect, they changed from "two-comma" to "one-comma" type, which is just absolutely wrong. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "absolutely wrong", but I agree I should have removed another comma there. I further fixed that article just now; it had quite a few missing and extra commas that nobody had cared about so far. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See MOS:JRSR: Do not put a comma before Jr. or Sr. (or variations such as Jnr). Ljleppan (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was just interested to know the MOS for these. Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But, User:Ljleppan, it does not follow that removing a comma before a Jr. or Sr. always constitutes an improvement. Instead it can be introducing a gross error. Changing "Joe Smith, Jr., House" to "Joe Smith Jr., House" is making an absolute error. (While changing "Joe Smith, Jr., House" to "Joe Smith Jr. House" would be okay grammatically and is, i guess, now somewhat preferred.) And there are the immediate breakage problems which can be caused if the phrase is part of a bluelink, and the implied problem that the bluelinked page needs to be moved and a redirect set up. And there is delayed/hidden/future breakage-type problem caused too, when the phrase is part of a redlink, esp. where that redlink is used in other articles too. So one partial fix to their type of campaign would be to prohibit them from making any change to a redlink, but rather allow us all to wait until the redlink is turned into a bluelink by article creation. --07:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    Also they shouldn't be changing citations. This edit[142] introduced 2 citation errors (cites need to match sources, not WP usage) and also broke a link in V-12 Navy College Training Program. Given the quantity of edits, even a small error rate is going to throw up a lot of errors. Semi-automated tools should automate the data entry, not the editors judgement. This is very annoying. Jahaza (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet more damage to citations[143]. This comma is in the title of the cited Senate resolution. There's also damage to sports articles.

    Here Jr. and Sr. are in reference to college player year and have nothing to do with postnominals. With thousands (tens of thousands?) Of edits, how many of these are there! Jahaza (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Dick seems to have paid almost no attention to whether the commas in question were part of an offsetting pair, as well as removing them in renditions of titles of external sources, which I don't think should be edited that way, I'm starting to think a mass rollback may be necessary, unless Dick or anyone else is prepared to examine them one by one. I have to say I'm disappointed by this, as I consider Dick a good editor and while his zeal and determination to see through certain style issues is well-known, his heart is in the right place. What's happened here isn't good though, unless we really are dealing with only a handful of cases.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More than 30,000 uninformed/faulty edits with edit summary including "(via WP:JWB)", and many more thousands with a different mass editing error: I paged back 30 times 1,000 edits per page of their contributions, and am still amongst their automated edits.
    And then I am seeing a bunch more different edits which I also disagree with, where they are willy-nilly changing titles of pages about proper noun things into mixed upper and lower case titles. Which seems completely wrong. E.g. this diff about a disambiguation page on the Sun Belt Basketball Tournament with edit summary indicating they are applying their view of what's proper for upper vs. lower case "norm" ("(Dicklyon moved page Sun Belt Basketball Tournament to Sun Belt basketball tournament: case norm)"). In this specific case it seems they did move the constituent pages (incorrectly, IMHO) already. I have seen them blithely making case changes to articles on proper noun places listed on, and formally named by, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) program of the U.S. government. (E.g. they would change "Bob Smith House", listed on the NRHP as "Bob Smith House" rather than "4125 E. 4100 Rd." to "Bob Smith house", which is just wrong: the formal name of the place in all usage by national, state, and local historic governing bodies, and in local tourist and information pages, and in pages of the local historic house museum etc., is the proper name "Bob Smith House"). I had noticed a few of those and regret now that I did not raise a general problem about those edits, which now I think number in the thousands, or many many thousands, as well.
    Dicklyon has been notified of this discussion and directed here, and has not commented. Offhand I do not believe they understand the facts of the multiple types of errors they have been introducing, and I do not believe they could fix them all, even if they plausibly claimed they would revisit all 30,000 or more (60,000?) edits in the last few days, plus many thousands more of at least the case-change edits over a longer period. Their claim in immediate response to my first talk message to them was "OK, yes, I messed up and will review and fix that and other recent edits." I note they did not make any fixes since then, and it is certainly not just "recent edits", and this is a big mess. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I also noticed these case edits as well to basketball tournament names (when I was fixing comma errors introduced in some), but wasn't sure if there was a consensus about capitalizing the tournament names. --Jahaza (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find these mass automated edits to be problematic. It is putting the burden on the rest of us to try to catch and fix the mistakes. See, e.g., here, [145], here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have to say that I noticed issues with some of Dick's edits related to the basketball tournament case moves mentioned above, most of which were done in September IIRC. When moving titles in various articles, he made case changes to reference titles that happened to be similar to the event titles. Examples can be found at [146], [147], [148], [149], and [150] among others, and I'm sure there are many similar instances I'm not aware of. As someone who cares about upholding MoS standards when possible, I can't tell you how annoying it is to have clear errors mixed in with legitimate changes and have to spend time looking at each individual piece of an edit for problems. My hope is that Dick takes this and the above feedback to heart and exhibits a little more caution with his editing, as he says he will do going forward. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Re the consensus on baseball and basketball tournaments and such, a good place to check for discussions is WT:MOSCAPS#Concluded. These all had clear consensus, enough to get a bot to do the hundreds of moves. I was pretty careful in the cleanup edits, but of course a few errors may have slipped through. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I screwed up

    By going too fast and not reviewing each edit carefully enough, I did let quite a few errors through (that is, removed some commas that should have been left, and left some that should have been removed), so now I have to either revert all or review and fix all. I appreciate those who have already reverted or fixed errors that that they noticed. I'll get started today (but my editting availability comes in blocks, so I beg your patience). Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe we're talking about approximately 1200 edits on 08 November, which is when I was hurrying through. If anyone sees errors in any older edits, I'd like to hear about that, too, but that's not what any of the ones mentioned above are about, in spite of one user's comment that this problem goes back many thousands of edits. There were a few accidental edits of file names earlier, and I did several times thank Sumanil for noticing and fixing those; it's great that they are automatically flagged. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed I also got about 40 thanks for these comma fixes. It's good to know that some of these at least are recognized as worthwhile improvements. Again, I apologize for the ones that were not, and I'll be working on finding and fixing more of those. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Going through the reverts first, to see how I messed up, I find three main categories: First, in names of historic houses I broke some links by taking out one comma instead of the two it would take to avoid the redirects. So I've got a JWB pattern that will help me find and fix all those; and I'll check them carefully. Second, I changed a few file names; glad to see those get fixed almost automatically by Sumanuil. Third, I was surprised to find that in sports articles, ", Jr.," or ", Sr.," after a name actually are non-restrictive, and need those commas since they are college years; probably would be better as ", junior," and ", senior,". I don't know whether those have all been reverted; I'll be checking for more. Again, sorry, I got in an inappropriate rush last night. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, several of the complaining editors above have complained in the past about my quantities of edits, but are generally unable to point out any errors, since my error rate is generally well below 1% (unlike last night's 1200 edits, where it may be closer to 10%). So let's focus on what I got wrong, and just acknowledge that I did about 100,000 other edits this year, with relatively few errors. I'm not doing this just for fun, but to improve WP, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I advised you in the past, to slow down. A speeding train, always runs the risk of causing destruction. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell you how much I appreciate your advice, on commas. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm doing something right. Three different users thanked me for the above comment. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose lots, of people just appreciate good, comma usage? A humorous retort, always has the chance of inspiring thanks. Begoon 11:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Working through these is slow. What I rushed through at about 4 seconds each is taking about a minute per review and fix. So it will keep me busy for a lot of editing hours. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Given how much time it's taking, it's a wonder that you have time to repeatedly revert the use of the comma in Joseph P. Riley Jr. Park, when that's what the official city sources use. See: Talk: Joseph P. Riley Jr. Park § Silly comma in name --Jahaza (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I take time to fix errors. We don't ape the style of official sources, especially when they're agrammatical and most sources don't copy their errors. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I've got these three identified categories of errors all fixed (sports player years, houses, and file names). The rest are slow because there's no clear patttern to look for and because they typically have more comma errors to fix than the ones I created. So it will take a while. Plus, I have work and some other RL things (including a death in the family and the death of a friend) limiting my time on task. I've also got a big backlog of cleanup edits on the hundreds of page moves done after Talk:Mid-American Conference baseball tournament#Requested move 23 October 2022. I'd be happy to have help there, especially from someone good with AWB or JWB. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the "House" fixes are still in progress, not finished. I found the JWB tab working on that and did a bit more. And did some more of the random ones. Anyone feel like helping? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished those, I think. If I missed any, I'll come across them as I continue to work through the whole list looking for errors to fix. I've been fixing lots of other comma errors in historic house/farm/etc. articles as I go, too. I think Don was saying that if I fix something in one place I should fix it in other places, too; but I don't see how that's possible, nor has it ever been an expectation laid on editors. I do try to move things in that direction, but there's really no good support for global consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor can't hear us

    Dicklyon has been asked MANY TIMES on their talk page to review their edits as they make them, not to depend on other people to find and point out their mistakes. Many of these edits resulted in clear, obvious red links, missing images, broken footnotes and other error messages, but Dicklyon is going too fast and editing without enough care. Continued advice and remonstrances, including the discussion above, have not worked. I recommend some sort of sanction at this point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AWB/JWB enabling comes with acknowledgement that you are responsible for every edit made (WP:AWBRULES). Yes, mistakes happen, and Dicklyon has owned up to the mistakes and worked to correct them. I do not doubt their sincerity in that regard. But it is my opinion that they have (1) not considered the full impact of some of the regexes they were running while at the same time (2) operating too fast (when I ran across previous issues, they were running 30-40 edits per minute, which is considered bot-like editing). AWB & JWB come with significant responsibility because misuse can cause widespread damage very quickly. Simply slowing down would solve the problem, and that has been advised numerous times([151], [152], [153]) over the past six weeks; yet here we are. One possibility would be that if Dicklyon is going to continue to use JWB in this manner, they need to submit for a bot approval (see WP:MEATBOT). A more severe sanction would be removal from the AWB check page (as the aforementioned AWB rules indicate: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sri Lanka and unsourced WP:RGW

    The Sri Lanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Whilst this user has made some good contributions, they seem to be out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS when it comes to the topics of Sri Lanka, Buddhism and Hinduism. They don't seem to think that they need to provide sources (see their talkpage), and just edit war their additions in (see their contribs, clear patten of revert, revert revert going on), with summaries along the lines of "stop spreading prejudice" and "Erroneous" (yet hadn't provided any sources). They have continued past a final warning, and don't seem interested in discussing anything except for telling everyone that they are spreading prejudice and racism. A shorter block may bring them to their senses, and give them some time to read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability, as they seem to be (mostly, I think) WP:HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mako's concerns (and several others') are justified - notably that after responding to an initial reminder to use RS, when they then started receiving warnings, they give such comments as Why are you so interested in inciting racism and religious prejudice? Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading prejudice.. A reasonable case could be made for a personal attack, but even AGFing that, the non-sourcing issues are legion. I'm not sure a temporary block is likely to work. Instead, I'd go for an indef block (not a ban), liftable by any admin who is satisfied when Sri Lanka engages suitably. Underlying that, I'd also impose a community 1RR restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Here, they just revert me to re-add their unsourced content, whilst claiming that my edit was somehow "Erroneous".
      Here they remove content, mostly to a single source (Lehr, 2019) claiming it "incites racism". Oddly, they make no challenge of the reliability of the source though, as they don't attempt to remove other content sourced to "Lehr (2019)". This suggests that the issue is more IDONTLIKEIT than believing the source to be unreliable. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My last edit to Buddhism in Sri Lanka filled in a citation. The "prejudicial" content edit by The Sri Lanka is still in place. (edit - restored the sourced content Adakiko (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) Adakiko (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Sri Lanka: Can you please comment here? I see you have edited since the notice was added, but haven't commented here yet. I would like to hear your side of this, as I note that your edits in other topic areas seem to be better than those in the topics of Sri Lanka, Hinduism and Buddhism. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Friends,
    Buddhism is the Dharma preached by the Lord Buddha. Dharma is the way of life. Buddhism teaches what is right and wrong, just like other religions, and especially gives the freedom to question and accept the teachings by volition. Hence, it is free for everyone to accept the Buddhist teachings and take part in Buddhist religious activities, regardless of their ethnic or religious denominations. Buddhism values peace and harmony and advocates non-violence. No where does Buddhism justify violence in any circumstances.
    Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka in the 3rd Century BCE, and the people of Sri Lanka embraced Buddhism at their own will. Since then, Buddhism has enriched Sri Lankan society and culture in many ways, becoming an integral part of the Sri Lankan identity. People belonging to different ethnicities and religions had lived peacefully and harmoniously in Sri Lanka. It is highly appreciated, if you would read the unaltered history of Sri Lanka, which will give you a clear picture of inter-faith and inter-communal harmony in Sri Lanka. The ethnic and religious diversity in Sri Lanka was exploited by the British colonial rulers, who concocted to create tension, following their policy of "divide and rule". So, sources from the colonial era, thus create a distorted picture regarding ethnic and religious diversity in Sri Lanka, which can be attributed to misunderstandings and also to fabrications.
    However, the Buddhist culture and heritage was threatened under more than four centuries of colonial rule. As a result, Buddhist leaders like Anagarika Dharmapala, who intended to preserve the Sri Lankan Buddhist culture and heritage, educated the Buddhist community about their culture and heritage which was waning due to colonialism, and elaborated on the Sri Lankan Buddhist identity as distinguished from the the culture of the colonialists who attacked not only Buddhism but also Hinduism which was followed by the Sri Lankan Tamils. Unity in diversity was always the norm and racism was never encouraged, for it does not take violence to preserve the heritage.
    The excerpts from a certain book, which were removed and subsequently created controversy, claim that the Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka is a driving force behind the ethnic conflicts. In reality, a great majority of Sri Lankan Buddhists disapprove of such racist ideology, and live in harmony with all other communities and protect victims of such racial violence. Since there is no ecclesiastical authority over Buddhism in Sri Lanka, there is no official standpoint of the Buddhist community. The author clearly explains this in his book the existent reality. But to understand that one must read the complete version. By providing a few excerpts that describes only the violence, it conveys a wrong message to the reader that Buddhism is behind the racial violence. It is a clear distortion of what the book says. Such misleading content can incite racism. Since Wikipedia adheres to the truth and values peace and also avoids taking a political stance, such content do not comply with the policies of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sri Lanka (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm discussing on their talkpage to work out a summary of this, I'll add it when it is available. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Stefanowski IP

    There's an IP address Special:Contributions/200.69.80.131 that's posting a giant POV wall of text [154] about Bob Stefanowski across multiple pages. It appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/179.19.61.228 which was doing this yesterday. Could an admin block the 200 ip? It's getting tiring playing whac-a-mole and I've warned the first IP twice already. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea what that's about, but since it's a mass spamming of external links and copy paste info across irrelevant pages I've reverted everything and blocked the IP for 31 hours for disruption. It may be partially relevant on one or two of those pages, but this seems more like a hit job of pre-prepared text. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also struggling to figure out why an IP geolocating to Colombia would've sought to publish this kind of spam. It's pretty weird. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: VPN. Very unlikely to actually be in Colombia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're back at it again today as Special:Contributions/190.145.199.225. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. DanCherek (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mako001: Nope. From what I can tell, it's not a proxy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale revert war and refusal to discuss at List of warez groups

    Back on October 27, I removed a Non-free screenshot from List of warez groups and marked the image for deletion as unused non-free. I was reverted in both cases by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), who also left an edit summary falsely accusing me of malice [155]. So, I began a discussion on the talk page and notified him on his own talk page of the discussion. He ignored this entirely, and over the following 6 days made many other edits to other articles and was quite active elsewhere. Since he was refusing to discuss, I again removed the image from the article. At this point, he reverted me again saying there was "no consensus to remove" and added a similar comment to the article talkpage discussion [156]. The comment did not respond to my questions/concerns about the image whatsoever, so is still not a good faith attempt to participate in the discussion. Instead he is seemingly weaponizing WP:CONSENSUS passive-aggressively by saying consensus is required but refusing to participate in my attempts to gain consensus. This is bad faith, disruptive editing and not helpful to the project. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a content dispute and probably not appropriate for this board. That said, the "D" is missing from the WP:BRD cycle here: ...using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. It should be possible to justify the status quo beyond "it's been that way and I like it", especially when reasons have been given as to why the status quo should change. Maintaining a non-free image of a defunct website mentioned in a long list doesn't speak for itself. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How long have you been getting away with this? You insist that someone follow a process (making a personal attack in the process), they attempt to follow that process and then you refuse to take part in it? The content dispute is beside the point. Now you've also templated a regular. Your behavior is reprehensible, frankly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am following the process. I've taken part in the discussion - you just don't like what I'm saying, which is that you need a consensus to remove the image - so go get one. If you get a consensus, there will be no beef from me. But, of course, you choose instead to WP:FORUMSHOP here. First you attempt to remove an image, and insure it stay removed by deleting the FUR from the image's page, then you bring a content dispute to ANI when you don't get a consensus to remove, now you're going around the back by attempting to have the image deleted. Why haven't you gone to WP:3O instead of sneaking around? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help an eventual third opinion process if you respond affirmatively on the talk page of the article explaining why you disagree with EnPassant's edit. Stare decesis isn't a helpful reason on its own given the absence of any previous discussion on the question. Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response was obstructive. You didn't respond to my question regarding the value of the image to the article, you engaged in a circular argument demanding I obtain consensus... which is what I was attempting to do by starting the discussion. So clearly that avenue of consensus building was closed to me. I decided to gain consensus at a deletion discussion, and now that discussion isn't going your way so you're accusing me of forum shopping... when you were the one reverting me and demanding I reach consensus. If you can't see the problem with that I don't know what to tell you. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And templating a regular is "reprehensible"? Do you actually know what that means? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, they list a whole bunch of things (personal attack, etc.), then they say "reprehensible." I would guess that that last sentence was for the entire paragraph, not just the sentence right before. El_C 08:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Demanding someone follow a process and then obstructing it is cynical and dishonest. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • BMK, as Mackensen notes, you can't argue for something to be there because it's been there. The essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" speaks to that directly, while WP:SILENCE does more generally. Likewise, at the FDD discussion, you don't even provide a rational beyond declaratively stating that the fair use "isn't faulty," and that's it. You also speak of a ploy ("another ploy," even), also without explaining any context. And then WP:FORUMSHOP, which, I suppose possibly, if you really squint at it. Anyhow, the OP states in the opening that you've been stonewalling their requests to WP:ENGAGE — which would be conduct, even if at the heart of it is content (as are most conduct matters). As well, couple of days ago, you stated: You made a change to the status quo of the article, and it was contensted. This means that you need a consensus to make that change. You do not have one. Lack of discussion is not consensus (diff). Were you saying you intended on stonewalling them indefinitely?
    Now, beyond that, even with substantive argument, that is not how it works. If it were, a contending version would always be at the mercy of a longstanding one. If that was so, everything would be Wikipedia:Consensus required. So, while WP:ONUS and WP:BRD are, indeed, generally recommended, one can't expect to gain major advantage from invoking either (again, even with a substantive argument). So, you need to take a step back and reassess. Reassess how you conduct yourself; how that conduct is being perceived by others. If you can will yourself towards that kind of meaningful reflection, well, then I'd be impressed, and the dispute may resolve okay in the end. But if not, then it'll obviously become more likely for it to end up... not so okay. So, now there's two concurrent discussions: (1) at WP:FDD, please discuss the merits for the fair use rational, etc. (2) Here, the rest. Thank you. El_C 08:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, there's really no defending BMK in a situation where the other person specifically started a discussion on the talk page, specifically notified BMK of the discussion, and waited for 6 days with no reply before reinstating their edit. BMK basically reverted just saying "I disagree", and then because he said "I disagree" claimed he could start saying "consensus required". Obviously that is not the case and it is a very serious detriment to the collaborative spirit of the project. BMK has a bad habit of occasional petty edit warring and he overwhelmingly gets let off the hook for it because he's a reasonable person, a highly respected pillar of the community, and someone who usually has an understandable rationale behind his actions on a human level, even when he is in the wrong. Both for all he contributes to the project and for his reasonable temperament, he is generally trusted to self-regulate. I respect and have defended BMK. But this type of stonewalling behavior is really bad. I was literally just castigating someone for this exact behavior, telling them "You are lucky not to be fully blocked for a lengthy period for your ownership behavior." I have issued lengthy blocks over such behavior against established editors which have withstood community scrutiny. I don't wish to see BMK dragged over this, but OP did everything right in this situation and BMK crossed firmly into what I consider to be routine block territory.
    BMK, it appears to me that EnPassant was attempting routine copyright compliance, which you mistook as a malicious attempt at backdoor deletion of an image that you have previously saved from deletion. I think all of us can understand that becoming defensive is human nature, but you definitely crossed the line here and you should never think that you're entitled to revert someone if you're refusing to engage in their attempts at discussion. It may not seem like a big deal, but I have seen situations like this deteriorate into editors being gaslighted and having their experience here turned into a living hell, and when they reported it and I intervened as an uninvolved admin, that same living hell was unleashed upon me.
    "Reprehensible" is not an exaggeration, and BMK should apologize for his failure to engage in communication and dispute resolution to deescalate the situation, at a minimum. Regarding the content dispute, it is at FFD so it is being handled appropriately. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this even a discussion? The image clearly fails WP:NFCC criteria 8 (because a blurry screenshot of a website doesn't increase the understanding of anything about that fairly obscure group which are mentioned in a single line of prose) and so "consensus" is irrelevant anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if it wasn't covered by NFCC, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Disputed content defaults to being left out. If BMK doesn't have consensus to include the image, it needs to be left out until they do. --Jayron32 15:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The NFCC also echos this and specifies that in dispute situations, the burden is 100% on the person who wants to include the content, and the person who wants to remove it has no obligation to defend their position. The NFCC can be subjective, but whether they actually apply is irrelevant…OP did nothing wrong and BMK was obligated in that situation to actively defend his content. When he failed to do so, there was no dispute, so OP moving forward should have been routine. When BMK continued stonewalling, OP was completely justified in both reporting him and starting an FFD. Apart from this being stonewalling behavior, which as I’ve said is blockable on its own, it’s stonewalling to include non-free content which only makes it that much worse. Administrators and the community take copyright issues very seriously, even too seriously at times. It is an area where there is very little tolerance for ineptitude or misbehavior. I commend @EnPassant for their exemplary conduct in a difficult situation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure seems like we should at least get an acknowledgment that this could have been handled more appropriately by BMK. Everyone makes mistakes or has the occasional lapse in judgment, acknowledging them is usually the best way to move forward. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:6D5E:81E8:39B0:B329 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor states that they are a troll, I believe them

    NO FACT CHECKER NEEDED
    (non-admin closure) 2603:6080:F740:3580:94A5:D90C:E170:15AF (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked by Orangemike. In the future, clear-cut vandal cases like this one can also be reported at WP:AIV, so long as sufficient warning procedure is followed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP editor Special:Contributions/2603:6080:F740:3580:94A5:D90C:E170:15AF states on my talk page that they are an Internet troll (diff). Previously, they made two non-NPOV and possible OR edits to Wes Moore, which I reverted. I think we should take them at their word and accept that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I'll go add the required notice to their talk page now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attack against article subject on talk page

    Shame on all of us in the WP community for allowing this thread to spiral out of control like this, allowing it to get to the point where nothing productive can be done. This is why ANI sucks. And shame on those actively creating this mess of a thread. Everyone go to your corners. If, in the next week, anyone in this thread says anything remotely critical about anyone else in the thread, let me know and I will block them for a week. @Nutez and Bon courage:, there's a rough consensus you both in particular should dial it down a little, grow a slightly thicker skin, and not try to get the other banned from the project. @Le Marteau:, you're about one nasty comment away from being blocked indef (not just here, but anywhere on-wiki. There does not appear to be anyone in this thread supporting your behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Earlier today, I initiated a civil discussion at Talk:Aseem Malhotra, which received some constructive response, save this comment on Mr. Malhotra's character. "Nonsense" is perhaps only mildy rude, yet to question the sanity of a named person is a whole other affair. I moved to refactor the uncouth part of Bon courage's comment, in lieu of removing it entirely (which could also be justified). The user restored the personal attack with an unhelpful edit summary, and left some templated warning on my user talk, which I found kind of unnecessary. I went ahead and used a different template, to collapse the uncouth comment, only to be reverted again by Bon courage. Not content to reinstate the personal attack on the talk page, they also went ahead and attacked me personally, calling me a pain, and started casting aspersions about my engagement with the article, as well as my personal views. I also received another unpleasant message on my talk page, in which Bon courage showed no remorse for their repeated personal attacks, but instead elected to "warn" me about some discretionary sanctions. According to WP:RTP, WP:RPA & WP:RUC, it is perfectly reasonable to refactor personal remarks on article talk page. Please help me out here. Nutez (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Malhotra claims his diet can protect against Covid-19 and claims that MRna vaccines are dangerous. His diets were criticised by multiple reliable health sources as actively dangerous and numerous of his writings have been described as simply false ("He was quoted later as claiming his mother's vegetarian diet contributed to her premature and painful death"). Per WP:PSCI I don't think Bon courage's edits are problematic. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If somebody comes out with quackery calling that quackery "quackery" is not a personal attack. In fact it's kind of necessary for WP:NPOV. The OP needs to get a WP:CLUE. Bon courage (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, his claims are fringe and outside of mainstream opinion on dietary guidelines. That should be duly described in the article prose. Does that mean that it is acceptable to attack him on the talk page with snide comments? How is that constructive? Nutez (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Calling a view nonsense isn't attacking a person - especially if the view is in fact nonsense. Nor is asking for a sane source - preferably all sources should be sane. MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Why use the adjective "sane" at all? Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not operate with that kind of terminology… Nutez (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You will find that most Wikipedia editors don't sound like a walking, talking policy page. Some people prefer informality. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah ... Bon courage could have perhaps formulated their replies in a less aggressive manner and actually explained to you why you were wrong to mess with their talkpage comments, but they are correct in that there is no problem describing pseudoscientists as pushing pseudoscience (or in the case of the Covid stuff, complete nonsense). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They also attacked me personally, calling me a pain and told me to go away. Do you think it is acceptable to cast aspersions about another editor's editing, like Bon courage decided to do? Nutez (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Black Kite: You don't think this is a personal attack? Nutez (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, as I said, they could - and should - have been less aggressive, but you shouldn't have been redacting their talkpage posts in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Note this is not a newbie editor and no stranger to ANI. They should have a clue. Bon courage (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia's inconsistency never fails to astound me: [157]. When I'm in a good mood, I would say that this depends on whether the preponderance of reliable sources describe it as quackery or something akin to it – and I'm with Bon courage in this case. When I'm in a bad mood, I'd say that it's all a matter of which editors one pisses off. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting discussion; thanks for the link. I have to say I agree with this comment

      I think it is. I would say: don't call a person a quack, or their work quackery, or bad science, etc... unless you're citing/quoting a source who says that. Editors' personal opinions that papers are quackery or bad science etc. are irrelevant. Our opinions about sources are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of other WP:RS. So if other RS say this is quackery or bad science, quote them, and then it's not a BLP issue.
      — User:Levivich 02:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

      Bon courage's comments were well beyond the pale, and totally unnecessary for a productive discussion. Upon restoring the attack on Mr. Malhotra's character, they also attacked me several times, calling me a pain and questioned my motives. Now they even want me booted off Wikipedia entirely. Nutez (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't let him get you down, my friend... I have to suspect Bon Courage knows EXACTLY what he is doing and that his goal in being so vitriolic with other editors is to, if not remove them from the project, at least discourage them so much that they remove themselves. Le Marteau (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which, I presume, is why you come up with edit summaries like this? [158] This has suddenly become a quite interesting thread as regards more than one editor. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That edit summary is one of the finest, most truthful things I have ever said on Wikipedia, and I stand by it 100%. The day Bon Courage gets banned from this work will be the day I buy the thickest steak I can find, and a bottle of wine, and celebrate. In my almost 20 years of editing, this individual is, if not THE worst, ONE OF the worst editors I have ever encontered for their pattern of tendentious editing , and something needs to be done about it. Le Marteau (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So let me get this straight. When he's being vitriolic towards you, he's a menace and a fiend and needs to be banned. When you're being vitriolic towards him, that's alright and couldn't possibly be a personal attack. Is that your narrative? Ravenswing 08:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that is not my narrative. I invite you to read my talk page, the "Your recent conduct on article talk pages (August 2022)" section in particular. Note that Bon went by a different name then, but you'll know immediately who I am referring to. Once you digest that, I think you will understand where I am coming from further. Or, if that does not make my "narrative" clear, feel free to IM me where I will feel freer to open up with what I TRULY think about this individual, and the nature of my dispute with him. Le Marteau (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And you think that section makes you look good?? What I am seeing there -- as elsewhere -- is that you have a serious case of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, that you do not believe yourself subject to civility rules so long as you claim that The Other Guy has it coming to him, and that the admonishment of uninvolved veteran editors is just so much white noise to you. Ravenswing 14:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know what's up with Le Marteau. They seem to be fine doing low-level work but are apt to go to DEFCON ONE over a detail in content disputes. I invite any editor to review this[159] section of their User Talk page (or that page more generally) to get a feel for this. It should also be noted this editor has a history of socking/harassment (see block log). The weird grudge bearing is concerning. Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My conduct in the section you link may have been my finest hour on Wikipedia, and I am quite proud of it. That you think that linking to it serves to discredit me serves only to demonstrate how out of it you are. (note to the reader: "Bon" changed his name shortly after this episode... can't say as I blame him... truly a disgraceful episode here by Bon. His perennial defense by Shibbolethink is a sight to behold as well. Le Marteau (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You think being told by SandyGeorgia that what you did "was extremely inappropriate, disruptive, and very harmful", was your "finest hour"? Okay, I have no further comment. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That you hold up Sandy's standard of propriety as objective truth of me being a dastard speaks little of your intellect or your intellectual integrity. Absolutely pathetic. Le Marteau (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone new to this situation, I would characterize Bon Courage's tone here as "succinct". And perhaps a bit too curt, but only to a mild level which is understandable when repeatedly dealing with POV editors. I would not say that this runs anywhere near WP:NPA and in fact is very in keeping with WP:PSCI. OP, on the other hand, is rapidly careening towards WP:NOTHERE if they continue to push POV nonsense as is described above. They don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with that assessment. I also think it's pretty unlikely that anything in this thread is going to require the use of administrator tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Shibbolethink: You are very welcome to comb through my contributions to find evidence which substantiates the ASPERSION that I am a POV editor, a pain in the a*rse or somehow partisan. I've contributed for many years to this project, on a variety of issues. @Tryptofish: Considering the fact that Bon courage doubled down on their behavior, called me a pain on three separate occasions, and started vilifying my presence on the project, I do think there is an issue here. From the very relevant thread you linked earlier, there seems to be a widespread belief among the skeptic community on WP, that anything is fair game when discussing fringe, non-mainstream individuals, and that one is at liberty to call them every pejorative under the sun, since they have been placed in the category "alternative". Nutez (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Nutez, I think it's worth noting where I came down in that discussion. We've actually had an ArbCom case about skepticism-related content. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to mainstream science and non-mainstream science, nor should it. You escalated the dispute considerably when you tried to template Bon courage's comments, and it's time now to deescalate. I've advised that no admin action should be taken against anyone, and I strongly suggest that you should take that result as the best you are going to get. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are correct in the assertion that Wikipedia does not give equal weight to mainstream science and non-mainstream science, nor should it. I, however, was talking about comments on article talk pages, not article prose. Do you think hyperbolic, derogatory language like "nonsense" or "claptrap" is helpful for a productive conversation? Are biography talk pages a free-for-all if the person described is an alternative medicine guy? And is it acceptable to cast aspersions about an editor objecting to the uncivil comments? This comment of yours in the discussion you linked seems to support my refactoring of Bon courage's commentary, seeing as I only removed the offending bits, as opposed to the entire comment.

      If one doesn't like hatting the comment, it would have been easy to use the redacted template, and a user talk message about please tone down the language, instead of going straight to saying it was a policy violation with all that implies – and that would have avoided this entire flare-up. There was no need to remove an entire talk page section over some phrases that could, instead, have been redacted
      — User:tryptofish 17:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

      Nutez (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but the idea that one should eschew vaccination and instead follow some disreputable fad diet to ward of COVID is nonsense and claptrap (as well as being dangerous misinformation). You should not expect anybody to dance around that when discussing these concepts, and how to treat them, in content discussions. Bon courage (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we might be talking past each other. I am discussing talk page conduct, not article prose. This is not RationalWiki, and we ought to have a slightly less vituperative form of discourse. It didn't take you long to call me a "shit", "nuisance" and "pain", and wanted me excommunicated from the project, simply because I objected to your invectives in the Malhotra discussion. Also, you still haven't apologized for casting aspersions about my motives. Nutez (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I never call you "a shit", but this kind of lying certainly makes you a pain. Others will see what you're doing and decide: the boomerang thread it below. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In the "boomerang thread" you made this invective comment:

      In fact it's another problem with ANI that because it's a WP:CESSPIT editors think it's okay to behave like shits and say whatever they want with impunity. It needs to stop.
      — User:Bon courage 09:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

      Who is the one lying here? Nutez (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You. Either than or WP:CIR. Bon courage (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is in no way a personal attack, about rather a comment about ANI. Bon courage could do with dialing it down a bit, but they have not called you a shit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed it's a known problem with ANI and has been for years. WP:CESSPIT links here for a reason. Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being completely uninvolved, I find Nutez behaviour both on the talk page and especially here far more problematic. There was nothing wrong with Bon courage's comment (we call a spade a spade). In contrast, Nutez has removed parts of Bon courage's comment, attacked Bon courage (as Black Kite points out) and displayed a refusal to WP:HEAR the comments from numerous editors here. My recommendation is for everyone to just walk away from this. Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nutez asks above "Why use the adjective "sane" at all? Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not operate with that kind of terminology". MrOllie's answer, "Some people prefer informality", seems to miss the point. Talking about people as lacking sanity is not informal, it's uncivil. For better or for worse, when editors are (perceived to be) right on content, WP:5P4 just isn't applied to them. I've had Bon Courage tell me I think your arguments are insane more than a half year ago [160], and it still stings. Depending on personal context, bringing up sanity can be very hurtful. Yes, this kind of thing does have the potential to drive good editors away. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Where does Bon courage use the word "sane" to describe a fellow user? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In the incident brought up by the OP, they used the word in reference to a BLP.[161] In the incident I brought up just above, it was in reference to me.[162] Of course you could go the 'it refers to your arguments, not you' route, but I think that would be unhelpfully apologetic. Let me use the opportunity of formulating this reply to add that I too believe that admin action is not needed. My point is simply that in this text-only medium it's easy to use words that can do far more damage than one either intends or expects. It would be useful if that would receive more recognition, ideally from Bon Courage themselves, but if not from them then at least from their peers on this website. If we can move a bit in that direction, this report may end up not being entirely a waste of time. If we can't, I understand, but then I'd suggest not commenting and letting it get closed soon. Sorry to have added to it in that case. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What deceptive, hypocritical rubbish. We want to use sane sources for fringe topics and saying so is not an attack on any person, merely a informal way of stating Wikipedia's actual requirements for such topics. Similarly your old grudge about being caught yourself (by Hob Gadling[163]) using bizarre illogic and personal attacks[164] against me (saying in terms that I had "a serious problem in understanding logic") is not something you should be trying to misrepresent to the peanut gallery. I do not resile from a single word I made in those exchanges with you, which I did not write lightly. Bon courage (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, we want 'sane' sources for fringe and for all other topics around here, but especially in as far as a source is actually a person (Aseem Malhotra) there's no need to imply that they're not 'sane'. 'Reliable' will communicate the message much better, without such potentially hurtful language. Further, check your own diff and see what it replies to: I don't know what you're doing, other than producing verbiage. You don't seem to understand logic [...] so it's impossible to respond meaningfully. (bare, without argument) Calling a reply to that in the form of If [substantial argument] then you have a serious problem with understanding logic a personal attack is not very credible. Sure, that back-and-forth got too heated, but I was focused on the substance throughout (I truly believe that neither you nor Hob ever got around to even trying to understand the substance, which from where I stand appears to be due to a preference for ad hominem). In any case, we strongly disagree on many things, sometimes seemingly do not understand each other, but there's simply no excuse for ending that particular spat with a comment on my sanity. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no bad opinion about your sanity, but I do have an opinion about your very lengthy insistence on particular lines of reasoning which (as other editors have pointed out) are illogical, especially when it's combined with your saying I have a serious problem in understanding logic. If you prefer, I am happy to call your view "irrational and wrong" rather than "insane". However your coming here to pile-on with your one-side-of-the story is just the kind of ANI jiggery-pokery than causes this noticeboard's problems. Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone – From the discussion cited above, it seems that you were first to use a PA, when claiming that Apaugasma didn't seem to understand logic. Also, using my logic faculties, I think it is on its face rather facetious to accuse Apaugasma of coming here to pile-on, when basically nobody is defending them (apart from this comment of mine perchance). Also, this comment

      The source says the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven. If you make of that sources say qi doesn't exist, you're misrepresenting them, right here.
      — User:Apaugasma 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

      is perfectly reasonable. What is illogical about it? Nutez (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Bon Courage, you told me "You don't seem to understand logic" because you believe I'm wrong. Obviously, I believe that you are wrong and that it's clear for everyone that the point I made in that diff is logically correct, so I replied 'no, you have a serious problem with understanding logic'. Not very productive I agree, but that beyond simply saying 'I think you're wrong' or similar, you seem to believe that it is within your remit to call me 'irrational', and why not, 'insane', is truly a problem with your conduct. At least I believe in good faith that it is a problem, and part of a wider one with pro-positivist (skeptic) editors commenting on sanity and/or logical capabilities in WP talk pages. However, if uninvolved editors tell me that the problem is in fact me bringing this up at ANI (I'm sympathetic to the jiggery-pokery issue), I will certainly refrain from doing so. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are conflating my characterisation of your views with a characterisation of you which I never made. (While giving yourself a pass for complaining I had "a serious problem" – which I have never complained about at a drama board!). This is why I said your complaint was hypocritical. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As others have said, this complaint doesn't appear actionable, but I would urge the community to recognize that when editors wear their feelings about a BLP in talk page discussions, that doesn't help towards civil discussions. An editor that readily calls out a BLP with labels used by RSes or other demeaning statements that are already given by RSes (eg like calling Trump "Drumpf") may not bringing rational discussion to the table with a preconceived notion of how the BLP article should be written. We routinely ban editors that show a strong slant on fringe views (eg those that come to try to "fix" far-right BLP articles by calling for whitewashing) when they become disruptive. It would require a lot more in this specific case for that be disruptive enough to call for a ban, but it is definitely on the road towards that same type of issue. --Masem (t) 13:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For fringe aspects of BLPs it's important to focus on concepts, views, and ideas rather than characterizing the person (except insofar as appropriate RS does). Thus it's unproductive to call Trump "Drumpf", but it's fine to discuss how (say) his ideas about injecting bleach for COVID are dangerous nonsense. What we often see is when WP:PROFRINGE editors don't like an idea being attacked they WP:CRYBLP and elide the difference between ideas and people. That's what the OP is doing here. Bon courage (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • # Nonsense is nonsense, should be stated as nonsense in articles, and can be called nonsense on article talk pages. Editors pushing nonsense should reconsider or face consequences.
      # Editors should really think twice before using language linked to mental health. This isn't a criticism, such language is completely common in everyday use, but when communicating with an unknown audience it's best to choose words carefully. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a really good point. I shall retire "insane" from my descriptions of ideas henceforth! Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, that's good to hear. Hopefully this thread will not be entirely in vain. I for one have learned a whole lot. Nutez (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sheesh! Nutez needs to grow thicker skin. This whole thread is ridiculous and an abuse of process over nothing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Triple boomerang?

    As Black Kite notes above, "This has suddenly become a quite interesting thread as regards more than one editor". The three editors are:

    • Nutez – The OP here with a vexatious complaint. No big deal initially but it's been compounded by WP:IDHT.
    • Le Marteau – Who in complaining about personal attacks has revealed that they're the real offender is this regard. Known harrasser and in my view this is a continuation of that type of conduct.
    • Apaugasma – Continuing a long-held grudge by trying to sell ANI a story about how they were on the receiving end of an attack, while omitting to mention that rather it was they who had been called out for making an attack in the dispute they reference.

    This is also an interesting case study of how problem editors try to use ANI for a pile-on - this Noticeboard's infamous WP:KNIT problem. Could this be the moment to turn the corner and attempt some kind of reform by letting editors know sneaky pile-ons are not okay? I propose a logged warning to all three about conduct at ANI in future. Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Once I find out which admin black holed my last two comments, and why, I will respond more fully. Until then, I have been censored, and my contined input here will be a waste of my time. Le Marteau (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it's another problem with ANI that because it's a WP:CESSPIT editors think it's okay to behave like shits and say whatever they want with impunity. It needs to stop. Bon courage (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One more time, and this time, with feeling "Once I find out which admin black holed my last two comments, and why, I will respond more fully. Until then, I have been censored, and my contined input here will be a waste of my time." I invite the interested reader to bookmark this and to come back tomorrow, because I will in fact be back with the reason for my being censored (unless that in itself will be censored... I would no be surprised at this point) and we will see if it is because i am behaving "like shits" as Bon thinks I am. Le Marteau (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't censored, you comment was just caught up in the deletion of a different comment in a different section by a now blocked editor. Your post fell between the addition of the comment that need to be deleted, and the reversal and deletion of the comment. Nothing nefarious, just unfortunate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Marteau This is a really important point. Don't mistake accidents for intent!!! I don't think there was enough of an issue with your comment that it needed to be revdel'd, I think ActivelyDisinterested is right about this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I'm reading Le Marteau's comments on this thread, and then reading their comments on a talkpage section that they consider their "finest hour at Wikipedia" (this litany of unpleasantness) and wondering if we really need them here at all. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I second that comment. I don't want to be associated with that particular editor or their crusade. They have successfully derailed this entire conversation. Nutez (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 to Black Kite. Between the outbursts that Le Marteau is proud of making, his history of blocks and interaction bans, the numerous complaints about his behavior on his talk page, his general attitude that he's permitted to violate any and all civility rules in A Good Cause, and his reflexive assumption of bad faith? It's not that he doesn't understand what other editors are telling him. It's that he doesn't give a damn. Consensus isn't something he can give the finger to at will. Ravenswing 14:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bon Courage, I understand where you're coming from with this, especially with regard to Le Marteau's behavior (if they have no evidence to offer, they should in fact rather disengage, and this PA as well their recent pattern of incivility absolutely is sanctionable), but characterizing the concern I brought up as 'selling a story' is truly worrying as to your readiness to even consider whether civility might be an issue in the skepticism/fringe space. I compiled a rather large amount of evidence for that here. I only retracted it because the Arb case was not going to be about civility, but the evidence is there and the problem has been noted by other editors. Sure, those being accused of being uncivil will tend to disagree that there is in fact a problem, and I think I've made it clear above that if a majority of editors can't even agree on whether there's a problem, it may be better to let it rest. I stand by that, but calling for a flying stick in my case (and probably Nutez' too, though I didn't look closely into that) does seem a bit over the top. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, there are problems with civility around fringe topics. I'm not convinced it's more or less than for other topic areas – even Bach cantatas can be a locus of furious disputes. In fact, it seems we're about to see at least one editor here sanctioned for it. However, the idea that editors need to genuflect to quackery and grift as though they are mere "alterative formulations", and that using words like "nonsense" is some kind of WP:CIVIL problem, just seems odd. In this, Jimbo probably had it about right. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ha, I of course do believe Jimbo was very much wrong to use the word 'lunatic' there. I could even see myself saying something like that in a weak moment, but then getting quoted on it throughout the wiki ages must be rather painful. However, the argument that words like 'lunatic' and 'sane' should not be used in this type of context is not to be conflated with an argument that universally rejected theories should be called 'alternative formulations', which would be a clear-cut NPOV breach. The term 'nonsense', again, is on the 'lunatic'/'sane' spectrum, but skirting a line: it's not generally used by RS, unnecessary in most contexts, quite often inflammatory, but perhaps more often than not rather harmless. Now that you link to WP:PROFRINGE under 'seems odd' though, that is the type of constant little aspersions that make things so difficult. You underestimate what it does to an editor to have to deal with a constant innuendo of being pro fringe. If you're not going to make a case before a noticeboard, you should not be making such implications about conduct. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? I'm not the complainant here. Personally I think holocaust deniers, medical quacks, scientific racists etc. do spout a lot of "nonsense" and it's fair on Talk pages when discussing it to use that word. Attempt to tone police this into more "respectful" vocabulary is a form of WP:PROFRINGE behaviour, yes. I'm against it. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 to Black Kite on Le Marteau and, as Nutez calls it, his crusade. My every interaction with them has had toxicity. In this incident, they WP:HOUNDed a user around, disrupting a very fragile discussion by letting disputes leak onto other pages. They then cast WP:ASPERSIONS on the other editor and instigated a WP:BATTLEGROUND:
    • "yes I know I need to assume good faith, but I don't do it with you" [165]
    • "I'm not following you, but I am going through all of your contributions to see where I disagree and then replying/reverting to limit your impact on the project, because I think you're damaging to it." [166]
    • "Nor am I harassing you, although I am sure you feel like I am" [167]
    • "You seem to have a habit of selectively enforcing policy when it suits your agenda, and ignoring policy when it does not. It seems to be a pattern, and I consider such editors a liability to the project. The community needs to address the issue, and I relish the potential opportunity to make you a test case" [168]
    It was a pretty clear policy violation back then, but I didn't bring it to ANI since this board is already pretty overloaded and they seemed to back off. Despite this, they kept a pretty heavy WP:BATTLE attitude, targeted especially at one user:
    • "I am just getting started in my fight to get policy and guidelines added to the encyclopedia to address selective enforcement of policy and guidelines to further an agenda." [169]
    • "It needs to become policy that editors who have demonstrated an obvious pattern of selectively applying policy and guidelines based on whether they have a dog in the fight or not, need to be sanctioned. I will look forward to you being first in line." [170] (emphasis mine)
    It seems from this discussion that the user's attitude to these issues was relatively unrepentant, and they're exhibiting many of the same issues here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed a sort of Tu quoque situation, seeing as Bon courage accuses me of initiating a pile-on (citing WP:KNIT) – when the opposite is actually the case: I have been bombarded with unpleasantries from you lot in this very thread, with only two editors defending me (one extremely disruptive, and one very sympathetic). As noted, there is a bit of an issue with self-proclaimed "skeptics" who think that normal rules don't apply when discussing "alternative" or "fringe" individuals, and consider biography talk pages a free-for-all in terms of personal attacks. Or to quote Bon courage: " [They] think it's okay to behave like **** and say whatever they want with impunity." Note that this user keeps doubling down on their PAs, not content to call me a "pain" and "nuisance", now calling me a "shit". Nutez (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "from you lot"? That's going to need some serious explanation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    you lot, as in "you, plural". An informal, British way of speaking. I could have said y'all instead, but the meaning is the same. I am questioning who is actually participating in the pile-on, by simply counting the participants on either side of the debate. Nutez (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just a random stranger passing by and you are making a personal attack against me and appear to have a massive failure of WP:AGF. If you have diffs against specific editors and how they are outside of policy, please present them. Shouting "Everyone is out to get me" won't get you very far. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor above cited WP:KNIT and accused me of participating in a pile-on. In response, I simply noted that most of the editors in this thread were chastising me. Hence, I wonder who is actually doing the knitting. Nutez (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My only participation before you made that comment was to try and assuage Le Marteau that their comment wasn't censored, and add a balance statement to the original thread about how editors should be careful with their language. So I get lumped in knitting, that essay is a bad idea even if it did come from a good place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Misquoting the other party isn't doing you any favors. We're all reading the same discussion here, people are noticing. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Paraphrase, rather. Nutez (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction between paraphrasing and quoting in discussions like these is extremely important and exactly how we avoid going off on tangents like this. Please remember that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Likely COI editor (User:Barton1234) repeatedly editing against consensus at Richard H. Ebright

    Version of the article with way too many citations and overly positive treatment of subject's accomplishments: 11:26, 29 September 2022

    Talk page section where consensus about WP:OVERCITE was established: see here

    Diffs of the user reverting against consensus:

    1. 19:28, 8 November 2022
    2. 20:17, 3 November 2022
    3. 18:51, 3 November 2022

    User WP:OWN reverting others' attempts to reduce WP:OVERCITE or otherwise helpfully improve article (while calling it "vandalism"):

    1. 10:20, 26 April 2022
    2. 09:44, 13 December 2021
    3. 10:51, 6 July 2021
    4. 12:03, 8 February 2021
    5. 20:39, 25 August 2020
    6. 16:41, 21 August 2020
    7. 09:26, 4 May 2020

    Unilaterally removing "excessive citations" template without discussing on talk, after removing just 2 cites from a page with dozens for each sentence:

    1. 18:06, 9 August 2021
    2. 18:05, 9 August 2021

    Diff of myself and others warning the user about this behavior, warnings which were ignored:

    1. 07:43, 4 November 2022 Follow WP:BRD. You are editing against consensus
    2. 01:07, 9 November 2022 (EW template on user talk)

    Diff of my and others' attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page, attempts which were ignored:

    1. 00:35, 4 November 2022 @User:Animalparty attempting to resolve other dispute with user never responding
    2. 11:51, 4 November 2022 Me: See above discussion regarding WP:OVERCITE. The consensus here is to remove these many multiple redundant citations. What specifically do you have issues with?

    Attempts to ask the user about COI, to which the user has never responded (or on any talk page for that matter):

    1. 23:05, 10 February 2021 @User:PaleoNeonate on user talk
    2. 11:50, 4 November 2022 (me on article talk)

    Diff of ANI notice posted to user's talk page:

    1. 22:59, 9 November 2022

    Comments:

    This is a weird one. Basically, @User:Barton1234, who created this page, has added dozens and dozens of citations to it of this guy's every paper ever, basically turning it into a CV. Any attempt to bring the page in line with WP:OVERCITE (or improve the article sometimes in other ways) is met with a revert in the style of WP:OWN from this user simply saying "vandalism". They have rarely edited any other page, and typically only as it relates to Ebright, to add Ebright's papers to those other pages, or to basically make them say what Ebright's article says: [171] [172] [173]. Given obvious COI implications, myself and another user have tried to broach the COI topic, to which the user has never responded (indeed, has never responded to anything on any talk page), continuing instead to revert despite consensus on the talk page against their actions. I believe the user should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE and a blatant WP:COI connected editor, pushing a particular version/POV about the article which they treat as though they WP:OWN it.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting for merge accounts.

    Hello sysops.

    This is a confirmation of lemonaka (talk · contribs) who made a request to user:Antandrus to create an account for editing on English Wikipedia. Due to current IP-block of my IP-range, I couldn't create an account here. Could any sysop help me create an account of that name and give me IPBE or just merge two accounts? Lemonaka1 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Account mergers are impossible if both have edits, if I recall right. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for following up on this - you are correct, I did not know of this new feature, which is why I created User:Lemonaka1. Hopefully this will work now. Thanks again. Antandrus (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, thank you all for following this issue, I'm really gratitude. Lemonaka (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    43256ds - possible AI-in-training?

    I've been watching the edits of this user for the better part of a week and something tells me this is someone trying to train an AI to edit Wikipedia, given their exclusively editing in their own mainspace (minus an excursion to Wikipedia: space) and their edits mostly being non-sequiturs or otherwise disjointed/disconnected. In any event, it doesn't seem like they're actually here to edit Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks more like meatware than software to me. In any event, fails WP:CIR. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what this is, but see also WaheedRathore. ST47 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, then both accounts should be blocked as WP:SOCKs per WP:DUCK. 2601:647:5800:4D2:98E6:C606:B7CF:D59D (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    .....and it continues, as it has after all previous warnings. Time for it to stop I think.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the original account for WP:NOTHERE and also turned off TPA as all of their edits seemed to be there. As for WaheedRathore, they have not edited in 4 years, so I'm not ready to block just yet. If they do come back to edit and the editing continues, then a block is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but now that I'm looking, a version of their sandbox that I'd deleted mentioned Waheed. I'm going to SPI them. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User:Dehaw Malia and User:Constitutionabc. They seem to have been creating similar word salad articles and promoting Dehaw Malia, like User:43256ds and User:WaheedRathore. Both accounts are stale though. 2601:647:5800:4D2:38A9:46E2:DC17:D4DD (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wandsword

    User Wandsword's sole purpose of editing at Wikipedia is to add derogatory content about the two subject articles, claiming that criminal complaints have been filed against both the professor and the Institute. Wandsword has repeatedly sourced these claims to generic Indian websites (https://pgportal.gov.in and https://dpg.gov.in) without specific links to actual verifying documents. Wandsword has already been blocked once for edit warring over this matter. When pressed for better citations, the user produced a couple of documents uploaded to a Google drive account. Even if we could accept these as a reliable source (we can't), they show only that a complaint has been lodged. No citations have been produced (nor does the user's text even imply) that any investigation of the complaints has occurred nor any arrests made nor any other repercussions of the complaints. For all we know, this could be a case of a disgruntled student filing a nuisance complaint against a professor. User Wandsword has been warned repeatedly about the problem of adding such derogatory information (especially in the case of WP:BLP), but has not ceased to restore the material whenever it has been deleted. I request an administrator to intervene in this matter. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm thinking that an indefinite partial block from both those articles should be the starting point, and then escalate if Wandsword decides to try and evade it. Give him an opportunity to focus on unrelated articles first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and  Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing, SYNTH and IDHT issues

    Inspired by today's improper removal of content on the Melbourne article ([174], [175], [176]), I've decided to put up.

    Since April 2022, Simulaun has been engaged in what can only be described as a narrow-focused campaign to either remove or muddy the waters re the Indigenous Australian names of cities in Australia, particularly Melbourne. I don't know their motivations, but it's pretty clear to anyone that they are removing content that they just don't like and replacing it with poorly sourced -- or outright synthesis of published material. Ironically, a section on Talk:Melbourne entitled "wikipedia:Activist attempts to rename Australian towns and cities" might offer a little bit of an explanation behind Simulaun's editing (seeing as they do not seem keen on expanding when challenged), particularly their comment: "The same cultural appropriation is taking place for the city of Perth, which is now being referred to by some groups as "Big Swamp" in Noongar language." (diff).

    A current favourite of Simulaun's has been to add SYNTH material to Melbourne re its Indigenous name, ignoring the need for consensus. The user will replace an existing passage with a synthesis of a LonelyPlanet source and others, making the misleading claim that the source is speaking for Melbourne (it's not). The editor has been warned about this, as will be expanded upon later. Examples:

    Simulaun, when challenged about their editing, has repeatedly chosen to outright ignore or defend their edits (and then proceed to do the exact same thing they've been accused of doing). Examples:

    • Apr. 24: The Logical Positivist asked Simlaun to stop adding original research to the Rottnest Island article. No response. On the article's talk page, Mitch Ames had even previously asked Simulaun to stop adding factual errors/OR to article [177]. No response.
    • Apr. 25: I cautioned Simulaun for removal of content on Melbourne and to gain consensus for their edits. No response.
    • Jul. 7: Padgriffin warned Simulaun for adding original research to Sydney. Simulaun defended adding original research and has continued to add OR.
    • Sept. 20: I asked Simulaun to provide diffs of where on Talk:Melbourne consensus exists for their content change as they incorrectly claimed. They did not provide those diffs as can be seen.
    • Sept. 25: Poketama too, told Simulaun that their content changes to Melbourne contained SYNTH.
    • Oct. 15: I cautioned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
    • Oct. 19: I warned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
    • Nov. 2: I gave a final warning to Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Since then, they've continuously added the same SYNTH bypassing the need for consensus here and here, having been reverted by Gracchus250 and Meters, respectively, citing the same issues in their edit summaries.

    Judging from the frequency of their edits, I think they will just keep edit warring, not listening, bypassing the need for consensus, and of course, adding SYNTH to articles. —MelbourneStar☆talk 01:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This user's IDHT behavior has gone on for long enough. I would personally propose, at minimum, a TBAN from Australian-geography related articles for them, considering that they've persistently engaged in this type of behavior and seemingly refuse to follow WP:CON. I would support harsher sanctions but it's a start. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 02:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for a TBAN here. Gusfriend (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was notified to comment on here. This user has been mostly a nuisance but I have looked at their contributions page a few times and contemplated what value they were bringing. I remember reading a Wiki policy which I dont have on hand that says essentially a users contributions should not entirely be negative and deletionist. Besides their edits on Rottnest, theyve never actually added anything to Wikipedia and they dont listen to argument, policy or consensus. Due to their relatively infrequent edits theyve not been a huge problem to revert, but its pretty clear to me their edits are solely bad faith vandalism that wastes users time and may be harder to catch on smaller articles. Poketama (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that on Oct. 17 that the same unfounded claims that had to be previously removed from the Rottnest Island page in April were re-added by Simulaun and had to be removed yet again. Their contributions do seem disruptive and they have not been willing to engage on the matters for that page at least when they have been raised with them. The Logical Positivist (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinged here. I agree that something needs to be done about the continuing IDHT and SYNTH. A topic ban would work, but perhaps since the editor has never been blocked, perhaps a temporary block would get their attention. Meters (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree. This editors contributions seem to almost exclusively focus on the use of SYNTH (or completely unsourced) material to further the goal of reducing Wikipedia's inclusion of Indigenous names. As seen with the edit I reverted on Hobart (diff) on the 24th of September. JTdale 🗩 04:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it's been a couple days, Simulaun has not responded to this nor edited. I'd be keen to hear their thoughts, just as much as I would support a TBAN on Australian-geography related articles as has been suggested by a few editors already. —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TCG and their one-account restriction

    Mellk has noted that TheCurrencyGuy seems to be evading his block with an IP (which Cullen328 has blocked). I would like to note that there is concurrently a one-account restriction regarding TCG, as evidenced here:

    Additionally, in light of the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, TheCurrencyGuy is indefinitely restricted to the use of a single account. Editors encountering suspected socks of TheCurrencyGuy are required to log their suspicions at the aforementioned SPI page for documentation in addition to reporting them at WP:ANI for breach of this editing restriction.

    Therefore, I would like to formally note this breach of restriction here. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I blocked the obvious (self admitted) IP sock, but was not aware of a requirement to log. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. I will remember this in future. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't a one-account restriction sort of meaningless when it is followed by an indefinite block? Evading a one-account restriction and evading an indefinite block are both sockpuppetry. If the indefinite block is lifted, the one-account restriction remains, but this block evasion makes it more unlikely that the indefinite block will be listedlifted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: The one-account restriction was imposed when TCG was only topic-banned. (By the way, did you mean "...will be lifted" instead of "...will be listed"?) NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that the one-account restriction and the topic-ban preceded the indef. So the one-account restriction is sort of overtaken by worse events. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:King Mohammad RZ

    Can someone please remove talk page access from this account. This account keeps making personal attacks and keeps vandalizing on his talk page. See [178]. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t have that much experience with notice boards so I’m not sure if this is the right place to put this type of discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Pizzaplayer219. Talk page access revoked, offending edits and edit summaries have been revdel-d. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atchoum

    User:Atchoum has been adding Copyrighted material to Probiotic, Type 2 diabetes, Proton-pump inhibitor, H2 receptor antagonist, And Colorectal cancer The User continues to add copyrighted materials to articles. He has already been given a warning for adding copyrighted materials to Type 2 diabetes.

    This Edit

    This Edit

    This Edit

    This Edit

    This Edit

    This Edit

    This Edit

    Chip3004 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well Atchoum continues to add copyrighted material to wikipedia and at this point it is definitely an WP:COPYVIO Violation. A indef block for Atchoum is needed since he continues to add copyrighted material to wikipedia Chip3004 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You assume you are absolutely right to revert Atchoum, tag them and report them for an immediate indef block, as you have done at WP:AIV, at my talk and here. Meanwhile, I was about to block you instead for edit warring and biting newcomers. Please read WP:CLOP#Substantial_similarity and other Wikipedia policies before tagging and reporting users. Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Atchoum doesn't use talk-pages or respond on their own talk-page. They have been making bad edits on many nutrition articles with poorly formatted references. Whilst they are adding reliable sources i.e. umbrella reviews in decent journals they seem to be ignoring the fact that some of these have concluded weak evidence (GRADE) and are offering speculation. It's worth citing stronger reviews with significant results not citing weak or no associations like Atchoum is doing. I think this user seems to think adding any old review will do, they are not really reading through what they are citing. I am also concerned about some of the copyvio they have added. It's probably worth blocking this account if they continue to ignore warnings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FF toho

    Request concerning FF toho

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    FF toho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Uyghur genocide discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 15:16, 10 November 2022 characterizing researcher Adrian Zenz as "far-right" in Wikivoice. An attributed characterization of the researcher as "far-right" was previously removed from the article.
    2. 16:40, 10 November 2022 reverting to enforce the Wikivoice characterization of the researcher as "far-right". The edit summary accuses the filer of seeking "to obscure this with your own personal bias".
    Diffs of any previous sanctions, if any
    None that I can find, though the user has previously been warned for conduct in a Chinese Communist Party name-related move dispute.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    16:32, 10 November 2022
    Additional comments by the editor filing complaint

    FF toho has also expressed their dislike for Adrian Zenz's work on other pages, such as at Talk:Uyghur genocide where they first imply that they do not believe him to be a reliable researcher and later make this view quite explicit.

    The Adrian Zenz article is under an indefinite BLP 1RR and an editnotice exists for the article that communicates this. I asked the editor to self-revert on the talkpage, but they did not do so. Instead, the content was removed as a BLP issue by Firefangledfeathers. Repeatedly re-inserting the "far-right" descriptor into the page, despite that descriptor having been removed from the page previously, is edit warring in violation of the 1RR restriction previously imposed by HighInBC. When these edits combined with the obvious expressed dislike for Zenz's work, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Along those lines, I am requesting the use of community-authorized discretionary sanctions to place a WP:TBAN on FF toho barring them from making edits about people related to the topic of Uyghur genocide, on any page, broadly construed.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    18:30, 10 November 2022‎

    Discussion concerning FF toho

    I have to say that it's normally not a good sign when a single editor appears across several contentious articles on my watchlist all at once. After seeing this I scouted through more of their contributions, and aside from having (reverted) after most of their edits all I'll say is, we shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, yet I can guess FF toho's. — Czello 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Most this editors edits seem to be related to communism and all of those show some bias. While most communism related topics will fall under one active sanction or another a TBAN for communism broadly construed should be considered rather a narrower one under as specific active sanction—blindlynx 02:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Eeesh, the initial edit that Red-tailed hawk took issue with is pretty egregious: the source says, in a discussion of how Zenz has been targeted by CCP propoganda, that he "has been portrayed on numerous occasions as a far-right pseudo researcher"; it strains belief that anyone attempting to portray Zenz fairly could use this to support a description of "far right" in wikivoice.
    That said, as far as I can see FF toho only reverted once on that page; it's not a clearcut 1RR violation. Arguing that re-instating the words "far right" is technically a partial revert of this edit from July 2020 seems pretty much like fishing for a reason to sanction to me – that was 18 months before FF toho even created their account and I can't see that anybody suggested that counted as a revert when initially discussing this with them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Caeciliusinhorto: Though I did not mention this in the initial filing, the second edit to the page re-inserted material that new accounts have previously tried to edit war into the article, such as in May of this year (1 2 3 4) that led to the new user being indeffed. That, of course, was not the first time somebody tried to insert similar material into the page, but re-inserting content that's been repeatedly contested throughout the page history is a revert. The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture. But they didn't sel-revert, haven't participated whatsoever in the talk page discussion on Talk:Adrian Zenz despite being pinged (though they did participate on another talk page before this report was filed.
    On top of that, the reason for the sanction is more plainly that, as I stated in the filing above, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Even if you believe the 1RR violation is marginal, it's without question that FF toho's stated intent was to portray Zenz in a negative light. And, in seeking to portray Zenz negatively, the editor first made an egregious BLP violation and subsequently re-instated it after it was reverted against policy while accusing other editors of "personal bias" (which, by the way, is the same sort of rationale the new editor who was later indeffed stated in their edit summaries in May). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the edit summaries provided by FF toho are so invective, that they ought to be revision deleted, like this one, in which they blithely called Mr. Zenz an antisemite (!) I support a topic ban from communism-, China- and Xinjiang-related articles on NOTHERE and GREATWRONGS grounds. Nutez (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    " The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture."
    Someone else reverted my changes before I even saw your talk page message. FF toho (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You gave me the message to self revert at 16:59, and I was infact going to do so, but at 17:00 someone else did it instead. You are leaving out crucial context and I don't find this nice. FF toho (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oof, here's a diff where they tried to claim Stalin shouldn't be referred to as a dictator based on a single primary source from the 50s: [180]. POV stuff aside, that's a pretty blatant misunderstanding of how sourcing works. I would support a topic ban as well, but that and the misuse of Wikivoice described above make me wonder if they'd need extra scrutiny on non-communism related edits as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Coracle (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why I first brought it up on the talk page which exists for exactly that purpose. FF toho (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Red-tailed hawk: Is this an AE discussion? If no, may I ask what type of discussion is it? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an ANI discussion in which I am requesting the imposition of discretionary sanctions under the uyghur genocide general sanctions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Berkeleysportscars

    This seems like a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy, also does seem to be interesting in only editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Cars. I do apologize if this is the wrong location. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheShammingMan: This is indeed the wrong place, the correct place to report a user with a username vio like this would be WP:UAA. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged the article/editor as CoI, images also uploaded at Commons so clear cut.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I indefinitely blocked that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP block evasion and disruptive editing

    For several months now there have been IPs in Bayern region, Germany, where they remove Russian-language names as well as other languages aside from Ukrainian from articles (also other POV edits and unexplained removals on typically Ukrainian topics but also Russian ones). They have never responded to any warnings and the edits usually get reverted but they eventually return to make the same edits again and again or edit war under different IPs in an article, and this just repeats. Some of the IPs have been blocked (by Ohnoitsjamie and Ymblanter from what I can see) but they still evade the block by editing under different IPs and edit war. The IPs geolocate to Munich (IPv6 ones) and Wuerzburg (IPv4 ones) but the edits are the same and on the same articles so it looks like maybe one person or meatpuppetry (I have not looked into this yet). There are too many different articles they edit to page protect but there are a few ones they return to most such as Administrative divisions of Ukraine, Ruthenia, Tsardom of Russia and Old East Slavic. The last two were page protected because of them but they have still continued after expiration. I am not sure if a range block is possible but here is a list of some of the IPs I have collected:

    Mellk (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also noticed that User:Dav2ry7 and the IPs were edit warring on Administrative divisions of Ukraine and Tsardom of Russia to restore the same edits at the same time. For example this revert 8 minutes after the IP was reverted. Mellk (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dav2ry7 probably should be blocked indef, the whole contribution is disruption, I do not see a single good edit. Probably one of the LTAs who are plenty in the topic area. Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I can only conclude that Dav2ry7 is related to the IPs. For example one of the IPs fixed a change the Dav2ry7 account made 2 minutes earlier[181] and he was already warned about potentially sockpuppetry[182]. So not only disruptive editing but also block evasion and sockpuppetry. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference all those IPv6 IPs fall under 2003:D2:5700:0:0:0:0:0/40. All the edits from that range appear to be part of this disruption, someone might won't to look into the ranges unreverted edits. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Much appreciated. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that Materialscientist blocked the range for the IPv6 IPs (thanks). I am wondering if the evidence so far for sockpuppetry by Dav2ry7 (like [183]) is strong enough for a block or if this is something for SPI. Mellk (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The recent edit history of Old East Slavic has brought me here. It appears that @Dav2ry7 is the account used by the disruptive IP editor once the page has got semi-protected. –Austronesier (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal:Indefinite block of Dav2ry7

    Long standing POV pushing by MiltenR on Bulgars

    This user constantly removes the term Turkic from the page.

    1. 27 April 2020: There are relevant theories about the Iranian root of the bulgars, as is stated in the article Removed: Turkic
    2. 7 November 2020: Improvement - this is not the only modern theory Removed: Turkic
    3. 13 November 2020: Improvement - that’s uncertain, it’s stated in the text below Removed: Turkic
    4. 14 November 2020: Added content: Added: presumably Turkic
    5. 14 November 2020: Improvement Added: or of mixed origin
    6. 24 November 2020: Improvements, added content and relevant reliable source Removed: Turkic Added: of controversial origin
    7. 30 September 2022: Improvements Removed: Turkic
    8. 10 November 2022: The origin of the Bulgars is uncertain, stressing Turkic elements is not correct. Added contents, improvements and reliable relevant sources. Removed: Turkic
    9. 10 November 2022: Undid revision 1121157410 by Beshogur (talk): Removed: Turkic

    This user claims Bulgars not being Turkic, however this is a fringe view, and outside mainstream. I listed all his edits. It's up to admins to decide. Uh now personal attack: This guy Beshogur is a real vandal and Turkic nationalist, this is clear. Tries to keep page filled with inaccuracies, unsubstantiated claims. The article is not Bulgar oriented, but Turkic people oriented. Beshogur (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a warning on MiltenR's talk page regarding the personal attack. Perhaps an Admin could persuade them to remove or strike through said PA? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammer

    Indeffed by Cullen328 for promo and spam, and crimes against gastronomy (Mixing french fries and spam? Good grief!) (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Frenchfrye99 (talk · contribs) is a lovely case of NOTHERE. Their sole objective seems to be to promote some non-notable individual named Scoop Malinowski. – 2.O.Boxing 22:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked this editor for relentless self promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User-reported

    Disruptive editing by JudgeJudyCourthouse25

    • JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk · contribs), edit warring to restore unencyclopedic prose at Judy Justice, and restoring unsourced and promotional content as payback at Erode. In short, this is what they're fighting to keep in the encyclopedia [185]; [186]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked the user for one week. The block was straightforward, but the duration was not. I thought about blocking indefinitely, but the number of edits they've made - almost 8K, the vast majority of which have been to article space - without being blocked before this held me back. Their attitude, though, is very troubling, both before the block and after. They seem to have a rather inflated sense of their own abilities and a very negative view of some Wikipedians, including right now the IP who reported them. They have a "permanent retirement" screed at the top of their Talk page from March 2022 that, among other things, attacks an individual editor. Their unblock request and other post-block comments are largely a personal attack against the IP and otherwise passive-aggressive. In the edit-war at Judy Justice, they insisted on adding material that I would expect to see added by a new user promoting the show. Considering how SPA-like they are, I don't see how they've gotten away with almost continuously editing that article and related articles for so long. Normally, I would just close this thread with a note about my block, but I'm still wondering if the sanction is sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this thread is still open later today, I'll add a thought or two. Thank you, Bbb23. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bbb23 covered this well--it's difficult to justify an indefinite block, given there's no block history. But there is a history of troubling exchanges, a tendency to feel persecuted by anyone who copyedits what they've done, and a quickness to accuse other editors of conspiratorial activity and socking, as done with me [187] and earlier, here [188]. The edits at Erode, which were done solely to troll, don't weigh favorably, either. If behavioral concerns are front burner, they ought not distract from the tone of editing, per the recent revisions made at Judy Justice. A history of constructive edits doesn't provide a free pass for disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    180.251.44.33

    All edits by 180.251.44.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appear to be changing numbers to deliberately incorrect values, this diff being just one example. There are more than I can revert, so it needs someone with the power to do a mass revert. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @David Biddulph: I've used mass rollback on all edits. IP still needs to be blocked though. NonsensicalSystem(error?)(.log) 10:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Aigurland: POV pushing

    Previous :

    Aigurland just edited again the page while implicitly admitting in talk page that the sources say what the consensus says (that it is considered as the top law school). They just say they have nothing more to say but go ahead editing anyway : [189]

    More explanations in talk page: [190]

    --Ransouk (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ransouk spends his time making ANI rather than talking to me, so I have nothing to add to what I've already said in the others (none of which have been successful. It might be time to stop this anti-Wikipedia behavior no?) Aigurland (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Aigurland, this is excessively snarky and uncalled for. As you know from editing this page an editor has an obligation to notify you if a discussion is opened about you here. Don't be snarky and snap at other users for doing something the rules tell them they have to do. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David C. S.

    David C. S. has engaged in a slow paced edit warring for months now in articles related to Bolivian elections (specifically 2009 Bolivian general election, 2014 Bolivian general election and 2019 Bolivian general election) and about Venezuela (Venezuelan presidential crisis and Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis). This takes place after he was blocked for six months from editing in the 2019 Bolivian election and Venezuelan presidential crisis articles for edit warring (es:Usuario discusión:David C. S.#Bloqueo parcial), as well as completely in Wikimedia Commons for a month for the same reason (commons:User talk:David C. S./Archive 5#AN/U), insisting in a preferred version of a map despite opposition and being explained of the reasons in talk pages, while refusing to engage in discussion.

    In the case of the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the user started editing by blanking he has created an own version of a map in Commons (fittingly titled "uncensored"), insisting in adding it to the English Wikipedia ([191][192][193][194][195]). The user has already had his edits challenged in versions such as am.wiki, is.wiki, it.wiki and zw.wiki, to name some, but has continued with the edits in most cases ([196][197][198][199][200][201]), including in the English Wikipedia. In the Bolivian election articles, the editor has repeatedly replaced an image of candidate Evo Morales in the infobox for a preferred version, being reverted several times ([202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211]).

    David's point of view regarding the project arguably can be best summarized in his block's appeal in the Spanish Wikipedia, describing complaints against him as "lawfare" [a] and his main goal in editing as "fighting censorship",[b][c] something that is also reflected in edit summaries and is probably a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. Likewise, he describes discussions as "a useless resource to endlessly dilate issues";[d] indeed, in the English Wikipedia David has never used articles talk pages (besides moves) or engaged in discussions. The editor has also been warned several times against disruptive editing and edit warring in his talk page[212][213][214][215], to no response. As a response to one of the last messages left by P Cesar Maldonado, David opened a complaint against the user in this noticeboard, accusing him of "defamatory accusations and personal attacks" and without notifying him, which can be read above (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User-reported).

    I don't know which administrative measure is more appropriate in this situation, if any, but at the very least I think it's important to notify about these developments after the complaint left by David against Maldonado. Regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes

    1. ^ "No obstante, es injusto cuando se hostiga a un usuario por pensar diferente, se lo denuncia una y otra vez, esto es una enciclopedia, no un tribunal, pero se está haciendo recurrente una estrategia al estilo lawfare"
    2. ^ "Espero que este largo proceso valga la pena y que esto sirva para ayudar a evitar la censura, el sesgo y el amedrentamiento en la Wikipedia en español y su comunidad."
    3. ^ "todo esto, con el objetivo de romper el sesgo y la censura"
    4. ^ "la discusión es un recurso inútil, ya que se dilatan los temas de forma interminable"
    • I just closed the report that NoonIcarus filed at WP:AN3. I see no reason to have this reviewed at two different noticeboards. At the same time, without looking at the details, I'd like to note that NoonIcarus has been pblocked (two pages) at es.wiki until March 28, 2023, while David C. S. has also been pblocked (three pages) at es.wiki until March 28, 2023, both users for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it has been brought up, I'll link the original thread in the Spanish Wikipedia that resulted in the blocks, to anyone that might be interested in consulting it (es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/3RR/2022/09#David C. S.), as well as provide more context: at the time the complaint was filed David had violated the three-revert rule twice under a 24 hours period; the first time, the admin decided not to block him, warning him instead. Without administrative action, I restored the stable version of one of the articles over the course of the year. Due to the backlog in the Spanish Wikipedia, the thread was closed after over three months when it was opened, and the closing admin opted for a long-term measure over a short-term one, giving page blocks in the involved articles. My appeal here can also be read here: es:Usuario discusión:NoonIcarus#Solicitud de desbloqueo. I'll also remind that this disputes have not only been with me, but also with other editors, both in the English Wikipedia as well as in other projects.
    By seeking administrative mediation here, I wish to prevent further escalation of the dispute. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vital articles and Cewbot

    Some scientists claim that hydro­gen, because it is so plen­ti­ful, is the basic building block of the uni­verse. I dispute that. I say there are more edits tinkering with whitespace and categories and vital article des­ig­na­tions than hydro­gen, and that is the basic build­ing block of the uni­verse.
    –Frank Zappa (via EEng)

    Can an admin please temporarily block User:Cewbot? Something weird happened to the WP:Vital articles list, and Cewbot has been sent into a tizzy. CMD (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot has been blocked. A mass rollback may be needed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone could figure out why Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People shows numbers while Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History shows 0s then ideally Cewbot will be able to rollback itself. CMD (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears for whatever reason the bot decided to change it to 0. @Kanashimi: Pinging here as well even tho you were already notified via your talk page about this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis and Kanashimi: I dug through Cewbot's diffs to see where this started. It may not be 100% correct since I told it to exclude the talk mainspace, however it appears that all of this started with this diff. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit prior to this (this edit by CactiStaccingCrane which made the page use TrebuchetMS) might be why Cewbot freaked out as it appears to be the common edit made prior to the bot having a mental breakdown. Cacti is there a specific reason you were doing this? Cause I'm wondering if the bot saw that and freaked out since it wasn't in the format it was familiar with. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my fault, sorry. I just changed the font for stylistic purposes and I didn't know that it broke the bot. I tried to revert my changes but somehow the (0 article) is not reverted... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: You only reverted your own edits, not the edit by Cewbot changing the list to 0 articles. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh, I see. Guess it's time for another revert... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: If you wanted the pageto display in a different font then why did you change it on the page itself and not your CSS? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, how can I make a separate CSS page? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It should just be your common.css ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed your edits to the vital articles pages. Can someone unblock the bot for a minute or so and see if it fixes itself? – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinningspark: See above. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked, let me know if a reblock is needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    it restarted right away. don't know what it's actually supposed to do. is this ok now, or should i reblock? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: It's still malfunctioning, changing lv4 VAs to lv5. Please reblock for now pending response from Kanashimi. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I checked its contribs and it immediately changed Talk:Trombone from Level 4 (which it should be) to Level 5. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reblocked. I assume I don't need to rollback the edits, because once it's fixed it will go back to the correct number itself. If that's wrong and i should rollback anything, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are literally thousands of edits to revert... sitting there clicking rollback thousands of times is probably not a feasible solution. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that will take a lot of time to revert the bot's edits. Sarrail (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @K6ka: The WP:MASSROLLBACK script can revert hundreds of edits from Contribs in just a few clicks. Should it be used here? – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just downloaded it, but right now, I am uncertain if this should be used. Sarrail (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OOH, shiny new toy for me to play with!! I totally won't do something silly and end up in the hall of shame! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't revert all of the bot's edits, really. Sarrail (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarrail: The script only reverts the edits currently displayed on the user's Special:Contribs, so it won't revert more than 50 by default, but the number of contributions displayed can be changed. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, time to test this thing out. Sarrail (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that rollbacks are rate-limited to 100 edits per minute. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance, the mass rollback looks uneasy... Sarrail (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start with only the bot's most recent 250 edits, which are all bad. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say all of the bot's edits to talk pages after the first diff by the bot that caused this mess are all bad. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dudhhr, K6ka, you beat me! Sarrail (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My poor watchlist has been flooded. Curse you bot! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    proceeds to accidentally revert every single one of my edits ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nooooooo... Sarrail (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... @SpinningSpark: Why did you unblock it? The fix didn't work. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SpinningSpark didn't unblock, I did. You can't tell whether a fix worked or not until you try it. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No he's right, I undid your reblock. I took too long reading the request to unblock for test and didn't see your posts. SpinningSpark 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Spinning Spark and I stumbled over each other's toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AAAAAAAArrrrgh my watchlist has gone mad. -Roxy the dog 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll find more. The rampage isn't over, sadly. Sarrail (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Makes cup of tea) - Roxy the dog 17:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the bot's "Malfunctioning errors" have been reverted. It's the aftermath of a disaster. Sarrail (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) All bot edits have been reverted. The first edit to revert was Special:Diff/1121242625. That's nearly 6,000 edits we had to revert. And I managed to cross the 100,000th edit mark today! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Tea. The answer to every problem) - Roxy the dog 17:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (I second this.) Lalaithan (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, Finally. Now we can take a break. Congratulations, K6ka. I've only added 10... Sarrail (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there a bot somewhere with rollback that does this to avoid flooding watchlists? DatGuyTalkContribs 19:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I"m aware of. The only bot i know of with rollback capability would be ClueBot NG ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was the font change, that leaves one thing unanswered. Why did it analyze Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People correctly? They also had the font change, but they were not affected by the error. And for reverting the changes, the bot should go back and re-sort them automatically once the error is fixed and it recognizes that the articles are in the lists. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry for the distress. I have stopped the bot and am starting to investigate what happened. Kanashimi (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is because the whole list is wrapped up with <div>. I'm working on fixing this. Kanashimi (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Solved. Now the bot should be able to handle wrapping all the lists with <div>.
    Also I added an edit limit to prevent similar mass editing. Kanashimi (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the issue is solved, would an admin unblock Cewbot? Sarrail (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Kanashimi, would you like us to unblock the bot now? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I will do a test edit after unblocking. After that, the robot will run according to the original schedule. Kanashimi (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Kanashimi: I've unblocked Cewbot. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm testing it now. Kanashimi (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say this whole incident would be worthy of inclusion at WP:STOCKS. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one here has any objections to it I'll go ahead and add this incident to the village stocks. (as long as CactiStaccingCrane is ok with it) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done It seems to be working properly now. Kanashimi (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kanashimi, CactiStaccingCrane, and Blaze Wolf: we have a template {{Bot use warning}} that can be added to all these pages to warn editors to be careful about making changes. The mass rollback is already done now, but for future, there is revertbot.py that could have been used by Cewbot to self revert without flooding watchlists. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, in the case of this task, the robot will correct all the wrong edits in the next execution. --Kanashimi (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Minahatithan and bias in article Slavery in Afghanistan

    Hello. Please excuse me if I go about this process incorrectly. There is one user who appear to have bias in regard to a specific article, and I think there might be a reason to block them from editing this article. Is this possible? Please let me explain.
    1) It concerns the article Slavery in Afghanistan. The article contains the information that some of the Hazara people were enslaved during the Hazara uprising in the 1890s. When slavery was abolished in the 1920s, many of the slaves excisting at the time were of Hazara origin. This is referenced.
    2) User:Minahatithan have now criticised the article for a long time. The discussion can be viewed at the talke page Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan. User:Minahatithan have stated that he is himself an Hazara, and that he considers it "shameful" and "dishonorable" that some of the Hazara were enslaved, and that this is bad for the reputation for an "honorable people of Afghanistan". He has questioned that information about this is mentioned in the article.
    3) He has accused me of having bias against the Hazara for mentioning this information about Hazara slavery in the article. He accused me of claiming that all of the Hazara in Afghanistan were slaves, despite the article never aving claimed this. He also engaged in an edit war about the issue. His comments in this issue is to be found both in the article talk page, as well as in the comment summaries.
    4) I have explained that things such as honor, dishonor, shame and the honor of an ethnic group has no place when discussing what should or should not be in an article. I have also noted that it is rude to claim that people have an ethnic bias agenda.
    5) All of this has already been raported once to this Noticeboard. That dispute was closed only about a week or so ago. User:Minahatithan would not participate fully in the discussion because of his habit to leave wikipedia for weeks at the time, and then return to the very same article to engage in a dispute about the Hazara content again. The moderator closed the discussion because User:Minahatithan would not fully participate, and because he accused me of having a persona agenda against him and the Hazara people. The moderator advised User:Minahatithan not to edit the article Slavery in Afghanistan.
    6) User:Minahatithan is now again engaged in an edit war in the article Slavery in Afghanistan in regard to the Hazara slavery. He has expressed that he is willing to discuss on the talk page of the article. However, I freely admit I am not willing to. I do not have the impression that a discussion with User:Minahatithan about this article can lead to anything constructive. Because of the bias they appear to have, I find myself incapable of taking their critic seriously. The attempts so far the previous weeks have been time consuming and exhausting. I admit that I am not sure I would be able to conduct such a discussion myself in a correct manner, because of the history and behaviour of User:Minahatithan.
    6) User:RPI2026F1 would, I think, be able to attest this development, but I respect if they to not wish to contribute to the discussion. I am myself deeply tired of this issue.
    7) This is not about a particular issue in the article content anymore. This is about the fact that User:Minahatithan appear biased in the content of this article and therefore does not appear to be a suitable editor of this article. They have already been temporarily blocked once before from editing this article; a discussion on the noticeboard have been closed with the advise to them not to edit the article, and they have themselwes clearly explained that they have, what I would intepret as, bias on the talk page of the article. Can they be blocked from editing this particular article?
    Please excuse me if I am doing something wrong in making this request, or if I am going about it incorrectly in some way. But I am simply deeply tired of having to deal with this issue week after week, and I do not consider myself capable to try anymore. I am requesting that this user be blocked from editing this particular article because of the bias they appear to express on the talk page of the article. Is this possible? I thought I should at least ask. If it is not possible, then I appologize. I ask you to please look at the discussion page (the first discussion) of the article. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aciram: You have failed to notify Minahatithan (talk · contribs) of this report, as both the red box on top of this page and while editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Minahatithan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Slavery in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    This is a recurrence of a dispute that I tried to mediate at DRN at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_223#Slavery_in_Afghanistan, between 24 October and 2 November. Users User: RPI2026F1 and User:Aciram filed the mediation request, and disagreed with User:Minihatithan (the subject user), who removed content from the article, stating that it was incorrect or unsourced. The effort at moderated discussion (mediation) was a failure, because Minihatithan:
    • Edits intermittently, taking breaks of up to a week.
    • Does not discuss their edits in a meaningful way either at Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan or at DRN. Their comments are too cryptic to be useful.
    • Did not respond to my question of what was a schedule so that they could discuss their edits (either on the talk page or at DRN).
    I closed the mediation with a recommendation to Minihatithan that they either find time to discuss their edits, or expect that their edits will be reverted. I advised RPI2026F1 and Aciram that they should edit normally, but be sure that the article content is supported by the sources, which is always required in Wikipedia. I told them to avoid edit-warring.
    I don't think that this is a conduct dispute. This is a content dispute, but it is a content dispute where discussion has failed, not because one editor is disruptive, but because one editor is intermittent.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Aciram's report is too long, but the basic issue is as I summarized above. I didn't tell User:Minihatithan not to edit Slavery in Afghanistan. I told them to expect their edits would be reverted if they didn't discuss them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, TheDragonFire300, I awknowledge that and appologize. I rarely report anything to Wikipedia and mostly only write articles. I have said my piece and I hope someone can view the discussion page of this article and perhaps the previous discussion here on the Noticeboard on this issue and judge whether it would be best if this user can be blocked from editing the article because of edit warring and bias, otherwise I fear this will just continue forever, and I am no longer capable of managing the matter. I have already, I have no doubt, not always been the most constructive, because I am simply tired of this and I do not have the confidence necessary in this users ability to discuss this. I am sorry to admit it, but I am afraid this is the case.
    To me, this is not a content dispute. Of course, User:Minihatithan dispute content, but this is not the main issue in my view. It is a problem that he cannot conduct a discussion without being rude and emotional and, of course, absent for long periods of time. He has stated that he views the enslavement of Hazara as a damage to the reputation of the Hazara. Certain content he questioned earlier now has so many references that he can no longer remove them, but now he has started to demand that everything is spelled out exactly in the sources or else he will remove it. His criticism appear to be motivated by bias, and thus I cannot take his criticism seriously. It just appears that he would like as much as possible removed for any excuse possible. This is a problem.
    Attempts at discussion has proven fruitless. I cannot do so anymore. This state of affairs simply cannot continue for weeks and weeks and months and months until other editors lets him do as he wishes simply because they no longer have energy left to deal with it. I am very sorry to express myself like this, but this is very tiring.
    If you read the talk page of the article, then it will perhaps be more clear that this is more about conduct than content. --Aciram (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Cullen328 has partially blocked User:Minahatithan from editing Slavery in Afghanistan, indefinitely. I agree that this action is for the good of the encyclopedia, although I wasn't sure that their editing was considered to warrant a partial block. Partial blocks are sometimes very useful to maintain quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is free to propose and gain consensus for well-referenced, neutral changes at Talk: Slavery in Afghanistan. It seems to me that this editor has repeatedly violated WP:NPOV. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that my request has been granted. I was sorry to ask for this, but I do think it was the best solution. It became clear from their own statements that they had bias to the subject, and without this action, this affair may never have ended, so I agree it was for the best of the article. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: I don't know about User:Aciram why this issue is heavy for them that they can't find a solution for it. They are not willing to discuss and do not want me to edit the article. From the first discussion with me, they have accused me and use harsh and sometimes insulting words. Check the discussion page. I want to correct some false and unsourced contents, but instead of discussing the issue, they use insulting words. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: I said several times that the article should be edited because it has no source, in my opinion this is the best answer. User:Aciram Instead of discussing the issue, they call me rude, racist and biased. The use of these types of words should be taken seriously and be a warning to block them. Minahatithan (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow-Up Question by Mediator

    I have a follow-up question. If I encounter a similar situation at DRN in the future, should I do anything differently? I became aware, from the history and from the statements by the filing editor, that this was an editor who takes long breaks, and then edits and does not discuss, and does not respond usefully to requests to discuss. Should I do anything differently, such as telling the filing editors that they can go to WP:ANI? I didn't say that, because I wasn't sure that the editor's conduct was disruptive, although I knew it was problematic. Should I adjust and expand my concept of what sort of editing is disruptive? I would appreciate advice on how to handle such a case differently in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Angryskies refusal to communicate

    Per the OPs comments, this is closed without action. Zoumestein hs stated they will discuss the issues raised with Angryskies. Hopefully, this resolves it, but if not, then a new thread can be opened here or at WP:ANEW. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Angryskies is running around changing country infobox fields from England to England, UK. The editor knows this is controversial with multiple editors reverting, yet any attempts to discuss are ignored, just deleted without response and his reverted post reinstated. I have asked editor multiple times, both on their talkpage and in the comments to engage, but no success. Editor was previously blocked in August 2021 for the same thing after edit warring with Velociraptor888 and again deleting attempts to communicate without response.

    Not technically a breach of WP:3RR so haven't taken to that noticeboard, but by way of example has reverted five times in a bit over month on the Ernst & Young article. Zoumestein (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoumestein, I do see some slow edit warring, and I thought I'd probably block the user after reading your description above: "any attempts to discuss are ignored, just deleted without response". But looking at the history of User talk:Angryskies, I became very hesitant. Edit warring templates are not "attempts to discuss". Neither you nor anybody else has in fact reached out and talked in humanspeak on Angryskies' talkpage after Bbb23's block in August 2021. (Before that block, it happened just once, and that time Angryskies did respond.) Have you done it elsewhere? Diffs for where you attempt to discuss, please. Preferably of actual discussion posts on article talkpages, but I'll take edit summaries in a pinch. Bishonen | tålk 22:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks Bishonen. I will try that. In the meantime am happy for this to be closed with no further action. Zoumestein (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk:Turning Red

    Talk:Turning Red placed under ECP by Drmies. Whilst not ideal, the disruption by the autoconfirmed sleeper farm left little choice but ECP for this page. Users may still make edit requests via WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Please look at the edit history of this page. It looks like someone created a farm of sleepers, that they got auto confirmed, to vandalize this page and bypass the protect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    122.58.105.122

    They have been warned but they keep doing vandalism. 178.120.71.230 (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Although cases of clear vandalism are best kept to WP:AIV, it's true, 122.58.105.122's edits are disruptive. ~GoatLordServant(Talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks 178.120.71.230. I blocked 122.58.105.122 for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Transphobia from InverseZebra in Talk:LGB Alliance

    It's definitely not as high-profile as the last time I reported a transphobe here, but InverseZebra has been using vocabulary such as [a] male claiming to be trans, saying TERF is a slur, and other transphobic stuff on Talk:LGB Alliance. As a trans woman, I think such phrases are unacceptable, especially in the case of a touchy subject like the LGB Alliance. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Less than 100 edits over two years and every single one being on a talk page (or their user talk page) arguing essentially the same things as pointed out by LilianaUwU, such as wanting to put dead names into trans peoples' articles despite that not meeting name notability requirements of MOS:GID (which was pointed out to them and they refused to understand it). They basically disappear for a month or more at a time and then jump back in to pushing anti-trans things on various article talk pages. Seems like a blatant WP:NOTHERE case of an editor not here to actually edit and build an encyclopedia. SilverserenC 02:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As you both correctly point out, their main shtick is to bore on offensively about trans people, and closely related topics, but they do have a very few other edits and looking at those is also instructive:
    • They have edited Talk:Race and intelligence to advocate for using Quillette as a source for something or other related to a racial theory of "Ashkenazi intelligence".
    • They have also edited Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, seeming to advocate for the "lab leak" conspiracy theory for the origin of the pandemic.
    • They have written what is essentially an essay or manifesto on their talk page in which they ascribe all the well justified warnings that they have received to "political interference", "capture", "scolds" and "discussion killers".
    Taken together, we see a pattern of POV editing, on contentious issues, advocating for far-right talking points and refusing to engage with other editors in good faith. Having initially noted their unhelpful editing on trans issues, I expected to come here to suggest a topic ban from sexuality and gender related articles. Instead, looking at these other edits, particularly the "essay", has persuaded me that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE with quite a bit of WP:TRUTH and WP:RGW on the side. DanielRigal (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stuck to discussing sources in talk pages for hot-button articles I see in the news. Everything I've discussed I've first seen being discussed off-wiki. I suggest weak sources be replaced, or that edits be made to better reflect sources. You're looking at my lack of interference and trying to spin it as disruption when I've never engaged in an edit war, etc. NewImpartial was fishing for offense and that's all this brave group here is doing. Like Liliana's "other transphobic stuff" comment without naming a single transphobic thing in the first place.
    • ) Race_and_Intelligence was arguing that a Quillette article couldn't even be discussed as an indicator of Quillette's leanings. Not just not used in an article, but not even discussed on the talk page.
    • ) On COVID-19 I called out an editor for not being able to separate the sources from the people, and going into a multi-page rant about fake information without citing meaningful sources or explaining how he selected them - it was simply my cites vs your cites, but with an assumption of trolling for anyone who disagrees. Again, all on talk pages and all about sources.
    • ) In the LGBA case I'm arguing, again on the talk page, that all of the sources misrepresent LGBA's actual words before they criticize them, and as such are criticizing some straw man instead of the group's actual feelings which the article entirely sidesteps.
    I asked about some of their stated concerns, such as single-sex spaces, and was told that it was so transphobic it warranted not honestly reporting on it. How could their concerns be raised, even just to ask about, without this crew seeing it as transphobic?
    I don't believe that Wiki needs to lie to write a good article.
    > They basically disappear for a month or more at a time and then jump back in
    You're fishing, if I was here too much you'd complain about that, if I'm here too little you complain about that. If this account edited primarily math articles and made these same comments you'd use that to demonize me. If I have an account that hasn't edited a single article you use that against me.
    > what is essentially an essay or manifesto on their talk page
    A graveyard of fake warnings by people who can't handle having their sources called out. Each one is common in that it alleges some wiki crime has been committed by simply calling out weak sources and lack of editor consistency. All they have to do to not end up in the list is make a valid argument instead of trying to report me.
    > Having initially noted their unhelpful editing on trans issues,
    I intentionally don't edit. Stop misrepresenting. InverseZebra (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing Talk pages is still editing. It takes up people's time and effort to deal with your obtuse and disruptive contributions and none of us is getting paid for this. DanielRigal (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. NewImpartial didn't have to ask me questions that they didn't want answers to. I thought I'd explained myself clearly in the initial post. NI went out of their way to fish for explanations that they could try to make into transphobia. InverseZebra (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: I'm arguing, again on the talk page, that all of the sources misrepresent LGBA's actual words before they criticize them, and as such are criticizing some straw man instead of the group's actual feelings which the article entirely sidesteps - I believe an argument that all the independent WP:RS are wrong so we should base WP article text on editors' own interpretarion of WP:SELFPUB/mission statement material is a pretty clear demonstration that one is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia (as is charging in to WP:RGW in articles I've first seen being discussed off-wiki).
    Re: I asked about some of their stated concerns, such as single-sex spaces, and was told that it was so transphobic it warranted not honestly reporting on it - this is a typical example of this editor's "creative" WP:STRAWMAN construction of argument no editor has ever made, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors while playing for sympathy against arguments no editor has made, while misstating their own prior argumentation. This editor refuses to provide diffs or supporting sources - by explicit design - and seems to regard Wikipedia talk pages as a WP:FORUM to construct original arguments while demanding satisfaction from other editors. Rather clearly WP:NOTHERE while only checking in to argue about a few hot-button WP:ACDS topics towards which they have been canvassed off-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    > I believe an argument that all the independent WP:RS are wrong so we should base WP article text on editors' own interpretarion own WP:SELFPUB/mission statement material is a pretty clear demonstration that one is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia
    I never claimed we should write the article based on my feelings. I specifically showed sources to be inadequate or biased and said that they should be replaced with other, actually reliable, sources. Ones that don't slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words.
    > This editor refuses to provide diffs or supporting sources - by explicit design
    Quit pretending you can read my mind. I don't supply diffs because I'm talking about the source, not the article (yet). There's no sense suggesting a change if you're still stuck on the bad source.
    > which they have been canvassed off-wiki
    More nonsense. I originally saw these articles in news and referenced elsewhere so I came to check them out. Nobody called me here. But I'll note that you convened a panel of like-minded people using your alt-right transphobic labels. You're doing everything you accuse me of. InverseZebra (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: But I'll note that you convened a panel of like-minded people using your alt-right transphobic labels - this is a great example of why the WP:TPG requires editors to back up accusations with diffs. I haven't done anything remotely corresponding to this.
    You say of the authors of peer-reviewed academic work that they slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words, but all your comments on the source have actually demonstrated is that you are (voluntarily or involuntarily) misinterpreting the article in question and DONTLIKEIT. And all this in service of an attempt to remove an attributed statement about a group that is identified as anti-trans not only in these two academic articles but in the vast majority of independent RS in which it is discussed. You may not recognize your own POV crusade here, but I trust that other editors/admins can and will do so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    > You say of the authors of peer-reviewed academic work that they slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words
    That's absolute fact. The Monque link didn't engage with their words at all, only their purported goals, and it did so while specifically denigrating the LGBA by calling them TERFs. Hardly the marks of a reliable source. (Monque would be a good self-evident source to point to in saying "LGBA has received much nearly incoherent criticism" but not for the actual criticism itself.)
    > but all your comments on the source have actually demonstrated is that you are (voluntarily or involuntarily) misinterpreting the article in question and DONTLIKEIT
    I'm not misinterpreting the article, I'm saying it's too obvious biased on the surface (TERF TERF TERF...) to be worth engaging with at any deeper level. And yeah, I don't like that, but I don't think anyone should.
    > service of an attempt to remove an attributed statement about a group that is identified as anti-trans not only in these two academic articles but in the vast majority of independent RS in which it is discussed.
    No, to remove a bad source that makes meaningless or biased claims, and replace it with someone willing to dig into the substance. If LGBA's female and homosexual-first platform is transphobic then find someone who explains why, not who simply screams the entire time. As for multiple sources agreeing, that's why I called out multiple sources. They've become a circularly reinforcing echo chamber, not serious academia or reporting.
    Your sources are so biased in this context, that they're laughable. It'd be like quoting only Trump in an article about Hillary. Sure, the source is verifiable, but it's meaningless. InverseZebra (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to hold the mistaken opinion that, when you disagree with a sourced statement in a wikipedia arricle, that you can demand that the source include evidence for what it says that will WP:SATISFY your own "unique" requirements, or that otherwise other editors must provide a better source. This is not the way anything works. The LGB Alliance article offers carefully attributed statements about its "anti-trans" activity along with extensively documented RS descriptions of that activity. Your objections to this because "all the RS are biased against the LGB Alliance" aren't really relevant, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    > You seem to hold the mistaken opinion that, when you disagree [...] that you can demand that
    I have demanded nothing. I didn't edit contentious text. I clearly stated my opinion that the sources were weak and didn't support that they were being used to support, but I made no demands. Only suggestions - find a less biased-seeming source that you feel says the same thing. You asked about my suggestions and why, but nobody forced you too. The posts you're complaining about are direct responses to your questions.
    > "all the RS are biased against the LGB Alliance"
    I didn't say that because I haven't reviewed them all. But I did point out two sources that were useless for criticism because of their bias. In this case those over-the-top sources mean that the entire article appears biased.
    Wiki expects, and relies upon, editors discussing the quality of sources. Your links even directly say so.
    WP:RS_CONTEXT "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article"
    WP:RS_BIAS "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." InverseZebra (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that trying to get better sources is NOT THERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA to you. As for verifiability over truth, a biased source can be used to verify anything. I'm not here to right wrongs, I'm here to suggest better sources. Ones that aren't so clearly biased that they make a mockery of the article. I'm suggesting that we have criticism that reflects the words and views of our subjects.
    TERF may not be a slur, but that source was throwing it around as if it was and that's what made it worthless in that context. InverseZebra (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What better sources are you claiming to have produced, or even suggested? You have shouted loudly that a peer-reviewed academic source is not appropriate for an attributed statement in our article, and what have you proposed to be less biased? Your own tendentious readings of sources, mostly self-published ones. This is absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    > What better sources are you claiming to have produced, or even suggested?
    More misrepresentation. I haven't suggested any sources because we haven't established the problems with the current ones yet.
    > You have shouted loudly that a peer-reviewed academic source is not appropriate for an attributed statement in our article
    And you've honestly fought back, saying that a clearly biased source is still reliable.
    > what have you proposed to be less biased?
    My only concrete suggestion so far is to make sure that we only use criticism that at least quotes the subject, and ideally refrains from simply insulting them.
    > ... Your own tendentious readings of sources, mostly self-published ones. This is absurd.
    It's not a tendentious reading to notice that the first word is terf and they make no effort to include, let alone engage with, anything that the LGBA has actually said - only their interpretations of those words. InverseZebra (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting this comment from DMacks a year ago: Your recent edit at Talk:Rachel Levine could be seen as disruptive enough to result in a block per this discretionary-sanctions standard. I suggest you find some other topic-area. (For those unfamiliar, Levine is a trans woman, and our article on her is something of an obsession in some online circles.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How else can I explain the concept of a non-trans identifying male, just some guy, who makes a claim to be trans, without saying something like "male who identifies"? This is one of LGBA's issues which is why I raised it, asking if another editor could make a distinction between pro-female and anti-trans policies.
    As for TERF, it is used as a slur in the source, which is one of the reasons I'm calling the source out as being low quality - they feel the need to denigrate LGBA before even examining their words, yet they're being treated as a "reliable" source.
    There's nothing in that discussion that is transphobic, and I challenge you to try to find even one real example. InverseZebra (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct way to refer to a man who is not trans, when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans, is to say "cisgender man". I am pretty sure that you know this already. DanielRigal (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this correct? Who says so? Genuine question. - Roxy the dog 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of question is this? Was Google abolished? The definition of "cisgender", from Oxford: "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex." — VersaceSpace (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    > whose sense of personal identity and gender
    Many people say they do not have this. If someone identifies as cis-gender then sure, use the term. But if they do not you're likely going to be "misgendering" them, if such a thing matters to you.
    Also, again, I was trying to draw the largest distinction between a trans woman and a man claiming to be trans. I specifically tried to explain a female sex-based issue without using any gender terms. Again, damned if I do and damned if I don't. InverseZebra (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the first time I encountered the proposal that many people say they do not have a gender identity was from an editor who was subsequently indeffed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re a male claiming to be trans: if you object to this, you are saying that no-one ever lies. The comment was A male claiming to be trans won't be stopped when following girls into the bathroom, or have the police called on him for loitering in the shower, so of course any male aggressor - and there are enough to warrant the creation of single-sex spaces - is going to use this defense. This obviously refers to perverts who are pretending to be trans in order to gain access to women’s toilets.
    And TERF is commonly considered a slur: see TERF Though it was created as a deliberately neutral descriptor, TERF is now typically considered derogatory.
    I propose a trout for the OP.
    Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see our other anti-trans editors that have been hanging around Wikipedia are popping in here now. SilverserenC 16:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You really need to read WP:CIVIL and stop gaming the processes here. People can just honestly disagree with you. InverseZebra (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller - does this look/smell familiar to you? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not necessarily correct because it implies that he's happy/congruent with his gender - a construct he may not even feel he has.
    Also, I said 'non-trans identified' because I wanted to keep that point as separate from trans as possible. The point was to discuss the millennia old female/male risk dichotomy and how it was being lost under the assumption that everything is a transphobic dogwhistle of modern identity politics. InverseZebra (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Rigal: The correct way to refer to a man who is not trans is "man", when it is necessary to make it clear that he is trans, you say "trans man", because it is not reasonable to expect the >99.9% of all people who are cisgender to change their ways of speak to accomodate the <0.1% who are not. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me if I am misinterpreting, but it sounds as though you are trying to articulate - and enfoece on others - the WP:FRINGE view that trans men are not "men" and should not be referred to or treated as such. Please let me know if I have misinderstood. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that you are totally misinterpreting what I wrote, and not for the first time... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why do you say, he correct way to refer to a man who is not trans is "man" as though the two were synonyms, and trans men were not also "men"? Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You really and truly are misinterpreting everything: my comment was a direct reply to what DanielRigal wrote above, nothing else, i.e. you can not expect people in general to start referring to the >99.9% of all men who were born male as "cisgender", so if there's a need to point out that someone is trans, and not cisgender, you'll have to say "trans man". And everything beyond that is your own (mis)interpretion of ~what I wrote. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But that wasn't the issue. The issue was to determine the correct way to refer to a man who is not trans, when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans. If you were saying that the way to make it clear that he is not trans is to refer to him as a "man", then I'm afraid I've been understanding you correctly along. The term "man" can include both trans and non-trans men - at least where I live - but you seem to be arguing that only the latter are strictly included. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious that I'm seeing things, and interpreting things, through the eyes of the >99.9%, and you're seeing things, and interpreting things, through the eyes of the <0.1%, which means that you're constantly seeing things and meanings that aren't there in what other people write. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thomas.W: That sounds very dangerously close to "You're wrong because you're trans." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon, no reasonable person could interpret it that way. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your demographic percentages are not correct for the context where I live and work, first of all.
    Also, and more importantly, you are refusing to answer Daniel's question by essentially saying that the speech community does not need a term for cis men because almost nobody is trans. This seems to me like a very silly non-answer to the question, though you are clearly very sincere in your position. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My percentages are a rough estimate for humankind as a whole. I interpreted what Daniel wrote as that in their opinion everyone should use "cisgender male/man" when referring to a non-trans male/man, which IMO is unreasonable, and also unneeded, because people in general, that is the vast masses, don't care if someone is cisgender or transgender, if someone looks, walks, talks and behaves like a man they assume it is a man, and treat that person like a man, and if someone looks, walks, talks and behaves like a woman they assume it is a woman, and treat that person like a woman. The only opposition to transgender people I have seen was people, both male and female, being opposed to biological males (with the term used to denote persons who were born male and have gone through male puberty, no matter what they identify as, so don't even try to misinterpret it...) competing against women in sports, since they have an unfair physical advantage, and people, almost exclusively females, being opposed to people who were born male and then transitioned to women claiming to speak for or otherwise represent all women. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of Daniel's when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans did you not understand, then? The whole of this comment seems quite irrelevant to the original question (and your the only opposition to transgender people I have seen comment seems absurdly sheltered, given the precarious of access to trans healthcare in much of the US and the UK, but I digress). Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't even asking a question. I was trying to point out that the correct terminology is already well defined and hence that the argumentation was unnecessary. Unfortunately, what I had hoped would be a helpful comment has led to even more off-topic argumentation. If I had foreseen that I would not have made the comment. DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cis and non-trans are subtly different, as are non-cis and trans. Someone you might label cis may never have heard of gender and may be best referred to as simply not-trans. And someone who does not feel that their AGAB is right for them may not identify as trans, though they would be non-cis. (NBs who don't call themselves trans, for example.)
    I was trying to use the broadest term because I'm discussing all males, those who have heard of gender and those who have not, and female worries about sexual assault. InverseZebra (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are including trans men's concerns as female worries about sexual assault while excluding trans women's concerns - a group that is much more likely to be sexually assaulted than non-trans women? How are things in your doublespeak Bizarro world? Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about females and males, and showing that the female need for single-sex spaces goes back as far as there have been males.
    > trans women's concerns - a group that is much more likely to be sexually assaulted than non-trans women?
    Even if that were true it wouldn't negate the non-trans female's worries about males.
    > How are things in your doublespeak Bizarro world?
    Just dropping this here as an example of your unwillingness to engage in good faith. InverseZebra (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No comment for the moment on InverseZebra's editing history which I am still looking at. However, they are correct on one point. "TERF" is a pejorative. Its use is, at the very least, rude and arguably insulting. It should be avoided in discussions or debates and should never be used in reference to another editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Zebra wasn't discussing the use of the term "TERF" by editors but rather was using its use in academic article to discredit the source.
      Also, the highest quality RS do not agree that "TERF" is a slur (please see the sources cited in TERF). Why should we take your opinion of this over the WP:RS? Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not say that TERF is a slur. I said it's a pejorative. There is a difference in degree. That said, the Oxford English Dictionary clearly states the term is considered derogatory. A quick online search shows the term is widely regarded as offensive. Some have likened it to hate speech. And on a purely anecdotal level, I have never seen the term used in anything other than a highly negative context, usually with the intent to belittle or insult. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would say that you're ignoring how the term is used as a self-descriptor of groups and individuals and has been for years, but also this discussion is irrelevant. Are you here to discuss the ANI post? SilverserenC 17:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      > you're ignoring how the term is used as a self-descriptor of groups and individuals and has been for years
      The N-word and other racial slurs have been reclaimed by some people but that doesn't mean they aren't or weren't used as slurs. If you read a source on American race politics and it unironically used race-based slurs for the groups you'd quickly determine that it wasn't a serious or reliable source. Ditto when we read an article about gender-based poliitics and it spend more time attacking its subject with slurs than examining their purported beliefs and actions.
      As for TERF being a slur, it fully became one when Twitter users and Antifa started using the term in calls for and threats of death and violence towards women. The proof is in the use, which is demonizing and threatening.
      > Are you here to discuss the ANI post?
      Discussing the misrepresentation that got us here is also on topic. InverseZebra (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for making comments that continue to showcase precisely why this ANI post was made in the first place. Ranting about Antifa now. SilverserenC 17:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      > "Ranting about Antifa now"
      No, showing proof that TERF is used as a slur, to call for violence against a group of political enemies.
      > Thank you for making comments that continue to showcase precisely why this ANI post was made in the first place
      NI asked for details they didn't want so they could scream transphobia to avoid examining the bias of "reliable" sources. How is that not what you're doing? InverseZebra (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine, AdOrientem. But how much weight do you expect other editors to give to your view that Its use is, at the very least, rude and arguably insulting when it comes to the evaluation of peer-reviewed academic sources? Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For that source it's absolutely damning. You can't scream pejoratives and be taken seriously, no matter what your academic pedigree. Reliable Sources were never meant to be guaranteed reliable in all contexts and the RS and Bias articles call out that editors need to raise and examine these issues. It's not a one-and-done election result as you seem to suggest.
      You claim that Monque is well supported by the other "reliable" sources. If so, replace it with one of them which uses less invective in trying to make its point. InverseZebra (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      But we use it as an academic source showing that some academic articles describe the LGB Alliance as anti-trans. Why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, is it not a reliable source for that statement? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what I said about the Quillette article, that it was reasonable proof of the attitudes of Quillette editors. If you used the Monque source only to show the prevalence of academic papers slurring of GC women then it would be relevant.
      > Why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, is it not a reliable source for that statement
      Because you're trying to use it to examine and explain LGBA's opinions and its bias prevents it from even mentioning LGBA's words. InverseZebra (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is only used to show that some academic papers describe the Alliance as "anti-trans". The rest is your lurid inagination. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not reliable sources, only ones that rant at slurs. They didn't identify anything the LGBA said or did, so their opinion on the topic is irrelevant.
      If showing academic disapproval is important, find one that actually makes it clear which words and actions it's criticizing. InverseZebra (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would say that I am discussing at least one aspect of the ANI given the issue with the term was raised by the OP in their opening statement.
    • A lot of terms have appeared in academic sources over the years that are no longer considered to be polite, i.e. negro, colored, homosexual, & etc. Social attitudes evolve. The article clearly states that the term was originally considered to be neutral in its nature but is now considered to be derogatory. Any source, academic or otherwise, that continues to use descriptive labels regarded as offensive by a significant number of people they are intended to describe, would raise serious questions in my mind regarding possible bias. I would hope that academics and institutions that care for their reputation, if not the feelings of other people, would exercise restraint when using terms now widely identified as objectionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t see why the use of that term in a recent peer-reviewed source would be a reason not to use that source to back up an attributed statement in article text that does not use the term. But hey - whatevs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So, for what it's worth, I voted for that line saying TERF is pejorative in its article and I think you're fairly clearly wrong on this point. "TERF" is pejorative for the same reason and to the same degree that "transphobe" is pejorative. But the title of this section accuses another editor of transphobia. I agree it's generally best to avoid terms like this but, especially at ANI, sometimes you have to refer to another editor's bad behavior and there's just no non-pejorative way to do that. Loki (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if TERF would be a fair descriptor of certain views, the label wasn't being applied to LGAB's words or actions. In this case it was simply being used to imply that the LGBA had bad thoughts. Much as my views were labelled as demonizing trans despite explicitly not talking about trans people.
      The source wasn't wrong because it used the word TERF, that was simply the red flag that made the rest of its failures and non-reliability apparent. InverseZebra (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You were not explicitly not talking about trans people. If you wanted to specify, you could have specified. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I had specified - "non trans-identified males". That's pretty clear. InverseZebra (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would disagree that TERF is a pejorative - it's descriptive of the views of that minority. Obviously, people in that group attempt to disguise their transphobia by using terms such as "gender critical" (which is a wider bloc of people), but if we blocked every "gender critical" editor here I can think of at least half a dozen regular editors that it would apply to. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      > the views of that minority
      One, you haven't shown it to be a minority, and two the source in question said "TERFs are not feminists" which is wrong - TERF stands for "radical feminist". They're using slurs and trying to widen them to apply to everyone they disagree with. InverseZebra (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you trying to claim that TERFs are not transphobic? Because it's literally in the "TE" part of the name. And if you believe that it's not only a vocal minority of people that fall into the TERF part of the Venn diagram, you are clearly delusional. Much as you would like it not to be the case, the vast majority of people are not bigots. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      > Are you trying to claim that TERFs are not transphobic?
      I'm claiming that the source in question did not attempt to show that LGBA's words were transphobic before throwing around the TERF slur. If you throw the label TERF at everyone then yes, at some point it loses all meaning, except as a way to to signal in-group rage. InverseZebra (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Excellent avoidance of the question. You should be a politician. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you really want an answer, or are you just doing what NI did - fish for something you can claim is transphobic and shout about it?
      I'm claiming the term TERF is applied to people without any concern for them being radfems or feminists at all, or even female, and without any examination of their words for trans exclusion. It's a slur and its used to avoid the truth, not examine it.
      > the vast majority of people are not bigots
      What would make them a bigot in your eyes, wanting single-sex spaces? InverseZebra (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      TERF has its place in academic discussion of the feminist movement. That's literally where it was born. People can shout anything as a slur. There was a US president who used the term "mainstream media" as a term of abuse. The article talk referred to descended into transphobic tropes about perverts in bathrooms. It doesn't appear that InverseZebra appreciates this is a problem. Though I do think some participants at that page should learn more when not to feed the trolls. -- Colin°Talk 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      > The article talk referred to descended into transphobic tropes about perverts in bathrooms
      How is the discussion of males sexually abusing females transphobic? It happened for thousands of years before anyone said the word 'trans', and it still happens.
      If you call all of women's sex-based concerns transphobic then you're just proving the point that nobody is engaging with LGBA's words before criticizing them. If you don't examine the line between pro-female and anti-trans policy concerns you can't make any useful claims about which side of the line people who make those arguments are on.
      > learn more when not to feed the trolls
      Certainly, if you're going to call me a troll then don't engage. I'm looking to talk to editors who want to improve articles, not for PoV pushers who support any source that supports their views. If you know you won't argue in good faith then please don't. InverseZebra (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything in this thread—picking arguments, splitting hairs, and otherwise sealioning—solidifies my view that InverseZebra is not a constructive presence in the GENSEX topic area. The only real question, I think, is whether they're able to be constructive elsewhere—i.e., whether it's better to topic-ban or to block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Bullshit. I called out a source as unreliable for throwing around slurs and epithets and backed that logic up at every step of the way. Picking arguments is and splitting hairs is simply being specific about an issue. Sealioning doesn't apply at all because NI is harassing me about my claim, not the other way around. They're asking for details and then pretending to be upset at the volume of replies.
      If anyone needs to be banned explain how it's not you, being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in. You're jumping on the bad-mouthing bandwagon specifically because you can't refute anything I say. InverseZebra (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: harassing (you) about your claim - do you have a diff for that? Objecting to your unsupported IDONTLIKEIT WP:OR objections to a peer-reviewed source is not generally understood as harassment, btw. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @InverseZebra Tread carefully. I realize this discussion involves hot button subjects, but AGF and CIVIL still apply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, they only apply to me in this case. NI and others have been impugning my motives since the beginning and when they don't get the answers they like they immediately start a show trial. Like me or not, my points about sources are reasonable and I have been attacked as transphobic because of them. InverseZebra (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have never attacked you as transphobic. More unsubstantiated chaff and nonsense. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You and TheTranarchist said raising female's sex-based concerns was transphobic.
      "demonizing trans people as rapists" were your words, and I wasn't talking about trans people at all. InverseZebra (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, where did I "attack" you as transphobic? What you just VAGUEWAVED to doesn't even resemble your prior accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You said I was demonizing trans people as racists when I didn't even mention trans people. That's pretty damn attacky, and is the core of your calling to have me blocked. InverseZebra (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I said that you were recycling transphobic tropes and demonizing trans people as "rapists", and anyone looking at Talk:LGB Alliance can verify this. However, I never called for you to be blocked; I merely noted that you were WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @InverseZebra: I don't know which I'm more offended by, the completely unsubstantiated accusation of brigading (I was handling the request below before I commented here, if you didn't notice), or the shocking insinuation that being trans somehow disqualifies me from commenting on your suitability to edit in the gender topic area. I have, literally, received death threats on Wikipedia that were more respectful of my trans-ness than that comment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. You joined the topic not because of my arguments on the talk page, but because of what was said about my arguments here, that's brigading. InverseZebra (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      TIL that you don't know what brigading is. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's going a little too far (if IZ hadn't already). I'm now also coming round to the view that a GENSEX topic ban is probably needed here. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My motives are open for examination, people are going through old threads of mine to prove over-interest in a topic, how is it not equivalent to me calling out Tamzin for the same? They aren't engaging with my comments on sources - they're simply doing that NI did - labelling all discussion in the area as unreasonable. InverseZebra (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, you're asserting without evidence that I did something (which I never did). Pure, disruptive WP:ASPERSIONS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn't say my point bordered on transphobia, you said I was demonizing trans people. Assuming my motives and using personal attacks. The WP rules you quote apply to you as much or more than anyone else in the thread. InverseZebra (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I said you were recycling transphobic tropes and were demonizing trans people as rapists - which any reader of Talk:LGB Alliance can see foe themselves. I did not speculate about your motives or offer personal attacks. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      InverseZebra is trying to make this about Tamzin and yourself as a way to deflect attention from the issue at hand, which is their behaviour. I suggest trying not to take the bait any more than you have to in order to defend yourself from any substantive allegations. DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything that Liliana and Tamzin have said here with regards to InverseZebra.
    In just the past week alone InverseZebra has described a peer reviewed journal article as clearly an opinion piece, not factual ([216]), then later described it as a source that goes into lala land ([217]), a sign of tendentious editing per WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. Despite these arguments failing to achieve traction in the room, InverzeZebra continued to press the point that we should discount the source because it was unreliable ([218], [219], [220], [221]), a sign of tendentious editing per WP:REHASH. They have tried to discourage an editor from being active in the topic stating You're getting way too involved in sensitive topics and should probably step back for a bit. after claiming the editor was lying ([222]), a sign of tendentious editing per accusing another of malice and disruptive editing per WP:DAPE. And that's just the editor civility issues.
    With regards to other problematic GENSEX contributions, they have called trans women not the traditional kind of woman. You know, who birthed you and me. You can see how they, females, being smaller and weaker and at risk of sexual attack would feel strongly about this. They might feel that feminism implies female-ism, for, by, and about females. ([223]). They have claimed the masked mob which assaulted the women protesting at the Wi Spa and later at the Port Townsend YMCA were largely antifa despite reliable reporting (detailed at Wi Spa controversy#July 3) stating that this assault was carried out by the anti-trans protestors and not antifa. Used a variation of the transphobic dogwhistle non-trans identifying male ([224], [225]) (see DAME Magazine and an article by Gemma Stone for definition and origins of the term TIF/TIM). They have claimed that an admin who was not involved in the underlying dispute was called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in ([226]) at ANI. And then claimed that same admin was using [their] trans status as a reason why [they] and [their] opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic ([227]).
    As there's now specific specific remedies below, I'll comment on those separately there, referring back to this reply as appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Direct personal attacks in this thread on the basis of transgender status

    I'm going to highlight these comments from above:

    • If anyone needs to be banned explain how it's not you, being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in. You're jumping on the bad-mouthing bandwagon specifically because you can't refute anything I say. InverseZebra (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    • You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. You joined the topic not because of my arguments on the talk page, but because of what was said about my arguments here, that's brigading. InverseZebra (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

    Admin hat off, everything hat off, just speaking as an editor who feels she is entitled to be addressed civilly in this collaborative project: This is not okay. A colleague is saying to me that because I am trans, I am not entitled to comment on their behavior. And when asked to justify that position, they say that it is because a) I was somehow canvassed here (using a definition of "brigading" that would apply to everyone in this thread but for some reason they've only seen fit to apply to me) and b) because I am trying to use my trans-ness to my advantage somehow. That is a lie. It is a fabrication. I have not said one word about myself as a person in this thread.

    These are personal attacks, motivated by my status as a trans person. We would not stand for them about an editor's Jewishness, or their blackness, or their being a woman. We should not stand for them about an editor's transness. I am requesting an indefinite block. We don't even need to get into WP:HATEDISRUPT territory here: These are just plain old personal attacks and lies, ones that show that this editor will never be able to work collaboratively with any trans person. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that it is time to gauge community consensus for a topic-ban from Gender & Sexuality for Mr. Zebra. Zaathras (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose to Tamzin's call for an indefinite block. We've been through this kind of situation before, with Tamzin calling for sanctions against someone whose opinions they disliked. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "[C]alled in to brigade", "you're obviously personally invested", and "You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic" are not opinions. They are an aspersion, a personal attack, and a bald-faced lie respectively, all with the intent of discrediting my opinions simply because I am trans. Don't forget the call to ban me for being trans. I'm sure you're as outraged about that? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced of your ability to identify disruptive Talk page advocacy directed against trans people, to be completely honest. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem I have with this and other similar cases is that everyone who is active on GENSEX pages seems to have an agenda, for or against this or that, but it's always the ones whose arguments go against the views of the current majority group (I write "current" majority group, because it could quickly change if enough people of an opposing view started to show up here...) who are sanctioned, or have sanctions against them called for, while people in the current majority group seem to get away with not even a slap on the wrist, no matter what they do or say. Wikipedia should stay neutral also when it comes to sanctions. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me people with a transphilic POV engaging in a similar level of personal attacks to IZ and Athaenara, or a similar level of POV FORUMposting to Wefa? That's a genuine question. If you can show me them, I'll readily !vote to sanction. Personally, the only time I've encountered someone with edits even sort of like that, I indeffed her. (June Parker, very aggressive and incivil pro–social justice edits in GENSEX and several other topic areas.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't have to rise to the level of Athaenara's comment at RFA (a case that I'm staying far away from...), but can you explain why you felt that IZ's quotes above were personal attacks at a level that merit an immediate indefinite block? I may be more thick-skinned than you, but I don't see them as meriting more than at most a stern warning, heck, I've been the subject of faaaar worse personal attacks than that here on en:WP without even blinking an eye. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever had someone say that your being part of a minority group disqualified you from commenting on your peers' conduct? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per everyone here. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support Claiming an administrator, at the administrator noticeboard, who has never edited the article or talk page that this dispute has spilled over from as being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in is a personal attack. To then say You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. is an egregious personal attack targeted against the characteristic of an editor. Add this to the accusations of lying against Newimpartial and the blatant attempt to discourage Newimpartial from contributing to the underlying article and its talk page (see my diffs above), this is very much a civility problem on-top of otherwise problematic contributions to a discretionary sanctions topic area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The main issue

    • In the end, InverseZebra has made 97 edits here, with a total of zero edits to mainspace. Therefore, they have made zero contribution to the encyclopedia, whilst their talkpage and Wikipedia edits have simply been arguing (and therefore, wasting the time of those who are required to answer and refute their arguments). What is indisputable, therefore, is that they are a net negative to Wikipedia, and I suggest an indef block is the only way forward here. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree 100%. I respect those proposing a topic ban for holding out an olive branch but I can't see any chance of that going well given that InverseZebra has also edited on other contentious topics in a non-constructive manner. If they are forced to drop this stick then they are very likely to just pick up another one and start annoying some other people. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. InverseZebra's behavior in this thread seems to spring from a type of heated defensiveness that would perhaps merit a short block but ultimately be forgivable for an editor who regularly contributes quality content. However, just editing talk pages on hot button topics without even intending to contribute disinterested content is almost always going to end up being disruptive. It's a type of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW, even if InverseZebra's doesn't realize that and is probably acting in good faith. Yes WP sometimes is biased, but this cannot be solved by 'fighting' or 'correcting' the bias, it can only be solved by attracting and keeping onboard knowledgeable disinterested editors who (re)write content from a non-ideological perspective. InverseZebra's interests are therefore the opposite of what we need around here. I support indef and would also recommend making a TBAN on gender a requirement for unblocking. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose Indefinite Topic Ban

    • I propose that InverseZebra be indefinitely TBanned from all GENSEX related pages and discussions broadly construed. Their history strongly suggests someone with a WP:AGENDA that makes it difficult for them to contribute constructively on pages related to this issue. I would permit them to appeal the TBan after one year with the understanding that they will be expected to demonstrate a record of constructive contributions to the project and a grasp of our policies and guidelines relating to controversial subjects. I Oppose a block as being unnecessary based on their history at the present time. Where sanctions are concerned, we typically start with the least restrictive action required to prevent further disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would add to my above, that some of IZ's commentary and behavior in this discussion has influenced me in favor of this. There is no rule that says sources can't be questioned and terms of reference challenged. But the tone and tenor of their commentary here coupled with the dearth of any activity outside of this subject area combines to make me think the community would be better served by their concentrating their efforts in some other area of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on the basis that a topic ban implies someone is at least potentially capable of editing constructively. IZ has shown that they are unable to collaborate with trans editors, who are a significant portion of our editorship, and do most of our work outside the GENSEX topic area. Also, @Ad Orientem, if you do want a topic ban, why not just impose it yourself? They're DS-aware. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am WP:INVOLVED in this discussion to a degree I don't believe I should be acting as an admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin comment. I'd just like to remind everybody that, in addition to the trans related stuff, IZ has edited supporting content advancing COVID conspiracy theories and racial theories of Jewish intelligence. (Diffs above, way above.) There are very good reasons to doubt that they can edit constructively on any topic. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support I explained above why I believe an indefinite block to be more appropriate. However, a TBAN on top may also be helpful, and would be a strict minimum in case there's no block. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have no doubt, based on their comments in this ANI thread and in their past talk page edits on non-GENSEX articles, that they will inevitably be back here at ANI anyways. However, since the user's primary disruptive focus is on GENSEX talk pages, I'm fine with this as the action taken for now. SilverserenC 19:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but prefer indefinite block It’s clear that this person, regardless of their personal views, is, by their actions, harming Wikipedia’s mission. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CLCStudent (for the 10,000th time)

    98.46.108.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Showed up shortly after 98.46.108.229 was blocked by Blablubbs. Given it is on the same /24 and the editing pattern is identical, I'm calling this a DUCK. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that whole /16 is him going back to the start of October, beginning in earnest on Oct. 25. Gave it 2 weeks for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still editing? I thought they were blocked. Does WP:3X apply to IP sockpuppetry? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 16:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not, although he's CUblocked, so it's not like an individual admin can unblock regardless. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bbb23: Please note that, in accordance with a discussion that resulted in TCG being sanctioned, editors encountering potential TCG socks are required to log their suspicions both here and at SPI. Therefore, I am leaving this comment here to alert ANI to that discussion. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: I have inquired with the sanctioning admin at SPI as to whether this was his intention. It does seem correct from a plain reading of the sanction, but also seems beyond the scope of what a sanction can impose, and thus I would tend to see it as unenforceable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1121532056"