Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
The matter below is beyond just a content dispute. It started with this edit on Kanye West followed by my explanation on talk [1]. This removal was supported by IP 73.239.149.166 and Throast
[2]1st revert by FormalDude. He cites Wikipedia:STATUSQUO for the revert but ignores its first exception, doesn't bother to add appropriate inline tags indicating the text is under discussion which is necessary, most importantly ignores Wikipedia:SQS.
[3] FormalDude follows it 2nd revert. Me and Throast explain to him why his reverts were wrong. He is flippant about the policy requisites and says there is no consensus despite there being three people in agreement (including IP)
[4] FormalDude adds a more bombastic, vague claim without attribution. Again, its me and Throast along with Ringerfan23 who are don't support this addition by FormalDude.
[5]3rd revert FormalDude reverts improvement by Throast saying "attribution not required for established RS"
[6]4th revert restores the addition with "One editor saying they don't quite agree is NOT a consensus. Please stop edit warring" which is false because 3 editors including me, Throast, and Ringerfan23 had indicated this shouldn't be added.
[7]I don't have the desire to argue semantics with someone like you. Extremely disrespectful comment. The "someone like you" is clearly intended to belittle Throast. Also shows extremely poor judgement btw. Shows he doesn't care about phrasing and semantics as long as his edits aren't reverted under any circumstances.
Curiously decides to vote on an AfD I started right after our initial back and forth. Collapses the discussion on his talk when confronted about it calling it "petulance"
[8] replies to me with Who died and put you in charge?
[9] Places a {{Uw-ew}} template asking me not edit-war (the page history of the article should be clear as to who is edit-warring).
Imo, FormalDude has displayed extremely belligerent behaviour by continuously reverting any improvements to Kanye West, doesn't have a grasp of relevant policies, disregards consensus, and lacks basic civility. — hako9 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagreed with FormalDude's initial WP:SQSinghere, which I communicated with him both in this edit summary and on his talk page (note that he only made an actual argument for inclusion after his second revert), I think that hako9's subsequent revert probably escalated tensions. That said, a civil consensus-building discussion was taking place at talk until FormalDude insulted at best my experience with the project and at worst my intelligence by implying that I did not know "basic summary style" here, at which point the discussion turned sour. FormalDude's subsequent unilateral decision to add a sentence to the lead during discussion, his multiple reverts to protect his version as written (1, 2), and him accusing me of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing do display a disruptive editing style and lack of civility that is worthy of some sort of sanction in my opinion, if only a formal reprimand by an admin. I'm actually surprised to see that no admin has stepped in to try to mediate the situation considering how prominent the contentious information is. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, I made a grand total of 2 reverts to FormalDude's edits, both reverts for different reasons and for different content, and more importantly with consensus. For the first revert, there were 3 editors (me, Throast, and IP 73.239.149.166 in agreement) and for the second revert there were again 3 editors in agreement (me, Throast and Ringerfan23). One would notice from the article's history that all of FormalDude's reversion to mine and Throast's edits were based on the false reasoning that there was no consensus. WP:OWNERSHIP and unilateral editing aside, his comments on his talk page and the article talk page, shows he looks at all this as a battleground. — hako9 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Premature report from content dispute - work this out on the talk page. Consensus and collaboration require everyone to let down their guard and de-escalate tensions, and usually also requires everyone to give a lil something up. Consensus via compromise. If you still find you can’t resolve things, the appropriate process would be an RFC or the WP:DRN. This is the wrong venue for resolving content disputes and I don’t see enough here to call it a clear case for admin action.(Non-administrator comment) — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gone for an RFC or DRN if this was a mere content dispute. FormalDude doesn't respect consensus and his over the top and disrespectful comments are a bit much for collaborative editing. — hako9 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are non-admins allowed to effectively close a discussion by writing in big bold letters that a report is premature? Seems odd to me. It may be your opinion that the report is premature, but it is a behavioral report at its core, so ANI is no doubt the proper venue. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 15:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Shibollethink did nothing of the sort, and that they are a non-admin is irrelevant. They are allowed to express their opinion as much as anyone else can. Lay off. --Jayron3215:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Formaldude is edit warring here. I disagree with Shibbolethink that this is merely a content dispute. The issue is being worked out on the talk page by other users, from my reading, Formaldude has been not participating in that work except to announce the changes they are making to the text. Announcing a change is not participating in a discussion and is not establishing consensus. We should wait for their response here, but if they continue to try to force their preferred edits into the article before there is consensus on the talk page, I intend to block. They need to stop doing that. --Jayron3215:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket reversions without explanation and uncivil snark seem to be a specialty of his. I acknowledge that edit summaries are not required by policy, but they are nevertheless vital to civil discourse and efficient consensus-building. I don't see any reason why you'd ever refuse someone that simple courtesy. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Hako9 and Throast's complaints about my behavior in the dispute, I did not believe I was edit warring because a brief discussion on the talk page did not seem like a clear consensus to me, and seemed to be in-line with our policy on letting the status quo stay in the article while it is disputed. I apologize for any disruption I may have inadvertently caused. Anyone who reads through the dispute at Kanye West will see that civility has not been overwhelming by anyone there. I won't be continuing my participation there in any form. ––FormalDude(talk)02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FormalDude's tendentious editing with multiple users, other disruptive behavior
I've been perturbed by FormalDude's behavior for some time now.
Tendentious editing examples:
I vote to overturn FormalDude's RfC closure at a close challenge on August 23 at 01:50 UCT. 18 minutes later, FormalDude seemingly went to my contributions page to find this vote I had left at an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies 2 weeks prior; I wasn't very active at the time, so this would've been immediately viewable at the top of my contribs page. FormalDude, of course, votes for the contrary of how I voted.
Aside from all this, FormalDude has been accused of WP:SUPERVOTING with regards to their closure at this Business Insider RfC, which is the RfC that began this chain of events for me back in August. FormalDude's closure was overturned, and it was later discovered they had voted in favor of Business Insider at a previous RfC. FormalDude has also repeatedly ([10] & [11]) called an IP "fuck-face", even after it was removed as a "personal attack". User also removed a potential suicide note from Talk:Suicide without even leaving the perfunctory "Wiki Cares" notice at the IP's talk page because the message was "borderline" suicidal, despite knowing that Talk:Suicide "is a page that attracts a lot of threats." [12]
There's also this, where FormalDude appears to have reported a user to AN for editing an article in line with RfC consensus. From my reading of that thread, FormalDude tagged the user with a DS notice prior to unilaterally adding a DS notice to the article talk page. When the other user edited to reinstate the RfC-approved version of the article, FormalDude then edit warred against the RfC consensus. FormalDude then brought the issue to AN hoping for a better outcome: a clear cut case of WP:SYSTEMGAMING.
Nothing here is incorrect or misconstrued in any way. All easily provable via the diffs. It was you who called an IP a fuck face. It was you who was accused of supervoting in one of your AfD closures. It was you who demonstrably made the decision to follow multiple users through their contributions page to other RfC/AfD noms. And, for the record, the only reason I'm still aware of your existence is you tendentiously following and harassing me at multiple pages for 4 freaking months. If there's no apology and a guarantee to never engage in this behavior again, you deserve a permanent ban. This is the last thing I will ever say to you directly. Because I'm done. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being argumentative, I think a one-way IBAN would help Homestasis get over their obsession with me.
Rather than address each falsehood Homeostatis07 has leveled against me here, which would result in an equally long wall of text, I will be happy to answer any questions/concerns that editors may have about any of their misleading accusations. ––FormalDude(talk)03:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose siteban - siteban is quite a serious remedy and I do not at all see that it is merited here. It looks like the user has already apologized for edit warring and has indicated they will no longer edit on that problem page. A partial block or a topic ban would be merited before a siteban in my view, if that. Andre🚐03:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They apologized for their behavior at the Kanye West talk page, but have in fact been snarky, dismissive, and have in no way addressed their behavior at a multitude of other pages over the past 6+ months. That being said, a site ban is probably excessive. A 30-day ban is probably a better solution to preventing a repeat of their disruptive behavior. And a two-way IBAN is looking pretty damn good at this stage. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 30-day blockWarning for personal attacks and uncivil behavior. A site ban would be overly harsh, but a month blockwarning will get their attention and should prevent future disruption. Calling someone a "fuck-face" is very inappropriate, and the type of snarky comments he's left recently at Talk:Kanye West is the definition of what can make a content dispute toxic and is disruptive to community collaboration. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk03:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Yes, I called an IP who had doxed me at an AfD and was spamming my talk page a "fuck-face" (nearly four months ago). It's hard for me to regret that. However I do regret and did apologize for the recent uncivil comment I made at Talk:Kanye West. That is not my standard behavior and I can promise it won't happen again. ––FormalDude(talk)04:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll certainly regress on the fuck-face comment and with the recent eye-opener by Loki I'll change my vote to a warning for uncivil behavior. Just please don't continue with that behavior. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk04:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Boomerang: I've been involved in some of these disputes and Homeostasis07 has a tendency to cast these same sorts of WP:ASPERSIONS wildly at anyone they disagree with. The interaction checker they link absolutely doesn't show what they think it does (when I look at it I see two users that barely interact at all; here's my own interaction timeline with FormalDude, which is substantially longer), and in many of the situations they themselves link they are as rude or much ruder than FormalDude (so for instance, the time linked above they accuse FormalDude out of nowhere of stalking them, FormalDude denies it, and they link a sarcastic meme in response). Loki (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So first of all, you demand I post a single diff of a thing that you then immediately post a diff of. Also, the thing you're doing right now in this discussion is called WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LokiTheLiar: posting a link to an Austin Powers meme is not "rude", and you've cast wild aspersions of my conduct. FormalDude: I did not falsely accuse "an admin" of running the CheckUser tools on me; instead, I requested confirmation that an admin who has recently been admonished by an ArbCom investigation of misusing the CheckUser tools against another user if they'd ever run the CheckUser tools on me, which is a perfectly acceptable question to ask in those circumstances. Especially since that admin has threatened me twice so far. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 05:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Boomerang Take a look at Homeostasis07's comments here last month - we see the same pattern of evidence-free accusations of misconduct on the part of other editors, and a weird obsession with FormalDude. Homeostasis07 should be warned, at minimum. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ignore Bob's bad behavior while rushing to be the first to tell Alice that her angry response to Bob's provocation is going to boomerang on her. Was there a provocation? Closer can decide. Not sure my opinion matters, but I also don't think boomerang for posting the innocuous dr evil meme is anything close to actionable. Homeostasis07 is a great asset to the project, atleast more than me. Their FAs and GAs are for everyone to see. They don't deserve to be treated this harshly for bringing their concerns here. — hako9 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason FormalDude's name was even mentioned in that discussion was because I was posting on mobile and couldn't post direct diffs at the time. Diffs were later linked to their talk page, the location of an incident several months prior. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of FAs or GAs one has makes no difference in the extent to which someone should be reprimanded for incivility. I don't care if homeostasis07 has 0 GAs or 1,000 of them. There's nothing actionable in FormalDude's alleged wrongdoing, but I find homeostasis07's behavior very much subpar. Just above we can see homeostasis07 insulting another editor by calling them "LokiTheLiar". I am also uninterested in you trying to quote stuff from WP essays to me. Just because you and homeostasis07 have some sort of grudge doesn't mean anything here is actionable besides warning you two to knock it off. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with that. I've struck the relevant sentence. This is a good example of why people's signatures should match their actual usernames, but that's a whole other topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! My fault! (I don't have my signature match my username exactly because I realized that "TheLiar" wasn't a great second half of a username.) Loki (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but FormalDude still shows no signs of editing collaboratively. They've been active these past 48 hours, so have clearly chosen to not explain or justify their tendentious editing when pinged above. In addition to this, they are currently engaged in a conflict at their talk page, in which they called another user "pathetic" [14], and instead of attempting to discuss and resolve the issue, told the user "do not message me about this again" [15] and "You are not welcome on my talk page." [16]. User clearly requires censure to resolve this incivility. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with your charecterization of the first diff, and the second and third are perfectly reasonable requests on one's own talk page. Happy Holidays. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only person that's pinged FormalDude since his last response here was you, a ping you delivered less than a week after saying you'd stop directly communicating with FD. This recent user talk page business is nothing: when a user resurrects a two-week-old user talk page thread just to complain about a month-old content dispute, the project can survive an editor describing that behavior as "pathetic". I join the chorus of voices suggesting you drop it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The distance between a user raising a concern on a talk page and them responding again is not justification to disregard the content of the original post. In any case, it's certainly disheartening to know that 4 months of tendentious editing, insults, incivility, complete lack of collaboration, ownership of articles and disruption is inactionable. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Homeostasis has clearly spent the better part of a year stalking my edits, scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything that they could possibly use to accuse me of misconduct. Nobody here has voiced any major concern with my behavior that Homeostasis is so perturbed by. I really do think a one-way interaction ban is necessary since they've shown no sign that they will stop leveling false misconduct allegations against me. ––FormalDude(talk)04:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've repeatedly stated in my edit summaries today, WP:BRD controls here. Quondum needs to gain consensus for this change. And if they wish to orphan a template as they're doing, the proper avenue is WP:TFD and then ultimately the article talk page to discuss changes to the layout. At a minimum I'd like more eyes on this and a return to the status quo so discussion can take place. But given the proximity of the closure of the RFC, I honestly think their behavior is highly disruptive and would be open to a topic ban from computing units to be broadly construed. We literally just got a result two weeks ago. Consensus can change, but editors should not be required to engage in non-stop debate to satisfy one editor. —Locke Cole • t • c00:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quondum's edit was a good one and there was IMO consensus for it at Binary prefix. Locke Cole is a persistently disruptive editor who made no attempt to justify the reverts of Quondum's edits. Whether the template is or is not used by other articles is not an issue for ANI. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're here. Dondervogel 2 (talk·contribs) (who previously edited as Thunderbird2 (talk·contribs)) has been on a long-term mission to force IEC units into our articles. To say they have been tendentious is an understatement. Over many years, after WT:MOSNUM determined (at WP:COMPUNITS) that IEC units would not be used in articles, they began systemically changing units in articles to their preferred units (gibibytes, tebibytes, etc). Their problem is that the balance of sources do not support their views. In Quondum they appear to have found a kindred spirit however, and it's not surprising whatsoever to see Dondervogel 2 here to defend them. who made no attempt to justify the reverts of Quondum's edits And as we can see, they have no trouble lying as well. In two of my reverts today, I directly linked WP:BRD to implore Quondum to discuss the changes they wanted. They refused (as evidenced by their repeated reverts). I would also be open to a topic ban for Dondervogel 2 as it relates to computing units. —Locke Cole • t • c00:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole, I can't see any evidence that you attempted to start a discussion at Talk:Binary prefix yourself. Am I missing something, or are you suggesting that people be topic-banned for not doing something that you have also failed to do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BRD: Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you., clearly I objected to the change, which is why I linked to WP:BRD in my edit summaries while reverting. The onus is on Quondum to gain consensus for the change and they need to explain why the change is necessary (especially in light of the recent RFC that was in progress when they made their initial change, and was closed just two weeks ago when they made the change again without any further attempt at discussion). —Locke Cole • t • c04:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of your edit summaries gave any indication as to why you reverted. What stopped you from attempting to start the discussion yourself, by explaining what the issue was? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained elsewhere, this editor was ping'd repeatedly to a discussion about this very template and they declined to participate. The onus is on the editor wishing to make the edit to gain consensus. I had nothing to discuss as I was perfectly fine with the status quo. Stop trying to shift the burden onto me when it very clearly isn't. —Locke Cole • t • c06:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy, if you had any idea how much time I've spent debating these two about IEC units, you'd apologize. Trust me when I say this, if I thought starting a talk page discussion would have worked this time I would have started one. WP:NOTSUICIDE. —Locke Cole • t • c06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to assume, if the debate has been going on for years, that there isn't a consensus on the issue. Which makes coming to ANI asking for people to be topic-banned for editing against consensus, while failing to engage in any discussion over the matter, seem rather presumptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing in that guideline looks to me to represent 'consensus' that a table showing 'Binary prefixes for multiples of bits (bit) or bytes (B)' should not be included in an article on Binary prefix. Why the heck shouldn't we include information directly relevant to the article topic in such a form? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're either deliberately not understanding me, or I'm just shitty at getting you to understand, but here is my final attempt: COMPUNITS is the current consensus, it describes when and where we use units like gibibyte/mebibyte/etc. that are, otherwise, discouraged from use. Quondum and Dondervogel 2 really really really want these units in use everywhere. Despite there being a long-standing template that has been in that article for I think over a decade, and a discussion on it's layout/naming recently concluding, Quondum elected to basically subst the template, remove the column they think doesn't belong (even though the units they removed are used the the lead of the article). It was reverted a short time later (a few weeks ago). Then they reverted again today, but in such a way as to not trigger the revert notification. This time I caught it on the same day, and an edit war ensued. Despite being ping'd to other similar discussions, they either ignore them, or the drop off, and they made no effort to gain consensus for their change.
I've already said below I'm fine with being rolled up in this TBAN. I'm that serious about thinking the project would be better with Dondervogel 2 and Quondum removed from this topic that I'm willing to take the L on this and walk away from the topic if it means it doesn't turn into a protracted edit war (which is where it's been the past few years). —Locke Cole • t • c07:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a discussion about units being used 'everywhere'. It is a discussion about edit-warring, with no attempt at proper discussion by any of the parties involved, over an article where the distinction between two differing types of units is central to the topic. If you had restored the original table (showing both types of units) and then attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, you would be in a good position to call for a topic ban, if the two contributors then refused to discuss, and reverted you. What stopped you doing that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons: 1) they've been ping'd to prior discussions on this very topic and ignored them, and 2) I believed the burden was on them to gain consensus for their change and that if they were serious they'd make the effort to discuss it and explain why their change was so important. —Locke Cole • t • c07:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that clearly needs to be noted here is the lack of tangible evidence that either Quondum and Dondervogel 2 have done anything sanctionable that Locke Cole hasn't also done. We seem to be being asked to topic ban people for taking part in an edit war that Locke Cole was also engaged in, and for nothing else beyond unverified claims about past undesirable behaviour - a part of which apparently involves not participating in yet another round of a long-running dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after a quick review I can confirm that there were a couple of inconclusive discussions on WP:ANI. If you don't want this to be a third, you will have to convince people that action needs to be taken. Which will need clear evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to topic-ban Quondum and Dondervogel 2
Per my statement above (and Quondum's failure to answer any of the allegations made), I propose indefinitely topic-banningQuondum (talk·contribs) and Dondervogel 2 (talk·contribs) from all topics relating to units of measure for computing, broadly construed.
Oppose, as there seems to be no obvious difference in behaviour between any of the parties involved (none of which seem to have use the talk page), and because 'failure to answer... allegations' isn't legitimate grounds for a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump: It's not at all concerning that they are trying to side-step the RFC which had a half dozen participants (and Quondum has participated on that same page, and was ping'd not once, but twice, by Dondervogel 2 to participate there) and ran from September through the end of last month? Clearly editing against consensus and not re-engaging in discussion when reverted aren't behaviors we should tolerate. —Locke Cole • t • c04:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, what is 'concerning' is the way you seem to be suggesting that an inconclusive RfC on 'column headers' for a template provides sufficient justification for calling for topic bans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this seems like a normal content dispute. Removing a template from an article is fine even if it orphans the template. WP:TFD#REASONS doesn't give removal from an article as a reason to propose a template for deletion, rather the other way around, it suggests that one might nominate for deletion templates that aren't being used and have no likelihood of being used. Jahaza (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: I think you're missing that we just had an RFC to settle the layout of the templates, one that Quondum was ping'd to repeatedly (and they ignored), and they chose to side-step those discussions and unilaterally remove the template from it's only mainspace use when that wasn't even an option under discussion at the RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c04:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't miss it. If you'd had an RFC on whether to include a template in the article, that would have been more important though. Also, the RFC closed as no consensus as to "what replacement header(s) should be (if any)."(talk) 04:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was significant discussion prior to that RFC as well that was open for really any type of proposal. I'm trying to grapple with how any editor could see other editors discussing layout and content so deliberately and at length and think "yes, they probably just want me to subst and change it to whatever I prefer instead". —Locke Cole • t • c04:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The "discussion" part of BRD does not mean "I wrote an edit summary." To quote from BRD, "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that a re-revert edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond without risking an edit war." Beyond which, news flash: BRD is explicitly optional, and remains an essay, no matter how widely quoted. Failure to be the first ones to open a talk page discussion is scarcely valid grounds for a tban. Ravenswing 05:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone else. As I've basically said many times, please don't come to ANI to complain about someone else not discussing if closer examination reveals you did the same thing. With very rare exceptions, anyone who comes to ANI about something which is at its core a content dispute and can't point to a talk page thread preferably a page rather than a user one, where they tried to discuss, automatically fails the basic test of ANI in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only if it also includes topic-banning Locke Cole, another long-term participant in this dispute. IEC units are a waste of time, but these disputes are even more of one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should just take the page off your watchlist and walk away from it, thereby saving everyone the trouble of litigating a dramafest. JBL (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, this can get resolved here and now so the disruption doesn't continue. I'm sad to see that you're fine with disruptive behavior being allowed to continue though. —Locke Cole • t • c19:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You, personally, have it in your power to end the disruption by walking away from the dispute. This method is easy and foolproof. JBL (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one editing against consensus... but yes, if I wanted to throw up my hands and walk away, this would stop it. But it rewards bad behavior, so I say again, you're fine with this? —Locke Cole • t • c02:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You notice how this thread is not full of people accepting your framing about what consensus is, whether other editors are editing against it, or whether either of the editors you're attacking are engaged in worse behavior than you? Because I notice that. Moreover it seems to be a common feature of all the ANI discussions on this topic. JBL (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, considering that no links or evidence to anything less than 2–3 months old have been presented and my username is at the top of this ANI thread, do you stand by your topic ban support point, or perhaps you were a little hasty? It should be noted that the edits that triggered this ANI, i.e.:
Q (rm decimal prefixes from table: these do not belong in this context; adding full values)
were been dropped as a reason given that they were simply to remove an inappropriate decimal prefix column from a table in a binary prefix article (which, incidentally, no-one has voiced any explicit objection to), and that my reverts were only to revert the five unexplained reverts by Locke Cole. Also, and Locke Cole would realize this if he started thinking straight, I do not object to the use of decimal-as-binary prefixes being used in WP and largely avoid the topic. —Quondum13:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving you didn't read what I wrote initially above. I linked to multiple diff's in my opening which are, functionally, identical to what you just listed. 🤷♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c20:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IEC units are universally disruptive. Here and everywhere, they are not used. Pushing them nonstop is exhausting. Andothegrump, please don't cast aspersions about me trolling Rodeoaches (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose banning blocking etc. Seems the disruption is stopped for now and all parties are on notice. I propose warnings and then Trouts all around. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be easiest to start smaller, an indefinite page block from this specific article for some set of the three users. Then the article disruption here stops and can be used as further evidence if it goes on elsewhere. Yes, I'm aware this dispute is much longer than that in time, but if editors are edit warring here (and going by the story, that's what is occurring), that is one solution that does not toss babies with the bathwater of whatever other positive/negative contributions may occur elsewhere on the topic. (I haven't fully assessed the specific dispute on account of travel, just suggesting another solution that might be palatable.) --IznoPublic (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose everyone seems to have stopped now and appropriate warnings issued. Talk it out. Any further disruption can be dealt with via escalating blocks. A topic ban is unnecessary/too extreme at this point. As for IEC units, yeah...I can see a use case for them (I have a comp sci degree), but the fact is, we've decided not to use them on WP for general usage as the public is not familiar with them. Buffs (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dondervogel 2 (talk·contribs), being fully aware of this conversation and the closure of the RFC at Template talk:Quantities of bits has just reverted an edit made to bring the table at Binary prefix into compliance with that result as determined by a neutral closer. This is continuing evidence of disruption from these editors and needs to stop. What is the point of holding a months-long RFC if a pair of editors who are very much against including any of the everyday terms we use in articles can just upend the table and throw away the work whenever they feel like it? —Locke Cole • t • c02:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm looking at your link to the RfC in question, and lo and behold, the close result is "No Consensus to change header - There was consensus for better clarity over the issues of standards, and industry usage, but not as to what replacement header(s) should be (if any)," so I'm at a loss to identify a consensus result to the RfC which anyone is defying. Would you care to point us to one?
With that being said, you have already failed (by a fairly wide margin) to secure support for a tban. Several editors believe that you are at least as liable for sanction as anyone else. The definition of "disruption" is not "Edits I don't myself like." Do you see a wave of editors/admins agreeing with you here? It's about time for you to drop the stick and move on. Ravenswing 02:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to consider the merits of a topic-ban on Locke Cole confined solely to the use of the word 'consensus', given the way this word is being repeatedly used in a manner not concurrent with any reasonable interpretation of it I'm aware of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing:Template:Bit and byte prefixes is the current template, at the RFC there was NO CONSENSUS to change from that header to any other header per the neutral closer. What has happened here is these two editors have, despite not gaining consensus to make the change, gone ahead and made the change. That is disruptive. @AndyTheGrump: When there is a lack of consensus to change something, then going ahead and changing it anyways is literally going against the consensus. Computer memory was one of the options in the RFC that DID NOT GAIN CONSENSUS. The consensus version is JEDEC. Do you understand me now? —Locke Cole • t • c03:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 'no consensus' closure of an RfC is a statement that consensus could not be found. If it can't be found, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, it isn't possible to go against it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for not making a change either - and as far as I can see, all the participants in the RfC supported changing the wording in one way or another (you yourself seem to have supported changing it to 'Computing'[18]). What they couldn't agree on was what to change it to. Which is why there was no consensus over anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's set aside the "So when did you stop beating your wife?" style of questioning. Is it "perfectly fine?" Beats the hell out of me; I am not an engineer, and I have no dog in the fight. But what it is is a CONTENT DISPUTE (if you insist on bolding and capitalizing statements which we are perfectly capable of reading without either). As such, it is neither an appropriate matter for ANI, nor have your foes violated any policy, nor is there a consensus to violate if there wasn't any consensus to begin with, nor are there grounds for sanctioning those who dare disagree with you on the change, nor are we likely to change our minds and agree with you if only you shout shrilly and stridently enough at us.
You have been on Wikipedia far too long to be incapable of grasping the precept that sometimes it's not that people don't understand what you're saying, it's that they don't agree with what you're saying. The only consensus in play here is the one in this ANI thread that your charges are without merit. Drop the damn stick already. Ravenswing 04:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"just reverted an edit [that you, Locke Cole, made, and that does not appear to have any consensus in its favor, either]" oh okay then. JBL (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTANARCHY is that way. There were multiple proposals, there was ultimately no consensus. This does not mean "go ahead and act as if you have consensus anyways". I am shocked at how many people here are just fine with edit warring over something without any attempt at discussion, especially something that was previously discussed at length with no consensus for a change reached. But sure, I guess I'm the bad guy here expecting us to be able to have some stability after a months-long RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c19:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Truly, it is a mystery why uninvolved observers can't understand that your edits with no consensus and failure to discuss are good whereas their edits without consensus and failure to discuss on the talkpage is tban worthy. -- JBL (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might've been the months-long RFC that preceded it that I participated in at length and Quondum did not, even after being ping'd twice, then taking unilateral action while that RFC was in progress. But sure, we can ignore all of that. Certainly a large group of editors here appear to be. And if that's that the consensus, that consensus doesn't matter and protracted disputes are fine with no good-faith attempt to participate in discussion, I'm here for it. Frankly I get tired of discussing things, it'll be so refreshing to just edit as I see fit and ignore everyone else. Y'all have been great, thanks for this cathartic experience! /s —Locke Cole • t • c19:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is pretty clear consensus here that no one finds your protestations convincing. You should take my advice, and apply it double to this discussion. (This is my last comment here.) JBL (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole cracks me up. How can he say with any seriousness "I am shocked at how many people here are just fine with edit warring over something without any attempt at discussion", when this ANI thread started due to his (or our) edit warring with no attempt from him at discussion other than "WP:BRD" (see the five links to reverts labelled "L" above which (I inserted a bit ago. Who will ever be able to take anything he says seriously? —Quondum20:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that my participating in a months-long RFC (which you ignored, and tried to undermine by removing the very template under discussion from it's only article-space use) is something that brings you amusement. That was my small attempt at "discussion", and it preceded your edit warring. It's disingenuous to act like I haven't tried to discuss any of the issues/concerns with that template. And it's disruptive to act outside of that framework on your own because you choose not to engage in discussion. It looks like you've lucked out Quondum, and drawn a crowd that apparently is willing to overlook this completely for reasons I can't comprehend and just let you plow ahead against consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c20:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the RFC: "no consensus" is not carte blanche to take a wrecking ball to the work done so far. The subst'ing of the template is simply disruptive as it (not your subst'd revision) is the most stable version of that table that's undergone widespread scrutiny by editors. That you chose to undermine that process and the work involved with it is the problem here. It's disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "against consensus". So now you are suggesting that it was "no consensus". Evidently, you cannot point to any discussion of replacing template transclusions. You never seem to point us to where consensus that you claim is, and you never seem to point us to the non-consensus you claim is. You simply made five reverts without any relevant discussion whatsoever, and now you are condemning doing just that. I take my question answered, thank you. (Incidentally, if there was discussion in your mind, then why are you complaining that there was not discussion?) You keep claiming "consensus", and "no consensus", and then claiming no-one should make changes from your preferred version in either case. I suppose because one of these these always applies, I suppose no-one is allowed to edit anything in WP by your book (until you personally okay it?). I asked you for a link to justify that the template transclusion replacement was discussed. You have not provided it. —Quondum21:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed changes to the table had no consensus. The same changes you chose to not involve yourself with, where you could have discussed the changes you wanted to make. You know, the one large discussion you were ping'd to not once but twice? And you'd previously participated in these discussions, even starting what is currently the top of what lead to this last RFC here and here. Let's try this another way: where is the consensus for your changes? After all, if you're not editing against consensus, then clearly you have discussed this and gotten some buy-in from editors, yes? WP:SILENCE is also relevant here, as the template you're edit warring to remove has been present in that article since 2010 (in a sandbox copy because it was protected due to a dispute, shocking I know; it was folded into the article-proper the same month). "My" consensus is the status quo, the over a decade of silence around including that template that you've unilaterally decided (in the face of repeated reversions) to force through the removal of. —Locke Cole • t • c05:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the no-consensus RfC regarding the disputed 'Quantities of bits' template was held without even bothering to inform anyone about it on the talk pages of the few articles it has been transcluded to: Bit, Kilobit, Megabit and Binary prefix. I get the distinct impression that the purpose of this RfC wasn't so much to determine article content as to continue a long-running dispute amongst contributors about the relative merits of various names-for-numbers systems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, the correct venue to discuss content disputes. Granted, I can appreciate, judging from this thread, that you may just be unwilling to engage in consensus building there, given your demonstrated unwillingness to drop the stick even in the face of near-unanimous opposition. Ravenswing 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's adorable. I guess it's also entirely possible the group here is wrong, but that's hardly a possibility I guess. We'll ignore the months of discussion on this issue I've participated in, the RFC on this very template that I participate in at length. Quondum didn't participate in the latter part of those discussions despite being explicitly ping'd there. I suppose if we ignore the facts, I'm certainly totally out of line in someones fantasy-land version of events. In the real world, the one we're all in together, I've engaged on these issues. The onus is on Quondum to gain consensus for their changes, so far there's 3rd party agreement that there's no consensus for any of the changes we've discussed, and clearly no consensus for Quondum's changes. —Locke Cole • t • c07:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a TBAN for all three, as suggested above? Dondervogel appears to be practically an SPA, and the other two aren't exactly innocent either. A simple close is just going to lead to another ANI thread, sometime in the next few months, with disruptive editing from both sides in the meantime. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be tempted to topic ban anyone who has a damn opinion on the matter being disputed, on the basis that turning an argument over such a trivial matter into the sort of long-running edit-warfare saga one might expect to see on articles concerning Balkans history is incompatible with creating an encyclopaedia. Or doing anything else useful on the internet. This is an article about how we use numbers, and label them. It isn't complicated. Those who wish to make it so are acting against the best interests of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion above, the discussions linked from above, and specifically the discussion ATG mentions here, it seems to me consistently the case that Locke Cole's behavior has been at least as bad as that of anyone else in the discussion. For that reason, I propose Locke Cole be topic-banned from binary prefixes (or whatever the correct locus of argument is) indefinitely. --JBL (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with such discussions, from my point of view, is that joining them feels useless. There are a few editors with extremely strong opinions throwing incivility at each other ([19]*) and I'm simply not interested in trying to determine who of them has the most convincing arguments. It would thus probably help the encyclopedia to remove them (not referring to just Locke Cole specifically) from the topic area so that less loud (and less extreme) voices are not longer discouraged from finding a solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC) (*note: I rarely need only one diff to illustrate incivility from two editors...)[reply]
Indeed. This isn't an issue with a single contributor. There are multiple people involved, more concerned with arguing over the relative merits of alternative number prefixes than over actually imparting useful information to readers. The binary prefix article itself is hopelessly bloated with what appears to be WP:OR, or at least cites no clear source. Compare it with our article on Roman numerals, which manages to more than adequately describe a much more complex system, in less words. I suspect that much of the bloat may result from the endless squabbles over the article. The talk page archives seem to confirm this, given the number of threads referring to 'POV' issues. In an article on binary prefixes. An article that fails to demonstrate that there is any significant external controversy over the issue at all - which might at least explain the endless battles, if not justify them. It is impossible not to come away with the impression that people are using the article as a battleground almost for the sake of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(participant) In part, it's an argument about whether our articles on computers, mobiles etc should use MB/GB or MiB/GiB (or both, or with equivalents in bytes, or with footnotes for every number, and so on). The conflicts are in articles about devices and at the MOS, then the template used in the MOS, then the similar templates, the article about prefixes, ANI, 3RN and probably elsewhere, it's been going on for at least 14 years, there's great civil persistence and opposition as well as great incivility, regulars at WT:MOSNUM are sick of it, and heaven help any editor who tries to engage with just one aspect. I don't think topic bans for incivility will end it. Topic bans all round might seem unfair but it's a price I'd pay. Plenty of "outsiders" then calmly reviewing and changing or reaffirming MOS:COMPUNITS might help too, I don't know. NebY (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To illustrate AndyTheGrump's point, for a great comparison, look at how Kilobyte addresses it. It explains the two competing definitions in half a page, compares units for both the decimal and binary bases and points to fields where they are used. This is the reality we can have if humans and fish can coexist peacefully. Acebulf(talk | contribs)21:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support wider topic bans The article has turned into a battleground, to the detriment of the article itself. As AndyTheGrump pointed out, the article is a mess, and this dispute is not about making the article better anymore. Ideally, we would want the debate to either be carried out by people who aren't part of the dispute, or, where no actual controversy exists, is left to fade into obscurity. I support a topic ban, kind of like what ToBeFree has suggested, where we give people who have participated in the debate in a non-civil way a topic ban narrowly defined to binary prefixes. Acebulf(talk | contribs)21:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several administrators and experienced editors have engaged the editor, but until now they've mostly observed contributions to isolated articles. The problematic history is much more extensive, and includes a major overhaul of Glenn Miller--see this reversion I performed yesterday, the tip of the iceberg [20]--an elaborate update and more elaborate discussion of John Hoogenakker, and edits since reverted at Secretariat (horse) and Orvil A. Anderson. Talk pages reveal the difficulties [21]; [22], which are time sinks just to wade through and indicate prolonged involvement by other editors. A sample of sections that suggest some of the issues: [23]; [24]. Kinfo Pedia was questioned re: WP:COI at Hoogenakker, and though they seem to be corresponding with the subject, my initial read is that the more relevant COI may involve the author of a 2017 biography of Miller. That said, COI is almost beside the point; the question is whether the benefits are worth the disruption. See my reversions of off-topic and poorly sourced/original research content [25]; [26]; [27]; [28].
Was I supposed to reply to the top paragraph so everyone could see it, or can the lower paragraphs be read too? I am not sure what the abbreviations mean since I am still very new to Wikipedia. I am not sure how you know if a source is good to use. I think someone who wrote their own resume would have it correct. If it is wrong, then it is probably their talent agent staff who typed it wrong. For Miller, the experts involved included well-known, accurate historians and researchers. People who wanted to be in the news claimed they dropped bombs on a small plane when in fact, planes were grounded that day. It was an exception to policy that Morgan landed and took off without even stopping the plane. I found this out in many sources that used their well-researched sources themselves. I got permission and quotes from the experts. I had to prove how he spelled his name and cite the sources, when someone thought it was not verifiable. I don't think they will be putting a 100-year-old yearbook online. It 's a rare book now. Thanks for trying to help. I didn't know so many people were looking at it, they should assume I am right, that would be considerate. Thanks for your help. If someone wants to put info. in there that makes something accurate with sources, then that is good, but if not, it really hurts my feelings and I am sad on behalf of the subject of the article even though they don't know me. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I got permission from the author to quote the main book. People should give me the benefit of their doubt. I don't go in there writing something wrong on purpose. Be patient. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to know who started the Hoogenakker page. I had thought of doing that but have not yet learned how to start a page, or use the sandbox. When I make an edit, and then put in the box why I made the edit, is anyone reading that and understanding why the change should be made? People should not assume I am wrong. Thanks again. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kinfo Pedia, I think you need to slow down. Here's one huge paragraph that wanders all over the place, with two additional ones. I already don't understand what you mean with top paragraph etc. I think you should look at WP:THREAD--maybe that's related to your question. One knows a source is good to use by learning about sources; there's no way I can give you that in one paragraph since it takes us weeks in Freshman Comp, but you can start by looking at WP:REPUTABLE. What I tell my students is that if they cannot explain what a particular source is and how they get and verify their information, they can't use it.To go back and explain why some edits were reverted--well, this was your first edit to the Glenn Miller article and I don't understand much of what you're doing and why, but what I do see is that some text and some sources were removed. I don't know about "well-known, accurate historians and researchers", since all you're adding in terms of citations is this, "Shenkle, Kathy, "Glenn Miller: America's Musical Hero", U.S. Army, Arlington, 1993", which lacks publication information, is improperly formatted (and incorrectly cited throughout), and doesn't seem to be something from a well-known historian or whatever. And now you're talking about someone called "Morgan", completely out of context, and I have to go an look at your edits from September to make any sense of it, and I can't make any sense of it.Forest, trees--we are here to discuss things that are problematic about your editing, and you are not focusing on the main topic--I mean, what the hell does a 100-year old yearbook matter in this conversation? That is a matter for the article talk page. But you are really not so "new" to Wikipedia: this was months ago, lots of time to learn about reliable sources, talk page conversation, how to do references. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, where do I even start, mainly with having to clean up the John Hoogenakker article after any wave of editing they have done:
There is strong WP:OWN ownership and insistence that John Hoogenakker's biography be formatted to be a more accurate resume than what the resume his own website has. I have tried to cut down the filmography and stage roles to what was available via external sources. I have told the editor that they should work on creating their own fan website if they really want all those details.
There was insistence in detailing the count of the number of plays, episodes, views of commercials using ispot.tv, which is not a reliable source. Television actors star in hundreds, even thousands of episodes, so this isn't anything special. Hoogenakker isn't a YouTuber whose viewer counts and subscribers are milestones.
Tendentious editing to include exact episodes and role names where it cannot be sourced at the moment besides IMDb or Fandom.
Tendentious editing to detail Walter the Cat's involvement, calling Hoogenakker a "co-star" to the cat on the series, and going into extensive detail about the cat and the trucks.
Tendentious editing to remove Wikipedia links in the early life and education paragraphs.
Tendentious editing to rename the mention of Zoom to videoconference, even though the magazine article already detailed that he auditioned via Zoom for one of his roles.
Tendentious editing to remove any mention of birthdays, wife and number of kids, even though there are sourced news articles that explicitly state his age, and a primary source interview where he specifies his month and day of his birthday.
Onel5969 and I have tried to work with their edits, but if we let it go for much longer, it gravitates towards turning into a fansite piece. The actor does have a large body of work and does meet general notability, so I apologize in advance if my writeup of John Hoogenakker's biography is rather dry (e.g. lots of "In (year) he did (role) in (production)") AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, Kinfo Pedia has extensively overhauled the Glenn Miller article, mostly not in a productive way. They add a lot of nonencyclopedic detail, such as a book review of a book about the subject and a bulleted list of nine examples of how the subject's name has been spelled. In this edit, they add the same reference in 74(!) places, often to statements that are already referenced, and they've made similar edits more than once (eg. here). An edit summary says I added superscripts for footnotes for every sentence I know to be true from the public exhibits, news articles, the original archived article Arlington National Cemetery and the Glenn Miller Birthplace Society that I researched and confirmed with the experts at GMA, GMBS and the Airmen of Note, the last part of which in particular suggests that there is some original research and/or WP:COI going on. As can be seen on the article's talk page, at least 8 other editors have questioned some aspect of their changes. Kinfo Pedia's only response has been to bizarrely keep repeating the same sentence, Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944, which is sometimes not even relevant to the other editor's question.The editor's talk page shows that they are more than willing to communicate, quite prolifically so, but their communication style is so prolix that it's often hard to understand their point. I think there's an element of WP:CIR as well. CodeTalker (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They don't seem to really understand referencing: as noted above this is not great, to put it mildly. There seems to be a tendency towards hagiography, as witness the Hoogenakker comments above, and their removal of the section which voiced, with sources, some mild criticism of Glenn Miller. They are a busy editor who works hard and it seems a pity that they don't communicate better and learn from what people are trying to tell them. If they could listen and work cooperatively with the rest of us that would be great but it they won't listen then I fear for their future here. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the right place to answer the paragraphs above? I just found this for the first time. I am not able to find all the comments and talk pages, when I click on the bell, I cannot figure out where anyone wrote a note. It says "welcome". I am working VERY HARD to get everything correct in the topics I like. This is my informational legacy since I don't have any children. Whenever there is something wrong, I go and look up the facts and get sources from the other experts. When someone spelled Glenn Miller's birth name wrong, I had to correct it and make folks understand that he changed the spelling of his name during high school. I even got copies of the yearbooks at his high school, and learned that he was a co-editor of his own yearbook, and used Glenn and Glen at different times in each one. Since someone wrote that it was not "verified", I went out of my way to find out, even finding articles about his birth certificate. Many people got it wrong because they were in a hurry, so I had to correct it, and prove how he changed the spelling of his name from Glen to Glenn. I confirmed everything I found with several sources to see which source is the best to use. We should not quote sources that are wrong, even if many people have quoted it wrong. I once found sentence that 8 articles quoted the same source, and the source quote was wrong, so it spread the wrong information. Teachers and others are telling kids NOT to use Wikipedia for research because contributors don't always do the complete research. Is it "vandalism" when people delete the information I put on there that is correct? Sometimes they do it as I am writing, and it makes me stay up late trying to correct it. When someone is in doubt, then I look up the sources again to see who quoted what. Let's get it right, and give Wikipedia a better reputation. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found several source for the character name of Hoogenakker's first television role. I don't understand why others keep deleting his character name, Dr. Collins. People shouldn't have anything against the name of the role he played.
Oh, I think it is harassment when others are complaining about my work. If they have the good information, then go ahead and put it where it fits in the paragraph and footnote it. Another good idea is to separate the sentence into a paragraph on its own so people can see it to easily research it or edit it. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hoogenakker birthday thing --- I thought we were supposed to keep personal data out of the article because he is a LIVING person, and the things I read about how to write a page included that we don't put something just because someone accidentally revealed the information in another site. I heard a few interviews where he talked around the date, so I thought, well, he does not want to put the actual date in and would prefer to keep that out of the pubic eye. His not living in Hollywood is a sign that he does not want to be out in the open like regular movie actors. so- I was empathizing or whatever you call it when you are looking out for people. Thanks. I thought maybe he does not want to have a Wikipedia page because he made it this far, 2022 without having one. Since it's on here now, let's get it right. I guess that is what my fellow writers were saying about ispot.tv which I assumed was correct because of the detail of the numbers. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested here that this should be brought to this board – there seems to be enough of a problem that community input is needed. I'm in no doubt that Kinfo Pedia wants to improve the encyclopaedia, but unfortunately he/she seems to charging in where angels fear to tread and creating substantial amounts of work for other editors. I note with some sadness that Drmies wrote here that "... unfortunately, NOTHERE is looming" (sad because what DrM says is pretty much infallibly right and I don't want to see us deter a good-faith new editor). Can we find some other way to let this user learn how to edit here without overwhelming others with unreasonable amounts of extra work? Might mentorship, or a daily limit on number and/or volume of edits, be made to work? Any suggestion welcome, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) In the last few minutes, I've reverted two more edits [30], [31]. I'd suggest that Kinfo not continue editing while this discussion is in progress. They seem knowledgeable and delightful, but as the edit history and above comments make clear, Wikipedia is not the right fit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A tutorial with a human would help, and someone to e-chat and email with as I am deciding what to write.
Instead of just deleting my input, tell me what sources you have makes it have to be deleted or edited.
Saying you're wanting Wikipedia to be YOUR Informational legacy is more symptoms that you want to WP:OWN the article. Same with requiring other editors to go through you to verify information. Saying you have contacted the subjects in question to verify information is also original research WP:OR and asking for their permission to have published information withheld also implies some conflict-of-interest.
Regarding on-screen credits, I've given you an example of how to validate an on-screen television credit at the talk page along with timestamp. But instead, you cited IMDb and Fandom Wikias, which are user-generated, or their derivatives. You've even stated the subject's own resume as sometimes incorrect. It is possible some entries on there may be wrong, but that's why Wikipedia relies first on non-resume / non-self-published material.
Regarding birthday, there is nothing that says he is objecting to having his birthday published. He has a prominent news article from Charlotte Observer that lists his age, and even his parents' names, and an online interview where he stated the month and day. And it was not prefaced or followed with a "please keep this private" message, so he does not object. If the subject does object, he needs to contact Wikipedia (or file an OTRS) or tweet on his social media about wanting to keep his birthdate private.
If certain published sources have incorrect information, you should provide evidence where information can be contradictory. Maybe another published article has it right?
Again, it might be better to create your own fansites for John and Walter the Cat where you have complete control over the information published, and you can include other snippets such as your personal correspondence with him. Fandom Wikia might be okay with that, but finding a free host that will keep your information around forever would be better. You can also archive your website pages on wayback. Then you don't have to deal with issues about other folks editing, verifying, or cleaning up your writing.
Kinfo Pedia has gone silent the last four days; perhaps they understand the problems. If, however, this is not deemed actionable, and they're merely waiting for the smoke to clear so as to resume the same pattern of editing, I will open a follow-up report. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eyagi
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
I started this at AE, possibly influenced by spending time figuring out how the new, improved AE/DS regime might work. Others pointed out that at AE it was likely to diverge into a tangent on whether the AE sanctions apply in this case, as things tend to do at AE, and recommended a move to ANI, so that's why it retains some AE formatting.
Eyagi appears to be a single-purpose account, dedicated to refuting or diluting the comfort women article. They appear to be trying to argue that they were licensed prostitutes, and were not exploited. Recently they've devoted themself to lengthy tendentious walls of text on Talk:Comfort women devoted to original research and selective analysis, with divergence into United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121, which demanded an apology from the Japanese government. I see no useful edits on any other topic, and their behavior has been that of a textbook tendentious SPA. They've graduated to a content fork at Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire. I have been involved in closing down the walls of text on the talkpage, and consider myself sufficiently involved to recuse from admin action. I've only hit the high spots with diffs, there are dozens of argumentative edits in the IDHT vein with several editors.
I'm OK with ANI, you're probably right that a discussion in this venue will end up wandering off-point into a definitional wrangle and never get around to the actual problem. I do think it's covered by GENSEX, but at its broadest stretch, using the simplest and most concise summary in the consolidated sanction statement. I'm about to sign off, I'll look in tomorrow morning and move it if it hasn't already been moved. Acroterion(talk)
2022-06-05 First edit ever, pretty much summing up the entirety of their edits since then
2022-06-12 part of the OR and discussion that followed the first edit
Though I'm not entirely convinced that this issue falls within the remit of Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, it clearly needs addressing, if not here, then by a simple topic ban, per normal admin action. Acroterion has already laid down the evidence, and little more needs to be said. Even reading the last link alone [35] makes it abundantly clear that Eyagi is either unable to understand Wikipedia policy on original rresearch, or is unwilling to comply with it. Indeed, the section entitled 'Basic acknowledge' alone is enough to demonstrate the point. We are told that Empire of Japan was a country ruled by law. At that time, Koreans were citizens of the Empire of Japan. Under the law, Japanese, Koreans, citizens, soldiers and police were equal. We are told that Koreans were part of the Japanese military and police force. Rape, assault, threats, kidnapping and abduction, fraud and extortion of civilians, by soldiers and policemen were violations of the penal code. We are told that In Imperial Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. To obtain a license to engage in prostitution, her willingness to work, her parental consent document and a copy of their contract with her employer, and age for Koreans to be at least 17 years old were required. All asserted as if they were indisputable fact. And as if they refuted the many, many sources we have cited in our article on so-called 'comfort women', and on what actually occurred. And to back up such claims, we are directed to a website belonging to something calling itself the 'Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact'. They are, I suppose, as entitled to assert their hold on the 'facts' as anyone else, but being asked by a contributor to 'refute' such extraordinary claims (Which require us to believe that the entire Japanese military operated entirely according to law during the entire period in question, amongst other things, something which would surely make them unique amongst any military body, anywhere), is tendentious to say the least. We don't do that. We don't 'refute' sources. We cite them. When they are credible. In accord with relevant academic consensus.
Eyagi is clearly incapable of contributing usefully on this topic. Some form of sanction preventing more round-in-circles timewasting is required. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Rather than get weighed down by the inevitable "is the really covered by GENSEX" debate, can I suggest an early move to ANI? I'd support a TBAN based on the evidence provided, no DS necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just reiterating my support for a sanction, since this has now been moved. Quick admin action in the face of obvious partisan POV-pushing can save a lot of valuable editor time. I hope Eyagi finds and flexes their brevity muscles and puts them to use in another topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close with no action, continue to discuss, no TBAN In the evidence presented above, I see one instance of what appears to be a good faith edit to an article (which I assume was reverted). The rest are discussions on the talk page (where they should be). Primary sources are not an issue per se unless you are interpreting them in the article. There is certainly some good-faith disagreement on the subject of "comfort women" in public and a balanced view encompassing both sides should be presented in the article (and they are). It is without dispute that the Imperial Japanese forces engaged in abhorrent, reprehensible, and criminal behavior throughout the war to include sexual oppression. The article as it stands clearly makes it clear that some women were prostitutes, some were forced but were paid, and others were forced into sexual slavery; this is not in dispute. Likewise, just because they "followed the law" doesn't mean they followed the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit or that the laws involved were not sufficient to protect these women; many people have "followed the law" or were "just following orders" and committed unspeakable acts of barbarity. In general, Japan and others have admitted their complicity in such actions (to varying degrees) and they have given limited compensation. It is important to recognize the nuances of such behavior and the varying degrees of complicitness of those involved both from Japan and those who were potentially sexually abused and I see room to potentially incorporate some of the presented information in this article.
But I see no evidence that this falls under Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions as it doesn't pertain to gender or sexuality, but criminal activity. While that criminal behavior involves sex, literally every person is involved by that standard (you were conceived and birthed somehow). It is only marginally/tangentially related and should not be applied here and certainly not without better evidence that a violation occurred. Nor do I see any justification for a TBAN. What I see here is good faith disagreement with a relatively new editor and I do not see the evidence presented here to support the assertion that he "is clearly incapable of contributing usefully on this topic". Buffs (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this falls under gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions or not is no longer relevant, as the discussion has been moved to WP:ANI. As for the remainder of your comments, I'd have to suggest that your understanding of Wikipedia policy on original research doesn't concur with that of the broader community. Either that, or you have simply not looked at the walls of text, based on Eyagi's own interpretation of primary sources, that have been presented on multiple talk pages. This isn't about 'nuances', it concerns an attempt to contradict the multiple credible sources we cite in the article, using selective citation of primary sources, and of the citation of secondary sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS. An attempt to essentially deny the very 'unspeakable acts of barbarity' you yourself write of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not article edits, it's repeated bludgeoning of talkpages to demand a large-scale denialist revision to the article, using original research from an SPA that is entirely devoted to that cause, in an article that has seen perennial disruption from many similar agenda-driven editors.This is a favorite hobbyhorse of nationalist partisans. Acroterion(talk)01:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is ongoing
See Eyagi's latest comment [36] at Draft talk:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire. The draft is sourced solely to primary sources dating from between 1916 and 1944. No secondary sources are cited. Per WP:OR, this is clearly and unequivocally unacceptable: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how discussion here goes, it might also be appropriate to briefly and neutrally raise the broad topic at WP:FRINGEN, since my at-a-glance interpretation of the position Eyagi is taking here is that it is WP:FRINGE. More discussion there might be needed to fully hammer it out but even beyond the issues relating to Eyagi specifically, it might be worth having more eyes experienced at identifying and dealing with fringe positions on that and related articles. --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The POV being pushed by Eyagi is fringe, but the more immediate problem is the way it is being promoted. Eyagi has made it abundantly clear that either they don't understand WP:OR, or that they don't consider themselves bound by it, which is problematic in any contributor regardless of what they are trying to accomplish. And the absence of any comment from Eyagi here (they are clearly aware of this thread, see [37]) suggest to me that this is a simple refusal to accept Wikipedia policies when it doesn't suit them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this WP:OR. Translations aren't WP:OR when done faithfully. While there is certainly some overlap with regards to comfort women, it certainly isn't a content fork. Likewise, just because there are only Japanese sources currently doesn't mean it can't be expanded. Plenty of articles exist and cover this topic in-depth: [39][40]. Let me be completely clear: The Japanese enslaved women for sex (in Korea and other countries). This is an undisputed fact. But it is important to note that the Japanese actively engaged in other legal, semi-legal, and illegal practices vis-a-vis brothels and not all were unwilling participants. It is equally reprehensible to deem all such actions as criminal acts (which pretends consensual acts without coercion are the same as brutal rape) as it is to say they were all consensual (which would pretend that brutal acts never happened). I am not naive enough to try and claim that there are not far right wing attempts to whitewash the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese, but there is much more nuance to this and it's worth covering all the angles. This is a draft and there is certainly much more that could be included for clarity. Likewise, the title needs work. Buffs (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OR Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. An article which cited nothing but primary sources dating from between 1916 to 1944 would be problematic enough, even without being based on translation of legal documents in a language few of us are familiar with. Even if the translations are faithful, we have no way of knowing whether other relevant documentation has been omitted. And frankly it is ridiculous to cite only legislation and police records in an article on prostitution: we need secondary sources which assess how the laws were enforced, how reliable the records were, and to provide the broader context. The article is pure WP:OR. We leave analysis of 100-year-old primary sources to historians with relevant subject-matter expertise.
As for not all those working in brothels being unwilling participants, our Comfort women article does not claim that they were. It does however cite multiple sources which illustrate the scale of sexual slavery. The fact that some women entered voluntarily into prostitution does not in any shape or form justify the barbaric practices systematically carried out by and on behalf of the Japanese military. The creation of a draft article clearly aimed at presenting prostitution during the period as regulated and consensual is clearly and unambiguously intended to promote the systematic erasure of history that factions on the Japanese far right have taken as their goal. Eyagi is clearly and unambiguously attempting to use Wikipedia to further this despicable cause. Eyagi must not be permitted to succeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, Eyagi is ignoring everything they've been told about policy, and engaging in exactly the same behaviour already documented above. [41] Note the (entirely unsourced) nonsense argument that All of the former Korean comfort women's testimony violate domestic law and military regulations at the time. Police and military police records confirm this fact. Yet again, arguments that 'it was illegal' therefore it didn't happen. This is simply too stupid for words... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, Eyagi is demanding further 'explanations' on the talk page, [42] while making no response whatsoever here at ANI. I see no reason why anyone should engage further with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge multiple Wikipedia policies, and instead demands 'rebuttals' for blatant WP:OR, ludicrous unsourced assertions to the effect that because something was illegal it couldn't have happened, and other facile argumentation in support of the erasure of one of the darker periods in history. If the community isn't prepared to take action here, I will instead have to resort to the simplest alternative, and simply ignore absolutely every thing that Eyagi posts on talk pages, while reverting any article edits on sight. And recommend that anyone else does the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user has openly accused a veteran editor of being canvassed to an AfD page [43], and has stated that everyone voting for delete because of a lack of notability, outside of potentially one editor, "isn't doing so in good faith" [44]. When I reached out to them about this on their talk page, they deleted my first attempt with no comment [45] and then deleted my second attempt [46] with the comment "I’m not interested in having this conversation with you so please don’t post here about it again." I'm not quite sure what should be done about it, I've never posted something like this, but I don't think it's acceptable behavior for obvious reasons and they probably need a cool off period. Wertwert55 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek is a veteran editor but is also a veteran of incivility accusations, so please no ad hominem - the number of edits of the filer is as irrelevant as the good/not so good standing Volunteer Marek. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gitz, can you remind me how many times I have no asked you to stop WP:STALKing me? You didn't even vote on that AfD! Yet you just can't help yourself and pop up here. I know I've asked you at least half a dozen times. This is getting extremely disruptive and frankly, creepy af. Volunteer Marek 02:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you never accuse GCB of stalking you, or any of the other editors who follow you around to agree with you; only the ones that disagree are stalking I guess. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this suppose to be a serious comment? Yes, someone who follows me around with the purpose of trying to make my editing experience on Wikipedia as miserable as they can is different than a person who follows me around (or just participates in same discussions) in order to collaborate constructively. Is there anything other piece of obvious common sense you need to have explained to you? Volunteer Marek 05:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, this is a noticeboard. Some people frequent AN/I, and some people frequently get reported to AN/I (not just you, and not judging you) its inevitable that those two kinds of people are gonna bump into each other here. Lets not get nasty. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once or twice can be “bumping into each other”. When it happens all the time regularly it’s a pattern which suggest specific purpose (WP:HARASSment) especially if the user in question has been asked multiple times to cut it out. Volunteer Marek 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering saying something on Volunteer Marek's talk page for his blatant bad faith assumption not just at new accounts or IP addresses, but at anyone who voted a certain way on an AfD! But of course it was just going to be swiftly reverted, as it happens, and so I didn't. I'm happy Wertwert55 took the initiative to bring up this issue. It—the whole attitude of ascribing political motivations or "being canvassed" to editors who have been here for a long time—is disturbing to see. TryKid[dubious – discuss]01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is, and I have no doubt that people who read about it on Twitter are in the AfD, but does that mean it's okay to openly accuse a veteran editor of canvassing on the page? Wertwert55 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
at this point anyone who's trying to argue that this isn't notable with a straight face isn't doing so in good faith is a pretty serious assumption and accusation on Volunteer Marek's part, not justified by any amount of publicity the article might have gotten. That after individually accusing individual editors of being canvassed, some of them with years old accounts—is the simple notice at the top not sufficient? TryKid[dubious – discuss]01:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You want to explain why this "veteran editor" (who really hasn't been active since ... 2011) appeared to be unaware that the article name has been changed quite awhile ago while on twitter it's still being referred to and referenced and discussed and made fun of under the old name? The one they used? It's as if they didn't even bother looking at the article itself. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That user is referring specifically to the line in the article where it's dubbed a massacre, which last I checked is still there. Bad reasoning? Sure, arguably. Evidence of canvassing? Not sure about that. The account was last active in early December and then May of this year: hardly a "sleeper account" that's been inactive for 11 years. There's a major issue with canvasing in the recent Musk AfDs, yes, that much is obvious, but it's still on us to WP:AGF and not accuse people of canvassing as you did. Wertwert55 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a "sleeper account"- wow @Wertwert55.. you spent a total of about 6 hours over the past few years editing Wikipedia, you learn fast all this local jargon. A sleeper account you meant a sock puppet right? - GizzyCatBella🍁02:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...No. I'm referring specifically to the idea that someone has been sitting on the account for 11 years doing nothing and then becoming active again just to vote on this issue. He edited an entirely separate topic from this just a couple weeks ago and then another one a few months ago. Wertwert55 (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I visit the site often, saw the main article, and saw the deletion notice on top of it. Am I supposed to prove somehow that I wasn't sent here specifically by Twitter to vote on the page? What would that accomplish? Wertwert55 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and this is like the second time in two, maybe three days, that twitter canvassing, and the showing up of multitudes of SPAs, brand new accounts and reactivated sleeper accounts, has completely skewed and probably determined an outcome of one of our AfDs [48]. And it's not like I'm the only one who's noticed this (I mean, it's blindingly obvious unless you're TRYING not to see it) - User:SilverSeren has also pointed it out.
I don't know what we can really do about it. If I had my way (if I was to Wikipedia what Elon is to twitter) I'd semi protect every AfD and check user all accounts !voting. I realize that's not gonna fly, but semi protectin' is a good start. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may disagree with your position but respect the passion you edit with but maybe just lay off a little as WP:BLUDGEON is a thing, though you already know that. I think your position is clear and brow-beating editors rarely has any effect on changing their !Vote. This thread should also be closed as no sanction is going to come of it. Slywriter (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious that there was an IP address (2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:C59A:3763:53F9:C8B9) that had come here to defend Volunteer Marek (73 edits to your name and here you are at ANI accusing a veteran editor of canvassing and incivility. Sure.), but that was the IP's only edit? [49] The IP was also skeptical that a relatively new user knew about ANI and canvassing and incivility, like Volunteer Marek was skeptical of those IP addresses on the AFD discussion that knew a lot about Wikipedia. It seems rather unlikely that the two accounts would not be connected somehow, and so, would that be a violation in terms of WP:SOCK in the section "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts"? Helloheart (talk)04:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't shake off the feeling that something's going on there (there are similarities), but I suppose so. Just thought that that might be worth bringing up. Helloheart (talk)05:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD has clearly been posted all over Twitter and is attracting massive amounts of outside canvassing. It isn't an WP:AGF violation to say that in the abstract or to point out, in the context of that fact, that specific accounts have few edits outside the topic area, were created recently, or suddenly revived from a long hiatus just to participate in an RFC - this is normal and the RFC's closer will consider all of this while weighing the resulting consensus. The observation he makes in that particular comment (that someone's !vote is strange in that it is clearly talking about a version of the article that has been widely-described when directing people to it from Twitter but which hasn't been live for a while) doesn't seem so out-of-bounds as to be an WP:AGF violation - it's a reasonable observation to make in the context of a highly-canvassed RFC. It's not an aspersion or a violation of AGF to suggest that someone may have been canvassed when you back your position up with relevant arguments; simply being a longstanding editor doesn't immunize someone from following our policies. --Aquillion (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that editors (outside of one) can't possibly be arguing for a specific viewpoint in good faith isn't a violation of WP:AGF? Posting an abstract observation that there are people canvassing a page isn't the issue here and I didn't link to comments like that for that exact reason. Wertwert55 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the AfD, the Twitter drama, and this ANI. To be frank, it's a cluster. I feel like this isn't going to be productive, at least not in the short term. I don't frequent AFD so I don't know if we have the ability to nuke that page from orbit and start fresh. Perhaps giving the discussion a week before voting would be the safest possibility. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at everything from WP:CANVAS to probably some WP:MEATPUPPET, nothing of substantive value will come from the current discussion. Regardless I don't go there often, not my wheelhouse, not my problem, just wanted to make an observation and concur with AJ29.
Pinging @S Marshall:. You have raised this issue numerous times and have been shut down each and every instance. The issue of your continued insistence on opening baseless sockpuppet investigations against me every single time a user disagrees with you is a topic for another time. This will be my only comment on the matter. 20:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Zhomron (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zhomron That isn't true, User:S Marshall hasn't opened any sockpuppet investigations against you at all, there hasn't been any sockpuppet investigations against you in his contributions, I think you have the wrong editor. Chip3004 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pinging S Marshall because they have dealt extensively with Elizium's nonsense on the topic of non-English term sourcing. How was the comment even read as me saying they are the one who is opening sockpuppet investigations???? So, again, @S Marshall:. Zhomron (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK. I do not feel that I have dealt "extensively" with Elizium23. I have told Elizium23 that their view on non-English sources is at variance with what WP:V says. I do not think Elizium23 has listened to me.—S MarshallT/C08:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The substantive issue here is whether transliterations of proper nouns need a citation. In other words, if I say იოსებ სტალინი and Иосиф Сталин both mean Iosef Stalin, do I have to provide an inline citation to a reliable source to prove it? Elizium23 thinks so, but his view is not widely shared, and those of us who actively carry out translations would like to resist this novel interpretation of our rules.
Elizium23 seeks to deploy WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN) in defence of his position. He raises a challenge to the transliteration and demands a citation. In other words, he would like to apply WP:BURDEN at the level of individual words. It's normally used on ideas, concepts, claims and contentions, though.
I'm uninvolved in these specific disputes, so I haven't edit-warred or accused anyone of socking, and I haven't edited any of the articles at issue, but I've talked to Elizium23 on policy pages and I'm a translator, so transliterations matter to me. I have sought to deploy another paragraph of WP:V (specifically WP:NOENG) in defence of my position. Citations to non-English sources are allowed, and my position is that that would include citations to languages that use alternative scripts. I think this means that the transliteration of a proper noun is inherently self-sourcing.
Two things are needed now. First, please could the kind of people who know about/are interested in conduct disputes decide whether edit-warring has taken place, whether Elizium23's conduct amounts to a crusade against transliterations, and whether Zhomrom's response to it has been disproportionate? And second, please could the kind of people who are interested in how to apply policy in practice provide some kind of guidance about the transliteration issue? I do not presently see the need for an RfC about this because as far as I can tell, Elizium23's position is unique to him. I feel the matter can be dealt with on user talk pages.—S MarshallT/C18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, if there is a dispute about a specific transliteration, that's a topic for the article's talk page, not a citation-war.
If there is a specific controversy over how to transliterate a word between languages, that might be worth investigating & documenting with cites in the appropriate article. But run of the mill transliterations of a word in general would not fit that criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say my position is idiosyncratic, but I was not without support in prior discussions.
@Blueboar said the material must be backed by the existence, if not citation, of a WP:RS.
@TryKid said that any disputed material should require a citation.
@Theknightwho described disputes in Mongolian that would necessitate verifiability.
@Only in death said that a citation or expert opinion is absolutely required in cases such as Ancient Greek.
@CMD said "all foreign names should be sourced" and refused to concur with invoking WP:BLUE.
By the way, I am amused by your characterization as my "crusade against transliterations" as if I'm out to eliminate all foreign language names from the English Wikipedia.
What I want is for editors to put their money where their mouth is.
I'm not challenging long-standing terms or terms that are undisturbed or unambiguous to my inexpert opinion. The terms I'm challenging are the ones in dispute, the ones that get changed back-and-forth by IP users, the ones that get added en masse by a so-called expert who's too arrogant to cite a source because the buck stops with them.
Surely foreign names and words are verifiable, if only we have the right sources. Overall, I'd like to see more of Wikipedia be truly verifiable, and to that end, why isn't it a good thing to have sources backing up terms that have been disputed or challenged? Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been to the page and read here, and I confess, I am still mystified by the exact contours of this dispute. Elizium23, what would your preferred edit actually look like? The Hebrew, with a citation? The English with a citation? Both? Happy Holidays to all, regardless! Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any genuine dispute about a transliteration should be decided on the article talk page by the reliable sources, but what we are seeing here are disputes made up by a Wikipedia editor that don't exist in the outside world. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have gleaned these from Zhomron's edit history, and I hope this paints a clearer picture of the issue at hand. Zhomron's been adding lots of scholarly sourced stuff to articles, and clearly writes well and knows a lot of specialized topics. He knows them so well in fact, that he's literally written the book on several forms of Hebrew scripts. You can see above that he's contributed entire tables to the language articles and even uploaded graphics of letterforms not found in Unicode. Those tables and letterforms are all lacking in citations. You know what I think? I think he knows this so well that he doesn't need to reference a source while creating such tables, and it irritates him that anyone would slow him down by demanding sources be located.
So you see, if you have any question about the way a word is written in Samaritan, you can look it up on Wikipedia, because it came out of Zhomron's head.
If anyone else but me was wondering what Wikipedia's guidelines say about transliteration, the relevant page appears to be Wikipedia:Romanization and the guidelines for individual languages linked from there. As far as I am aware transliteration (unlike translation) is largely a mechanical process, much like a routine arithmetic calculation. I would think that, for the same reasons as the arithmetic, a specific transliteration that follows the standard rules for its language would not need published sources explaining how each step of the transliteration follows those rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Would it be possible to get a clarification on your statements: "do I have to provide an inline citation to a reliable source to prove it?...Citations to non-English sources are allowed, and my position is that that would include citations to languages that use alternative scripts". The first part implies you don't wish to need citations, but the second part states your position is that a certain kind of citation could be used for this. CMD (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, sure. Let me show my working. :)
1) I am allowed to cite sources in foreign languages.
2) This includes sources in languages that don't use our script. So for example I am allowed to cite sources in Russian.
3) The Cyrillic (Russian script) for Iosef Stalin is Иосиф Сталин. Strictly speaking, this could also be transliterated as Iosif Stalin or Joseph Stalin.
4) If I speak Russian well enough to translate from Russian to English on Wikipedia, then I know the Cyrillic alphabet.
5) By policy at WP:NOENG, and by established custom and practice on Wikipedia, I am permitted to self-certify which languages I know. Others who also speak those languages are welcome to check my translations for accuracy.
6) The Russian language source will not say that Иосиф Сталин means Iosef Stalin. Why would it?
I hope that you can see from this that transliterations of proper nouns between different scripts are (a) trivial for people who know the alphabets, and (b) incredibly hard to prove to doubting Thomases who don't know those alphabets. Because they are trivial, I hope the community will agree that for an editor with dual fluency, a transliteration is self-sourcing.
I also hope that the community agrees that WP:BURDEN applies to claims, thoughts and ideas. It should not apply at the level of individual words! We don't want people saying "OK, you've given me a citation to say that Berlin is the capital of Deutschland, but how do I know that Deutschland means Germany?" That would be unworkable for our translators.—S MarshallT/C10:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Thanks, I see what you mean. To clarify my remarks quoted above, an editor using the term Иосиф Сталин because it appears in a source is very different from an editor using Иосиф Сталин without a source that uses Иосиф Сталин. It appears you are talking about the first instance, whereas my remarks applied to the second. CMD (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a word is a claim in and of itself. Surely you would demand citations for use of the word "terrorist", or "died" in a BLP. A non-English, non-Latin word consists of multiple claims: "this is how X is translated, this is how it is written, these are the shapes of the letters, these are the accent marks used, this is the direction of the writing." A phrase also makes claims about word order and idiomatic expression.
Your examples of citing non-English sources are another false premise. Editors may request quotations of any source, whether English or not, and translations of quotes into English are also necessary! Said quotes can be recorded within a citation so these can be attested in the wikitext, unlike the say-so of a random Wikipedia editor who is adamantly opposed to attesting anything with a damn citation. Elizium23 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein the issue is not mere transliteration, in many cases, but actual translation or even original, untranslated native terms. The issue is not always single words or names, but can extend to phrases, sentences, paragraphs and passages, because I have seen long swaths of non-English written into articles.
Transliteration, you claim, is as easy as 2+2=4. You refer to a non-PAG page on transliteration into the Latin character set, when that's not even the issue. If you wanna transliterate "social media" and "internet trolls" into Phoenician cuneiform, and claim that that's WP:BLUE, knock yourself out.
I do not know whether the disputed proper nouns are transliterated accurately. They're in languages I don't speak.
Our translators are depressingly accustomed to the situation where someone who doesn't understand a language tries to make a truckload of work for someone who does. WP:V says I have to prove my claims, but I can do so in any language. What I write has to be verifiable by someone who speaks the language of the source. It does not have to be verifiable by you.—S MarshallT/C11:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very much with S Marshall here. Absent some showing that the transliteration in question is contentious for some reason, this just helps no one, especially in the case of something as well known as the Tower of Babel. I could transliterate בָּבֶל as "Babel" or "Bavel" or "BBL" or "BBhL" or "BVL," and I could defend any one of those. Anything but the first, however, would simply be confusing to a reader of a generalized encyclopedia. For my money, no cite needed absent extraordinary circumstances. Cheers and Happy Holidays to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming into to say that S Marshall is 100% right. In these cases, if you don't read the language being discussed, you couldn't actually verify the information even if there was a perfect citation attached. You wouldn't understand the citation in the same way that you don't understand why the claim is self-evident. Many things are self-evident to those who read the language, even if you can't understand why, and most things that are self-evident to people who read the language will, ipso facto, not be explicitly addressed in academic publications.
Not to be unkind, but I think Elizium23 is looking for the illusion of understanding, to feel that a superficial capacity to "verify" the claim has removed the barrier his lack of knowledge had previously presented. But no amount of citation will actually enable him to understand the claims or underlying data. The best editors focus their editing on areas in which they are knowledgeable enough to contribute fully. Elizium23 isn't always wrong, and some editors are definitely too lax about citation -- but it's extremely difficult for someone like him to distinguish where citations are genuinely necessary, so his time is probably best spent on other tasks. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reported Zhomron previously for not filling out the edit summaries, yet no one has done a thing; and I see there is questioning about Zhomron's unsourced additions. Not only that, the user has been frequently adding biblical verses as citations to support biographical content, but per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE that type of sourcing Zhomron has been using contradicts WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and as result has degraded the quality of articles. Zhomron will only continue this poor-qualtiy editing once the block has expired. I urge this community the extend the block to indefinitely. Wikipedia is not taking a loss, on the contrary, an indef block will preserve the quality of articles. Please extend to indef. Judekkan (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: They had previously been warned for loutsocking, on the same IP no less. WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE allows for blocks to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms ... based upon the likelihood of repetition. Given that there was no indication that the disruption had stopped for good, I would say all three prongs of that apply here. A block (hopefully) sends the message, where a simple warning did not, that they cannot continue to behave in this manner. (Contrast, say, someone who logs out to vandalize a single time, then realizes they've made a mistake and never does so again.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)19:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this is a good reason to unblock someone who appears to have been pretty obviously disruptive, but I suppose reasonable minds can differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Velthuru has been hugely disruptive, constantly spewing random data in random places and often promoting positions that are nowhere in the scholarly literature. Please don't unblock him. ThanksJohundhar (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are good examples of where there is genuine dispute about a translation/transliteration, rather than something made up by a Wikipedia editor, as is the case with Negev. Couldn't this whole section be closed now by any admin with a block of Elizium23, who has been shown to be editing against consensus in many articles and wasting our time? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be surprising if a sysop blocked Elizium23 at this point. He's engaging in discussion and not currently reverting. His wish is to challenge content he sees as unsourced, which I think is commendable. There isn't an explicit paragraph in policy that counters his position, so although my position appears to be attracting more support so far, it's reasonable for him to persist for the time being. This conversation could maybe result in a useful essay or guideline about transliterations.—S MarshallT/C19:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those links support either what you allege about Sotto, nor Hererera's year of birth. Citations go in the article, not on WP:ANI. You've had plenty of warnings, nudges and even a week-long block about that. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gemma at Yorkshire Sculpture Park (talk·contribs) is very clearly an employee of Yorkshire Sculpture Park. The original user name was simply "Yorkshire Sculpture Park" and was recently renamed. This user has repeatedly pushed a non-compliant spammy clear-COI edit onto the article and has ignored any warnings - just revert, revert, revert. Now after a final warning from me, a new user Diana Beaumont (talk·contribs) has popped up and reinstated the very same edit. I'm not going to revert it as I don't want to go 3RR, but it's very clear that a) there is COI/paid-editing and b) very likely some sock puppetry as google will show you that "Diana Beaumont" is a name closely associated with the subject of the article. This sort of thing is really bad for Wikipedia and needs to be stopped. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep meaning to visit the Yorkshire Sculpture Park - it's supposed to be a great place to visit, our art teacher takes groups of kids every year but I've never been able to wangle my way onto one of them. I'm sure that our article about it could be much expanded and improved, but that isn't the way to go about it. GirthSummit (blether)12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do it, the place is amazing. I travel frequently between Somerset and the North East. When I drive I make a point of stopping in - especially as it's so close to the motorway. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's a great place just makes such spamming even sadder. Why spam when the Wikipedia article makes it clear that it's a great place in the opinion of neutral sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I was just slightly more spiteful and slightly more interested in the topic.... Imagine a spite GA, nay, a spite FA! For now that's only in my wikipediholic dreams... [Humour]casualdejekyll00:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great idea at most times, but I suppose now (in historically Christian countries) is the season to try and avoid being spiteful. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user (User:Alwardamin) has a serious conflict of interest - still, they are not willing to stop their edits (continue to add fake/spam references) and discuss it first. Here, they called the university article our page as if they own it and in the end mention "University of science and technology Sanaa Yemen" which is their campus name, so clearly they are an employee of the university campus. For background, this university's original campus was in Sanaa, but it was taken over by Houthis (by force), changed curriculum, installed their puppet administration, and is no longer considered a legitimate campus as government of Yemen doesn't recognize it. The main campus is now in Aden as shown by reliable sources. More discussion here. Furthermore, this user has a history of sockpuppetry, so block to make them realize that they are wrong here is needed:
Pktlaurence(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has been engaged in frequent edit-warring behavior this week that has involved both page moves without acknowledgement of ongoing discussions and the insertion of both inaccurate and MOS-breaking article edits. They have been blocked for their improper page moving–something this editor still frequently does despite not seeking discussion (roughly 20 article moves this year alone). They have also been blocked three times for edit-warring, most recently for a month on 15 November. Since the expiration of this most recent block, the editor has resumed their edit-warring behavior. They were reported for edit-warring for their page moves by JayBeeEll, resulting in an uncivil response and no acknowledgement of their incorrect behavior. The editor also exhibits behavior that raises WP:CIR concerns beyond persisting in actions that have gotten them blocked in the past. A good example of this is their ignorance of talk page discussion followed by repeated insertion of incorrect and BLP-breaking material on 2022 German coup d'état plot ([54], [55], [56]). Even when the problems with their edits are explained, Pktlaurence just doesn't get it. While they seem to be acting in good faith, this editor has not stopped edit-warring and page moving over objections. Requesting something to at least stop further page moves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous dispute has already been settled as you can check out. Now you've did your explanation and I'm fine with it, and you've already reverted it to the stable version which I didn't oppose, I didn't see any point for you to raise any further trouble, and what I wanted to do is to improve the article by engaging in discussions. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned on your talk page alone seven times for edit-warring, yet continue to push that limit even within a week of your most recent block expiring. You were blocked for page moving, yet move pages without discussion. You don't learn from other editors trying to stop your disruptiveness, then curse them out when they follow-through on reporting your behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pktlaurence is very much a Dunning-Kruger editor at the moment, but hopefuly not irredeemably so. I ran across them at Principality of Wales where they tried to introduce their misconceived and anachronistic view on an aspect of medieval Welsh history into an Infobox. Not an issue in itself, but what was an isssue was WP:IDHT edit warring to get it in. In isolation, agin, not much of an issue in itself but what I did notice was a whole bunch of warnings on their talk page making very similar points on other articles. They just need to get a warning that they'll take notice of. DeCausa (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pbritti for opening this. I am extremely annoyed about Pktlaurence's behavior. Consider the recent history of Heinrich_Ruzzo,_Prince_Reuss_of_Plauen. I moved this page in accordance with a (brief, but very reasonable) talk-page discussion. The next day, Pktlaurence moved it without discussion or explanation, ignoring both my move and the discussion that led to it. This immediately followed their move-warring over Heinrich Reuss/Heinrich_XIII_Prinz_Reuss. Given that they had offered no explanation at all, I returned it to the title that was consistent with the talk-page discussion (which also has the virtue of (1) being the name of the subject of the biography, and (2) not containing a factual error). Pktlaurence's subsequent explanation for their move is, frankly, utter bullshit, not any better than if they'd just told me to fuck off [57][58]. Notice in particular that they believe "AGF" means their edits shouldn't be reverted (but do they bother to acknowledge or apologize for reverting others?), and that they are entitled to 3RR. And of course they accompany this by re-reverting (so that they have now moved the page, twice, while completely ignoring the clear problems with it, including the discussion that led to the move in the first place). This all follows extremely closely on their last edit-warring block, indicating that they have learned nothing. I looked over a bunch of their other recent edits and cannot find anything of value (they mostly have been obsessively moving things for consistency that shouldn't be consistent and shortening section headings for who the fuck knows what reason, but certainly nothing to do with WP policies or guidelines). Under the circumstances, I feel that they should be indefinitely blocked until they can demonstrate that they understand and will abide by the edit-warring policies and exhibit a baseline level of respect for the efforts of other editors. (DeCausa, with respect, apparently a one-month block for edit warring was not sufficient warning for them to take notice.) --JBL (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wimpus has made a series of edits changing any mention of "pregnant person" to "pregnant woman" or the plural form of these phrases. That had been told to stop by NatGertler, which has been rebuffed. Many of these edits are still live and have not been reverted. One of my latest reverts of such changes, as seen in Abortion in California, has also been reverted. I believe these actions need to be reviewed. Jay Coop·Talk·Contributions21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any policy-based reason given for complaining about Wimpus' edits. This discussion at the Village Pump (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_161#Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles) was closed with the statement, the use of gender-neutral terms in articles is encouraged, but it is important to balance it with the need to maintain "clarity and precision". As outlined below, the terminology in articles, especially medical articles, is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources. This is quoted at the WP:GNL essay.
The fact is that the vast majority of sources on pregnancy, including ones being cited, use the term "pregnant women" - Google Scholar can verify this. This is true of the sources cited as well. (e.g. [65][66][67]) It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to engage in WP:Original research by using different terms. The vast majority of the encyclopedia likewise uses that term, such as at pregnancy and abortion. MOS:CONSISTENT applies within articles, such as for this edit. Additionally, the term in normal English speech and writing is "pregnant women", so language-change advocacy by inserting this unusual term is not appropriate - and almost always if you look at the page history when it was first inserted, it was an IP, WP:Student editor, or other newbie rather than an experienced editor who generally knows better. This is the standard term for the group as a whole; terms about human biology don't generally account for every rare exception lest the wording become ridiculously unwieldy and WP:UNDUE.
The editor filing this report falsely claimed that the Village Pump discussion I linked above "did not reach a consensus" and quoted the closure consensus out of context. Actually, the consensus was unanimous against the proposer, and the part cut off is very clear about the importance of using the terminology found in the sources. Crossroads-talk-21:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion merely comes to hold that there is not a bright-line rule demanding the use of "persons" in all cases. In almost all of their edits, they give no reason with no edit summary.... the exceptions being today when he blamed another editor for being "ideologically inspired", and then dozens of such edits previously, when they made it clear that it was their own politics driving this (""Reverted back to non-PC version".) I have not reviewed every edit, but he has done this in at least one case where the usage at the source is mixed -- the About page in question does at times use "women", but also such phrasing as "reproductive freedom for every body" (emphasis theirs) and "people who choose to work while pregnant". Given that pregnancy is a state that people who are legally and socially girls or men can end up in, this is not an unreasonable inclusiveness. Whatevef reason they are doing these edits, they should not be done automatically and without summary. That they claim it's okay because they are undoing someone else's edit should at least make it clear that these edits are controversial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, the specific phrase pregnant people is not mentioned in that specific source? Pregnant women however is quite acceptable and commonly used, while pregnant people is merely controversial and might confuse readers. Wimpus (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The specific phrase "pregnant people" is not used in that source... nor is the phrase "pregnant women". And it is unclear who, if anyone, would be confused by the term "pregnant people"; is it people who assume that women are not people? --22:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs)
"Pregnant people" is an odd turn of phrase somewhat like "womxn", and is taken by some as implying that pregnancy is somehow genderless in its impacts in an "all lives matter"-esque fashion. It can be confusing as it implies trans men were studied for a certain aspect when they usually were not, which is WP:OR and trans men's hormone therapy could affect whatever is being stated.
The source states, Together, we can ensure an environment that guarantees every woman the right to informed and empowered choices....Educate about the issues affecting our reproductive freedom, and the impact they have on the lives of women and families. This includes our annual flagship publication, Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States....Shift the cultural discourse around abortion access specifically, and reproductive freedom generally, to end the stigma and shame that some place on basic health services and that hinder women from accessing the care they need. So no, this source does not justify the drive-by IPs and such who try to purge mention of "women" from pregnancy in such an WP:UNDUE fashion. That is a problem and should be fixed. And the closure was indeed very clear about using the terminology in the sources.
Wimpus, I would urge you not to make any dispute in this regard about 'ideology' or 'PC' as such, and to be careful never to come off as calling another editor ideological. Use of an edit summary noting the Village Pump consensus and that it aligns with the cited source (and checking that it does) is strongly encouraged. I'm not an admin but I think that advice is all that is needed here. Crossroads-talk-22:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you are arguing as per the sources goes both ways. If a source states "pregnant person", then it is expected to use the terminology used in the source, as per the Village Pump discussion. However, we have also seen an example of Wimpus changing "pregnant person" to "pregnant woman" when the source never made mention of the latter, as indicated in their Sophie Lewis edit. One telling sign about the source used in this article is the passage that states "roughly 1,000 people in the United States who still die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth each year". Judging by this edit, it doesn't appear that Wimpus is applying the Village Pump discussion equally. Moreso, it appears that the user just has a vendetta against the phrase "pregnant person". Jay Coop·Talk·Contributions23:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except the VP goes against the norms used by this encyclopedia of using the term more commonly in use. WP:ADVOCACY is replacing source analysis. How long after Kiev changed its name to Kyiv did it take Wikipedia to accept the change? Yet here a term barely used is accepted without question. Google trend search shows a flatline at bottom of screen for "pregnant person" compared to "pregnant woman". Slywriter (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to giving a more detailed and appropriate edit summary (and in hindsight I should have done earlier). I was actually baffled by the edits of some the student editors and thought that it would be clear that those (and similar) edits would be considered as inappropriate, but some editors seem to approve such lingo. Wimpus (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most do get reverted, and I've seen many, many different editors revert it, usually just one at a time. A few slip through and then later on sometimes someone thinks the person reverting it is the one being a problem, especially if many are done in succession without edit summaries. Like you now say - an edit summary really helps. Crossroads-talk-23:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Slywriter; "pregnant person" is a barely-used term, and Wikipedia should not be adopting activistic language like this, not until it has become the mainstream usage, if that ever happens, which seems unlikely. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited there uses "women" a lot too, e.g. "In [Firestone's] foundational 1970 manifesto The Dialectic of Sex, she identifies the biological family as the basis for women’s oppression because it establishes women as an underclass by forcing them to bear the brunt of gestational labor". In any case, the Sophie Lewis article is very much an outlier; the vast majority of the edits are to medical topics with medical sourcing using standard terminology, yet the original complaint was about the entire set. Crossroads-talk-23:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint was about the practice wherein the editor is making the change everywhere, with no sign of checking sourcing, hiding his changes with lake of edit summary, and so forth. So far no one in this conversation has said that "pregnant women" is never to be used. However, the editor relies on a conversation that said that "pregnant people" is not always to be used as if it said that it was never to be used. Telling them not to point out that they were making the edits for PC reasons would seem to lend to covering up what is going on. When they're not getting rid of "pregnant people", they're getting rid of "enslaved people" or "Black man, so it is hard to say that political correctness is not the concern at hand in their recent edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember though that these are basically belated reversions of edits that were themselves originally made by drive-bys (who themselves gave no indication of checking sources) for "PC reasons", just in the opposite direction, which per the 'not advocacy' policy is more of an issue. (Also these two diffs here are nearly 2 years old now.) What matters here is the substance of the edit (which as pointed out so far were either good or at worst were well within reasonable disagreement and not ANI-worthy) and communication with other editors - which is the edit summary issue which they above said they "in hindsight" should have used. Anyway we can see if admins here really think anything else is needed. Crossroads-talk-08:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wimpus links five examples in their comment above of these edits being made. In four of the five linked, the editors who made the change to 'people' are editors in the top 5 ranking of edits to that page. Please avoid denigrating the contributions of primary editors to pages by describing these edits as "basically belated reversions of edits that were themselves originally made by drive-bys (who themselves gave no indication of checking sources)." Finding this out took me two minutes, likely less time than it took to write your post above. Parabolist (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Nat Gertler, the earlier VP discussion and closure merely confirmed there is no consensus to adopt gender neutral language universally in sex-related health topics. Nothing more. That the VP closure is mentioned in the essay (not consensus guideline or policy) Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language is because Crossroads put it there. There is a common myth repeated by language conservatives that Wikipedia must use the words that appear in our sources. I wrote an essay about that: WP:OUROWNWORDS.
AN/I is not the place to argue about "pregnant woman" vs "pregnant person", though I note that Catherine, Princess of Wales, used the phrase "not the happiest of pregnant people", which was duly and uncritically repeated in the Daily Mail. The phrase therefore has Royal Approval and all the king's subjects are in joyous agreement over this. :-). Seriously, both sides of this language debate are equally language activists, and some editors contributions history to the project demonstrate a single minded determination to enforce their own conservative language preferences. The way Wikipedia deals with issues like this that have no consensus and are unlikely to develop one (given the political climate in the area) is to discourage editors on both sides from flipping words towards their preference. Editors contributing new text should have their word choices in this matter ("person" vs "woman", for example) respected and changes made only if clearly incorrect. But equally, editors should not expect to get away with flipping "woman" to "person". I also warn editors from labelling students and new young editors "activists" just because of the way they naturally would write and the improvements they want to make to the project. -- Colin°Talk12:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to other editors as "language conservatives" is inappropriate and giving equal validity, as is saying that "both sides" are "equally language activists". With the reasoning above then there is no limit on word choice no matter how rare in the actual sources (e.g. womxn, MOS:PBUH), while someone reverting such a person is simply dismissed as a "conservative". The actual MOS, such as at MOS:CAPS, does treat sources as relevant.
The assertion about "the way Wikipedia deals with issues like this" is unsupported and not at all true in my experience - I have seen many, many experienced editors revert changes like this, while those making the change in the first place are almost always newbies. It is not a "no consensus" matter, both in terms of consensus-by-editing and the explicit VP consensus above which did state terminology in articles...is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources. Crossroads-talk-14:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cut to the chase here, apart from a few edits, before the "pregnant person" edits this is an editor who last edited over a year ago to, as they said in their edit summaries, do such things as "revert politically correct language". Which, of course, is what they've reappeared to do again [68], in their view. Are they here to build an encyclopedia, or are they here to right what they consider to be great wrongs? The answer is the latter, of course. Black Kite (talk)15:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you're discussing the actual editor and the things they did. You are not confronting Crossroad's theoretical Wimpus, who was just happening upon the phrase "pregnant people" in the article they were editing, checked to see that it was a recent change by newbie editor, verified that such phrasing is not used in the source, used reversion tools so that the editor who had made the change would be notified, and included an edit summary to make clear their objection, all as part of their normal editing efforts. You ought not besmirch this Platonic ideal of Wimpus with the actual Wimpus at hand... --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is not acceptable about pregnant people in the example you chose? Are you holding that women are not people? That Native Americans are not people? That readers will not understand what pregnancy is, or what people are? Did you delve into the source... not that that paragraph has a source, but did you delve into the source for the previous and next paragraphs, find a copy of the book, and make sure that it said "pregnant women" and didn't allow for, say, those who may be pregnant but falling into one of the categories that are now identified as two-spirit? Or is it just that a perfectly understandable phrase does not fit your politics? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing you didn't read the source either before typing all that. Otherwise you would know the entire section is unsupported by the source. So no the source did not expound on categories as it's a book about plants, focused on plants, not human sexuality and identity. Slywriter (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asking questions like Are you holding that women are not people? is clearly intended to mock someone. My response tried to demonstrate that certain edits (of the student editors) can not be taken seriously and are impossible to defend. Wimpus (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your response demonstrated no such thing. It merely claimed that there was some problem with the acceptability of the phrase in that context.... without a lick of claim of what was unacceptable about it -- a stance you continue to hold. All I could do was offer possibilities about what objections could be raised to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As told by others, it is not merely a neutral term for pregnant women. Readers might think that transgender men are specifically included or discussed by this designation, while the original contribution didn't emphasized (any of) this. Wimpus (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pregnant people is not meant to be a neutral term for pregnant women, but a term for a larger group that that includes pregnant women without pointlessly excluding others who may be pregnant. There are times when it's reasonable to exclude others - when a study was done on pregnant women, for example. This does not appear to be part of it. Is there some sourced reason to exclude the possibility of girls or trans men or two=spirits from this? Or is it possible that the original material was posted by someone who thought "pregnant women" covered all pregnant people, as you seem to want? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to briefly chime in to say that "pregnant people" also includes intersex individuals, who are certainly a biological reality. Statistically, there are probably something on the order of 1.5 million in the world today, and some of them who would not classically be considered to be a "woman" are capable of becoming pregnant. Cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically, that is still a rare exception (see also [69]) and commonly transgender men are biologically women. Using gender-neutral language might have other unwanted effects (see [70]).Wimpus (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was using a prevalence of .018% for my estimate, whereas your source argues against 1.7%. Indeed, a rare exception, but when it likely concerns hundreds of thousands of individuals, I think it worth accounting for. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the term we use in standard English, and it carries a very specific connotation that makes it more than just another way of referring to women. Is there any evidence that the specific Native American culture that used jojoba had individuals who did not identify as women but were anatomically capable of pregnancy and engaged in reproductive sex? The IP making that edit certainly didn't present any. The WP:BURDEN lay with the IP. Crossroads-talk-20:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a term we used in standard English (here it is in use in to-be-read-by-the-general-public pages of the CDC, the Mayo Clinc, The Los Angeles times, Cosmo), and :"pregnant people" is not meant to be a term that is just another way of referring to women, but as a way of referring to people who are pregnant (many women are not.) In the case of Wimpus making a claim in this discussion that "pregnant people" is not acceptable and using that as an example, the burden is actually on him to show that it is not acceptable, rather than just stating a vague opinion as fact. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course many women are not pregnant; it's specifically about what term to use for the group who are. It's possible to find rare uses of "pregnant people" - as is true for any such word or phrase - but looking at the dataset as a whole, usage is minimal. Google Scholar has 2,840,000 results for "pregnant women", but only about 1/337th that many for "pregnant people". Google Trends and even more so Google Books Ngrams (for the last 20 years) have minimal usage.
Intersex was mentioned above but intersex conditions (also known as DSDs) still occur based on sex; they are not a third sex or gender. As such, most of them who can get pregnant identify as women.
Per policy the sourcing burden and onus for consensus that replacing "pregnant women" with "pregnant people" is acceptable in a given usage lay with those who had added it in the first place. Like I said above, though, Wimpus (and anyone) should still use informative edit summaries and WP:FOC. I'm certainly not disputing that. Crossroads-talk-23:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As such, most of them who can get pregnant identify as women. Given this statement, you would agree that there are intersex individuals who identify as male capable of pregnancy? Dumuzid (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At that point the mention of intersex is superfluous though. In any case, it is clear that the vast majority of sources do not write so as to give undue weight to rare exceptions, even in stuff that is unrelated to sex; e.g. at human body. So we follow the sources' lead. Crossroads-talk-23:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, the data you're pulling up is mostly quite dated. Your supposed Ngram for the "last 20 years" actually ends in 2019, so is lacking the latest three years, which in terms of this terminology is old. If we go to Google Scholar and pull up material just from this year, we find that "pregnant women" gets 28,800 hits, while "pregnant people" gets 2450... which means if we're talking current day, we're not talking about 1/337th, but better than 1/12th.... not a majority, but not an ignorable bit of trivia either. (If we start looking at the singular, it's "pregnant woman" at 9670, "pregnant person" at 1240, so more than 1/8th!) On top of that, without starting to dig through article by article, we don't know what portion of the "pregnant women" examples have the term standing for every pregnant person, and how many may be specifically and solely about women.... but I can tell you that 2 of the first 4 that show up on the "pregnant woman" are case studies, so they are talking about specific individuals of known gender, not the general case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams doesn't go later than 2019, I tried. That's still plenty recent to be relevant. Even 11/12 or 7/8 would be considered a strong consensus in a Wikipedia discussion. That the singular "pregnant woman" turns up some case studies is hardly surprising or relevant to the general case. Crossroads-talk-05:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the fact that Ngram has a dated data set makes it a problem to use when we have more recent data, and when the most recent portion of the Ngram data itself shows that usage of "pregnant people" and "pregnant person" was undergoing a rapid increase in the last few years of its sample. The frequency seen in the 2022 Scholar material further makes it clear that things had changed much by 2022, which is the year in which Wimbus's edits took place and we're actually having this discussion. And a case study is going to be listing a specific person, about whom the specific gender can be known -- no one here is saying we should not be using "pregnant woman" when discussing a specific person whose age and gender are known. That is not the generic case where "woman" is just being used as a frequently-correct assumption. Eliminate those specific cases and it is likely that the percentage of times that "pregnant person" is used in the generic increases substantially.... so yes, it is relevant when we're using the ratio to discuss the generic case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plurals are never about specific cases and about groups, and eliminates that ambiguity. Examining that data shows that the rate of increase of "pregnant people" is nowhere near enough to become more than a tiny minority, and even more importantly, "pregnant women" has also been increasing in usage, and with a steeper line. Crossroads-talk-17:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plurals can indeed be about specific cases -if a novel has "Brenda and Charise, the two pregnant women I met on the bus", then that is a pair of specific cases, and not a general statement, and will show up on the Ngram as an example of "pregnant women". You seem to be trying to use the outdated Ngram data to predict the future, when your methods fail at even predicting the past, as the sizable increase of portion of Scholar data from your throughout-collected-history to just-2022 shows. And statistically, "pregnant women" can be increasing in total number quicker than "pregnant people" but still be losing the percentage of the pregnancy discussion. (For those looking on who haven't deal with statistics: imagine that one year there 100 animal coloring books published, 98 about kitties and 2 about puppies. The next year, there are 200 such publications, 160 about kitties and 40 about puppies. Kitties have gained more books year-to-year, adding 62 as opposed to puppies' 38, but percentagewise puppies have gone from 2% all the way up to 20%, a bigger share of the larger pie.) All of this continues to be an aside to what Wimpus seems to have been actually doing, which is making these changes regardless of context and sourcing, and doing it in a way that didn't make it clear what he was doing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty serious accusation. To me, with just a very light sprinkle of AGF dust, this looks like someone making a large number of edits that they believe improve the encyclopedia - that might be WP:DE if it were done against established consensus, or if they refused to discuss the edits when challwnged, but even then there's a wide gap between that and trolling. I'd urge you to set out exactly what it is in the evidence presented that makes you think that Wimpus is trolling, or to retract that. GirthSummit (blether)06:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really, in the context in which it was said? In response to a comment that "...'pregnant people' also includes intersex individuals, who are certainly a biological reality. Statistically, there are probably something on the order of 1.5 million in the world today, and some of them who would not classically be considered to be a 'woman' are capable of becoming pregnant...", Wimpus's reply, "Statistically, that is still a rare exception (see also [92]) and commonly transgender men are biologically women...," doesn't strike me as disruptive or trolling. Yes, more accurately Wimpus should have said biologically female, but I don't read that error as being evidence of an intention to troll. Levivich (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ruling on terminology is not suitable for ANI. Please start a central RfC regarding the issue of "pregnant person" vs. "pregnant woman" with some examples to make it clear what is being discussed. I looked at Abortion in California and it was an edit on 3 October 2022 that introduced "pregnant person". Wimpus changed "person" to "woman" on 20 December 2022. No comments have ever been made at Talk:Abortion in California. Either side could be said to be on a campaign and an RfC is needed to settle the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if an RfC is wanted, please first take a few days to draft wording including the RfC's scope (which articles/guidelines might need changing) and with a clear actionable outcome. The draft needs to be widely publicized to get views from those involved. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a "similar RFC" because it asked for all sex-related articles to be entirely gender neutral. An RFC on this matter in the current political climate in the US, UK and other countries would be so disruptive as to, imo, warrant admin action against the person starting it. It is abundantly clear that our society is quite divided. The Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill, passed yesterday, is so divisive that Westminster reaction to it is being seriously described as a nail in the coffin for the United Kingdom (i.e. independence for Scotland). Transgender issues have been adopted as a culture war tactic by right-wing politicians in the UK and US and look set to feature highly in the coming elections. I don't think any discussion on Wikipedia would rise about being a proxy for editors political views, and display a similar level of toxic bullshit from certain parties.
Being upset about "pregnant person" and yet being entirely unfazed by "pregnant teenager" (which is similarly "desexed") is a shibboleth for editors holding strong conservative or gender critical beliefs. Editors going around with a search-and-destroy behaviour on keywords that make them turn red-faced, or with a huge watchlist that they use solely to revert-to-conservativism, are activists. Crossroads above accused me of "giving equal validity" when saying both sides were activists (though as usual, Crossroads links to entirely irrelevant policy). Well, actually, an examination of editor contributions makes it very clear that one side is overwhelmingly and devotedly activist, and it is the conservative/gender-critical editors. And newcomers who are actually contributing new material are the first casualty in that war.
People going about changing "pregnant person" to "pregnant woman" should be asked to stop, and if they don't stop, should be blocked. Same for people going about changing "pregnant woman" to "pregnant person". If anyone thinks Wikipedia's MOS should prefer one phrase over the other, they should start an RFC and get consensus for it before making mass changes, rather than engaging in WP:FAITACCOMPLI editing. Same for "Black"/"black" and any other MOS issues. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the cited source speaks only of "pregnant women"? [71] Also in most of the cases here it only became "pregnant people" because someone changed it from "pregnant women" which according to you was also bad - so reverting a bad edit is also a bad edit? Crossroads-talk-23:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any edits reverting Wimpus, if you'll allow me to roughly quote you, would basically be belated reversions of edits that were themselves originally made by a drive-by. I trust the judgement of the primary editors of articles over an editor who comes back once every couple months to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I understand he's doing them in support of a greater content conflict you seem to be involved in, but the issue here is a conduct one, so your bludgeoning of this discussion in an attempt to solve that content conflict aren't really helping. Parabolist (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to trust the regular editors at a particular article more than someone who comes back once very couple of months. What counts are the edits themselves, and adherence to policy and guidelines. An experienced editor who is crazy busy fighting against advocacy might well turn up at numerous articles sporadically in an attempt to hold the line against small groups of well-meaning and/or inexperienced editors who hang out at specific articles attempting to move the content in the direction they feel is correct. I would say that student editors given guidance by their instructor that may run counter to a WP guideline (or which establishes guidance where none exists) could be an example of such small groups that would need correction by an experienced editor familiar with NPOV and especially DUE, which hardly any student editors are equipped to properly deal with, even if they can only manage a visit to the article infrequently. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a bad edit can also be a bad edit. Consider the concept of editing wars; we don't fail to sanction one side just because they are correcting errors on the other side. Do not be so desperate in your need to erase "pregnant people" that you are avoiding the concerns about Wimpus's actual methods. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction of pregnant person at Abortion in California, as mentioned above, could be an illustrative example. The original change was a good-faith edit by a user with several previous improvements to the article, and wasn't even the main point of that particular edit, but ended up igniting the edit-warring. I've restored a previous, uncontentious version of the lead sentence, and referred editors to this discussion at Talk.
It was a fair bit of work to analyze and (hopefully) defuse the issue at that one article. Had Wimpus gone into the details of that one case to that extent, perhaps they would've come to a different conclusion about the edits, and acted differently. As it happened, their first edit had no edit summary, and second one could've been better worded, and by then we were in warring territory (which didn't end there). But had I noticed a pattern of changes of this nature at numerous articles, would I have done that amount of work analyzing the article history, the user's contributions, and the progression of the lead sentence over time at each article involved in the pattern? No way; it's way too much work.
I think what happened here, is that Wimpus noticed a pattern of edits in a contentious area, wanted to improve them with good faith edits, and may have interpreted all such changes as POV edits, which clearly not all of them were (such as at Abortion in California, which clearly was not POV), even assuming some were. They could improve going forward, by giving a better edit summary the first time, and if reverted, either disengaging or raising it at the TP, or as now seems more apt, at a centralized discussion about the pattern of edits. There is nothing actionable here; taking it in the worst light, an admin might raise a discussion at their talk page, advising better use of edit summaries, a reminder not to 2RR if it could be misinterpreted, and to go into greater depth of analysis when undoing a change in a possibly contentious area, especially if it involves the lead sentence, and/or to raise a TP discussion if possible. That's really all this amounts to. Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheng123xx sock puppet
Please block these four account, Sorcerex sock puppet
No. Yann is a COmmons admin, Ikan Kekek is a respected Commons editor and a WIkivoyage admin. Sankatic is not registered here, and while AXXXXK has an undistinguished record, there is nothing obviously problematic. I am, however, interested in 124.217.188.87. Acroterion(talk)13:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the /23 for 72h in the hope that it prompts our time-wasting friend to go do something productive. I fear it will not, but I'm quite fed up of cleaning up these messes at SPI and seemingly now here as well. firefly ( t · c ) 10:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, administrators. Editor Benlisquare is engaged in a campaign of spamming their user-generated sexist "busty young girl" images. This has been ongoing since at least September 27, when they added to the Stable Diffusion article 95 "busty young girl" images,[74] with all 95 of those being user-generated images created by Benlisquare using an AI program they've specifically typed the prompt of "busty young girls" into. Multiple editors have politely attempted to explain to Benlisquare that this behavior is a problem, with for example editor Colin M saying these images are an example of WP:BIAS[75] and that there is no reason to create images of "sexualized young women" ... distracting and borderline WP:GRATUITOUS."[76] Editor Ichiji describes these as "exploitive images,"[77] editor Ovinus has described these as "pictures appealing to the male gaze ... nothing special about these,"[78] and editor MrOllie saying the "'busty girl' image was a literal poster child for WP:SYSTEMICBIAS"[79] and a "sexualized image."[80] I have suggested multiple compromises, such as that instead of user-generated images we could use images from reliable sources[81] or if we do use user-generated images they might be based on commonly used AI art prompts rather than a single editor's focus on "busty young girls,"[82] however Benlisquare has refused to compromise. After being repeatedly told their images were problematically sexist, they have now created a new image that also seems problematic in regards to race and religion, by now drawing their busty young girl wearing a hijab, referring to it as the "halal edition," drawing a pale-skinned arm on the girl's body, and then inserting that image into the article claiming that nobody responding to them within 24 hours is a sign of group consensus,[83] and then edit warring when I do state objection to their latest problematic drawing.[84]
I feel we have been exceedingly polite to an editor who has spammed about 100 of their drawings of "busty young girls" into a single article; however, their response has been denial that there is any issue, and to respond with escalating profanity, incivility, and personal attacks. For example, "your messiah Vladimir Putin ... shit ... shit ... boners ... shithole,"[85] and to respond to concerns with links to more inappropriate images and to embed multiple pornographic images into the article's talk page.[86]
This seems to me to be pretty clear-cut sexual harassment. If in any other collaborative project such as in a school or a workplace, if one of the collaborators were bringing in about a hundred of their drawings of "busty young girls" and responding to collaborators with pornographic links and images, that collaborator would be removed from the project. They have shown no sign that they understand that their behavior is problematic, and instead seem to be getting worse. If any administrators can provide assistance here, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to boil down to a think of the children plea. Also, the changing the image to a woman in a headscarf seems like it should have alleviated the original concern about "busty women". So, why are you here, if the original image has been retired? ValarianB (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's certainly creepy, sexist, obsessive, and seems to involve derivative images that may not have a free source. There's no reason to keep inserting many sexualized images into an article focused on imaging technology. The personal attack is blockable in any case. Please remember to notify Belisquare of this discussion. Acroterion(talk)16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called sexist image in question has been replaced. Also, it appears that this Belisquare has created the images themselves, so there's no licensing issue. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Laundering a sampled image through an image generator doesn't make something self-created. This is a consistent issue with AI content in general. And honestly, 100 images of a subject with different boob sizes and nasty responses isn't advancing the encyclopedia or illustrating the concept. Acroterion(talk)16:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
benlisquare’s incivility certainly needs to be addressed, but the matter regarding the sexualized nature of the original image seems to have been addressed/resolved. How is the current image in any way inappropriate? Seems like the OP is just upset they didn’t get their way. ANI should not be used as a means to settle a content dispute. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1C92:6D1E:A8F5:353D (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than a few things on this website are less than ideal for showing your grandma. But when one goes from approaching topics that require more explicit depiction to shoehorning sexualization into articles about other topics, that's NOTHERE behavior. The replies that Levivich details are enough on their own to warrant a serious response, much less when they follow the disruptive edits that preceded them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An indef would seem reasonable. Given that Benlisquare seems to thing that "grow up" is appropriate advice to give to contributors, we should ask for the same from them. Unblock if and when Benlisquare acknowledges that their behaviour regarding this matter has been juvenile, and that Wikipedia articles aren't a platform for the gratuitous sexualisation of "young girls". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially given the copyright concerns with the image libraries used with AI art, I don't think this content can even be licensed freely (how much it is a derivative work is something that will have to get hashed out in courts.) Beyond that, if Ben doesn't understand why people are objecting and is getting POINTY with his edits, a block of some sort is appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have indefinitely blocked Benlisquare for disruptive editing and harassment. Thanks to all the editors who assessed their misconduct so well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is another sockpuppet of the indeffed User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 created a few days ago involved in active disruption, starting with a few edits adding tags and links, then proceeding to jump onto Talk:Kryvyi Rih and edit war to restore a deleted comment by another blocked sock of his[90][91] and calling another admin who reverted the edit a sock in the edit summary and even leaving a warning[92] on his talk page, now trying to restore his edits[93] on Old East Slavic literature that got another one of his sockpuppets blocked[94][95] and now edit warring again. None of the edits are constructive anyway. It is getting annoying at this point so probably the article Old East Slavic literature also needs protection since he keeps returning to it. Mellk (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For background, the other day, I made an edit to an article over which I now believe a small group of editors, including 1995hoo, have established a level of WP:OWNership. My edit included the Commonwealth English spelling of "criticised", an ENGVAR I expected to be in use. Almost immediately, 1995hoo reverted it. So far, nothing really of note. The revert reason was ENGVAR, and (long story short) once it came to my attention that there had been edit-warring at the article for ENGVAR, I started an RfC at WP:FOOTBALL on whether all the men's World Cup articles should have one ENGVAR so such warring doesn't happen in future.
Throughout, however, 1995hoo has insisted on characterising my edits, comments, and motivations as inherently malicious. This has strayed to the territory of repeatedly making personal attacks when initiating discussion of me, personally (not topics), with other users - and then acting nice when interacting with me.
When canvassing their buddies to the RfC here, wrote A user started an RFC to force the use of British English in all its forms …
…after having said, in reply to me, I don’t necessarily mean to say that you personally are actually focused on the "soccer versus football" argument …
…which came as a result of me asking them about their original !vote at the RfC, which had similarly included the accusation the use of "soccer" versus "football," which is really what the question is about. As an aside, this also had combative language, like The World Cup does not belong to the Brits or to the Commonwealth and there is no reason whatsoever to demand that their variety of English apply, and so I feel 1995hoo has felt that the RfC was an attack, for them to be replying in such a way.
So far, this appears to be simply a case of, no matter the fact 1995hoo was there from the very beginning; had been the one to tell me of the past edit-warring; and had seen my thought process throughout, an incredible lack of AGF in thinking I was cynically intending to "force" upon him an ENGVAR that I had indeed never even mentioned.
It is against CIVIL to have directly mentioned me (among the other issues) when going canvassing, especially using my apparent intentions as a reason to !vote a certain way, which is certainly a form of attack (in that it is 1995hoo effectively telling certain users that they should be ideologically opposed to me). But 1995hoo did somewhat apologise for that when I made him aware of the CANVASS policy. This is to say, I don't think 1995hoo is a 'bad' user, just goes incredibly all-in – taking it far too far – when encountering something he doesn't like.
Because that exhibit of deciding to start negative discourse about me, as a user, has now reappeared in a thread that they began, with the explicit intention of being rude about me. Their furtherresponses going further.
I maintain that 1995hoo's characterisation of me as being rude etc. is at best a misunderstanding, which is what I will assume even though (as it regards this topic) they have been along since the start. I have not assumed bad faith of them, merely asked why they did so of me (based on their explicit messages to other users), after having thanked them for their willingness to discuss both at the 2026 WC article and the RfC. Nor have I exhibited ownership, merely tried to keep an RfC on-topic, something I did with users who !voted in different ways, so there can be no accusations of bias in enforcement.
In any case, even if I was as "arrogant" as 1995hoo seems to believe (or, at least, wants to go around telling people), that is no reason to repeatedly start and contribute to discussions on the subject of "being a dick about Kingsif". This is repeated, targeted, incredibly uncivil behaviour. I would venture it is made worse that they have done it all in tangential spaces, while acting sweet 'to my face'; i.e. they know the behaviour is wrong. Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last point first. I have never, not once, used the word "dick" in reference to kingsif, and I have no intention of ever doing so. I don't use that sort of language on Wikipedia unless I am editing an article in which that sort of thing appears in a quotation. With regard to the rest of the discussion, I perceive kingsif's conduct as being exceptionally rude and smacking of WP:OWN (especially in terms of attempting to dictate to people how they can or cannot comment on issues). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement quoted above that the World Cup does not belong to the Brits or to the Commonwealth and that there is no basis for insisting that their variation of English must apply—it is an entirely accurate, factual statement, but it happens to disagree with user kingsif's position. I take note that kingsif has repeatedly assumed bad faith as to users who disagree with the idea that British spellings should apply to the World Cup article—from the very beginning of the edits cited above, kingsif's responses accused other users of "not being open to discussion," being guilty of "enormous bad faith," and "think(ing) they OWN the content." When kingsif immediately accused me of "enormous bad faith" right from the beginning here [98], I think my responding more or less in kind was justified.
I have acknowledged that I was unaware of the canvassing policy and that I acted wrongly there. I've never had reason to see that before.
Regarding my discussion with user GoodDay, if you look at GoodDay's edit summaries in the RFC in question [99], you'll see GoodDay had become fed up with being bossed around: "Not being allowed to participate freely in RFC, by RFC creator. Therefore walking away." I left a message on GoodDay's talk page to express support. Yes, it mentioned kingsif, and yes, it made negative comments about his handling of the situation—but the discussion would not have made any sense if I hadn't mentioned kingsif.
How about this: I propose I will have no further involvement with your RFC and that I will just walk away from editing any World Cup articles at all, at which point presumably we should have no further dealings with each other. If you want, I'll delete my comments from the RFC as well (but in order to keep the logical structure of the discussion, I propose to substitute the text "(This comment withdrawn by the user)" because otherwise the page structure would get messed up with indented replies not appearing to respond to anything). 1995hoo (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add one further comment to my reply above. I looked back at the Talk: 2026 FIFA World Cup discussion and I note that after I said I thought it was inappropriate of kingsif to accuse another user of bad faith simply because the other user disagreed with him (comment of 13:37 on December 17), kingsif then turned around and accused me of bad faith (comment of 15:55 the same day). I simply want to be clear on the record that my response to kingsif has been predicated on what I perceived as open hostility on kingsif's part from the beginning. 1995hoo (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1995hoo: I haven't looked back at the discussion at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup, and I would be happy for you to bring diffs. What I recall is that I proposed discussion, nothing more, and at least three users replied in a sort of tandem to shut down the idea of discussion even as I suggested why. I believe I wrote that seeing this refusal to consider discussion gave me the impression of a bad faith approach. This is all to say, I still don't have an issue with you as an editor and I always want input from every angle - I also think I said that, that I invited your reasoning, including that American spellings aren't exactly confusing - but, to the point, disruption and disrespect is never okay. To respond to some of your main reply here: I do not want you to remove your comments from the RfC or to disengage with a subject you are interested in. I believe that you are very invested in preserving American English, though, and saw my attempt at discussion as an attack, and approached me with that in mind - reading more maliciousness into my comments than is in the actual words, for example - and forming an image of me that you say you thought was hostile from the start. Well, I wasn't trying to be, and I haven't mentioned your very first (hostile? maybe) edit reason (I don't think it is part of the later pattern that needs addressing). Now, let's be honest, I don't mind what you think of me and I would expect you to have the same view — if we can still work together civilly. But going around to multiple other pages and smearing me? That is an unacceptable behavioural issue. I do appreciate you reaching out to another user who may be feeling annoyed about their involvement in the RfC, we should all be supportive, although their (GoodDay) edit reason that you quote is a wildly misleading exaggeration, too; nobody stopped them participating freely, I asked them to be clearer in their explanation exactly to help their participation in the survey, and (separately) hatted their off-topic discussion after they said they didn’t want to continue because they still didn't understand. (I assume it is this that you are saying is me being rude and smacks of OWN? Literally encouraging them and then just closing a discussion they ended? Well, okay. You also can't have seen my actual !vote if you say they and I disagree, but clearly what I actually think vs what the image of me you have constructed thinks doesn't matter to you.) And, back to the point, I really think you could have been supportive to them without making a thread to be a dick (yes, my words, I should have noted the quote marks there were giving a sense, not directly quoting) about me. And that was your intention, not a side effect of the discussion, since you named the thread after me and opened it by saying you didn't want to get into the RfC but would comment on me as a user. Your further replies were even more specific. That is unnecessary. And that is what this ANI is opened for. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add (@1995hoo: to keep in the loop though this isn't a reply), for those coming to look over the case and maybe wondering what I might expect, that I imagine the most favourable outcome here would be some kind of IBAN that 1. does not cover the shared area of interest (football), as I think we both value each others' article space contributions there, and 2. puts 1995hoo on a final warning regarding further similar uncivil thread-making/ private chats to be a dick about users. I don't want to see them suffer, but, as I understand it, such behaviour is really the opposite of the mindset of a collaborative Wikipedia, and someone thinking it is appropriate to stoke division because of an apparent personal issue needs to learn that is not the case. And if not learn, at least know they can't do it again (like with the canvassing). Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I need to sign off for the night, so if anyone leaves a message that would seem to merit my response and I don't respond, it's simply because I will not see it until Friday morning Eastern Time. 1995hoo (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent restoration of non essential product description. This had previously induced page protection, but my request for a renewed lock has been ignored. Asking for reversion, protection, and a check on socking--it's not unlikely that one editor is using multiple accounts solely in this cause. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I offer no opinion about the underlying content dispute, but the chance that several different editors came to the conclusion that such esoteric content should be restored is so close to zero to be indistinguishable from it, so a report at WP:SPI seems reasonable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PlatinumClipper96 - WP:POVPUSH, edit warring and retaliatory reverts
I today reverted an edit by PlatinumClipper96 at Chingford[100]. The page history here shows that this user has been asserting and re-asserting that bold edit on that page since February 2021 and he has been reverted scores of times by multiple editors. This talk section [101] looks at the matter and shows that there are clear guidelines on the content in question in WP:UKTOWNS and WP:UKCOUNTIES and editor consensus is also established and the information was removed yet again in November. His re-insertion of the material today, without establishing a new consensus in talk, clearly merited reversion in my opinion, and I requested he take it to talk. He did not.
In apparent retaliation the editor has trawled through my edit history over the last month or two, and just reverted my edits on 20 pages, these being:
This is not an isolated behaviour. This editor repeatedly reverts to his preferred wording and this is WP:POVPUSHing. The content issue is that the editor wishes to assert the minority view that historic counties still exist within their original borders and so towns such as Chingford remain in those counties. This is against Wikipedia guidelines at WP:UKCOUNTIES and WP:UKTOWNS. Guidelines say Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries., and there is a whole wikipedia fork at Wikishire [102] set up to push this view. This editor and a couple of others have been pushing this minority view by editing this information into Wikipedia pages over a period of time. This editor edit wars his version in. See also, for instance, edit history at Romford, and the talk page discussion at [103]
I have attempted to reason with the editor on article talk pages and in a thread at the London Wikiproject [104]. They do not engage with the issue, have accused me of trawling their edits (I haven’t, but they clearly trawled mine for this mass reversion of my edits).
My view is that this editor is knowledgeable about some aspects of London, and other edits they make are valuable, but this issue is endemic. It is not going to go away, and their method of reverting and not seeking consensus asks questions about whether they are WP:NOTHERE. I wonder whether the community might consider whether a topic ban is called for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Id personally also like to support this, having seen multiple edit wars by the same user over multiple years over countless articles with tens of users. The tactic appears to be to frustrate users into giving up, as many of the pages involved are low traffic and unlikely to have many contributors at one time. Every time i see this user, their "contributions" are simply reverting edits and pushing political ideologies which are contrary to guidelines as described above. Whats listed above is mostly one days worth of edits, and this happens on a frequent basis - This is not their first edit war, and without intervention it will not be their last. Garfie489 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the accusations Sirfurboy has made here. Utterly defamatory and lacks important context. I would strongly encourage administrators looking at this discussion to view this talk page discussion at WikiProject London for context (specifically today's contributions).
My edit to Chingford took into account the talk page discussion Sirfurboy cites, and I made a bold edit to the article today with slightly different wording, using LondonEast4's suggestion of including the historic county of Chingford in the second paragraph. Sirfurboy reverted this bold edit 9 minutes later. I made no further edit, and took it to the linked talk page discussion he suggested I take further discussion to after I suggested discussing this dispute on his talk page. Extremely misleading, if not slanderous, to say "I requested he take it to talk. He did not.".
Having made this edit [105] to Croydon last month, Sirfurboy made a number of changes [106], resulting in the only mention of Surrey in the lead being that Croydon "was formerly an ancient parish in the Wallington hundred of Surrey". Guidance at WP:UKTOWNS clearly states that the lead of UK settlement articles should include the place's historic county if different to ceremonial county. I restored my wording, as Croydon ceased to be a parish long before it became part of Greater London in 1965 (when Sirfurboy argues it left the historic county of Surrey). Sirfurboy effectively restored his wording, and I made no further edit to this article.
Sirfurboy then begins to trawl through my edit history, beginning a long series of edits (many of which are reverts to my edits) to historic county wording in articles he had no prior history editing, starting with Romford, Leytonstone, Edmonton, London, Ilford and Stratford, London. He does, however, start a series of discussions across talk pages, some of which I contributed to (including Talk:Woodford,_London#Woodford_is_not_in_Essex. He then begins mass editing Greater London place articles with stable wording, most of which neither of us had ever edited, using, by his own admission, Google Search to find articles that did not include his preferred wording. I outlined my objections to his wording on both his talk page and today at WikiProject London. I have today reverted many of these bold edits, highlighting my objections and pushing for discussion rather than continued mass edits, which Sirfurboy continued with today.
To answer some specific points in that response: I already linked to the WikiProject London talk page above. Agree that it provides context. There is also context on my user talk page User talk:Sirfurboy#Counties... where PC96 attempted to raise the content discussion there and I signposted to the Wikiproject London page. The editor has 3 times accused me of trawling his edits, but, on the contrary, it is clear by looking at these 20 reverts listed above, that 19 of them were on pages that PC96 had never edited before reverting my edits. [107]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute is only the latest outburst in a very long and seemingly endless dispute about how best to treat historic counties in the UK, in England especially. The cause is the poorly constructed guidelines from over 20 years ago that allow no room for compromise of any sort. I have intentionally kept out of this current argument. PlatinumClipper96 is not a disruptive editor pushing a point of view without any substance. The guidelines that state We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries are nothing more than opinion. There is unambiguous evidence, in statute law and in quality secondary sources that shows the historic counties have never been altered (in any relevant way), never abolished and never had boundaries changed. The issue is whether they hold any relevance to the point of being notable in today's UK. The guidelines do not cater for that discussion but instead assert a factually incorrect opinion that is of peripheral importance. So finger pointing at an editor for correcting factual errors as best as possible is unhelpful and unfair and I would say contrary to wiki policy. Incidentally, it is also misleading to imply that PlatinumClipper96 is part of a small minority. There have been regular and many very high quality editors who have also questioned the current guidelines going back many years. I regard Sirfurboy also as a quality editor and I am tentatively engaged with him in what seems to be a reasonably open minded discussion about this HC issue. Time will tell if it bears fruit. By way of a general observation, the issue is both simple and complicated, not helped by freely used ambiguous words and phrases, and, IMO, by a cohort of old school editors with entrenched minds (opinions all expressed in good faith of course and no offence intended). Besides that old-school group, there will always be clamoring newbies eager to leap into the fray thrusting daggers into those editors who dare to think outside the square and question established doctrine. In summary, I cannot comment on the technicalities of this presumed edit war, but the subject itself is not about one person pushing an isolated opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, thanks, but ANI is not the place to discuss the content dispute. This report is about editor behaviour. The editor has trawled through my edits and reverted my edits on 20 pages, 19 of which he had never edited before. This is not the only issue either.
PlatinumClipper96 mentions the Croydon page, so to examine that: his bold edit was here,[108], I and Dave Biddulph attempted to adjust the edit - without reversion -to a form of words that did not assert Croydon was in Surrey: [109]. PC96 reverted to his version [110] on 14 Nov, 11:01. I then immediately took this to talk, posting at 11:39: [111]GrindtXX pointed out the established guidelines and Spinney Hill made an edit that resolved the situation [112], consensus established, guidelines implemented. With a clear editor consensus, PC96 did not edit that page again.
After that, and despite it already being clear to this editor what the consensus and guidelines say, PC96 has reverted my edits on other pages at:
So in each case the editor does not discuss in talk before editing against a consensus he is aware of (in Romford, his edits removed a comment on the page asking editors to discuss in talk before putting in an edit that says Romford is in Essex). He simply reverts to his preferred version, forcing the case to be re-opened in talk pages time and again. This is a huge time sink, which appears to be a strategy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not this shit again. Easy resolution - simply block (or topic ban from county related articles) anyone from the co-ordinated little group who continues to push the fringe views about historic counties and refuses to follow the quite reasonable guidelines on this subject. That will sort the problem out until the next account turns up. A typical previous total waste of everyone's time can be seen at a previous ANI here. Black Kite (talk)09:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact... if I were not literally about to leave for a few days over Xmas, I would block PlatinumClipper96 for their behaviour here. Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. PC96 - if you do this once more, I will block you. If any other admin thinks it is deserving of a block anyway, please feel free. Black Kite (talk)09:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, yes, I see your point and perhaps I did stray off topic. I was just trying to support someone I saw backed into a corner. But, as I said, I have kept out of this latest dispute and so cannot comment on any detail from either side. Incidentally, I need to thank Black Kite for his most illuminating contribution: informative in many ways. A true ambassador for what makes Wikipedia the institution it has become. I too look forward to that imminent Christmas break: surf, stubbies, slip, slap and slop. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be befuddled by this back and forth about historic counties and the drama it creates. I agree with Black Kite that TBANs may be needed for those who refuse to drop the stick... firefly ( t · c ) 09:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are befuddled by the back and forth nature of this (never-ending) dispute is evidence enough that the guidelines need to be clarified. Not referring to the current PC96-SB spat, acting contrary to consensus that contradicts policy is not grounds for a block. Rather, it is grounds for urgently revisiting the guidelines with fresh thinking. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's grounds for making sure the irredentists who refuse to follow Wikipedia guidelines don't waste any more of our time. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam, so it's time for those on the "losing" side to either accept the result or stop editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And those guidelines seemingly are being addressed through the proper channels, not by reverting edits and edit warring as PC96 has done on multiple occasions. As already mentioned, a discussion about updating guidelines is very much separate to the discussion of edit warring to force ones belief of what guidelines should be. I feel Sirfurboy's put this already much better than i can, but going through an editors history deliberately to undo and war their contributions when said contributions are in line with all relevant guidelines should never be tolerated.
The fact this is just one example in years worth of similar conduct shows something at least needs to be done to prevent future misconduct. This user has been previously reported for bad faith edits according to their talk page by Uakari [[124]] along the same issue last year and seemingly did not learn from this. In fact, PC96 summarises the removal of their previous warning from the talk page as "Removing rubbish" according to the talk page edit history. Maybe after continued edit wars by PC96, its time we take out the trash? Garfie489 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy - utterly misleading yet again. On Romford, the comment left on the page was "PLEASE GO TO THE TALKPAGE BEFORE CHANGING THIS TO ESSEX". There have been several occasions over the years where editors have replaced "east London" with Essex. This is not something I have ever tried to do, and this comment was irrelevant to whether or not, or what tense, the historic county is included. I removed this comment as my edit introduced wording that clearly distinguished the fact Greater London is the current ceremonial county and that Essex is the historic county. As for the Croydon edits last month, Dave Biddulph did not join you in "attempting to adjust the edit - without reversion -to a form of words that did not assert Croydon was in Surrey" - his edit solely corrected a spelling error [125].
"So in each case the editor does not discuss in talk" - another falsehood, just like your claim that I did not take your Chingford revert to talk. I cannot be expected to have the same discussion about the same topic on each relevant article. I engaged in talk at Talk:Woodford, Talk:Romford, Sirfurboy's talk page, and WikiProject London, amongst others. In the midst of discussion, and without engaging in content discussion with me, you continued mass editing your preferred wording, using Google Search to find articles (most of which neither of us had ever edited) that mentioned historic counties in a way you disapprove (as you admit here [126]).
As you seem to have an issue with me reverting your bold edits, it is worth mentioning again the way you trawled through my edit history. You had never previously edited Ilford, Chingford, Romford, Woodford, Edmonton, London, or Enfield, London, amongst others. My reverts to your bold edits (making the same changes on articles about the same topic) are justified. Your mass edits, which you continued making to dozens of articles despite ongoing discussion, were disruptive.
@Black Kite - Sirfurboy's mass edits were bold and the topic of discussion. He continued carrying out mass edits to stable wording across Greater London articles neither of us had ever edited regardless. I fail to see why I was wrong to undo his most recent bold edits and encourage further discussion. I fail to see why it is acceptable for him to carry out reverts to bold edits having looked at user contributions, but not me.
Many of Sirfurboy's bold edits were in violation of topic guidelines. As I point out on WikiProject London and Sirfurboy's talk page, Sirfurboy removed all mention of historic counties from a range of Greater London place articles. WP:UKTOWNS topic guidelines are crystal clear that the historic county of a UK settlement should be included in the lead where ceremonial county is different. Other bold edits introduced misleading wording claiming places ceased to be in their relevant historic county in 1965, which is factually incorrect. There are no consensus or guidelines stating this is correct or what should be written.
Some of these reverts were made because Sirfurboy's version constituted a violation of topic guidance at WP:UKTOWNS. The rest were made because the wording Sirfurboy had introduced was factually incorrect (nothing to do with guidelines) I had never previously edited the majority of these pages, so I was reverting to existing stable wording, not my versions.
The guidance that says "We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries" is in WP:UKCOUNTIES, which is topic guidance for county articles. Saying a place is in a historic county in a town article does not mean historic counties exist "within their former boundaries" or not. I would argue my edits are not in violation of the guidelines, except the line in WP:UKCOUNTIES (guidance for county, not town articles - big difference) saying "use language that asserts past tense". This is currently being discussed, and, as Roger 8 Roger said, these guidelines have been subject to question from a large number of editors. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Garfie489 Thanks for linking that past discussion. I see that Uakari stated that MRSC had also mooted a topic ban be petitioned for over this. I also note this very pertinent comment from Uakari in that thread: You (PlatinumClipper96) are aware from all the links I and others have provided to guidance, RfCs and ANIs, that the consensus does not align with your belief in the persistence of historic counties, yet you and a small number of other editors have taken it upon yourselves to disregard the consensus and edit your own chosen selection of articles to match your belief anyway. That is bad-faith editing, which is what this comes down to, irrespective of the fact your belief in the persistence of historic counties is false. You realised you weren't going to get your way by discussing, so you decided to change the articles anyway. I don't really have anything more to say to someone who thinks that is an appropriate way to approach editing Wikipedia. I expect administrators will step in from here, to take action regarding your deliberate disregard for consensus and to clear up your vandalism to the London areas articles in particular, which in the end has added nothing of any import and has simply caused a lot of work to rectify. I'll just wait until that process is complete, and do my best to restore the articles at that stage - I'm in no rush!Uakari (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
And incidentally, PC96 is also making this bizarre claim that I am mass editing; even, elsewhere, wikilinking the page WP:MASSEDIT. This page defines mass eddting thus: "Mass editing is editing that occurs when a single editor makes the same change to a large number of articles, typically employing the assistance of a tool such as the AutoWikiBrowser." My changes are bespoke, made over a protracted period to a small number of pages (maybe 25 or so thus far), and are often accompanied by other edits to improve the pages (e.g. [127] ). So like his other accusations of my alleged bad faith, I really don't think this term applies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Garfie489 "going through an editors history deliberately to undo and war their contributions when said contributions are in line with all relevant guidelines should never be tolerated" - the edits were bold and the changes were the same. Previous wording was stable, and had not been edited by me on 19 out of 20 of those pages. Again, the reverts were to address Sirfurboy's new wording that either violated WP:UKTOWNS guidelines by removing the historic county entirely, or introduced factually incorrect information (saying a place was in its historic county until 1965, as if the creation of Greater London in the London Government Act 1963 impacted the set of what are known as historic counties).
Sirfurboy went through my edit history in a similar fashion following my proposed new wording at Croydon he disagreed with, before beginning a series of edits across Greater London articles to implement his preferred wording, rather than engaging with discussion. If the fact I used Sirfurboy's list of contributions to find and revert the same bold edit he made across articles is an issue, why should Sirfurboy's use of my edit history be considered acceptable?
Sirfurboy went through my edit history. Fifth time you made that accusation. It still isn't true. Demonstration is above. So again, 19 of these 20 retaliatory reverts are to pages you never edited before. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is welcome to view your edit history following my edits to Croydon on 14th November. You immediately began making retailatory reverts and edits to articles you had never edited before, including here at Romford [128], here at Enfield [129], and other articles I mention further above.
To address your quote from Uakari, I'd encourage anyone to take a look at the context of this dispute in August 2021 on this talk page. It includes the "consensus" referred to (specifically citing an RfC proposing that county articles primarily be about historic counties, and the guidelines in question). PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC, a 2018 proposal by Roger 8 Roger to change the WP:UKCOUNTIES guideline, was closed with no consensus to adopt any of the proposed changes to the project guideline. Though Roger 8 Roger has repeatedly called the WP:UKTOWNS guideline not fit for purpose and said they would launch an RFC, they have not done so and both guidelines remain. NebY (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NebY for linking. Roger 8 Roger's RfC specifically proposed making the historic county the default meaning of "county". Consensus against this does not mean consensus is against inclusion of the historic county alongside current ceremonial county in town articles.
Often disputed is the tense of this inclusion. I'd argue present-tense wording does not imply historic counties exist or not. I'd also argue that the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidance that they "no longer exist within their former boundaries" is inaccurate and does not reflect the wikivoice (not sure there is any clear consensus, as this discussion is frequent and loud on both sides), but irrelevant to the issue of mentioning "is in the historic county of" in town articles as "historic county" distinguishes it from current administrative boundaries, and does refer to a specific set of boundaries.
Discussion needs to continue. Sigh. No, Filibustering with walls of words every time you're challenged needs to stop, and you need to stop editing and edit-warring contrary to guidelines in order to force clumsy text into the first sentence of articles in the pursuit of some bizarre political correctness. and an RfC initiated? Initiate it. NebY (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this entirely. It seems ironic that in an investigation over bad faith edits, PC96 is engaging in bad faith edits as their defence. As Sirfurboy states, theyve made the same disproven accusation 5 times - and they appear well aware of the correct procedure's for consensus on their opinions, and Wiki policy.... yet still still choose not to pursue these methods and instead default to edit wars. Unless i have anything to contribute, i will refrain from further comment because its clear filibuster by PC96 will just fill this page to the point its hard to moderate. Garfie489 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said if I were not literally about to leave for a few days over Xmas, I would block PlatinumClipper96 for their behaviour here. Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. PC96 - if you do this once more, I will block you.
It's very simple really. I was born in Middlesex, but my birthplace, Pinner (where, as it happens, I could see Hatch End from my bedroom window), became part of Greater London two days before my seventh birthday, and it has been so since. At the same time the local authority area became the London Borough of Harrow (yes the London borough). We have given the fringe editors more than enough opportunity to deny the reality as it has stood for more than half a century, so it's time now to get them to accept it, at least as far as editing Wikipedia articles is concerned. If they will not accept it voluntarily then we need to force them to by blocking. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The East, South, West and Middle Saxons gave their names to Essex, Sussex, Wessex and Middlesex respectively; but what became of the North Saxons? The answer is that they settled in Nosex, and failed to thrive. Narky Blert (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Phil Bridger, you said, "It's very simple really. I was born in Middlesex, but my birthplace, Pinner (where, as it happens, I could see Hatch End from my bedroom window), became part of Greater London two days before my seventh birthday, and it has been so since." Yes, I agree. So what? What is your point? Forgive me, but this sort of thinking amounts to background clutter from editors who do not really xxxxxx (well, I will leave what I was about to write to your imagination). Comments like this made repeatedly by different editors make me dispair. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prolific editor creating substantial quantities of arbitrary quality articles in the Indian film industry. Many of their main space articles have been returned to draft, sent to AfD, and are severely lacking in verified notability. I have become concerned that this may be an editor paid to create these articles so have left four warnings regarding WP:PAID, none of which have been replied to (all have been ignored), nor has any obvious attempt been made by this editor to engage with anyone.
While it may be that they are, somehow, missing seeing what is on their talk page, it seems to me that an attempt by an administrator to engage with them may bear fruit.
If not UPE, that is great. However, their articles lack the basics Wikipedia needs in order for them to remain pubished. It may be a case of WP:CIR. Encouragement to understand our needs regarding articles would be useful. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have replied to other talk page comments, so I don't think they're missing what's on their talk page. Why do you suspect them of Paid Editing? It looks like it could just be fan editing to me? Jahaza (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge with suspecting paid editing is that it is often a gut feel, and has similarities to fan editing. They are highly topic focussed, and have not responded to challenges. Their behaviour of moving articles to main space, of not responding to deletion discussions, of not taking notice when articles are draftified is, at best unusual. I do not have any of the tools that others use to detect this, so I am only able to ask the direct question. I accept a clear answer. Were they to say "I receive no payment for my edits (broadly construed)" then that is the end of the question for me. The lack of any such response feeds the initial gut feel. I acknowledge that a gut feel may be incorrect, but it is sufficient for a challenge to be issued.
Let us assume, then, that are not paid. They have not engaged with any draftification, not any AfD, though in the case of one AfD they created an alternative spelling of the article, suggesting that they noticed it. They continue to plough the furrow without deviation despite presumable discouragement. The articles are highly likely to fail at AfD, and nominating them and subsequent discussions are a community time sink.
Either of these things, taken separately, are sufficient to ask for an admin to have a pleasant chat with them and point them onto the paved road instead of just watching them drive down the grass verge dodging bushes. It may require a patrol car with flashing lights to get their attention. I have hopes that they will create many useful articles that meet our standards. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it was deeply embedded, and not in a logical place. Thank you for your diligence, it is appreciated. From my perspective they have answered that question and are not paid. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not paid for any one of those articles I created. Most of those musicians are already deceased. I'm a huge fan of their music. Abbasulu (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, two users, Medellin fa (talk·contribs) and NoToFakeEdit (talk·contribs) have been edit warring on Jawid Safi, but it seems to be something bigger than what would go on WP:ANEW. NoToFakeEdit has been calling out Medellin fa about seemingly attempting to create a fake biography about Jawid Safi on sswiki. (Also, I've been called a sock of NoToFakeEdit by Medellin fa.) I'm not sure what to do here, but I know it may not be solved with a simple AIV report. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Javad Safaee Is A Fake Musician With Fake Sources BUT Jawid Safi Is A Real cricketer, Javad Safaee Try To Make Many Wikis In Another Wikis But Cant: https://ss.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javad_Safaee
And now he try to make a wiki for himself under another person name, just chek the photoshoped photos...
You revert the Jawid Safi article to MehrabNabi edit version (Just chek the username who edit that version)!!!!!! Who is another fake person and you just deleted his article 30 minutes ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrab_Hossain_(Mehrab_Naabi)
Please chek the article dates! on 15 december they try to hijack this article and change the name of Jawad Safi to javad safaee:
This is almost certainly a hoax. Forbes.zone, one of the sources used, didn't exist as a domain when the article was supposedly published. Most of the articles on that site are direct copies of other articles elsewhere except for the obvious promotional pieces. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A note on notability I'm unconvinced that Jawid Safi the cricketer is actually notable, certainly looking at his CricInfo profile. The chap in the hijacked version is clearly not, that's simple vandalism. Black Kite (talk)09:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the cricketer, but you are right about the other, similarly named person – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javad Safaei from a couple of months ago is about him, and closed as "delete" in spite of much socking. The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aryankhodakarami. Many of the accounts listed in the archives of that SPI are globally locked because of cross-wiki disruption/spamming. NoToFakeEdit mentioned Mehrab Hossain (cricketer, born 1991) above; that's another article that was hijacked by this group. It was moved to another title, some of the biographical data was changed, and this manipulated photo was added – that's a photo of a completely unrelated cricketer (published in Times of India) with the face photoshopped in. I'm pretty sure there are still some hijacked articles. I've just restored Alireza Naghizadeh which was hijacked back in June, and I think Mousa Esmaeilpour is another one since it has one of those fake forbes.zone sources, but it might take a little time to work out what in that article is actually supported by reliable sources. --bonadeacontributionstalk16:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to use VE
Hello, I am unable to to use visual editor for creating or editing article, i have done the preference setting and all what i know to make it work but its not working out and the source editor is hard for me.
Charming. I've blocked the /64; I see that's part of a wider range that is already pblocked from a bunch of articles, come back if they return under a different IP and we can look at a wider block. GirthSummit (blether)08:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a very hateful person posting from an IP geolocating to Cupertino for quite a while now. Pops up every now and then. Thank you for finally doing something about it. 85.16.43.87 (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have revoked talk page access from this California based hatemonger who is threatening to sue London-based Jimbo and a well-estabished UK based administrator. I wonder how wealthy this particular racist troll is, and my guess is "not very wealthy". They can try suing me since I actually live in California, but I would just countersue and rational judges would reply with "WTF?" Cullen328 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Cyberpunk indicus has been edit warring even after multiple warnings in his talk page regarding his edits which are in violation of core wikipedia policies. I warned him a month back about his unconstructive edits to Wikipedia articles and the disruptive editing stopped but now he is doing the same thing again and again after repeated warnings in his talk page, he is mass removing content from articles and is restoring the pages to his desired state. Pleas look into the above matter.Blissfulbeing (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disagreement with RFC heading section
I opened an RFC with a straightforward RFC heading. Shortly after, Iskandar323 added a post in the heading section titled "Text with updated sourcing". I moved Iskandar323’s post to the "Discussion" section and addressed his edits there, but Iskandar323 reverted and left a "disruptive editing" warning on my talk page.
My understanding is that the RFC heading section is reserved for the RFC proposal (rather than for counter proposals, which is something that could be added in the "Discussion" or "Survey" sections). The issue here is that having a counter proposal where the heading is makes it very confusing and obscures any other counter proposals.
Also the bludgeoning has been awful on that talk page (and will likely ensue here, sorry about that). Since Iskandar323 seems to be an experienced editor, I'm seeking input from others. Thanks, and wishing happy holidays to everyone. Iraniangal777 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, you should probably open a plain discussion with your proposal, rather than an RFC. That way, other editors would have been able to improve sourcing, bring up alternative proposals that could be part of an eventual RFC, etc. RFCs are not meant to be a way to force others to a vote without meaningful discussion. Adding an update to the header made sense, because the RFC proposal made an explicit mention of a single source, while other sources were added later. It would be misleading if the RFC still implied there was only one source. MarioGom (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't move other editor's posts in a discussion, even if you think you think they were incorrectly placed. The moderation of discussions, particularly own's own RFCs or RFCs on the talk pages of pages with discretionary sanctions, is best left to admins, whose help you should request if you think there is a problem. As MarioGom notes, a particular problem with this RFC is that the topic was never even raised in an ordinary discussion before being raised as an RFC discussion, as WP:RFCBEFORE suggests. RFCs are best reserved for intractable problems over which no agreement can be reached through normal discussion; otherwise, for mundane issues, it is really just a waste of community time. Here, one issue that was raised was the singular nature of the sourcing - an issue that an ordinary discussion with other editors could have readily shed light on. The talk page warning was for removing reliable sources from the main article, not for anything related to the RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is now doing the same thing on the Terry Hall (singer) page.
I have asked him to stop but he has continued. I also can't fine any reliable sources to support his claim and he cannot provide any. It seems like straightforward vandalism. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Due to Lennonfan1's repeated violations of the core content policies Verifiability and No original research, I have indefinitely blocked that editor from editing Wikipedia articles. They are free to make well-referenced edit requests on article talk pages. It is disruptive editing, not vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am no fan of the article subject, but perWP:GAME and WP:BLP (at least), I do not believe that content should be visible in the page history. Perhaps I am wrong about that, in which case I will withdraw this request. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Exmor article vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor
For almost a decade that page was maintained as the internet's most elaborate and accessible list of Sony sensors. It has been quoted, discovered and updated by many people.
Recently a *number* of users decided to *abuse* the system, quoting misinterpreted guidelines to *delete* that list.
I wouldn't be here if there was any civil resolution, because the article has been locked TWICE... in the VANDALIZED STATE. Almost like the admins\mods are either blind or... they approve of this vandalism.
Now, obviously, anyone could have saved the page or used whatever time machines to keep the list. But this act of vandalism ensures that nobody can keep this article up. Because it's not the editors who decided to remove their contributions, it's these *out of nowhere* vandals. They didn't talk about it, they didn't suggest a solution, maybe moving the data, using some form of HTML edit, some kind of "hide" tab if they really wanted the page to be "compact". The page size was some 160kb. They deleted over a decade of edits, 150kb+ of data.
If that doesn't count as vandalism - I don't know what is. The page is currently locked in the vandalized state and the only reason given is "editwarring" and "sockpuppetry". This isn't a dispute about sources or names, it's not that someone thinks that the sensor listing is incorrect. This is an issue "the page exists" vs "the page doesn't exist".
It is virtually abusing the system to DELETE the page, because there is NOTHING pertinent there as of now.
I'm not an editor and the last thing I want is to be one. But if these vandals do not want that data in the Exmor article, which had sections called LIST OF SENSORS.
Then maybe they could've used their... editing prowess... to make a separate article? One for the literal purpose of listing the sensors? Because if that is "supposedly" against the wiki rules - then WHAT HAS IT BEEN DOING HERE for a DECADE?
Again, I'm not an editor. I don't know any pings or diffs. I have barely got to this page, looking for a way to report literal vandalism. Because, again, that page was the only list of Sony sensors on the net. In fact, Google still has the page cached and shows it as the first result, despite it... no longer having the list of sensors. Don't get me wrong, I have backed up the page. And anyone who cares will do their homework to access the data.
Tugoperdov I'm not sure what exactly your grievance is or what administrator action you are seeking. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is indeed possible for an inappropriate article to persist for a long period of time without action taken.
Note that the word "vandalism" has a very specific meaning- an effort to deface an article. Disagreement with article content and removing it is not in and of itself vandalism(though edit warring is unacceptable). You should raise any grievances with the content of the article on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I. This place is as uncivilized as it could be. Editing some god forsaken page in a god forsaken way, because an article that countless people found useful has been DELETED by... pffft... some nobodies? Literally people who had no part of it? Because they think it's... excessive?
And, mind you, the "powers(apparently) that be" are locking the "empty article". It's almost like this is an orchestrated and approved assault.
I have checked the "Talk" page(and it took me a while to find it) and it's almost like an admission of crime. Some jerk came out of nowhere, using some obscure wiki terminology... I mean, "fancruft"... Who the hell makes a "fancruft" term on a, as you say, "volunteer project"?
And he deletes virtually the entire page. People even mock him with examples of pages way bigger than the list in question and all he says is "Wiki is not a webhost".
I repeat - "what does the PEDIA" stand for if you can not edit and maintain information?
He deleted ENTIRE sections. He didn't delete some old sensors or some data that he could, with due respect, find "useless".
He. Wasted. An article.
I don't know what actions can be taken. Maybe an admin could come in and say "Yah, wiki izn't a place for big data lists and things, the guy saved us 150kb of our 100mb hard drive we are using for storage". Yeah that'd do it, I won't have any more questions. Tugoperdov (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you, and the .... 331dot are... admins. And this is as close as it gets to a WP:NOTANENCYCLOPEDIA. Well, as 331dot said, I'll "take my grievances" to the Exmor page. Including the editing war. Unless I have no right to disagree - I disagree. I disagree that a decade of editing is NOTACATALOG. So feel free to ban me or something in advance. Or, I don't know, delete the article\erase the backups, the diffs and whatnot. I have "called out" the vandals and, maybe, who knows, they'll do something more than deleting the entire page. Maybe they'll work out ways to trim the 150kbs. But I doubt it. I hope Sony paid you well. Tugoperdov (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Characterizing people with whom you disagree as vandals isn't a good approach. Making accusations like "I hope Sony paid you well" is worse. Stop that. Wikipedia isn't a repository for detailed equipment specifications. If you can make a case for inclusion of some or all of the removed content (which remains in the article history), do it on the talkpage. Acroterion(talk)23:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:RFC might be in order - the long, long list of everything about Exmor is better-sourced than a lot of that kind of list, and a wider comment about the cruft threshold might help. Acroterion(talk)23:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, broad accusations of vandalism and administrative corruption are often red flags. Per my original report at [132], an SPI would be welcome. There's been a host of disposable single purpose accounts, both registered and IPs, presumably intended to give the impression of a groundswell of opinion. If we're dealing with a single disruptive user, these discussions take on a different significance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lovely thing coming from an anonymous IP. An arsonist crying "fire!". If you had some common sense of a human being, you would notice that the edits and complaints were filed numerous times over two months. It's not a single occurrence. The moment the erasure of the data happened - people tried to amend it. Peacefully. If you want to go ad hominem and try to search for spies - then get through your head that there may be people who have NEVER edited a wiki. Never had to bother. Who thought that... well, wiki's wiki, wiki's useful, it's been around for a while. And then they see the information straight up disappear. No copyright claim. No verification claim. No constructive claim. Just some asinine rule made up god knows by whom, but more importantly - used as an excuse by people who can't even explain their actions besides quoting a guideline. This isn't a new article, this isn't some catalog for the sake of catalog. It's information that is constantly updated, relevant both now and in historical context and is almost EXCLUSIVE on the web. I can't believe the actual administration is fighting to LOSE this information. I mean, why did the people delete that data? On whose orders? On whose authority? According to that "dot-something" guy - on the "community's". What community? Point me. Because any law can be executed solely on orders. You aren't a nation, you don't have constitution. You are a freaking website parasiting off the contributors. You have GUIDELINES. The only community to whom the subject in question is relevant - has EXPRESSED it that they want it kept. And the only community that want it gone - are some shmucks copying capital letters and a colon. Who can't look at the situation, who can't understand the situation, who can't even attempt to approach it. Yhis isn't how COMMUNITY works. This is how BOTS work. They detect an anomaly and they execute it. They aren't programmed to think for themselves.
For god's sake, is this the last 150kb on your servers?
I don't care what RFC or other KFCs you have substituted for common sense. People used that page. People quoted that page. People updated that page. It's not a fan fiction novel. It's not political propaganda(though you like as of 2022). It's content that has actual technical and intellectual value. Presented to you by whoever keeps editing it. Because, guess what, that's not whoever decided to go WP:NOT all over the place.
What do you get out of it? Do you pat yourself on the back? On some other place? Do you get paid for it? For every kilobyte saved? So, what, people would turn it into a public spreadsheet, host it on some website, move the information, but WHY would you want that? Can you be HUMAN for once and just explain this supposedly SIMPLE thing without quoting letters and colon. Why does an Encyclopedia want to LOSE information. Give me reason.
Because I'm trying to grasp it. I'm clicking your little WP:NOT, I'm seeing "Oh, so it's the authority of the "Wikipedia Community"". So I click it and I'm greeted with "This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes."
I would love to(assume good faith). But at best I either get thrown essays at and at worst - directly accused of botting. And, again, as that IPv6 has said - this has happened before. Data was deleted. Data was restored. Data was requested to be restored or kept. And twice - the article got locked in the "empty" state.
I have run out of faith. I don't see any good in this. I don't see any valid reason to have this list deleted and the only counter-argument is to make ME give reason to keep it. Because I have to fight a WP:NOT wall. Tugoperdov (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tugoperdov: To address one concern you've raised, you can view the since-removed list at this link and can recover the source code by clicking "edit" there. Now, if you are here to try to constructively work to get the list restored, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you are just here to rant, well, this isn't really the sort of website where we do that; you're welcome to rant elsewhere though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)02:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but, full disclosure, I was the IP who last tried to restore the list. And I did that at least in hopes of saving the page. Which I did. Since then the page got erased and locked again, so I "registered" and am trying to "talk" about it. If this is considered an admission of botting - shoot me dead, I am not hiding my intentions, and I said I would undo the edit the moment the block is lifted.
As for the constructive arguments - I have tried to express them. Both on the talk page and in this rant. I'm not sure how more constructive can you get besides common sense. I don't talk in letters and colons. I wish I had some kind of quote... from a bank.. or a university... or a website. Some "solid real constructive stuff" to present all business-like.
But I only have the arguments of exclusivity and of at least one website(reddit link is on the talk page) that quoted the list and found it useful. And comments from people in that same talk page, who have used that list for years.
If that is not constructive enough - I've got nothing. No letters and colons.
I do, somewhat, apologize for the rant, but I'm just shocked at seeing for the first time in my life the underbelly of wiki. I hoped to report what I... I suppose - "imagined" to be an obvious crime against an article - and looks like it's not a crime, it's public service! And I have to frantically remember all my technical pages containing lists of processors and whatnot, fearing that someone would come in, quote a WP:NOT in good faith and call it a day. I had no idea how exactly does wiki work, but I never expected this. Tugoperdov (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should expect this: that as in every walk of life, people on Wikipedia believe, edit, discuss and act as they think best, and not necessarily in lockstep accordance with what you think is proper. One of my longstanding WP catchphrases is that the nature of a consensus-driven environment is that sometimes consensus will be against you, in which case your only viable option is to lose gracefully and move on. Nearly eighteen years in, I couldn't count the number of times I was on the losing side of an argument here.
But that is the core of assuming good faith -- that people will just sometimes not agree with you, and this doesn't make Wikipedia a seething pit of corrupt vipers in consequence. The editors you've been busy deriding and insulting have -- unlike yourself -- put countless hours of hard work into this encyclopedia for neither money nor glory, but simply to contribute what they can to the greatest encyclopedia in the history of the world. If you want to join in the effort, become one of those voices, splendid! dig right in. If you're just here to rant because we're not doing your bidding, though, take Tamsin's advice and take it elsewhere. Ravenswing 04:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a list that has allegedly been reported on, there is no one single reliable secondary source in that pile. I’ve gone through it and there is so many that don’t even mention the specific sensor that it’s waste of time to review and junk. The screaming rants from editors who keep popping up to just restore the list with zero other edits tells me someone is very passionate about owning this list. There hasn’t even one person arguing to spin off this list. It is entirely a “keep the list/don’t keep the list” debate linking to Sony’s website again and again. It being useful and hard to find are not reasons to have it. There is a permanent link that will show everyone the list of that is your concern. - Ricky81682 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dear administration, I would like to address the problem that I had with this user.
The fact is that this person adds false information in articles related to the Ingush theme, and at the same time deletes the information along with the sources added by me, after all this, he also accuses me of Vandalism. this, this, this
This person ignores calls to discuss this situation in the "discussion" section, his actions will lead to edit wars. this
Not a little important point, this user has long been noticed in such violations, in the same article Ingush people, he repeatedly added false information, and entered a war of edits with other participants, in short, a very dubious user.this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user to whom my complaint is set up is justified, he has been thinking of vandalism and slander against other users for a long time, and he also does not want to conduct a dialogue about this. Niyskho (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niyskho: Remember to leave a notice at the user's talk page in the future. Both users should stop casting aspersions at each other and discuss things over the articles' talk pages. Also, you say Reiner Gavriel added false information to Ingush people, but they haven't added content to that article for almost 2 years, so this would seem very stale. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈00:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I've already requested article protection at WP:RPPI.
Getting to the crux of the problem- there are many Tunisia-based IPs and ranges that have been adding many disruptive and unsourced things for the past two years or so. I've previously asked regarding these issues to another user here, to which I was told to, "report the ranges as they get used and identified". There are many targetted articles from these IPs, but one of the main problematic articles is MBC 4. Looking at it in its current state, there's so much text everywhere (even in the lead), and apart from a few things in the lead, most of it is unsourced.
I'd love to get this article protected (may I suggest for a long period of time rather than just a few months?...), as well as restore a less-chaotic version. Sadly, it seems like one of the oldest versions before all the '102.---' and '197.---' IPs would be from November 2020, especially considering this is one of the following edits.
Damn...I've seen some poor articles in the past, never one this extreme. I see in the history that various experienced editors have tried cleaning it up in the past, but the IPs are relentless. Schazjmd(talk)13:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the lead; an IP restored the old one plus a bunch more fancruft within 2 hours. I think this article will be a losing battle without long-term protection. (I added an "endorse" to Magitroopa's request at RPPI) Schazjmd(talk)16:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure if this is the best place to comment this, but i've seen several edits by CMD0007 focused on creating somekind of narrative related to Mexico and he has been erasing many references to Spanish people and the Spanish colonial time. Many users have reverted their edits but he insists on his position and he doesn't usually add sources to his edits, he just adds information without any criteria and when someone reverses his actions, he reverses them back and replies with things like "read some history" or starts arguments with other users.
It would be nice if someone take a look at it to make sure everything is fine.216.147.106.108 (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are required to notify CMD0007 of this discussion. Please do so. Have you discussed your concerns directly with the editor? That should be your first step. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cullen328. Also, if you are the user:Rainier Blue, then I would strongly suggest engaging on article talk pages to discuss changes/additions to the article(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Squared.Circle.Boxing is continuing to defy common sense and the manual of style by deliberately concealing the meanings of certain acronyms. They have stated that they are doing this because they, personally, do not like acronyms to be expanded. Why they do not like that, they have yet to say. 109.155.227.137 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what they actually said or is it your interpretation of it? Please provide a diff of them saying it so we can see for ourselves. In the meantime we can get on with seeing whether anyone is evading a block. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Over at this discussion, the IP(s) reported continues to engage in uncivil conduct despite other editors' best efforts to form a consensus which could potentially affect thousands of articles. Whilst it remains a content dispute in need of resolution, it's much more so a conduct dispute at this point. The IP also seems to have a personal agenda against a frivolous comment made three years ago by the report filer, which should have no bearing on the current discussion at hand. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which comment from three years ago are you referring to? How would thousands of articles be affected by one article conforming to instead of violating the MOS? 109.155.227.137 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content disputes aren't dealt with on ANI. Continued disruption from block-evading editors, however, is something ANI is designed for. – 2.O.Boxing20:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm confused as to whether the user's (I presume the same person) contributions are vandalism. The photos they supply are excellent but I don't know if the captions are a leg-pull. I can't tell a Charollais ram from a ewe; would you keep 15 rams together? Are they standing? It's not obvious. I'm not afraid of reverting vandalism — I've just done one of his/theirs that was blatant. Doug butler (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin please delete the Category:Fellows of Royal Society of Edinburgh and the talk page as Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh already exists. Apologies for creating this mess. --Bduke (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added content to an article, but User:Adikako disagreed and decided to use rollback on my edit and give me a level-2 warning for vandalism. After I asked for an explanation, I was told something that showed that this user didn't consider it vandalism. Aside from vandalism and one's own edits and userspace, WP:ROLLBACK permits its use only for ban/block evaders and widespread bad edits. Obviously this user didn't consider my edit either one of those. As well, addressing such edits as vandalism is problematic from a WP:BITE perspective — and when I went to Adikako's talk page, I found a week-old warning for personal attacks and biting newcomers. Given this pattern of behaviour, would an admin please remove Adikako's rollback rights? 120.21.174.47 (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Done. And a +1 for visiting YSP, it's a great place. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
sexualization of women.png)
![[72]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ho_Man_Tin_Residence_201405.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}