Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Foul-mouthed member of VRT User:FormalDude

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

---

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.

In between all this WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour he proceeds to make matters worse.

• [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)

• While I disagreed with FormalDude's initial WP:SQSing here, 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

Just my opinion of the circumstances as detailed here. I have closed nothing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(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. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• FormalDude's activities on Black children as alligator bait are also of note - see this edit, this edit, and this edit. (I don't really think these edits rise to a level where we need to go to AN/I over it, but since we're here already they might as well be looked at). casualdejekyll 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Clarification of the title of this section. VRT = Volunteer Response Team which until recently was known as OTRS. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  The reverts do seem to be a violation of WP:3RR though. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, policy states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (bold mine) There is no similar requirement for those seeking exclusion to achieve consensus. Public-facing article text is to remain silent on a matter while it is still under dispute. --Jayron32 15:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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:

1. 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.
2. I also update Corey Feldman on August 23; FormalDude removes an entire paragraph of reliably sourced content in that article four days later. (FormalDude's first & only edit to the article).
3. I create a discussion at Talk:Depp v. Heard on August 31, which FormalDude follows me to several hours later (their only edit to that page prior was a minor edit amending the archive period of talk page discussions, which was made 2 months after my first edit to that page).
4. I begin a discussion at Talk:LGB Alliance on October 26, which FormalDude follows me to 24 hours later. Again, this is FormalDude's first & only edit to that article, offering a contrarian perspective to one I offered. At this point, I'd had enough, and challenge them on their tendentious editing behavior. FormalDude responds they had been "watching this page for months" and that they have "zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you", which was so ridiculous I had to post Dr. Evil's Riiiight meme in response.
5. As pointed out above, I'm not the only user FormalDude has exhibited this behavior towards. They are currently engaged in a content dispute at Talk:Kanye_West#Removing_"most_influential"_from_the_lede with several editors. FormalDude follows one of those editors to an AfD discussion that user initiated. Once again, they vote in opposition to that user.

• Other disruptive behavior

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.

I think a forced time-out is the only thing that will make this user change their persistent, foul-mouthed, months-long disruptive behavior. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• So much incorrect here, I'm not even going to engage it. For context, Homeostasis has been holding a grudge against me that is borderline harassment ever since I filed an ANI report on them over a year ago. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  Homeostasis says they won't talk to me ever again, so can we make that official with a one-way IBAN then? ––FormalDude (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is typical argumentative snark from this user. Rather than engaging, they do this. I've never been more convinced that this user needs a permanent site ban. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  I don't know about anyone else but I'd be interested in your response to accusations of following editors to unrelated disputes. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think @Levivich:, @Throast:, @Hako9: and I are all interested in @FormalDude:'s response to the examples of tendentious editing presented above. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for context, FormalDude is quick to accuse editors he's been in content disputes with of holding grudges against him. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• • 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)

    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)

• Support 30-day block Warning 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. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  @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)

  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, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• (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)

  The interaction checker link I posted above was to demonstrate that FormalDude was tendentiously following me to an article, and that their edits in response to me were in 3 of the 4 cases I linked to above their first and only edit to said article. Please post a single diff of me being "rude" to FormalDude these past 4 months. I did post a link to the Dr. Evil "Riiight" meme in response to FormalDude incredulously claiming he had been watching one of those pages "for months" and that they have "zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you". Aside from that? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  For one, you cast unfounded aspersions against me in a baseless MfD nomination of an essay of mine that you were required to redact by an admin which caused you to falsely accuse them of improperly using CheckUser tools on your account. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• No action - this is some weak sauce nonsense. I see no hounding ([13]) and only mildly rude comments (save for the one directed at the IP). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree. We have Wikipedia:Five pillars and not four pillars. WP:5P4 clearly states that "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" --it does not say "unless they are IP editors, then you can be mean" -- I'm unsure what action should be taken at this time, but we either have five pillars or we only have four.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @Trainsandotherthings: LokiTheLiar is that user's username. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Beat me to it, IP. Yes, the full username of the user shown here as "Loki" is LokiTheLiar. Again, that was a mobile edit, as is this one. Click Loki's sig to see their full username. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  I'd like to know the reason why you think I need to be warned. — hako9 (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, it means your report was examined and no one agreed that there was "months of tendentious editing, insults, incivility..." etc. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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

WP:V and unsourced non-English terms

• Zhomron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhomron
• Talk:Tower of Babel#WP:V applies to native/original names/phrases, non-Latin scripts
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 176#WP:V and foreign-language terms, non-Latin orthography in enwiki articles

Zhomron continues to edit war and edit while logged out in service of ignoring verifiability and WP:BURDEN. Happy Hanukkah. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• No I haven't!—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think Zhomron pinged S Marshall, because they had been involved in the two mentioned conversations. I don't believe the rest of the comment is aimed at them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  I think it may have something to do with you addressing them by name and then saying "you". Just a thought. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's how I read it. Perhaps Zhomrom is not aware that the vanilla ping template adds a colon after the name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  You would be correct. My bad. Zhomron (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia certainly has a shitload of stupidly designed templates. EEng 10:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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 Marshall T/C 08:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well both users should clearly be blocked for the edit-warring at Negev. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Now it's here, and the edit-warring hasn't continued today, so such a block would not be preventive.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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 Marshall T/C 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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:^Bite 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You... want a citation that the Negev is called "the Negev" in English? Zhomron (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Here are some more substantive issues:

1. Cursive Hebrew: complete with letterform graphics uploaded by Zhomself.
2. Solitreo: Hebrew letters in square and Rashi
3. Zhom's uploads to Commons: letterform graphics
4. Al-Yahudu Tablets: OR? Part deux (I mean part Beth)
5. Moabite Alphabet: table of letterforms
6. File:Sanchuniathon fam tree.png

• 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.

Elizium23 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I also see that @Rhemmiel lost a dispute over a transliteration. Sad. Elizium23 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• @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)

• 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 Marshall T/C 10:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @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)

@S Marshall, thank you for assuring us that Wikipedia editors are reliable sources, and that there is never any controversy over Wikipedia:Diacritical marks. Elizium23 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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.

But we're not merely worried about transliterations from English words, so you've solved a strawman. Elizium23 (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

By way of example, here's what Zhomron has been doing.

• I write in Rosetta Stone that an excerpt of the Demotic script is "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."
• I speak Demotic and I can attest that this is what the Rosetta Stone says.
• I don't need no citation, any idiot can pick up the stone and read it.
• Now I'll remove your maintenance tags and refuse to use the talk page rather than insulting and dismissive edit summaries.
• I ran out of reverts so I'll log out and use an IP to continue the edit-war.

Elizium23 (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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 Marshall T/C 11:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Strawman vanquished! Again!

Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, first time for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Noting I have blocked Zhomron for a month for logged-out sockpuppetry as part of this dispute. This is emphatically not to say that there is no legitimate objection to Elizium's edits regarding romanizations. I think Elizium would do well to just walk away from that particular topic. There is no shortage of material actually needing citations; perhaps that would be a better thing to focus on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  @Tamzin:, that block was not preventive. The disruption had stopped days before you blocked. Looks completely punitive to me.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  @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)

  Well, okay, fine, but, also, not fine. That block might be strictly within the rules but outcome of your decision there is to sanction the editor who, in this case, was being less disruptive.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: To be clear, I was responding to this from the SPI side. This is not an attempt to in any way resolve this thread, just to resolve an SPI that was before me as a clerk. (In fact I only noticed the AN/I thread after blocking.) Like I said, the fact that I blocked Zhomron doesn't mean their objection to Elizium's edits was invalid. It looks to me like this is a situation where Elizium23 either needs to agree to listen to the large number of editors saying that his edits are often problematic, or start an RfC somewhere to settle once and for all whether there is consensus for those edits. (Everyone appears in agreement that these {{cn}}-taggings are sometimes justified, but I think Elizium is misreading that as a wider-reaching consensus than it is.) If he won't do either of those things, sanctions are probably in order. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's difficult to get an RFC going when the last two noticeboards haven't even figured out what the issue is. Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Elizium23: You've gotten quite a few responses from experienced editors. If you feel people aren't understanding you, that sounds like a problem with how you are communicating. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well, five of them in WP:VPP understood rather well, and support my position. This thread is lopsided the other way, and I believe ANI is not the place to litigate content disputes. Elizium23 (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Only one of the five you've cited—CMD—seems to agree with your position. The other four said things not dissimilar to what S Marshall and others have said here: basically, "sometimes but not always". That sort of issue is the province of AN/I. Do you intend to continue making these edits without gaining a consensus that they are consistent with V (and with a rough consensus tending the other way)? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I do not intend to challenge verifiability of transliterations of non-English names that are placed by speakers of that language. Elizium23 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In what sense am I not following you, Elizium23? Explain it to me briefly and clearly.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Unblock Velthuru

Okay, transliterators, here's another case!

• Pyrgi Tablets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cippus Perusinus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Velthuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please unblock Velthuru because they can personally vouch for all additions they made to those two articles. Elizium23 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Nope, that's a good block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

This isn't a constructive way to process losing an argument, mate. Zhomron (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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 Marshall T/C 19:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  This subsection is about as straightforward a violation of WP:POINT as one could imagine. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  (To be clear, I’m not calling for a block, just observing that the situation has continued to develop.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wimpus engaging in disruptive editing

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 · Contributions 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

See also this discussion. In multiple instances, woman/women was initially written, but changed to person(s) by various editors (see for example [17],[18],[19],[20],[21]). Wimpus (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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. [22][23][24]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

As mentioned by Crossroads: "The fact is that the vast majority of sources on pregnancy, including ones being cited, use the term "pregnant women"." Wimpus (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"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)

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 · Contributions 23:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As you can also see, user Dgarza2 (first link) and user H. Lee, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (fourth and fifth links) are student editors. One of the review criteria of their assignment is Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? That criterion might be detrimental and seems to reflect language-change advocacy. Their instructor, user Health policy seems to make similar edits. Wimpus (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Those student editors seem to encourage eachother to eliminate certain words:

"...however there was some inconsistency with the non-edited areas of the article that still referred to pregnant persons as mothers."

"I agree that breastfeeding isn’t the most relevant and if included should be revised to be gender neutral."

"Areas for continued improvement on the page is to revise the use of gendered language (e.g., changing mother to terms like "pregnant person" and "gestational parent" ..."

"What will you add? More gender inclusive language (ie changing mother to gestational parent or birthing parent)".

Wimpus (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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°^Talk 12:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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 [25], 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)

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)

As I stated earlier, I should have added an edit summary, but that omission doesn't make such phrasings as pregnant people, birth giver, gestational parent or people with uteri entirely acceptable. Wimpus (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Nat Gertler, I find pregnant people offensive, as we do not know whether these bodies identify as people. Therefore we should use gestational bodies, as suggested by student editor Apaulik. Wimpus (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

We've got an editor here carrying around a big "block me" sign, how much longer do we have to make them wait? --JBL (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statistically, that is still a rare exception (see also [26]) and commonly transgender men are biologically women. Using gender-neutral language might have other unwanted effects (see [27]).Wimpus (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll just note that you didn't answer my question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Having read most of this thread, it seems pretty clear that Wimpus is trolling. Can someone please TROUT them at least? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wimpus saying things like "trans men are biologically women" seems disruptive and a form of trolling, in my mind. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

No, here on his talkpage, where he says "Trans men are biologically women, as well as girls." There was no reason for him to have said that. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Nat Gertler's doubts about the phrase ''pregnant women'': "Except the part where it leaves out girls and trans men... "

My response: "Trans men are biologically women, as well as girls."

Could you please explain why my response, from a biological point of view, would be incorrect. Wimpus (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

    There was a similar RfC that I mentioned here. Wimpus (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

    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.

    The real concern for AN/I is not whether one style of writing is better than another. That is a matter for Wikipedians to decide as they write and discuss writing articles (not for our sources to decide for us). At present there is no consensus and no remote possibility of a consensus universally favouring one style or another. We know how to deal with that kind of issue, and have done since Wikipedia was created. We tell both sides of the activist war to find another hobby on Wikipedia or find another hobby full stop. -- Colin°^Talk 08:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

    This is an incredible level of politicization and assumption of bad faith to be making at ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  Even if the cited source speaks only of "pregnant women"? [28] 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)

  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)

  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)

"There's no reason to trust the regular editors at a particular article...What counts are the edits themselves, and adherence to policy and guidelines." – Thank you. Common sense isn't necessarily common on Wikipedia. I've seen too many hubristic personalities with beaucoup WP history use one-track-mind sources to sprinkle bias into article content ... and then bitch, moan, and snark when another editor comes along and undoes the knot. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

User:Mathglot your summary seems to suggest this is simply a minor issue with one article. But the complaint is about a series of edits, which serve no other purpose than to locate articles on Wikipedia containing the phrase "pregnant person/people" and replace them with "pregnant woman/women". You have in fact over analysed one article to a degree that Wimpus did not. They cared not how that phrase came to be, only that it should be flipped to the stylistic preference they hold. At Jojoba, the article had said "pregnant person" since May 2022. The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine had "pregnant people" since March 2021 and that text was not only added by the top #4 contributor to the article but also, to the annoyance of those who repeatedly and falsely claim (when it suits them, yet loudly rejected when it does not) that we are compelled to use the stylistic conventions of our sources, repeats the language used by the CDC source and also by the underlying research. I could go on though the many other edits.

What we have here is just a classic case of an editor with a personal stylistic preference, a style controversy that is currently highly political, seeking out words and phrases they dislike and flipping them over in a series of edits. This is what AN/I is for, to tell them to stop, and if necessary, to force them to stop. Mathglot, your claim that Wimpus "noticed a pattern or edits in a contentious area" and "wanted to improve them with good faith edits" is frankly bullshit. All evidence suggest entirely the opposite, that Wimpus is engaging in activism editing, and needs to stop that. -- Colin°^Talk 20:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I must have been unclear, as my point didn't get through at all. I never meant to imply that this is a minor issue with one article, and I well understand that this is all about a pattern of edits. What I was attempting to point out, is what happens in the real world when one editor is faced with what appears to be a pattern of edits across a wide range of articles that one views as questionable. Sometimes I see a pattern like that, and I try to run around, undoing the damage in dozens of articles. In so doing, sometimes I am too hasty and I end up "correcting" something I shouldn't have, because it is simply not possible with 24 hours in the day to give every individual case the attention it deserves. It's a judgment call, insofar as how much detail to go into with each case, versus missing a huge number of cases because you're analyzing every case to death, when they don't deserve it. The driving force here would be, how to allocate my time for the greatest improvement of Wikipedia as a whole.

There is no perfect solution, but in cases like that, I try to do the best I can, and hope that the vast majority of my adjustments are improvements, and that for the ones I didn't analyze sufficiently and made the wrong call on, that I'll get pushback from someone, who will either point out my error, or simply fix it. I'm grateful for either type of response.

So the point that was unclear in the above, I guess, is that the Abortion in California was merely illustrative of one of those "too hasty" cases, a case that was maybe in that "false positive" minority; where "fixing" it by simply changing the wording, was the wrong call here. I see no evidence that the main thrust of Wimpus's editing was anything other than motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia as a whole. Perhaps there was some overeagerness, perhaps there could've been more analysis in some cases, but overall trying to move things in the direction they thought was the right one, therefore here for the right reasons. I don't see any evidence that suggests the opposite, and a mere pattern of performing the same edit across a broad span of articles is in no way an indication of "activist editing"; vandal fighters often exhibit exactly the same pattern.

When you have a contentious issue at Wikipedia, there are often innumerable SPAs, anons, one-shot editors from Twitter- or Reddit-canvassed threads, that run around making POV edits all over the project. It cannot be the case that when one editor notices that happening, that they are prohibited from acting in good faith against it in a way that is observant of Wikipedia p&g, simply because they are one person and the source of all the problems was a diffuse ant army and it would therefore be considered a "pattern of activist edits" on their part to fix them all. In so doing, they will likely make some wrong calls, as in the Abortion in California case, now fixed, for the greater good of fixing a lot of problematic edits. If the content question underlying the series of fixes by one editor becomes contentious, as it apparently has in this case, then it is still a content-based disagreement, and like any such, it should be discussed at a Talk page, and not at AN/I. Since this one spans numerous articles, it should likely be discussed in a centralized location, likely one of the WikiProjects dealing with women, medicine, or gender-related questions. This is simply the wrong venue for such a discussion.

However, I just don't see evidence of "activist editing" going on here. If a discussion about the content is raised somewhere, then yes, they should stop for the duration of that discussion until it is resolved. Given that it's being discussed here (although incorrectly in my view as a behavioral, and not a content issue), Wimpus should stop making edits of that nature for the time being. But if no content-based discussion is forthcoming in a reasonable time (two weeks?), then I'd say they have the green light to carry on, maybe with a little more attention to edit summaries and to case-by-case analysis, as previously noted. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that in certain cases I should have analysed the history of the article more carefully and I should have added an informative edit summary. Whether this content dispute will settle in the near future, seems doubtful. Wimpus (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I notice “and not made the edit” is missing from this list of things you should have done differently. 2600:4040:AFB3:4100:8CDA:DA3A:49D9:374A (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As is "and checked the sources". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, you spend a lot of time discussing hypotheticals and quite imaginary scenarios, which are not relevant here, but didn't actually look seriously at the edits of Wimpus. They really do not demonstrate an editor discovering "what appears to be a pattern of edits across a wide range of articles that one views as questionable". This is an editor who's edit history since 2020 demonstrates gender-related language activism.

Another example: the article Theca lutein cyst was transformed from a tiny stub to a comprehensive article by a bunch of student editors. They added value to the project and wrote the article the way young people write in 2022. It is frankly terrible that some editors in this AN/I discussion view those students as the problem. In contrast, Wimpus did no article expansion but imposed his own style preference without edit summary, and as part of a session of making three dozen such edits.

Wimpus your comments here do not suggest to me that you get what the problem is with your edits. It isn't that you should have analysed the history of the article or that your edits would be ok if they had a better edit summary. It is that you sat down one afternoon and searched Wikipedia for "pregnant person/people" and flipped them over to "pregnant woman/women", which is simply language activism. And you continued doing that for more than thirty articles till someone asked you to stop. Don't do that. -- Colin°^Talk 13:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Colin, you've quoted "gender-related language activism" multiple times, now, but your saying so doesn't make it true. That is just your opinion, presumably because you disapprove of the content of the edits. It would be perfectly consistent and understandable for another editor to see the inclusion of pregnant person in numerous articles as gender activism of precisely the opposite sort, with each of you yelling gender activism at the other. Differing opinions than yours on this point are conceivable within the framework of proper adherence to WP P&G, which means that this is a content dispute, not a behavioral one.

You see a series of edits which you disapprove of by one editor, all tending in the same direction wrt a particular phrase, and you're shouting, Stop! But unless you can demonstrate that there is some kind of intention to circumvent Wikipedia p&g, the worst that could be said is that the edits are a group of edits that didn't achieve consensus. But we don't even know that, because there hasn't been a discussion about consensus for this language, and the behavior has stopped. In broad outline, all I see is a series of WP:BOLD edits which violate no policy, followed by some complaints, followed by no more edits of that type. So, remind me again why we are here at the UCIBB (the urgent, chronic, intractable behavioral board)? This is a content issue, plain and simple, and if it's important to you, then you could discuss your disapproval at a content discussion elsewhere, where your position may gain consensus (or not). Go write something on Wimpus's UTP, if you think they were too hasty, or not careful enough, or something. Meanwhile, I would wish that some admin would put this discussion out of its misery, as there isn't anything remotely urgent going on here or any egregious behavior that needs to be immediately stopped by means of admin tools. Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In saying that there's not activist editing going on, Mathglot, you seem to be looking at only the edits and not the reasons the editor has given for the edits, from his criticizing use of non-gendered terms for being "PC" to his saying that trans men are biologically women and also girls. The fact that you can say that other edits can be accused of being activist does not serve to make his not; certainly one can find many situations on Wikipedia and in the greater world where there are activists involved on both sides. There is an argument that it shouldn't have been brought here, but that shouldn't require ignoring the context of what was done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't just "my opinion", Mathglot. You seem absolutely determined to have a theoretical discussion about a fictitious user who is doing no harm. Wimpus made a sequence of edits to over thirty articles that did nothing other than change from "pregnant person/people" to "pregnant woman/women". Mathglot, I would count that as "gender-related language activism" if it went the other way too, so there's no need to bring in whatever you think my own preferences are.

MOS:STYLERET is something that has led to Arbcom restrictions on editors: we do not flip-flop between arbitrary style preferences of individual editors, and this guideline very much applies "when MOS ... gives no specific guidance", which is to say "nearly always". MOS provides word-choice guidance only very very exceptionally. I don't understand your claim "the worst that could be said is that the edits are a group of edits that didn't achieve consensus". They didn't seek consensus and the edits demonstrate editing behaviour that our guideline forbids, full stop.

I do sometimes wonder if some editors feel unable to write without having an RFC all the time, or having rules that appear to dictate every word they pick . Honestly, 99.9999% of what actual content producers write on Wikipedia is just whatever pops into their heads as they summarise their sources in their own words.

You and I both know that language in this area is contentious and subject to real-world conflict that shows absolutely no sign of resolution. Editors must not bring that conflict to Wikipedia by flip-flopping to one preference or another. No good comes of that. -- Colin°^Talk 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You asserted that this is the way young people write in 2022. As a person who is only slightly older than your average medical student, I can testify that this is not the case. It has nothing to do with age; as shown here and here, this wording was used because the class instructions and instructor told them to do so, and they policed each other. Sounds a lot like arbitrary style preferences of individual editors to me.

Also, "pregnant women" and "pregnant people" do not necessarily mean the same thing; if the sources being cited for a claim speak only of "pregnant women", then to use "pregnant people" is a form of WP:Original research. If an entire class uses the term all over the place anyway because they were misinformed to do so, then correcting that may require a series of edits all making that very change (ideally with edit summaries, but we all know that at this point). Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Told them to do so" and "policed" is adding an incredibly sinister tone to what looks like collaborative editing. If they didn't want to make those changes, they simply wouldn't have made them. Again, I would ask that you and Wimpus please stop trying to denigrate and insinuate things about these editors in your attempt to win this content disagreement. Wimpus responding to my comment about him being the drive-by editor with "well they were student editors" was bad enough. There is a very clear advocacy issue at work here, and it's solidly with Wimpus. Parabolist (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"adding an incredibly sinister tone to what looks like collaborative editing". Depends on the collaboration, doesn't it? As someone who has dealt with one too many students adding poorly written and poorly sourced content into articles (the stubborn ones smack of activist editors), who often have no clue about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'm willing to believe the "told them to do so" and "policed". These students come to Wikipedia with an assignment, but how particular subjects are selected by instructors and students, and how they are supervised on the academic end, warrants closer inspection by Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"I'm willing to believe" Well that's great but I'm not sure what your personal failure to abide by WP:AGF is supposed to prove here. --JBL (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a weapon anyone can wield to shut up editors who describe what they see. Also, you think telling another editor that he/she/they is "adding an incredibly sinister tone" is AGF? Y'all need to leave Polly behind with Anna. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Um, ok, whatever you say. But, you know, what I see is that the people on "your side" of this discussion are making themselves look incredibly bad over and over again in very basic ways, and "Well AGF doesn't apply to me because [why exactly?]" is right up there among them. --JBL (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"the people on "your side" of this discussion". Tsk tsk tsk. Eight words that say so much about you. The mirror on your wall appears to be cracked. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Actual real editing practice by young and often student editors would suggest that Crossroads is very much one of a kind, rather than representative of an age group. The very policy Crossroads links to says "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research". Anyway, this is a distraction....

The problem with this discussion is that some editors think AN/I is the place to have an argument about style or original research. But those who actually looked at Wimpus's edits know that they simply sat down and googled for text they wanted to replace for personal style reasons. One of the reasons MOS is so reluctant to pronounce one style of words better than another is the fear that editors will sit down of an afternoon and do exactly what Wimpus did. Wikipedia is unique with this problem - most other publishing platforms are stuck with what got published the first time and only rarely make latest edits and usually when there's a significant revision warranted. It is entirely a behavioural matter, which would be the same no matter which direction Wimpus's political compass faced. Editors who seek to permit that kind of behaviour because they personally happen to agree with the outcome (or because, em, they do more or less the same) are also the problem. This really is not how Wikipedia works. It works, as the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, by permitting editors to write pretty much how they see best. And by valuing content creators over editors who's contributions to article space just demonstrate political activism. Those editors, get asked to stop. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I interact with many other young people online and off, almost nobody talks/writes this way. Many student editors also do not do this; it seems to be mostly a UCSF matter.

Let's clarify this: sources about a specific aspect of pregnancy speak solely about "pregnant women", but a student editor comes through having been told to advance "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (and which content policy says to skew content for this reason anyway?) and writes about this with "pregnant people". You are saying that this is the same substance and should not be changed? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And plenty of younger people I know do write/talk this way. Shocking how anecdotal data works. Parabolist (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Lets clarify this" you say, while apparently trying to reroute this behavioral discussion from the actual behaviors at hand, which do not show signs of an editor reviewing the sources to find wording, and instead talk about some theoretical editor who did. That's not clarifying, that's obfuscation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

PlatinumClipper96 - WP:POVPUSH, edit warring and retaliatory reverts

• PlatinumClipper96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chingford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I today reverted an edit by PlatinumClipper96 at Chingford [29]. 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 [30] 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:

1. Fulwell, London
2. Goddington
3. Morden
4. Plumstead
5. Hatch End
6. New Addington
7. Kevington, London
8. Newyears Green
9. West Heath, London
10. Harlington, London
11. Bickley
12. Longford, London
13. Sundridge, London
14. Plaistow, Bromley
15. Derry Downs
16. Pratt's Bottom
17. Ramsden, Orpington
18. Kenley
19. Bexleyheath
20. Hayes, Bromley

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 [31] 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 [32] I have attempted to reason with the editor on article talk pages and in a thread at the London Wikiproject [33]. 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)

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)

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 [34] to Croydon last month, Sirfurboy made a number of changes [35], 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.

The reverts I made today were not a "retaliation", but a response to a series of similar bold edits he made today at Kenley, Ramsden, Orpington, Pratt's Bottom, Derry Downs, Plaistow, Bromley and Sundridge, London. I made my objections to this new wording in the relevant edit summaries and on the WikiProject London talk page discussion linked in my first line. I then reverted similar bold edits he had previously made, which had not yet been changed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. [36]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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,[37], I and Dave Biddulph attempted to adjust the edit - without reversion -to a form of words that did not assert Croydon was in Surrey: [38]. PC96 reverted to his version [39] on 14 Nov, 11:01. I then immediately took this to talk, posting at 11:39: [40] GrindtXX pointed out the established guidelines and Spinney Hill made an edit that resolved the situation [41], 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:

Romford [42], and [43], I initiated talk: [44]

Enfield, London [45]

Woodford, London [46] and [47], I initated talk: [48]

Whitechapel [49], I initated talk [50]

Fulwell, London [51], I initated talk: [52]

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

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)

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 [[53]] 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)

@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 [54].

"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 [55]).

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)

@Garfie489 - That was when Justgravy reported me on the 3RR page for accusing them of edit warring. Here's the report. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@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. [56] ). 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)

@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?

Again, my reverts were to bold edits Sirfurboy made across articles he found using Google Search, about an issue in the midst of discussion. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 [57], here at Enfield [58], 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)

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)

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, perhaps here, and an RfC initiated with the aim of updating these guidelines to ensure they reflect consensus. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is ridiculous. The edit history shows a pattern of WP:NOTHERE. Disruptive editing on a single topic and endless forum shopping. Should be blocked. MRSC (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, MRSC has reverted my reverts to Sirfurboy's bold edits at Kevington, London, Hatch End, Bexleyheath and New Addington, in which he removed any mention of the historic county.

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.

Has MRSC not, by your logic, reverted in violation of topic guidelines, which clearly state the lead should include the historic county if a place's current/ceremonial county is different? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  When I saw the word Middlesex I almost moved this to the "pregnant person" thread. EEng 20:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  If it wasn't the season of goodwill I'd tell you to get your coat. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Then despair. Regardless of anything else, the edit warring and retaliatory editing of PC96 deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I would accuse Sirfurboy of doing exactly that, but on a much larger scale. It took him 9 minutes to revert my bold edit to Chingford. He went on an editing spree, rummaging through articles I had edited following my initial encounter with him at Croydon, as explained above. Do his reverts and retaliatory editing not constitute edit warring? Sirfurboy has now reverted all my recent reverts to his bold edits. Some of these bold edits violated topic guidelines by removing any mention of the historic county. Just to reiterate Black Kite's comment: Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. Does this not apply to Sirfurboy? And why doesn't he discuss my objections to his new "until 1965" wording instead of reverting reverts to this new wording (which would be factually incorrect whether historic counties were abolished or not)?

He is now continuing to rummage through Greater London articles, either inserting this new wording (e.g. [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]) or removing any mention of the historic county from an article (e.g. [64], [65], [66]). Take a look at Sirfurboy's contributions and see for yourself. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger "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" - of course Pinner is in London, the London Borough of Harrow and Greater London. I would argue Pinner was in London before it became part of Greater London in 1965, when it was, by all means, in Middlesex. I am certainly not one of those editors who try and claim a place is currently in their historic county instead of London or Greater London. I'd just like to see ceremonial counties and historic counties clearly and accurately distinguished. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And why doesn't he discuss my objections to his new "until 1965" wording a few thoughts here:

1. PC96's claim that the 1965 wording is new is incorrect. The wording was already widely used on pages, and I was seeking wording that had an established consensus, so used that. A couple of examples are at Mill Hill and Edmonton Hundred. PC96 only reverted 20 of my edits, after I reverted one of his. He did not revert any others;
2. PC96 reverted to a form of words he knew was not compliant with the guidelines, rather than making any attempt to improve the wording. This is not new behaviour. In this edit,[67] PC96 reverted back in wording he knew had been challenged, and knew was not compliant with guidelines under the pretext that the challenge removed other information that had not been challenged. The other information was changing the word "northeast" to "north". There was no attempt to improve or find a compromise. Clearly a resonable action would have simply been to change northeast to north again, rather than to edit war in challenged material. Objections are just a smokescreen to cover attempts to re-insert this material. He used the same tactic here,[68] and no doubt other places. Again, this looks like a strategy;
3. This report is not about the content dispute itself, it is about editor behaviour. A long running campaign by an editor to insert wording in many articles for reasons of WP:POVPUSHing that introduces a litany of edit wars (e.g. his 18 attempts to assert the wording over a 20 month period at Chingford, most recently being opposed by LondonEast4 among others). I have quoted Uakari above from previous disputes where he has said 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.;
4. I note that throughout this case, PC96 has failed to acknowledge an issue or apologise for these actions, but he has doubled down on them by attacking me. I expected that attention, as I brought the ANI case, but there is plenty of evidence above that this editor has warred with very many editors over a very long period. His attempts to ask "what about..." (whataboutism) rather than acknowledge an issue with his own behaviour suggest that the issues raised here are not resolved.

I have never brought an ANI case before, but I believe this issue has been so persistent, and the behaviour sufficiently uncollegiate, that I would like to request the community consider a topic ban. I am at least the third editor (evidenced in this thread) to have made that suggestion. Plenty of others here have argued for a block. I am not looking for an indefinite block of this editor, but I do feel his actions warrant a restriction of some kind upon editing about historic counties.

I am not sure what the process is for requesting a topic ban, but at this point I will address PlatinumClipper96 directly and ask: would you agree to a voluntary topic ban from making edits regarding historic counties, broadly construed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all points made, however i feel a topic ban will just end up with us all being here again before not too long. PC96 has already previously had people accuse them of edit waring, and threatening to open ANI's in years gone past. Yet still their attitude remains, with some articles being warred against multiple contributors over many months as suggested in point 3.

The thing for me is, the defence by PC96 - as bad faith it may be - has demonstrated clear and extensive knowledge for the rules and regulations of editing on Wikipedia. They are aware what they were doing is wrong, and have made no apology for it. This is a clear, deliberate attempt to push a POV into a narrative across potentially hundreds of articles with flagrant disregard for guidelines or consensus. Not only is this attitude highly unlikely to change on a polite request, PC96 has demonstrated in this entire ANI they have no intention to do so - rather accusing others of similar actions and fabricating provably false accusations.

We certainly now need to work towards a resolution. Previous ANI's on the same issues by the same user simply resulted in the page being protected for a limited amount of time, and this clearly shows the amount of contempt PC96 has for admin sympathy. Heres a previous ANI report against PC96, the action of this was to protect the article he was edit warring for 1 month - this was carried out by @EdJohnston on 14th Feb 2021 to the Bexleyheath article [[69]] - and yet on 15th March 2021, near exactly 1 month after we immediately see PC96 revert the article to reflect their POV once again, and @EdJohnston had to protect the article once again 2 days later - and PC96 later went on to do the same actions on the same article months later.

Unfortunately, this is the contempt we will have to deal with if we give PC96 any room to move - they are highly aware of Wiki policy, and extremely willing to exploit it in any way possible to further their POV in these articles. As i said at the top, simply topic banning will end us up back here before not to long - as theres been no attempt to reconcile for the actions that have led to this. Garfie489 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

1. There is no consensus that the set of counties known as the historic counties changed in 1965. The ceremonial and administrative counties, which formed the main structure of administrative geography, changed. Yes - the example you provided at Mill Hill is an example of the wording you have been adding to dozens of articles across Greater London. The wording is new to those dozens of articles, as you introduced it to those articles. You claim that this wording is used at Edmonton Hundred. It is not. In fact, I would not dispute the wording of this article at all - "Edmonton is one of six hundreds (obsolete subdivisions) of the historic county of Middlesex, England. A rotated L-shape, its area has been in the south and east firmly part of the urban growth of London. Since the 1965 formation of London boroughs (see Greater London) it mainly corresponds to the London Boroughs of Enfield, a negligible portion of Barnet and a narrow majority of Haringey. Its ancient parish of South Mimms (including the later civil parish of Potters Bar) has since 1965 been part of the Hertsmere district in Hertfordshire. - perfectly accurate. Note the use of "is one of six hundreds" - present tense, but still clear it does not persist.

2. The wording I reverted to is perfectly compliant with the guidelines. WP:UKTOWNS, the topic guidelines covering these settlement articles, is clear that historic counties should be included in the lead (which Sirfurboy has repeatedly violated by removing any mention of historic counties from certain articles, and reverting my reverts to these WP:BOLD edits - surely edit warring on his part?). Sirfurboy attacks me for violating guidance at WP:UKCOUNTIES - topic guidance for county articles. This guidance states We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.. Although I disagree with this guidance, I would argue that wording that says a place "is in the historic county of..." makes a clear distinction between current ceremonial county and historic boundaries, and certainly does not imply that "historic counties still exist with the former boundaries". Just like the present-tense wording at Edmonton Hundred Sirfurboy linked above. I am certainly not the only editor to believe this. @Dr Greg, who restored such wording at Chingford [70], commented that "this sentence isn't about the current boundaries of Essex, it's about the historic boundaries (that's what "historic county" means)". "Was in the historic county of" or "in the historic county of...until 1965" implies the set of counties known as historic, changed, and that the settlement may have moved to another historic county, or that Greater London is a historic county.

3. "a litany of edit wars (e.g. his 18 attempts to assert the wording over a 20 month period at Chingford" - you are aware that this number includes reverts of indef blocked and sock accounts campaigning to remove HC information. I was not the only editor to restore this wording.

4. To reiterate what I said above, I would accuse you of edit warring and retaliatory editing on a much larger scale. I've already made my criticism of you clear. It is perfectly reasonable to question and criticise your behaviour, especially when your behaviour amounts to exactly what you accuse me of. To reiterate, you have accused me of violating guidelines by reverting your WP:BOLD edits, because you felt the existing stable wording you changed on dozens of Greater London articles violated the guidelines. Many of your edits violated WP:UKTOWNS by removing HC information entirely. As you are aware, I reverted some of these, and you reverted these reverts to your WP:BOLD edits. This constitutes reverting in violation of the guidelines - exactly what you have accused me of, except your behaviour was in violation of BRD.

@Sirfurboy, I will leave it up to administrators to decide whether my activity is worthy of a topic ban. My opinion is that it is not - my reverts of your bold edits that led to this ANI are justified. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So, that entire wall of text is to dig in & insist you are right and everyone else is at fault for not giving in. I expect after the holiday, when more admins are online, we'll see either a topic ban or block for PC96. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No - I was responding to Sirfurboy, directly addressing the assertions made. Refuting accusations is perfectly reasonable at ANI. An utterly unproductive, erroneous remark. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Tony1 has been warned several times about misleading edit summaries and false reasoning given for edits he has made to various lists of shipwrecks and ship launches.

• 1st edit; to list of shipwecks in January 1887. Edit summary was "Script-assisted style fixes, per MOS:NUM". I explained that MOS:NUM did not cover flags, but WP:FLAGCRUFT did, and that there were difficulties in changing {{flagcountry|UKGBI}} to {{flagu|UKGBI}}.
• 2nd edit; to list of shipwrecks in July 1889. Edit summary was "Script-assisted style fixes, avoid flags in infoboxes". As there are no infoboxes in use in the list, I issued a clear warning that removal of flags with misleading edit summaries would result in this being taken to ANI.
• 3rd edit to List of ship launces in 1806. Edit summary was "Script-assisted style fixes, per MOS:NUM". Again this edit does not fall under MOS:NUM.

So, the issues caused have been clearly explained to Tony1, and yet he seems not to care. Both warnings were removed from his user page so he has read and understood them, yet carries on making the edits and leaving false edit summaries. Not sure what the solution is here, either a ban on using the script, or a ban from editing lists of shipwrecks and lists of ship launches, but something needs to be done. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Tony1 has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the seriousness of this needing to be brought here. What if the edit summary were changed to "Script-assisted style fixes". I would consider this a slightly inaccurate edit summary of little consequence, not a misleading edit summary as if a vandal were trying to hide something. MB 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@MB: there are two issues. Firstly the misleading edit summaries, and secondly the disruption these edits are doing to the lists of shipwrecks and ship launches. The use of flags in these types of lists is well established. WP:FLAGCRUFT does not apply here. If an editor uses a script, they are still responsible for all aspects of editing using the script. That includes the accuracy of edit summaries. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Question, why do you think a section of the MOS not apply in this particular area? To my understanding local projects cannot override the MOS. Common use doesn't mean correct and I think those flags should all be removed (but not replaced by country acronyms.) Too many areas, small projects etc, are spamming pointless low res flags that don't serve any purpose other than decoration in many areas of the project. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. But flags are everywhere when it comes to ships. I could see one in an infobox on individual ship. But in these list articles, they are a garish distraction. I would like to see them gone too, but that is a conversation to be had somewhere else. MB 01:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: There are exemptions in the MOS for flags in infoboxes of ship articles. With the shipwreck lists, there are a few issues that make the use of flags better than text. In a lot of cases, civil flags and country flags are different. There's the issue of historic countries and city states. Using the correct flag for these makes it obvious which is meant. With lists of ship launches, the same issues arise, except that the state flag and not the civil ensign is used. Many modern countries have historic predecessors that have articles. Germany is not the same as Germany, Germany, Germany, or Germany. Each of these have different flags but are all "Germany" in common useage. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is an exemption for ship infoboxes, but that's not what's being discussed here. I think you have just made a great case against using them. There is no exemption to use them in a list of ship wrecks that I can locate in the MOS. Using the correct flag for these wrecks doesn't actually convey information as the majority of people don't know all flags (and especially ship ensigns) and even those that do often can't make them out when they're only 23 pixels high. As you say yourself above there is a lot of difference between national flags and ship registry flags which means even more reason to not use them which is actually the intent behind why the MOS says not to use them in most cases. If it's not a modern day country then linking to the correct country and clearly naming it (not hiding it behind Germany as in your above example) is perfectly acceptable and in fact may be preferable to the current situation on those articles where it's actually not clear in some cases immediately what country they belong to as flags are being used to attempt to convey information (as is the case here and which you mention) which is expressly prohibited under MOS:FLAG. Speaking away from the MOS, personally I think these tiny 23 pixel high flags are a plague on Wikipedia articles, they're too small to be of any representative use more often than not, they distract from the information, they're use is purely as decoration, and in most cases convey nothing and add zero understanding. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

22 or 23px is not "tiny". Try increasing font size instead of sticking with the default. I've got my laptop set at 200%. The flags are a big enough size without dominating. I'd like to see a full discussion of this issue in the New Year, with solid proposals as to how the lists of shipwrecks and ship launches can be done without flags. I am open to change, but this does need thorough discussion at least at WP level via a RFC. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell the difference between the NZ and Australian flags? Hard enough at large size, let alone tiny size. Tony (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the big give away is the colour of the stars. White for Australia, Red for New Zealand. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Very good. You're one in 300 readers who could identify them, particularly at tiny size. Tony (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI isn't really the place to be discussing whether flags are recognisable at displayable size, or how (or whether) they should be presented in "list of..." articles. This needs a proper discussion on a project page 9probably at WP:SHIPS), with suitable consideration of all issues, including MOS and accessibility issues .Nigel Ish (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I stopped editing lists-of-shipwrecked articles some weeks ago. I don't see the problem. Tony (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Ah, I see one edit to a list of ship launches. The flags were deliberately retained after Roots's complaint a few weeks ago. What on Earth??? Tony (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like I need to spell out how these edits are disruptive. I believe I've explained why the edit summaries are disruptive. Changing {{flagcountry|UKGBI}} (United Kingdom) to {{flagu|UKGBI}} (UKGBI) is disruptive because UKGBI is a meaningless initialism. UKGBI was created as a shortcut to save typing "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" everytime that flag was required. Apart from that particular disruption, other countries are affected by changing from {{flagcountry}} to . Flagcountry is used specifically to create a piped link, using Flagu instead displays the target, not the intended link. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so your complaint is all about linking country-names, is it? Tony (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's about misleading edit summaries, and the disruption caused by your edits. Particulary after I explained the situation and you removed the post from your talk page. You are at liberty to do that, but it means that the message has been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the editors who think that this is a storm in a teacup. The edits and their summaries fall within the remit of style fixes. In particular the substitution of {{flagcountry}} with {{flagu}} is in conformity with WP:LINKING notwithstanding the "meaningless initialism" of {{flagu|UKGBI}}, which appears to be a red herring. I urge admins to close this thread. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 02:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: the changing of {{flag}} and {{flagcountry}} to {{flagu}} across the hundreds of lists of ship launches and lists of shipwrecks may be possible. As this affects so many lists, a full discussion would need to take place before implementation. Mjroots (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of bureaucracy that is unnecessary and unwarranted, as it simply involves unlinking country flags from the underlying article. This is adequately covered by WP:LINKING. Those dreadful little 23px decorative splodges are much abused but I agree here's not the right place for that discussion. Ships flags are more problematic as many ships sail under flags of convenience and it would be meaningless particularly when an article is loaded with Liberian flags. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 18:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Ohconfucius et al that there is nothing to do here. By the way, on one occasion, Tony1 did not just remove Mjroots's post from his talk page, but answered first, admitting that he may have made an error (and pointing out that Mjroots could tone down their threatening language and people might take it better. I assume that was referring to "Any further disruptive removal of flags with misleading edit summaries will result in a report to WP:ANI. Do I make myself clear?" which did indeed not carry a very fortunate tone, in my opinion). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Beccaynr

Hello, I created an AfD for a bio article and one of the respondents, Beccaynr, has been taking various actions in response:

• Tendentious editing on the subject's article Zainab Salbi in response to the AfD including:

• Edit warring 3RR reverting my edit that removed redundant content about the subject's education appearing twice on the article [71] reverting maintenance tagging edits I added on tertiary sources, especially in the context of the BLP and active AfD discussion: [72][73]. I put a 3RR notice on their Talk page[74], which they promptly removed[75]. In response, they put the same notice on my Talk page[76] despite no indication of edit warring on my part.[77]. WP:NBASIC presumes notability on the basis of secondary sourcing independent of the subject, so without tagging tertiary sourcing appropriately, it could be wrongly assumed that the sources are secondary and providing notability, especially in the context of the open AfD.
• Using a self-published US government source which attributes both the author and publisher as "Bureau of International Information Programs, United States Department of State" on a BLP WP:BLPSPS, and doing so to add contentious and potentially defamatory information about the subject that she called former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as her uncle.[78]. Individual sections have contributors but the overall authorship is attributed to the Bureau. Also not sure what the jury is on using government reports for BLP sources.
• Mass adding links to book reviews on the article[79][80][81][82][83][84]
• Adding unsourced OR with very serious claims about the subject[85]
• Adding trivial fluff, such as the address of a house the subject and her family moved to[86]
• Adding sources of dubious/unknown reliability such as the Yemen Times for BLP information, including for contentious content like the subject being raped [87][88]
• Despite the AfD pointing out as a prime issue the need for secondary sourcing independent of the subject to show notability, Beccaynr has been adding including but not limited to tertiary sources (examples [89][90][91]) and mixed prose/subject quotes interviews (not independent of the subject and largely primary) to magazines (examples :[92], and [93] which Harper's Bazaar Arabia article even tags it as an interview on the website and mentions "Zainab Salbi tells Bazaar’s editor-in-chief Louise Nichol")
• Copying over "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs" and "reliefweb" sources and information (with some rephrasing) from the Women for Women International article without explanation: [94][95]

• Pinging admins on multiple Talk pages seemingly to try to get me blocked over a tban unrelated to the AfD.[96][97]. The admin determination was "no violation", calling Beccaynr's claim a "stretch"[98]. Despite this, Beccaynr attempted to push the matter further[99].
• Possible WP:TAGTEAM on the AfD by Beccaynr and another editor CT55555. The AfD's edit history speaks for itself[100] but to give one example, in response to a comment by DragonflySixtyseven[101], both started to oppose Dragonfly in rapid succession[102][103][104][105]. Both editors (Beccaynr and CT55555) had acknowledged that they often comment on the same women's bio AfDs together as part of "tilting the scales of gender imbalance on Wikipedia"[106][107]. I don't know if this violates anything so I'll leave it to admins.

All of the above is within the last 48 hours, and I'm concerned this will get worse if left unattended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs)

• As an admin who is involved in this AfD, I wish to add a few comments to the points raised above (but I'll leave it to uninvolved admins to render a judgment). This AfD has been extremely contentious due to Saucysalsa30's behavior, in particular attempting to WP:BLUDGEON anyone who disagrees with them. Myself and others have attempted to explain that in our opinion Zainab Salbi appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, with plenty of reliable sources to support this. In response to the discussion, Beccaynr began improving the article by adding sources, which is a frequent occurrence during an AfD and something that is usually praised. I don't believe Beccaynr has done anything wrong here, especially not at the level requiring a posting to the Admin Noticeboard. As an added data point, Saucysalsa30 is currently under an arbitration enforcement sanction, namely a six-month topic ban from the topic of "Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, including Peter Galbraith and Iraqi chemical attacks." I don't think this AfD comes under that topic ban but Saucysalsa30's behavior in the AfD does seem similar to how they acted prior to being banned from those topics.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I understand you may want to defend someone whose perspective you agree on on the AfD (thanks for at least disclosing you have been very active on that AfD), so I can understand the stretch to say there isn't a problem with edit warring/3RR (which a whole board is dedicated to), tendentious editing including adding extreme claims about the subject with poor or no sourcing, and other described issues. The casting aspersions is uncalled for too.

Your repeating the same claims contrary to policy on the AfD, including that primary sourcing non-independent of the subject such as interviews with subjects talking about themselves provide notability[108] contrary to WP:NBASIC, got to a point that another admin DragonflySixtyseven got involved to put yours and others' misunderstandings of policy to rest.[109][110][111] Also, WP:NOTTHEM. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: I disagree on you assertion that this doesn't come under the topic ban, as the article xplicitly states, with a reliable source, "In 2008, WFWI produced a report with an introduction by Salbi, based on 2004[4] and 2007 surveys of Iraqi women, including Kurdish, Shi'i, Sunni, Christian, Turkmen, and Sabai'i.[16]" The presence of Kurdish falls within the scope of "Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, including Peter Galbraith and Iraqi chemical attacks.", which makes the editor eligible for a block - albeit a flimsy one, but a block all the same. Perhaps one that would allow the afd to run its course in peace (say two weeks?) would be enough to reinforce the "leave it alone" message from the ban. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. But since I'm involved in the article and AfD as an editor, I can't make that call so it'll be up to another admin.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@TomStar81 @SouthernNights Something else you missed. El_C has already sorted that out taking that into consideration in case you missed the above diff and with Beccaynr making this point.[112] " No violation. On its face, none of the items mentioned primarily concern WP:KURDS, so even with WP:BROADLY in mind, it seems like a bit of a stretch.". Beccaynr has also apologized for this confusion in this ANI section.[113] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Saucysalsa30: you cite this edit as evidence of "unsourced OR with very serious claims". Can you explain how you came to such a conclusion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Experiencing psychological abuse from Hussein, Salbi's family sent her out through an arranged marriage to an older Iraqi American living in the US when she was 19 years old. The marriage was abusive and shed escape three months after, but did not return to Iraq due to the First Gulf War in 1990." part was unsourced despite it making significant assertions about a BLP subject's life. It was since fixed as a result of the significant editing going on on the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That text was in the article when it was nominated for deletion [114]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30, none of that content was added by Beccaynr. Can you strike that from your report and review your diffs to ensure you didn't make any similar mistakes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• The only WP:BLUDGEON here appears to be going on with the OP, who has edited the AfD 20 times, and is still removing citations from the article with, it has to be said, some fairly shaky rationales, despite the fact that the subject of the AfD appears to be clearly notable. Adding that to the fact that the OP already has one topic-ban for being unable to edit collaboratively with others, the fact that this article has at least a tangential connection to that topic, and the fact that they do not be able to use (amongst others) WP:TAGTEAM, WP:NOTTHEM and WP:SPS correctly, I would suggest that there is nothing for ANI to deal with here. I would suggest to the OP that when you already are the subject of a topic ban, subjecting your behaviour to ANI may not be the best idea in the world. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite For clarity, the topic ban was, as conceded by the imposing admin, based on incomplete understanding and not looking through diffs provided carefully, only after realizing most of the accusations were false, and them confusing what different people did. They didn't lift it on the basis that the decision was already made and I agreed to wait out the time. Another admin reviewing it called the sanction decision a "mess" and did not support it, but isn't involved in AE. Just wanting to clarify these false aspersions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Really? Can you post the diffs? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Acroterion, could you address Saucysalsa30’s statement? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Pretty sure the imposing admin Acroterion didn't say anything like what Saucysalsa30 is claiming, as show by these diffs: [115] and [116]. --SouthernNights (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  That is just one example, and it was in response to [117], which was the crux of the accusation and on which the tban was based. On AE, they were firm the accusation was true despite these same diffs showing it not to be. After the fact, I pointed out the details again on their Talk page, and it became not a matter of what I allegedly was guilty of, but "litigate individual issues", which is not what that was at all.

  Anyways, the aspersions from Black Kite are entirely unwarranted. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  The admin doing the external review did it over IRC, asking me questions in real time and all. I gave diffs and so on and went for over an hour. Having put in substantial, real-time effort, they didn't see it anywhere near as clear-cut the same way the imposing admin did, that the accuser was not entirely scrupulous (to put it mildly), etc. I later thanked them on their Talk page.

  To give a couple examples of the imposing admin from the time of the appeal of the imposing admin just missing details which were easily cleared up by diffs: [118][119]. Ex: The accuser provided (false) private evidence to ArbCom accusing me of making real-life threats which ArbCom very obviously threw out. Acroterion claimed that I had provided said evidence. The AE appeal, suggested I make it by an admin, did show that Acroterion had made sloppy mistakes with understanding the original AE section.

  Also considering I built and led a consensus with Buidhe, GregKaye, and other editors to dramatically improve an article in very poor shape, the "for being unable to edit collaboratively with others" line is casting aspersions at best. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  For at least the fourth time, I reviewed your conduct extensively, and no matter how many times you assert to the contrary, your topic ban was imposed because you've repeatedly bludgeoned discussions and treated other editors as opponents to be defeated [120]. Your assertion that I imposed your topic ban through negligence, or that I somehow admitted fault is laughable, and I grow tired of hearing it. Saying something a dozen times does not make it true, and there's a consistent thread of IDHT in your conduct [121] [122] [123]. I I have better things to do today than to argue with you. I have warned you. about boundary-pushing [124] This is another example of this conduct, both in terms of the topic ban and your overall conduct. Acroterion (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Before I went to bed yesterday, my plan for today included trying to figure out how I could informally try to deescalate issues with Saucysalsa30 and how to address various content issues in the Zainab Salbi article. I regret that I did not more fully explain my request for clarification about the scope of the Tban as an attempt to address the issue early on, before there might be a blockworthy issue, and my plan was to apologize today. So Saucysalsa30, I am sorry that I did not better explain my perspective, and your interpretation of my comments has given me a lot to consider if I ever have questions about the scope of Tbans in the future. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Beccaynr Thank you, I accept your apology. While there are some pending content issues, a couple BLP issues (using dubious sourcing like Yemen Times for highly contentious content is a big one), synth/OR, and failed verification, the big issue is around finding sourcing that according to policy presumes notability. The sourcing added is overwhelmingly primary, tertiary, "staff" profiles on self-published websites, and so on that may add verifiability but do little for notability. Most of the participants on the AfD came after these edits, and didn't dig into the sources (in good faith, I can't blame them for not wanting to waste their time) and context before making a vote on the assumption that sources added = notability. GoodDay below had fallen into the same trapping. The problem we have at hand is: 6 or 7 editors are struggling to find the "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" to presume notability, and this is regardless of the AfD which has already been unduly influenced by the new surface-level. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, for making me aware of the Afd. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please see WP:NBASIC. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have closed the AfD in question as a clear snow keep as there was not a scenario where that discussion is closing any other way. I leave discussion about whether bludgeoning existed and by whom to other editors. Note, Sausaysalsa30 appears to have been fishing for their preferred outcome. See User_talk:Liz#Question_about_how_AfD_works. Star Mississippi 19:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your work on this @Star Mississippi: as well as @Liz:'s usual excellent reply on their talk page. Jahaza (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Just noting conversation with OP at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#AfD_closed_3_days_early_despite_non-notable_sourcing (which I have no issue with). I'll be mostly offline for the balance of the holiday week after this evening, so pardon any delayed response. I have given Saucysalsa my blessing if they believe DRV is the answer. Star Mississippi 02:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I was fully involved in the AfD but I'd purpose a boomerang. Firstly, on my involvement editor had commented that I violated WP:BLUDGEON in the talk page, Talk:Zainab_Salbi. I might have made a slightly off-topic comment, which I apologise, though I don't agree with the BLUDGEON assertion, however that has already been resolved on the user's talk page. However, looking at this user's encounters with other involved editors, the user asserted that Beccaynr could be canvassing because their involvement with a WikiProject, stating that I came across your userpage and your dedicated efforts to preventing deletions of women bio articles and your membership with WikiProject Women in Red, and of note, which one of the two other commenters on the AfD also belongs (I assume out of good faith that no off-wiki canvassing is involved on my AfD). I have a better understanding now where your perspective on the AfD may be coming from, which is inaccurate and bordering on an aspersion. On User:Liz's talk page, the user left a biased message as the AfD is progressing, commenting that the keep votes are spurious, when User:CT55555 interacted with this user, they commented that other users' activities in the talk page, including myself, are tendentious editing and repeatedly claiming that non-independent, primary sources..., per here. Moreover, despite that others could have reasonable intepretations, the user has stated good-faith attempts of adding sources as being comparable to WP:GAME, per Talk:Zainab Salbi#COI tag. I don't have issues with the editor's interactions with myself but IMHO their interaction with Beccaynr is not ideal. Thanks, if my details are incorrect do let me know, if any parts are inaccurate or confrontational here do reply and I will strike. Note: I anticipate that the opening user might post a reply critiquing my comment, which I acknowledge and respectfully disagree. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  See also 1, 2. VickKiang (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  @VickKiang This is all a gross misframing, especially after you expressed regret for your bludgeoning to me[125], including "That is unfortunately a bit high, but looking at the discussion overall I do not think I've excessively replied to other comments that would result in others perceiving that I might be bludgeoning the conversation. I unfortunately post long-windedly and sometimes too long in some forums". I'm not going to pull up all your diffs but I'm more in shock with the blatant falsehood in this.

  "the user asserted that Beccaynr could be canvassing" You are not only assuming bad faith, but being dishonest because I made no such comment.[126] I praised and empathized Beccaynr's involvement with WikiProject Women in Red, and said I don't believe there's any canvassing. My kind comment was also right after Beccaynr tried getting me blocked with admins over an irrelevant tban that admins agreed was no violation and giving me a 3RR warning for no reason despite no edit warring. How do you spin that to "asserted could be canvassing"? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Off topic is not an apology. I’ve highlighted in my original replies that you commented substantially more to than I did, your cherry picking is completely inaccurate. Also in case you missed what you quoted yourself, I do not think I've excessively replied to other comments that would result in others perceiving that I might be bludgeoning the conversation.VickKiang (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't say you apologized. I said you expressed regret for it. Also you should avoid saying demonstrably false claims about people to push actions against them. That is not good faith. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I guess more explanation is needed regarding which part at all I violated WP:AGF. So in your ANI, you opened with Possible WP:TAGTEAM on the AfD by Beccaynr and another editor CT55555. The AfD's edit history speaks for itself[155] but to give one example, in response to a comment by DragonflySixtyseven[156], both started to oppose Dragonfly in rapid succession[157][158][159][160]. Both editors (Beccaynr and CT55555) had acknowledged that they often comment on the same women's bio AfDs together as part of "tilting the scales of gender imbalance on Wikipedia"[161][162]. I don't know if this violates anything so I'll leave it to admins. WP:TAGTEAM says, in one of the lines, There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding tag teaming. Tag teaming that clearly falls under the narrow definition in this essay generally violates other guidelines and policies such as disruption or canvassing (which are guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming. If you indeed are not trying to comment that User:Beccaynr and User:CT55555 might violate canvass, why would you open with TAGTEAM to begin with, and then post a caution note on my talk page?

  Moreover, I have not said any false or demonstrably false comments. If you strike the part about TAGTEAM, which an user above said that you are misintrepreting, I will acknowledge and strike as well. But your comment as it stands is inaccurate, which is additional to your claims that I had bad faith. To User:Star Mississippi, you said An observed issue is there's a WikiProject Women in Red whose objective is preventing red links and changing red to blue, which includes preventing deletions of women bios. Most (6) of the participants on the AfD were members of this project. I'm not saying with any certainty that canvassing was involved, but a WikiProject dedicated to on-site activism of this nature can be disruptive especially for standard procedures like AfDs. (diff). VickKiang (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Saucysalsa30: And also in case you're unaware of this, when you open an ANI and some other editors disagree with your conduct, it's out of procedure to remove the entire thread, which you did, without the consent of other editors. VickKiang (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, my full paragraph also has the line which I acknowledge, but I don't think that is the case here. In case you didn't read the line don't think, I clearly said I did not bludgeon there, so I'm confused where you got expressed regret for your bludgeoning to me from, but this line is an obvious misrepresentation of the actual diffs. VickKiang (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I've started a WikiBreak for at least two weeks, see my contribs. I don't agree with the replies to my comments, and respectfully disagree how my actions were depicted by the ANI filer. However, continuing to comment here would likely generate more heat than light. I appreciate every user who commented in the AfD for their work in building a consensus. User:Saucysalsa30 and User:DragonflySixtyseven, thanks for your constructiveness in aiming to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. User:Beccaynr, User:CT55555, and User:SouthernNights, thank you for your substantial improvements to the article in question. Also, as I commented here, I am fully aware that my comments could require WP:BOOMERANG. As such, admins uninvolved to this AfD, including User:Black Kite, User:TomStar81, and User:Acroterion, in the meantime please feel free to examine my edits and warn or sanction if necessary if you agree that some of my comments are contrary to assuming good faith. Thanks for your time and diligent admin work.

Thank you for everyone here sincerely for your work again. Bye for now, will likely return to editing again from my Wikibreak after this discussion is over. Thanks for your support! VickKiang (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. (Involved). I had planned to stay out of this, despite being mentioned in the initial complaint, because I felt there was so little merit to the accusations I did not need to answer. Alas, the chain of events since makes me feel like I need to note:

1. It seems wrong that it was User:Beccaynr who informed me I was mentioned in a ANI issue, not the person who mentioned me.
2. The suggestion above that I am doing something wrong by being an active member of Women in Red of course, I reject. I am indeed working to improve articles about notable women. That is a good thing.
3. Of course I notice that the ANI report in which I was mentioned came rather soon after I asked the filer not to bludgeon coincidence? I assumed good faith, but then...
4. I have just see the statistically unlikely event that User:Saucysalsa30 voted to delete an article I started that is at WP:AFD. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Quartz
5. The opening comment here implied I was part of a WP:TAGTEAM, which is a serious allegation, and is unfounded and incorrect.
6. My editing to improve an article at AFD was described as tendentious here (and then soon later closed WP:SNOW keep as per my !vote).
7. I warned Saucysalsa30 to assume good faith, after they said editors were trying to WP:GAME the system. My warning was quickly deleted with an edit summary accusing me of casting aspersions.

So in summary, I've been accused of a lot: tendentious editing, meat puppetry, of doing something wrong by collaborating via Women in Red to improve articles, of casting aspersions, and of WP:GAMEing the system. Saucysalsa30 has complained about me at ANI without telling me, and has turned up to vote delete at an AFD of an article that I started. This doesn't feel collaborative and I find it impossible not to notice that the barrage of complaints about me have been landing since I informally asked them to not bludgeon. CT55555(talk) 00:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This ANI report was not about you except one bare mention and only for context, and if you read the original comment, I didn't say your editing was tendentious. It's strange that you're making it about yourself.

"and has turned up to vote delete at an AFD of an article that I started"

I'm sorry if my comment, like many others on the AfD, regarding a non-notable subject on the AfD was upsetting, such that less than an hour later, you made the above comment to air out misplaced grievances and nothing that hasn't already been said already. The AfD was created by Bearcat, who I've noticed often if not always makes well-thought nominations. I didn't "turn up". It was relisted just earlier[127]. Now that you mention it, I notice now that you're WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. Bearcat's detailed responses to you have been quite informative and clear the air on your misunderstanding of notability guidelines.[128] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red

• I started this comment in reply to part of a comment from VickKiang (before removal by VickKiang [129]) that refers to my removal of Saucysalsa30's first comment on my Talk page. When I removed the 23:22 26 December message at 23:25 [130] with the edit summary WP:TALKNO, I was also editing Zainab Salbi during the AfD, e.g. [131] at 23:14, [132] at 23:31. From my view, per WP:TALKNO, there seemed to be some misrepresentation of significant exchanges and context, as well as dismissal or discrediting of the views of several AfD !voters based on affiliation with Women in Red. In comments posted above by VickKiang [133], Saucysalsa30 appears to have continued to focus on the AfD !voters who are Women in Red members, e.g.

11:40, 27 Dec "Since you mention voting, I've noticed that 3 of the votes are from WikiProject Women in Red members, which has the stated objective "to turn "redlinks" (like this one) into blue ones." for women bio articles.[134] So, at least in retrospect, I can see there may be some possibility that the creation of the AfD was mistakenly perceived as an assault on this WikiProject, which was not by any means my intention."

00:05, 28 Dec "It was 8/9, and 6 of them, including yourself, were from WikiProject Women in Red, which has a stated objective of preventing red links and changing red to blue for women bios."

In addition, at Star Mississippi's Talk page, a comment that seems similar was made:

23:52, 27 Dec "An observed issue is there's a WikiProject Women in Red whose objective is preventing red links and changing red to blue, which includes preventing deletions of women bios. Most (6) of the participants on the AfD were members of this project. I'm not saying with any certainty that canvassing was involved, but a WikiProject dedicated to on-site activism of this nature can be disruptive especially for standard procedures like AfDs."

From my involved view, these comments may be several attempts to use an affiliation with Women in Red "as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting [the] views" of multiple AfD !voters, which does not appear to be helpful for promoting the "collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia." Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I accepted your apology and assumed you were sincere, even withdrawing my report in good faith, but this is contrary to that.

Actually the only thing I said to "dismiss" votes was that most of them added no value ("Keep per X" is an argument to avoid) and that the proper arguments being made to keep were so wrong that an uninvolved admin jumped in to explain how your argument and the only other non-admin one more than a few words were clearly mistaken. Quoting myself on Star Mississippi's Talk apge:

7 of the ~10 votes only came after sources were added to the article making non-arguments, evidently influenced by the ostensible "notability" of the subject added in the last couple days, and the few arguments before that were spurious as explained by admin DragonflySixtyseven.[135]

"I'm not saying with any certainty that canvassing was involved" - Here, I made it clear I'm making no such accusation or "ad hominem". I only made a uncontroversial observation that most involved on the AfD is part of a project whose objective and implied by the name is creating blue links, of which creating a red link would be directly contrary to that. If this observation is offensive, as was my creation of the AfD in the first place for which you reverted any of my edits and attacked me, I would recommend reading the group's wiki. I'll quote two sentences: "The objective is to turn "redlinks" (like this one) into blue ones. That's why we are called "Women in Red".

Also, there are many examples of people soliciting participation from the WikiProject in public space, linking to AfDs relevant to the WikiProject or worrying about articles getting deleted via AfD. [136][137][138]

More relevant to this ANI section, you've said nothing in defense of your breaking 3RR rule (which normally is an immediate 24+ hour block), tendentious editing, and repeatedly trying to get me for violating a tban even after an admin told you there's no violation. Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Thanks. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the purpose for nearly every WikiProject is to turn red links blue for whatever respective topic that WikiProject is focused on. This is an encyclopedia with articles about notable topics so what would the suggested focus be for a WikiProject focused on the discovery and inclusion of notable women? The other purpose for a WikiProject is to improve existing articles. For that we have a Women in Green WikiProject focused on taking those blue links and attempting to make them GA's.--ARoseWolf 20:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the use of the word "solicitation" above is being presented as something anti-Wikipedia. We want new editors, and experienced editors, to ask questions at the Teahouse and other help related pages. We want them to engage on talk pages when they have concerns or questions pertaining to articles and article development. We even have an entire mentorship program designed to help editors understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make their journey here a little more smooth. Asking for assistance is never a problem and asking at a WikiProject talk page is not automatically canvassing. None of the examples provided show any editors asking for assistance in a way that violates Wikipedia policy. While suggesting canvassing may be occurring is not, in itself, a breach of policy, the continued insistence that a "possibility" of canvassing violations or off-wiki discussions is occurring within a WikiProject without definitive evidence that such is happening is an example of bad-faith assumptions and battleground tactics. --ARoseWolf 21:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Saucysalsa30: did Beccaynr violate the 3RR rule? You cited three diffs as evidence of a rule violation. What was the fourth revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Saucysalsa30, I am essentially asking why you are mentioning Women in Red affiliation in the context of AfD, to several !voters and the AfD closer.

Also, in my apology to you above [139], I tried to clarify how I was not "repeatedly trying to get [you] for violating a tban even after an admin told [me] there's no violation", by expressing regret for not being more clear about clarifying the scope of the Tban, which from my view, is different from asserting a Tban violation and requesting a block. My first comment on El C's Talk page [140] was after you removed the discussion from your Talk page, and then I responded to a commenter on El C's Talk page, and said I appreciated the clarification by El C [141]. Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Some advice for Saucysalsa30

• This is provided as friendly advice, given the comments you have made above. I would strongly advise you, at this point, to step away from articles involving Women in Red, and indeed those articles and related AfDs edited by the users that you keep on casting aspersions about in the above sections. I can assure you, coming from 15 years as an admin and patrolling ANI, that it will not go well for you should you choose not to do so. It is very clear from your previous actions that you do not take such advice, and indeed double down on bludgeoning your opinions, but this would be a very good time to change that attitude. There are 7 million articles on Wikipedia. There is much good you can do by improving those. Black Kite (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• I want to echo what Black Kite said. The editors involved in this discussion -- including yourself -- are volunteering their time to help improve this encyclopedia. Having disagreements about edits and content is normal. There have been many discussions and AfDs that didn't go the way I wanted. While it's human nature to take disagreements personally, they rarely are personal or organized against you. The best thing to do in such situations is to move on to another article that you can work to improve. Sincerely, --SouthernNights (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Make that 3 admins who want to offer you some advice, Saucysalsa30. We have all been here for years and have seen many, many editors come and go, often not leaving by choice. It frequently all comes down to this...it's not a matter of whether another editor made 3 or 4 reverts on an article but who is seen as disruptive on the project. Administrators are not judges to deliver verdicts on right and wrong, we are here to make sure that the project runs as smoothly as possible so that the encyclopedia can thrive and grow. We are here to remove obstacles so you really don't want to be seen as an obstacle.

Editors who are seen as "disruptive", continually filing complaints against other editors, holding long-term grudges, making overly long arguments that take an hour to read, well, they can easily start to be seen as a net negative to the overall project. We have had editors who have written amazing articles, who were great content creators, but if they are seen as disruptive, they get indefinitely blocked despite their marvelous contributions. If you don't want to be blocked as WP:NOTHERE, you'll dial down the outrage, stop taking every criticism so personally and focus on the work we do here, which is not engaging it battleground behavior/constant arguing but improving content.

As long as you are keeping score with other editors (and that number seems to have grown exponentially) and collecting diffs of every time another editor has done something you disagree with or feel offended by, you are increasing the likelihood that you will soon be indefinitely blocked. You don't want the next appeal you file to be an unblock request so I suggest you drop your feuds and focus on the content, not the contributors. I say this to you as someone who hasn't investigated your contributions to the project, who doesn't have an opinion on whether or not you are a good editor, I'm just offering you advice from seeing many promising editors kicked out because they wanted to fight more than to write. I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended and make a 180 degree turn from the direction you are heading in. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling by Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel

My attempt to convert Template:2022–23 Top 14 Table into a Module:Sports table standard (1) was reverted by Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (2). Following WP:BRD, I went to the template's talk page and asked why they did so (3), and they responded within minutes (4). I criticised one of their arguments, though expressed a willingness to help implement stats in the table they wanted to include, if only a reliable source for the stats could be found (5). They did not respond for five days. I admittedly made the mistake of interpreting this lack of response as a sign that it was safe to restore my changes (6). Within two hours of this they came back to revert the changes again with quite a rude edit summary (7). This understandably upset me, and my following unsuccessful attempts – on both the template's talk page and their talk page – at getting them to come back to the discussion show it (8)(9). It did not help that they were continuing to edit the template in the following days, while not responding to my messages (10).

It was around this time that I first came across WP:DISCUSSFAIL, and tried my best from thereon to follow its instructions. I pinged them on the template's talk page and placed a {{Talkback}} note on their talk page (11)(12), but got no response. They did however clear most of their talk page twelve days later with an edit summary that simply read Idiots. (13) I then followed the next step and placed another {{Talkback}} note (14). After eighteen days, they still did not respond. I then took the next step and restored my changes, and placed on the template's talk page a slightly-modified version of the message recommended by WP:DISCUSSFAIL (15)(16). This prompted a very quick response within the hour after many weeks of silence, reverting the edit once again and leaving a short and slightly aggressive reply that did not address any of the points I had raised a whole month prior (17)(18). I sincerely believe that Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel is not acting in good faith and is deliberately stonewalling to avoid discussion, and I am now here hoping to find some sort of resolution to this. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I have found this whole module argument nonsensical, to an extent where I am not even interested to have this conversation. I have over and over in the page's discussion said that the format is the same for all other seasons, so there is no need to change. That was my argument finished and I do not want to endlessly continue it without resolution. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't exactly showing a collaborative spirit... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course I believe also that I do not show spirit in this reply, same in my talk clear, where I thought all the talk was idiotic, mine included. But I just want to leave this conversation behind without any aggressive attempt to reignite it. Thanks, Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking it at the diffs, it seems to me that AFC Vixen has been making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia, and is reasonably entitled to at very least a clear explanation of why you believe the template should remain as it is. It's clear that you do think that the status quo should remain, but you haven't clarified why. Just reverting over and over again without any explanation isn't an appropriate response; it's WP:BRD, after all.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You did not say anything "over and over". You had only ever replied precisely once, and then disappeared from the conversation. Please understand that this was the problem. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "over and over" was exaggerated, but you also approached this FrenchFootball user was involved in this conflict with you before I was and he has seemed to not engage in any conversation with you. It now appears you only want to target me as I am the one who updated the table continually and actually made a first response. If it was about a topic where there is no normal standard, then I would engage in the conversation very gladly. I am avoiding this so I don't find you an annoyance to an extent where I would be throwing insults, because having done this before and faced the consequences, I'd rather not. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course I would have a problem with an editor who refuses to recognise outstanding issues while at the same time blocks any efforts to resolve those issues and uses sarcasm and insults in their edit summaries. FrenchFootball never did that, so why would I have an issue with them? All these tangents you make still do not answer why you think the the current table is better than the more widely-used and feature-rich Module:Sports table, and why a factually incorrect source should continue to be used in the table. To repeat myself, I can easily create a column for the individual bonus points to appease you, but only if there is a reliable source that can verify them. The official table does not have such stats, and neither does Le Figaro, the BBC, or Sky Sports. I cannot understand how you find these concerns "nonsensical" and "idiotic". — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical that you don't seem to have any problem with any previous season, or any season of the the Pro D2, Premiership, URC, Champions Cup, Challenge Cup or the near 150 seasons of the Six Nations. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep making these WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments instead of responding to the issues raised? — AFC Vixen 🦊 11:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe those templates could be improved as well. Doesn't matter, though, the issue at hand is the template at hand, and whether what AFC Vixen is proposing would improve that or not. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, clear stonewalling. Mikey is apparently trying to argue that no-one should edit Wikipedia because it isn't broken, or something like that (forgive me if I've missed the subtleties of a nonsensical argument). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I've put a request on the template talkpage seeing if the users in question can put together position statements for an RFC. There's a lot of animosity on that talkpage and it seems like outside/cooler heads would be useful. A community discussion would help defuse the 'me vs you' vibe on that talkpage --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Block Request

• Progrock70s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2804:1054:401B:E400:4CFD:1F7D:489F:3D5E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Whiskey in the Jar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Thin Lizzy (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some Administrator please Block this user User:2804:1054:401B:E400:4CFD:1F7D:489F:3D5E . Reasons: making fake accusations about me on various pages of using other IPs for editing/ reverting sourced edits and replacing them with unsourced ones/ using various IP addresses, they recently changed it to User:2804:1054:4010:70A0:B54B:3837:1EEB:6D28 and User:177.39.240.251.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Progrock70s (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Progrock70s: You're going to want to provide diffs or this report is likely to be dismissed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Progrock70s: You're also required to notify this IP user that you've brought a complaint against them at ANI. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jprg1966 The user already knows cause they've been stalking me and so they ended up on here and removed my post but it got reverted fortunately. Check "view history" Progrock70s (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I fully protected Whiskey in the Jar for 3 days since that seems to be where all the edit warring is going on right now. This needs to be resolved via dispute resolution. All involved need to discuss on the talk page, find reliable sources, and stop reverting. I foresee blocks coming if this doesn't get resolved via some form of dispute resolution. The reliability of some of the sources have been disputed, so they should discussed on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cont. (moved from user talk)

Moved from User talk:Alalch E. § Whiskey in the Jar

 – context: Special:Diff/1130406750 —Alalch E. 13:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The page has been protected. The other user "Progrock70s" will come back to revert my edit. You said you agree with me, so please read this: Progrock70s will come back and revert my edit. He's using sources like Allmusic sidebar genres, Rateyourmusic, Discogs... all are unreliable and he won't start a discussion on the talk page. The source I'm using is reliable (an Allmusic review) unlike Discogs, Rateyourmusic, allmusic sidebar genres and other crap. I suspect user Progrock70s used IPs like 151.246.129.30. to revert previous edits. I can't do anything now, so please help me. See: 151.246.129.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 151.246.120.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2.147.139.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2804:1054:4010:70A0:9CA3:77E9:FC80:7DE9 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You seriously need help. you still are accusing me while it's pretty obvious that you're the one using various IPs for editing. I'm so tired of you going through various pages accusing me for using various Iranian IPs, you're not gonna get anything dont waste your time and stop accusing me. If this is a law in here to block someone for using various IPs,

it's you not me. Progrock70s (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: IP is not right to have edit warred, but he's okay on substance, while Progrock70s has been introducing unreliable references, per WP:RSP, and it's plausible that he WP:LOUTSOCKed. —Alalch E. 13:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: you can't just accuse me when you don't have any evidence just because some few users from Iran have the same "opinion" as me doesn't mean it's me using those IPs, I've already brought evidences that this guy uses various IPs from Brazil for editing, my evidence: just compare their comments on edit summary and you'll realize they're exactly the same (copy-pasted comments). May admins choose the best decision on who to block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progrock70s (talk • contribs) 16:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: But it's strange because these IPs edited on the exact same pages as you while you were blocked between 25 and 26 December 2022. To see how long his block lasted, check his talk page. He has been blocked by Materialscientist on December 25, 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:1054:4010:70A0:9CA3:77E9:FC80:7DE9 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

User creating various BLP drafts with unrelated medical sources

I've noticed a user, User:Whitesheep1, creating multiple WP:BLP and company drafts about various people and companies (examples: [142], [143], [144], [145]). They are all sourced, but the sources have nothing to do with the subject, and only feature medical sources of unrelated topics on the National Library of Medicine, (examples: [146], [147], [148]). This looks to be some sort of paid editing, possibly a trick to get around an unreferenced content filter. Could someone have a look at this? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This could be the result of someone copying an article as a working basis and replacing the text without caring about citations (for the time being). I have now asked them about a possible lack of disclosure; if they continue editing without answering the question, {{uw-paid2}} and {{uw-paid3}} can be used before re-reporting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a known VisualEditor bug - see filter 979. It seems likely based on their editing pattern that this is a paid editor, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they're intentionally using fake references. Spicy (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of this bug. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know about the editor bug either, in that case, case closed, it just looks like a (possible) standard paid editor. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP editor

Resolved

 – Blocked 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

IP 70.123.18.238 issued a legal threat at the AfC HD: [149]. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 2 days by Bbb23 for legal threats. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I like this phrase: "Wikipedia.org no longer has the right to provide information on this subject matter". David10244 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Some people have a very strange idea of the law. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If I had a dime for every time a layman shot off his or her bazoo on what they fancied the law to be (based, apparently, on a mix of wishful thinking, willful ignorance and Something They Heard From Someone Somewhere) ... Ravenswing 15:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I get most of my legal expertise from Ally McBeal. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the well-known Single Female Lawyer school of jurisprudence. Deor (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Methodical damage to film articles

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

---

User:94.201.206.212 is performing persistent disruptive editing: this user is currently going methodically through a list of horror film articles, and amending the cast lists, adding irrelevant information without sources. See their recent contributions. Cast lists in film articles should just be lists of names and roles.Masato.harada (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a pretty good chance they will return after the block has expired and return to their problematic edits. Please keep an eye on them and re-report if this happens. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Doubts about copyright of machine-translation

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

---

Say, X (copyrighted) exists in a language which is not-English. I use Google Translate on X and insert the output in wiki, almost verbatim. Do I violate copyright/plagiarism policies? I do not seek any sanctions on any editor but will like third-party-opinions at Talk:Magtymguly Pyragy#Plagiarism. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's copyrighted. If it weren't, the most popular books would get translated almost immediately so that people could rake in the $$$. According to https://www.lr-coordination.eu/node/251, there is a copyright for the translation, but it requires the original author to allow the translator to translate. RPI2026F1 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. HistoryofIran doubts that translation can count as plagiarism, since "those are technically different words/sentences". I am not sure and will let others be the judge. Pinging @Moneytrees and @Diannaa, our experts on copyright/plagiarism. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Diggression about ANI notifications.

@TrangaBellam, in the future, please make sure to notify everyone involved. I've done it for you. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Huh? I had invited HistoryofIran as a neutral observer to comment on the discussion. I pinged Dianna and Moneytrees, after finding their name in the CCI page. But if the single-thread-notification pleases you, go ahead. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC) The box at the top of the page states: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC) I am not discussing an (or any) editor. I am soliciting the expert opinion of Dianna, Moneytrees, and HistoryofIran. I intend to discuss the issue with them; not discuss them. So, with less than 1000 edits to mainspace, can you stop preaching me about the policies in a patronising tone? Please let the thread remain focussed on the issue. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC) I wasn't trying to preach to you, I was just trying to lightly remind you. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The translation of a work creates a derivative work. See WP:DERIVATIVE. One cannot just run a machine translation on the work and make the copyright of the original work disappear. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTFORUM violations by The basis of

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The basis of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has continued to rant about the formation of Western civilization at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#White_supremacy_revisionism_at_Western_world, instead of focusing on the alleged issue at hand (content added by Rim sim (talk · contribs) at the article Western world, which they allege to contradict reliable sources). They had already been blocked, as an IP, from Western world and its talk page for the same reason, and the problematic behavior is also present at Talk:Western world. They have made problematic edits ([150], [151], [152], [153]) at Western world itself, often with edit summaries accusing their opponents of White supremacy, and were blocked from that page for 1 month on December 22.

From what I can discern, their core arguments are that Western civilization began after the East–West Schism in 1054 and is completely different from the ancient civilizations of Europe, and that it is rooted in Christian colonialism and not in ethnonationalism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to note this kind of accusation dates back to more than a few weeks ago: makes me believe LaundryPizza03 is overlooking my contributions since then in November. The basis of (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You've been posting a great length to an enormous thread on that topic at NORN as recently as today. The whole of your attention has been devoted to a single topic, and you don't appear to have convinced anybody to agree with your edits. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

At NORN because the given political frame at the page that's about political frame exactly and not cultural, is entirely falsified in violation of wp:NOR. What is expected instead? The basis of (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You are expected to contribute to other parts of the encyclopedia while you wait for other editors to discuss your perspectives and come to a consensus, participating when appropriate but not to the point of bludgeoning the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

At the page it reads like national laws made the Western world: almost like if laws made the West. That's not the case though, Western world's policies are not equivalent with Western world's laws. They are two different definitions. Culturally speaking, a world is governed by laws yes indeed, but Western world is made of countries which govern law-making, and that's how it should read. The basis of (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The interpretation (I get) about Western policies as well, is that they're based in slavery from Greco-Roman times and immigration in modern-day. In conclusion, revisions from 19 November by Rim sim, divide the West into two wings (Republicans and Democrats?) like if the Western world is a parliamentary system: one is "blacks" and the other one is "whites". If this continues being accepted I don't know what I am talking about. The basis of (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying the difference in laws and policies: policies are visible enacting laws, but they're dictated by historical as past events (including the existence of bad laws) thus policies are rather only visible when laws are created and amended. They're substantially two different things even while they look the same. And as well, civilizations change as policies do, not as laws do. Hope that's clear now. The basis of (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The only bit of that that I can make any sense of is "I don't know what I am talking about", which seems to be true. Can't an admin just block now to stop this troll wasting any more of our time? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Apart from indulging in personal attacks and defamatory behaviour WP:WIAPA, the concerned editor has only dismissed every proper verifiable source that contradicted their viewpoint; instead of reading and understanding the numerous references that have been provided, they choosed to indulge in disruptive editing, got blocked and continues to rant - all of it in absurd, unintelligible language. Seems like a case for indefinite block. Rim sim (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but, do we realize the page is based in common roots of white people's Christmas Day (was Northern hemisphere's winter solstice across ancient greeks and romans). The "West".? The basis of (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Trying to continue your arguments here is just going to result in you getting either a topic ban or an outright block from Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked for the confluence of CIR, soapboxing, and personal attacks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Behavior of an editor in a catholic-fundamentalist article Miracle of Lanciano

I report the user Rafaelosornio. This is clearly vandalism [154]: several users have commented that almost all the sources in the article are unscientific, manipulative, and based on POV internet sites. This is in full detail on the article's discussion page. I have deleted several fake sources individually, with individual justifications in the change comment. Nevertheless Rafaelosornio reverts all (!) reverts with the reference to a single source, which is nowhere quoted appropriately! The consequence is that a source-free Catholic fundamentalist article in Wikipedia is not changed. A user spoke of fringe-theory, which also meets the facts. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr. bobby: You briefly mentioned at the talk page that they have also pushed pro-Catholic agenda at Padre Pio, and possibly elsewhere. Since you are also familiar with the Padre Pio case, which also involves a third user, can you explain the involvement of Rafaelosornio there? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It will be more effective if you don't use inflammatory language attacking other editors as fundamentalists and if you try to collaboratively edit the article to reflect the questionable nature of these studies rather than just taking them out of the article entirely. If you just take them out, people looking for reliable information about them will be left only with unreliable representations of them found elsewhere. Jahaza (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Things should be called by their names. And unscientific sources should not be allowed in Wikipedia at all. If contents of faith should be reconstructed, it remains central that this is marked as religious faith and not to mix unrecognizably with scientific aspects. It is striking that someone criticizes the designation "fundamentalist", while he tolerates the action that whole passages from ultra-religious internet pages (partly without author!) are patched together and disguised as scientific investigations. Please criticize the important things, not marginalia.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jahaza @LaundryPizza03, Mr. bobby has been repeatedly blocked due to edit-warring on religion-related articles (his block log). After looking at the so-called full detail on the article's discussion page here, Mr. bobby basically wants to remove all remotely Catholic sources, which would be a nonsensical thing to do on an article that is very related to Catholicism. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You are inadmissibly distorting what my posts stand for here. I do not want to delete "all" Catholic sources. The point here is that users want to prove the facticity of miracles. They want it to be written naively in Wikipedia! For this purpose they use unscientific internet pages, which serve the veneration of saints. Or the homepage of places of worship (for example of Lanciano). These sides describe endlessly the truth of miracle reports, without sources, without scientific requirement, but all the more surely in the linguistic description. A Catholic source - for example from the Vatican - can be used to prove that someone has been canonized. But also this source could not be used for the fact that miracles took place! One must be able to keep that apart! Mr. bobby (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis: Since most of the removed text was cited to sources that are non-MEDRS or did not support the text, do you believe that Rafaelosornio is also problematic here? There are similar concerns at Talk:Miracle of Lanciano dating back to 2010, and "science cannot explain" from the last paragraph is a contradiction and a favorite mantra of pseudoscientists.

I also found that the most recent iteration of the fringe theory was added by Exanx777 (talk · contribs) on December 4. Given that this also includes text copied verbatim from [155], I'd suggest RD1'ing all of the affected revisions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If Rafaelosornio is using sources for statements which are actually unsupported by those sources, then that's clearly problematic. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

My report here is based on the Lanciano miracle. Translated f.i. from the German Wikpedia:

"The material, which consists of the remains of a host and five blood clots, is said to have been examined for the first time in 1574 by Archbishop Gaspare Rodriguez. He is said to have found that the total weight of the five clots was exactly equal to the weight of each individual clot, which is why he acknowledged that the blood clots must be miraculous material. This phenomenon is mentioned exclusively on the epitaph erected in 1636. Later experiments could not confirm the alleged observation."

All these alledged facts were written down in the English WP as if it were facts...Mr. bobby (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr. bobby: You are from Germany and you are the one who has edited the articles in German on Padre Pio and the miracle of Lanciano to your liking, therefore I do not understand why you quote the article in German about the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. If you want to consult more about the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, consult the article in Italian language where said event took place. The article in English was a translation from Italian article and you want to remove a great part of the article and many references of said article. You spent the time eliminating almost all the Catholic sources of the article on Padre Pio and Lanciano's Eucharistic miracle saying that they were not reliable sources and that Padre Pio was a charlatan and that Lanciano's Eucharistic miracle was a fraud.

And by the way, about Giorgio Berlutti, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini, the article is about Padre Pio, not about Giorgio Berlutti who to begin with you don't say who that guy was in the first place. For that reason I removed that statement about Giorgio Berlutti in the article on Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC):

You explain very clearly why I reported you here in the case of the article "Miracle of Lanciano" and why your action in the case of the article on Padre Pio is just as scandalous. You lack any awareness of what you are doing here. You want a Wikipedia that presents Catholic POV as scientific truth and proclaims it outright. That's why you have to be stopped. And I will report all your deletions and entries of this kind in the future.Mr. bobby (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Padre Pio

In short: The main actor in the recent fundamentalist changes was Sanctum Rosarium, which made various unsubstantiated changes. Only one inaccurate statement was rightly deleted: in fact, Pio did not own the company. But, and I will insert this soon from Luzatto's book, he kept lists for this company, thus worked for it. This is proven with source. (Pio actually owned a whole hospital - despite vows of poverty).

Rafaelrosornio constantly supported SantiumRosarium. Uch would check all the contributions of Rafaleosorni that have to do with religious things (Marian devotion, new saints, etc.) He even tried to change my entries in the German Wikipdia, but failed completely

Rafaelorsonio deleted arbitrarily:

Brunatto's publisher, Giorgio Berlutti, had been an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini's March on Rome, and used the biography to raise Pio's profile.

[156]

The statement shows the fascist environment of Padre Pio.

In the article about Padre Pio further problematic:

The whole introduction has been transformed by SanctumRosarium and now sounds as if the Catholic Church is now behind Padre Pio, while it is about the goodwill of John Paul II and the attitude of the Italian Church. Other forces in the Church saw and see Pio as a charlatan. Moreover, outside the Church there is also criticism of Padre Pio, first of all the critical book by Luzzatto, but also other secular and serious scholars.

The better introduction is this one (was already in the article):

Francesco Forgione, OFM Cap., better known as Padre Pio and also Saint Pius of Pietrelcina (Italian: Pio da Pietrelcina; 25 May 1887 – 23 September 1968), was an Italian Franciscan Capuchin friar, priest, stigmatist, and mystic.[1] He is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church, celebrated on 23 September. Padre Pio joined the Capuchins at fifteen, spending most of his religious life in the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo. He became famous for exhibiting stigmata for most of his life, thereby generating much interest and controversy. He was both beatified in 1999 and canonized in 2002 by Pope John Paul II.[2]

Pio taught himself the stigmata, but according to certain beliefs he received them from God. Now it says in the introduction "his body was marked by stigmata" ... This statement contains subliminally the religious interpretation that God was involved. This must be formulated neutrally and at least leave it open that Pio inflicted the wounds on himself....

The miracles must be clearly stated as "alleged". (Pio is said to have flown through the air, to have been in different places at the same time, etc... all this confused stuff and fringe theory).Mr. bobby (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Reports of religious beliefs are not the same things as fringe theory. "...now sounds as if the Catholic Church is now behind Padre Pio" well, yes, they canonized him, so they are definitely behind him! That doesn't mean criticism of him shouldn't be in the article, but when you argue that in general the article shouldn't reflect the idea that the Catholic Church endorses one of their canonized saints, that's kind of out there. Jahaza (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

All the other popes and all the controversy have to be forgotten in the article introduction? And also criticism of secular opinion? Wikipdia is not a bulletin of John Paul II.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who used the present tense. "the Catholic Church is now behind" [emphasis added]. Jahaza (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not a monolith. In Germany Pio is almost unknown, in Italy the national saint. The Vatican under John Paul II has canonized Pio. (And it says so in the introduction.) The resistance to this kind of fundamentalist understanding of miracles and this form of Catholicism is enormous within the Church. And outside the church, too, of course. And this fact just belongs to be presented in a WP article. In the case of Pio the believed facts coincide with the development of fringe theory (ability to fly, healer, bilocation - all even in the Catholic framework fringe theory).Mr. bobby (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Religious beliefs are not all fringe, but all claims of miracles are. Any source propagating the idea that miracles are real is deep in fringe theory territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The alleged miracles of Pio clearly belong to the fringe theory: It is claimed that he flew and thus persuaded bomber pilots to turn back. The alleged healings were refuted by the Church (long before John Paul II)! Bilocation denied even Pio himself at the Visitation etc. Mr. bobby (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is largely definitional... If something can be explained by normal scientific and academic means then it is not a miracle, it must be supernatural in order to be a miracle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Sundayclose and inappropriate behaviour towards IPs and newcomers

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

Sundayclose is an editor I have run into several times regarding issues of overly-aggressive warning of new editors. The first incident I can remember of aggressive templating is in the ANI archives at Editing issues in railway articles, and is from 2016 to be fair, but there have been others - about every third thread on their talk page now is a retort from a templated new user, and most of those resolve with Sundayclose ordering someone to stay off their talk page.

More recently, several new editors have come to me asking why their edit was reverted, and it turns out that Sundayclose has reverted for bogus reasons, usually saying something like "not in the source cited" despite a very cursory examination of the cited source verifying the content. I noticed one such incident on Sundayclose's talk page around September this year (I had been inactive for a while before that) where a user added info with a proper inline citation, which Sundayclose reverted without an edit summary. Now, the user chose the name "Poop Pee Barf" and was later blocked for refusing to change it, but that doesn't make their edit vandalism. I saw their message and also asked Sundayclose to explain that revert as well as several others of the same user, all for invalid reasons (Special:Diff/1110322088). Sundayclose didn't respond, they just reverted to blank the thread (Special:Diff/1111337064).

In October, another new user posted on my talk page about the same thing, that Sundayclose had reverted their edit for being unsourced even though a proper source was provided in the edit. This week I have another message from another new user about the same thing. These two turned out to be sockpuppets and the complaint from September probably was too, but their complaint is valid, and there are a number of similar threads currently visible on Sundayclose's talk page from other new users whose properly-sourced edits were reverted. I interpreted their blanking of my request for an explanation back in September as an acknowledgement that they were reverting inappropriately and that they would actually check sources before reverting, but that does not seem to be the case. I don't know what to do about it though - the most recent incident is too old to warrant a block, although there is another thread on their talk page from just last week where they reverted an IP's edit once because the source was taken from a different Wikipedia article, and then reverted it again saying the link was dead (which it wasn't, it just had an invalid tracking code appended and a bot would have fixed it) - this was on Final girl since it's not linked from the talk page thread. Perhaps a restriction on reverting any edit where a source is provided, unless they can provide a better (and truthful) explanation? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I won't try to make excuses. I have been too harsh on newcomers at times. And this is something that I need to work on. I'm not sure whether all of the reverts for lack of sourcing were inappropriate (and I'm not saying at this point that they aren't), but I'll take the time to go through these and other reverts to double check sources. One thing I need to do is simply take some pages off my watchlist, at least until the dust settles. In fact, I probably need to take a break from Wikipedia altogether for a while. And I need to avoid reverting edits as unsourced until I have first discussed it with the editor who made the edit. I appreciate Ivanvector's comments, and I accept them as done in good faith for the improvement of Wikipedia. I welcome other comments, although it may be a while before I read them because I will be reducing my time on Wikipedia. Feel free to leave them on my talk page so I don't miss them. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Jmaxfield18, persistent addition of unreliable sources, especially self-published social media

Greetings,

• Jmaxfield18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been amply warned, over four years, about the suitability of sources for supporting facts in articles.

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159] and [160]
4. [161]
5. [162]

Yet they have been a prolific creator of massive articles including hundreds of citations to unverified Twitter accounts, Facebook pages, and YouTube videos. I just finished removing 79,731 bytes of wikitext from one article, List of 2022 Women's March locations. That included 291 citations.

• Article state before my edits

Jmaxfield18 has quite single-handedly been producing list articles in this topic area through WP:AFC, and it appears that the AFC approval process does not care about self-published social media sources. Here's a snapshot of the same article before any other editor touched it:

• Jmaxfield18's article

Here's the 2019 article that showed up with 5 references. It has 516 citations now, including plenty of Tweets from unverified accounts that purport to report turnout numbers.

Here's an edit to the 2021 article with crowd numbers sourced to a Facebook video. Here's a 2022 Women's Wave edit of the same nature.

In short, all of Jmaxfield18's contributions must be scrutinized and hundreds of citations audited across perhaps one or two dozen large articles. This is not an easy cleanup; the articles consist of massive tables with rowspans. Thank you for your attention and assistance. Elizium23 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I get the message, and will start cleaning up "self-published sources" on the protest table pages as best as I can, starting with Twitter and event page links not confirmed to have happened. As for where I mostly get my sources, blame the Crowd Counting Consortium webpage with all its monthly Excel spreadsheets - take the good with the bad, as I have done. Though my heart is in the right place, it saddens me that objective documentation of these events can only go so far in Wikipedia, but I'll just have to deal with it, and be more selective in the future. And please don't throw out any more babies with the bathwater until I have straightened them out. Jmaxfield18 (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is a simple principle that would be good to remember: the answer to "But there aren't any reliable sources for this event/statement!" isn't "Gosh, guess we have to cite links to Twitter then." It's that the material cannot be included on Wikipedia. Why did it take several years, numerous warnings, and an ANI complaint for you to get this fundamental message? You will no doubt, under the circumstances excuse other editors for rolling up their sleeves and helping to clean up the mess the best they can -- babies in bathwater notwithstanding -- as opposed to waiting around for when you find the time to get around to it. Ravenswing 04:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

User:103.164.173.66

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

103.164.173.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) uploads copyvio after blocked on their talk page. Lemonaka (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• I made it so only editors with autoconfirmed or confirmed access can post on that talk page. That will prevent them from doing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • You indefinitely semi-protected an IP talk page because someone added a few copyrighted images within an hour? How exactly is this IP editor supposed to communicate with people when the block expires? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I made a mistake b/c I'd only meant to do a two-week semi-protection. I didn't want to permanently block the IP user from using the talk page b/c that would caused the issue you mention. Anyway, I just corrected the page protection.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• @NinjaRobotPirate@SouthernNightsHi, maybe the better way is TPA revoked? Lemonaka (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have exchanged the protection for TPA revocation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Persistent soapboxing by User:Scimernet

Scimernet (talk · contribs) appears to have a vendetta against putting a leading decimal on ammunition articles, and has continually inserted the same long-winded paragraph into various talk pages on multiple occasions to further this view. Seeing as this has gone on for half a year at this point (with their edit warring on the matter predating this specific issue), I believe this constitutes disruption. Although I have tried to actually engage in discussion on Talk:.50 BMG, they have shown they are not interested, and just want to copy-paste this same paragraph again and again, to no real end.

[163] [164] [165] [166] [167] Loafiewa (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Read through the content are realize that the information is not correct and, quit bullying. 216.160.0.104 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Nobody is bullying you (or User:Scimernet if that is not you), but just asking that you follow Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research. If you are right then you will have no difficulty finding reliable sources to support what you say. Please do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources are already posted. I myself am a source the scientifically have explained the miss use of the dedimal. Another source that is listed is SAAMI. Your replies are bullying as your are not giving it consideration and making it right. Scimernet (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you are not a source yourself unless what you say has been published by a reliable publisher, just as I am not a reliable source. That's the whole point of our no original research policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I gave Scimernet a final warning on this behavior. Because the user hadn't been specifically warned before for talk page abuse -- their previous blocks were for edit warring, not talk page abuse -- I gave them a warning instead of a block. But any further behavior like this will result in a long-term block.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

These blocks, reversals and comments are bullying. The information given is to correct the wrong information that is presented on these cartridge pages. Your repeated efforts of reversing and bullying undermine the purpose of Wiki. Please take the corrected information and make things right. Scimernet (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

People don't agree with you that it's wrong information, that's the problem. For example, when you say: If one were to say/list ".45 Cal" , this would convert in inches to 0.0045", this is not something people find convincing. —Alalch E. 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"People" have been mislead by information posted here and elsewhere. We are referencing a cartridge in caliber and not a measurement of inches. They are closely related but not stated in the same way. See SAAMI, and definition of Caliber. Scimernet (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't agree, and if someone else had agreed, they'd have said so already, which is why I said "people". There's no support for your idea, and there is opposition, which means that you should not unilaterally make changes based on said idea, because they will get reverted, and nothing will get accomplished. I hope you can see now that when someone is warned about this, it doesn't in any way resemble bullying. —Alalch E. 18:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No Support for what is correct?  SAMMI?  Support is explained bu what is caliber and how it was derived and used, and not referenced directly in measurement of inches when referring to a cartridge.  You are making opinions without being educated.  Scimernet (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

SAMMI uses both, "22 caliber "and 5"0 Ccliber." ~You need to drop it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Scimernet. Replied on your talk page as it's mainly about content. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

RomanPalomares

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

RomanPalomares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly introduces unsourced material after many warnings as can be seen at their talk page. They ignore all warnings and refuse to communicate (perhaps WP:TCHY), so perhaps a short block can draw their attention. --Muhandes (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Fulcrum0

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

---

Fulcrum0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New WP:SPA account caused disruption at Aegean dispute where Admin Materialscientist had to intervene against, by raising article protection level [168] to prevent further escalation. However, without losing any time, the account came to Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute to cause further disruption despite my repeated warnings and attempts to reason with them and explain to them how Wikipedia works. In their edit summaries and comments, they are using problematic tone, accusing me of vandalism, [169] and of "distorting the truth", [170] indicating that this new account is WP:NOTHERE. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page and see that SilentHill is threatening me with a ban. I explained many times in our talk but he didn’t want to discuss the topic in a scientific and neutral way but prefered to keep repeating the rules which he is breaking. In both Aegean dispute and Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, the user claims that the Turkish doctorine “Blue Homeland”, is an “irredentist and expansionist” doctorine and he bases his claim on several sources. However, when you go and check those sources, you see that several are Greek state media sources and not reliable. Furthermore, NONE of the sources mention the “irredentist and expansionist” terms. The user is clearly implementing his own view and distorting the truth by doing so. I recommended the user to paraphrase the sentence and say that this is how the Greek state views this doctorine. So the user can say that “Greece views this doctorine as irredentist” but writing this as if it is a truth is against the Neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia and the editors own comments.

As a new user I made a mistake and deleted the 7 sources by mistake in the Aegean dispute page when I deleted the word “doctorine” but the admin took it back and there is no further problem there. I edited the Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute page and only deleted those subjective adjectives “irredentist and expansionist” but kept the sources but SilentHill kept on adding them without pointing out a single reliable source that says the doctorine is expansionist. As a new user, I am being bullied by SilentHill because instead of discussing the topic with me he threatens me with bans. Again, my only concern is to keep the neutral tone of the pages and would be glad if you could consider this issue and warn him because he clearly doesn’t respect nor discuss with me. Thanks in advance! Fulcrum0 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Fulcrum0 has not even bothered to check the sources before making their biased edits. Just checking a sample source (the first in the list, it is really hard to miss): "[...] Turkey's latest foreign policy doctrine “Mavi Vatan”, or “Blue Homeland”, an irredentist vision that aims to resuscitate an almost-Ottoman level of maritime influence. by David Lepeska, an experienced Turkish and eastern Mediterranean affairs columnist and veteran journalist who contributed to some of the world's greatest media outlets, such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic and other outlets which meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria. Another one, just next in the list of cited sources states: "Yaycı is the chief architect of the so-called Blue Homeland naval expansion doctrine, and the author of several books which are regarded as reference texts for Turkey's post-putsch irredentism in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean.". This was written by Yavuz Baydar the respectable, multi-awarded journalist of Turkish origin who was exiled from Turkey due to the current authoritarian government's oppressive policies. More about him here: [171]. Fulcrum0 accused me and Wikipedia of sponsoring "Greek" or such views, while failing to acknowledge that the sources cite even prominent Turkish journalists. Fulcrum0 is urged to self-revert themselves [172] which does not reflect on what the sources from experts on the matter do state, apologize for their problematic edit summaries and tone, and use the talk pages to seek WP:CONSENSUS instead of edit warring. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see the need to add any other comment. The first mentioned writer is a writer that has an entry ban to Turkey [173], and the second one, as mentioned by SilentHill is in exile. So it is unrealistic to assume they have a neutral point of view. Please go ahead and check Reliable Sources. The page clearly states the following: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.” So if SilentHill insists on keeping the adjectives he should clearly state that it is the POV of the writers rather than making it a statement of fact. Fulcrum0 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I have just been informed now on my Talk [174] that there is a related(?) discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard [175] about a coordinated attempt to draw SPA accounts for agenda purposes of promoting the Turkish POV across Wikipedia. I am not sure what to do with this information, so I decided to post it here and leave it to the admin's discretion. [176] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a really pathetic and baseless accusation. I have nothing to do with an organization or such. I am an individual who wants to contribute to the neutrality of Wikipedia articles. I want to remind SilentHill that this isn’t a battleground and there is no reason to make this personal. Fulcrum0 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fulcrum0, why do you keep referring to the editor SilentResident as "SilentHill"? Schazjmd (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hahah just noticed it mate sorry, I meant Silent Resident. Fulcrum0 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fulcrum0, looking at your edit history, your edits have been reverted by multiple editors, but you haven't discussed the issues on any of the article talk pages. That's where you should be making your case for changes in wording. Schazjmd (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Some of them were rightfully reverted because in my first edits I didn’t know how to give reasons for a change but now I am fully aware of the topics. The issue is discussed here because if you check my own talk page you will see that Silent Resident threatened me with a ban and refused to discuss the topic with me and reverted every change I make making this issue personal. As a new user I didn’t know where to report him. I told him I was going to report him and he started this thread. So I would be glad if the issue could be resolved in here in accordance with the points and rules I mentioned above. Thanks! Fulcrum0 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fulcrum0, your editing has been disruptive because you're simply reverting instead of discussing. If you don't change that approach, you are likely to be blocked (not a threat, a warning). When you do discuss on the article talk pages, focus on content and sources. Do not characterize other editors' motivations. Do not call edits that you disagree with "vandalism" unless they are what Wikipedia considers vandalism. (Also, SilentResident is "she", not "he".) Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned early she is the one who refused discussing as you can see in my talk page. The vandalism page states the following: “ without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.” Therefore, insisting on keeping a biased journalist’s definition as a fact rather then mentioning it is a comment, and bullying a new user that tries to protect the neutral point of view policy is vandalism. Lets please not keep up with this discussion and let the administrators decide based on the facts we have provided. Fulcrum0 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Fulcrum0, I am an uninvolved administrator. You need to read WP:VANDALISM very carefully. You are making false and unwarranted accusations of vandalism. Good faith content disputes are not vandalism. Stop making false accusations. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Fulcrum0:, I am not sure why you have gotten the impression that I am unwilling to discuss. Like I explained to you [177] at your talk page: "Please familiarize yourself with WP:FIVEPILLARS to understand how things work here. Once you are familiarized with the guidelines, feel free to open a proper talk page discussion regarding any issues you may think that there are about these or other articles, and provide WP:RS to support your claims. Only then we may take you seriously. Thank you.."

This is, Fulcrum0, due to the very simple fact that, Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for us to discuss seriously on your own thoughts and analyses. Like I explained at other point at your talk page: "Wikipedia reflects only on reliable sources, not on what editors may think or believe. Editorial views not supported by any third party reliable sources, constitute original research and have no place in." I can't be more clear than that. Provide sources countering or challenging the information you want to be removed at the article's talk page and seek consensus. Simple as that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, keeping this discussion and repeating the same stuff only makes things more complicated for the admins. This will be my last post until an admin interferes with the discussion. I want to remind you that this isn't a personal conflict and you shouldn't see this issue as a "battle to win". I see no harm in adding that these adjectives you use are a POV, not a fact. The summary of my claims is below:

The subjective adjectives "irredentist" and "expansionist" should be removed or re-phrased such that it is clear that is not a fact, but a POV because:

1. WP:RS clearly states the following: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.”. Insisting on keeping this adjectives as if they are facts is a clear Wikipedia:USTHEM. Furthermore, you actually admitted the above point because you mentioned that the author which makes this claim is in exile from Turkey which makes proposing his views as a fact, a violation of Wikipedia:Point of view.

I was on the impression that you weren't willing to discuss because:

1. On my talk page, when I made the above claim, your response was that I was violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You didn't bother to explain how I was doing that nor explained your opinions until this thread.
2. You allegedly accused me of being part of an organized assult to impose a specific idea. As you can see from my claim above, my only motivation is to avoid publishing a journalist's idea as if it is a fact. The correct way is to mention that it is the POV of the journalist in accordance with Wikipedia:Rs.
3. Instead of listening and discussing how we can resolve the issue (as I am doing in this thread and offering a simple solution which is to add that it is a view rather than a fact) you made the discussion personal by implying that I am part of an organized assault.
4. I checked the talk page of Aegean dispute and your editing history, I observed that this is not the first time you take POV's as facts. Not surprisingly, most of the sources you add are in Greek rather than English. You clearly take this issue as personal which is against the whole spirit and rules of Wikipedia. I recommend you check Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
5. Lastly, you mention that I need to provide sources to remove those adjectives. What kind of source do you expect me to provide that proves to you that a journalist's ideas are not facts? So you are clearly accusing me of breaking rules without a basis and not approaching the manner Bona fide.

Fulcrum0 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Fulcrum0 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Eposty removing comments form talk pages

I was not involved in the discussions, just had one of the affected pages on the watch list. It appears that user Eposty had some topics that did not go they way they wanted, so they attempted to remove them wholesale [178] and [179], followed by repeated attempts. User was warned, warnings were reverted [180]. Their most recent attempt [181] is to remove just their own comment but this is also problematic as it is a threaded discussions. Please review Special:Contributions/Eposty to note that via edit summary, this user is becoming increasingly hostile. Zaathras (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Eposty appears to have "retired" from Wikipedia. PKT(alk) 20:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have enforced the retirement with an Indefinite block for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please monitor Wardolo

Wardolo (talk · contribs) seems to edit in a very strange pattern. But I don't know how to describe. They only had interests in two protected article Talk:List of WWE SmackDown Women's Champions and Talk:List of WWE Champions and created a lot of duplicated edit request. Lemonaka (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This problem was found during my help with WP:ER Lemonaka (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 and LGBT people

I don't know if this is the right place for this but the conduct of User:Elizium23 on Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa and Talk:Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa needs to be discussed. Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa married her female partner of 20 years in 2017. This is included and sourced in the article and mentioned in every obituary. Elizium23 first removed the LGBT categories from the article. They said on the talk page that "the fact of her marriage to a putative woman is not enough" to justify the categories. "A putative woman". They continued in this way despite other users disagreeing with their reasoning. They tagged the categories as unsourced. They qualified the completely legal and ordinary marriage bycalling it a "same-sex marriage". Although no one on the talk page had agreed with them, they started a request for comment about the same question that had already been discussed.

I don't want to ascribe motivations to Elizium23 but it is hard for me to see an American in 2022 using the phrase "same-sex marriage" with implicating that it is somehow different or lesser than a marriage between a man and a woman. Is it possible to ask Elizium23 to stay away articles about LGBT people? Trilobite with extra cheese (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, why not have a try for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard Lemonaka (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lemonaka There is no dispute. Elizium23 believes one thing. Every other editor says he is wrong. Trilobite with extra cheese (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As described quite eloquently by the block-evading, prolific sockpuppet above, I have pursued policy compliance and dispute resolution, as exemplified in the diffs they provided. There is now a WP:RFC open at the article talk page. So I have nothing to apologize for. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

OP-blocked for WP:DE. That's why I persuade OP to try another way before get to wp:ANI. Lemonaka (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

OP wasn't editing so disruptively; the actual block reason is "Abusing multiple accounts: Not new and trying to evade CU by hopping proxies, likely User:World's Lamest Critic" Elizium23 (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry.... Lemonaka (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not discussing why someone would marry their longtime partner at ANI. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 22:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Marrying someone at the age of 90, whether someone of the same or the opposite sex, could very well just be a hassle-free way of transferring wealth to someone not biologically related, so unless Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa has, herself, publicly stated that she was lesbian or bi, LGBT-categories do NOT belong in the article. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W talk 21:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC) (...especially since Veronica Gail Worth, the woman she married, is well over 30 years younger... - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W talk 21:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)) Sure, it's possible that Kawānanakoa and her spouse had a decades-long public relationship in order to criminally evade taxes, but that seems a bit farfetched. We don't assume that men and women are marrying for these reasons, why would we assume that when two women marry? Trilobite with extra cheese (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Men marrying women for other reasons than love or sexual lust is actually quite common, both for financial reasons and as a way to obtain a green card/residence permit/citizenship... - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W talk 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC) @Thomas.W: such baseless and derogatory speculation about living people is incredibly inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC) In what way is it "baseless and derogatory"? WP:CATLGBT also clearly states that in order to add LGBT categories to an article about a deceased person there must be a verfied consensus among reliable published sources that a person was L, G, B, T or Q, and in this case there isn't AFAIK even a single source to support it, just an assumption based on a marriage, that could have very well been entered for other reasons than sexual orientation. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W talk 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC) That does appear to be the verified consensus among reliable published sources, hence why they just say that the two women married each other. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Please don't fork the talk-page content-discussion here. ANI is only for addressing behavior-problems in the discussion. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC) @DMacks: I have posted on the talk page of the article too, but if someone here accuses me of making "baseless and derogatory" comments I must be able to defend myself. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W talk 21:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Continuing to resolve here what someone accuses you here of is fine, and both that sort of accusation and that sort of accused-behavior are on-topic here. Discussion about why this person got married, or why people get married, or what people have indicated about their motivations, are not. So it appears from this outside observer you took us out-of-ANI-scope, and then things went south from there. DMacks (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Tom, darling, my much-older same-sex spouse has a reply for you, but Wikipedia's rules prevent me from posting it here. Happy new year. — Trey Maturin™ 22:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP may well be a blockable sock, but let's not ignore their message merely for that reason. Elizium23's calling a living person (the subject's widow) "a putative woman" (diff) is a gross violation of WP:BLP that deserves at least a strong warning. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact that I blocked the OP, I agree that (at least) a formal warning is warranted; I'm not familiar enough with the topic area(s) involved to know whether more is needed beyond that. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the OP is a sock, but I am going to give a logged warning to Elizium23. If anyone wants to re-close this on the basis of my warning, feel free. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This was my effort to be polite and deferent in not assuming a person's gender identity before I had seen proof of it. I had not realized that "putative" is insulting and I had not intended any insult by it. It was my attempt at neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Many dictionaries fail to provide a well-nuanced definition of the word. Here's one from the Cambridge Dictionary that gets closer to the correct tone: "generally thought to be or to exist, even if this may not really be true" (emphasis mine, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/putative). It's the second part of that definition that shows why this is a non-neutral term. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Although the dictionary definition and its implication that the subject is only pretending to be a woman is already bad enough, Elizium23 claims to speak Spanish at ES-3 level, and so cannot be excused for phrasing that strongly and unnecessarily calls to mind the extremely derogatory Spanish word for a prostitute. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

How is using a term ("putative woman") that none of the sources use an attempt at neutrality? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(comment in non-admin capacity) @Black Kite: I was going to take this to AE, but since there's a thread open here, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out—not in GENSEX but in a related topic area—genuinely one of the worst comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia (starts with implying that a 9-year-old can consent to artificial insemination, ends with accusing a living person/people of crimes [at BLP/N, no less!], with some blatant political advocacy in between), which has been followed by yet more disruptive political advocacy since I called the BLPN comment out. (This predates the GENSEX warning, to be clear, but I just... what the fuck.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, artificial insemination of a 9-year-old in Ohio is still rape according to state statutes. So Elizium23 is both disgusting and incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

F***ing hell, I hadn't seen that. I am literally speechless. I don't think I've seen anything that bad for years. And I'm now glancing at the "block" button, but I think AE would be better, yes. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yikes... Elizium23 has spent years right at the line of what is acceptable in terms of pushing their own fringe and ultraconservative Catholic opinions... But that right there is clearly over the line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow. That first comment is particularly abhorrent, the likes of which I haven't seen on this wiki in ages. I am also tempted by the block button, but I'll defer to the judgement of other admins. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm also very tempted by that block button right now. There have been so many completely unacceptable diffs in this section that it's not something that can be brushed off with a warning. I know blocks aren't punitive, but these comments and defenses are just unacceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am about to block. The "putative woman" comment was bad enough, but this is much worse and, in my opinion, makes a block inevitable. Salvio 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary_Grey,_Baroness_Grey_de_Wilton

Trying to Merge or Redirect Mary_Grey,_Baroness_Grey_de_Wilton article into William Grey, 13th Baron Grey de Wilton article as per AFD consensus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Grey,_Baroness_Grey_de_Wilton) but it cannot be done as deletion of lede triggers prohibition. 107.127.46.24 (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've carries out the redirect for you, and left at comment at the talk page of the target. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

NigelHarris and persistent legal threats

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

---

• NigelHarris (talk · contribs)

NigelHarris was brought to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard yesterday for a campaign of edits at Gerd Sommerhoff. When confronted about this they began to make legal threats [182][183]. Rather than backing off and following WP:COI when informed by uninvolved editors that their COI was extensive and edits troubling they've been making additional legal threats against wikipedia and specific editors[184]. They have been warned about making legal threats on their talk page[185] but they have persisted in doing so[186][187][188][189][190]. I am proposing a permanent ban from English wikipedia on WP:COI, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:LEGAL grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Looks like a clear case of permaban. UtherSRG (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've indef'd per NLT. Wording such as anyone who is ignorant of the Law of England & Wales on defamation should likewise be barred from editing the Page, lest they cost Wikipedia and themselves the price of tortious conduct is clearly intended to have a chilling effect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Height/weight vandalism on wrestler articles

In the past few weeks there has been a rash of vandalism on articles about wrestlers, from a variety of IP editors. The pattern is consistent: an IP editor with no or few previous edits will appear and quickly edit 5-10 articles about wrestlers, in each case changing the height and/or weight of the wrestler, with no sources and in contradiction to existing sources.

The number of articles affected is large. This is just a sample. In most cases, each of these articles was vandalized multiple times:
Brian Knobbs, Brody King, Chuck Palumbo, D'Lo Brown, Dexter Lumis, Heath Slater, Jacques Rougeau, Jerry Sags, Mike Bucci, Mo (wrestler), Pierre Carl Ouellet, Omos, Raquel González (wrestler), Raymond Rougeau, Rhyno, Rikishi (wrestler), Scotty 2 Hotty, Spike Dudley, Stevie Richards, T-Bar (wrestler), Taka Michinoku, The Blue Meanie, The Godfather (wrestler), Titus O'Neil.

The edits come from a variety of apparently unrelated IP addresses. Here are a few. In all of these cases you can see that the only activity from each of these editors is to vandalize the wrestler articles, so I don't think diffs are necessary.

• 1.239.177.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.7.57.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.84.146.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.242.31.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.211.224.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.222.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.97.240.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 218.52.15.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what solution is appropriate. Given the large number of IPs involved, I don't know if this is one editor IP-hopping or if there is some off-wiki coordination going on. Blocking these IPs might just result in new IPs appearing and doing the same thing. And it's a large number of pages to protect. But I wanted to bring this to wider attention in case someone has any ideas for handling this beyond the current whack-a-mole game I and other editors are playing to notice and revert these as they happen. I have notified each of the above IPs on their talk pages. CodeTalker (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Another incident just now from another IP, 121.164.25.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This sort of disruption is a long-term common problem, it ebbs and flows. There's an edit-filter that tags them. See [191] DMacks (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that professional wrestling promoters routinely lie about the heights and weights of their performers, to puff them up. It is called "billed height" and "billed weight". Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate height and weight from the pro wrestler infobox, so that the encyclopedia stops spreading this particular kind of lie. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the same goes for nearly everything else about professional wrestling. Isn't it time we applied the basic content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) properly to this topic and only published what is in genuinely reliable sources, rather than the sources we use now that we pretend to be reliable but are actually not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Atara123

• Atara123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Persistent unwillingness to communicate about file copyright status and continues to upload files with bogus licenses despite warning. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Minorax: No comment with respect to specific copyright status, though a pressing issue here seems to be lack of communication on Atara123's part. I see no issues with their article edits not involving files, though I don't know if they're aware of discussion pages (having made zero contributions to discussions anywhere on WP). As such, I propose a partial block from File namespace to prevent potential copyright infringement and hopefully draw their attention to this specific issue – and suggest an indefinite partial block so that they have to address the issues raised at their talk page if they wish to continue uploading files. (And in this case, a similar partial block should be implemented on Commons.) ^Complex/_Rational 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Support a partial block on file namespace here. As for doing the same on commons, partially blocking someone in the file namespace is effectively doing a full block. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and partially blocked them – also seeing as no objections have been raised here – they have every means to communicate if/when they wish to do so. ^Complex/_Rational 02:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Japanese-language legal threats about a real-world event

УагаПесар (talk · contribs)

ЕсарУагаП (talk · contribs)

This user (there is obvious sockpuppetry going on here) created and blanked two user talk pages, with edits protesting a plan to demolish a Sogo department store in Kure, Hiroshima, called Sogo Kure, which accordong to the jawiki article closed in 2013. They threatened to sue the city of Kure and two other parties if the plan to demolish the building and build a new one goes through.

Summary of edits

Edit	Contents	Google Translate
Special:Diff/1130741383 (page text)	旧そごう呉店解体反対	Against the demolition of the former Sogo Kure store
Special:Diff/1130741383 (edit summary)	呉そごうが入ってた建物は絶対に解体するな。福山そごうなんか跡地にテナントが入ってたのに呉そごうは空き店舗のまま。	Never demolish the building that Kure Sogo was in. Fukuyama Sogo had tenants on the site, but Kure Sogo remained empty.
Special:Diff/1130741476 (edit summary)	呉そごうが入ってた建物を解体したら、呉市と解体業者を訴える。	If the building that Kure Sogo was in is demolished, I will sue Kure City and the demolition company.
Special:Diff/1130741827 (page text)	広島市立中央図書館エールエールA館移転反対	Hiroshima City Central Library Yale Yale Building A Relocation Opposition
Special:Diff/1130741827 (edit summary)	広島市立中央図書館はエールエールA館への移転ではなく、現在地での建て替えにしろ。	Instead of moving the Hiroshima City Central Library to Yale Yale A Building, rebuild it at its current location.
Special:Diff/1130741910 (edit summary)	広島市立中央図書館をエールエールA館に移転したら、広島市と国を訴える。	If the Hiroshima City Central Library is relocated to Yale Yale A Building, I will sue Hiroshima City and the country.

Hiroshima City Central Library is self-explanatory; it predates the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Fukuyama Sogo was a Sogo location in Fukuyama, Hiroshima that closed in 2000. "Yale Yale A" is a mistranslation of a building in the Hiroshima Station South Exit Redevelopment Plan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked both. DanCherek (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 I also caught some of these recently, if you find more, please report to WP:SPI Lemonaka (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: Which SPI thread, or will I have to create a new one? I spotted this after two similar usernames appeared as false positives at WP:UAA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please created a new one. Lemonaka (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Report user Apparition11

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

---

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am writing to bring to your attention a violation of terms on Wikipedia by user Apparition11. It appears that this user is purposely promoting their own agenda and attempting to put down a topic of interest, specifically "Eyelash Extensions."

In addition, this user has falsely claimed that I am promoting my own content on Wikipedia. I want to assure you that this is not the case and that I have obtained permission from the artist and the business to post their work.

It seems that user Apparition11 believes that the current, highly unflattering image on the Eyelash Extension page is humorous or acceptable in some way and is going to great lengths to keep it as the main image. I believe that this image does not accurately represent the topic and request that it be replaced with a more suitable image. All images I've uploaded have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.

I hope that this letter brings these issues to your attention and that appropriate action can be taken. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Eihsok Eihsok (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have also attached an image here: https://i.imgur.com/fr6cjYb.png: He said that I should not mention the " Place " where the photo was taken however, in the description it clearly states to add that. Eihsok (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

user:Apparition11 has been undoing what appears to be promotion additions to the article. I agree with the removals, removed Eihsok's latest addition myself, and reported Eihsok at AIV for promotional editing to Eyelash extensions after a final warning. I see no basis for this ANI report against Apparition11, and I think the wording verges on a personal attack. A WP:BOOMERANG would be more appropriate. Meters (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the red, bold notice at the top of the page "you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page". This was not done, and I will do so for the OP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

OP-reported on Common by me as spam-only account. Lemonaka (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Eihsok, you uploaded multiple images as your own work on which you own the copyright, but you source them to https://www.secretlashclub.ca/ and above you state that you "have obtained permission from the artist and the business to post their work" So which it? Is this your work, or do you have permission to use someone else's work from the website? It can't be both. Meters (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's possible that Eihsok is unable to discern between objective prose and the puffery derived from unacceptable sources they add to articles. I'd suggest checking for copyright violations, as at the eyelash extension article, where at least some content was taken verbatim from [192]. There may be further rev/deletion necessary in their edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If anybody has any questions as to why I made any of the edits that I did, I will be happy to answer them, but I believe Eihsok's edits speak for themselves. For the record, I could not care less about the current image and have no objections to it being changed to an appropriate image or even removed. I do object to it being changed to a picture of the "Cosmetic Beauty Room made by Secret Lash Club"... Also, in regards to the description, the Imgur link is talking about the Commons image description, not the image description in the article like I was talking about. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparition11 has done nothing wrong. Keeping Wikipedia free of spam is a positive action. The filing editor (currently blocked) has repeatedly tried to promote a non-notable business by inserting it into various articles. They claimed it was a service club which is complete BS. Then tried to add it back to the article mixed in with other businesses. And then the addiiton to eyelash extensions article which seems to have prompted this ANI filing. I was going to nominate the images on Commons as spam, but Lemonaka beat me to it. This entire complain is meritless. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

POV mass-editing of corporate pages over Ukraine war

I have run across a pattern of NPOV-violating "controversy" sections on company pages, using what appears to be a drop-in template that chastises companies that did not immediately take a stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These edits were made by anonymous IPs and SPAs, each targeting a handful of articles. They all cite a Yale activist page that (formerly) listed all multinational companies doing business in Russia, and assigned them a grade based on their current stance, with the expectation that they cease business operations in the country. The actions of the users I have personally witnessed can be seen here: Special:Contributions/90.179.194.55 and Special:Contributions/Diuuuuu. I think it's likely that there are many more. Note that prior to realizing there was a pattern of these edits, I had performed an NPOV pass of the Riot Games page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this particular case, and I am not in a position to take an administrative action, but may be my comment in my role of a long-term editor in the area who tries to be neutral could be useful. There are parties which push pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian agenda, and these parties have been active here since at least 2014. Most of pro-Russian users tend to be Olgino trolls and derivatives; they were clearly edited for money, and they were not passionate about the subject. They were given some instructions, and they followed them. These largely disappeared after the beginning of the current invasion in February 2022. Presumably their masters decided that the propaganda is best channeled through other means and not through the English Wikipedia. Those occasional pro-Russian trolls who still show up are ideology driven rather than money-driven, but they typically do not have a good command of English and can be blocked on the spot per WP:NOTHERE. On the other hand, pro-Ukrainian agenda editors are coming here en masse mostly driven by campaigns organized on social media or, sometimes, in Ukrainian Wikipedia. They are passionate about their cause and are ideology-driven. This activity significantly intensified after the beginning of the invasion, for obvious reasons. There are some pro- or pseudo-Ukrainian LTAs in the areas (and, to be fair, I am not aware of any pro-Russian LTA), such as Jafaz, Dolyn, and a couple of others, for them I sometimes do not even know whether they are having fun or are really POV-driven and have no interest of complying with our policies. Unfortunately we also have some long-term editors who are happy to support any disruption which looks even remotely pro-Ukrainian, local consensus here often overrides global consensus. This is the landscape everybody working in this topic area has to have in mind. When there is an Arbcom case about the topic area, I will probably make a similar statement. Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Socketpuppet engaged in extreme vandalism

Hello there is a socketpuppet who has remerged on wikipedia after being banned over a year ago. We have begun making new shape files for the election maps and he has been making account after account in rapid succession reverting them back to the old style. I have reported his numerous accounts on commons and they have been banned. i to try to slow down his vandalism by uploading new files identical that way he can't just revert the files in rapid succession and now unfortunately he has gone even further and made accounts here on english wiki and is now manual reverting the maps. I have just about given up and it is frustrating as editor who has worked hard on these new maps. I am requesting we add protection to the election articles for now to try and slow him down, specifically the ones he appears to target the most such as the gubernatorial and senate race articles of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, and Arizona. Here you can find a discussion with an admin with the numerous accounts he has made, and this isn't even all of them: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huntster And here you can find an example of one of the backup maps i made that he had rolled backed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania Putitonamap98 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I wanna point out that the sock is Smith849, and they're a sock of TylerKutschbach. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess this was ClutchPlayer who is already blocked. Smith849 has no edits (also no deleted edits). Ymblanter (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Their edits are on Commons. I'm assuming @Putitonamap98 reported it here due to the sockmaster having a SPI case on enwiki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Gjonesagain

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

---

WP:SPA returned from a recent block[193] and is right back to making the same tendentious warring edits[194][195][196] Andre🚐 01:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan Continues to use his own commentary, his own point of view, and his own political bias to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative and Mueller special counsel investigation you may be blocked from editing. Gjonesagain (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Adding Close paraphrase: [197] Andre🚐 01:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Gjonesagain apparently came to a conclusion at some past point and has no interest in reading anything new from “left leaning news sources” which we deem RS, or engaging in good faith discussion. As is usual, it is difficult to deal with someone who knows “the truth”, and therefore feels a duty to edit war. The editor does not seem to have taken to heart the block of four days ago on the same subject. WP:IDHT O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Same behavior as before block. Doesn't understand how to vet sources for reliability and just rejects all RS as being left-wing. The issues are related to CIR, BATTLE, NPA, FRINGE, ADVOCACY, NOTHERE, EDITWARRING, ad libitum, ad nauseum. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• More reverts [198] [199] with no explanation Andre🚐 02:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for being a single-purpose account engaging in disruptive editing. For someone with only 40 edits, this editor has caused a disproportionate number of problems - more than we should be expected to tolerate. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptive editing by User:GigachadGigachad

GigachadGigachad has continued their constant pattern of false or misleading edit summaries, unjustified removal of content, and poorly worded prose that multiple editors (including myself) have very patiently called them out for over the past several months. The user was blocked for these problems a few months ago, and since being reinstated, has basically relapsed into doing all of it again. One example is this edit in which they used the edit summary "added link", despite not adding a link and instead removing an entire sentence with notable content. They also continue to add unsourced self-described "trivia" despite multiple editors warning them not to. I recommend scrolling through their talk page to see all the difs that various editors have pointed out. This user has continued to show that they are incapable of learning or improving, so I don't see why they should maintain editing privileges. Cpotisch (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

This user, 114.198.30.253, is being very disruptive on certain pages. Their edits serve no real need on the pages they keep disrupting. No matter how many times I've had to revert their unnecessary edits, they keep coming back in a disruptive manner. I've reported them to an admin, but the admin doesn't seem to think that the user needs to be dealt with. The page the user seems to be disrupting the most is Sydney Entertainment Centre. I've had to deal with users like this for far too long. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. Have you tried discussing your concerns with them? I see you dropped a template on them for vandalism, but I couldn't find any obvious vandalism in their history. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No, but I already know exactly what they'll say to me. They'll say "but this information is completely necessary for this page because it's my opinion and you're wrong for thinking otherwise". Like I said, I've dealt with users like this for too long and every time its the same thing that they say to me. This user obviously doesn't care about what others think about their edits, because they believe their right and everyone else is wrong. I really wish that someone could do something to make this user stop their disruptive edits. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You have (9) reverts in two hours on that page. You inappropriately templated someone for vandalism. Have you considered that perhaps you are also being disruptive? If you aren't willing to discuss your position with the other editor, you should disengage from that edit war. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to help, but you're really not. So if you're not going to be helpful, than please leave this issue to someone higher up who can deal with it. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dipper Dalmatian But it is helpful that they pointed out 9 reverts in 2 hours. David10244 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Support boomerang Edit warring and a direct unwillingness to work with other editors. The IP likely needs a warning for edit warring as well. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will give them an edit warning template on their talk page. Thanks for being helpful. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you are now at (16) reverts on that page. I'd also like to call out your forum shopping [200] [201] towards the boomerang I support here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And please don't delete my comments again [202] 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@166.205.97.102 Please read WP:3RRNO Wikipedia:Canvassing, the one ought to be boomeranged is you, not OP. Lemonaka (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure canvas means what you think it does. Please provide a diff of me alerting anyone of this discussion, anywhere. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User: Willform, chronic WP:V violations, will not communicate

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

Two months ago, I warned Willform about adding unsourced material to articles. The edit in question falls under WP:ARBDS as American politics. Willform's user talk page is plastered with warnings going back two years and throughout his editing career, yet Willform has made only 10 edits to talk pages this whole time, and also doesn't use edit summaries. One editor was so irate at the lack of edit summaries that they reported directly to ANI about it. Just now I spotted a new addition sandwiched in before a reliable source which doesn't include the information Willform added. I think the user talk page warnings have piled up enough and it's time for some TLC. Elizium23 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Long-time registered acting like a vandal

X750 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems like being a registered user with undoubted imprint to the Wikipedia doesn't mean sometimes people won't act like an ordinary trolls and vandals. This guy has simply reverted my four regular edits: [203], [204], [205], [206], without any comment, explanation or discussion. What's more, first two of these were just ordinary update of data, with good sources provided, as the rest of two were just clarification that mentioned cars can't be "unveiled in 2022" as it hasn't happened yet. Is it an official Wikipedia guideline to put in trash someone's edits just because it's not don under a nickname? Very poor action. Not first actually. Hope you'll warn this dude as this activities are unacceptable. Hope not to hear whataboutism either... 83.21.101.90 (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You already have left them a message on their talk-page...perhaps give them a little time to answer? Also please remember to notify them that you have started a thread here. Lectonar (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@X750: Lectonar (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion but I think if you guys discussed your reasons on talk pages instead of through edits trying to win against each other you'd both provide a lot more value and this tit-for-tat could be avoided. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I was asleep when this report was filed, hence my late reply. Here is my response. There has been an attempt to engage in discussion per WP:BRD on the IP's talk page. [207] The IP simply replies "nah". Waddles then asks the IP to refrain from making the edits if they are not willing to make an explanation. The IP user then promptly belittles Waddles for his age on their talk page and in edit summaries [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216]. Then keeps on reverting. IP has also insulted Rally Wonk here. Yes, Sable232 is right, I reverted those edits because I believe they weren't constructive. I have not approached 3RR but I will stop accordingly. Sable is also right in the sense that this is a content dispute. Yet today, I find myself accused of vandalism on my own talk page without an attempt to engage in constructive discussion (not to mention Seems like you overestimate your role, thinking if somebody is unregistered means you can treat their imprint like trash.). I don't overestimate my role, and neither should you. We're both here to build an encyclopaedia & I'd sure as hell hope you'd act like someone who's here to do that. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Relevant previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#83.21.158.88. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to have started with a content dispute over whether "introduced in <year>" applies to only production cars or if it applies to concept cars as well. The IP editor's uncivil remarks related to that dispute probably prompted X750 to presume that the rest of their edits were disruptive.

The edit to Cupra Terramar added poor grammar, and it is not normal practice to call a regional subsidiary the manufacturer. The sourced information on the assembly location could have been left in place, but I'd guess that X750 didn't trust the edit and therefore reverted it all.

The category removals are, in essence, a content dispute; I've always believed those categories to apply only to production vehicles but I also don't know of any consensus one way or the other. This should be resolved through a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. --Sable232 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I've had it with this editor. (User:ControversiesEditor)

It started with a question in my mind about who owns the copyright to a tweet and WP:UNDUE material added under a "controversies" section, but It got into personal attacks quite speedily.([217], [218], [219]) Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just for shits and giggles: this gem. Kleuske (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user without TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

vandalism

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1131138645 Vandalism of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1131138645 Vandalist editor deletes information on page for a month with no basis - sound infromation User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.239.40.3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingForTruth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

unregistered user seeks to delete entire section with well-sourced information from sources like the Atlantic WritingForTruth (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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