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

Conduct dispute against Geogene and SMcCandlish in Cat predation on wildlife

I have been unable to reach understanding with Geogene who persists in reverting my contribution to the Cat predation on wildlife article and has received full partisan support from SMcCandlish. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Wikipedia guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a partisan point of view regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Wikipedia. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective original interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).

Geogene raised an original research objection against properly sourced content and made bad faith allegations that I am trying to push a fringe viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per guidelines), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their effective ownership of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).

Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that "modern science" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.

The discussion history can be found on the article's talk page and on the NORN noticeboard. The talk page section in which SMcCandlish seeks to discredit a source may also be relevant.

As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding verifiable content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.

Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be vandalism, committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than stonewalling because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has resorted to action despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.

I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.

To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. VampaVampa (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

While your message isn't entirely about a content dispute, a lot of it is and that's not the sort of thing this noticeboard is for. I did my best to read and comprehend that talk page discussion and I just keep coming back to the same question: why hasn't anyone tried an RFC yet? City of Silver 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understood that RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved.

I grant that it may look like a content dispute. However, what I encountered was a wholesale revert and an attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist, therefore I fail to see what specific question in the content of my contribution could be the subject of an RfC here. The question of the existence of the debate has emerged as the underlying point of contention, but please note that this was not covered by my contribution and its sources. The broad framing of the entire conflict is something that was imposed on me by the two disagreeing editors. To address that larger question comprehensively, a whole new edit would need to be proposed - and I would actually happily spend time preparing one, but I want some assurance I am not going to be met with unjustified edit warring again. VampaVampa (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, that's part of the instructions of things to try before opening an RfC (use WP:DRN if more than two editors). Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I know. I did not think it was a content dispute but if there is a general agreement here that it should be treated as one, then I could try to open either an RfC or a DRN discussion. However, would there be sufficient space to cite the evidence in support of my position in the RfC or DRN summary? I cannot expect all contributing editors to do their own reading. As I tried to explain above, the matter is not covered by my contested contribution. The literature is substantial and not discussed on Wikipedia to my knowledge. I will appreciate your advice. VampaVampa (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, it is a content dispute. I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page. My personal advice is to drop it. If you choose to pursue DRN or an RfC, I strongly suggest that you learn to summarize your argument succinctly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds please - (1) content dispute, (2) drop it, (3) summarise succinctly? VampaVampa (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, you asked for my advice; I gave it. I don't know what more you want. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, I have asked you for advice with how to tackle the fact that I am expected to defend myself from exaggerated charges that are not really covered by my edit, since RfC or DRN was suggested. I did not ask for advice on whether you think I should accept emotional blackmail and character assassination from other editors.

Since we are a community on Wikipedia your advice has as much value as your insight into the matter. Therefore I asked to know why you think what you think. And if you think my case has no merit, then it is even more necessary for me to learn why that should be the case. VampaVampa (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Geogene's actions are not vandalism, and I suggest you refrain from describing them as such. This is a content dispute, not a conduct one, so there is very little that administrators can do here. If you want to add your changes to the article, get consensus for them first, possibly through an RfC. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with my description of Geogene's actions as vandalism but could you offer any reasoning for this? As for RfC I considered it but decided it was not appropriate (as explained in my reply above). I will appreciate your advice on how to frame it as an RfC. VampaVampa (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa Edits made in good faith, even if they are disruptive, are not vandalism. Vandalism implies a wilful intent to harm the encyclopedia, and if such intent is not obvious, then continuing to call edits vandalism constitutes a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but for me to assume good faith means that I can add information to the article without being asked to meet the two arbitrary conditions suggested by Geogene in their opening post of the discussion:

(1) use sources more recent than the cut-off date for whatever Geogene considers "modern" in every instance, and

(2) censor myself to avoid "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation" at any cost (i.e. twisting everything to suit a predefined viewpoint).

If these two arbitrary conditions are not attempted to be enforced through edit warring then indeed I can work together with Geogene. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to dispute the vandalism point unnecessarily, but it would seem to follow from a relevant guideline that if "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism", then removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies may constitute vandalism. I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. VampaVampa (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is like griefing: if someone thinks that their edit is improving the article it's not vandalism. It literally means, like, when somebody replaces the text of an article with "loldongs" et cetera. What you are referring to is "disruptive editing". jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Are you saying my edits are disruptive? Any ambiguous statements on that are likely to encourage further problems here. And isn't the I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. evidence of the real problem here? Geogene (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Yes -- the thing that VampaVampa is accusing you of is "disruptive editing", not "vandalism". I am not VampaVampa and have no idea whether this is true or not. jp×g🗯️ 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I was wrong about the definition of vandalism. Geogene's conduct is much more sophisticated than that. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, I think it is intentional. VampaVampa (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, I'm glad you have accepted (albeit after some significant repetition) the feedback of the community here regarding what does and does not constitute article vandalism--though I do very much suggest you take a look at Formal_fallacy#Denying a conjunct, because with regard to your proposition here, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. However, it is actually your last sentence in said post ("I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.") that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the WP:ONUS is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and WP:BRD should be followed in resolving the matter.

Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack. This is a content dispute, compounded by conduct. I don't know what the merits of the content dispute are. I can see that the conduct includes the personal attack of yelling vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is clear enough and I stand corrected - there is indeed nothing in the list of vandalism types that corresponds to what I reported Geogene for. I engineered it backwards by proceeding from "removing content when it is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism" to "persisting in removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies (and argued repeatedly not to be so) may be vandalism", but I realise that has no logical purchase and is nowhere close to any of the definitions. I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point. VampaVampa (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the last discussion of the talkpage and stopped reading details in the first paragraph when one of the editors described the RSPB as holding a 'fringe scientific view' on cat predation on birds in the UK. There is little point in even entering a discussion with someone who says that, as you are never going to convince them by reasoned argument. If you are in a content dispute revolving around sourcing with an editor who is never going to change their view, your options available are a)move on, b)Try and get a neutral third opinion, start a clearly worded RFC and advertise it widely to draw in more than the usual niche editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is, however, useful to actually read the material and the cited sources before pronouncing that specific editors are "never going to be convinced by reasoned argument"... because the RSPB in the past has indeed been pleased to throw their weight behind badly reasoned minority interpretations of the science on this topic. That is the point of this dispute. Please spare the stentorian pronouncements if your time is too precious to read up on the material. - That being said, there seems to be no reason for this discussion to continue here, as multiple avenues for expanding the discussion on the article's talk page do exist, and the editor has indicated that they want to pursue them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice. Depending on the outcome of this incident report, I will consider an RfC and find suitable places to advertise it through. Elmidae seems to be suggesting that a potential RfC could revolve around how the respective positions of RSPB and Songbird Survival on cat predation of wildlife should be introduced in the article. However, as is clear from Elmidae's comment, this would likely end up triggering a much broader dispute about the respective merit of the current "majority" and "minority" conclusions drawn from available scientific evidence (assuming all of this evidence is methodologically unproblematic to either side), which could easily be the subject of a book. I think everyone's energy could be spent much more productively in editing the article, but if the only option is to debate the extensive literature in a talk page then so be it. I am open to any option that involves a careful examination of the evidence and the arguments. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick word re the amount written hare and on the Cat predation talkpage. I've learnt over the years through my own errors, less is more. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to learn from my mistakes. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Aside from not being an ANI matter, this proceeding is also redundant with an ongoing WP:NORN proceeding involving the same parties and material (specifically here). I.e., this is a WP:TALKFORK. "Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate" is blatant falsehood on both counts. The first half of that is what the NORN thread is about, with VampaVampa attempting to rely on 1970s primary research papers and a defunct advocacy website (and later an "attack other academics" op-ed that is the subject of the long thread of RS analysis immediate above VV's repetitive PoV-pushing thread at the article talk page), to defy current mainstream science on the topic. The second half is just made-up nonsense. In point of fact, at the article's talk page, I specifically suggested that we might need a section in the article about the history of the public debate about the subject. But to the extent that VV may instead mean entertaining perpetual opinion-laden debate on Wikipedia about such topics, see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY. We are here to reflect what the modern RS material in the aggregate is telling us, not cherrypick half-century-old surpassed research claims that someone likes the sound of, and argue circularly ignoring all refutation, in an "argue Wikipedia into capitulation" behavior pattern, which is what VV is bringing to this subject.

PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is WP:DRN (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As to the WP:NORN, we have reached a dead end there:

(1) no party uninvolved in the dispute has intervened,

(2) you have not replied to my last post,

(3) most crucially, in this last post of mine I invited you again to build the article and warned that I would report your conduct to the administrators if one of you reverts again, which Geogene proceeded to do. You left me no other option.

As to RFCNOT, you are probably right and I am happy to be corrected on procedures. But at this point my dispute is with your and Geogene's conduct. VampaVampa (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of such noticeboards is to patiently solicit uninvolved input. There is no deadline, and starting talkforks at other noticeboards is not conducive of anything useful. Under no circumstances am I obligated to respond to your circular attempts to re-re-re-argue the same matters endlessly, and doing it at NORN would be counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

One user against two shouldn't be able to preserve their disputed content indefinitly just by bludgeoning the talk page until the opposition is tired of arguing. That's the disrputive editing here Geogene (talk) Geogene (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a policy about consensus which says polling is not a substitute for discussion. VampaVampa (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

For that good faith would have been required. VampaVampa (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, after nearly being WP:BOOMERANGed for arriving here with false accusations of "vandalism", has now turned to demonizing those they disagree with via false and undemonstrable accusations of bad faith. That is not exactly a wise move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It's actually worse than I thought, with VV more recently accusing someone else (EducatedRedneck) of having "a nativist agenda" [1]. At this rate, I don't think we're very far away from simply removing VV from the topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is prima facie proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.

Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of WP:WALLOFTEXT is a massive hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ad nauseum guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. City of Silver 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Re nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute Three editors (@EducatedRedneck:, @Elmidae:, @My very best wishes:) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Before anything else, edit your message to strike the quotation marks around "blame all sides" and add a note saying you were wrong to quote me as saying that. In your note admitting you falsely ascribed words to me, please include my username so it's clear to others. I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Before anything else, edit your message Edit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits". I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in scare quotes to express my disagreement with them. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website thank you for that. I find editing Wikipedia to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said, The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene. I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. Geogene (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

And see also Brandolini's law; if someone text-walls with rambling claims that are a mixture of personal belief, repetition of and reliance on a defunct advocacy website, and OR extrapolation from and other reliance on ancient primary research papers from the 1970s, then later adds in op-ed material from one academic personality-smearing another and badly confusing public-policy political arguments with scientific evidence, then the response to this is necessarily going to be detailed and lengthy, because it involves multiple forms of refutation of multiple wonky claims and bad sourcing. The alternative is simply ignoring VV's input entirely, but that would be rude and less constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding because I've been pinged. I agree with City of Silver that it feels more like people are talking past each other rather than to them. It's hard not to respond to what one hears, rather than what is actually said, when a debate has become drawn-out. Based on the most recent exchange with VV, which SMC alluded to above, I fear that now includes me as well. (Accusing me of a "nativist agenda" is making it harder for me to view the matter dispassionately, and I'm not sure I'm hearing what VV is trying to say at this time.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this post because I could see from it that you genuinely tried to mediate, and it perhaps just so happens that with regard to the "objective" differences in worldview, which we have to somehow work past on Wikipedia, you seem to stand closer to Geogene and SMC, without necessarily having been aware of it. So I offer apologies for the accusation.

I also declare myself ready to work with Geogene and SMcCandlish on the condition that none of us tries to seize the upper hand in advance of putting in the work to edit the article. I should make clear that to me that involves seeking to discredit sources that do not unambiguously contravene Wikipedia guidelines (not to exclude genuine debates on the talk page, that's a different thing). I regret but I cannot compromise on this point. VampaVampa (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Thank you for this - even though I don't think I claimed I was right.

With regard to Geogene's reply, can I just point out that the impartiality of such third-party interventions cannot be assumed? VampaVampa (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa: Please don't make edits unless you think they're right. And I hope you don't expect "impartiality" from other editors. My very best wishes hasn't said a single thing that could get them excluded from an RFC and neither has anybody else who's weighed in. City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I mostly agree with your comments and comments by Geogene and SMcCandlish above. As about user VampaVampa, they obviously made this posting to get an upper hand in a content dispute. That does qualify as a WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. That user is clearly not working collaboratively with others, at least in this dispute about feral cats. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Holy mother of walls of text... I strongly agree with the most useful feedback that has been given here: this is clearly the stage at which RfC is not only warranted, but arguably the only path forward if one side or the other is not prepared to give way.

That said, I strongly suggest the involved parties attempt torecruit a neutral to word the RfC prompt and that the most vociferous single parties from each side (and I would hope you both know who you are) exercise some considerable restraint in not bludgeoning the resulting discussion (either in terms of volume of response or the length of individual posts). As in, your positions having been well established already on the talk page, you should each make your contributions to the RfC roughly on the scale of 1/30th of what you've had to say so far. Given the relatively small number of sources being debated, the existing diatribes are way out of proportion and, bluntly, well into WP:disruptive territory at this point. And I say this as someone who isn't exactly always the soul of brevity themselves here at all times. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of material and claims based on them requires a considerable amount of text. But I've already done the work, so of course I have no need to do it all over again, especially at the same page. Any politicized subject (see, e.g., virtually any major thread at Talk:Donald Trump and its 169 pages of archives) is going to be longer than some people like, both due to the detail required and due to someone trying to get their contary-to-RS viewpoint promoted being likely to recycle the same claims repeatedly, leading to recurrent refutations; rinse and repeat. This is a common "try to wear out the opposition" tactic, in which refutation is ignored and the same claims are re-advanced (proof by assertion fallacy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My friend, McCandlish, this isn't Donald Trump's BLP, and even if it were, what you have been doing on that talk page was clearly excessive. You added 24KB (31 paragraphs!) of text in one post, most of it dedicated to micro-analyzing every aspect of one source, down to caption summary of the careers of everyone involved with it. At the time you posted it, it was larger than all of the rest of the comments from all other editors on the talk page in all threads, put together. All to support an argument that said source was more editorial than a typical MEDRS primary source, and should be afforded less weight accordingly--an adequate case for which could have been made with one paragraph, and an excessive one with two. Nor is it the only titano-post from you or VampaVampa, who I think only slightly trails your numbers.

Look, I think you're an often-compelling participant in discussions, in part because of your propensity for thoroughness. But there's practical limits before it becomes a WP:Bludgeon issue (however inadvertently). And whatever compelling interests you may feel that you have to press your reading of the sources, they can't come close to justifying the extent of the wordcount arms race you and VV entered into. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON refers to re-re-re-responding to every or nearly every post in a discussion (RfC, etc.) with many participants. It does not refer to producing a source analysis that a particular person disapproves of because of its detail level. And you're not getting the chronlogy right. That material long preceded VV's participation at that page; notably, when VV attempted to recycle the same bad source, I did not post a lengthy re-analysis of it, but referred to the one already done. My responses to VV have been directed at unrelated claims and sources put forward by that editor, and when they turned to circular argumentation that ignored prior refutation, I walked away rather than continue. So, there is no "wordcount arms race". We are at ANI now because one particular person, VV, refuses to drop the stick, despite there already being two (article-talk and NORN) discussions open trying to resolve the underlying content-and-sources matter. Whether this subject rises to the subjective importance level of, say, Donald Trump is irrelevant; it is certainly as polticized and emotive, attracting the same kind of misuse-bad-sources PoV pushing, which is the point I was making.

In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is WP:asking the other parent. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Two Unpleasant Comments

I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.

First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally too long, didn't read, which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Wikipedia policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that User:VampaVampa said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that User:VampaVampa said that Geogene had engaged in vandalism. The vandalism policy is very clear on what is not vandalism. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what User:VampaVampa writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at the No Original Research Noticeboard because WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at WP:NORN. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at WP:NORN. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I find your comments fair, with one exception. I wish to contest the reputational charge that I am "an editor who makes sloppy claims", which is a generalisation from two instances, for one of which you have found extenuating circumstances. (Incidentally, a generalisation is also at the heart of the content dispute.) This criticism of yours comes after I have already admitted having overreacted, in the spirit of seeking reconciliation. In my defence I also plead inexperience in raising matters for dispute; I suspect that many a user with no exposure to procedural affairs would have been intimidated by the sheer conduct of Geogene and SMcCandlish to drop the content dispute. I finally wish to use my freshly learned lesson in logic to note that even if I were to be wrong in all of my claims it still would not follow that the other party to the dispute cannot be seriously wrong in theirs. VampaVampa (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - It is true that whether you have been right or wrong is independent of whether Geogene and SMcCandlish have been right or wrong. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have used many words in making that statement. However, I have not found your argument to be persuasive. You haven't made your case, at least not to me, and I am not planning to read your walls of text again, especially since I have already seen that you made two mistakes, one of which suggests that you post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggests that you post first and think second. .. Does this imply a lack of good faith on the part of this editor ? Botswatter (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not questioning the good faith of User:VampaVampa. Posting first and thinking second is not bad faith, although it is sloppy and undesirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Botswatter This is your 4th edit. Your 3rd as to add yourself as in training at DRN - something you aren't doing and have no experience to do. I don't know why you inserted yourself here, but there is a saying "good faith is not a suicide pact". There can come a time when good faith no longer be offered, and this looks like one. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am however agreeing with User:Doug Weller in questioning the good faith of User:Botswatter. I wonder whether they inserted themselves here and also at DRN in order to snipe at me. I wonder if they have a grudge against me from some previous unsuccessful mediation at DRN, perhaps one that ended with them being indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to share VampaVampa's latest diff, continuing to personalize the content dispute [2]. I had just reverted a POV rewrite of the lead that was sourced in part to a likely front group. Yes, there are apparently front groups out there on the web pushing scientifically dubious views on outdoor cats. This controversy may not rise to Donald Trump levels of importance, but neither is Scientology or Young Earth Creationism. That doesn't mean it's unworthy of the Wikipedia community's concern. Geogene (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your action in reverting that edit is illustrative of the conduct that I have submitted a case against above (i.e. seeking to exercise ownership of the article and to prevent the representation of legitimate views by falsely construing them as fringe and denialist). This is not the place to enter into content disputes. However, you are using your experience to discourage new contributors to engage with the article through unnecessary hostility. I am not sure why you should seek to draw more attention to your behaviour yourself, but that is welcome as far as I am concerned. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Law of holes comes to mind here, VampaVampa. What you're claiming as ownership is not, and in fact that claim is making it more clear you do not understand our rules and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds What do you propose calling it instead? Eight of the last 50 edits on the page are Geogene reverting something, most of which in my opinion would have improved the article and the rest still had some merit to them. (3 in an edit war with VampaVampa, the rest from various different editors.) Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say you need to propose changes on the Talk page & get consensus first, rather than just bludgeoning ahead to get those changes into the article. Especially since they appear to be an attempt to insert a POV into the article, something you're going to find is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Enforcing our NPOV rule is not OWNership. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Geogene is doing such a good job of enforcing neutral point of view that he immediately removed the maintenance tag about "Too few opinions".

  When I made those 2 edits, I was unaware of exactly how controversial the article was. As you can see, all of my edits since then have been to the talk page rather than to the article. And let it be clear that I dispute that the article currently has a neutral point of view, which is a matter for the talk page and not for here. I assumed Geogene's claim that the source I used was a "front group" was so obviously false (it does not even speculate who is secretly behind them!) that it would boomerang on him without me doing anything. Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Short Summary

A short but not unbiased summary of this whole thing, as I see it.

0. Earlier article edits that set the scene, June 2022 and December 2023: Xhkvfq (previously went by the username StrippedSocks) makes edits that are reverted by Geogene. Xhkvfq adds a source Lynn et al 2019. On the talk page, SMcCandlish describes the source as, among other things "a butt-hurt rant".

1. Article editing happens. Geogene reverts many things (to me, looks like based on whether they are pro-cat or anti-cat rather than whether they match the sources). SMcCandlish edits the article to more closely match what the sources say. Geogene and VampaVampa revert each other a bunch.

2. The NORN noticeboard. Geogene opens a question regarding one of VampaVampa's edits. SMcCandlish answers in the affirmative, goes on to call Xhkvfq a drive-by editor, and complains about people who are okay with bird species going extinct as long as feral cats don't get culled. There seems to be an implication that VampaVampa is one such person, which I don't think is accurate nor warranted.

3. VampaVampa opens this discussion here, beginning with an accusation of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Once that was explained, VampaVampa changed the accusation to disruptive editing my mistake, "status quo stonewalling". Many words about both wikipedia policy and article content have been written here, but not much has been said.

4. Not knowing any of this, I come across the article, attempt to make an edit, and get dragged into this discussion. GG's mention of that edit here was to complain about VV's reply "personalizing the content dispute" by saying GG's revert was based on unevidenced assumptions, but if that's a personal attack then so is GG's claim that my edit was "profringe". Something being "profringe" implies it is based on unevidenced assumptions.

5. With the help of other editors to keep the discussion on track, VampaVampa and Geogene are able to have a mostly civil conversation (compared to previously) on the talk page about the content of the article.

My own experiences involving Geogene have been quite negative (edit: perhaps there was some misunderstanding going on), but as it appears he and VampaVampa are currently making progress on article content, perhaps it is not worth bringing them up. Iamnotabunny (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding on: I just realized the above makes it look like VampaVampa is blameless. That was not what I intended, but I feel that part of things is already covered quite thoroughly earlier in this thread. Iamnotabunny (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Closing Options ?

I think that this has gone on long enough, and that nothing new is likely to happen, so it is time for some sort of close. User:VampaVampa is the original poster of this thread, and says that there have been serious conduct violations by User:Geogene and User:SMcCandlish. I haven't seen any evidence of conduct violations by Geogene or SMcCandlish, either in VampaVampa's walls of text or on my cursory look at the article talk page. There have been two specific conduct allegations. The first was a claim that Geogene's editing of a content dispute was vandalism. The second conduct allegation is that Geogene and SMcCandlish have asserted article ownership. It appears that what they have actually asserted is that they have a rough consensus, and two-to-one really is a local rough consensus. There haven't been any other conduct allegations that I could parse. I don't intend to try to read the excessively long post, because I know that VampaVampa is not a good judge of good and bad conduct. So no action should be taken against Geogene or SMcCandlish.

I see three possible options with regard to VampaVampa:

1. Close this thread, doing nothing.
2. Close this thread with a warning to User:VampaVampa for the personal attack of a bad allegation of vandalism.
3. Close this thread by topic-banning User:VampaVampa, at least from this article.

What do the other editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the accusations by VampaVampa about other contributors were ungrounded, and he admitted this himself. However, option 3 might be an overkill. If there are any problems with the editing by VampaVampa, this is their tendency to produce walls of text and argue to infinity on multiple pages, not just that page. But option 2 seems to be warranted based on the discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

One further conduct allegation I have made was status quo stonewalling, which I wrongly claimed was vandalism when premeditated. I think a cursory look would not have detected that, so I can cite relevant passages if needed. I was concerned with the immediate accusation of "fringe" views against me and with the caricaturing of my arguments and intentions. That said, I am more aware now of various policies such as WP:BRD and the requirements for gaining consensus, so I can partly see where my opponents were coming from, at least procedurally. Having since participated in some RfCs and talk page discussions, I remain concerned about the amount of leeway for editors to keep dismissing reasonable arguments under superficial excuses, and I still do not think my defence of my edit had been given a fair hearing by Geogene and SMcCandlish before they sought to force-close the debate and escalate it from the specific edit to my agenda. But I am prepared to accept that succinct evidence-based discussion and RfC would be worth trying. VampaVampa (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, this thread is still open? I got pinged back here, so I'll respond. For my part, I'm not one to assert that two editors against one at a poorly watched page actually constitutes much of a "local consensus", just as a thing in and of itself. What's far more important here is that we have WP:Core content policies and they apply equally to this article as any others, and VV's PoV edits are not in compliance with them (or if you prefer, multiple editors have raised multiple policy concerns about them). The WP:ONUS is on VV, and VV has not addressed much less dispelled these concerns. VV's position appears to basically boil down to assuming they have a right to make the changes they want, and anyone who disagrees is just some vandalistic stonewaller.

As for WP:SQS, VV apparently has either not read that page, even its first line, or has serious difficulty understanding it. (Cf. also apparent severe trouble understanding WP:RFC, WP:VANDAL, the content policies themselves, and the meaning and relative import of the source material; this is starting to look like a WP:CIR issue.) Let's quote directly: Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion. Both Geogene and I have raised very detailed substantive rationales based in policy, and our participation in good-faith discussion has been so extensive that various parties above have vented about it being too detailed and long-winded. VV has utterly failed to demonstrate that any sort of SQS happening.

PS: WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. I was not aware of that (and it seems weird and unfortunate). Given that RfCs are expensive of community time and attention, probably the thing to do would be to close this ANI, close the going-nowhere NORN thread, and re-open the matter at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN; all of these policies and guidlelines are implicated in inter-related ways in this issue, so either venue will do, really; it would just be matter of writing it out in a way that pertains more to one noticeboard or the other. That's assuming a T-ban doesn't happen. I think one could arguably be justified because of the repeated incivility and other problems evidenced above after this ANI was opened. But I'm also not one to seek to "silence the opposition". I give benefit of the doubt (sometimes maybe more than I should) that an editor may prove to be productive on the project in other ways despite a recent WP:DRAMA flare-up. And in this case, I really have no policy-and-sourcing doubt about how the underlying content and sourcing dispute is going to turn out in the end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 for now, with the assumption that VV will read the room and drop the stick. I feel warnings are most effective when people can trust the good faith efforts of the editor to heed the warning. If this topic continues with more walls of accusational text, then I think the topic ban becomes necessary. The late, poorly document allegations of WP:SQS are not helping matters at all here. Geogene and SMcCandlish should have the right to not be in a position where they have to continually defend against amorphous allegations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2. Option 3 EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Option 2 again EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) My experience has been that VampaVampa has, several times, assumed bad faith, leaping to conclusions about my intentions, alleging bias, and displaying a battleground-esque mentality. I maintain they are a net positive to the project, and have demonstrated that they are WP:HERE, but believe that the warning for personal attacks should be construed to include a caution against WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ABF. It should also include a caution against WP:WALLOFTEXT. I'm often guilty of that myself, but dang. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I changed my !vote for the following reasons: I have attempted to carry on a discussion with VampaVampa. All that has come out of it is that I have determined that, whatever VampaVampa's intentions, the were not about actually improving the article. They have deflected a discussion away from criterion for source inclusion, and back toward whether or not a view is categorized as fringe. In that time, they have added 76,833 bytes of text in 25 days. The next highest, SMcCandlish, added 47,714 bytes over 9 months. (I am in third, with 34 kB in 20 days. I'm trying to trim my responses down.) VampaVampa has made 54 edits to the talk page. The next highest is Geogene, with 38 edits since the dispute began. I believe VampaVampa is WP:BLUDGEONing, that the walls of text are disruptive, and that they have difficulty discussing topics related to the article without hijacking the conversation to be about... whatever it is they are trying to talk about. I do note that I have not seen any more WP:ABF or WP:PA lately, and don't believe the disruption would move to elsewhere in the encyclopedia. N.b.: I am involved in the discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your objectivity. I think your comment about battleground approach goes a long way towards explaining what I did wrong, and it resonates with what was said by some initial responders to this case. It is not a new situation within the "cat wars" topic that two parties cannot hear each other.

You proposed to resolve the core dispute on the basis of what the review articles say. I believed there would be only one or two relevant review articles, or none if relevance was interpreted very scrupulously, so being concerned about nuance I made multiple attempts to clarify or qualify the criteria. What helped me see your opinion above as fair and objective was the simple step of searching the sources I have found so far for the word "review" in their title, instead of relying on my memory. There turned out to be at least five more review articles that are global in scope, which should mean that your criteria can be used to provide a nuanced answer to the disputed question. It does look I was trying to reinvent the wheel and I am sincerely sorry for having wasted your time.

Based on the acknowledgment that the battleground approach clouded my judgment, I also withdraw the charge of stonewalling (SQS) and apologise to Geogene and SMcCandlish for this excessive and I now believe false interpretation of intentions behind their comments about my motives and about the supposed agenda behind the view I sought a representation in the article for. VampaVampa (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that there will be no more problematic behavior, but blocks are cheap and volunteers are valuable. With that in mind, and given VampaVampa's response above, Option 3 may deprive Wikipedia of a skilled editor. I do feel a warning is appropriate, so if the pledged change in behavior is not matched with action, a protracted complaint won't be needed for a correction. If the pledged change in behavior is genuine, as I assume it is, then Option 2 over Option 3 maintains a valuable editor for the project. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to be able to vote option 1, based on "I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point." If the charge of stonewalling is also withdrawn, I will be happy to do so, but for now I vote Abstain Not 3 now Option 1 as per situation specified, see VampaVampa's comment just above. Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 and/or option 3, as I think both have a role to play in this editor's behavioral development on the English Wikipedia. The need for civility by avoiding aspersions is not met by a restriction from their trigger article, and vice versa ——Serial Number 54129 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 or Option 3 would work. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Close this thread without further action. The original poster, User:VampaVampa, has acknowledged that they were in error in opening this thread. It is not very often that we see an editor who mistakenly complained here, and was about to be hit by a boomerang, admit that they had made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring, BLP coatrack and POV issues: Harold the Sheep

Harold the Sheep (talk · contribs)

At Steven Hassan, this user has been edit warring (breaching 3rr [3][4][5][6]) to include opinions about the general topic of 'cults' in the article. They added it to the article a few months ago alongside some salient content.[7] This was raised previously as a POV issue by another editor.[8] Harold the Sheep then edit warred to keep even the maintenance tag off the article[9][10].

This is a problematic ownership issue, with the article being used as a coatrack for the views of academics in a different field about the general topic of 'cults' and the use of the word 'cults'. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You should perhaps have also mentioned the discussion here which, to my mind at least, resolved the previous issue. However, I'm happy to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion to which you link was over the same issue. There is no resolution in that topic: you simply stopped responding. To you that (combined with edit warring the maintenance tag) resolved the issue? Behaviour like that is why we ended up here. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Cambial, can you explain why this issue can't be resolved via WP:RfC or another one our general dispute resolution processes? Other than the brief edit warring (to which you contributed more or less equally), this looks entirely like a garden variety content dispute at the moment. I've reviewed the talk page and most recent archive and found a slight (and I mean very slight) tinge of battleground tone in some of HTS' responses. But ANI is for serious, intractable behavioural issues; it should not be your first stop immediately after entering into a conflict over content and before you've attempted any discussion or process to resolve the matter or form consensus. It seems you waited about three quarters of an hour after making your first talk page comment before you made this filing. Given that Harold seems to have been heavily involved on that talk page for some time, don't you think it would have been more pro forma and potentially productive to have waited for a response there before escalating the matter here?

Please try discussion, and if neither of you succeeds in affecting a change of perspective on the other, and a middle ground solution does not seem viable or appropriate, then seek additional community perspectives on the content issue to achieve a consensus--including via RfC if necessary. In my opinion, your diffs do not come close to establishing strong evidence of an ownership issue under the relevant policy, so please WP:AGF for the time being and pursue the normal dispute resolution process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I just now came across this discussion. I am the "other editor" who added the {{POV}} tag on the Steven Hassan article in November 2023 with the edit summary "Recent additions use generalized anti-deprogramming rhetoric to color and frame this article, not specific to this BLP subject". This was after a long series of dozens of edits by Harold the Sheep (current Who Wrote That? tool shows HaroldTS had authored over 1/3rd the article content as of that day). At the same time, I posted my reasons on the talk page (Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3 § POV issues), and the following day I posted Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3 § COI. Though I engaged in discussion with HaroldTS, I don't feel there was any resolution. I found HaroldTS rude, insulting and uncollaborative. Eventually I quit engaging with the user and unwatchlisted the article.

Last year didn't involve Cambial Yellowing, but it's the same issue CY brings up this week—HaroldTS adding generalized cult-topic information not specifically related to a BLP, and using a BLP as a coatrack for POV-pushing. Looking back on the prior month (Oct'23) when I had first tussled with HaroldTS at Talk:New Cult Awareness Network § Notes re Foundation for Religious Freedom, it seems clear he has been obsessively focused on presenting negative content about deprogramming and anyone who had ever been involved in it (despite common practice ending around 3 decades ago), and has been less interested in discussing content of the article subject or focusing his edits on the article subjects. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's surprizing how thin-skinned you are about this. Both you and Cambial seem to be pretty assertive and uncompromising editors, at least in your approach to talk pages, edit summaries and ANI reports, but faced with a bit of pushback you're suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wife. The discussion at Talk:New Cult Awareness Network just seems like a robust discussion to me. What exactly are you complaining about? And the only pertinent edit I made to the article actually supported your initial thesis on the talk page. On the Steven Hassan page, the repeated assertion was that the recently added material was general anti-deprogramming criticism that did not specifically address Hassan. That was false, and passages from the sources, which were clearly specifically focused on Hassan, were provided. There was no response from you at all to that. A "yes that is specific to Hassan" or a "no that is not specific to Hassan", or perhaps a "well, on the face of it, I can't deny that they are directly addressing Hassan, but it must be some other Hassan" might at least have given me a basis for continuing the discussion. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wife What a bizarre response – the misjudged sarcastic hyperbole reads like someone playing the victim. Your "everyone else is the problem" attitude explains your (not unanticipated) failure to participate at article talk. The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither clearly specifically nor obscurely, which is precisely the problem. That's why three different editors have sought to trim or otherwise address the off-topic content you arbitrarily added to the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"insulting", "uncollaborative", "obsessively-focused", "bludgeoning", "article-owning", "edit-warring", "coat-racking" were all terms used by you or Grorp in your edit summaries or comments here; the rest was just a bit of humour. The content removed by Parakanyaa was not originally added by me, I just altered it so that it actually conformed to the source. As it happens, I more or less agree with Parakanyaa's reason for removal. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

HaroldTS: Your show of incivility is astonishing with you starting right off with it's surprizing how thin-skinned you are, since this thread is discussing you, not me. Likewise, there is no reason to lump me together with Cambial. It doesn't require lengthy discussion threads to conclude that someone will never budge with polite logical discourse. After I tried that and received a few insults in return, I had you pegged. It would have been better for the project had we resolved the issues last year, but instead I decided those articles weren't worth the hassle and I walked away. I'm not one bit surprised that another editor has independently encountered the same problems with your work and attitude. No one called me or tagged me to join this thread; I was browsing ANI and instantly recognized your username... that's how much of an impression you made on me last year. I get involved in a lot of talk page discussions over many topics and I rarely remember someone else's username, but I did yours.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Harold, for what the observation of an un-involved party is worth, I too see incidents where your comments have reflected excessive antagonism to opposing view points, and have even come off as attempts to gatekeep discussion on the talk page (as when you classified one of Grorp's posts as a "dumping ground" for unrelated observations, even though his comments were not really any more voluminous than your own and were pretty well focused on the subject at hand, to my eye). To be fair, those complaints are largely stale, as they concern your interactions with Grorp six months ago more so than your current dispute with Cambial.

Now, as regards both you and Cambial, I think you both are starting to drift towards needlessly personalizing the dispute with discussion here at ANI, but I don't see much in the recent talk page discussions (or the edit summaries of the revision history for the article itself) that I would call WP:disruptive. Again, I am completely mystified as an outside observer as to why this discussion is continuing along personal lines here and still no one has made the least effort to pursue the typical and appropriate content dispute resolution methodologies on the actual article talk page.

As of your most recent post on the talk page today, it seems you are prepared to accede to consensus on at least some of the disputed content. If that proves to be the resolution to the dispute, all well and good--nothing more need be said. But if you still plan to dispute elements of the content in question, it is well past time to bring in outside community input to break the deadlock and form a firm consensus. If I am honest, as of the most recent thread, there is arguably already a small but uniform consensus against your read. But to the extent the issue can be said to still be unresolved, you (and Cambial) need to start applying our standard dispute resolution processes, and quite it with this personalized back-biting here which is accomplishing nothing but wasting community time.

Now, in the spirit of fairness, Cambial Yellowing, while I understand some of your frustrations, I would also describe your behaviour as at least a little suboptimal, and in more or less similar ways to Harold's. You made virtually no effort to resolve this issue (on the talk page or elsewhere) before escalating the matter to ANI; your talk page contributions up until that point involved one post, less than an hour before you made this filing (well before a reasonable amount of time for a response from Harold had elapsed). Your own tone here has been as combative and uncharitable towards Harold as his is to you, and your over-simplified framing of the issue (suggesting that all of the concerns that arise out of ethical questions surrounding deprogramming practices and the moral panic in which they arose can be laid at the feet of "cult apologists) raises questions about your own neutrality and perspective on the editorial question--not the least because it takes focus away from the actual WP:WEIGHT test that ought to be controlling of the open editorial questions.

In short, there has been a spectacular amount of failure to WP:AGF on all sides here. More to the point, there seems to be a basic lack of comportment with the processes available to the disputants to resolve this issue well before it needed to come anywhere near ANI. Bluntly, this is not rocket science: WP:RFC this matter. If you all instead continue to just attack one-another here and consume community attention without availing yourself of a simple process that could resolve the content matter conclusively, I for one am going to start viewing this as a WP:CIR issue for both camps, and will happily support a page ban for at least two of the parties here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I reject the notion that the sentence "The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither clearly specifically nor obscurely, which is precisely the problem." – which is about the sourcing and content not being about the article subject, and is the only mention I make of the phrase ‘cult apologists’ – suggests "that all of the concerns that arise out of ethical questions surrounding deprogramming practices and the moral panic in which they arose can be laid at the feet of "cult apologists"". This is a massive extrapolation into views I do not share. I will take your other comments on board. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. While we're on the subject of specific sources, I think part of the problem here is that the sources in dispute (and their precise and relevant content being referenced) are not well-summarized on the talk page: there was some discussion during HotS's original talk page disagreement with Grorp about doing that. And subsequent comments by Harold suggest he feels that was substantially accomplished. But in neither the archived discussion nor the current live talk page do I see that, despite the fact that so much turns on the question of how directly the sources were discussing the article's subject when criticizing certain elements of the historical deprogrammer movement. That didn't matter very much too me, insofar as I wasn't looking to provide an opinion on the content issue. But if I was, I must say I would be very much on the fence between the perspectives of the two "sides" here.

All of which is to say, if the dispute does continue, and an RfC remains necessary, it might be worth it for someone to present the relevant quotes from the involved sources at length. I think it will greatly benefit the follow-up discussion if RfC respondents have that to work with from the start, rather than having to disentangle the multiple previous threads to identify (and then independently find) the relevant sources. Just a suggestion, mind you--it's not incumbent upon anyone to do that. But I think it would help cut through the noise, moving forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The dispute won't continue, I'll withdraw from the article. Thanks for your comments. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Widespread disruption on election articles

Following the Twitter storm mentioned in the section above, there is now widespread disruption on a large number of election articles – editors driven by the Twitter stuff are ignoring an RfC at 2022 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and 2018 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (on the 2022 article, one editor has reverted again despite being made aware of the RfC); made-up election results that were removed are being blindly reverted back into numerous French election articles (e.g. edits like this and this (exactly the same as was happening at the time of this ANI report from January. Can someone please step in – restore the Italian articles to the RfC-approved infobox and lock them and look at what is happening on the French articles. Cheers, Number 57 01:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, disappointed in several long-standing editors actively working with the newly made WP:SPAs to go against a consensus that was established over an entire year. To start with calling out just one from the first article you linked, Μαρκος Δ, explain yourself. Because this is a really bad look for someone who's been here a decade. Silverseren^C 01:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC was achieved through the consensus of four editors. Not to say that it should be gone against, but I think it deserves a new one, given how volatile this issue is and how many editors care about it, currently. Lucksash (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, please mind your tone and remain civil and respectful. Do not ping me and say "explain yourself". I voiced my support for reopening the discussion, and that is all. I have not partaken in any edit-warring on any article, unlike several others here. So what exactly is it that you wish to "call out"? I have been opposed to the transition to the new legislative infobox since the very beginning, but have been railroaded by the user above you, and I am therefore happy to see others now wishing to reopen the debate. I voiced this opinion on the talk page in question, as is my right. What part of that, exactly, is it that you need me to explain to you in greater detail? Μαρκος Δ 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

2022 Italian general election is an absolute shitshow right now. It should be reverted to the RfC-approved version when consensus was established, and then locked to prevent continued disruptive editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent disruption and locked the page for 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you might want to do the 2018 one as well. Cheers, Number 57 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Recommend adding the same level of protection to 2018 Italian general election as well for the same reasons. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And what happens if the consensus has changed? Siglæ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can indeed change, but has it? A new RfC would be required (and I say that as some who favours the older, TIE infoboxes). — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

We don’t know if consensus has changed yet, that is why some people, including me, are proposing a new RfC. Whereas other, notably people who favour the new format, believe that it is unnecessary because they believe that new discussion arises from “extra-wikipedian reasons” (and I don’t get how that invalidates anything) and consensus has already been established (which also does t make any since, since consensus can change) Siglæ (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, consensus can change – so personally I'd be in favour of a new RfC. Note, however, that new accounts or accounts accused of meat puppetry are likely to have their comments discounted. — Czello ^(music) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope I am misunderstanding and you actually aren’t insinuating that my account is sock puppet. That is ridiculous, as you can see that it has been active on the Italian Wikipedia since weeks before this debacle Siglæ (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am making no accusations to any single editor, no – I'll always AGF. Regardless, it's undeniable that there is a prominent set of twitter threads that are drawing other users here, and a new RfC would undoubtedly be attractive to them.

What I'm saying is, if you want to start a new RfC you'll need to ensure you can depend on established users rather than people who might have been canvassed. — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I am genuinely sorry that I misunderstood the wording. Pardon me Siglæ (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the slander coming from some users. The people who are noticing problems coming from certain editors are also wiki users or editors or contributors. You can complain about their means but don't slander their cause. That's unbefitting of y'all. The people who are rightly indignant that Number 57 and the sort are messing around with election pages, seemingly without reason, and especially WITHOUT consensus, are doing it out of love for a particular community on this website. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point to the French legislative election pages for this. I haven't got a clue about the Italy situation. If there's an RFC decision for that it should be restored. I would however add that maybe a review of it should happen mostly on procedural grounds. Technically a consensus was formed but from...what...four people? There's clearly popular angst with it. I would reckon that interested parties should be allowed to level representations for that issue. AFIK an RFC decision isn't set in stone. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a way to challenge a RFC, and perhaps the Italy one might change, but the edit-warring at the Italian articles is for sure not the way to go about it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree! I'm just explaining more of the situation. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Number 57's edits to French legislative articles are particularly egregious because he cites a consensus for his decisions that doesn't exist. A friend of his cites a discussion (well, actually, three different discussions) where a consensus was supposedly formed except actually for those with eyes to see, the opposite is true. A consensus formed against his proposed edits. My personal opinion is that his actions are driven more by his opinions and tastes than actual consensus. As such, others noticed this happening, yes, on Twitter, but then most (there maybe be exceptions) of the revisions and edits came from wiki editors and those edits (going against Number 57's proposals) seemed to garner a real consensus. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not without consensus. The last major discussion was held last year and led to the current accepted consensus. Of course, consensus can change, and I'm saying this as someone who preferred the old infobox style myself.

But the fact is, the amount of outside interference going on means that it is currently the worst possible time to hold a new discussion on this, and what 57 (and others, including myself) are doing is just trying to keep pages in line with the last RfC consensus, until a new one can be made at a better time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree! But 57's changes aren't limited to where there is a legitimate decision. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am only speaking to the Italian articles. If someone is taking the RFC from the Italy consensus and then trying to use that to justify changing infoboxes on election articles of other nations, then there is a problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case for the France articles. Last I recall him and another person claim there was another consensus decision there yet refuse to follow up with proof/provided contradictory evidence as to this. Hyraemous (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talleyrand6, you just became indef-unblocked, after an impressive series of blocks for edit warring and personal attacks (pinging your last blocker/unblocker, Deepfriedokra), and here we find you being part of what seems to be an orchestrated edit war, and making comments that violate AGF. I think you are skating on thin ice. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies:. Thin ice? The unblock log reads zero tolerance for personal attacks and edit warring. Please feel free to reblock at will. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not being edit warring.

I made one (1) edit. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And nor have I 'orchestrated' anything. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

But you are casting aspersions which is a form of personal attack. Assume good faith and stop seeing conspiracies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never claimed its a conspiracy. I think his decisions are simply misguided. Talleyrand6 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no conspiracies when there are facts. Beside the case of the Italian general elections (for which I believe we should acknowledge that consensus may have changed, but that is another discussion) most of other edit wars have been caused by number 57 changing things without consensus and then him or someone other who agrees with him appealing to an established consensus which doesn’t simply exist. Siglæ (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

See the case of the South African elections where there was the unilateral decision to change the info box without BEFORE reaching consensus, while the talk was still ongoing. Siglæ (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly apologize if my words came off as crass. There was no intention from me to tarnish the character of any admin. If I may be allowed a brief defense, all of my actions were and are singularly focused on the info boxes and related edits. I will be more mindful to avoid giving the wrong impression. Best, Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)!

(Maybe this is outside of the scope of this thread, but as we're here...)

Clearly there seems to be a question here about which articles have a consensus for TILE over TIE. Italy seems to have consensus for TILE. There's been much discussion about France – where's its consensus? What about other countries? — Czello ^(music) 07:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Italy doesn’t have consensus for TILE, as for example in 2013 and before (until 1992) they use TIE (and IMO TILE should be used in Italy only before 1992. Other countries are case by case basis IMO (Eg. Israel should use TILE, but South Africa shouldn’t) Siglæ (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, Italy does have a consensus for TILE for most Italian elections (though later on it says TIE is off the table and should not be used for any Italian elections.). — Czello ^(music) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the discussion you cite was limited to the last two general elections in Italy and that the RfC closer clarified the result of the discussion as for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018. That discussion was definitely not directly appliable to elections before 2018. Impru20^talk 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I clearly misunderstood, thank you. — Czello ^(music) 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, most (1946 through 1992). Between 1992 and 2013 uses TIE instead. Consesus for 2018 and 2022 was established last year, but a case can be made that it may have changed, or at least it is worth reopening the discussion. Siglæ (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

One thing I will note concerning that specific consensus regarding Italian infoboxes is that it seemingly has a WP:GAME violation in that it was done with solely 6 editors involved and only 4 in favour. There was a short discussion on it and a new RfC hasn't been opened to discuss this consensus on it despite a clear showing in change on this consensus, including that very clearly WP:CCC has occurred, and consensus has very significantly changed. A 4 editor in favour out of 6 consensus might work on an extremely often not browsed page on an obscure topic, but for such an extremely focused on topic of a recent election such a consensus is extremely negative to have such a low interaction from users. CIN I&II (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Stepping in to give my two cents. Just as I commented at Talk:2024 South African general election#Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election, I was alerted of this issue because of my watchlist becoming full of edit warring notices and the Twitter thread on the issue reaching my personal Tw TL due to it becoming viral. Off wiki attacks on Number 57 are egregious and should receive condemnation, but there are other non-insulting comments and arguments which have been brought forward, which are not without merit and which relate to my own experience for years in election Wikipedia (and, from what I see, to that of many other users). I appreciate Number 57's work to improve election articles for many years. We have both been engaged in clashes and in collaborative efforts aimed at improving election articles. But it is clear that their changes from TIE to TILE across vast swathes of articles (often supported by two or three other users) were, at many times, far from uncontroversial.

Indeed, I can acknowledge to those that keep reverting those articles that specific consensuses were reached for the UK (for future elections only, and only until they happened) and Italy (though as far as I am aware this was limited to 2018 and 2022 according to the specific RfC on the issue, which addressed a particular situation involving the electoral system used for these two. Why was this enforced to other Italian election articles?). But while these were specific, they were often cited by TILE enforcers as some form of general consensus for changing other articles, clearly overextending the scope of the original consensus. For other articles, discussions were either absent, far from reaching a clear consensus or even openly hostile to change, yet many changes proceeded anyway, often citing other similarly-edited articles as justification (when these were edited by the same users) or citing some "new standard" (which was proven as false when you warranted evidence for it) or even justified on the basis of WP:BOLD (which is ok, but then when other users were "bold" and reinstated TIE they were reverted for being "disruptive" or demanding from them a clear consensus for such reversion, something which had not been attained to secure the first controversial edit). Some other cases I can remind of involved reverting users that were blocked by other behaviours, with this being taken to the advantage of TILE's supporters to re-impose their edits as they were not going to be contested by those who were blocked.

Behaviour has been far from exemplary. Number 57 et al.'s proceeding has been to subtly and patiently introduce the TIE/TILE change (many times in smaller, lesser edited articles), then revert anyone who attempted to undo the change, most of the time with very vague edit summaries and in a semi-concerted effort (I am sure there is no "conspiracy" here, but you do not need one: it is not unfrequent for an editor to join another one's cause in any given article when they see it coming, without any explicit concert). I contested some of these throughout the years, but in the last times I mostly let them be as it became a tedious task to contest every single one of these and I was going to be reverted anyway. That did not mean I supported the change, just that I did not have the time to spend it contesting every single of them on my own. It was exhausting. This said, the issue was obviously going to explode some day as opposition mounted, the sense of imposition kept growing and as changes started spilling over to larger articles, and this is what has happened here when this was attempted at 2024 South African general election: the TIE/TILE imposition was attempted with a discussion still underway on the issue, without any consensus being formed, and this seemed to be the last straw for many. Tensions accumulated for many years by many users suddenly unleashed against the latest attempt at imposing a seemingly unpopular edit. Canvassing aside, when you have a whole thread going viral in Twitter, a Youtube video created and such a massive in-wiki response across vast swathes of articles, using sensible arguments and involving not just new accounts but also long-standing users, it is obvious that something is amiss. Impru20^talk 08:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

As already said, wholeheartedly agree Siglæ (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You've put this extremely well. The best way to diffuse the situation is to allow for local consensus to return without the imposition a small number of experienced wikipedians attempting to WP:BOLD to impose a new consensus across hundreds of articles, then cite distrupiton to maintain it when others attempt to WP:BOLD to restore existing consensus. It all reads of WP:GAME which evidently leads to controversy and when left festering, to unnecessary hostility and distrust towards the small group of otherwise compitent editors. Bejakyo (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Could not agree more, the backlash is unfortunate but an extremely clear sign that these years-long series of edits are imposing the views of a few individuals upon the entire site. I've dealt with a similar situation where Number 57 and aligned accounts acted in ways that toe the line of bad faith gaming of the system (stalling, misrepresentation, ghosting) to force through changes that they wanted without proper discussion. Much like many others have said, it got to a point where I just gave up trying to stop it. Almost more egregious have been imposed removals of "members elected" in the name of 'clarity' and 'removing clutter' — there is a common factor (a small group of users) in all of these disputes. This must change or these "disruptive" backlashes will continue to plague election pages (and the disruptors will have a strong point). Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Second all this. This whole situation has gotten wildly out of control, and will probably continue to happen again and again until something changes. CainNKalos (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 on Impru's comment. Vacant0 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Number 57 are entirely inappropriate, and they should be protected from a social media mob. However, I also think this issue has reoccurred repeatedly for a reason - there's clearly a gap between the preferences of a small group of experienced elections Wiki editors, and readers/the public as a whole. We have a difficult time understanding the opinions of readers, and they have a difficult time expressing it, but in some instances, like this one, it becomes clear that they have a different perspective. I think it's worth organizing a larger RfC aiming for broad participation on election infoboxes generally, so that the general community of Wikipedians can weigh in, beyond the few who regularly edit election infoboxes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There have been several public death threats made against Number 57 in Twitter: 1, 2, 3, 4. This situation has become alarming Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is all about the infobox?? Not the far-right, or anything meaningful? Secretlondon (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There have been uhh...incidents like this over a map or maps Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Like someone mentioned further up, I think a sound course of action would be to let this entire issue rest for a little while, and then open a civil discussion about it in the not-too-distant future, once the dust from this has settled. Because now, for some reason, it is clear that a lot of users (and non-users as you show us here), feel very strongly about this topic, and it is stirring a lot of overly heated and, in some cases, violent speech, which I think we can all agree is not acceptable. Nobody should face harrassment for their opinions or preferences on any issue on site. I can not see this discussion leading anywhere productive in the current climate, so again, my opinion is that we should all let it rest for the time being. Μαρκος Δ 19:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur FWIW Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the one that is now deleted those just seem like lame jokes, they wouldn't fly on Wikipedia, sure - but we don't need to give any thought nor heed to them. Just ignore them and move on.

A wider RfC is definitely in order given that it was a low turn out RfC hosted on a single article's talk page and the amount of people who disagree with.

What User:Impru20 and User:Watercheetah99 have posted is somewhat alarming about 57's behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why the IP from earlier was doing that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection for all effected pages, would be start. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Affected pages by #57? Or just the Italy and France ones? Hyraemous (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

So this widespread disruption is contagious: look at the completely unexplained series of reverts by User:Luentez, who appears out of nowhere to throw oil on the fire. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Basically the definition of an WP:SPA. Less than 10 edits prior to this and even those were six months ago. Then they show up now to do a bunch of repeated mass reverts and no attempts at talk page discussions whatsoever. I say admins should block and forget for these types showing up. Silverseren^C 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Silver seren, I agree, and I'm hoping some admin will pick this up--but since a couple of the reverts were of my edits (which I thought were valid given the existence of this very thread), I can hardly do this myself. Plus, one wonders if this is perhaps someone's alternate account. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

My bigger concern with Luentez is that they are reinserting incorrect/made up information into a large number of French election articles (in this case, three times). A mass rollback of their edits would help. Number 57 21:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any reason why a discussion on the talk page couldn't override an earlier consensus for 2022 Italian general election; and in fact some editors are engaging in such a discussion. But some of the SPAs are engaging in harassment and edit-warring, and should be blocked for those behaviors. The dispute ultimately does come down to consensus; whether the infobox has pictures of parliamentary leaders is a topic where questions like "what do reliable sources say" will resolve the dispute. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Recommend a block for User:Luentez until he learns how to communicate. Also recommend all of his reversions be rolled back due to lack of explanation or edit summary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Support Proposal above. The lack of edit summaries are crazy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I did leave a notice on User:Luentez' talk page advising him of this thread, in addition to the warning template left by User:Drmies. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

    • Note: I mass reverted all of Luentez's edits reverting drmies on June 16. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

      Anyways, I'm sure this issue wouldn't have been out of control if it weren't for people throwing a barrel of oil into a small fireplace by making exaggerated videos on youtube and making death threats on Twitter. Can those people freaking get themselves together and understand that such actions don't help at all to resolve this controversy? Can they just go back to watching random videos or making shitposts on Twitter? (Also, weren't death threats a criminal offense? Why not report them?) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  • • • There has been consensus about how wikipedia infobox should look and how it looks in articles about election in other countries. How many people of election wikipedia community were involved in making this changes? Luentez (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
        • Luentez, there has? Where? Why didn't you reference this in your edit summaries? Where were your edit summaries? Do you have any idea how rude it was what you did? Drmies (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

          Articles about the Italian elections in 2018, 2022, 1983, 1979, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1963, 1958, 1953 have different info boxes than the others. The format I reverted them to was used for a long time in most elections before a user named Number 57 decided, along with several other users, to change this formula even though many people did not express their opinion on this topic. This is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be fixed as the wider community was not consulted. Luentez (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

          You didn't answer what Drmies asked you. Did you acknowledge the importance of edit summaries when doing things like this? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

          You should also consider that, for example in the 1968 election, when the infobox was changed from TIE to TILE on the 25th of October 2023 nothing was written in the edit summaries, neither on the talk for that page, so it shouldn’t be a problem to revert that edit because there wasn’t an edit summary nor explanation of sort Siglæ (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I blocked Talleyrand6 in my role as a CU for off-wiki canvasing as well as persistent disruptive editing and edit warring --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I just spotted (and reverted) three cases where unilateral edits to change TIE to TILE were done (without properly addressing the changes in the edit summaries or seeking an explicit consensus for it): 1989, 1991 and 1993 Polish parliamentary elections. One of these was done in April 2023, the other two were done in the last couple of months (effectively placing them out of consistency with other Polish election articles). I am particularly appalled at these since I myself opposed similar edits to these articles in 2021, recommending a wider consensus to be reached first (since they affected a large number of articles and looked like they were being conducted when they were not being looked upon). The users conducting the recent changes were aware of such opposition and that conducting such a change would be controversial, yet they did it anyway a few years later without even properly specifying such changes in the edit summaries. Obviously, no attempt was made at contacting me or other users opposing them in the past. Impru20^talk 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's disappointing how many of these edits seem to have taken place without discussion or consensus, seemingly because of personal preference, by editors who have a long enough tenure to know better. I've added these articles to my watchlist. — Czello ^(music) 11:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, Impru. Vacant0 (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of the dispute here, but it does seem like changes to election infoboxes should be discussed in WP:WPE&R going forward. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown further disruption

JackkBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't want to be here, but it is clear that Jack has not learned from the prior advice, blocks:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown (November block}
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145 (archived without action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#JackKBrown_again (one month block)

Questions about minutiae (cannoli (and a move request here based on the continued English/Italian confusion, pronunciation, ingredients despite being told multiple times that this is not what HD/Teahouse are for and to use the Talk. He has also moved on to deletion without an understanding of policy.

I don't know if it's IDHT or lack of competence, but it's clear the behavior isn't going to change if it hasn't for the last 9 months+.Is there a p-block that would work since they seem to need a physical blocker to stop them from the HD. Thoughts? Suggestions? Star Mississippi 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I did my best to improve, I also respected the maximum of two/three questions per month at the help desk; to claim that I haven't improved much is strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: ingredients: I never asked this question, as I removed it a minute later; with all due respect, bad idea to report this. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the ingredients thing was quickly fixed, but that kind of highlights the general problem: you're still editing far too quickly and sloppily. And that leads to things like making 20 rapid-fire minor edits to an article or non-constructive PRODs. You're also spending way too much time turning British English into American English and a bunch of editors have been pulling out their hair on your talk page over your intransigence about taking WP:ENGVAR seriously.

It's really unfortunate, too, because unlike a lot of people who end up here regularly, you're definitely here to build an encyclopedia and I don't have any doubts that you have the best of intentions. With your Italian language skills and your apparent love of food, there are so many great contributions that few here could make as well. Valereee even suggested a couple places where your skillset would be most appreciated: Ark of Taste and List of Italian food and drink products with protected status have so many red links and you have the ability to do immense good here. But instead, you're doing things like moving Pignoli (cookie) to Pignoli (biscuit) which don't make the encyclopedia better.

One good, clear, substantive edit is far more valuable than 20 slipshod ones. Wikipedia loses out when you're blocked from editing, which is why the community has been so patient with you. But nobody's patience is endless. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: thank you. I have made many substantial changes; see, for example, the list of Italian foods and drinks page, of which I'm the largest contributor, and the huge improvements in all Italian foods and drinks. The changes that bothered you represent, perhaps, 1/2% of all my edits. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I also improve articles on other nations and cultures. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd been keeping an eye on JacktheBrown (Jack) for a while, but had to take his page off my watchlist due to the pure volume of edits. I think list of Italian foods and drinks page exemplifies both the benefit Jack brings and simultaneously the unmitigated problems Jack presents.

That page shows that Jack is the only non-bot editor for over a month, which shows how they contribute to underserved areas of the encyclopedia. It also shows the pattern of many small edits in quick succession (e.g., 6 edits within 3 minutes on June 7, 5 within 3 minutes on May 7). I remember trying to assist Jack by explaining what cosmetic edits were and why to not make them, and then a later discussion on WP:ENGVAR. I am concerned that each time one problem area is addressed (whitespace, Engvar), the disruption seems to move to a different area.

It's disappointing that Jack seems to spend so much effort on the form of Wikipedia (managing lists, copyediting, changing image sizes), tasks which any English speaker could do, and seems to spend relatively little time on the substance of it, such as finding Italian-language sources for articles, a task of which few of our volunteers are capable. Of Jack's past 100 edits, 40 have been to article or talk space. Of those, I found only two (5%) that I would consider substantial, removing one unsourced passage, and discussing pronunciation on a talk page. There's nothing wrong with housekeeping Wikipedia, but Jack seems ill-suited for the task, and yet spends 95% of their edits on such things. I concur that Jack is very much WP:HERE for the right reasons, but their many small edits seem to cause frustration for other volunteers. If others are like me and have unfollowed a page because of the watch list spam, it seems like the best intentions may be harming the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The flood of inconsequential cosmetic edits make up a lot more than one-per-200 of your edits. A wide assortment of people have commented on these problems. And nobody is saying you don't make substantial changes, but that your insubstantial ones, and frequently ones that are not ideal to make with someone's second language, are overshadowing the very good contributions you do make. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I'm sad and also disappointed about it; with myself. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I note here that Jack moved one of their comments, changing which one my post replied to. I wrote enough that the intended context is clear, but have seen discussion in which this could've caused great confusion. The move edit summary was in the correct place, and demonstrates the same misplaced confidence shown in their copyediting and unfamiliarity with policy that are causing concern here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: the comments you refer to are part of the same comment, but I decided to write them in two comments (for more order); so I thought it was a mistake of the (kind) user who answered me. Try to understand that in this place (ANI) I'm in a panic. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are feeling panicky. Secretlondon (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Some of this seems to be about unwritten rules. How do we treat ENVAR? Does it matter if its a cookie or a biscuit? Which rules are more important than others? These can be hard for some people. Secretlondon (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. MOS:ENGVAR seems very much written. Am I misunderstanding you? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but SecretLondon is talking about ENVAR, which remains unwritten. EEng 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(content comment therefore off-topic and *sigh*) It matters because biscuit means different things in different varieties of English, whereas cookie (even if primarily a North American word) is unambiguous. Compromise in cases like this is how we help readers find what they're looking for. Did I mention that I'm a Brit? Narky Blert (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Since I posted about something else, I might as well post here. I think what EducatedRedneck and others mentioned is is highly relevant in this discussion. However much importance various editors may attach to Engvar issues, a key point is that JackkBrown apparently (I have not independently looked at the evidence) is largely doing copy-editing. In that case, getting engvar right is far more important especially when it comes to introducing new errors. If JackkBrown was adding significant new content and in doing do introducing engvar mistakes; I expect editors would be far more tolerant to such mistakes. (To be clear, this would only apply to such changes. If they did that stuff while simultaneous copying editing existing content and making engvar mistakes, they'd probably still cause a high level of annoyance.) Copy editing where some of your changes are a net positive and some are a net negative tends to be viewed poorly for good reason. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Adding new sources to existing content is another area that occurred to me but I excluded it because it's unlikely to lead to Engvar issues but perhaps improving content to better match sources as opposed to simple copyediting is another area where there would be more tolerance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, and in a collaborative environment the best tact to take when something is difficult for you is to recognize that, and perhaps exercise additional caution when that thing crops up—in so doing, preventing yourself from making more of the same work for others over and over. It's difficult to make Jack aware enough of very specific points to change his behavior, but he does not seem interested in extrapolating any larger norms from what other editors tell him. It's an exhausting game of whack-a-mole, and it's beyond our remit at this point to solve the endless new puzzles of how to adequately explain a thing to him—often related to things already explained to him.Remsense诉 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a question and a comment. First, @JackkBrown: has anyone ever suggested that you take your questions to the reference desk instead? Second, I was annoyed when you started an RfC over comments I had made at Talk: Pied-noir because it seemed like a recipe for drama I was trying to avoid, but while drama did ensue, the spelling problem I was complaining about did get resolved as a result, so thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: you're welcome, the important thing is the end result; however, I apologise to you. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither expected nor required; I may have expressed some annoyance at the time is all, But seriously, well-done. Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I'm very satisfied, thank you! JacktheBrown (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

So did anyone ever tell you to take your strange questions to the Reference Desk? They like strange questions there, and they once even took a heroic shot at "what's the word on the tip of my tongue?" so it's worth a shot. As far as the rest of this goes, maybe lay off a bit on the espresso? I dunno. Hope these suggestions help. Elinruby (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I think, and hope, that I will definitely stop asking questions, even important ones, except in the article discussion pages. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I would hate to think that the thing to do is not ask the important questions. Are the ingredients of cannoli an important question? Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: it would be better to tagliare la testa al toro (Italian way of saying) and exclude any type of question, except in the article discussion pages. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think think that is the wrong takeaway. Why did you wikilink "Italian" there? Did you wonder whether you should do that? Do you know how to look that up? See, sometimes questions are important. By the way, you didn't answer mine. Did anyone ever suggest asking questions at the Reference Desk? Elinruby (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: let's continue the discussion in my discussion page, the response space is really narrowing too much. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Y probably also annoying some watchlists. We can do that. But I think the question about the reference desk might be important; could you please answer it? Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: if I remember correctly it was recommended to me, yes, once or twice. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

so why didn't you do that? Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I did it for references, two or three times. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I really, really don't think redirecting Jack's questions to another venue is going to resolve any issues, and RD is not going to be appropriate for all the wiki-specific ones anyway. We shouldn't be encouraging these kinds of questions at all. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well either he is supposed to ask questions at the help desk or he is not. I take no position on the matter since I don't answer questions at either board. (well, rarely, at the Reference Desk, if something comes up like Vichy or medieval Church law or the like.) But I think right now his impression is that he is "not" supposed to ask questions anywhere and I can't say I blame him. But that way lies a CIR for sure. I told him (at his user page) to find and read the Manual of Style with particular attention to what it says about the dialects of English, because the editor talking about cookie vs. biscuit has a point. And to find a large and active project if he wants to discuss stuff. Dude needs a Wikiproject: Italian food but there isn't one. If any of what I said was wrong then please let me know and I will tell him so, or just talk to him yourself. I am not certain whether he listened to me or whether I did any good, sure. That was me trying.

But at least now he knows that the Reference Desk isn't just for references. And that there are places to look stuff up. I suspect he has been told both those things before, so I take no position on what should be done here; depends on how often, maybe. But I really hate to see someone conclude that the way to flourish at Wikipedia is not to ask questions. Usually most people have to be told most things more than once, and I haven't really been tracking how many times it takes with him. But I looked at the list of Italian foods, and he was told there to only include "encyclopedic" foods. English is my mother tongue, but I'd be confused by that too. (But by the way that list should be broken up into sublists or something) Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No one would be complaining if the questions he asked were generally reasonable. Even if they weren't reasonable I doubt there'd be as much of a problem if they weren't very frequently just different shades of the same question, or if the answer wasn't so often "SOFIXIT" or "go to the talk page". Jack has suggested in the past that he struggles to control his compulsion to ask questions. Since the current HD/TH restriction was placed, he's been very good about limiting his questions there. Giving him a new place to indulge in that behavior just seems like an invitation for an indef down the road. JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am definitely in favor of JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions 'somewhere' (I have no opinion about the 'where'). That's what I and others had been asking for in December ANI thread and in his talk page when he started editing here. I get his constant questioning can be annoying and frustrating, but the alternative would be having JackkBrown being bold, piling up dozens of mistakes and creating a great deal of additional work to fix them (something we already experienced). How about setting a limit to the questions, eg. JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions just twice a week, so that he himself will be more selective between trivialities like cannoli ingredients and important questions? Or even better, finding a volunteer to serve as some sort of mentor/supervisor and be willing to answer his questions on their talk page? JackkBrown is sometimes problematic (eg. here) and his edits are sometimes unhelpful, but at this stage I don't see a situation requiring blocks or bans. Cavarrone 10:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What I was having trouble understanding was why, if the helpdesk keeps sending him away, we want to limit his options on where he can ask questions. Most of the questions are on point. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cavarrone: regarding the question limit, I'm already respecting the limit of 2 (maximum 3) per month (of course it concerns the month, so they could both be in the same week). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

He has already had a question limit, and his track record makes it very doubtful if anyone will have the time or energy to mentor him (unless you're offering). Looking increasingly intractable, unfortunately. Ingratis (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm worried about a WP:CIR block. Jack is clearly both enthusiastic and has niches in which his contributions would be invaluable. The trouble is getting him to those niches. Gentle redirection has not seemed to be effective. Perhaps the community could come up with a well-defined area (e.g., "Adding sources or sourced content to articles") and obtain a commitment from him to stick to such an area? We'd have to workshop it if others believe the idea has merit. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Like herding cats. I don't know if a set of TBANs would help make such a commitment more likely to stick - I doubt if it would otherwise, based on past history. Ingratis (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We should treat young editors and those with special needs with kid gloves when possible. It's clear that they are trying despite not being aware of concerns raised in a combative atmosphere. Moxy🍁 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic, but am mindful of the extremely slow and disruptive progress of the measures regarding John*Pack*Lambert, and how long they dragged on. This did no-one any good, including JPL. Just a thought - perhaps you could express your concern in a practical way by, for example, offering to take on a mentoring role. Ingratis (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Evru200 adding unsourced content

I've tried to engage USER:Evru200 on their talk page [11] about not adding unsourced content to pages and adhering to NPOV reporting of election results, but their behavior persists. The opposing team wins in "a mild upset"[12] while next time around the home team wins "in a landslide"[13] although there's no RS that uses there terms to describe the results. They have also been admonished to follow the WP:MOS, but they continue to make edits like this [14]. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. Just a brief review of their edits shows that, in addition to the NPOV issues, their changes introduce all sorts of grammatical and mechanical errors--random capitalizations, sentence fragments, etc. Grandpallama (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Links: Evru200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Northern Moonlight 02:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So...I don't see anyone trying to get their attention, so what happens next? BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They keep doing it, and with a blank edit summary.[15] BBQboffin^{grill me} 01:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This sounds more appropriate for WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Swam Hossain

• Swam Hossain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently submitting poorly made drafts. They are about topics that already have articles and suffer from problems like poor sourcing, poor style/formatting and even blatantly false information. Draft:Huricihan Sultan is a particularly egregious example, which passes a fictional character from a historical TV series as a real historical figure. I have warned them (diff), but they have continued with resubmitting Draft:Nurbanu Sultan and Draft:Fatma Nur Sultan. I therefore believe that most of this user's editing history has constituted disruptive editing, and that they have not responded or changed after warnings, so they should be blocked. Air on White (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we generally penalize new editors for writing poorly made drafts. In fact, they are expected and Draft space is a place for editors to learn how to write better articles. I dare say that there are more poorly made drafts in Draft space than well made drafts or they wouldn't be in Draft space. Editors are given a lot of leeway here. Is there something problematic about the content that requires immediate admin attention? Honestly, Air on White, sometimes it seems like you go looking for problems to "solve" that aren't that serious. Granted I haven't examined all of these drafts but "poorly made drafts" is really not a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a straw man, I am not suggesting a block for writing poorly made drafts. I am suggesting administrative action for repeatedly spamming AfC with bad drafts, including hoaxes, without showing signs of understanding why the drafts get declined. This user is just wasting reviewer time and shows no signs of communication. Their few mainspace contributions seem unproductive too. A combination of disruptive editing, lack of communication and incompetence after multiple warnings from different users is a sufficient reason to block. If you expect communication, improvement and awareness from this user, it just ain't happening. Air on White (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User turned out to be a sock puppet and was blocked by Girth Summit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikihounding report

I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I asked both users to stay away from one another earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions. That's WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. Schwede66 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, I have been following his contributions in the past day. This is because I noticed that he was intentionally replacing New Zealand spellings with American ones, for example here, here, here and here. To undo any further damage, I had to look through his contributions to find any more spelling errors he had introduced. Because I was following the user's contributions for a reason, I personally did not consider that wikihounding, but I could be wrong.

I realise that in the past I had taken it a bit too far, such as my comment on Talk:Christchurch yesterday. I later realised that this was an inappropriate place to talk to the user and which is why I left a message on the user's talk page this morning instead. Because I had spent dozens of hours fixing spelling errors on New Zealand articles, and Australian ones, I became frustrated that my work was being undone. This, and offwiki events have made me increasingly frustrated recently and I have become agitated. This has been a problem with me in the past and I decided that I would take a wikibreak, but this has proved impossible for me and I am starting to believe my Wikipedia use is entering the territory of an addiction.

In the conversation that Schwede mentioned from December 2023, I showed that Alexeyevitch added the location of an image I took. It was of a nondescript petrol station in Paraparaumu, a smallish town in the country, and I had not written anywhere where it was located. Each time I would copyedit his contributions to Christchurch suburbs, I would notice that he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that I live there and a way to scare me off. At first I thought this was a coincidence, but I made several tests and he continued to do it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Schwede66 - I said last month that I do not want to get invovled in disucusions with this user and genreally not to engage with him - but I feel like this is important.

A copule weeks ago I mentioned to Mr. Roger that "we later shifted to Papanui", a few hours later Panamitsu editied the Papanui High School article (I don't think this is a coincidence). This is no longer true that I live in Papanui - a part of my family lives there.

Panamitsu gets too invloved in the pages I edit (this started since the start) - this is not making editing enjoyable and I think he needs to realize that the main goal is to build an online encyclopedia not NCEA teachers feedback or criticism.

I regereted my actions prior to December 2023 - In fact I didn't even know about hounding, I do now and I think he needs to realize that this is hapening to me now.

Ultimately, I think this user should relax about following me on the Christchurch-related pages and I would do likewise and avoid editing pages the he edits.

I think the best resolution to this conflict is to stop all contact between us immediately and entirely. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not a correct interpretation of events regarding Papanui High School. Look on its edit history. 26 minutes before I made my edit, an IP had edited a paragraph and I then removed it. It was on my watchlist, added through AutoWikiBrowser, as proven by my edit on 14 April. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Uhh so you're suggesting an interaction ban? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I just read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban and I support putting one in place. Do other individuals also support this? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The diffs bear out Panamitsu's explanation:

• April 14, 2024: Panamitsu edits the Papanui High School article, which presumably watchlists it.
• June 6, 2024: An IP edits the Papanui High School article.
• June 6, 2024: Panamitsu removes the paragraph the IP had been editing.

As this means Panamitsu has been watching Papanui High School since well before Alexeyevitch's comment to Mr. Roger, while the claimed alarm is something I can understand and would've felt were I in those shoes, I think it's reasonable to think what happened here was not actually untoward and was just coincidental.

What's harder to square as simply coincidence is Alexeyevitch's behavior regarding Paraparaumu topics, brought up by Panamitsu. Here's a timeline of a handful of events:

• September 18, 2023: Panamitsu edits the article Paraparaumu, which Panamitsu had also done before that.
• September 19, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu to revert Panamitsu's edit. A few minutes later, Alexeyevitch reverts his own revert. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 9, 2024.
• October 19, 2023: Panamitsu adds an image of a Pak'nSave fuel station to the article Pak'nSave. Panamitsu uploaded that image, self-attributing it as the photographer, to Wikimedia Commons. Neither the Commons page nor Panamitsu's caption of the image mention any location.
• November 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Pak'nSave.
• November 14, 2023: Alexeyevitch adds to the caption of the aforementioned fuel station image, added by Panamitsu, that the station pictured is in Paraparaumu. The Wikimedia Commons page for the image at that time still did not (and currently does not) provide any location information.
• December 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu Railway Station. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 16, 2024.
• January 13, 2024: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu College. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 7, 2024.

Looking at these diffs, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Alexeyevitch's apparent interest in articles related to Paraparaumu emerged upon discovering Panamitsu's interest in Paraparaumu and then—more unsettlingly—possibly leaping to a conclusion that Panamitsu is tied to Paraparaumu. It's hard for me to escape thinking of the possibility Panamitsu raised: that Each time [Panamitsu] would copyedit his [Alexeyevitch's] contributions to Christchurch suburbs [...] he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that [Panamitsu] live[d] there and [as] a way to scare [Panamitsu]. If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.

Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a minimal sanction for such harassment. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I regret those actions and apologized twice - I had to removed my second apology because he started to rapidly edit Christchurch suburb articles at the time and felt like every NZ article I edited it would be fixed in a matter of minutes, I suggest him doing this stops since this is obviously making editing unenjoyable - Schwede66 gave somewhat of a 'stop' message to him because I raised concern about this.

I recognized the Pak'N Save was in Paraparaumu because I was there in 2022. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Aranui, Southshore and Opawa are examples - I feel like there still might be a negative motive to their edits here. I suggest they slow down on this topic because it is upseting me. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Panamitsu's recent activity is wikihounding. Panamitsu's central complaint that got this brought to ANI is correct: Alexeyevitch changing the spelling in articles about New Zealand to American English en-masse is disruptive, and they should stop. MOS:TIES/MOS:ENGVAR is well established. (I note on their talk page they say they do not like New Zealand English, but that is not an excuse to make en-masse disruptive edits). Panamitsu reverting that wide-scale disruption from Alexeyevitch is not problematic; the wikihounding policy states Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles, which is what happened here. Endwise (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I (or schwede66) inteded intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring which there kind of. And most (but not all) articles were stubs or starts which he didn't edit prior. Otago Central Railway was fixed by him - not edited by him prior to my edit. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I (or schwede66) [...] intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? Wikipedia is not a laboratory, and experiments that negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I emailed Shwede66, I think 2-3 times this week and all emails were addressing my concern for his behavior towards my editing, Schwede66 said that they had a large watchlist after AWB edits, so there was a suggestion to do that - Schwede66 selected a few pages and after editing 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), we confirmed I was stalked. I edited a few (4 NZ pages also). I don't want to pressurize Shwede66, but the point was somewhat proven. My edits prior to these emails were using NZ english when appropriate. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I noticed the other day that you also emailed Marshelec. I have his userpage (and Schwede66's) on my watchlist because we have collaborated a small bit in the past, such as on Kapiti Island. Given that Schwede66 was contacted about my editing behaviour, Marshelec, could please indicate whether or not Alexeyevitch contacted you for a similar reason? I hope I'm not forum shopping here, and if I am, I apologise. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is forum shopping on your part, Panamitsu; it seems more as if Alexeveyitch may have been 'admin shopping'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My email correspondence with Alexeyevitch is solely associated with content suggestions and possible sources related to the Southshore, New Zealand article. The context is that I have some knowledge of the area from the time of my youth in Christchurch. Nothing about other users or other articles is included in those email exchanges._ Marshelec (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

confirmed I was stalked: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that you have been stalking Panamitsu and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing MOS:TIES/MOS:VAR-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, cases where using an editor's history is not considering hounding includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In the 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), you changed "minimise" (British English spelling) to "minimize" (American English spelling) for an article about a South African military unit and in your edit summary you called it fix[ing] a spelling error. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu restored the spelling of the word per MOS:TIES. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do recall finding the Otago Central Railway spelling mistake by looking through your contributions. This is because I noticed another spelling change and had a look to see if you had made more of those types of changes. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but jumping in to comment that from my observations working with them on NZ articles, that both editors contribute productively to Wikipedia. However they are maybe too productive. It strikes me that both take their role here as editors very seriously, to the point that it has stopped being fun for them. A major part of the conflict is that they are both heavily active in similar areas of Wikipedia, so there is naturally some treading on toes.

Some things I have learned lately that might be of benefit to both editors:

1. You do not need to watchlist every article you edit.
2. You certainly do not need to review every edit to every article on your watchlist.
3. You do not “own” any article or area on Wikipedia.
4. None of us are as important as we might think in the grand scheme of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is huge, and it will never be finished. You are not a legendary knight defending Wikipedia from barbarous hordes. You are an unpaid internet janitor.
5. We are all volunteers, and we are all doing our best. Always assume good faith.
6. Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to misunderstanding.
7. If you can’t assume good faith, and you think someone else is the problem, then you are the problem.
8. You can - at any time - walk away from Wikipedia for 24 hours if you are finding the experience less than fun.
9. You do not need to reply immediately to every message or edit you see.
10. Think carefully about what you say to others and how they might interpret your words.
11. Be humble. Always blow on the pie.

Please do whatever it takes to resolve this conflict. I would prefer to see both of you continue to contribute productively to Wikipedia, rather than either of you fall victim to a block. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with both of you. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 11:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't much to say from me from now on since I have already made my point here (and an apologization) along with a few other places. Both of us commit to stop following each others edits entirely. "This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict." And also stop contact (which I have already commited to). I understood what Shwede66 said aswell. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per [16] then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.
Panamitsu This edit [17] is not a good look. It takes two to edit war. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I will keep this in mind Daveosaurus, and I regret some of the odd choices I made earlier. In the Opawa article I prioritized using NZ English (e.g "The suburb's main retail area is centred on Opawa Road" not "The suburb's main retail area is centered on Opawa Road") I spelled "traveling" once in this article but this was not deliberate. Although I did this: "further development in Woolston, which soon began to [[urbanization|urbanise]] the suburb" it is rendered as "urbanise" for NZ readers I just did this to avoid a redirect. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. Fram (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I mainly hold responsibility for the actions -- Schwede66's suggestion was for me to edit 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa) and see if Panamitsu edits this page after me. All my edits prior to Panamitsu added a message to my talk page were using NZ English and now I use NZ English in the sutible articles (e.g Opawa). I think they've all been reverted since it's appropriate. I also suggest putting an interaction ban between me and Panamitsu to prevent this from happening. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've had the impression for a while that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch around. That's impossible to prove with New Zealand articles, as they may both have them on their watchlists. Hence, after the latest complaint to me via email, I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes. Alexeyevitch edited two of those and Panamitsu tidied up one of those mistakes soon after (the South African article). But that did not have to be used as proof because Panamitsu then complained on Alexeyevitch's talk page, stating that they are following their contributions. For the record, I've had the impression that their contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day". Hence me filing this report. Also for the record, the situation was the other way around last December, but after issuing a warning to Alexeyevitch, that behaviour appeared to have stopped.

Alexeyevitch, you absolutely cannot introduce American English to New Zealand articles. I had not seen that happening before, but Panamitsu's four examples in his first post above are clear. That cannot continue as it's disruptive. Schwede66 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and confirming, but that's really a terrible approach to take. You know that editor X is correcting the spelling errors / MOS issues introduced by editor Y, so you agree with editor Y that they should introduce spelling errors in other articles, helpfully labeling them "spelling correction", so that if X corrects these as well, you can ask for X to be sanctioned? That's really way, way below the conduct which I would consider acceptable for an admin (or any editor for that matter). Fram (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood, your message and the MOS:TIES policy. I have a prefernce to use American English in talk pages/discussions and I understood that NZ articles use NZ English. This is behavior that I have exhibited these past two days is ridiculous and I should of known better. I am shameful and sorry for these actions and I assure you all that I won't do this again. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I note they did edit 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa) after you, again they reverted your incorrect spelling. Checking an editors edits for mistakes they repeatedly make us not harassment. Banning them from correcting you mistakes wouldn't be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair point ActivelyDisinterested, I understand what your saying here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a solution would be for Alexeyevitch to commit to stop making spelling corrections in articles until they have a better understanding of English spelling variations, and both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I amicably agree to these terms. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it is as simple as that. Schwede66 warned Alexeyvitch in December 2023 and while he has stopped following me on non-New Zealand articles, he has continued with this Paraparaumu thing. After telling him about a month ago that I may report him to this noticeboard due to his thing with Paraparaumu, Schwede66 suggested that we avoid contacting each other. Following this, I did make some copy edits, such as on Foveaux Strait (I had edited/watchlisted this article last year) and it did not go too well after I made copyedits and added a maintenance templates and Alexeyevitch told me to "fix it myself" when I didn't know how, the conversation diff is here. I now wish that I had left it as that and not gone to the talk page. I also copyedited some of his edits on Southshore (I found this from the good article nominees on the article alerts). After "Mr. Roger" (Roger 8 Roger) had made complaints about his edits needing copyeding on suburbs, I added the suburbs to my watchlist so I could copyedit them, and followed with copyedits; this is something I now regret. Due to this Paraparaumu thing, I continued making copyedit tests to check if they were coincidences or not -- they were not coincidences.

I don't believe it is just an incompetence with spellings, but rather some dislike of New Zealand spellings, illustrated the message on his talk page, his previous use of New Zealand spellings rather than American ones on articles, him creating a word salad of American spellings and then indirectly writing that he may ignore comments that are in New Zealand English after I informed him about comma splices. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion. (from the last diff in Panamitsu's comment: Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct's injunction to be collegial and empathetic with Wikimedians of different backgrounds. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at mockery, sarcasm, or aggression against Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexeyevitch's behavior has clearly been inexcusably childish, and they cannot be allowed to continue acting like this. Remsense诉 14:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I was frustrated at the time. Mr. Wilke told me to step of Wikipedia for a bit if I was frustrated. I regret this. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to clarify this previous reply of mine as I was replying to multiple comments at once. In the first paragraph I was attempting at explaining where I believe Schwede66's belief of I've had the impression that their [Alexeyevitch's] contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day" came from. As no diffs or examples had been provided, I'm not exactly sure where Schwede66 got this idea from so I don't know if I've addressed everything.

As conversation appears to have dried up, is there anything else I have to do? I'm not familiar with this noticeboard so I'm not sure if it just gets archived after 72 hours or an admin will close the discussion. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently deliberately, according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66—MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has mocked non-U. S. spelling, has expressed intent to ignore talk page comments not written in American English, and has harassed Panamitsu (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.

With this level of hostility toward non-U. S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR this is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings – to be honest, I've never seen that myself. And if I were to see that, I'd put a stop to that straight away. There are plenty enough editors in New Zealand who would have zero tolerance to such antics. Schwede66 05:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Hydrangeans. There is nothing abusive about an editor systematically going through another’s consistently non-constructive edits in order to clean up the mess they’ve been making. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not part of this extensive ongoing spat and I don't want to be. I will say though that I am trying not to be affected by Alexeyevitch's numerous changes to Christchurch suburbs and other articles. See today at Opawa and Heathcote Valley. I raised to topic on the Christchurch talk page, to no avail, and I'll raise it here again. His edits are of such a poor quality, in numerous different ways, that they all require a lot of work to put right. He's been an editor long enough to understand the basics of what to do, such as no original research. Look at his Opawa church section and see what the source says (I added a link). I think he should slow down and concentrate on some basic skills, if that is even possible. Unless something changes IMO his editing could be seen as disruptive. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is the sutiable place to post this... what would you like see changed? I hope there is no negative motive behind this - this is causing me distress. I am trying my best on these pages and I want a resolution to this conflict - I regret my actions, apologized and stated my commitments. Please let's focus on building an encyclopedia - I will add more sources/improve content to that area of interest.

See this diff compared to most recent - I think this is an improvment IMO. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Plz. I have learned my lesson and this behavior cannot continue... a block is totally appropriate if I fail and continue to make irresponsible edits.

I will do better, I promise. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about you except that are presumably American. I think you should have a mentor to show you what to do and why. And it isn't just the mechanics of how to operate the WP site. As before, a good place to start is to slow down and focus on one task at a time, such as why some references are good and others are bad or unsuitable. You have an idea in your mind about what should be/you want to written and then go out looking for sources to use. Turn that around - read the sources first and use what they say about a topic. However, it does look as though that won't change anything because you keep repeating the same patterns of behaviour even when others point them out or make corrections. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understood. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been an interesting thread to read through. The conclusion I'm drawing at this point is:

• Panamitsu hasn't done much wrong at all, certainly nothing requiring any further admin action
• Alexeyevitch has done quite a bit wrong but seems apologetic, willing to learn, and has promised (multiple times) to try harder
• Schwede66 did the right thing in bringing this here. He is an administrator and has been trying to resolve the problems between the above two editors. In doing so, at one point he encouraged Alexeyevitch to deliberately vandalise multiple articles (" I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes."). I have to agree with Fram, that's actually the most concerning thing in this whole affair. WaggersTALK 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Editors removing formatted citations for bare URL citations

This seems to be the best place to report this, given a recent edit summary saying this situation is “standard practice”.

Several (experienced) editors have manually removed formatted citations and replaced them with bare URL citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season.

Timeline:

• 22:33, 17 June 2024 — HikingHurricane adds a “current storm information section” (brand-new level 4 header section), cited entirely by three bare URLs.
• 23:26, 17 June 2024 — WeatherWriter (myself) removes the bare URL and replaced them for formatted citations (2 of the three bare URLS)
• 00:06, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw removes one reference and reduced the citation on the other, including removing the archival information.
• 00:42, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter restores the 2nd reference removed by Drdpw and restores the full citation information for the first reference.
• 00:44, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw reverts back to the smaller citations/removes the 2nd reference
• 00:46, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter adds a “unreferenced section” tag to the “Current storm information” section. Drdpw removed all citations present in that article in the last reversion.
• 01:01, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw removes the “unreferenced section” citation and re-adds the three original bare URL citations originally added by HikingHurricane.
• 01:24, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter removes the three bare URLs and replaced them with less-linked, but formatted citations.
• 01:33, 18 June 2024 — HikingHurricane restores the three bare URL citations and stated it is “standard practice”.

Is this actually allowed? Even though Wikipedia:Bare URLs isn’t a formal citation, experienced editors seem to indicate that bare-URLs are “standard practice” over formatted citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources (policy), specifically WP:CITEVAR, in the Generally considered helpful section, it states “improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;”. I am bringing this to the administrators attention not to get someone warned or blocked, but since there seems to be experienced editors saying something different than policy, and every attempt to remove the bare URL citations is being reverted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The bare URLs in question are not citations. Their purpose is for the reader to be able to access the latest NHC products directly. What WeatherWriter has done is replace these links to live webpages with archive links, which obviously do not link to the live webpages. I have nothing against adding these citations to the end of the section, but they do not substitute for the live URLs. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 02:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Per what you just said "the bare URLs in question are not citations", then the section is still unsourced. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding a citation to the paragraph from the latest advisory, with the advisory-specific url, so long as it gets updated (every 6 hours) with the information. Drdpw (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Embedded links should be avoided, WP:CS:EMBED. Surely these should be in the 'External Links' section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything against citing the archived advisories at the end of the paragraph like I said, but the links to the live NHC webpages should still be there. Only including the archived references means counting on editors to update the references every time an advisory is released. Instead, the live URLs can just link to the up-to-date webpages directly. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No they shouldn’t. External Links/Bare URLs should not be in the middle of an article. They go in an external link section at the bottom of an article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It makes the most sense for those links to go in the storm's section. Putting them in the external links section makes them harder for the reader to find and gets increasingly confusing if there are multiple active storms. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not a news site. We're not a weather advisory site. We do not need people to be able to get live information or updates on a storm. We're an encyclopaedia, not a 24 hour weather channel. No those links shouldn't go into the storms section as per all of the above. Having updated live information isn't what we're here for. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not what we are here for, but it is, nonetheless, what is done for active tropical cyclones in the form of 'Current storm information' and 'Watches and warnings' subsections. Drdpw (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Drdpw here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yet people still use it to stay up-to-date on weather events. I see no harm in linking to the latest official information in a storm's section. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 16:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia is formatted though. Wikipedia isn't a place for "current"/"live" updates. Even though you both seem to say citing sources is ok, both attempts I did at actually adding citations to the sections (current watches/warning & "current storm info") were reverted directly by both of y'all and you both added the external links inplace of the citations. That is what started this discussion. Basically, why are external links in the middle of an article being used as citations over formatted citations. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This may be a better suited question at WP:MOS: Are external links allowed mid-article or not? Anyone else agree? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not adding citations to the end of the section that could be an issue, it's removing the external links. You can add citations to the end of the paragraph and editors can update them when they update the current storm info, but the live URLs should stay too. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 16:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I may have missed something in this thread, but isn't WP:EL fairly clear on that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup, we're quite clear in several areas. Just because it's "what is done" doesn't mean it should be. ELs should not appear in articles at all other than maybe the infobox and external links section. There are few exceptions and providing live coverage of an event is very much not one of those exceptions due to the fact we're an encyclopaedia not a news site. We are not a place for people to get those kind of updates, nor do we want to be. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Then no weather article, let alone tropical cyclone article, should be presenting current storm information or watches and warnings. Drdpw (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing should go into an article that isn't intended to be there in the final form and that isn't intended to be read by a reader in 10 years time. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Current is too soon. Also probably incorrect, since editors do other stuff than editing, and a section like "Current situation" is likely to promise more than it delivers. If there is an up-to-date event-dedicated weather-site or something like that, it may fit the EL-section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is correct. They should not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well, now we have a problem. Despite a clear non-involved editor consensus that external links & current storm info should be removed (as done in this edit minutes ago), Drdpw has, once again, reverted that edit, saying WP:Weather is the best place to discuss removing external links, basically ignoring AN/I and this discussion. Can an administrator do the removal? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please voice your issue with weather articles presenting current storm information and watches and warnings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather. Drdpw (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, Drdpw, this isn’t a WikiProject Weather issue, since it was raised on the administrators noticeboard. AN/I seems appropriate since this involves a policy issue, not a content issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

For a discussion on WP:EL, WP:ELN would be a better place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprojects cannot override the MOS, policies or guidelines. They have no say in this. See this very important part people miss about Wikiprojects "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal." Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Implementation of policy in the various tropical cyclone articles will be a challenge. I suggest posting a message concerning the AN/I consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather. Drdpw (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I nominated all current storm templates I am aware of for deletion here. Noah, BSBA^Talk 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, there have been hurricane season articles for a good 20 years, including information such as the advisories and ongoing watches and warnings. If this is the official place to complain about it, then I’d rather Wikipedia continue to be a source of ongoing information. If there’s some official rule that precludes this, then I’d like to invoke ignore all rules for the sake of consistency and being beneficial for the public. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging Jasper Deng here as they have restored the current storm information & external links to the Wikipedia article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The CSI sections have been discussed numerous times over the years in one form or another. Personally I don't like them much as on the whole they aren't updated with each advisory package outside of the NHC AOR, however, I strongly suspect that they would just be added straight back in by other editors who feel rightly or wrongly feel that they are doing a service to our readers by adding the information in. As a result, I am neutral on if they should or shouldn't remain in hurricane articles.Jason Rees (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Quick side-note: Per Hurricanehink, this process of adding external links mid-article on tropical cyclone pages goes back two decades to 2004. Honestly, I am wondering if an ArbCom policy clarification request should be filed, given, at least what appears visually to me as basically a recurring problem of ignoring policy. ArbCom is the final resort for dispute resolution, and since this is a multi-year (multi-decade even) ignoring policy issue, they might be best to solve it and clarify if external links are permitted mid-article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just making sure, is the issue with the external link, or the fact of including current information in general? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, if I interpret the discussion correctly, it started out regarding only the external link issue, but evolved into adding the current storm information into the discussion. I would be fine trying to solve only the external link issue to begin with, since that is what this was opened up for in the first place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Then ignore the rules for the sake of public safety and be ok with the external links ;) They’ll only be there when the storm is active. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think in-text EL:s adds any public safety. Can't cite it, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

“They’ll only be there when the storm is active.” — That straight up violates Wikipedia:Recentism, also known as the 10-year test. If you are adding information to the article that is garunteed to not be in the article in a week or so (let along 10 years), it should not be in the article. Simple as that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Does this affect the infobox showing current storm information? ✶Quxyz✶ 18:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with a WP:EL-valid link in the EL section. On WP promising "current" info, I think that's problematic and I don't trust us with it, to put it in shortcuts MOS:CURRENT, WP:NOTNEWS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick clarification: By “EL section” do you mean a true headed section named “external links” or as they are presented in this version? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The customary EL-section at the bottom of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EL. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. This has a footnote which states Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like , which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. This is not one of the exceptions and the rationales so far put forward do not stack up with established policy and so these external links should be purged from all such articles in favour of proper in-line citations and an external links section.

@Hurricanehink mobile Wikipedia is not a news source and we do not exist to promote public safety. This is an encyclopaedia. WP:ARBCOM may be the place to go if this has indeed been going on since 2004. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black (talk · contribs), I believe a potentially significant hurricane capable of widespread destruction would be one of those links. Same story if an asteroid was threatening to hit Earth. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any precedent to support this claim? ✶Quxyz✶ 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If a significant hurricane is about to affect parts of the United States, the Emergency Alert System will inform those of our readers who need to know via their smart phones, radio and television broadcasts, and the activation of sirens in a far more timely manner. I am sure Canada has a similar service. Wikipedia does not exist to warn our readers of upcoming cataclysmic events and we should never be expected to provide this information. There are far more appropriate channels for such warnings. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And indeed, the nature of Wikipedia is such that it creates a massive risk that it would inadvertently supply misinformation or outdated information in such events. The public safety argument lies, at best, in Wikipedia signposting the appropriate official sources of information for each emergency. It is dangerous to try to duplicate such information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black and WeatherWriter: I know I'm late to the game but since both of you mention ArbCom, and also considering it as a last resort, would an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones be sufficient? Especially now with several templates nominated for deletion there will need to be a discussion on what information should or should not be included on active storms. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been going on since 2004 in part because the policy has evolved since then. In 2004, the concern was avoiding links to paywalled sites or those requiring Flash. In early 2005, the policy was expanded with the main concern being to weed out spam/promotional links. In 2007, after a small Talk discussion the idea of no external links in the main article text was first implemented, again with spamming or acting as a web directory being a central concern. Since then the exact wording of that exclusion has changed from "should not be used" (2007) to "should not normally be used" (2008) to the addition of an "exceptions are rare" footnote (2010), which in 2017 was moved out of the footnote and "normally" removed from the text. The discussions here appear to be the first time the question has come up about whether or not these sorts of links should be considered among the exceptions to the WP:EL policy. That they have been used since 2004 and haven't come up in the past two decades seems to imply a level of appropriateness to include them in the manner in which they are being used. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS, the bits that are relevant here are 1) original reporting, which these bulletins are not, and 2) news reports, which these might quality as; however, the NOTNEWS also encourages including "current and up-to-date information within its coverage," which these links provide. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

(@ TornadoLGS) Consider another venue than a Wikiproject for a less topic-focused audience, Wikiprojects can be appnoted. This seems to be mostly WP:WEIGHT issue, so WP:NPOVN may be an ok place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Okay, I'm not entirely sure that's the right place, but I'll ask about that on the talk page there. I mentioned the possibility of an RfC on the Wikiproject since they are usually handled at the relevant article talk page, but this would affect multiple articles under the same project. I would rarther have this done sooner than later since the Atlantic season is underway and this will likely lead to edit wars if there is not a clear-cut procedure. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: The simple thing here is that no current storm information should be included. The article should only contain information that's expected to be present a week or a month from now. The peak intensity would just change as the storm intensifies and then it would not change after the peak. Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Now there I disagree, since that will just confuse readers. That is, I don't think we should treat it so black-and-white. I'll also make the argument that this information will still be around at a later time, since it would be included in the storm's meteorological history. But this is exactly why I have been looking for a venue to have more thorough discussion on this, and I'm not the only one to have suggested taking this part of the discussion elsewhere. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: village pump would be your best bet. WP weather is too partisan for these types of discussions. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Yeah, the closest match I found there was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but that seems to be more about discussing changes to policy rather than applications of it. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah, how and why is the Wikiproject too partisan? Not disputing your claim, just the first time I have heard of partisan activity on Wikipedia. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz, an opinion or 2 related to the subject: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS. There is, in short, an argument that having discussions like these on a wikiproject may increase a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS/"it's our tradition" nature of such a discussion. That is my understanding, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object to meteorological history, especially presented as such. That is, the page should not identify current storm conditions, but I think others would agree that e.g. a table of historical conditions, with citations and without bare URLS, sounds like something that would be relevant years from now, would implicitly include the latest information (sort the table by date). Just my two cents. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Those links don't belong in the text of the article, for all the word salad reasons that editors have noted. They should be in a separate 'External links' section, at the end of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

At that point, I don't think we should bother at all with the External Links, it'd be too much of a hassel and too obscure to matter. People that are interested enough to read through the EL section are probably going to be monitoring the system vehemently. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if the links were converted into citations, then that’s fine? It seems like there are two points about this discussion, the links, and the fact that articles usually mention current info, like storm intensity/movement/warnings. The current information can easily be cited with actual links. Would that still be in violation or not? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If the external links were converted into citations, that would not be a violation of the external link policy. That, is actually what I did, prior to the AN/I. Your reversion of that was the last link in the timeline part at the very beginning of the AN/I. That alone would address the external link issue: I.e. removing the “For the latest official information, see:” and “The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One” and replacing them with full citations. The formatted (full) citation you added for Intermediate Advisory Number 4A in this edit is perfect! In fact, that external link for the “public advisory” is the exact same thing. That is actually what this discussion was opened up for originally. Per policy, the NHC “latest info” shouldn’t be external links, but rather in full/formatted citation form.

As to the current storm info, that is a different topic inserted mid-discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that cite checks out, that takes care of EL-bit, leaving the current/news bits([18]). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The archive link to an archived public advisory is not the 'exact same thing' as the refresh link to the public advisory. Citing the archived public and forecast advisories and discussion necessitates that editors update the section and citations every time an advisory is released. For the NAtl this is very realistic, but what about other TC basins? Can we guarantee that the citations will always be up-to-date for an active system? No. Why not just include the refresh links at the end of the section? ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Citations to be used for what? Context matters. A "latest updates on local hurricane" website wouldn't be a very useful cite, would it? What lasting article-text would you cite to [19]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the citation url would need to change along with the information cited, every 3–6 hours, linked to, e.g. Potential Tropical Cyclone One Public Advisory Number 1, Potential Tropical Cyclone One Public Advisory Number 1B, Potential Tropical Cyclone One Public Advisory Number 2, etc., not to the refresh link. Drdpw (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have actually used TWOs and discussions in articles to show that the NHC did or declared something, e.g. designated as an invest, a warning being declared. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As in "On friday, NHC recommended people to get the hell out of Kentucky."? Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It'd probably be somewhere like Martinique instead. Regarding the invest, I used a Tropical Weather Outlook (TWO) in June 2024 South Florida floods to state that the NHC began monitoring the disturbance. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And you link to the archive url when citing things. Drdpw (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if anything it seems like it should be treated the same as a book. One must cite the specific pages used to back up information from a book, ergo, one must use the specific advisory. However, it is worth noting that I was not using the TWO to cite current information. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, it’s called a hurricane warning, and would likely be a coastal area. Also we don’t use days of the week, it would be, “Late on August 25, the NHC issued a hurricane warning between X and Y locations.” And then include that citation. It’s important because some procedures happen when there is a hurricane warning, often including evacuations, closures, etc. All of the current info can be cited. I don’t care if it’s external links or cite web, as long as the info is there. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

USER:LibStar is continually and incorrectly deleting content from Greystanes

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

---

USER:LibStar is not editing or redistributing content, but instead, deleting factual content, multiple times now. I am doing my best to contribute to the Wiki project for my hometown, and have put alot of time doing the best job I can. The issue here is not citation but the deletion. For example, for "Notable People".

Instead of taking the facts of this page and updating the notable people's respective articles, does USER:LibStar instead believes that those articles need to form the basis of this article. Why is that? And if these other articles are incorrect (which they are)? Some articles say Sydney - AND, Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney!!!

Furthermore, Amanda_Farrugia - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too. You clearly are attacking and discriminating this article and it must stop.

This is not a good enough reason, to form the basis of the content deletion, especially when I can give you addresses and school photos and birthday parties of these notable people, who lived in this area. Your reason being "his/her article doesn't mention this suburb . Rm under WP:BURDEN" - You should update his/her article then, and stop being a WP:BURDEN on this article!

Also, I don't appreciate USER:LibStar's tone. Ownership is not being assumed, I have taken alot of time to edit this article and have done an incredible job here. And does USER:LibStar believe that have the right to come and just delete content that is correct, without researching before they delete? That is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

can you provide some diffs? It's not clear at all which articles you're talking about. Orange sticker (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a content dispute. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

is it possible for you to please check and compare the history?

Notable people are being removed when they are from Greystanes.

The last edit for example:

[[Amanda Farrugia]] - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too.

He is removing people whose articles say they are from Sydney. Greystanes is in Sydney.

These articles might be wrong, and why should that be the basis of the facts in this article? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

hey Scope Creep, there seems to be an error on the page, from a change you made. I don't want to touch it though, in case you are in the middle of something??? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Really sloppy referencing without and incorrect page numbering. I've fixed what I can. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Annamaria.dmrt is a very very new editor. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am now Scope Creep, and thank you for your help with this, but there is still an error. Your reference is showing on the frontend.

The grand mansion was demolished in 1946, but its gates still remain intact on Greystanes Road.ref"Cumberland Historical Timeline" (PDF). Cumberland City Council. p. 31.</ref> Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

new* Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I just fixed that reference up. was missing the opening <ref Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The very issue for why I posted this to begin with, <nowiki>user:theroadislong</nowiki>] goes and starts deleting notable people as well. I just don't get why content get's removed? Carissa Walford has content all over the net about being from Greystanes. Do I need to update people's bio's too? No thanks. But just cause other articles on Wiki are incorrect, does that mean we use them as the basis on the way moving forward, so that all future content remains incorrect?

I am happy to address the citations and delete what cannot be referenced. But the notable people should be researched by the one wanting to delete it, and then if it's found that the person is from Greystanes, the other article should be update. True?

Also, Greystanes IS Sydney. So if it says someone is from Sydney, that is actually impossible. Because Sydney is not a suburb. Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney, so why delete it, if someone's article says "Sydney". It doesn't make my notable people list incorrect. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are getting close to being blocked, the onus is on the person adding the content to include the source. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

being blocked? For what? More threats. I haven't said or done anything wrong to you, and instead of threatening, stop being aggressive and educate! We all contribute to Wiki, you are not an owner, but a contributor like myself.

All of my citations added for Notable People were removed by Scope Creep, because it's ridiculous and you know it. Show me an article where notable people are referenced? If your Wiki articles do not match my new content, then it is your responsibility if you like, to research that person and update and reference that specific article. Not delete proper and good content from my edits.

Have a think about it. Because you are not making much sense. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are not being threatened, merely informed that your behaviour is such that you may receive a block from an administrator.

If you'd like to see an article where notable people are referenced visit Derry#Notable people. This is how all articles should look. All content on Wikipedia must be backed up by a reliable in-line citation, except patently obvious stuff (e.g. we wouldn't provide a reference for "the sky is blue"). Just because other editors have failed to provide references elsewhere does not excuse policy violations elsewhere. WP:VERIFY states Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are in violation of the three revert rule. I can see five reverts by you in the past hour alone. You must stop reverting other editors. I know it can be frustrating seeing your work reverted, but violating Wikipedia policy may lead to a partial block, where you can't edit specific pages, or a full block, where you can't edit at all, even if you weren't aware of the policy. However, I can see that your latest revert came after @Theroadislong issued you with a warning for edit warring.

My best advice would be, take a break from this article for now. Take the time to read some of Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:VERIFY, WP:3RR and WP:MOS then come back to this article and make the changes in such a way that it is unlikely to be challenged by another editor. Theroadislong is correct above in saying that the onus is on you to provide an in-line citation for any content you add to an article. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok no worries, I actually didn't see my talk page, and only just saw it now.

I will provide citations on all notable people then.

Thanks to all for your time on this. I will sort it out.

Instead of deleting, can maybe next time, there be a Citation Needed added?

And also, Amanda Farrugia was deleted as a notable person, but her article clearly says she is from Greystanes. Which is what really frustrated me the most. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, her article doesn't clearly say she is from Greystanes:

Farrugia was born and raised in the western suburbs of Sydney in New South Wales. Her parents are of Maltese descent and she attended Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary School, Greystanes.

It only mentions that she attended a primary school in Greystanes, not that she is from Greystanes. Attending a primary school in an area does not necessarily mean someone is from that area. For example, my close friend grew up in the Earnock area of their hometown but attended a primary school in Hillhouse.

I prefer to use cn tags and try to return after a few weeks to remove the content if it hasn't been sourced, but editors are free to remove unsourced content immediately. In fact, there is an unsourced statements drive going on right now in which the objective is to either provide sources for content tagged with citation needed tags or remove the unsourced statement entirely, so you may find that this month an unsourced statement with a tag is somewhat more likely to be removed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Adam mate, understood. I have a job on my hands it seems!@Adam Black

I will sort all the citations out. Thanks for the clarification and for being nice and civil about it all, and sorry for ruffling some people's feathers. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome and I wouldn't worry too much about ruffling feathers. We can all be guilty of it from time to time and as long as you follow Wikipedia policy going forward there shouldn't be any issues.

I haven't taken an in-depth look at your edits, but if any of the notable people you were trying to add are more historic then Trove can be an excellent source for pre-1950s coverage of Australians. There are several more recent newspapers and magazines on Trove as well, but there are over 1,800 digitised Australian publications dating from the early 19th century to roughly the mid-50's. If you need any help finding references, feel free to post a message on my talk page and I'll help out if I can. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 12:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As an editor of 17 years experience and over 90,000 edits this is a hilarious ANI frankly, I've never been accused of vandalism before. The ANI has only focussed attention of the practices of Annamaria.dmrt as per WP:KETTLE. They clearly need to read WP:V, WP:OWN, WP:3RR and WP:BURDEN. I agree that of this aggressive ownership and failure to abide by Wikipedia policy by Annamaria.dmrt is getting them close to be being blocked. I'll let admins decide that. If an article says someone is from Sydney that does not automatically mean they are from Greystanes. All notable people must have a verified source that they actually lived in this suburb. Finally, Annamaria.dmrt would be best served by editing a broader range of articles to better understand how Wikipedia works. LibStar (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this report was originally about you, but it does seem as though the user has accepted the advice and explanations given and they will hopefully be contributing in-line with Wikipedia policy from now on so I think it would be best just to let this matter lie, unless any further problematic behaviour occurs. I would definitely agree with your suggestion, however, editing a broader range of articles would I'm sure provide a better understanding of our policies and guidelines. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) *reply moved here by 2804:F1...30:B3FD (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (original diff)

I thought you were just trying to make life hard and to just in some ways, prove a point User:LibStar. And cause I took you the wrong way, I got off on the wrong foot in the beginning by being abrupt in my feedback to you. I now fully understand the situation, and whilst it is really frustrating, and time consuming, I will get this article to the standard it needs. It makes life hard when you and User:Theroadislong still continue to delete details on the page, and dont' put a citation tag. Cause I want to do my best to have the opportunity to cite every notable person, but instead I need to compare revisions, to find who has been removed.

So, all in all, thank you everyone for your time. Sorry for false accusations against you LibStar when you were correct. My bad on that. And it's also annoying that facts can be lost forever, if they cannot be properly cited via online sources, I have alot of other info on the area and surrounding areas, that there are no online sources for. It is original content, like old colonial letters that have facts about the area in early settlement. And it hasn't been documented elsewhere before. It would have been good to contribute to Wikipedia with these facts, but I cannot cite them. This for me is a shock. Even people who are from Sydney, and from Greystanes, if it is not anywhere else online, well then, we cannot add it. I received a confirmation from Brad McGee yesterday on whatsapp, that I can add Greystanes to his personal article and to this Greystanes article. But again, how do i cite that.

Anyway, I will do my best to cite all i can, and what get's deleted, get's deleted.

Thanks again, sorry about all the fuss, especially to LibStar. Thanks for being really kind and civil about it all @Adam Black. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I did a thorough Google search for the names I removed and nothing came up, sources do not have to be online but they do need to have been published. You cannot add Bradley McGee to the article without a source either, personal communication is NOT encouraged or useful, unless he can give you a suitable source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong but you've removed Frank Cefai and Lawrence Dimech, who have numerous online sources, indicating that they are notable to the community. Does a person need to have a Wikipedia article dedicated to them, to be in the Notable People list? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes otherwise they are not a "notable" person in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black, or someone else, are you able to confirm what @Theroadislong is saying here?

There are 2 notable people of the community, which have multiple sources online to cite, and according to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, section "Lists of People", it has the following exceptions:

There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

• If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.
• In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness. Can these exceptions apply here? Is it really that bad to have 2 very notable people of the community, cited, in the notable list... without having an article on them? I think this is going abit too far to be fair. @LibStar is still deleting content after I have asked multiple times not to, in order to give me a chance to cite what needs to be cited. Like honestly, calm down mate, you're abit over the top.

Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You have spent an extraordinary amount of time here complaining and attacking other users, if you have the sources please just present them here or on the article talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I don't see any attack/complaint, and I didn't spend an extraordinary amount of time. I simply made reference to an article where the rules are. Is that okay, or is that unusual for you?

1. I am asking for another opinion as you have stated that notable people, are only notable on Wikipedia, if they have an article. And I want to double check the exceptions to that.
2. I have asked if content can stop being deleted in order to give me a chance to check and cite everything. And I had to do that to deleted people, who many of which, were readded. But alot of people have been removed from the article now.

Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Annamaria.dmrt This is not the correct location for this discussion please take it to the article talk page and provide your reliable sources for including non notable people in the list. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong is correct, yes. A person does need to have a Wikipedia article or they need to meet the notability criteria set out in WP:NBIO and be eligible for an article to be listed in the notable people section. If you are certain that an individual meets Wikipedia's eligibility criteria, you may add them to the list as a red link but if challenged you should be able to demonstrate why they meet the criteria.

The WP:STANDALONE policy only applies to list article, such as List of prime ministers of Australia, List of Australian criminals and List of Indigenous Australian historical figures. It doesn't necessarily apply to lists within articles. When it says non-notable people can be included in lists for completeness, this is in the case of definitive lists rather than subjective ones like this. For example, the article for a university which has had multiple notable chancellors may list all of the university's chancellors for the sake of completeness.

I have purposefully not yet read the article (other than checking a few diffs), in an attempt to remain impartial and provide advice based entirely on policy rather than opinion. I cannot say whether any of the notable people listed belong there.

In order to give you more time to properly cite the content, I have copied the article to your sandbox (User:Annamaria.dmrt/sandbox) where you can edit it without worrying about other editors removing uncited contributions. Once you've got references for the content you want to add you can merge it into the article yourself or ask a more experienced editor for help doing so.

This thread is now quite off topic from what should be discussed at ANI and so I'd ask that an uninvolved editor closes this discussion. The original reason for this report has been dealt with and this conversation would be better continued elsewhere. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 09:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editor on Sonny Liston

TheManTheyCallAdam is engaged in slow-walking reverts of content against guidelines, in this case MOS:THENICKNAME. At an earlier point, I and this editor discussed this matter, although they expressed that their view of how the English language works means that Sonny Liston's nickname "the Big Bear" must have have 'The' capitalized. On their talk page and in the article's talk, I showed them the guideline that shows 'The' is not to be capitalized. It is in the middle of a sentence as well.

I realize that the specific matter at hand is very minor, that it's just the casing of a word. But the problem as I see it is TheManTheyCallAdam is acting as someone who 1) pushes their opinion over that of the wiki guideline, with no acknowledgement there even is a guideline that covers it; 2) uses a slow-walking WP:TENDENTIOUS editing approach to ensure their opinion wins; and 3) based on their editing pattern, mostly focused on this matter, they aren't really here to build an encyclopedia. Most of what they're "doing" is waiting to change it back again.

I considered treating this as a content dispute and going through other channels first, but I have come to look at this as straight-up problematic editor behavior, disruptive in nature, with an apparent unwillingness to accept that the Wikipedia is written with guidelines in mind. New editors who so openly refuse our guidelines at least need to be reminded that we take them seriously, and that willy-nilly changing something to be their way is disruptive, if not unsavory behavior. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of you have been engaged in an editing war since at least April. It also appears that you have been watching the page since around last year.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That could well be the appearance at a superficial level but I have tried to explain my edit and the other party stopped trying to, and is simply reverting me. Also, let's review that my position is based on the MoS. The bottom line is the other party is required to discuss if they disagree. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not this is edit warring (WP:3RR doesn't appear to apply), if you or anyone would like to lay out a solution, I would like to consider it (why I'm here). I am not interested in having a conflict. I just would like the other editor to understand we have guidelines here, and move on to other articles to work on if they so choose. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand and have looked at the matter a little more closely. Given the typical options, I would imagine the kindest conclusion would be for an independent admin to give a warning and block if it occurs again..

Well thats what I thought until i found this: User:TheManTheyCallGaryColemanFan. I could be wrong, but this user appears to be evading a block from 2009.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile (desktop view) so it’s difficult for me to request for a checkuser. Also, given that the accounts were made 14 years apart its possible ISPs wouldn’t match anyways.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Give me a bit to review that case to confirm what you're laying out, and if I see the same problem, I will make a request. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed this. Beyond the username being similar to the suspected sockpuppet and there being an apparent shared subject interest, I don't see hard evidence connecting them, and it has been seven years since the last sock in this case has appeared, with the long-term case closed with "Long-gone LTA". Of course, there could be something I'm not seeing. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will strike my comment then as I am not here to cast aspersions.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping here. If the issue is limited to what I stated above, I am fine with a warning or at least an informational reminder about the MoS and ensuring they understand to consider the other party's views in a discussion. If it's more than that, and is a block evasion, that would of course merit something stronger. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Per the "watching" part, I have watched it for the usual reasons for watching, and has nothing to do with this matter. I watch because I am interested in subjects related to Muhammad Ali and there have been problematic edits to review over this period of time. Just thought I would respond to that element. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What's funny is that this is far from being the worst issue in the article, where the back and forth on the subject's birth date sometimes is problematic, to put it mildly. I am going to resolve this by no longer watching or working on the article. Sometimes in life, you have to let things go, especially when they eat into your productivity and sanity. That I'm not getting support on this smaller matter tends to make such a choice the wise one. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

He has blatantly ignored this ANI as can bee seen here and has continued to war, i support an indef. I think the point was proven by this that he is WP:NOTHERE, as sad as that is.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that is the edit that was the last straw for me that led to this report. But there's no question he ceased discussing this and has ignored this ANI. His recent contributions show he has given up on wiki productivity just to lie in wait to recap a word that shouldn't be capped, when experienced, serious editors would acknowledge the guideline involved and move on (or in rare cases, challenge the guideline). This is all really just a fancy way of saying this editor is intentionally being a pest via tendentious editing. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Trolling vandalism

Rantoodle seems to be a purely vandalism and trolling account. They received multiple warnings earlier this month for their vandalism and practically all article edits they've made have been reverted. Then they just made this bigoted talk page comment. Very clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Silverseren^C 03:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As I responded on my talk page, you’ll see that I haven’t made any edits of the kind that other people expressed concerns about. I’m honestly confused as to what was wrong with the edit request I made, too. I’m not understanding how it was bigoted but I’m open to being corrected if perhaps I don’t understand something. Rantoodle (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If you don't understand why that comment was (Redacted) inappropriate, frankly I don't know how we can help you. I am not going to repeat it here and advise you to refrain from doing so also as it was wholly inappropriate. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Edit: redacted and replaced part of my comment, mindful of WP:NPA. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the linked comment and warned the user (not that it's likely to make much difference). Together with adding the word niggardly to the article Gravity Falls (diff) and then claiming they didn't (diff), I agree this is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And they've reinstated said talk page comment again. Silverseren^C 03:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a legitimate request. Other editors are welcome to disagree and decline. I also did have a salient comment about another topic of discussion (which I added as well). Rantoodle (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What's happening here is POV pushing at best but quite obvious they are making a statement, not to actually improve an article, but to cause a ruckus. I agree their behavior here is not welcome. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And I'll note that I personally find their statement to be (Redacted) intended to arouse vitriol via inappropriate, obviously unobjective language. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I would appreciate an explanation of how my request was perceived to be bigoted. Nowhere did I make any derogatory remark? Rantoodle (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe you know that the statement is (Redacted) intended to arouse vitriol via inappropriate, obviously unobjective language. Don't play this here. (Redacted) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, @StefenTower I've redacted that particular word from my own comment above, realising it probably falls foul of WP:NPA, and you may also wish to do so yourselves. I completely agree the comment was objectionable but we should all observe policy. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have revised my statements. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

“Intended to arouse vitriol”? Excuse me, that in itself is an objectionable accusation. Im being called a vandal and said to be intending to arouse vitriol just for asking a question anyone can simply say “no” to and explain why not? Im sorry but this is quite hostile and I would appreciate an apology. I haven’t once been uncivil to you. Rantoodle (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Your question is reasonably seen to be uncivil and I believe you know it is. I am done here. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And how could my question “arouse vitriol”? I’m seriously confused here. Please help me understand why it seems I am being ganged up on. Rantoodle (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You are not confused. Again, don't play us here. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In response to this, and your latest edit summary Please simply engage in discussion and refrain from making unfounded accusations that I am acting in bad faith (I am not), I am willing to believe you may not have been acting in bad faith when you first posed the question. However, at least four editors (including another on your talk page) have told you that this was not appropriate and the chances of anyone assuming good faith with you are getting very slim. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would just like to discuss this and get to the bottom of what you are all perceiving as objectionable and why, so I can understand it and avoid it in the future. It doesn’t have to be here, it can be on the article talk page and I would in fact prefer that to this noticeboard. Rantoodle (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe you genuinely can't understand what is objectionable, but on the off-chance you genuinely don't, please see MOS:GENDERID. This policy is concerned with article content rather than comments on talk pages but should go some way to explaining why we object. WP:NQP is an essay, not an official policy or guideline, but it may also help your understanding. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an LTA with a familiar pattern of editing. Indeffed. DanCherek (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed things they further said on their talk page before they were reverted and their talk page edit privileges zapped. There is no mistaking this user's malevolence and intention to inject a POV into wiki content. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content/overlinking

50.205.182.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content/overlinking, continued after final warning (and hasn't responded to warnings), has been blocked four times previously for disruptive editing in the last 2 years. Examples of addition of unsourced content/overlinking: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a year. It's not usual to block an IP address indefinitely but that might be the only solution in this case. Deb (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke an IP's TPA

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

---

2607:FEA8:86DF:FD5C:6D48:690A:7D35:DC25 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Making bogus unblock requests, which I removed because they're not worth entertaining, and calling me slurs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking through it, I can definitely understand the edits they made were very disruptive, but this edit summary that you made in my opinion, wasn't very respectful. Let's see what the administrators have to comment. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Buddy, that edit summary is nothing compared to blatant transphobia... and the antisemitism that got them blocked. I think "fuck off" is mild compared to them putting triple parentheses around the ADL's name. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done, and revision-deleted the bigotry and abuse. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh well, I'll just assume good faith and think that what you wrote is indeed milder compared to the slurs they wrote. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I can assure you that "fuck off" was an extremely mild reaction to what they wrote. Black Kite (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  True, I used to think "fuck off" was extremely rude, but there's a lot of ruder expressions than this. God, I really need to understand that more often. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Problematic edit summaries

Can someone take care of the edit summaries left by Flearoyuoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? (For the record, I did not inform this user of this discussion; they've already been blocked for flagrant abuse.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone has removed the edit summaries already. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet "keep" votes at AfD listing for Rarri Dream

There are currently three comments suggesting inclusion for the article Rarri Dream at its AfD nomination, all featuring the same run-on-sentence-with-zero-punctuation writing style. When checking the edit history for commenter Firstsail, you'll find that they've only edited the aforementioned page along with the AfD listing itself; the IP address that voted "keep" has similarly only posted on the AfD listing. I have the feeling that this is sockpuppetry in motion. joeyquism (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Spicy. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please help

•  Courtesy link: Help desk question related to the same matter

Abused online via wikapedia.org. Person using this to bully and abuse me I am scared for my family. Can administrator person responsible please email me to discuss further and in more detail mark Sullivan formb Marksullivanformby (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

meta:Trust and Safety is what you are looking for, I believe. --Yamla (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Marksullivanformby: It's hard to figure out from your account's contributions' history what specific Wikipedia pages you're referring to, but all of the pages you've edit so far seem to be related to sex work/prostitution in the UK. The content you've been removing with your edits so far seems a bit randon and otehrwise only related to someone who died in 1888; moreover, Wikipedia has several articles about persons named Mark Sullivan. You posted at the Wikipedia Help Desk that you noticed this problem when you type your name. Are you saying that when you do an Internet search of your name, a particular Wikipedia article shows up first in the search results? Is the Wikipedia article about you or is it about someone else you might have the same name as you? If the article is about you, it would be helpful if you could provide the name of the article so that someone can review it. If the article is about someone else, then there's not really anything that Wikipedia can do about it showing up in Internet search results. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Counter request-Blocking OP
I'm requesting to block OP, since they are clearly not here to build. All edits can be considered as disruptive or vandalism. I didn't find anything related to harm them on wiki and they are incompetence for communicating. I suspected someone may post something on miraheze? wikia? about them, but they came to the wrong place. -Lemonaka 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The OP has stated at the Help Desk that they have a lawyer looking into this, and has been provided the info email there and a link to T&S on their talkpage. CMD (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

On June 13, I informed User:Göycen about the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.[20]

Göycen still made several POV pushing edits in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles after the warning.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

On June 17, Rosguill gave Göycen another contentious topics warning.[28]

More reverting and POV pushing in AA articles after second warning.[29][30][31] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtoghI have not been warned by you. that was a mistake as you wrote on the page Talk:Caucasian_dragon_carpets. I have not changed anything on the pages, only reverted the changes from the block-evading sockpuppet IP address, by going through 100s of edits on my free time as stated on each edit did not reverted changes by other users or bots. Everything can be traced.

As an extended confirmed user and a person who is more informed about Armenian topics than I am, you have the right to revert my changes instead of creating a complaint. I also told Rosguill that I have not made any political changes. Every edit I made was from the same user, who is well known for changing sources according to his gut feeling. Göycen (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Your examples are unfortunately cherry-picked. I suggest you compare them with the changes made by the IP address. There are obvious instances of vandalism that I have reverted in some of your examples. Göycen (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• So, given that the edits since the CTOPS warning appear to have been limited to reverting an IP that was itself violating GS/AA, I'm a bit disinclined to sanction. That having been said, Göycen, GS/AA (and all other topic restrictions) are broadly construed--they are not limited to "political" edits. You are expected to stay away from topics relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan entirely until you are extended-confirmed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I understand. In case of future IP edits, I will let @KhndzorUtogh and others know to either revert the changes or review them until I receive my extended confirmation. Göycen (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is Goycen WP:GAMING the rules by making over a hundred useless article move edits in the past day to reach 500 edits, then going straight to reverting AA articles again? Göycen used the same "misspelled"/"misundertandings" edit summary for all of these moves, a lot of which were counterproductive (there was only one article called Gerdibi so it did not need to be moved to Gerdibi, Aladağ). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that is clear GAMING, and many (potentially even all?) of the page moves are clearly in contradiction to our article title policies. EC status revoked indefinitely as an arbitration enforcement action, appealable no sooner than 3 months. I would add that correcting any erroneous page moves will be considered favorably on appeal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have been reviewing many of Göycen's edits and they aren't constructive to say the least. From unexplained removal of sourced content, removing relevant hyperlinks, and POV pushing by removing anything referencing "Armenia" or "Armenians" on several articles. This is quite concerning. I believe stricter action is required at this point. Archives908 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, according to Wikipedia guidelines, I have the right to make those edits. Since the person who was writing had a POV, it is normal for you to see those words. By "Goycen's edits," you most likely mean my reverts of a banned (evaded many times) sockpuppetted source, which, according to this topic, have to be reverted. What you are doing by reverting my changes without changing anything inside is simply saying that the above-mentioned IP address had the right to do all he wanted. Göycen (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please go through edits of @‎Augmented Seventh, because today he also rightfully reverted same person. You might wanna take your stricker action against him as well, instead not doing anything to obviously proarmenian pov pushing ip adresses edits in last 6 months. it is really easy to write WP:GS/AA. I am wondering what were you guys doing last 6 months.

  my only obviously sided edit was on borchaly sultanate page which i did not reverted because i know where i was wrong. for the future edits i took always third opinion. Göycen (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, it is not a requirement to remove the edits of a banned sockpuppet. Sometimes, those people actually added useful, sourced info. What the editors you're complaining about have done is effectively endorsed the edits as valid information. Your next step is to go to the article Talk pages to dispute the information, not to clamor for other editors to be punished. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note that this may be at least partially related to #Reverting pages to vandalized version, Pov pushing Archives908, below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  That looks like a WP:WITCHHUNT. None of those Archives908 edits can be considered vandalism. And Goycen made that section after HandThatFeeds explained that reverting sockpuppet edits isn't a requirement. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone who checks your edits and compares them with mine over the last few days can see who is witch-hunting. As a person who is closely watching my edits, you probably know what I have been doing better than anyone. You have been talking only about me for the past seven days.

  I would appreciate it if you could check the message where you first "warned" me. Look at the edit you referred to there. You accused me of someone else's edit and started your story with that. Göycen (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  And here you appear with your magic wand and revert to vandalised version of banned ip adress. Göycen (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you still don't realize that you were warned for WP:GS/AA, twice, got revoked of EC for gaming it, and are now intentionally omitting full context for an article entirely unrelated to my point about WP:WITCHHUNT reporting users for "vandalism" (despite the comment to you by HandThatFeeds), then it's just incompetence on your part. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think @HandThatFeeds talked directly about this case, he did a general statement. which you can see even in quora.

  edits that i gave as an example was after HandThatFeeds's text. Please check the timeline. Göycen (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Göycen I was trying to be polite. And you'll note I said, directly to you, Your next step is to go to the article Talk pages to dispute the information, not to clamor for other editors to be punished. You need to discuss these edits and gain consensus, rather than continue removing them yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  You do not need to be polite. In Turkish we have saying "One fool threw a stone into a well, and forty wise men couldn't get it out." I have already talked to banned person and several times detected misuse and temperament of sources by same person. According to WP:GS/AA those edits should be reverted. Without checking my edits and talks please do not comment on this issue. I am not asking you to punish anyone just be fair and tell the truth. You can see above who clamor. Göycen (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your combative attitude is not helping. You'll either discuss the edits in the future or be blocked. That's it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please block me, but write your causes extensively. Göycen (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks KhndzorUtogh! What is abundantly clear is that Göycen isn't here to genuinely WP:BUILD this encyclopedia. From POV pushing, unexplained removal of content, unexplained additions of unsourced material, ignoring warnings from multiple editors, and now the witch hunt launched against myself, it is evident that this user isn't adhering to Wiki ethos. Hopeful that Admins will take appropriate action. Archives908 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck guys. All my logs are there, have nothing to hide. :) Göycen (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

Reverting pages to vandalized version, Pov pushing Archives908

(Note:This is at least partially related to #Repeated WP:GS/AA violations, above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC))

Thanks for linking- this is clearly a retaliatory move by the user after my participation in the conversation brought against them. Archives908 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Archives908 My questions are clear; we are talking about actions. Please do not take this personally, and there is no need to change the direction of the discussion.

Do you know what stable version means? Göycen (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, When a page vandalized, most natural thing to do is to revert latest stable version, but there is something else going here.

I would like to bring to your attention some recent edits made by Archives908. This user has been reverting my edits, which were reverts of vandalism by an IP address. For example, what is the reason for this revert? There is no source or explanation provided edit. In the page history, until the vandalism by the IP address, there was no mention of Armenians. Now, this editor is adding unsourced content to Wikipedia. Why does the definition have a POV, when it is an obvious case of POV pushing?

Additionally, this person reverts my vandalism-reverts again. They delete Azerbaijani information, which existed from the beginning, and the person is Azerbaijani, ironically. They revert to the obviously vandalized version. Here again they remove sourced content and add back unsourced IP vandalism which I reverted. Can you please check this?

Here is an example of section blanking which i reverted before.

Here is another one. What is the source and reason for adding the Armenian writing? This person's(the ip adress that i reverted) favorite act of vandalism is to go and change alphabets, which I have reverted many times. They add not only Armenian but also Azerbaijani, Polish, etc. According to their rationale, if a nationality has a name (they added an Armenian there), they should introduce the writing system as well.--Göycen (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You do not appear to have attempted to discuss these concerns with them, can you try doing that first? – 2804:F1...87:A818 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you probably forgot to login. Göycen (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

When here according to the description, WP:RS is required (which is totally normal to ask for), how come this page does not require it and is simply reverted? Asking for a source is normal, but when it comes to POV, it is not. Göycen (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Göycen, your extended confirmed status was removed, I'm not sure that you should be making any edits in this subject area or you could be sanctioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Liz, I have not done any edits after removal. Göycen (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Boogi wu and their hoaxes

Though Boogi wu (talk · contribs) has been blocked and locked years ago, I found some of their hoaxes are still in the current article.
For example

1. Flags of the Holy Roman Empire, section of 14th century, the banner are still the one they added as "King of the Romans"
2. Church of Greece, the founder are still the one they changed as Dionysius the Areopagite (tradition)

Is there any sysop or common user who are familiar with history can reviewed their edits one by one? These hoaxes are scattered on Middle Age history. Or, where should I post this notice on? -Lemonaka 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If you feel certain that you see hoax or false information in an, article, you are free to remove it yourself, no need to wait for an admin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You should notify WikiProject Middle Ages of this cleanup, where the notice should last at least 30 days instead of 3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That project is likely inactive, I wondered who may see this notice? -Lemonaka 01:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

LTA MakaveliReed 3

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• 2601:240:DE00:740:31D0:D727:BE95:9FDE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Back from the last block, now that it ended. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

AmechiUdoba1

Since its creation two months ago, the user AmechiUdoba1 (talk · contribs) has made a series of questionable edits on pages related to Nigeria. Although there have been a few simple mistakes typical of new editors, there appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non-Igbo ethnic groups and their languages.

To cite a few examples of AmechiUdoba1's conduct:

1. South East (Nigeria) and South South: For context, these two regions are a "geopolitical zones" in Nigeria; the SE roughly lines up with Igboland but includes a few other ethnicities while the South South is extremely ethnically diverse. AmechiUdoba1 first came to my attention when the account (and an aligned IP) removed a language from the South East page without reason. This is a common tactic that has been employed several times before on geopolitical zone pages, with ethnic jingoist accounts associated with major ethnic groups removing the languages of minorities (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). It is a good mark for a user that is not here to build an encyclopedia and was a key piece of evidence in the eventual blockings of two similar users (1, 2). On the South East page, the account first removed English from the page before deleting almost all non-Igbo languages yesterday. To continue this trend of ethnically-charged edits, on the South South page AmechiUdoba1 just removed two languages without reason — likely a slight against ethnic Yoruba people (another large Nigerian ethnicity) and a denial of the Ogba language's existence (Igbo jingoists often attempt to categorize all Igboid languages as Igbo).
   1. Similar AmechiUdoba1 edits are now afflicting other pages: Ngwa people (replacing Ngwa dialect with Igbo language) and Ilorin (removing Yoruba as its language despite adding Igbo for a dozen cities).
2. Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State: For context, these two states are mainly non-Igbo but were included in the Igbo-dominated breakaway state of Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War. Both pages had a sentence stating that Biafran forces persecuted inhabitants due to their ethnicity — backed up by a journal source which AmechiUdoba1 did not remove or contest; AmechiUdoba1 twice switched the words on the pages, changing it to "Nigerian forces." Not claiming that Nigerian forces did not commit atrocities, but the removal of Biafran crimes is a not not-too-subtle attempt to whitewash one side's wartime atrocities.
3. Rivers State: A combination of the ethnic and linguistic edits by simply trying to remove the Ikwerre group and their language from the page. Ikwerre is another group alternatively classified as either a related ethnic group or an Igbo subgroup so AmechiUdoba1's goal seems to be denying their existence.

Although this is a relatively new account, there is reason to fear further disruptive and biased editing as its already graduated to inflating population statistics (another common vandal move on Nigerian pages). Similar accounts left without sanction have led to havoc on Nigerian pages with editors having to revert months of sourceless changes once they were finally found out. There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:DTParker1000's tendentious editing of Rio Grande 223

ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Wikipedia in which the boomerang principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing Requests for Arbitration concerning a historic train.

• DTParker1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rio Grande 223 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on Rio Grande 223, and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including User:Xboxtravis7992, removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. . I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a Request for Arbitration on 19 March 2024, [[32]], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation. JTParker1000 has now filed a second Request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio_Grande_223, with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.

ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This guy is an absolute menace. He can't be reasoned with - I would know, because I'm among the many who tried. He continues to labor under the mindset that if he appeals high enough, surely someone will intervene in his favor, which is nonsense since the matter is a content dispute, and every other editor who has weighed in disagrees with him. That he continues to waste everyone's time in this manner rather than doing literally anything else shows he is not compatible with Wikipedia, because he cannot work with other people. Take a look at the giant wall of WP:IDHT he wrote at Talk:Rio Grande 223/Archive 1. He needs an indef. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Other than in regards to this incident, DTParker1000 has never been blocked. Their one block is a partial block for the article in question. While their edit count is low, they've been on the project for 14 years. Longevity does not confer special treatment, but I think it's a bit of a leap to go from a partial block to a sitewide block without a final warning. I've given them the final warning, but they've not edited since. I think it's sufficient to leave it at that. If they persist in their behavior, myself or another administrator will likely indef them until they agree to drop the stick and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We can wait and see for the moment, but I'm very skeptical we will see any change in behavior. If this continues any further, I think an indef will become the only option. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that an indef is the only option. It might or might not be the best option, but a topic ban from discussing Rio Grande 223 anywhere on Wikipedia (excluding replies to explicit questions about it in discussions about their conduct) with enforcement by the usual method of escalating blocks is at the very least an option and one I think worthy of consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've asked them on their talk page if they would agree to voluntary tban, but upon looking further it seems clear that they often make a few edits and then go inactive for a few months. That being the case, I think an involuntary topic ban is the appropriate sanction. If they break it, blocks will follow. It looks like their edits outside of this one area are fine, they just need to drop the stick on this issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

This edit Special:Diff/1229910692 looks to me to be more than a bit racist. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In the context of that discussion this is fair enough responding to an earlier remark. If you think the statement is incorrect you can argue about it on the RSN. But it is relevant to the debate there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Massive edits by suspected sockpuppet Ip adress

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

---

Hi, I already filed a sockpuppet investigation due to the size of the edits made by Special:Contributions/93.199.244.40. To ensure a quick response, I would like to file a complaint here. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the changes currently being made by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Göycen (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I just revert your vandlism. Most of these versions have already been accepted by administrators and even been accepted in talk pages of the articles, like in Pastirma. Your approach is awful. @KhndzorUtogh can check our edits and see who is right, now stop edit warring Göycen. 93.199.244.40 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Abuse log of the user can be seen here. Göycen (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• The report is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2003:EA:4F00:0:0:0:0:0.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Jomadodgh possible block evasion

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

This user has made three edits so far to the pages Dodol, Bilqis Prasista and Ketoprak (dish). In all three cases, the edit summary was yama nene or a variation upon it.

User:Kumananah was blocked on 30 April 2024 and User:Its oke wae was blocked on 2 April 2024 both for making similar edits which used the same edit summaries. Other accounts have engaged in the same editing behaviour, particularly at the Bilqis Prasista article but I am listing the most recent diffs for expediency.

• Ketoprak (dish)

• Edit by Kumananah at 10:21, 21 March 2024
• Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:53, 20 June 2024

• Bilqis Prasista

• Edit by Its oke way at 15:01, 2 April 2024
• Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:54, 20 June 2024

• Dodol

• Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:56, 20 June 2024

Based on these edits, I think it is reasonable to assume that this is an attempt at evading a block and that these accounts are all sockpuppets of each other. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This should be reported at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course it should have been, sorry. Will move it over to there shortly. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

SurrealDB speedy deleted after significant changes

Hello, I am the author of SurrealDB which was recently deleted after an AfD. I was able to undelete the page and draftify it for the purposes of improving the article and moving it to mainspace after the database had received enough notability.

Interestingly, shortly after the article was deleted, the company raised $20m USD after another investment round, alongside the launch of their "Cloud" beta announcement. Plus I found a number of new sources further establishing notability.

I don't blame anyone, because it was recreated quickly after the AfD so I can understand why it might appear as circumventing the AfD process - however my intention was not to do that, and I believe the article would now survive an AfD since the article had undergone more significant changes, and addition of new sources.

I would like to have this article undergo a new AfD instead of speedy deletion. Mr Vili talk 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not the proper forum for this request. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies Mr Vili talk 11:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I restored it to draft for you to work on, however it should now go through WP:AFC. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite I can't seem to find it, can you link? Mr Vili talk 11:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I believe you undeleted it after it was moved to mainspace by another user, but then after making improvements to the page, I believe I moved it to mainspace again, and was deleted by another admin (I believe incorrectly) under WP:G4 Mr Vili talk 11:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I also believe WP:G4 was not properly used here, as the article was significantly changed from the version deleted through AFD. I've restored the article and moved it to Draft:SurrealDB again. As previously advised, please submit this article through the AFC process; if it's recreated in mainspace again without being approved by an independent AFC reviewer, it most likely will be deleted again. I have protected both pages only to save the admin work if you bypass this process again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Ivanvector Mr Vili talk 23:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask on what grounds Mr vili considered it in any way appropriate to remove multiple sections of comment from the draft talk page, without archiving: [33] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like they copied the source table from the AFD, and overwrote the existing discussions by accident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My ability to AGF with regards to this particular contributor is somewhat strained. An 'accident' that removes significant negative feedback from contributors seems a little too convenient to me. At least it does, after taking into consideration some of the other problematic behaviour I've seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I did not delete it, I have never even seen any of that content until the talk page was undeleted for the 2nd time. Mr Vili talk 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source table was not copied from the AfD. [34] The source table there (created by another AfD participant) was entirely different, and demonstrated how the sources then being cited were in no way sufficient to demonstrate notability. There are a few sources cited in both tables, though now with Mr Vili's positive spin, rather than the original critique. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to see what people here think of this comment by Mr Vili on the draft talk page: [35] Little room for AGF there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s no way there’s no COI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's possibly a case of very enthusiastic advocacy, but when I last ran into the SurrealDB article in January I had serious doubts too. I don't know. StereoFolic (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@StereoFolic that claim was based on the growth in GitHub stars, which I had no issue removing. It is true I am enthusiastic about SurrealDB. There is no COI Mr Vili talk 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is true you deleted that after some back-and-forth on the talk page, however I was disappointed to you see you make that exact same claim during the AfD discussion when I thought we had reached an understanding that the claim was from an unreliable source (a reprinted press release) and not a meaningful metric for determining notability. Honestly, noticing you repeating that claim is the only reason I still follow this dispute (that and you keep on recreating the page so it keeps on showing up in my watchlist). Given your activity on other pages makes it clear you are not a WP:SPA, I am inclined to believe you have no COI, but please try to understand why everyone is so skeptical. StereoFolic (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look at our interaction history, its constantly you arguing and criticising every action I take. You are acting against the interests of the encyclopedia. Please find something new to do @AndyTheGrump. Mr Vili talk 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Doubling down, I see. As for the interests of the encyclopaedia, we can talk about that if you like. Starting with your persistent use of it to promote imaginary countries , and your inability to understand Wikipedia sourcing policy. Do you really think that if you keep citing it often enough [36][37] people will think that a website (lightsquare.org) run by the 'Government of Lumina' (see [38]) is a reliable source for anything but complete bullshit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not overwrite the discussions, they were not recovered when the page was undeleted by an administrator, the talk page I created was initially empty Mr Vili talk 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The diff says otherwise. [39] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am claiming the page was empty when I created it, perhaps an administrator forgot to undelete it so I am not sure. Mr Vili talk 08:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

For further evidence of problematic editing by Mr Vili, see Claude-3.5, created by him today. And then compare the claim in the lede "It is the first model to surpass GPT-4o in a majority of benchmarks, making it the current leading state-of-the-art general model" with what the sources cited ([40][41][42]) actually say. The article is entirely promotional, regurgitating the developer company's claims as fact, and as far as I can see, utterly redundant, since we already have an article on Claude (language model). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump The claim is entirely credible. Please find any source that claims otherwise.

We also have GPT-3.5 GPT-3 GPT-4 GPT-4o and so on. Clearly documenting the world's leading AI models is a very important topic. Mr Vili talk 08:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't <redacted> if you think the claim is 'credible.' You cannot use sources that state that the developer claims something for a statement in Wikipedia's voice that asserts that the claims are true. Never. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. We do not lie about what sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but please mind the tone. StereoFolic (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Redacted... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument here.Procyon117 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another garbage article from Mr Vili: Safe Superintelligence Inc. This is nothing more than a glorified press release. Someone is starting a company. That's all it tells us. Not the slightest claim to notability. Nothing. At this juncture I am beginning to suspect that Mr Vili is tying to provoke people, trying to make some sort of point. If it isn't that, it is gross incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn’t create that one, but just added one line of text and a “source” to it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this thread, but i created the page. If you're unsure about the notability of my garbage, take it to AfD. NotAGenious (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for misattributing the article to Mr Vili, though my comments about the 'article' stand. We seem to have a serious problem with regard to notability criteria and sourcing requirements being ignored for IT companies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I beleive the notability comes from the founder, Ilya Sutskever, whom has been key person to the progression of AI over the past 10 years. It is still early tho and nothing but announcement about the founding and a plan has come out. TagKnife (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, notability cannot be derived that way. That is just absurd. We don't create a new article for everything an 'notable' person does. Not remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

An administrator seriously needs to look at @AndyTheGrump who appears to have a personal quarrel with me on every single article that I am involved in, it's getting tiring now. Mr vili talk 19:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

sanitisation of page / heavy editing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Fischer

this page has recently been heavily edited and needs investigation. its been sanitised and is now inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.110.236 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear an unambiguous conflict of interest here. The article subject has edited the article themselves and declared that they are the subject on the article talk page. I'm taking a look through the diffs and checking all of the edits were appropriate. At a glance, several edits need to be reverted. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, please be aware of our stringent policy on biographies of living people. Gossip, speculation and innuendo are not permitted. I removed a BLP violation from the talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam Black, why did you restore the content sourced to Geni.com, a user generated genealogy record? Is that appropriate? It looks like original research to me. Cullen328 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I restored the page back to before the COI editor started editing and then subsequently removed that portion. Unless I've missed a second use of that reference, I'll double check now. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've correctly removed that reference ([43]). I can't see any further use of Geni.com. I was going to now fully copyedit the article, verify the references, and make changes to comply with BLP policy as necessary but my partner has just arrived home early and I have to get started on dinner. I can finish doing so later this evening unless someone else wants to take a look at the article in the meantime. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam Black. I looks to me like IP editors are trying to portray this person in a negative light and she is trying to defend herself somewhat ineptly. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Contested RfC Close

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

---

I wish to challenge the June 18 closure for parts two and three of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League. The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024. The editor invited challenges to the close on ANI. Despite the June 18 closure of the entire RfC, and after an ANI discussion was started that focused on part one, about 14 new editors went to “part two” and left additional responses to the survey. Clearly, these new editors felt there was still merit in further discussion.

But others, such as me, obeyed the dictate to not participate and waited for the challenge at ANI to resolve. We can’t know how many others refrained from participating. This is particularly germane in my case because the ADL just asked me for advice as an unpaid consultant last night. I refrained from posting on the RfC. Starting a separate challenge to the close on parts 2 and 3 seemed premature given there was still a very active discussion of part 1. User: The Wordsmith closed the discussion on part one on June 20. Wordsmith then went to part two and left this message: “Close in progress: The Wordsmith is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted within a day or so.”

Simply disregarding survey responses after June 18 does not seem wise given some of these responses are substantive. But other editors have now been warned twice - by Wordsmith and Scottish - to stop participating. I also went ahead and just left a comment now that I know 14 others already disregarded the closure admonition I would like to propose that the RfC for parts two and three be reopened for discussion, and any decision postponed until substantive discussion of the survey concludes. BC1278 (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• This seems like an attempt to WP:Wikilawyer by an editor with a declared COI and should be disregarded. Closure of a discussion that has been open for 2 months is overdue, not premature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• This statement is false: The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024. DanCherek (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, I was just closing the out-of-place discussion on challenging the close of section 1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024: There seems to be some misunderstanding. ScottishFinnishRadish only closed the subthread discussing the closure of part 1. Other un-closed subthreads remained open after June 18, and The Wordsmith posted the notice boxes about in-progress closures for parts 2 and 3 on June 20. I don't think The Wordsmith has expressed any plans to disregard survey responses after June 18. I suppose don't know what would become of additional responses now that the closures are indicated to be in progress; the notices don't prohibit additional commenting, after all. I grant that I can't help but think that doing so seems like it'd be kind of impolite to The Wordsmith, who has committed to take on the time-consuming task of carefully reading the already very long threads, analyzing the arguments, and describing what the community's consensus is or isn't. Since all three parts had been have been open for comment from the Wikipedia community since April 7, and since this is building on other long discussions, it's hard to think that closure would be premature or that substantive discussion hasn't already taken place. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• A close review of discussions that haven't yet been closed... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• I think this discussion should just be closed to avoid a WP:WASTEOFTIME. There is nothing to resolve as the RfC in question (Part 2 and 3) hasn't even been closed, as referenced above. The obvious suggestion would be to wait for the RfC to close before contesting, as there is otherwise no reason to contest the imminent closure of an overdue RfC because the subject has something to say. All I see is defamation of an admin, ie claiming they closed a contentious RfC when they didn't, as it still remains open. CNC (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:GenevieveDEon

@GenevieveDEon has attempted to accuse me of targeting them, over a basic CTOPS notice for climate change.

Notice on their talk page about climate change and a climate-change protest being a contentious topic: [44]

GenevieveDEon nominated a climate change protest article for deletion (Vandalism of Stonehenge, a protest by Just Stop Oil). The nomination was perfectly acceptable and allowed. However, in the nomination, GenevieveDEon focused on the article creator (myself) of WP:OWN, over a false accusation that I did not want the scope to be expanded. As a note, the single comment I made on the talk page ([45]) was replying to Ad Orientem who questioned the notability of the article. I stated it seemed to pass LASTING, but we should reassess in a week to see if it passes LASTING and the 10-year test. Not once did I mention "scope", and yet, I was accused of doing so in the AfD nomination.

When confronted regarding the false accusation, GenevieveDEon gave some interesting answers, including more accusations. GenevieveDEon responded that I was targetting them by giving them their first CTOPICS notice for climate change. I gave it for a very appropriate reason, (and editor with just over 500 edits who started an AFD on a climate change protest). In that same response, it was also stated as clear as day by GenevieveDEon: "I also note that WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest (bolding my doing).

After this targeting accusation, I quickly alerted them that CTOPICS is just a required thing: "The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you." Despite that notice, GenevieveDEon continued pressing the matter and doubled down saying, "I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation."

After giving them a chance to strike their doubled down accusations, GenevieveDEon stood by their word saying, "No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands."

This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand CTOPICS and wants to personally attack people, even when it is stated that it is a required thing. GenevieveDEon just recently acquired their EC status (early June 2024 as far as I can tell), and they are editing heavily now in a contentious topic. Given they have directly stated a protest regarding climate change by Just Stop Oil is not related to climate change and that the standard CTOPICS notice was considered targeting to them, I believe they are not truly ready to edit in CTOPICS areas. My suggestion would be either a formal warning/alert that CTOPIC notifications are required and that a climate protest does indeed related to climate change (this is my preferred request) or if it is indeed felt by the community/others that GenevieveDEon is not ready for CTOPICS, that their EC status be revoked (I do not feel this is necessary). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's late here, and I'm not particularly interested in wikilawyering. If contentious topic flags are mandatory, and you knew that, why did you not put one on the article that you yourself had created, until after I had nominated it for deletion? This just looks like a way to interfere with the AfD process. I already said that on closer examination the removals of large blocks of other content were to do with other users' POV-pushing, so you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about WP:OWN issues. But this is a lot of verbiage about a very insignificant article, about a very insignificant event. Please back down and let the AfD run its course. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

ETA: The top of this page says "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Which of those do you think my actions count as? GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership (without providing a single Wikilink to my supposed ownership) over an article, which I myself supported to merge in the supposed AFD. Funny enough, after doing a count of direct comments in the AFD, you happen to have seven unique comments while I have five (three of which are in the coversation between myself and you) in the AFD). Now you have accused me of interfering in the AFD, OWNing the article, and accused me a POV-pushing. Lol. I want others to comment on your behavior, but I am tempted to switch my supported/proposed action away from a simple warning into more of a T-Ban. Please stop accusing me of things when I haven't done anything but follow the rules. You were not the only editor to receive a CTOPICS notice either. Several other editors did as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership - no, that's the opposite of what I meant. By you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about WP:OWN issues I meant that I wasn't taking that line any more. I'd have done the same as you (and another editor) did with the additional content you removed. I also haven't said anything at all about you and POV-pushing; again, the mention of POV-pushing was in reference to the users who wanted to make the Vandalism of Stonehenge article into something to do with the road tunnel. But your level of aggression about this is wearisome. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I misread what you put. You are correct, you seem to not be accusing me of anything anymore. Still sad it took opening a discussion at AN/I to get you to understand that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this is all talked out which is great. Weather Event Writer it looks like you are rather quick to escalate minor disputes into visits to noticeboards which can be unnecessary stressful for multiple parties and can be seen as a way of manipulating the understanding of how events unfold. I'd try talking more and don't expect editors to immediately understand the points you are trying to make. Most editors do not immediately warm to being corrected and you should expect some pushback. ANI should be your last resort, not a place you bring disputes that just haven't gone your way. And this is not casting aspersions I've just noticed that you have opened at least two cases here this week. Believe me, it's not a great thing to be seen as an ANI regular. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Liz, if I may ask a question, what should I have done differently in these type of situations? Talking it out didn't really happen until it was started at AN/I (as seen in the timestamps). To use this as an example, GenevieveDEon stood their ground, even after being linked to correct policy. Once it was brought here, GenevieveDEon talked it out. In those sitations, instead of coming to AN/I, where is the best place to do to get the "talking it out" to occur, if initial talks don't go anywhere and result in more escalation? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk Page Access Needs Reviewing: Ironcurtain2

After being blocked for WP:NOTHERE and a declined request for an unblock [46], Ironcurtain2 has used their talk page mainly to go on screeds about administrator corruption [47]and to continue insulting Valjean [48]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, please note that I had a very brief communication with this editor, in that I earlier suggested to the editor that it would be a good idea to remove a particularly bad edit they had made to their talk page, so I am not completely uninvolved [49]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The talk page is turning into a regular clusterf##k of content unrelated to appealing the indef block. Please clear the excess and lock the page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking now EvergreenFir (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is my impression that all the teapots have stopped whistling and that Ironcurtain2 has had their say. I see no need to block talk page access (yet). That said, it wouldn't take much more for me to support such a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Harassment from VPN

I came online to check my watchlist and get notified that 16 of my edits have been reverted. Each reversion is to an individual article, and all of the articles are then immediately restored to the status quo ante. The edits originate from different IPs in Lagos, Nigeria, that correspond to a VPN provider, Zenlayer Inc.

• 98.98.197.162 (4)
• 98.98.197.194 (6)
• 98.98.197.216 (5)

That's just today.

Yesterday, we had three from 98.98.197.196, and the day before I had one from 98.98.197.215. On Monday there was one from 98.98.197.168 and two from 98.98.197.163. Thus far, that makes 22 reversions and restorations, all originating from IPs from the same company.

This may or may not be connected to the Bluebird207 situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IP editor confessing to harassment on behalf of a registered user. In both situations, VPN-based IPs were involved.

Given that the person behind this is hopping IPs, please advise me on where/how I should attempt to notify them. I will notify Bluebird207's talk page as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Contributions/174.206.169.95 to that list. Dave (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 98.98.197.128/24 x 3 months. Moabdave has blocked 174.206.169.95 x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I went with a shorter block as I wasn't 100% sure this was the same person. But it looks like they are the same person. I'll up my block to 3 months to match yours, unless someone objects. Dave (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moabdave I based my block on the almost total lack of constructive editing within that range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Publius Obsequium disruption

Publius Obsequium (talk · contribs)

Publius Obsequium has been active since June 2024 adding unreliable content to many articles including Life satisfaction, Hypnotherapy, Gender dysphoria, Sex differences in intelligence, Flynn effect, ‎Joseph of Cupertino, Driving while black, Intelligence (journal), race and genetics and others which is soaking up other users time by having to clean up after them. Often this user will either add fringe or primary sources to articles that fail WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV. At first they started restoring their deleted content but now they simply ignore any advice they were given and go and find a new target article and add in more unreliable content. After their content is removed then they just move on to another article and do the same again. This has been going on now for nearly 3 weeks.

If you scan through their edits since early June almost every edit they have made has been reverted in mainspace. There is a consistent pattern of disruption here and I am surprised they have not been blocked before now. At least 5 users have explained them where they are going wrong, but they do not listen to said advice. Examples of warnings can be seen on their talk-page [50] [51] which they have not properly acknowledged.

I first encountered this user on the Joseph of Cupertino article where they were adding unreliable content which several users took issue with. The user has made it clear that they believe fringe science is a subjective opinion so they ignore WP:Fringe guidelines. This user only seems to want to edit controversial or fringe related articles related to race and intelligence, gender or fringe and alternative medicine.

If all this was just happening on 1 or 2 articles and they moved on and admitted to their mistakes it could be excused but it has been going on for far too long now. I am not convinced the editor has been acting in good faith. I believe that a topic ban on fringe related content would be appropriate here.

Just a few examples where they have added fringe/unreliable/undue content [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have earnestly and in good faith been trying to learn how things work as I have not been active for a long time. I have shifted my edits on sources to include secondary work as has been recommended to me. Not all messages to me have been addressed but that is simply because I have forgotten to respond, as I have multiple people trying to talk to me.

psychologist guy has not interacted with me previously beyond a couple of edit reversions, and now wants to escalate things to a topic ban. Fine, it appears I need to learn more about Wikipedia conduct before touching controversial topics. I do not wish to cause anyone frustration. Publius Obsequium (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

PO is formally aware of gender/sexuality and race/intelligence contentious topics, and their disruption in both is TBAN-worthy. If they are willing to take on a TBAN from both of those and fringe-related content, I'd be happy to see how they fare in less controversial spaces. The reverting without explanation needs to stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

i would rather just voluntarily desist from editing in any controversial topics. I think it should be noted that I did see the warning on my talk page about these topics being controversial and I avoided making further edits to them subsequently. Publius Obsequium (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the contentious topic notices on 11 June, you've made edits/comments related to multiple gender/sexuality topics (e.g., Gender dysphoria, Kenneth Zucker, Susan Coates, David Reimer) and race/intelligence topics (Nations and IQ, Flynn effect). I think the fact that you're so incorrect here is a sign that formal topic bans, and not voluntary restrictions, are necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect I did not make any edits to Nations and IQ. The Flynn effect is not a topic I would consider as falling under the umbrella of controversial. I think the only one that would be considered controversial is gender dysphoria, and yes I recognize that I should have seen that as being too controversial to jump into the fray on and I apologize for that. Publius Obsequium (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Firefangledfeathers that voluntary restrictions are not enough — they rarely are. Publius Obsequium should not be the one to determine what topics or articles are controversial and then to avoid only those, as they attempt to do above ("The Flynn effect is not a topic I would consider as falling under the umbrella of controversial"). I support formal t-bans from gender/sexuality, race/intelligence, and pseudoscience ("fringe-related content", as Feathers calls it). As far as gender/sexuality and race/intelligence, it's not necessary to await a community consensus here, since PO was formally alerted to them as contentious topics on June 11. Firefangledfeathers, you know you can set those two tbans on your own authority as an uninvolved admin, right? I'd recommend it. Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

Sorry Bish, I'm hopelessly involved here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Feathers, I didn't understand that. Well, I invited you to do it more as a courtesy, because you were the first admin to comment; I'm certainly not involved, and can just as well do it myself. Done. Publius Obsequium has been indefinitely topic banned from gender/sexuality and race/intelligence. Bishonen | tålk 12:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

The 'Zilla was released... and bright colours returned to the world  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Publius Obsequium has blanked their talk-page within half an hour of receiving notice of the the topic ban [57]. Obviously it is their talk-page and they can do what they want but this type of behaviour is just odd. Thanks for the help from admins. This issue has been resolved for now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not odd at all. Others will assume that, having just been twice TBanned, they wish to draw a line under events and make a fresh start and new memories. ——Serial Number 54129 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING and WP:TENDENTIOUS by User:ThoughtIdRetired on Austronesian-related topics

• Talk:Square rig#Austronesian content June 2022 (our first interaction)
• Talk:Crab claw sail#Date of first crab claw sail July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Ships and sailing section July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Questionable statement July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Nature of Austronesian farming July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Origin of first settlement of Marianas August 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Arab lateen December 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#lakana January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Pottery section January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#The "long pause" with a possible maritime technology explanation January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Substitute paragraph January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Misrepresentation of references January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Dates for domestic pigs, dogs and chickens as part of the "Austronesian package" February 2023
• Talk:Rig (sailing)#Junk rigs May 2024
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Over-confident assertions June 2024

Examples of his edits (more numerous than talk page discussions). I don't have the time to hunt for all of them. I have never looked at his contribs before, so I'm probably missing a lot. Basically every edit he does on Austronesian-related topics since our first interaction.

• Sail
• Polynesian navigation
• Sailing ship
• Crab claw sail
• Trade route
• Lashed lug boat
• Junk (ship)
• Austronesian vessels
• Lug sail
• Maritime history
• Peopling of Southeast Asia
• Shipbuilding
• Maritime timeline
• Maritime Southeast Asia
• All of his edits on Austronesian peoples

We first interacted in Square rig, where we fought over his insistence that the scope only applied to European ships during the Age of Sail (because apparently other sails don't have English names). I let that go since I was in the minority. Afterwards, he started specifically going after Austronesian articles and my contributions. The most egregious of which are multiple topics he opened in Talk:Austronesian peoples, which is still ongoing. Apparently something about the fact that Austronesians crossed oceans thousands of years before Europeans (which I mentioned in our first dispute) ticked him off, and he's been attacking that fact ever since. He has been challenging literally everything he can challenge, by any means. Examples of his behavior:

• Changing the wording (prefering to keep it vague and noncommittal if possible, like claiming something was "over-long" as an excuse to remove things)
• Removing references he doesn't like (certain peer-reviewed papers/books he claims subjectively is "poor" or "old"). He recently attempted to enshrine this practice in our guidelines unilaterally while hiding his conflict of interest in using the method for content disputes.
• Attacking authors he doesn't like (he thinks if an author's hypothesis gets disproven from new data, that it means that everything the author has written, even unrelated, is now unreliable, this applies most notably to George Hourani)
• Attributing Austronesian technologies to everyone else but Austronesians (Europeans, Negritos, Papuans, Chinese), depending on what paper he happens to misread. He particularly likes one source, which he has repeatedly pushed, that claims Polynesians copied European ships (doesn't matter if it's fringe)
• Removing images and maps, pointedly changing captions like here, and here
• Tagging (necessitating me to reread sources I've forgotten for years, only to find out he just doesn't like the paraphrasing)
• Moving goalposts, he challenges a claim, when that doesn't work, he challenges the wording, challenges the references, challenges the author, and the most frustrating: just claims it's not really known because there's no direct evidence and the experts are just imagining things, etc.

Some misleadingly follow a procedure. Tagging something, then removing the entire thing after no one notices it. Or removing a reference for unrelated reasons, then removing the then unreferenced sentence. Or opening a topic in the talk, then removing it when no one replies. Impossible to prevent and challenge in time, given the number of articles he does this on. Unless I dedicate my entire time here just following him around. Which is probably the point.

I initially replied to his challenges, which often involved rereading lengthy sources, only to find out he's just misinterpreting, synthesizing, or making up nonsense. This discussion on his changes in the pottery section is typical of his challanges and his tendency to move the goalposts. He first inserted a sentence that misrepresented a source by omitting certain details from the authors' conclusions. When I corrected it and gave another source for rebuttal, he then claims it's now "too long."

This isn't a mere content dispute, given the scale of what he's disputing. He's disputing everything that I've written or is relevant to what I've written. He's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Once one does, or if he doesn't get replies, he then changes it everywhere else. It's not like he's validly tracking down the same errors on multiple articles. It ranges from sails, to boatbuilding techniques, the settlement of Guam, the Polynesian migrations, the settlement of Madagascar, pottery, dogs, pigs, and most recently, the domestication and dispersal of the banana. Some are valid that could have been fixed with a simple sourced edit, most are nonsense based on misreading sources or a general ignorance of the scholarship on the topic, some are outright based on nothing (often hyperfocusing on interpreting a single phrase from a single source). All are, comparatively, minor challenges that chip away one thing at a time (the caption dispute on the lakana for example), often with implied insulting assertions at my editing.

But they're all WP:TENDENTIOUS, with a very clear unifying theme: downplay Austronesian seafaring as much as possible. He has never contributed a single positive thing to the topic. Prior to our first interaction, he had no interest in articles on Austronesian seafaring, his main area of interest was and still is, unsurprisingly, European ships. I'm here to write articles. I have never once interfered with his editing. Until I checked his contribs prior to this report, I did not even know what he does usually on Wikipedia. I still don't.

I've read hundreds if not thousands of papers on this topic, writing much of our coverage on it over the years. Including the vast majority of articles like Austronesian peoples, Lashed-lug boat, Austronesian vessels, Outrigger boat, ‎Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia, and recently, the Maritime Silk Road. With extensive contributions to others like individual ship, plant, animal, and ancient seafaring articles. And that's only for these related topics (in case you get the mistaken impression that that's all I write about). I've done my best with keeping with the policies on RS on all of them, as I've done with all my contributions over the last nearly 15 years.

All of that to be challenged repeatedly by the same person on every single thing, every month, who has at most read 10 papers touching on this topic.

I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Serious TL:DR. Most of this is stale grievance collecting and Sea lioning. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Speak English. I don't hang out in ANI wallowing in drama. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you seek attention. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI is so far living up to its reputation. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Can an admin consider reblocking the above IP for WP:PA? This seems a continuation of the WP:NOTHERE behavior that got them blocked a week ago, and antagonizing Obsidian Soul is not helping to build the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Without pronouncing on the content disputes (I don't have a week to spare to read all that material), what I see on Talk:Austronesian peoples is mostly ThoughtIdRetired making informed and constructive criticisms, and you proceeding to flip out on them in relatively short order. Now it is of course entirely possible that they are playing a pernicious long game of misrepresentation and agendas - that is impossible to tell for anyone not conversant with the topic, such as me - but that would have to be shown in detail. "I don't like being contradicted by someone who I believe has read fewer sources than I", which is the overwhelming vibe I am getting here, is not a good look, as the kids say. How about getting more of your subject matter peers involved rather than trying to flatten the other on behavioral grounds? I see lots of the two of you slugging it out on that talk page, and preciously few others weighing in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You think I have a week too? There are no subject matter peers. Do you see anyone else contributing significantly to those articles? You yourself have said there are "precious few" weighing in. I've endured this for three years. I've tried multiple times acquiescing to his bullshit. With the Paleolithic crossings, and the pottery section, only for him to move the goalposts further.

"I don't like being contradicted by someone who I believe has read fewer sources than I": LOL, no. The simple fact is that he has NEVER touched a single article about Austronesians prior to our interaction. It isn't his lack of expertise that's the problem. It's the POV he's pushing with the handful of papers he's read.

"that is impossible to tell for anyone not conversant with the topic, such as me - but that would have to be shown in detail". This "TL;DR" isn't detailed enough for you?! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

He opened TWELVE topics, one after another. In one page. All with a theme. And you still somehow believe it's "constructive criticism". Which should I reply to first and spend at least a month discussing with him? Should I just stop writing articles and focus on that? What about his edits? Do I follow his every contribution?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening twelve well-reasoned (at least it looks like this to me) discussions primarily seems to show commendable dedication to getting the article improved, and willingness to talk about it. Look, I'm pretty sure that the way to get rid of the perception that this is single combat between you two is to get other people involved in the content discussions. I can't believe there's only the two of you who care about this topic. Ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, or one of the specific geographic wikiprojects? Start an RfC if there is a sufficiently specific contentious issue? You have clearly lost your cool and/or patience, based on the tone of the last few discussions on the talk page. You need to hand off some of that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. How many times must I say that? Ignore my anger. That's what WP:HOUNDING aims to do in the first place. And it obviously worked.

ALL of his edits have a specific POV that attempts to completely discredit Austronesian voyaging. Pick an edit. Any from above. See what he's doing. Then pick another. Even someone who's not familiar with the subject will clearly see what he's trying to do. That's the reason I included the diffs and topics in the first place. Which you all refuse to read.

Some of the issues he raises are valid. Like the Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Lateen section. Others are complete absolutely vague nonsense that I don't even know how to respond to. It's frustrating how I can't explain that here, because you also don't know anything about the topic, and will absolutely complain when I attempt to. But let me try, at least just to demonstrate how laughable your assessment of "commendable dedication" is. They seem reasonable at first glance, if you don't know anything about the subject.

Take for instance Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Origin of first settlement of Marianas. This dispute is about a simple difference in different authors on WHERE the voyage that settled Guam might have originated. The paper he cites actually states that it may be the Southern Philippines or Eastern Indonesia, instead of the Northern Philippines as was originally in the article. Instead of simply adding those additional two possible origins as a normal editor would have done. He completely removes the mention of the voyage. While adding his own commentary that isn't part of the original paper he uses.

Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Nature of Austronesian farming, here's another. He uses ONE source that vaguely questions the relative importance of rice cultivation in the Austronesian migrations. Again, something that could have been added to the article with a single sentence and proper attribution. I would have happily done that. He instead uses that paper to question everything about Austronesian agriculture. I have no idea what he actually means to say, that Austronesians had no crops? And he thinks this is enough to overturn the established scholarship and all the other sources used in the article. He includes other topics that were not in the scope of the original paper based on his personal misunderstanding of other sources. Dogs, pigs, chickens, etc. How do you think should I engage with that? Humor him and list the dozens of Austronesian domesticates with the hundreds of sources (which the article already does) one by one? The articles already explain their individual histories. Drop all of those sources in favor of the particular one he likes? I and another editor have already tried explaining WP:DUE to him, with no obvious results. What do you think I should do?

He repeats this tactic when challenging the banana (Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Over-confident assertions), by misquoting a single phrase from the paper to make it seem like all Austronesian crops are suspect. Even after I provided a paper that clarifies the fact that Austronesians carried bananas as a crop in their migrations from Southeast Asia far more clearly, he refuses to accept that, and instead proposes that Africans may have cultivated bananas and transferred it to Southeast Asia. Something NOT in the paper, nor proposed by anyone I know in all the papers I've read. Again, what do I do with that?

Or how about Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Substitute paragraph this section, where you can clearly see that I actually tried to humor him by expanding the section and clarifying how Papuans and Indigenous Australians must have crossed the Wallace Line. Does he accept it? No. He instead tries to argue that it was the Papuans all along who were the expert seafarers and invented all the ship technologies that Austronesians later use. Which is again, NOT in the paper he used to start the argument.

Should I go on? Or have your eyes glazed over. Make the effort to understand what he's doing. I've gone through this circus before that got me my first block for trying to call out a racist editor. And it's the exact same situation apparently. You all just don't want to read long explanations and assume angry guy is bad guy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it can admittedly be really frustrating if other people are just Not Getting what the problem is, because it's too embedded in pages and pages of history. There's a certain species article that I shall never open again because of the perfect storm of bad actors and clueless enablers that happened there - I'd probably blow my top if I had to re-read that. So if that is the case here, sorry. But that makes it even more essential to go find other people who understand the material and the issues, and who have the wherewithal to judge the quality of the arguments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a balcony in Rome. Haranguing the readers won't help you. Your attitude alone is enough to engender sympathy for the person you're reporting and we haven't even heard from them yet. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to peruse this entire wall of text, but Atholl Anderson is absolutely not "fringe" and I doubt that whatever he has written behind that paywall says what you are claiming it says. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?

And since you all insist on focusing on the content dispute aspect: Anderson's HYPOTHESIS that Polynesians borrowed the European lateen sail is not widely accepted. HE is a respected author, whom I've used multiple times. Different things. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"I've tried multiple times acquiescing to his bullshit.", "Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", "I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone."

It looks like we've entered WP:NotHere territory. OS's reaction is way out of line and not justified by the matter at hand. He's basically claimed ownership and attacks anyone who doesn't conform to his line of thinking. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a high volume noticeboard where readers lack relevant context. It's your responsibility to be mindful of that and to make your comments concise. Also, generally speaking, if a complaint requires an essay to establish there's probably no legitimate complaint. Local Variable (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinion. Anyone else who hasn't read a single thing I wrote?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No valid complaint can be made angrily and long-windedly? What is the point of responding to something without engaging with its substance? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No. If someone has a valid complaint, they can make it succinctly. There's a reason ArbCom requires complaints & responses to be limited in length, to avoid people dragging things out needlessly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Just as a general rule of life the more agrily and long-windedly a complaint is presented the less seriously it should be taken. Hyperbole destorys credibility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree in terms of ArbCom and ANI disputes, somewhat, but definitely disagree in regards to content discussions. Wikipedia is probably the most influential source of information in human history, and that means that editing Wikipedia is serious business. It's not a place to goof around and flit from thing to thing in a dilettantish way. I take the opposite view of Horse Eye's Black, respectfully - the more terse, snide, and devoid of complex thought a comment is, the less seriously it should be taken. Careful thought takes more than 160 characters, and volunteering to help craft the most influential source of information in human history requires more than a TikTok attention span. That is my view, @Zanahary. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. And besides, is not as if a short complaint would make this a short problem to handle—admins would have to look through sources and content discussions to understand the nature of the dispute, anyways. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Needless loquaciousness is not a positive trait. Further, throwing insults that people who disagree are "goof[ing] around", "devoid of complex thought," and possess "a TikTok attention span" do more damage to your argument than good. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I have actually read most of what was posted and looked at the diffs provided to boot; I am completely uninvolved and I do not know anything beyond basics about the subject. Set the sentiments boiling over aside, and this feels like a rather slow edit war, essentially an extended content dispute. My guess is the topic eludes most people, and I do not think ANI is the place to find people who are actually able to judge about content. So I would want to get more eyes on this, my first port of call being WP:3O. If there is an adequate project who covers this, ask there. Disputants should keep in mind to AGF, and even to AAGF. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for at least reading it. I think I've emphasized enough how numerous and how vague his challenges are, and how it involves dozens of articles. This is not a content dispute. There's no single point of contention I can ask a third opinion on. Nor even a single article. Which is why it's so hard to explain it in the first place without writing that wall of text.

If that's the only solution, I might as well just stop. Close this discussion. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I only said that's how it looks for one uninvolved and uninformed (me); my guess is that it might look like that for other uninvolved and uninformed people too (whereas for you it obviously looks clear as rain). As for showing a possible way forward: you listed some articles with disruptions above, let's take Polynesian navigation. An adequate WikiProject to ask might be WP:SAIL: make your point over there, but article by article, and concentrate on content, not on the behaviour of (one) other user. When consensus is on your side, it's much more difficult to refute your edits. Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Going over his every challenge, point by point, defeats the purpose of trying to avoid his WP:HOUNDING and focus my attention on constructive things. There's so much more than the diffs I included. I wasn't joking when I said it's his every edit on Austronesian-related articles. It's not an edit war either, at least that would have been easier to explain.

Engaging with him doesn't lead anywhere, he just moves the goalposts so far we end up debating the credentials of authors. If there really were enough people who could recognize what he's doing, there should have been someone else already responding to his edits.

It's clearly pretty much just me. Since a lot of the articles affected are those I've worked on, and we clearly don't have a lot of representation of editors interested in it. (As an aside, Polynesian navigation is not one of them, I've never touched that article aside from adding a template 6 years ago. But his caption change and his reason is a typical example of how he undermines the topic with seemingly innocuous changes.)

So it's done the job. I can not think of a way to ignore his minor but constant chipping away at the core of Austronesian seafaring, from someone who clearly wants to bury it. And I can't reasonably spend the rest of my time here on Wikipedia responding to him. I'm taking a break. Bet all my barnstars there'll be a dozen new topics if I come back, and the articles will all be saying we all swam to our islands. I appreciate you trying to understand the issue.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, you've written an enormous amount of text about this incident. If you want action on this, it's incumbent on you to try succinctly summarize every bit as much a possible to turn this into a digestible form. Nobody is being paid to read what you're writing. We're all volunteers here. You're asking us to set aside time from our lives to read what is now north of 3500 words of text in this section, 2400+ of which was added by you (nearly 70%)...nine printed pages...at averaging reading speed nearly 15 minutes of time...just to catch up enough to respond to the thread. When people take you to task about this enormous amount of text, you respond with "Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", criticizing the very people who actually made some attempt to respond to this. Wow. Just wow.

You are best qualified to summarize what is going on. Remove unnecessary passages, drop sentences that don't elaborate, remove old diffs that do little to qualify what is happening, and keep cutting and cutting and cutting. Paraphrasing Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, a good writer at WP:AN/I knows they have achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Take that to heart, and retry this and make it clear what you think should happen. Otherwise, you will not get what you want out of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't get what's so bad about having to take fifteen minutes to read a complaint fully. After all, isn't fifteen minutes a relatively short period of time? _WADroughtOfVowels^P 16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a fast reader and it took me about fifteen minutes to skim it, you must be an exceptionally fast reader if you read the diffs fully rather than skimmed them in fifteen minutes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't include the content of the diffs in my 15 minutes estimation. That, of course, would make it even worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I need to make some comment. This is a content issue. See the changes that I have tried to make to Austronesian peoples where sources do not support the article content – either a complete absence of support or a different level of emphasis.

Not all the complete "failed verifications" were the result of edits by OS. Nevertheless, they seem ideologically opposed to any criticism of any reference that they support, whilst labelling any that oppose their views as "fringe" (an example is identified by a commenter above i.r.o. Atholl Anderson).

Perhaps the most concise (but still lengthy) example of OS's support for a poor quality source is that following this edit[58] (and others similar edits made to a number of articles). The relevant edit summaries have a link to a review that is totally scathing. I received thanks from at least one other editor for drawing this to their attention. OS's reaction includes this[59] with Shaffer being reinstated as a source with the edit summary ...one review doesn't invalidate an RS.... If you read the review at [60] you will see that this is not some bad write-up on trip advisor.

The edit that reinstated the Shaffer reference also reinstated Hourani's Arab Seafaring. In another testing interaction with OS[61], we discover that they ...do not have access to that book. Reading further on that talk page post, you will see that I finally realised that not only was Hourani a dated source, but the book makes no mention whatsoever of junk rig. This suggests to me that OS has never even read Hourani.

I don't know if I need to give more examples to make the point (you can find some on the talk page of Austronesian peoples), but it seems one has to check every reference they use (which, given the volume of their output, is well nigh impossible).

This is all coupled with an unhelpfully argumentative style, as can be found on any of the talk pages linked above. One in particular I find memorable:[62]. OS wanted an example of the sailing rig labelled "A" in [63]. The photo found on Commons is actually of the one labelled "B". To be fair, we were all at the mercy of Commons taking any picture that you can upload without breaching copyright, with any unverified caption you wish to use. But I think Commons's failing on verification allows us to do some WP:OR on the matter. There are ample videos(e.g.[64] which I have not watched to the end, but shows rig "B" being rigged) and pictures from Madagascar (a holiday destination for many at various times) that tell us exactly how the "old photo" rig works. There was never a word of thanks for finding the appropriate picture that is now in the article[65], which is very different from its predecessor[66]. Without the abrasive attitude, this would have been an engaging exercise in working out the correct content to put in Wikipedia. (OK, I appreciate that for those who do not have an interest in sailing rigs, this is a bit like reading the telephone directory!)

Clearly OS puts in many hours in editing Wikipedia. If only this would be done with a little more emphasis on both quality and co-operation. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't have to read much of the initial presentation to gather this, but this is definitely a series of content disputes, where you have one who thought they had articles settled being challenged by someone with other sources and interpretations of sources. Frustrating this more is a lack of editors overall and especially ones who understand these subjects to be able to weigh in. I think you both should slow down, pick one article, try to iron it out - and if you can't, use Wikipedia approaches like Third Opinion, Request for Comment, or involving associated WikiProjects, until your issues are resolved. Then move on to the next article. See also WP:DEADLINE. I don't think this matter is actionable by an admin at this point. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Creating ten talk-page sections at Austronesian peoples is slightly unusual, but it is neither WP:HOUNDING (which refers to following an editor to multiple unrelated pages) nor inappropriate behavior. Using the talk page during disputes is a good thing. As far as the "I'm the expert and he is POV-pushing" complaints; those are (still) a content issue. I am more concerned with the OP's hostility towards having any other editors contribute to the same articles they are working on. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent changing of talk page comments and possible conflict of interest

This is regards to the users VikAl239[67], Dennis1986Savanah[68] and SigNbol[69]. I'm certain all three of these editors are the same person as the only edits they've ever made were on the article of actress Charlene Amoia and on the talk page[70]. I've mentioned that they're some contradictions regarding this actresses' DOB. However all three of these editors have either removed my comment[71][72][73] or edited it[74][75]. Even after they were asked to stop doing so.

The Dennis editor in particular claims that they want the comment removed for safety measures. Seeing as how it's just the talk page, I really don't understand why there would be any safety concerns. They also claim that they are the subject.[76]. I pinged the last couple of other editors that had been reverting those edits asking to stop removing talk page comments to see if a consensus on what to do can be made as this may be WP:COI. But neither of them have posted. Kcj5062 (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're claiming that they are sockpuppets you really should take it to WP:SPI and provide appropriate evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a needed step in this instance (although it is still a good pro forma step, which could easily have been what you meant). There's a pretty strong WP:DUCK argument to be made here, based on the egregious and repeated violations of the most basic precept of TPG--outside of certain highly circumscribed contexts (none of which apply here), one is never allowed to delete another user's talk space comments--let alone edit them to say something different from what the signed editor actually posted. Very few even absolutely new editors will repeatedly violate this principle unless they are an outright troll/bad actor. That and other factors here to support the OP's read that these are socks, beyond much doubt.

Further, even if these weren't fairly certain socks, each account is clearly operating in a disruptive fashion and could be blocked on WP:disruptive/WP:CIR grounds alone. In short, I think an admin is likely to action this as socking on behavioural evidence alone (and/or disruption), without the need for a CU. The only reason to take the matter to SPI is to log the farm for potential future reference, and because it will put admin eyes on the issue from multiple directions and thus potentially increase the speed at which the accounts are blocked, slightly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, including user pages and talk pages, not just articles. You acknowledge in your comment that the information you are discussing is a potential problem re:BLPPRIVACY, and if you are correct about that, these users are correct (actually, they are compelled) to remove the violative material. However, you may be right about the SPI issue, so you should follow @TarnishedPath's advice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Pointless edit-war potentially breaking guidelines

Doing some routine typos-fixing and formatting via AWB, I happened to edit Guardian angel, and Skyerise is quite-stubbornly edit-warring about it. We had a talk at User talk:Est. 2021#Removing spaces from citation templates, yet he went on reverting the page three times - then ironically noticing me about the three-revert rule at User talk:Est. 2021#June 2024. Whether I'm wrong or right, we clearly need some external action. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: Right after this, the aforementioned user started reinstating typos on other pages too, e.g. Yaldabaoth and Yamantaka. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, Est. 2021, there were two instances of "'s" here, where you replaced a curly with a straight quote. Spaces are not typos. You are wrong. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My revert is not pointless and has already been explained to the above editor, who is unecessarily removing all spaces from citation templates. Not all editors use visual editors. Those of us who don't rely on spaces to make the templates more easily readable and editable. This is an abuse of editing tools by the above editor. If they want to fix typos, there is nothing wrong with that, but removing spaces from citation templates with an edit summary of "fixing typos" is intentionally deceptive. Editor also doesn't seem to understand that their disruptive edits are violating policy to force the implementation of a (questionable) guideline, which are optional and may be ignored when there is a valid reason to do so per WP:IAR, which is itself policy. The edits disimprove the articles for those of us who edit wikicode directly, and the OP should desist. Skyerise (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I always edit via wikitext, never been a visual editor, so I don't get what you're talking about. Looks like this issue doesn't rely on the editing tool, and maybe that's what I didn't manage to better explain to you. We clearly need a third-party POV. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos is a really long page (500,000+ bytes), can you quote the relevant passage and/or guideline on that page that states the white space in citation templates is a typo? Thanks. And for the record, I also agree you shouldn't be doing this with AWB. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Question: is the removal of spaces within the citation templates something that's specified in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, or something that Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) chose to do themselves? Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. AWB didn't used to do this, but it's possible that such functionality was added recently. If so, it should be removed because it makes problems for editors who edit wikicode directly. Also, users using such tools still need to listen to feedback about their edits. The fact that a tool is doing this don't justify the change. Skyerise (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Cosmetic edit specifically identifies citation templates without whitespace as "editor-hostile wikitext", which is to say that bots can be banned for doing this, and editing with AWB is largely subject to the same rules as editing by bot (or "in a bot-like manner"). Also, point 4 of the WP:AWBRULES says not to use AWB to make mass edits which have no effect on the rendered article. To put it more succinctly, Est. 2021: please stop doing this now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair to Est. 2021, their edit to Guardian angel did have effects on the rendered article. I haven't evaluate other edits. Still, I land in the same place as Ivanvector, and I insist that Est stop the whitespace editing. In general, I'd say BRD is pretty much a must when using AWB, consider AWBRULES 3. I'm disappointed to see Est edit warring, and I hope we don't see it again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector and Firefangledfeathers: Yeah, I automatically skip pages only requiring minor changes (as spaced could be), filtering the ones that include renown typos, so all those edits did have effects on the rendered article. For sure, the pages I edited because of major typos (automatically detected by AWB) also got superfluous spaces reduced, but that's something that I, as a wikitext editor, never had problems with. But since this broader talk suggests that not all wikitext editor are used to edit references without them, I'll get sure to set an explicit exception for them as soon as I re-login and refresh my default ABW settings. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And just to save everyone a round-trip, let me clarify why I asked. If this is something that AWB added on purpose, then we should probably have a discussion about that. I prefer spaces myself in citation templates, and I wouldn't expect AWB to enforce one style over another. If AWB is doing this by accident, then it's a bug. If Est. 2021 is doing this themselves, then I agree with everyone else: don't do that, and definitely don't edit-war over it. I'm not aware of any guideline that speaks to spaces in template formatting. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope this is a bug with AWB, but it absolutely shouldn't be doing that. The no-spaces variant is much harder to read & parse in the source editor for no good reason, and helps readers not at all. Until the bug is fixed, editors using AWB shouldn't try to force through such changes. SnowFire (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Removing spaces in citations. Testing indicates that this is not part of AWB's built-in functionality. NebY (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay so all this spaces items is just the editor enforcing their own personal preferences on pages. Well the edit summaries aren't indicating that so they're being disruptive at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked out a few pages with AWB as well and can confirm I wasn't having this issue. This was my edit to Guardian angel with AWB, so definitely something specific to how @Est. 2021 has things configured. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• To add to this discussion I just reverted this edit. The edit summary was massively misleading, it didn't just change a date format twice, but also replaced all non-breaking spaces with a template, made references harder to read and padded all headers with spaces. Editors are responsible for all edits conducted, even if the tool is making other items, and misleading edit summaries indicate that the editor is not actually paying attention to the changes that are being made. Not a single one of the hundreds of changes was fixing a typo. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I also noticed the adding of white space to section headings, seen here [77], [78], [79]. They argue here in this edit summary that the white spaces in citation templates is "superfluous page weight", but yet add that superfluous page weight in the section headings. I'm not seeing any justification for removing the white spaces in citations or adding white spaces in the section headings. We need a commitment from Est. 2021 that they will stop these unnecessary edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway: Yes, the adding of spaces to section heading is a minor change I explicitly personally set to make them more identifiable and readable, as a wikitext editor. But as all minor changes, it's only performed if (unrelated) major changes are required. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021: - So are you going to stop adding the white spaces to section headings, since it is your personal preference, and not a MOS guideline? Isaidnoway (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think the big thing at the end of the day is these edits are, pretty much in their entirety, pointless. Pointless at best, and disruptively deceptive at worst. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, and there appears to be consensus in this thread that Est.2021 should stop using AWB for these edits, so a commitment, and acknowledgement from them would be appreciated. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway: For sure, I stopped as soon the edit-war started, before opening this topic, and as I just wrote above I will get sure to refresh my settings and add an explicit exception to avoid further issues for less-used editors. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Based on XTools, it looks like this was the second time they've ever used AWB on articles. It looks like they made 356 edits with it pages in main space today, again, based off Xtools only. I don't love the immediate doubling down on their changes, but let's see what they have to say. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway and Hey man im josh: Yes, this was the second time ever I used that. I got sure every edit included major typos, yet as a wikitext-used editor I didn't mind about the aggregated minor changes lifting the superfluous spaces. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021: I don't know what you've done, but this isn't a default setting on AWB. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

As a longtime user of AWB, it's obvious to me that changes above and beyond AWB's typo fixes and general fixes is happening here. There are user-created find/replace rules being executed. Sometimes these are useful for addressing additional issues but if you're making a change that other editors object to, you either convince them it's justified, or cease using that find/replace rule. But a lot of the changes I'm seeing referred to in this discussion seem problematic for other editors (changing how citations are internally formatted) or otherwise cosmetic with no benefit to readers. I have had my own issues with using AWB in the past, and I've learned the hard way to be more conservative and be ready to justify any change I save. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Est. 2021, you dropped this bomb here--you can't walk away from it. You said it yourself, action, whether you're right or wrong. It sucks to be wrong but I think that is the consensus here. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: "Bomb"? "Sucks?" As far as I know, we're all adults, so there's no need for immature scenic language. Furthermore, please, don't be sorry. Third-part ruling is literally all I needed and asked for. Thanks, have a good day. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So are you going to revert and fix the thousands of edits you made that altered articles to your own personal preference that were not covered in any way by the edit descriptions and that people have been saying should not have been made? Canterbury Tail talk 02:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thousands? Why not millions? C'mon, what's with these made-up numbers? I came here asking for third-party ideas about these little-known guidelines and which one we had to apply, but now, as I can see both here and on my talkpage, this thread became a joke for some of you, and to be honest I'm currently not able to determine who's being serious and who's having fun, so here's what I'm gonna do: logout and go to sleep. Have a good day, or night, based on where you live. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You may have made around 300+ submits, but that consisted of many thousands of changes. This is not a made up number, it's evident for all to see. No one is joking here. As above the consensus is these were not useful and in fact were unhelpful, and in some cases hostile to other editors, and are considered disruptive. You brought this here and brought your edits to everyone's attention, you can't just turn your back on it now and pretend it isn't the mess you created. I'm asking what you're going to do about it to take responsibility for all the disruption you have caused, or shall we just rollback all your changes and continue discussing this? Do you even understand the content of your edits and why people are discussing them here? Canterbury Tail talk 02:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You've had every opportunity to defend yourself and these edits, and tell us what policy and/or guideline you were relying on to make these changes, but so far, you have been unable and/or refused to quote the policy/guideline. And when Skyerise rightfully brought this matter to your attention on your talk page, you are the one who escalated this matter by stating their rollback of your unnecessary edits were a clear violation of the guidelines about typos and formatting operated via WP:AWB/T, and it will be reverted, and edit-warred your preferred version back into the article. And then you escalated it even further by bringing the matter to ANI where your edits were rightfully scrutinized, and the consensus here is to stop making these edits, so in hopes of de-escalation, are you going to acknowledge the feedback you have received here and stop making these type of unnecessary edits and not edit-war if they are reverted, otherwise, a formal proposal may be on the table. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I already answered about this yesterday, already acknowledged the feedback and already stopped them before even starting this thread, so I couldn't care less about these frustration rants and Skyerise's repeated threats of blocks on my talkpage. You can stay sure I will ignore any further pointless comment from whoever keeps ignoring the statements I already made above, so don't expect me to answer again here unless there's something worth keep talking about. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not answered above questions about how you are going to fix the problem. Please revert all those edits which remain unreverted. Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your lackluster responses here and on your talk page to genuine concerns raised about your editing behavior makes me wonder if you are capable of collaborating productively with other editors in the future if a dispute arises, especially, as in this case, it was of your own making. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone here is being serious; nobody is joking. It's time to stop trying to deflect and acknowledge that removing spaces from templates is not a default setting in AWB, that you added that behavior, that there is no guideline that requires it (quite the opposite), that you just made up your claim that it is guideline-supported, that your edit summaries did not disclose it was being done, and therefore it is you who violated multiple content and behavior guidelines with these pointless changes. Skyerise (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you be trusted with AWB? You used it to apply your own non-standard formatting rules with misleading edit summaries, when reverted you edit-warred then opened this thread describing your actions as routine typos-fixing and formatting but the other editor as quite-stubbornly edit-warring, and today you have responded to concerns with scorn (in this thread couldn't care less about these frustration rants and will ignore any further pointless comment; on your talk page to Drmies Do your homeworks and be more mature[80] and to Tamfang let me know when you grow up[81]) but have still not repaired the damage you did or given us any confidence that you will no longer use AWB to apply your own rules. NebY (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: The comments of mine you cite literally came after repeated immature answers I got both here and on my talkpage, like B.S., Haha, saving me the trouble!, drop the bomb, it sucks, whatever floats your boat, I am amused, so I keep that POV. Despite this, I answered all questions here at 01:09, 22 June 2024, explaining my edits, acknowledging the feedback and assuring I would have resetted my settings in accordance. Yet I kept receiving requests for the same acknowledgements and promises again and again, in addition to comments about thousands of AWB edits of mine (later reworded despite words matter), which were actually 3 hundreds of edits (since it was just the second time ever I used AWB to more-easily fix something here) which Skyerise had already started reverting before – and went on reverting during – this discussion, so I don't get what thousands of live edits are contested. Quite surely in good-faith Isaidnoway, whom I had already answered to, also re-asked me to assure I would have not edit-warred about those revert, and indeed I had stopped both AWB and the edit-war right when the Guardian angel issue happened, nor I reverted any other rollback on any other page that Skyerise performed before and during this discussion. I really don't know what else do you want me to say, other than what I think about all of this, or about the not-much-mature comments I got trying to have constructive third-part ideas and knowledge – whether I was wrong or right – about what guideline we actually had to apply there. I got the answers I asked for and explicitly said yesterday I welcomed them and I that I would have made sure to fix my settings. That's all. Feel free to take measures against me if you really think my goal is to damage this encyclopedia and anything we created with shared effort and dedication. Greetings, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

Since Est. 2021 refuses to acknowledge their edits were problematic, and still don't actually appear to understand why they were (and I'm dubious as to if they actually understand the content of their edits) and refuse to take responsibility for their actions I propose the following.

• All their AWB related edits are rolled back. People can reimplement the "typo" fixes if needed but all the other contents are disruptive
• Est. 2021 is banned from using AWB or any other semi-automation tool as they clearly cannot be trusted with it and show a lack of understanding how they work and refuse to take responsibility for the edits.

Any other actions can be determined by the community, but it's clear from the above they don't care about the results of their edits and are unwilling to take responsibility for them. At this point I'm actually questioning their competence to edit here and ability to communicate with other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Est. 2021 has been granted template editing permssions. I propose this be revoked per the criteria at Wikipedia:Template_editor#Criteria for revocation. Skyerise (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. As a bystander, I'm also unimpressed with them characterizing my preferred form of speech as immature scenic language, the concerns of other editors as a joke, and generally dismissive tone. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support The responses to inquiries above are very concerning, and it seems Est is not going to take criticism seriously. This is probably the least restrictive sanction that could be applied here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• @EducatedRedneck and HandThatFeeds: I don't know if I'm expected to comment on this kind of things. I obviously don't agree, I'm quite sure I answered all questions above, but I totally respect this proposal and your votes; as I also stated above, feel free to take any necessary measure if you think my goal is to damage this project. Have a good day. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, given feel free to take any necessary measure, I'd say that's a tacit agreement to Canterbury Tail's proposal. That said, this dismissive response makes me wonder how long it'll be before Est. demonstrates they are WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

HopDavid pursuing long term grudge against Neil deGrasse Tyson

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

HopDavid has been pursuing a personal grudge against Neil deGrasse Tyson, on and off, since December 2015. This has been combined with personal attacks against editors who have resisted his inappropriate edits, principally @Objective3000:. This has been quite disruptive in the past, mostly focused on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson including allegations of libel but also taking in some other subjects which are related to Tyson such as Space Odyssey: The Video Game. It all went quiet in April 2022 until a few hours ago when he resumed his grudge and personal attacks here. As he had stopped for more than two years I decided to try a personalised warning before bringing it here but, as you can see, I was rebuffed with a clear statement of intention to continue the disruptive behaviour and a willingness to get banned for it. I think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. He has edited on other subjects (unrelated to Tyson) in the past but not since March 2019 and not in article space since December 2016. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this. I redacted his link to his own lengthy personal blog/attack/hate page against a living person: Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson, and closed the ten month old section filled with assumptions of bad faith and attacks against editors. Had to go to dinner and couldn’t do anything else. The article has long been difficult partly because of racist comments and then climate deniers. But although there is nothing wrong with including criticism in articles, the editors in this section used bad sources and regularly attacked other editors. I don’t remember old edits by HopDavid and don’t care to look them up. But HopDavid appears to be a serial violator of WP:CIV and WP:AGF and their edits are not constructive. WP:NOTHERE looks like a good call. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Objective 3000, You are the moderator taking action against me? You are one of the editors I take issue with. You are not a disinterested party. You should recuse yourself. HopDavid (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am interested in seeing that articles follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Don't think I'll recuse myself for that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@HopDavid: Wikipedia does not have "moderators" (and Objective3000 isn't an admin either) or "recusal" (outside of a very limited context). You seem to have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is and how it works. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

From HopDavid's talk page: "If Wikipedia decides to ban me for speaking the truth -- so be it." Hrm. Ravenswing's Second Law in action. Perhaps we can give him his wish, then. Ravenswing 03:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I stand behind every claim on my page Fact Checking Neil deGrasse and will continue to do so unless someone shows me evidence of an error.

Labeling my page an attack/hate page does not counter any of my claims.

If you choose to block me for speaking the truth then may you become known for suppressing information. HopDavid (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNT, and blogs are generally not considered WP:RS for that. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether you stand by your claims or not is neither here nor there. You can believe whatever you choose to believe, be your facts solid or threadbare. What you cannot do here on Wikipedia is assert your beliefs in articles without reliable sources backing up those assertions. This is also not a debating society, and we are under no onus to secure your approval here, or to prove you wrong to your own satisfaction. Ravenswing 14:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Seems this can be solved very easily by blocking them from the Neil Degrasse Tyson page and talk page and topic banning them from anything even loosely associated, which would also include mentioning them and linking to their attack blog on their user pages. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I did consider suggesting something like this as an option but, once I noticed that he has not edited on an unrelated topic since 2019, I decided that it probably didn't make much difference either way and chose to leave it out. That said, I don't oppose it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nor do I. Ravenswing 14:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

May take a tad more watching. But I'm not opposed either. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A an article + talk page block, and a topic ban for Tyson ('broadly interpreted') would seem an excellent idea. If that results in HopDavid not editing at all, it would seem that little will be lost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 this Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User appears out of nowhere to make 90 undiscussed moves

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

User:SurJeetrandawa has recently began rapidly moving pages without discussion like:

• Yamazaki clan -> Yamazaki (clan)
• Wani clan -> Wani (clan)

etc... I don't know, but with titles like Oda clan, Mizuno clan, shouldn't these titles not be altered like this? I don't know what's the consensus on article titles of Japanese clans... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a sock (LTA). If someone wants to revert all the moves, that would be great. Much more work than just reverting edits, and I'm not up to it at the moment (for me at least it takes a lot of focus to make sure I don't screw it up).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am working on reverting it right now. -- Whpq (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got it all. Feel free to let me know id I missed anything. -- Whpq (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not all talk page moves have been reverted. Namely, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=SurJeetrandawa&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50, I still see two talk page moves. Please undelete the target pages (Talk:Vania (clan) and Talk:Por (clan)) and then move them back to their original titles (Talk:Vaniš and Talk:POR respectively). GTrang (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent overlinking/addition of unsourced content, block evasion

2600:1700:EA50:7FD0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content/overlinking, and is evading a block on 50.205.182.253, see edit history of Lynn Redgrave, Iring Fetscher, and Günter Kunert. This /64 also has an extensive block log for disruptive editing, most recently being for three years in 2020. Waxworker (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97: time sink

Please see Riposte97 at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. Both sections are relevant but are relatively short. They should be read in order.

Also relevant:

Current RSN sections

1. Dorchester Review, again,
2. Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools
3. Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia

Recent archived RSN post

• Archive 437: Using Spiked Online regarding genocide of First Nations [82]

Editor recently insisted on rewriting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites based on the very flawed notions of verifiability, notability, and DUE demonstrated above. I estimate that if he stops now about two weeks of full-time work will be required to clean up after this episode.

I am unsure whether I am supposed to notify RSN particpants but I will notify Riposte97 now. Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You've pointed us to discussions (instead of providing specific diffs) but you haven't outlined what your exact complaints are about edits that you believe are not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Be direct, you can't assume that editors will read entire discussions and come to the same conclusions that brought you to ANI. Present an argument, don't lay out breadcrumbs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I had tried not to bring @Elinruby's behaviour to ANI, but I guess we're doing this.

Unfortunately, this post seems to merely be a continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for which the editor has found himself at ANI numerous times, most recently being blocked in April May.

On 18 June UTC, he popped up on this thread about me at ANE, where he made a long post in an apparent attempt to have me sanctioned with more than a warning. Despite being informed that his edits were not relevant to the noticeboard, he doubled down, and continued to argue for a sanction. This included apparently attempting to canvas other users here.

In support of his characterisation of my alleged ‘modus operandi’, he also provided in his ANE post a list of eleven diffs at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Amusingly, this ‘proof’ consisted of dishonestly cherrypicking a selection of comments disagreeing with my position in a talk page discussion. Other editors agreed with me. I am not going to go into those diffs one by one, as it’s a waste of time, however I will point out that I invested a considerable amount of effort patiently building a compromise consensus here and here for my edits on that page. The suggestion that I was just blazing away is deliberately misleading.

The actions at ANE are depressingly consistent with a pattern of misrepresenting others’ edits. For example, he falsely accused me of misrepresenting his edits, and also of demanding he restore unencyclopaedic content. When I pointed out that I had not demanded the content be reinstated, and asked him to strike, he instead doubled-down and accused me of ‘bullying’, again without any evidence.

In this edit, he inappropriately insinuated I had been casting aspersions against him. He then accused me (again without evidence) of making a “heinous accusation” against him. Now, to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, this accusation may be explained by the fact that he may not know that several consecutive sentences may be attributed to the same citation. Still, his response is unnecessarily hostile.

He here claimed that I do not believe that the Walrus is a proper source. I don’t believe I’ve said that, certainly not recently enough to remember.

Here, he pops up, admits he knows nothing about the subject under discussion, but nevertheless taken the opportunity to make a personal attack on me.

There are more diffs I could provide, and I am not the only editor he has had it in for, but I will let them speak for themselves if they wish. Again, I did not want to bring this here, hoping Elinruby would just calm down on his own. That evidently has not occurred. He has taken nothing from his most recent block, heavily implying here (“I have my own thoughts on that block”) that he views it as somehow illegitimate.

I have not yet read his latest comment above, which was added as I was writing this, but will add to this comment as appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If my post was added as you were writing yours, as far as I know it should go below mine. Especially if you plan to add to it. That is not how these things are usually done at ANI, and otherwise you will keep pushing the requested rewrite of the OP down the page. I am going to give you a chance to fix that before I attempt to address your assorted misrepresentations. I'll note in passing though that you need to check the date on that block and also acquaint yourself with the {{they}} template. Meanwhile I am going to implement TarnishedPath's suggestion down the page in the correct chronological order. Elinruby (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ta, I have corrected the block to May, and moved my next comment below yours. Riposte97 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not your next comment. The one above. Unless an admin says I am wrong about this. Also what about that they template, hmm? Elinruby (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding comment placement, I think it’s best to leave as is, as the comment substantially deals with your first comment, and this is going to get very confusing if I move it. If I have misgendered you, I apologise. Please tell me if I have, so I can fix my comments. Is Lucy a reference to me, or another editor? Riposte97 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Lucy" confusion comes from the comment removed in this edit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=1230388896 Riposte97 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to let admins explain noticeboard etiquette to you. I just hope they do so soon though. Meanwhile, although I said I would not respond further to you, I will explain the cultural reference to "Lucy you have some splaining to do': it's a joke. I realized after I wrote it that you probably wouldn't recognize it, and removed it. It was intended to take the sting out of repeatedly asking you to look up the "they" template and oh by the way correct your misgenderings of me. Is there some reason you aren't doing that? It's Template: They if you need a link Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested rewrite of narrative starts here

@Liz: Ok. It is all very complicated and rather inexplicable though, but here is my best attempt to summarize. Please bear in mind that I got instablocked the first time I tried to explain this, which may explain a certain reticence and tendency to be oblique. Please ask me a question if I am not explaining this well. I am nervous because I am being brave and stupid and trying to explain this again even though this editor is trying to intimidate me. (talk page of the Kamploops article)[83][84][85][86][87][88]typo fix included for completeness

Someone quoted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites to me.[89] It had not said that when I was working on it at the time the gravesites were found.[90] On investigation I discovered, among other things, that this editor was reverting to support the insertion into the lead of a statement sourced to spiked.com [91][92][93](similiar previous edit) that insinuates[94] that this recent national tragedy in Canada is a hoax, a la Sandy Hook, ie that those are not really graves, or they are empty.[95] Or something. [96][97][98] This is wrong on so many levels[99] that it is hard to know where to begin, but another editor started the now-archived thread at RSN, in which multiple editors participated, which started with parsing whether or not the source was better than the Daily Mail.[100]

I need to say that literally hundreds of RS are available,([101][102]]) and at least 30 pages of results at Google Scholar.[103] I reviewed the first three pages and posted the urls in the current RSN thread titled #Tne Pope and the Canadian House of Parliament with a convenient subheader for easy finding. There appears to be a profound unfamiliarity with these events outside of Canada,(waves hand) and that post was an attempt to begin a discussion to change the apparently hard-wired resistance to using the word "genocide" on Wikipedia.(waves hand) So there are many more sources than that to support the history of residential schools; [104][105] those are just the ones that call it a genocide. Anyway multiple editors tried to talk to the editor and Ivanvector in particular began to edit the article.[106] or perhaps already was.

I realized that despite the changes to the lede nobody had been updating the article and I began doing that for the various schools where underground radar was being used, or had been used, or where its use is being discussed. I also found some egregious misrepresentations of fact, which are mentioned toward the end of the archived RSN thread.[107][108]. I do not know who was responsible for that; I just now found this tho of Riposte97 removing material with gold star sources while claiming it was unsourced. I have not yet run Wikiblame. Riposte97 objected to something I had done in the article and Pbritti pinged me at 20:16. By 22:37 I was abusing relevance tags and separately refusing to engage in a talk page discussion Another user appeared on my page to demand that I explain myself. I was busy researching one of the schools where much was being made of a first excavation not finding bodies. I want to avoid relitigating what followed because I think that it may be better suited to another venue, but I went to bed a few minutes little later and woke up blocked. There was an ANI thread. I was blocked and could not speak.

That is not the point however; the point is that while [109] I was blocked for a week that article was completely re-written[110][111] to heavily insinuate wrongdoing by the Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc, on whose land the graves are. Much cited material removed here.A huge table disappears here. @David Eppstein: called a source used at the Kamloops article a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers. (see Western Standard thread)

Other editors protested the rewrite.[112][113][114][115][This thread removes material cited to the TRC with an edit summary of "added citation" Diffs in the AE thread about this editor document three different editors protesting [116],[117] (note date), [118], [119], [120], [121] (see p.39 for example), [122], [123], [124], [125][126][127],[128], [129], [130][131], [132], [133], [134] {{refn|[135],[136] (note date), [137], [138], [139], [140] (see p.39 for example), [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146],[147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153] as the editor claimed to have policy and consensus on his side. If anyone is wondering, I posted them there in an effort to support a complaint by another editor about this editor's behaviour at Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but apparently Things Do Not Work That Way. But since we are discussing that AE thread, it also documents Ivanvector giving this editor a warning,[after being reverted by Ivanvector informal of course since Ivanvector had been editing the article and was therefore involved.

That is a roadmap, maybe? The three current RSN threads are each for a source used at the Kamloops article, which was recently edit-protected, so that may help. @Fluorescent Jellyfish:, one of the recently-involved editors, says that they are a subject matter expert and and posted an explanation to the talk page of the Kamloops article why they think these sources are disinformation.[154]and was argued with and politely reminded Riposte97 of WP:ONUS] and was argued with some more. Having removed these sources from associated articles way too many times, I believe they are correct. And that is why I am trying to bring eyes to this even though, let's face it, this post is not recommended behaviour for an editor who was recently blocked for stating what is conventional wisdom in Canadian discourse and in the academic field, and warned not to do that again lest they be indeffed. But that there is not what this post is about.[155]]

This post is about some dubious something or other being perpetuated using Wikipedia despite the best efforts of bog standard editors to prevent that.

I do not know why this has been happening for two years. I do not know why this user was one of the people making it happening. He is strangely stubborn about the reliability of really bad sources; from a quick skim there is a lot of POV now in the gravesites article that I have not addressed at all either here or there. This editor is very overbearing with other editors. The editors who were protesting his changes were told that they were being disruptive, this while I was blocked for "disruption", as removing the misleading material was described. At one point I would have evaporated also, so I don't blame them. But I beg you to keep in mind that the topic matter than is being manipulated here is the death of thousands of indigenous children. Please ask me or somebody a question if anything at all that I have said here is confusing. Elinruby (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

PS: It seems important to point out [156] that the allied denialist Fraser Institute is currently the number one hit for the string "kamloops Indian residential school graves"

{

References

Discussion reprise

@Elinruby, you need to provide specific diffs for each claim that you make. Otherwise there is no point you writing a novel. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I take huge exception to the fact that in @Elinruby's comment below above he accuses me of trying to intimidate him, again without any basis in reality.

Insofar as we have content disagreements in this topic area, this is really really far from the appropriate way to ventilate them. I get that he feels strongly about this. I really do. However, trying to somehow insinuate (again with no diffs) that I've somehow acted inappropriately is unbecoming of an editor of his experience. (NB: This comment originally made at 11:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC), reposted now after it was accidentally removed by another editor).

Riposte97 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are again putting your comments above mine, indented to make it look like I am replying to you. Admins, please talk to this editor. Riposte97 this is not a content dispute. I don't understand why you are doing what you are doing or why you are doing it, but this is definitely a behaviour issue. Not sure which one, but there is definitely a behaviour issue here.Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• {edited to add noping given the above attempt at obfuscation) @TarnishedPath:Thanks. I was hoping to avoid that but I guess you are right. Elinruby (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My feelings are beside the point, Riposte. Your behaviour is. And mine too if they want to go there. It is not ok to distort the facts on Wikipedia, especially after multiple editors have already spent days explaining things to you. I an going back to diffs now and will not respond any further to you until done. Admins can ask me questions if they like and I will answer them as soon as I see that. Elinruby (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You replied to my comments above, and so I replied to you there to prevent this thread becoming confusing. I will reply to you here going forward. I note you are adding diffs by editing your above comment. Could I suggest, since that comment has already been responded to, that it might cut down on confusion for you to post the diffs in a new comment? Riposte97 (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby's pointed to "current RSN" threads. I looked at the first: Dorchester Review, Again. It was started by ElinRuby, Riposte97 did not participate. It's about the sentence in the Kamloops Indian Residential School article: "A tooth and rib were found in the area in the 1990s and early 2000s, both of which were of animal origin." In that article, the first addition of "tooth" that I can find was on 30 January 2022, the editor who added was not Riposte97. The addition of "both of which were of animal origin" was on on 14 June 2024, the editor who added was not Riposte97. Nor did Riposte97 mention the tooth and rib on the talk page. By the way ElinRuby didn't mention that the animal-origin sourcing was of a reader comment not a Dorchester Review author, but whether Elinruby was thus wasting WP:RSN time is not relevant. What's important is that Elinrhby is pointing to something that doesn't involve Riposte97. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am saying there is a problem with Canadian residential school articles and Riposte97 is part of it. I explicitly identify it several things I myself do not understand in this story and one reason the section is so long is that I have tried to be very careful about what I do and do not know. And it's Elinruby or El is ok if you don't want to type All That. I think the diffs speak for themselves. One way or the other it needs to be discussed. The two articles I mention are extremely important recent event in Canadian culture and for whatever reason wingnuts are digging up burial sites because some fringe yackadoodle told them stuff. As for wasting RSN time, when has that ever been a consideration, and isnt that the place where I am supposed to bring source problems, mmm? Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think looking at the Western Review thread would be more informative. Someone with a far-right agenda is trying to push the narrative that the sad history of mistreatment of and deaths of First Nations children at Canadian residential schools was a hoax, and it isn't Elinruby. It might be Riposte97. But regardless of their motives, the sources Riposte97 is pushing hard to include border on genocide denial. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say they go beyond "bordering" and straight into genocide denial. The Western Review article is absolutely written to insinuate that the First Nation council misappropriated the funds, and the repeated scare quotes are intended to downplay the deaths from those schools. They're very careful to not say it outright, but the framing is very clear. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Death threats by 45.76.65.17

45.76.65.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made death threats diff here Adakiko (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by Smalljim (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:EMERGENCY for future reference. High traffic noticeboards such as this one should not be used for reports of this kind. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For this kind of thing the emergency email might be an overreaction, and it's correct to post here. For a threat of self-harm, sure, or something beyond aggressive insults, sure, but this was just vandalism with a garnish of threat. Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's better to be safe, I would advise always contacting T&S, or at the very least OS when you see a threat. They can decide from there. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

While I can't see the diff now, if there was any threat of physical harm whatsoever, I'm on Matrix's side. WP:EMERGENCY says Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruption by Kirkukturk3

Kirkukturk3 believes they are exempt from adding RS when asked to do so at Turkmeneli. There has been a talk page discussion of no use and continues to POV-push[157]. Other pages are being edited disruptively as well. They have moreover made personal attacks[158]. Semsûrî (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, your claims of "disruptive edits" is about the Anthem and Map which both are already existing material.

You're clearly trying to insist your ideas on being on the page which many others have tried to correct but you kept reverting.

This includes Mandali where you have repeatedly tried to remove the mention of Iraqi turkmens. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also I don't believe I'm exempt from adding RS, it's just extremely unnecessary to source an Anthem let alone an already sourced Map. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You have now added a reference that does not state what you are claiming which is also problematic. Semsûrî (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean https://kirkuknow.com/en/news/66104? The same source confirms the existence of the Anthem which you have been denying [159] Kirkukturk3 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the news article that does not even mention Turkmeneli but only that there is an unnamed Turkmen anthem. Semsûrî (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The name of the Anthem is Turkmen anthem/Turkmeneli Anthem and the source clearly mentions its existence.

Also how is it "unrelated" because it doesn't mention Turkmeneli? It mentions the Anthem and I added it as a reference for the Anthem, not the entirety turkmeneli page. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also there are many reverts you have done which confirms that I'm not "POV-pushing"

[160] [161] [162] These prove that you're just Reverting based on how you view it, Turkmeneli is a Cultural Region not a Historical one, the region encompasses the lands that turkmens inhabit in minorities and majorities rather than being "Historically dominant" in it (this doesn't make sense since if that was the case than Mosul vilayet will be the boundaries)

The source also used for the "Historically dominant" part is about life in the Kurdistan region, which discludes turkmeneli.

Also you have done other disruptive edits against turkmens in

[163] and [164]. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's clear you haven't read OR or RS. Semsûrî (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

None of them apply to this discussion, OR does is about original work while RS is about sourcing.

If you're talking about the historically dominant part, No sources states it.

[165] states that it's a cultural region comprising of the villages and cities that turkmens inhabit.

And Others indirectly mention it [166][167].

So, where is the source for the historically dominant part? Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

[168] could work too but it's a direct copy of one of the sources mentioned above. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are wasting my time — please read Wikipedia:Competence is required as well. The reference you are searching for (Strakes) was right there after the statement.[169] You cannot just remove information you don't like. I'm done debating with you. Semsûrî (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller First of all I'm not editing any of my responses

Second of all the Martial scienctist warning was about me adding a new data for the population without knowing how to source in infoboxes

You're making a big fuzz about the "tou" incident, what's wrong with correcting? You've also mentioned that you don't know another about the topic in the recent discussion between you and Semsûrî in your talk page

Also I did not state the source was entirely wrong as you just said, I stated it was a correction and you told me that I'm trying to claim "expertise" in the topic although I never said it. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't tell you, I asked you: 'Are you claiming expertise in Neanderthal DNA? Doug Weller (A/CU/OS) talk 2:16 pm, 3 May 2024, Friday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC+1)Reply

Nope ^^^ its just that the east asians survey wasnt accurate as i did my research on it so i mistook it for west asians."

On my talk page I wrote "I really don’t know about Google maps etc. someone should go to rsn, and they won’t."

A correction (not needed anyway), would be "I think you meant to write "you" when you wrote "tou." Doug Weller talk 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a simple correction, that's how I correct.

"I think you meant to write you" just sounds like someone trying to act smart, sorry if there is any misunderstanding. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I struck the bit about editing your responses. It was probably just rapid editing that caused the edit conflicts. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I just said that there are multiple sources mentioning my point while your point? Barely any source states it's a historical region used to define the areas that turkmens historically dominanted.

I'm also done debating with you as I showed my points and proved myself. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And also one last thing, the strakes books abstract doesn't even mention it let alone mention the boundaries of Turkmeneli. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

First, @Kirkukturk3: please stop editing your responses, I keep trying to post and it creates edit conflicts..

See all of User talk:Kirkukturk3#June 2024.

They refuse to go to WP:RSN, replying that "I don't need a specific source for the Anthem and Map since they're already existing medias that can be searched, the Map as shown below is clearly how the article states the boundaries of Turkmeneli, the same type of border is also used by many.

Also the person that you're clearly defending is pro-kurdish and have made many disruptive edits trying to disclude the Iraqi turkmens from pages like mendeli. They're already existing stuff and not self-made material. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) ".

Their response to my 3RR warning was to say "this issue has been solved". In between they mocked a typo of mine (yes, I make too many typos, my Parkinson's has made me clumsy).

User:Materialscientist warned them in October about the need for sources.

And I'd forgotten about User talk:Kirkukturk3#May 2024 when I told them they'd changed correctly sourced text. They replied: " correction needs to be sourced? Its obviously referring to West asians but poorly. Mistaking the inhabitants of the Near East(West Asia/Middle East) and calling them "East Asians" is very wrong due to the distance of those two areas. Please click on those links because its obvious that you arent knowledgeable enough of these two areas and assume my correction as "unsourced". Kirkukturk3 (talk) 10:37 am, 3 May 2024, Friday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC+1)" See the rest - they told me the source was wrong.

In the current dispute where I was telling them about policy they also told me I didn't know enough: "It looks like "tou" don't know alot about this topic. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" The "tou" refers to my typo for "you" earlier. Sorry, I kept adding the above and getting edit conflicts and when I succeeded forgot to sign! Doug Weller talk 13:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by user:2605:B100:1130:ACA7:D79:21D0:86FD:8A6C

Despite multiple warnings, both on their talk page, within others' edit summaries, etc. this user has continued to accuse others of inappropriate conduct, using slurs and fighting language, instead of civilly taking their dispute to the article's talk page.

See: Canadaland, revs. 1230406270 1230405367 1230405018

See: User talk:Smallangryplanet, rev. 1230406345

All of their replies at User talk:2605:B100:1130:ACA7:D79:21D0:86FD:8A6C

Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

/64 blocked for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on citation removals, more info is needed.

hi guys, I am not sure if I risk getting my account blocked, but it's the second time this week I am reaching out here. Because I cannot learn and contribute, if I cannot understand or make sense of what is required. If this is not correct noticeboard, please direct me to where I need to go. And when Admins are being abrupt and just deleting without giving me any information, I don't know how to proceed. And if I disagree, I need to understand either why they are correct, or am I right. I can't just accept what I see as wrong. The issue here is in regards to the conflicting edits by myself and User:Scope_creep.

I am just trying to do my best here and achieve what is needed, through an understand. But instead, it feels intimidating and in some ways bullying. I can imagine how many spammers you get, but genuine contributors shouldn't be treated as such.

I just want more info. And another opinion please.

I have posted information in Talk:Greystanes,_New_South_Wales about citations getting deleted, and I cannot get any information as to why. I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as recommended, and have found that there was a vote on The Daily Telegraph to be removed fron Wikipedia, but it isn't the Sydney Daily Telegraph, it is the UK one. I am referencing the Sydney newspaper, totally independent of the UK.

I provided other citations, and these were then said to be non-rs. But, they are not listed anywhere as being non RS. One of which was the Sydney Morning Herald. ???

I just want to get my head around it. How can the Sydney Morning not be RS. And quotes directly from a published book, on a website, not be RS.

And why should the Parramatta Advertiser as a publisher, which is under the umbrella nowadays of The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) be associated to a vote of 4. Deprecated, to a totally different UK publisher?

From the issues previously had, I've cleaned up the page alot. But, now things are not making sense.

You guys were previously really helpful, are you able to assist at all here? User:Adam Black User:Theroadislong.

Again, sorry to be a pain, not intending to be disruptive at all. But at this point I really disagree with what is evolving on this article.

The messages exchanged are below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(I have edited the above message to fix a link and to remove a cut-n-paste of discussion from the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC))

I think there some confusion going on. Although there is currently a discussion about the UK Daily Telegraph on the noticeboard, there is an archived discussion about the Australian one (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#The Daily Telegraph (Sydney))). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Scope creep: I believe that Annamaria has a point and I too don't understand why you repeatedly removed citations to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) as non-RS. Can you please explain? Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I just don't understand it. And now, his latest change, has made a broken reference in it, and is telling me to use {{cite news}} and not {{cite web}}, when it says in citation that it makes no diff. And his previous talk comment never mentioned not to use {{cite web}}. This is confusing. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The Australian Daily Telegraph has been discussed at WP:RSN here - the discussion does not give confidence in the newspaper's reliability. If it is suspect as the discussion indicates, that it seems to be a good idea to seek better sources, and that it isn't being confused with the British newspaper.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you and fully understand that, but the issue is here, is that the suburban regional newspapers have been bought out and operate under the Sydney Daily Telegraph umbrella, but they are still separate. For example - in this case for Greystanes, many sources for people, come from the local Parramatta Advertiser. Which has journalists, working as part of the Parramatta Advertiser.

So that's why, I have changed the publisher to be the Parramatta Advertiser, to kind of keep it apart, from that of The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Would this be ok? Otherwise, for some people, there is just no supporting online citations. Honestly, the articles that we are talking about here, are pretty good. I mean, we're not talking biased perception on LGTB+ rights or anything. It's recounting info on local people's events and successes. No bold statements etc.

For example, as a citation for Tim Faulkner living in Greystanes, I now have this on his biography (https://goodreadingmagazine.com.au/article/time-to-act/). But The Parramatta Advertiser reporter wrote an article that is much better - and bang on related to living in Greystanes - https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta/awardwinning-conservationist-tim-faulkner-on-his-wild-life-growing-up-in-greystanes/news-story/47208abbbefdc41184881351c51cceb9

So I don't know, were is the line drawn here?

If it is not deprecated, and totally relevant to the topic at hand... it should be able, to be used. That's my point.

@Scope creep has made errors in the referencing which i need to fix, they broke the coding (missed }), and the advice is self conflicting too. The Sydney Morning Herald was changed from Cite Web to Cite News, when in previous changes, this user made it vice versa. Then, I read the policy on Template:Cite web that it makes no difference.

The main issue here is the Parramatta Advertiser being used. (falls under Daily Telegraph Sydney)

Based on what I just wrote @Nigel Ish, does your feedback still stand, or can you see the small complexities now? It a bit of a catch-22 Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI is incidents, not content disputes. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)