Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Ppdallo & West Africa issues

Status:     Requires attention

• Ppdallo (talk · contribs)

Ppdallo has caused a lot of disruption in the West Africa topic area. For this report, I don't want anyone to think about content disputes (which is so massively complicated) but instead let's focus on the conduct.

I am not the first user to notice Ppdallo's conduct issues. Chaheel Riens filed this report which ultimately led to Riens abandoning the topic area out of frustrating with Ppdallo. Specially, Chaheel Riens quoted Ppdallo as exactly saying [The Hausa language is] the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages on five different occasions. Ppdallo simply responded, i clearly did not claim that 'the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken'.The word 'popular' is absent there Okay, so that was the old dispute.

Fast forward to 6 September 2021, now Ppdallo is in a dispute with Oramfe over whether or not something or other counts as Yoruba. Here Ppdallo accuses Oramfe of irredentism and says they will be responsible for future conflict among Nigerians. Selected quote:

Your contiguous map of "indigenous Yoruba presence in Nigeria, Benin & Togo" reeks of wanton expansionism and can sow seeds of conflicts in future generations.Please take it down. WEST AFRICA SUFFERS FROM ENOUGH CONFLICTS, ALREADY.

Later in the month, more people come into the dispute as things escalate. Amid some in progress discussions, we see this quote from Ppdallo:

When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture. (bold in original)

After the many hours I spent reviewing this, all I know is that something needs to change here. For brevity, I have only included some of the more serious conduct violations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (uninvolved users)

• I find words such as “haters” and comments such as “You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.” to be incendiary as it pertains to Nigeria where ethnic tensions are at its all-time worst. See this and this & the country is currently on the verge of another civil war and collapse. So in essence, they are inadvertently doing what they are accusing another editor of. In any case, if this isn’t the first time they are being told to be more mindful of their conduct and choice of words then I think a strong warning should be issued to them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• We have too much battleground editing in areas that are real battlegrounds. The most recently concluded ArbCom case notes the destructive character of nationalistic disputes. West Africa is not currently an area of discretionary sanctions. Maybe this editor needs to be put under an individual sanction similar to Horn of Africa or Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (involved users)

In addition to above report, he seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view as attested to by the original complaint. Check out one such remark:[1]. line 740

He also disputes editor contributions based on personal hunch (of what he thinks/want to be right or wrong, rather than referenced facts) which majority of the time turns out to be wrong. Check out my reply to him on one such edits where he accused me of putting up a map based on Dubious assumption .[2] He further claims there was never an ethnicity called Yoruba or groups/languages classified as being 'Yoruboid' in history.. Furthermore, he went ahead and accused my person of ethnic irredentism based on a proper map citing peer-reviewed sources on Yoruba presence in southeastern West Africa.[3] which he picked another one of his personal issues with, and then went into an edit-war back and forth.

On the other hand, he was unable to prove the map dubious like he initially claimed or even show that there was any fault with it. After several replies in the article talk page, he eventually referred me to the Yoruboid languages article and implored me to use the map there (an altogether different map). An article on the same ethnolinguistic group he claimed 'never existed'. The ethnic agenda and inconsistencies of this user is glaring. User:Talisman-white can also corroborate incendiary statements by said user which I might not be privy to share. Oramfe (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe I am not here to (...to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask you, how then do you compare your statement in one of my discussions with you that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.") [4] Now who is claiming superiority over the other?

On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per yours here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[5]
Ppdallo (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oramfe, MJL, taking a closer look it appears Bbb23 handed them a two day block for conduct related issues, EW to be precise. Imho all this put together if either of you initiate a proposal asking for a T-BAN it wouldn’t be a stretch, I think this is sheer TE at its worst. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Please consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[6] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[7]Ppdallo (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Here is Oluwatalisman telling his Oramfe buddy the reason why he created the multiple accounts! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[8]Dont you think that I really should sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect me to take him serious anymore??? He just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo I responded to this below. That message was not to Oramfe. That message was to Abal126 and split into 4 sections on the page [9]. In it, I am actually explaining that I was wrong. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I class as involved or uninvolved - so taking the safe option due to previous interaction - I'll say I'm involved. I believe that Ppdallo in their own mind is editing to improve the project, but they're doing so to the exclusion of anybody else's opinion and Wiki policy in a WP:GREATWRONG kind of way, itself a subset of tendentious editing. Even further, anybody who disagrees with their actions is guilty of vandalism and disruptive editing. As I said in my last interaction, I removed any page that may have connection with Ppdallo so I cannot comment on any editing since, but in all honesty based on my last experience I'm not surprised this has happened and their behaviour has been questioned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens I never had any issue with you. You requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[10] and i provided it[11] yet you continued with your edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[12] and went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit[13] and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[14] while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [15] Ppdallo (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The first thing I want to bring up is his indiscriminate removal of other user edits while reverting any detail he has issue with. He has done so here, here, and recently here, damaging the ethnic infobox borders in the first two, and removing all the new param cleanup edits by Afernand74 in the latest. In this way, he takes the page hostage to his discretion. I know he is not unaware he can manually revert because [16]. The general attitude I find with this user is one of "my dispute is more important than any other changes others have to make and any other challenges others have to bring" so he continually makes demands like You keep out of the map discussion since Oramfe and myself have already reached consensus before you forced yourself in.[17] -- a consensus that Oramfe has continually denied (here and here) but he has no problem recycling the same assertions as with Chaheel Riens, and he keeps regarding several versions of a section that now contains a-whole-nother paragraph as essentially the same as 3 years ago, suggesting we could just as well revert to that version [18] in The Etymology section reverts to its original state (as it had essentially been for three years) to before your drastic edit and then we start over from there.

This seems to be where he is coming from on the topic of the Etymology section of Yoruba people: He is of the belief that THEREFORE WITHOUT THAT HAUSA WORD THERE WOULD NEVER BE A YORUBA TRIBE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. THEREFORE THANK HAUSA PEOPLE FOR THAT [19] and it seems he will settle for little less than sections of this article being reflections of that belief. This is also correctly incendiary considering all the things that Celestina007 has pointed out in their presentation of the current affairs of Nigeria today above. His belief seems to be that entire credit for the existence of the Yoruba people should entirely go to Hausa people, for so far uncited reasons, and he seems pretty unabashed about using Wikipedia as a vehicle for that expression. As you might also see in that section [20], 2 years ago, Largoplazo noticed something wrong with that and it seems, 2 years later, I am here confounded. Besides his statement to Oramfe that there was never a tribe called Yoruba or Yoruboid groups in History. It was Hausa history. [21], he seems to have now also declared that, contrary to an Encyclopedia Britannica entry [22], There is no monolithic tribe called Yoruba..., somewhere in here, though he makes edits to the page. He has claimed that talking drums which are used by many a group in West Africa (as shown in the linked article) serve as evidence that Yorubas are indebted to Hausas since Yorubas, he believes for some reason, could not have made them, and implied that clothing elements which are worn through West Africa serve as particular evidence that Yorubas are indebted to association with Hausas in statements like The "talking drum" is called Kalangu in Hausa and they are the only people using it in the entire Sahel region, except the forest Yoruba, Do Yoruba have a history of leather tanning? How could they make the talking drum?, and Yoruba adopted Hausa clothing 100%. Yoruba have never interfaced with any Gur group in their entire history. All individual tribes comprising Gur groups are very small in population and they each neighbor Hausa people and their culture is heavily influenced by the larger Hausa. Name one Gur tribe using the Kalangu or the so called "talking drum" and what they call it in their language. implying other ethnic groups close to the Yorubas could not have influenced them, but it must all be the Hausas. All somewhere in here. So, when he makes statements like "...i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen."[23], he is making some kind of manifesto which holds that, to him, Yorubas only existed as elements in Hausa history, until they "stole" their independent identity, or elements thereof, from Hausa, or something. The only problem is that he has absolutely no sources for any of these claims -- zero shared so far!

He has recently taken to directly liberally doling out accusations of breaches to WP:ONUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV at the same times in place of other approaches to conversation toward myself and more recently in part toward Oramfe all in [24] and [25] and you can read to see if they were justified, nevertheless as one of the many things I could call him out for, he recently stated the following, ...it seems, you had no qualms violating Wikipedia's (WP:ONUS) to replace a content that had stood for three years and gradually been improved over that space of time, with a new content that is heavily biased and synthesized out of published materials to imply new conclusions. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's two of three core content policies(WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) and for your information Wikipedia says these policies are non-negotiable, and the principles upon which they are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus . In spite of all that you were given a chance to explain your edit, but instead you repeatedly went into abusive and even hate statements against certain tribe and religion other than your own, in clear violation of all relevant Wikipedia rules and policies guiding discussions between editors and editor neutrality. At this juncture, i am not sure if you still deserve the benefit of doubt that Snow Rise suggested in your favor, implying that the benefit of the doubt I had received as a newer user should be rescinded to give way to the actualization of his clearly stated goals in the Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs... section he had drawn user/admin attention to at the bottom of my talk page, while I, in fact, did painstakingly explain my edits to him which were met with ... I cant believe this is coming from you and You are not serious with these images, are you??? and general dismissal under section titled "Collection of your responses are as follows:".

There is a lot I could add. I could add to this in stages but probably the best way to get an idea is to do what MJL seems to have done going through the bulk of the discussions on the talk page, and recently under Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs on Yoruba article talkpage on my talk page. Not that I have been perfect myself but the conduct itself is best displayed. Anyway so far, I think in addition to the edit warring already pointed to above, I think I have included at least one instance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in reverting changes he does not disagree with while trying to have his points on another part of the article he does dispute thereby removing the previous contributions of others unless they return to review the page and by themselves notice that their changes are gone, and I don't know what the previous paragraph counts as but I think I read that Wikipedia policies should not be leveraged against others especially when it is clear that the user is advocating for the strictest interpretations toward clear ends. Thanks for the time. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oluwatalisman This is where you were coming from as well, ("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[26] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[27] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[28] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[29] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[30] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[31], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[32]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[33] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.
I would also refer admins/commenters to my discussions with you as in the link [34]concerning suggested way forward for the impasse. Ppdallo (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [35][36][37] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I also would suggest that the conduct of involved users, notably Oramfe and Talisman-white be taken into consideration. Pls find below some of Talisma_whites' below as well as Oramfe and my issue with Chaheel Riens:

("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[38] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[39] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[40] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[41] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[42] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[43], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[44]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[45] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.

As for Oramfe, I am not here to (seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask him, how then would he compare his statement in one of my discussions with him that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.")[46] At this point, i don't know who is claiming superiority over the other,
On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per his statement here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[47]

As for Chaheel Riens, I never had any issue with him. he requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[48] and i provided it[49] yet he continued with his edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[50] and he went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [51]
Finally I would like admins/commenters to realise that MJL quote is out of context and this is the full text (As an aside, i am not " a repeat offender on Nigerian/West African ethnicity articles here on Wikipedia" as you claim. You only find me hopping in and out of Hausa and Yoruba people related articles and that's because i see a lot of misinformation there.(When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.)[52] and it was just an aside, nothing more to it. That many kind of statements can be seen as in my quote of Oramfe as well as Talisman-white above. Please also consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[53] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[54] Ppdallo (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, you edit-warred to keep your preferred version in place while discussion was ongoing, that was the reason for my response. I still maintain that your source did not uphold your claim of Hausa being the second most prolific, it only gave the number of speakers - which is not the same thing. However as the source was behind a paywall it was difficult to get that across to others. What pushed me over the edge was your ridiculous evasion by claiming that the difference between "second most widely spoken language" and "second most popular afroasiatic language spoken" being "widely" and "popular" - a discussion that can be seen in your link, so thanks for posting it. Once you did provide an adequate link that upheld your view you still insisted on inserting the original link, when it was not only unnecessary, but also still contested for reasons I explained above. That was the reason for the "What the hell are you up to?" comment. It seemed at that point that you were indulging in WP:POINT type editing, and as such I had no desire to carry it on, as it clearly wouldn't go anywhere, yet at the same time your behaviour would bring you to others' attention - as it has done now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, This was the correct diff of the source[55] i provided and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[56] and then you reported me here[57] Ppdallo (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure those are the correct links? They show that you inserted the acceptable Babbel link, then re-inserted the original ethnologue link, which as a wayback link does not support the claim of it being 2nd most widely spoken - as I said all along. The genuine link (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hau here) is a paysite, so cannot be easily verified.

I reported you for edit warring as much as anything else. You started talk page discussion,[58] but ignored the fact that I had already done so[59] - and pinged you that I had done so as well as informing you in a previous edit summary. As you used exactly the same terminology to reply, you must have been aware - you just chose to ignore it and make out you were the one being accomodating. That's pretty telling in itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [60][61][62] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. And in regard to the 6th quotation, the discussion you have linked with Aabal126 as evidence that I tried to misrepresent you is not in regard to the Yoruba people article at all. All of that discussion can be seen at the view history of another article [63], the Yoruba language article. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo And in regard to the multiple accounts, no I was not blocked at the same time as you. More correctly, I was blocked back in July here as a much newer frequent user by Ponyo who has permanently dissuaded me from doing that again in the future. That was my first time warning and punishment all in one action and I quickly learned it was not the best way to go about disputing behavior on Wikipedia. This is the edit [64], all of which's changes I meant to repersist to the page. Much later, note that MJL did some reviewing on my account and dropped a kind suggestion as to how to go about conducting myself on Wikipedia [65]. So far, no one has seen repeated behavior on my part on Wikipedia. I found it vicious, however, that you asked that the benefit of the doubt I had received on Wikipedia be rescinded in attempts to leverage the strictest interpretation of Wikipedia policy against me all to the end of attaining your goals, as pointed out within the 3rd paragraph of my first response above. Thank you -Oluwatalisman (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oluwatalisman Nope. This was you telling your Oramfe buddy the reason why you created that account! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[66] I really need to sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect me to take you serious anymore??? You just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo What exactly are you saying Nope to? That was not my conversation with my buddy Oramfe, that was my response to Abal126 as part of this discussion talk spanning 4 sections. And that shows how new I was to operating Wikipedia as I actually thought I needed to create a brand new section for each response and did not know how to tag users, which is one of my reasons for not responding to your discussions earlier. I think you can see how cluttered my page was at the time. Abal126, who is also much newer, 's statement earlier was I will need you to stop reediting the Yoruba people webpage or I will have Ppdallo and Oramfe to revoke your editing privileges from you and you won’t get to edit webpages anymore, understand? to which I responded with your quote above, assuming he made his statement in connection with seeing the previous temporary revoking of editing privileges on my page. In case you didn't realize, I am stylishly admitting my wrong. Now I do believe this section was brought up about you for repeated behavior. Can you please speak to repeated behavior? And by the way, I do expect you to take me serisously. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

MJL, Celestina007 I would like to bring to your notice Oramfe's continued edit warring[67] on the same Etymology section content[68] under dispute, even though i have earlier reported[69] it to User:MJL (MJL, I have provided the necessary diffs and would also like to call your attention to Oramfe's newest edit[70] of the section under dispute also in violation of (WP:ONUS).) Ppdallo (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly, what you call an edit warning to me does not apply because I wasn't adding disputed content. You can't hold an article hostage because you are involved in a disagreement with a third editor, wikipedia is an open resource where editors are free to contribute verifiable content.
• Again, you have the habit of dishing out irrelevant warnings and tags, and accusing editors of false wikipedia breaches. You accused me of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV on my newest edit simply because you didn't like it, which was quite funny and ridiculous to say the least because Wikipedia is not the place to promote your personal agenda. You went on to revert my edit. I took no issues with that and simply created an entirely different subsection unrelated to your ongoing resolution with User:Talisman-white here[71] so I don't know why you are bringing that up as some sort of proof that you warned me for breaching wiki policy. It is totally moot.
• As for my map, I don't need to remind everyone here for the umpteenth time that I never reached an agreement with you. This were my replies to you; (I am not engaging in this discussion with you to win. I am addressing your vandalism and why it wouldn't stand. It isn't your place to accept that the Mokoles are Yorubas, neither is it your place to accept a map that clearly depicts what it is labelled to be... and does a good job at that. In conclusion, I don't see the issue here.' If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org.[72] So yes, I tentatively said I might consider detailing the map further by incorporating information from Ethnologue, but THAT Ethnologue wasn't an adequate resource because it doesn't depict the same thing mine does. Summarily, I never reached an agreement with you. You can't simply pick up issues with verified works you don't like and try to force an agreement with/on an editor to suit your own unsubstantiated POV.
• Also (and In case you aren't aware), I was the one who reported you for edit warring. Before that, I issued warnings to you on at least two different occasions on the Yoruba people edit page as mandated by wikipedia policy, first here at 14:26h[73] and then again here at 14:39h[74] but of course, you ignored those warnings are carried on. I left you to your devices and then proceeded to report your unproductive editing activities, after which I dropped a user notification on your page - again as mandated by wikipedia policy. That notice can be seen here:[75]. Then User: SuperSkaterDude45 came from the notice board section to the article and reverted your last edit here[76]. On my part however, I didn't even realize I had gone over and violated the WP:3RR and when I was issued the block, I appealed it here[77] and the admins responded here[78]
• In summary, you initiated an edit war (In your usual fashion) and of course I abetted your violations too, and got the flack for it by being blocked for 2 days along with you (as should be)- but the blame laid largely on you. The mere fact that you are being testified against by multiple users from different time periods is a testament to the point that you have an unruly and bulldozer editing mentality on wikipedia articles. On your very own page you put it boldly there that you are on wikipedia for an agenda, and your mission statement was to revert what you described as; (When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen".
• This clearly shows that you seem to think that you have a monopoly on what is/should be right, and intend to enforce that opinion. That is clearly battleground editing: WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is one thing Wikipedia is NOT.
• Right from your entrance on wikipedia, you have been problematic. As far back as 2018 you were issued edit warnings on the Hausa people article for vandalism[79] by administrator Thomas.W and again here[80] by admin User:Largoplazo for violating the Yoruba article. These amongst others, and that has been your trend till present with no sign of maturation nor development. Oramfe (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am not going to lie, Ppdallo. I saw your diffs, and I reviewed them. Things weren't as what you purported them to be. That is part of the reason I took to looking into this further. Once I had a more complete understanding of this topic area (which was kind of difficult for me as an outsider), I resolved to write this report. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Restored

• I have removed this thread from the archive. I would like to see a formal close here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements

Status:     Requires attention

Hi, My name is Carlos and I live in Mexico so English isn't my mother tongue and I apologize beforehand if this isn't the appropriate place to post the following issue: I recently registered in Wikipedia with the purpose of being able to better help improve the articles I can as many articles, for example, usually sport citations composed just of a last name and a year or very little information and sometimes with no citations at all. With that in mind, I set out to improve the sources and in-text citations of every article I read, I achieved this mostly by filling the most relevant parameters availalbe for each bibliographic source in the articles such as the editors, archive URLs, publishers, full dates, and others.

However, lately, a user named DrKay started to undo all my improvements in all the articles I edited, claiming it was wrong somehow (instead of offering a correction) and when I asked for a justifications he just copied and pasted some generic notice and links to citation manuals, after I insisted he threatened me with banning me or something and the last time I asked him in his talk page to please explain to me his reasons he erased the section I created and claimed in the log that it was "abuse" and melodramatically claiming that I was an editor "pursuing personal vendettas".

I just want to know why the parameters are even made available by the platform in the first place if the editors will not be allowed to use them in a clear way.

Thank you very much in advance, I hope I can get from whoever reads this the help, respect and attention I feel I was specifically denied (perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people).

Thanks again for your time and have a great day, Carlos.

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This would be the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct) to the Punding article (and apparently others), to which DrKay edit-warred to remove. Ritchie333, an admin, asked DrKay for a response and got the same one-line "go to this board" response (which was apparently enough for Ritchie333, see above). So, perhaps, it wasn't I who was "wrong" and "retaliat[ing]", but maybe, just maybe, an admin was in the wrong here. It does happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, The Exterminating Angel. The brightly colored warning at the top of this page and the big brightly colored box on the page for editing informs you that you must notify DrKay of your complaint. Since you have not done so, I have done it for you. Now, I will look into your complaint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, just to note, while I do agree about the note on the talk page, I did immediately ping DrKay immediately after seeing this post and with my reply. So, he was "technically" notified. Just sayin' and stickin' up for TEA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay's latest edit summary to that article says undo obvious faults like claiming that Cambridge University is in Massachusetts and not England, or that a country that hasn't existed since 1801 is extant, adding irrelevant details that no-one interested in and removing journal names that are required by the cite journal parameter. "Irrelevant details" is a matter of opinion, but the factual assertions appear to be correct. What precisely is DrKay's misconduct here? Neutralhomer, it is well established that a ping is not sufficient notice, because editors have the ability to disable receiving pings. I don't but some do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for help from Carlos The Exterminating Angel. Thousands of Wiki editors over the years have developed regular accepted policies regarding journal citations. These are based on the Chicago Manual of Style which is used by most academic authors, editors and publishers. You should familiarize yourself with the usual policies and you should not change good citations into bad ones. What happened it that you added lots of extraneous and often wrong information that will mislead the many thousands of students who use our footnotes every week. If they start copying you they will get lower grades. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I'm not sure where you get your information, but elementary/middle/high schools and colleges/universities here in the US are highly recommend that their students not use Wikipedia for any sources. If they use Wikipedia, it's only for quick lookups, not for sourcing anything. Even I wasn't allowed to use Wikipedia when I was in school....and that was a long time ago. So, Carlos/TEA isn't responsible for any "lower grades" and furthermore, that's not anywhere close to the subject at hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

students in fact use wikipedia a lot according to surveys. the teachers usually approve using footnotes so they can study published scholarly sources. Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Surveys". Not really a damning arguement. From what I've seen, they perfer the students actually use the actual sources (ie: the documents themselves) and not the Wikipedia articles. Meaning skipping Wikipedia altogether. Meaning, students are using Google, looking for actual sources, going to them, and taking them down from the actual source. Not lazily going to Wikipedia where the answers may lay there...if that page is up-to-date, hasn't been vandalized, etc. It's easier for teachers to teach students to look for the answers from the actual source, then from a source that may be up-to-date. Most of the time, it isn't.

Now Rjensen, I get you did a Wikimania talk in 2012 and you have your own article and you are an editor (that's a big deal), but you don't have to preach the Wikipedia gospel to me. I ain't buyin'. But we are still way off topic. This has nothing to do with students, teachers, or anything like that. It has to do with DrKay and his behavioral issues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I agree this students thing is a read herring. Whether students are using Wikipedia to find sources or finding the sources directly themselves, none of it excuses you damaging Wikipedia by destroying references making it hard for readers, be they students or anyone else, to find our cited sources because you add nonsense like claiming Cambridge University is located in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You do understand what a "red herring" is, right? There aren't any "students". There is just DrKay's behavior. We can deflect to this non-existant "students", to my block log or something I did 9 years ago, or because TEA brought up race (is he wrong?), but you all are still (intentionally, I strongly believe) overlooking the real reason for this discussion. DrKay's behavior.

Maybe the "Cambridge University" and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was noticed and was left in as a red herring of my own, just to see if DrKay would mass-revert all of those editors/authors once again. I did. See, your non-existant "students" aren't stupid and neither am I. I left that in to see what DrKay would do. He mass-reverted once again based on two things. Instead of removing those two things, doing actual work, he hit the revert button. He engaged in an edit-war over two red herrings. He is the one with the "personal vendetta" and now crying "victim". He violated 3RR, misused the revert button, misused the vandalism templates, misused his admin tools, threatened blocks he couldn't give out. Because he refused to remove two red herrings.

I'm not as dumb as you all think I am, neither are your non-existant "students", but DrKay's behavior and this group of editors and admins defense of this behavior is. He got caught, it's time he faces some consequences. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You should really disengage from this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're admitting to violating WP:POINT? As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I concur with JBL -- this argument is not positive for you (or anyone else, for that matter). eviolite (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eviolite: You call it whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, you all are still trying to deflect from the actual issue, DrKay's behavior. I know that you want me to stop saying DrKay's behavior, cause it will make it easier to archive this entire thing, bury me or TEA, and make it all go away, but DrKay's behavior is why we are here. So, let's discuss DrKay's behavior. Not me, not non-existant students, but DrKay's behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's very hard to find fault with the fact that DrKay reverted those edits given that you have admitted that they introduced patently false information, any editor who saw the introduction of blatantly untrue material into an article would likely do the same. Are we really meant to chastise users for reverting what is essentially vandalism? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Two small pieces of misinformation, which was intentionally left in to see if DrKay would remove just that information and leave in the actually correct editor/author information he intentionally removed repeatedly or blindly revert the entire thing...repeatedly. Yes, you are meant to chastise an admin for not going the extra mile and actually doing their job. Doing what they are supposed to do, the actual work, what an admin is supposed to do, instead of misusing their tools. Yes, you are meant to find consequence in an admin falling for two red herrings and mass reverting correct information...repeatedly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no more onus on an admin than on any other editor to sift through a vandalistic edit to find what's right and what's wrong. If you can see at a glance that it introduces incorrect information, admin or not, it is entirely reasonable to revert it. We absolutely should not be condoning in any way the idea of falsifying information to "test" other editors, that's just wrong conduct no matter who you think you're baiting with it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You're not getting it. I removed some of the issues on the Punding page, the initial issue, changed some things around. I knew he was still going to try and revert, but he could mass revert 4 edits from me. But he could just remove that two red herrings. Instead he removed that and the editor/author information. The editor/author information was correct. If anyone of you would actually look, all of those names are actually in the links to the documents themselves. He edit-warred them repeatedly, didn't bother to look and see, he was wrong. Just as everyone here isn't. I did that to prove he was just going to revert the edits regardless. It was an experiment and it worked. He didn't care about the edits, all he cared about was making an editor (or in this case two) go away. Now you are trying to make that go away too instead of focusing on that behavior. You just don't like how I got to it. I got one over on DrKay and you all. Too bad. Focus on the big picture and not me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm 100% getting it. You added "red herrings" (ie deliberately false information--vandalism, basically) to try to bait another editor. Now you want that editor chastened because they didn't sift through those edits to separate wheat from chaff. Well if you don't want someone to revert your edits, don't mix vandalism with constructive editing. If I've got three punchbowls and I see you take a turd in two of them, I'm not checking the third one, I'm throwing them all out, that's an entirely reasonable response. If this was about purely constructive editing being reverted en masse that would be a wholly different matter but it's not, you've set up a situation where any reasonable editor would have reverted those edits. I would have done so immediately if I saw them on my watchlist. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: No, you are 100% not. The editor is an admin, which are intentionally overlooking. That admin is held to a higher standard than I am. That admin must look before they leap. That admin must check for that "turn in the punchbowl" (as you so elegantly put it) and not throw all three of them out the window blindly with the revert button. But that's what he did. He removed perfectly legit information, didn't readd it, hasn't readded it even though it's been said multiple times, because they feel they are right. To hell with the rules. To hell with the fact that the actual medical papers list those names. The admin thought he was right and refused to admin he was wrong, edit-warred, warned a user, WikiStalked, and threatened a user with a block. When he could have easily removed two pieces of information. You might not like how I did it, you might want to overlook the fact that completely correct information remains off the page, that an admin broke the rules, and not "a reasonable editor", but that's what happened.

A situation was, indeed, setup. But had DrKay taken the time to look at it, he would have seen the situation at hand. But he flies by the seat of his pants, is rude, threatens, warns, and doesn't care. Focus on that, not on me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay being an admin has no bearing on this. No admin tools were used. Their edits are being judged by the same standard as any other editor because that's what an admin is in this case. Having sysop tools doesn't mean you have to hand-hold a vandal any more than any other editor would be expected to. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an admin here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue has already been raised and the reason for the reverts explained multiple times on talk pages,[81][82]][83] by edit summary[84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91] and at other noticeboards[92] by multiple editors. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay:: Not even close, dude. Not even close. When you explain, with directing people to a noticeboard, why you removed authors of papers, from references and did it repeatedly to the point you violated 3RR. Also why your snide remarks to just about every talk page post from "abuse" to "personal vendettas" and just rudeness with no reason. Then we can consider it "explained". Cause when you were asked anything, you just erased it and actually issued repeated vandalism warnings against The Exterminating Angel, an editor you were highly WP:INVOLVED with. I don't think you should have been throwing any sort of warnings out. This edit, perfectly fine] you removed portions of it and then issued a Warn4IM warning. The hell dude?! These are authors and editors on the papers. They are allowed to be used as citations and attributions within the reference. Do you know anything about referencing an article?

There are other examples of this, but I think this is enough. This is a prime example of extreme admin overreach, WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates (I know that one), misuse of admin tools. You should be TROUTed and thrown to ArbCom and you owe Carlos an apology. The hell dude?! You know better! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, maybe you should be a part of this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There are several things happening here that I want to separate out, as it may explain the issue more clearly:

• Most of what DrKay removed were things that were factually incorrect. I have no problem with these, nor should anyone else.
• The exceptions were, as Cullen328 suggests, whether to include editor names in a citation. AManWithNoPlan gave a reasonable justification with this comment "Just becsuse a parameter exist, do not mean it should always be used. For example there is a parameter to include where the author physically did the writing which is silly almost all the time. Also, execessive weight is given when there are 5 editors and 1 author." Personally, I can't get excited about the formatting of citation templates and think we have more important work to do around here.
• Help:Citation Style 1 says "Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style." I would suggest that if the formatting of citations is not to your liking, you raise a discussion about it - Talk:Punding would be a suitable place to start.
• In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive. (After all, it tends to leads to ANI threads like this one!) In this instance, a good response would be a polite follow-up question to DrKay along the lines of "Sorry, I don't understand the salient point in the conversation you linked to, can you clarify what you mean"? How to ask smart questions may be useful reading. That does not mean I'm excusing DrKay's conduct - admins should strive to communicate as helpfully and thoroughly as they possibly can, but telling someone to do their own homework is not really a sanctionable offence.
• Neutralhomer appears to be inflaming the situation. I advise them to step back and reflect on what their actual goal is here, because despite their protestations, it still seems to be centred round wanting to "stick it" to DrKay and hold it up as an example of "admin abuse". No good will come of this; in particular you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia.
• Do not, even in vague suggestion, accuse editors of racial bias, particularly when the dispute in question has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: First, it's not "they", it's "he". I'd thank you to get the pronouns correct. Second, I left examples above of how, yes, he is "significantly harming the encyclopedia". Third, nowhere have I said I was going to "stick it" to DrKay. I don't like to see admins going after users for no real apparent reason. Fourth, I don't like admins sticking up for admins, especially when they know they are wrong and threatening those who go after their friends (ie: "No good will come of this"). Fifth, if you can't operate with a clear mind (ie: "you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia"), then maybe you should have an uninvolved admin step in. Because you are "excusing DrKay's conduct". That is what you are doing. You did it at 3RRV then you turned it on me, you are doing it now against TEA, you aren't able to operate with a clear mind. Maybe it's time for you to step away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, if you don't want to listen to my advice, then I'll duck out of the conversation. However, I will just add that a) "In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive." is hardly "admins sticking up for admins" and b) if you carry on like this, you run the risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Neutralhomer: Here's some feedback from a non-admin: interjecting your commentary here isn't helping you or TEA, and is actually helping DrKay.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @BubbaJoe123456: How? Everyone has been coming to his rescue from the beginning. He didn't need my "help". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: No, I want you to actually do something more than tell TEA that he needs to form his responses to DrKay's rudeness in a better manner. Look at the evidence of his WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates, misuse of admin tools, his threatening a user with a block, and actually do something that doesn't involve threatening the other user. Do something to the offending user. Because when you "duck out", you are sticking up for admins. You can block me, I don't care. I fully expect it. DrKay will continue to bully other editors, you will continue to stick up for him. Nothing will change. Be the change, block me, or be a coward. You have three choices. Make one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A) Who's Carlos? & B) This is a content dispute, which should be settled at the artice-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Carlos is the name TEA gave both at the beginning and end of their post. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish to request a one-way interaction ban on Neutralhomer with regard to me. I consider the posts in this thread, which are not supported by facts, as prima facie evidence of a personal vendetta, which arose over me making two edits to WZFC (AM) which were so wholly trivial that they did not even noticeably effect the appearance of the page. However, on the basis of those single edits, he has pursued me relentless from talk page, to AN3, to ANI and clearly has no intention of stopping. His complete over-reaction to such trivial edits is concerning, as is his previous history of off-wiki harassment. I feel fortunate that I edit anonymously. DrKay (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop trying to force yourself into the role of a victim and agree to engage here what you refused to do with me even when I pled with you and which of course to hold a civil and rational discussion, please? No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations, let's just talk this over. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations": you mean like calling someone whose skin color, home life, life story, and nationality are a complete mystery to you, a racist? DrKay (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race but yes, I belong to a racial minority (I'm Hispanic and that can be easily surmised since I actively participate on the Spanish Wikipedia) but I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it; is it? I truly hope not for the sake of Wikipedia.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race—You literally said perhaps because of race-related reasons in your first post in this thread. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not? Where did I say that? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay Dude, you are not a victim here, so stop acting like one. You are an editor who refuses to communicate with editors in anyway but rudeness, snark, and one line directions to a noticeboard. Then, when you are actually confronted with your behavior, you play the victim card, say you are being "abuse[d]" and the person confronting you has a "personal vendetta". When your edits are open to the public and it's quite evident who the real bully is. You can bring my block log up all you want. I can bring up your actual behavior, your WikiStalking of TEA, your same one-line directions to another admin when he was asking you, basically, what your problem was. Now you want a "one-way interaction ban", meaning you can still bully me, but I can't do anything about. No. Interaction bans don't work that way, buckwheat. If any I-Ban happens (that's a BIG if), it will be two-way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Buckwheat", Neutralhomer? Really? Please explain your use of that term. What, precisely, does it refer to? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Have you ever heard of The Little Rascals? I'm not that old, but they used to play in reruns with The Three Stooges on TBS in the mornings. Also, I'm from the South (Virginia to be exact), "Buckwheat" is something you call another person. Yeah, it's an old term, but since my parents come from Preston County, West Virginia, which is home to the Buckwheat Festival, it's still used. It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. It has a place in two very distinct areas. The Little Rascals and The South/West Virginia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was what you meant. You are admitting that you used a racist slur. Not cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to epitomise one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing, their refusal to accept when they are wrong which leads to an inability to admit being wrong and more importantly learn from their mistakes. While I admit I'm a bit like that as well albeit mostly on the refusal to accept being wrong, IMO Neutralhomer tends to take it way too far. Especially considering they don't back down or disengage. (At least when I make this mistake I tend to post one or two long posts, and promptly ignore the discussion forever or at least days or weeks.)

I suspect most of us are fine accepting Neutralhomer was unaware of or didn't understand the racial connotations of the term and didn't mean it that way. However per the source provided by Cullen328 and even more by Schazjmd (which to be fair, I'm not sure if Neutralhomer saw even if it was before the above comment), it's a term that is considered racist. This takes into account the history including way it's been used.

Using such a term isn't a good thing, still the simple way forward is for Neutralhomer to recogise what the sources are telling them and accept that it's a racist term and therefore not use it anymore on Wikipedia. Ideally this would come forth in something like "Wow, I wasn't aware of the history of the term and didn't mean it that way. I apologise for using it and won't ever do so again.". Or at least some acknowledgement "Thanks for the link, wasn't aware of that.".

Instead we get this. As I said the thing that matters most is that they learn from this and so even with this reply or no reply, it wouldn't be that bad if we could be confident Neutralhomer wouldn't go around using the term buckwheat again. But the reply combined with my admittedly very limited experience makes me think we can't have confidence this is what will happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NBC, ABC, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and AP News all characterize it as a racist term (as did the Colorado legislature which reprimanded the member who used it). Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you think "Interaction bans don't work that way", you should read WP:IBAN, and learn about one-way IBANs. It most certainly CAN work that way.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: Like I said, if (and that's a BIG if) any I-Ban happens, it will be two way. I won't have a known bully of an admin being allowed to bully me and I not have recourse. It will be a two-way interaction ban, again if one actually happens. At this point, I don't think that will take place, not the way this discussion is going. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no bulling from me. I've not once posted to your talk page; neither of us edits in the topic area of the other. This would all go away if you left me alone. This has all happened because you approached me, followed me and are determined to push a false narrative in relation to me. Just walk away and you're very unlikely to ever come across me again. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Hello everyone,

I've decided to add a more complete explanation so you'll have the full context: My name is Carlos and I'm Mexican; Wikipedia is, to put it simply, my passion, (not a pastime, a passion; I feel true well being and satisfaction when I help improve an article. With this in mind, I created an account and never had a problem with anyone (other the occasional spelling mistake, as Spanish is, naturally, my mother tongue). I focused my efforts on adding new bibliographic sources (I won't use those which are more than 15 years old, unless they're considered classic) and trying to fill all the parameters that Wikipedia made available to me and everyone and which I suppose aren't there just for show; anyway (like the names of the editors, publishers, places of publication, full date when available instead of a year, among many others), because I believe that MORE INFORMATION IS GOOD instead of les information.

DrKay caught wind of this and undid my editions, when I complained he just put copied and pasted a text redirecting me to Wikipedia's manuals, then he tracked down all the articles I've ever made and undid those too, which to me, speaks of malice; when I complained again on his user talk page he erased my plea to just have a normal civil discussion about the issue and he arrogantly and disdainfully mentioned in the history log that he erased my posts because I was an editor "with a personal vendetta"; a smear. So I had no choice but seek other alternatives and I chose to complain here.

Now, he mentions race which I thought was not a factor in this issue, and even if he didn't know me is easy to see my contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia and my username which is the title of a popular Mexican-made movie. So, indeed, I belong to a racial minority.

For the sake of Wikipedia (which I would be embarrassed to see involved in a scandal), I hope DrKay has no ulterior racist motives of any kind, but he's the one that brought it up. Regardless of that, like I said, he just undid my edits even if it meant turning the article into a stub like with Punding; his mentioned motives? My sources I think because he refused to explain more and even threatened with having me banned from editing. And he remains rude and defiant as you can see. That's what happened, in a nutshell, and I hope I will find here the help and resolution I seek; and if some parameters in a source are not to be used, why are there on the first place? (Furthermore, when added a source with relevant parameters nobody complained and did the same for all the other sources so they would look the same).

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're proceeding from a misunderstanding about sources and templates. Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable. That's a question of norms and common practice. The related issue is that you apparently don't understand the distinction between the editor of a book with multiple chapters by different authors, and the editor of a journal. I explained all this to Neutralhomer in this thread. That's the main reason why you were reverted, and DrKay explained that in the revert.
• Regarding your claim of racism, please post a diff. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Break

Maybe I can chime in as someone who spends some time fixing {{sfn}} no-target errors, which often involves tweaking {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} parameters (and also has relevant IRL experience). Attempting to fill in all the parameters of the templates is detrimental to the reader experience and unnecessary inflates the length of citations; as a result it is pretty disruptive. In addition, and as with any work that consist mindlessly copying stuff, it also introduces a significant number of errors and imprecisions. And looking at just a single edit, the number of errors is pretty astounding:

• confusing the British Cambridge with the Boston-suburb Cambridge (as has already been mentioned);
• spelling out the UK the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" without mentioning Northern Ireland,
• Listing the Mayo Clinic as a publisher of "Drug-Induced Compulsive Behaviors: Exceptions to the Rule–Reply–I", which does not seem to be the case
• Using the current editorial board to fill in the {{cite journal|editor}} parameters of a 12 year-old publication
• Using the {{cite book|chapter}} parameter for a single-author book, whereas the docs at {{cite book}} indicates that it should be used in relation to books written by multiple authors (as is the practice in regular scientific writing).

I could go on, but I will stop. I think The Exterminating Angel's current editing habits are disruptive; they should stop filling out unnecessary parameters, and absolutely double-check or triple-check the validity of any information they are adding in those templates. JBchrch talk 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: TEA made mistakes on article-in-question. DrKay corrected those mistakes. Well then, what's the problem? What's this report about? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: DrKay engaged in a revert war, instead of actually "correcting" mistakes (which would have required removing a small amount of text), he removed all of TEA's text. He then WikiStalked TEA to other pages, issued warnings, continued to revert war, broken 3RR repeatedly, refused to discuss anything in a constructive way (even with an admin), and threatened to block an editor who he engaged in that revert war. DrKay did not simple "correct mistakes", he blindly reverted.

If JBchrch thinks these parameters are "unnecessary", then perhaps those fields should be removed from the infobox templates completely. TEA added all available information to the infobox template. Instead of working with the editor, we have yet again warned over and over and over again, insulted, and diminished another new editor to that of a child who knows no better. We have yet again had admin after admin circle the wagons around another abusive admin who is given carte blanche to do whatever he wants without consequence and the reporting editor(s) are the ones threatened and punished. When will it end?

Maybe TEA did make mistakes, but he is a new editor and English is, admittedly, not his native language. But we are holding that against him. We are excusing the behavior of DrKay, all the insults and rudeness, because, essentially TEA made a mistake. He wasn't "disruptive", he didn't "damage the encyclopedia", it's still standing, it's still running, no one was sued. We can stop being overly dramatic. He made a freakin' mistake. Maybe we should help the new editor instead of insulting and punishing him, just like we always do. Then hold DrKay responsible for his actions, actions even Ritchie333 "counter-productive" and "not polite and helpful".

Do I expect this? No. Do I expect you lot to actually do the right thing? Hell no! Will DrKay see even one sanction? Absolutely not. Will we lose yet another new editor to abusive editors and admins? Yes! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I think the parameters were unnecessary in context, not in general. Hope it clarifies. JBchrch talk 01:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: So the editor/authors listed on the front page of the documents in question are "unnecessary". I doubt they will be happy to know that "in context" or that will "clarif[y]" anything, but I'm not telling them squat. It's not like anyone who it's on a medical paper gives two shits what people on Wikipedia think anyway. They got published in a medical journal, they are far and above us no-name cretins (myself included). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Are you deliberately interpreting uncharitably what I write? Honest question. JBchrch talk 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: No, I'm not. What was removed was the editor/author names, which are listed on the actual medical papers. You said those fields (ie: names) were "unnecessary". I took that to mean you think those names are "unnecessary". 1+2=3.

If people would actually look at the history of the actual (ie: Punding) and what was removed, instead of focusing on me or TEA, maybe this would move a little bit better. Maybe I come off a little "rough", but when people focus on anything but the subject at hand, I tend to get a little bit cranky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

May we have a list of the article or articles being disputed over? Sources are either correctly shown or they're not. It can't be both ways. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I can only speak for myself (pinging The Exterminating Angel), but Punding would by my example. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in that case it's simple. TEA's version, which you reverted to, isn't correct (I'm looking at [93]). There has never been any such country as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"; there is no context in which that would be the correct way to refer to the United Kingdom. Not now, and not before 1801. Jon Stoessl, though quite distinguished, became editor-in-chief of Movement Disorders in 2020 (see [94], page 8), and was not editor-in-chief in 2006 when "Punding and dyskinesias" was published. Even if he had, the editor of a journal is not considered a co-author of a paper published in that journal. The same goes for Julio Licinio, who was editor-in-chief of Molecular Psychiatry when "Insights into pathophysiology of punding reveal possible treatment strategies" was published in that journal but is his name is not "on the paper" nor does he list that paper in his extensive CV. Confusing Cambridge with Cambridge, Massachusetts is a problem inasmuch as both have major--but different--academic institutions based there.

For those unfamiliar with how academic publications work, there are important distinctions between the editor of a book with multiple chapters submitted by different authors and the editor of a journal. In the former case, the editor is really another author, who has probably helped organize the book and more than likely will contribute a chapter themselves. They may have organized a conference panel or two which led to the book. In the latter case, they are overseeing the publication of the journal, organizing submissions, assigning reviewers, and such. It's a much more permanent role; lasting years. The key distinction is that they're the editor of the journal, not of the articles published in the journal, whereas in the former case the credited editors are the editor of the book (as opposed to the editor(s) who work at the publishing house that published the book).

To take this back to the original issue, citation templates have many parameters to help Wikipedia editors capture the many nuances of the publishing world. Not all are necessary or even appropriate in all cases, and using them incorrectly, no matter how well-intentioned, can convey inaccurate information to the reader, as in this case. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, Mackensen. Outside the academic arena, it is neither necessary nor useful, and actually counter-productive when citing an article in the New York Times for example, to add to the reference that Punch Sulzberger was the editor, and that the newspaper is published in New York City, the state of New York, and in the United States of America. The senior editor of a major newspaper is not involved with fact checking or copy editing routine articles, and the repetition of "New York" enters into blue sky territory. If the name of the city is part of the newspaper's name, then there is no need to repeat it elsewhere in the reference. And if you do add a location, be sure to get it right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: So, what you are saying is, because TEA used the wrong template, since he is a new user, English isn't his first language, and didn't understand the "nuances of the publishing world", that made it OK for DrKay to insult/warn him repeatedly and threaten him with an indef block. Is that what you are saying? Instead of DrKay being helpful and polite to the new user, he was rude and engaged in an edit war. What DrKay, an admin could have done was explain what TEA had done wrong, help him to better understand those "nuances", better use those templates. Is that not what admins are for?

Now, I have readily admitted that after I moved somethings around to help TEA out, I left the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Cambridge University" in as red herrings for DrKay (with no intention of leaving them in permanently, I'm not a complete jerk). The editor/authors were admittedly OK. I personally didn't see the Infobox book use as a problem. If the use of Infobox journal was a problem, DrKay could have certainly explained that too, again politely. He did not. But the use of the red herrings were to see if he would remove them or just revert all. He reverted all. That was a problem.

TEA was not helped, nothing was explained, and even I didn't see the Infobox journal issue until now. I think Infobox book was fine. Had DrKay explained that, I would have learned something new. I may have been here for 17 years, but I haven't learned everything. That was something new. But DrKay could have explained everything to TEA in a polite way and not just revert with rudeness. That's not helpful to anyone. It helps no one. It leads to issues like this. We all need to be better editors. That's what we are here to do, edit an encyclopedia. I think we have forgotten that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Actually Cullen328, when they are listed on the front page or top of the document (and it's an academic document, a medical article, not the New York Times), you do add the editors and authors. DrKay removed many editors and authors....repeatedly. Which I have said....repeatedly. This wasn't the Times, but medical articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, in your first contribution to this conversation at 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC), you wrote °the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct). Right? Now, a little more than 24 hours later, you are talking about two pieces of false information that you call "red herrings" that you deliberately restored, in an attempt to somehow trip up DrKay. You told incompatible stories. There is a word for that behavior and it is reprehensible. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Please study it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No, I actually didn't, if you would stop putting your own spin and interpretation on what I write. Read the words as they are and go from there. You and I said the same thing. You just spun it. With the exception of the red herrings, which show DrKay not doing his due diligence, TEA did everything right. DrKay didn't help a new editor as an admin should. No one wants to see that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, are you still trying to argue, 25 hours into this farrago that you created, that it is a good thing to add a list of the names of the entire editorial board of an academic journal to a reference to an individual article published in that journal? Where on earth is that considered good practice? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

First, I didn't start this discussion, TEA did. Second, yes, I am prepared to continue to argue DrKay's behavior until it gets through your thick skulls. I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. Third, it is always good practice to stand up for what's right, never back down to bullies, and always tell people when they are wrong. I will always die on that hill. Maybe I'll die alone this time, but I'm fine with that. Fourth, the hell is a farrago? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Farrago is a Latin word, meaning "mixed cattle fodder", used to refer to a confused variety of miscellaneous things, and several online dictionaries agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Several online dictionaries agree that you could just say "bullshit". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I make my own vocabulary choices, and anyone curious about a word I use can look it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Never said you couldn't. It is funny, though, that you get defensive about me using a thesaurus on farrago and coming up with "bullshit". "Mixed cattle fodder" is a polite way of explaining that, but a thesaurus does come up with the comparison just the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reading of my comment that allows that interpretation. I do think it would help this discussion if you gave concrete examples (with diffs) of the things you're talking about. From what you're saying above it's my impression that you're still confused about the author/editor distinction in academic publishing, but I could be mistaken. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Real quick, what part of my three paragraphs "allow[ed] [for] that interpretation"? From Punding and from Mexican Spanish. I would advise everyone to actually look at the individual links, click on them, and look at the documents. Remember that TEA is a new editor and that DrKay is an experienced editor and an admin before passing judgement. The "nuances" and what template to use and how to use it is confusing to a new user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Mexican Spanish, yes, TEA's edit is wrong, and wrong for the reasons DrKay gave. John M. Lipski is the sole author of Tracing Mexican Spanish /s/:: A Cross-Section of History. Crediting the editors of Language Problems and Language Planning is incorrect and would give a false impression of authorship. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia and everything to do with academics and publishing. María Rosario Montaño-Harmon is the sole author of "Discourse Features of Written Mexican Spanish: Current Research in Contrastive Rhetoric and Its Implications"; Karen L. Smith appears to have been the editor for the Applied Linguistics section of Hispania at that time; compare doi:10.2307/344576. It would not be appropriate to credit Smith. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: OK, Now look at this. First edit removed. He leaves some of the editors. If the editors aren't necessary, then why remove some, but not all? He also removes ISSN numbers. Why?

Also, he also removes is the publisher. Those are required, even in books and newspapers. Look at any article. Those are required. Not adding the publisher, etc. could get use sued. It almost did with the Nielsen Arbitron debacle (see WP:TVS). We didn't have the right publisher information and Wikipedia got slapped with a DCMA notice. So, yeah, it's required. Explain that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The editors of academic journals were removed. The editors of books and conference proceedings were retained. This has been explained already. The issns were replaced with journal names, which were otherwise missing causing a CS1 maintenance error. 'journal' is a required parameter. 'issn' is not required. Publishers of academic journals were removed. Publishers of books were retained. Again, this has been explained already. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you truly believe that listing the name of the publisher is required for newspaper, magazine and academic journal references, then it should be easy for you to provide a link to a policy or guideline spelling out this requirement. Please do so when you wake up. My own practice is to provide the publisher for references to books, but I contend that my practice of providing the name of the periodical is sufficient for references to newspapers, magazines and academic journals. Let's see your evidence for this requirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You lot are giving me a migraine and I have to be up at 8a for the real world. I know the vast majority of you don't live there, but some of us do. So, final punches.....and go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

...and that's time ladies, gentleman, non-binary friends. I look forward to more deflection later today. Let's try for after 3p EDT, shall we? Good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is TEA's report. Let him comment from here onward. Don't make yourself the focus/topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: you most definitely do not get to decide whether a one way ban is happening. Nor does DrKay. While your can feel it's unfair, and you can explain why you think it's unfair, it's our decision as a community of editors (generally for many of these discussions with a majority being non-admins) that ultimately matters. Although I don't personally think an iban, one way or two way is merited you continuing insisting it isn't going to happen isn't helping anything, in fact it's increasing the chances it might happen albeit only very very minorly. (Your other behaviour here is however likely having a bigger effect on the chances a one way iban might happen.) Frankly your apparent disdain for our readers, be they students or anyone else, which seems to be reflected in your comments here makes me think a better solution might simply be a site ban or indefinite block of you. (Redacted) What anyone editing here should care about is our readers not their ego. If an action makes the experience worse for them for no good reason, that is something we should all care about. If an editor keeps insisting on preserving or changing something despite the harm to our readers for no apparent reason other than a desire to win an argument, that's an editor who likely doesn't belong here per WP:Vandalism and WP:POINT. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ever since DrKay mentioned my race out of the blue (by the way and for the record, DrKay mentioned race first, not me) and because of how antagonistic he has been to me, I became paranoid about racism which I had never experienced in Wikipedia with the possible exception of this instance, and it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal). So I hope we can deal with this issue in-house, on our own, with my question being: If editors, publishers, places of publication, and others, are not to be used that means some parameters we can't use, and if that is the case, why and what are said parameters?The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay mentioned race first, not me—Would it be possible for you to provide a diff of this? Without seeing where this happened all we have to go on is that you first mentioned race when you started this ANI heading, and if anything has happened previous to this it hasn't been linked to here yet. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: No, for the record, he did not. In your very first post to ANI you said perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people (in which you not only mention your race, but also an assumption on DrKay's race based on nothing), and I haven't found anything about race in any of DrKay's prior edit summaries or talk page posts. Also, could you clarify what you meant by the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes? Votes in what?

In regards to citation parameters: please read the content guideline on what information to include on a source -- it conveniently presents what to present for each type of citation, notably excluding editors for everything except individually authored chapters in books (which these were not). Of course, you should not add blatantly false information either (Cambridge etc).

And when multiple experienced editors, all active for over a decade (I count at least 4: not just DrKay, but also Rjensen, AManWithNoPlan (here), and Philip Cross (here)), tell you that something should not be done, you should listen to them, not get into multiple simultaneous edit wars. That is not productive at all. Regards, eviolite (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I will listen to what I'm told, however I must add, science is not a consensus. Also, if attempting to use the parameters made available by Wikipedia is "detrimental" then why are they even there? Shouldn't they be eliminated? The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: I realized I should clarify something you might have misunderstood -- if you were worried about this "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mexican Spanish" -- Mexican Spanish is referring to the article you edited (as you can see by the link). These are standard warning templates people use when editors seem not to cooperate. No racial insinuation at all. eviolite (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: But you don't appear to be listening to what you've been told. The reason for not filling in all the parameters has been explained several times, including at least twice on this page by User:Mackensen at timestamps 02:13, 18 October 2021 and 02:44, 19 October 2021, e.g. "Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable." Extra details like the full name of the country "United States of America" are unnecessary in almost all cases (since the city and state will suffice) and distracts from the key information. Similarly, as was explained earlier in this thread (and elsewhere), listing the editorial board of an academic journal is unnecessary and extraneous, and gives excessive weight to people who have had no academic input into the work cited. It is also often wrong since editorial boards change frequently and indeed examples of where they were wrong are given above in this thread. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nail on the head hit by Celia Homeford, very patient and clear explanation. I'd put it a bit more bluntly: just because my QWERTY keyboard allows me to type profanity doesn't mean that it is useful to, nor does it mean that any of the keys should be removed. That a citation parameter exists means it is useful in at least one case, not useful in every case. — Bilorv (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Been around here for over 15 years. Gotta be honest, that this has been the most confusing ANI report, I've ever seen. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Neutralhomer for 48 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the discussion. The comment above gives me no confidence that he can simply walk away from a debate when he is being disagreed with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He mightn't see it that way. But, it's for his own good. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the condescension is necessary; it's for the good of WP to stop the disruption. I think the requested interaction ban (forbidding NH from interacting with DrKay) is also a good idea, for the same reason. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) An interaction ban makes sense but given the admission of introducing false content to "entrap" DrKay I would suggest a tban worded in such a way as to prohibit the knowing introduction of untrue material into articles for any reason (I can't believe we'd actually have to write such a thing out, but here we are) as it seems that this behaviour could conceivably continue otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary. NH said he hadn't read WP:POINT, so in theory he didn't know he couldn't do that. Now he knows and has been warned not to do so under any circumstance. Were he to do that again after unambiguously knowing he shouldn't, a block would be warranted. —El Millo (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an editor who's been here since 2007 with 66k edits to their name should need a specific guideline to understand why damaging Wikipedia to prove a point is unacceptable. (While technically it doesn't matter, the fact that it's IMO a very dumb point doesn't help matters to me.) The point I was trying but maybe failed to explain above is when Neutralhomer gets into these disputes, to me it looks like they get so focused on defending themselves and their edits and trying to prove they are right that they forget why they are here namely to create an encyclopaedia to serve our readers. To some extent many editors fall into this trap at times including me, but it seems to me Neutralhomer falls into it too easily and too hard. It's fine to think your preference is better for the encyclopaedia and our readers and defend and support it. However you also have to be able to accept when the community disagrees with you, including the level of discussion that may be reasonable to establish this depending a lot on how much it matters. And most importantly, you should never lose sight what matters is what's best for the encyclopaedia and our readers. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but their comments above where they didn't seem to understand the point being made by me and others that we are here to serve our readers is a major red flag to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems to matter a big deal to NeutralHomer I should clarify I meant live edits. I restricted it to live edits since these seem to be the best indicator of experience. I apologise for any confusion or offence causesd by my failure to make it clear I meant live edits above. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ironic. By bludgeoning the report (which wasn't begun by him), the lad made it about him, when he wanted it to be about another. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the word for a boomerang that seeks out vexatious bystanders? EEng 03:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Contempterang? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd call it a vex-byst-erang. JG66 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that may mean something very rude in Swedish. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's either a kind of dinosaur or candidate for the missing link. On reflection, see WP:VEXBYSTERANG. EEng 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Endorse, good block, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: despite the derailing of the discussion by another editor, you must have learned from it that your edits have been too error-prone to expect other editors to leave them stand, or to check each fact one-by-one. For instance, at both George V and Punding you introduced the misconception that Cambridge University Press is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, rather than Cambridge, United Kingdom. I can see how you'd make this mistake, but if you had a more thorough double-checking process when making these reference changes, you could have caught that before submitting your edit. Obviously you've now learned this particular publisher's location for future, but how else will you be changing your behaviour in future to increase your accuracy? — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Cambridge University Press and Cambridge University are the same institutions and that is obvious; and so is the fact that Cambrige University Press is an autonomous institution derived from Cambridge University, as the name says, I was just trying to be thorough and complete in the info about sources but no reasonable person would consider both to be the same; I agree it's wrong because someone might assume CUP belongs to CU and while this is financially true, functionally is a complete different institution. Either way, that would not warrant reverting an entire edit, just a correction and telling the editor to please not do it again (talking to the editor which is DrKay never did with me, and saying it politely, which DrKay has never been either).The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

To clear things up: the issue is not with Cambridge University at all. The issue is with the locations you placed. Cambridge University Press is not in Cambridge, Massachusetts as you wrote. It is in Cambridge, United Kingdom, a completely different city. eviolite (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A simple mistake and very natural confusion if you don't live in either country and it can be corrected, still no need to revert the whole thing.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the press does happen to be part of Cambridge University (which is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom), but I'm rather confused as to what The Exterminating Angel is saying because I never mentioned the university. Cambridge University Press is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. Simple as that.

Re-reading this discussion, I see a comment by DrKay that somewhat escaped me showing that, I believe, the primary concern with your edits is more a matter of excessive detail in sourcing (for which "the parameters in the template exist" is not a compelling argument). DrKay's diffs show a pattern of other editors raising issues with your edits. In this case, it seems to me like this needs an RFC or discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or somewhere, as ANI is not the place to decide content disputes (only conduct disputes). — Bilorv (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Where's ETA??? It's rather frustrating, seeing Neutralhomer going to bat for him & he's been absent from a report he began. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ETA's expected time of arrival is about 10-15 minutes. EEng 03:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to the OP

Folks. I was initially sympathetic toward The Exterminating Angel. I thought, a newbie misled by the WMF's instructional videos into thinking citation templates must be used ("the more complete a bibliographic source, the better; ESPECIALLY, in articles where the sources are just a title and a year"; several references in Mexican Spanish are {{sfn}} references referring to listings in the bibliography; a new editor is unlikely to be aware of WP:CITEVAR and the separation of notes and bibiography in many of our more sophisticatedly developed articles because, after all, the video just says to use citation templates) and jumping to the conclusion that the existence of a parameter means it should be filled out: "those parameters are available by this platform for a reason". See also his first post above. But now I'm getting a whiff of under a bridge troll. (NOTE: edited with strikeout and plain speech on 20 October, with apologies to anyone who misconstrued my allusive language; see below)

• On his talk page, in edit summaries, and here, several editors have attempted to explain the misapprehension about parameters, many in response to the initial query. The first attempt, by rjensen, precedes DrKay templating him. He rejects the information and accuses DrKay specifically of rudeness and vindictiveness.
• Some of his additions to the citation templates were also erroneous. Several editors have pointed this out, but his response here was to sidestep the issue with an assertion that Cambridge University Press is independent of Cambridge University.
• I have not seen rudeness from DrKay in his dealings with this editor. It is possible that the editor misinterpreted Template:uw-disruptive2 and Template:uw-disruptive3 as attacks, but a statement of terror seems overblown, and there is open hyperbole in the claim that DrKay reduced Punding to a stub. That makes me ill disposed to take the accusations of rudeness and vindictiveness at face value. Looking at Dr Kay's removal of TEA's last post at User talk:DrKay, I find "I already explained, multiple times, as have other editors, multiple times" quite a mild edit summary, especially in response to "Honestly, give me a legitimate and valid reason why should I heed that rule".
• From his first post here, this editor has suggested racial animus against him; added in the second edit: "perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people". After asserting repeatedly that "DrKay mentioned race first, not me", "I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it", he has now changed to: "I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM."
• Veiled threats to stir up a mob against Wikipedia on Twitter, or just to get us downvoted on Reddit or something: "it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal)"
• I see the username, which nobody but me appears to have had any suspicions about, is attributed to a Mexican film, but by this point I'm done assuming and need evidence of good faith. What is this editor here to exterminate?

I think we are being played. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You might have mis-linked to the Mexican film. This is what we say about The Exterminating Angel. The “comic horror” of a “slow descent from normality into anarchy” in ”a never-ending feast”. Hmmm… DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"The movie follows a group of wealthy guests finding themselves unable to leave after a lavish dinner party, and the chaos that ensues afterward." Hmmm, now that sounds familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of the key indicators of NOTHERE behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My 15+ years on this project, is giving me 'two' impressions about ETA. Either he's got WP:CIR issues or he's entertaining himself, which would fall under WP:NOTHERE territory. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll sum up for myself and state the following:

• I see no evidence of any racist comments by DrKay and I have no idea what the basis of the accusation is, despite all the words spilled above.
• TEA's edits were incorrect and unhelpful and DrKay was right to revert them, and DrKay explained themselves in a reasonable way.
• Neutralhomer inflamed and escalated what should have been a simple matter, and their contributions to this discussion were uniformly unhelpful, even after multiple uninvolved editors asked them to stop.

TEA is a new editor who got confused. Fine, that happens. Multiple editors have explained citation templates to TEA. They'll learn from this experience or they won't. Neutralhomer has been here since 2007 and has a history of blocks and warnings for battleground-style behavior. This is yet another instance. They show no awareness that there's anything wrong with how they approached the situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate summary of the problem. I'd suggest this report be closed with a warning to TEA to heed others when corrected on Wikipedia policy & procedures. We can seek sanctions on TEA if they repeat their behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My concern is, that accusing people of racism without evidence is a serious civility violation, and devalues the experience of victims of racism, and I have not found any evidence that TEA had any reason to make such an accusation; moreover, he's doubled down on it and been caught in an absurd equivocation over who mentioned race first. Since at least one person—NeutralHomer—found my reference to "under a bridge" susceptible to more than one interpretation, including racial bias, I've struck it out above and replaced it with "troll". Whether he was at the start or not, TEA appears to me to be trolling, and that's something we need to protect the encyclopedia and the community from. Ritchie333 already warned him against unsupported accusations of racism above, and he continued attacking, right here on AN/I. I think at the very least we need either evidence of bias in how TEA's edits were treated and how he was addressed (it's possible I missed something, but I found only mischaracterizations of all interactions as attacks), or a convincing apology, before we effectively express the message that preemptive accusations of racism, or accusations of racism in the mistaken belief that that is the most plausible reason his changes are not automatically accepted, or whatever it is, are ok. (I still think choosing the username "The Exterminating Angel" is indicative of a combative attitude to editing from the get-go. Even though he said in one of his posts here that he named himself after a film, presumably the Buňuel film (I linked to the diff where he explained his username; scroll down in it), the name is worthy of WP:UAA. We've bent over backwards to extend good faith to this person. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Neutralhomer, who had 14 years of service, was rightly indeffed for repeated, unsupported accusations of racism. I don't see why the consequences should be lighter for someone who hasn't really established a history of productive contributions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

More accurately, Neutralhomer was indeffed for complete loss of self-control for several days, ranting and raving about a wide variety of things, and engaging in many personal attacks against other editors. It was particularly striking to see this editor make "racism" accusations shortly after they lobbed the buckwheat slur at another editor. As if people routinely call other people a grainlike crop grown in West Virginia and Russia and a few other places. Intelligent people know exactly what it means, from its 1930s film origins to the outrageous 1980s parodies by Eddie Murphy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Pilgrim might have been a better choice. EEng 05:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

EEng, why oh why isn't John Wayne a featured article? If it was, we could all argue endlessly about adding or removing an infobox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir The racism accusations are definitely serious, I agree. But at this point, aside from a punitive block, I'm not sure what else we can do besides warn TEA. Hence my application of WP:ROPE.

As for the name, it does sound aggressive, but the explanation given makes sense. I have been accused of having a needlessly aggressive name myself, though I intended it to just be a silly play on a common phrase, and an homage to a Nine Inch Nails song I enjoy.

So that leaves me stuck at my previous stance. Unlike NeutralHomer, TEA seems to have quieted down, so I'd rather give them a strong warning and see if their behavior changes in the future. If they return to these kinds of baseless accusations, they get an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, HandThatFeeds. I didn't propose any action because I can't think of any, either. TEA already received a clearly and strongly worded warning from Ritchie333, right here (emendation to 10:49 on 17 October by adding a link to WP:NPA). There were no consequences for his blowing right past it, partly because Neutralhomer was more or less blindly supporting him; and there remains the possibility his concerns were sincerely held. He's not so much quieted down as stopped editing after hurling accusations and making equivocations here. But he's done his damage, and its being a classic film does not excuse a username that gives the impression of having been chosen to intimidate (that's my concern, rather than implications of violence). I'm sure there are lots of classic films whose titles are also inappropriate as usernames. My impression is that not questioning the name is an indicator of how gently the community treated this person (who is very far from incompetent, received lots and lots of clear guidance, and declared on DrKay's talk page that they did not intend to follow our rules). I'm gutted about Neutralhomer but no, I have no suggestions. Horse, barn door, WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Perhaps this ANI report should be closed, now. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by LTA

Status:     Requires attention

• 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in March, and since then has periodically returned with an assortment of IPs. The user is active again using the 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, which had previously been under a three-month block earlier this year. Topic areas and editing patterns are still identical; another block on this range would be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits are still being made from this range, like the tampering with sourced data that Ninenine99 was known for. Is a block on this range feasible? --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Still going... Please check all current revisions for unsourced additions or changes to data. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sable232 and LaundryPizza03: Please be more explicit and spell out at least one example for dummy admins. For example, this edit given above shows 2603:8000:b00:386f:8d25:d46e:40c6:5aa4 fiddling with two lengths. If I were to check the article would I find an easily accessible source that easily shows the IP made the values wrong? I've investigated stuff like this before and it can be a wall of fog with model numbers not quite agreeing with the source and the source saying that variations occur. Something like this would make me more confident in issuing a block: "This diff [link] shows the IP changed 180.6 to 181.6 but the source [link] says '...180.6...'." Also if, without too much trouble, you can find a case where the blocked user made a similar change, please post a diff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: - the original account would make edits like this, changing the data that appeared in the cited source to something different. The diff you linked to, I don't believe there's a source in the article for that and I don't have time to search for one now. However, given the track record and considering the changes to sourced data by the IP that I linked above, all data changes by this person are suspect. The topic areas and editing patterns are identical: automobiles, professional wrestling, and the occasional foray into liquor brands. There is no doubt in my mind that this IP range is Ninenine99. --Sable232 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Darylprasad & Platonic solids

Status:     Requires attention

• Platonic solid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Classical element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Darylprasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on Platonic solid [95] [96] [97] (the attitude of the other edit warriors there was less than optimal, but I'll move on). When it became apparent the content would not be accepted there, they tried to insert the same content in Classical element [98]. When I objected to this on the talk page [99] and reverted it [100], they started mass-removing other content from the article repeating a sentence from my talk page comment as an edit summary [101]. I think they need a cool-down period. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (as non-involved). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it appears that all non-sourced material has been removed from the article "Classical elements". And we quote Apaugasma who says quite rightly that "Writing sections based upon no source is original research, which again in itself is a great thing, but which is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia" Have a nice day. Regards Daryl Darylprasad (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This may be resolved for the time being [102]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope you're right. Darylprasad strikes me as someone who has the capacity to improve WP, but who doesn't understand very well what encyclopedic writing is about, nor various cultural norms here. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL, I will try to do better next time. I will use the talk pages first before making large contributions. Once again, thanks for your comments, I am just trying to do my best to improve Wikipedia. I am new to "Talk" page etiquette.Darylprasad (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

While this editor has been very tiresome to deal with at Classical element, I think this mainly stems from inexperience. He has been editing for a couple of years, but not very heavily. He needs to learn to listen to others and not cause disruption when he doesn't get his way. This report should serve as a warning to him that such behaviour can get him blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 07:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Per this editor, see also Talk:Cerberus#Massive insertion (pinging Doniago, who was also involved in that discussion). Paul August ☎ 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think that discussion speaks for itself, and it was a year ago or so, but it should probably be noted that Daryl inexplicably (literally given they didn't leave an edit summary) deleted the thread on October 23 (i.e. after this ANI discussion was initiated), though another editor subsequently restored it. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The user is now asserting on his talk page that all messages will be deleted unread and that he won't engage on any talk page. We have two behaviour problems here; WP:COMPETENCE and failure to work collegially. SpinningSpark 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning at their talk. Please let me know if problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

To me the current state of their Talk page represents a WP:NOTHERE problem even after you gave your warning. DonIago (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems with User:Vice regent not accepting the result of a closed dispute

Status:     Requires attention

I believe we might have a series of problems with the Sexual slavery in Islam page and its POVFORK. More than one year ago an editor, Vice regent, who did not like the “sexual slavery” label in the page title, attempted to rename the page without consensus, but the the issue was solved and the previous title was restored. However, as of today, they still claim that “the title dispute was never resolved”, and in the name of this belief they keep restoring the {{POV}} template that they had inserted long ago during the title dispute (#1, #2, #3, #4 – I am not sure if this list covers all the reverts). Furthermore, in the meanwhile they have also WP:POVFORKED the page and created a duplicate, Islamic views on concubinage, basically as a way for bypassing the closed dispute. I was not aware of the WP:POVFORK, and after becoming aware I have requested a page move (please see Talk:Islamic views on concubinage § Requested move 14 October 2021). The issue should be considered long solved by now, and I find it challenging to discuss: on the one hand, for defending the separate existence Islamic views on concubinage, they claim that sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam speak about different phenomena, while on the other hand they also claim that the they are the same thing and the Sexual slavery in Islam page should be renamed to “Concubinage in Islam”. --Grufo (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits on 11 different articles. At one point I counted their edits and found that Grufo spent 90% of their edits on wikipedia getting into disputes with me (all of which Grufo followed me to, not the other way around). Grufo was warned against edit-warring by an admin, and then eventually blocked. If you look at Grufo's latest proposal, every single user has opposed it[103], but that's not an ANI matter. This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior.[104]VR _talk 21:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

“Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits”

Vice regent, you cannot link an old failed attempt of yours to bring me to ANI for WP:HOUNDING you as a proof that one year ago I was hounding you.

“Every single user has opposed it”

Being minority would not be sin. WP:POVFORKING after being minority instead would be. You, Mhhossein (who once accused me of being uncivil for defending two atheist bloggers who opposed a bloody dictator), Baamiyaan2 (who you keep accusing of being a sockpuppet), Jushyosaha604 (who was involved in the previous discussion on the minority's side) want to keep your WP:POVFORK as it is, while Anachronist, Wiqi55 and I are open to a change. Your side also uses opposite arguments (some say that it's because “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” are two different things, while you say that it is just one thing). There are not many users currently involved in the new discussion.

“This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior”

WP:POVFORKING a page and not accepting that a dispute ended after more than one year is not “a content dispute”, it is a natural case for WP:ANI.

Could you please explain to the admins here, do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why have you created Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why do you want to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

--Grufo (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re POVFORK, see this discussion.VR _talk 22:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics, broadly construed. They are practically a WP:SPA when it comes to this topic area, and seem keen to push an anti-Islam agenda. I encountered them last year when they were pushing Nonie Darwish, a noted counter-jihad personality, as a reliable source for Ruhollah Khoemini's views on sex with underage children. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:

• Yeah, I remember you too. I remember that you called me “a civil POV pusher” one of the first times we met (or you met me), commenting about a discussion of mine related to the Planck units (in which you were not involved and I am not completely sure you understood), in the WP:HOUNDING discussion that Vice regent had raised (which had nothing to do with physics).
• Fortunately we don't need your memory, as my contributions are public
• How can someone be “a WP:SPA [only] when it comes to [a specific] area”? If I have many interests, how can I be WP:SPA? You do you realize that this is an oxymoron, right?
• As it seems, you were not happy with my contributions even when they were about physics, so maybe I should be banned from physics-related topics too?
• I was not pushing Nonie Darwish (who I certainly did not know), I only fought to make sure that the reliability of a source is always discussed first. Thanks to me we discussed the topic, and my opinion is still that despite her political views are disgusting (according to me) she can be reliable when she tells the story of her life. Opinion-wise, I consider Nonie Darwish utterly garbage (sorry, I am far left politically – so I also can hardly have a “counter-jihad personality”).
• “A topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics”: Specifically, what edits of mine are you referring to? I would say that your attacks are purely personal, I am not the one who lost a dispute and WP:POVFORKED a page, and I also haven't edited many Islam-related pages lately.
• I had expressed in more than one occasion that I sincerely believe that Vice regent is in many ways a WP:SPA: his edits tend to be Islam-related and with the intent of pushing the same point of view (in this case that of using an apologetic alternative to “sexual slavery”) independently of the consensus – but we also don't need my memory, as his edits are public too. And yet we are not even here to discuss the WP:SPA nature of Vice regent's account, we are here to discuss two very specific facts:
  1. The fact that Vice regent has WP:POVFORKED a page after loosing a dispute more than one year ago
  2. The fact that Vice regent keeps pushing the {{POV}} template that he inserted in Sexual slavery in Islam during that dispute one year ago, despite the dispute has ended, and despite several editors have attempted to remove it
• Do you have any actual opinion on what we are discussing here? Feel free to contribute.

--Grufo (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody agreed with you on the Plank Units discussion either. Vice Regent is a competent editor who mostly focused on Islam and Iran related topics. This does not make him a SPA. My SPA accusation came from your very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles. Which you returned to after a year hiatus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• As I thought. Obviously you haven't read the Plank units discussion. It was a very long discussion with only three editors involved (me included). The trio became a duo almost immediately. And yet you commented about that lonely duo that I seemed to “have issues finding consensus with other users”. On the other hand, the discussion about Vice regent's proposal of using an apologetic alternative for “sexual slavery” has been a rather participated discussion, with many editors involved, about which he still struggles to make peace with the fact that the dispute ended.
• “This does not make him a SPA”: this is literally what makes one WP:SPA. He literally is a WP:SPA – whether good or bad, we are not here for that (my personal opinion based on the nature of his edits is that he is on an apologetic mission even at the cost of the truth – but again, we are not here for that).
• My “very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles”? Excuse me? What exactly are you talking about? --Grufo (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The RM you linked to was closed as non-consensus so you can't say it was resolved. This doesn't mean it's acceptable to simply ignore the previous RM since when there's no consensus we preserve the status quo ante, but since we operate by consensus working towards consensus is generally a good thing. Also while this wasn't mentioned by the closer, it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam. So VR's actions don't seem inherently even against even the no consensus RM. Clearly we don't want duplicate articles, but what each article should cover or even whether we should have two can only be resolved by further discussion, again aiming towards consensus. You are free to link to the previous RM help guide the discussion but you can't claim it establishes something it clearly doesn't. Frankly although it's probably too late to close, the new RM you started seems a disaster as it's missing the point. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two things are mysterious for me in this discussion. The first is the passion for discussing about unimportant things, the second is the passion for discussing about what I do, although I haven't done much in the last year. Unless people are really interested only in me – and I will be happy to have conversations in my talk page – I still believe that the question here is: do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Wikipedia rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

It is a stale mate created on purpose by a specific user. You say “it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam”. Yes, some (few) editors supported that (not me). The result? Vice regent created a clone and uses that clone (which shouldn't exist) as an argument for pushing the {{POV}} template in the original article, despite a dispute was closed (you like it or not). Do you sincerely believe at this point that Vice regent wanted to treat a different topic when he povforked the page, or instead he deliberately wanted to bypass the ended dispute and treat exactly the same topic under a different name? --Grufo (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of Grufo's WP:IDHT. They asked this exact question earlier in this section, and I pointed them to the answer. Yet they continue to WP:BLUDGEON with the same question. Per WP:BOOMERANG, examining Grufo's conduct is appropriate.VR _talk 14:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I hadn't replied to your previous non-answer for politeness, but now I will: you have not answered my question yet (no, your link is not an answer to my question). --Grufo (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed

• Islamic views on concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sexual slavery in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Both Grufo and Vice regent have dug in their heels at Talk:Islamic views on concubinage and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. Grufo seems to have vowed not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery" instead (coming here after their move request was receiving much opposition). Vice regent appears to have vowed the exact opposite, and will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles (as it is entirely absent from Islamic views on concubinage, a POV-fork which they wrote, also after a failed move request last year). It seems that Grufo wants to turn these articles into attack pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam was a special, institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage), while Vice regent would rather like them to be apologetic 'defense' pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam should ever be called or treated like a form of sexual slavery at all). Neither of them seem particularly interested to work towards a solid summary style- and NPOV-compliant article, and instead they (ab)use these pages as a battleground for (anti-)Islamic apologetics. This has become time-consuming and disruptive. I therefore propose to topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed.

Pinging editors recently active at both articles' talk pages: Toddy1, Wiqi55, Baamiyaan2, Assem Khidhr, Srnec, Mhhossein, Anachronist, Aciram, Slywriter, Jushyosaha604, Sirdog, FormalDude, Wikiedit01995, Bookku, Mcphurphy.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If both are topic banned, what is to become of the POV-forkiness? Vice Regent proposed a reasonable split, one article being about the history of sexual slavery/concubinage (I don't care what it's called), and the other being about Islamic views (theology, legal issues) toward it. Right now there's too big of an overlap for the two articles to exist, but a case can be made for two independently notable topics. Vice Regent is a major contributor to one of the articles and would be the best person to get them both into shape, as long as the arguments over titles stop. That can be handled in a RM discussion covering both articles simultaneously, and both editors could be banned from that discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist do you see anything problematic with my participation in the RM discussion? I have consistently cited loads of RS[105][106]. In fact, Apaugasma referred to my research as "impressive"[107] so this topic ban proposal comes as a surprise to me. What have I done wrong here? I'm happy to listen to feedback and use it improve my conduct during discussions.VR _talk 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We would not be here if you had not created a POV fork. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where this proposal comes from, or why. With the idea that discussing openly and reaching consensus is always the right approach, the only thing I have edited after being pinged in a talk page by a user on 13th October have been talk pages. “Receiving opposition” for a request is not a bad thing as you present it, I consider it rather good. The bad thing would be ignoring the will of a community and proceed with an agenda anyway. I can proudly say that I never did or attempted anything close to that. --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The disagreements between them are not restricted to those two pages, and lots of stuff seems related to sexual slavery - for example Grufo moved Contubernium to Contubernium (Roman army unit) and then wrote a new article on sex with slaves on top of the redirect created by the move, which Vice regent disagreed with (see Talk:Contubernium (Roman army unit) and Talk:Contubernium). The thing that comes out of looking at some of these disagreements is how reasonable Vice regent seems to have been.

• Interaction analyser (undated)
• Interaction analyser (2021 edits)
• Interaction analyser (2020 edits)

It does not make sense taking any action against Vice regent.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Excuse me, is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The "accusation" is that Vice regent behaves reasonably in disputes with you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That is rather subjective. It might be that I have just different opinions than you. And if your accusation was that of not being responsible in disputes, don't you think that started with the wrong foot? --Grufo (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, I commented on him. I did not comment on you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's even weirder. So your accusation against me is that he behaves reasonably? --Grufo (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I "accused" him of behaving reasonably in disputes with you. I did not comment on your behaviour.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are making things worse, Toddy1. You were answering to “is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article?”. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not made any "accusation" against Grufo. I looked at some of the many disputes between Grufo and Vice regent. I gave the Contubernium one as an example. It seems to me that Vice regent generally behaves reasonably, and a topic ban against Vice regent is not justified.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Grufo (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The Contubernium example is a nice example. Basically, after I created the page, Vice regent appeared out of the blue and started to POV-push the idea that “concubinatus” could be used as a synonym for it, oddily using a source about Middle Age in support, despite “concubinatus” and “contubernium” were separate institutions in the Roman Law, on which the amount of specialized sources is uncountable (you can read the short discussion at Talk:Contubernium). That was also the time when Vice regent was trying to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam” – it looks like it had become a passion for him to push the word “concubinage” into Wikipedia articles. Was this particular behavior what you consider a “reasonable behavior”, or are there other reasons why you found it useful to present my Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma's proposed topic ban was limited to "sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed". So it was useful to show that the sex-and-slavery disputes between Grufo and Vice regent have been more wide-ranging than that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I was quoted here. I am interested in the articles in question. However, I have not followed the conflict and discussion between the two editors mentioned here, so I can't really comment on them. But I will say this; these articles are sensitive. They present a subject which is sensitive in the eyes of people with religious bias. For a long time, I have obsered through the edit history of these articles, particlularly Sexual slavery in Islam, that they are almost routinely vandalized by IPs, and the reason seem to be that Muslims regard the subject shameful to Islam. Because of this, I asked for the article Sexual Slavery to be protected. It resulted in the article being accused of racism and all sorts of things, which did not give me a better impression. Because of all this, I have more or less stayed out of getting involved in these articles. I was strenghtened in this decision, when the User Vice regent aggressively attacked me out of nowhere because I asked for citations for one or two sentences in the article which did not have citations - I was not aware of this user beforehand, but they appear to have felt personally attacked, and I did not wish to become further involved with them.

To summarize my opinion: these articles seem to be exposed to attacks by (Muslim) people with religious bias against it. It is my impression. But the subject are important and should not be censured because of religious bias. If these two users can't edit in neutrally, they should be banned from the article. Due to the sensitive issue of the article, and my experience by observation of its edit history, I am afraid that this would not be suprising, and perhaps not the last time such a ban would be necessary. We should not bend to religious pressure, but present the sensitive subject neutrally.

Without being closely informed about the article renaming and split; Islam had special rules around sexual slavery and these warrant its own article. It isn an important subject. All concubines in the Muslim world were by definition slaves. Hence an article about concubines in Islam is the same thing as an article about sexual slaves in Islam. However; not all sexual slaves in Islam were concubines. Therefore, Sexual slavery in Islam and Concubinage in Islam is not the same thing, and therefore separate articles about sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam is justified. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma pinged me and some others above. I feel that if Vice regent keeps inserting a {{POV}} tag and creating forks for Islam related articles, he should be blocked or topic banned from Islam related articles, essentially because he's a biased Islamophilic.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aciram: Thank you for intervening despite the tension that the topic brings. Without going into content-related topics here, I would like just to emphasize that my only edit in Sexual slavery in Islam in more than one year has been my attempt to remove the {{POV}} template, which was immediately reverted by Vice regent – and that led me here. After all, the dispute was over, I thought, and they had even povforked the page, all problems seemed solved there. Before that, my last contribution was from more than one year ago, dated 23 September 2020, which was also reverted by Toddy1. If I am guilty, my crime has been that of reporting a problem that originates from a compact group of users. The same problem was probably felt by who created the page, Mcphurphy, who has slowly loosened their involvement in the article. One month ago Vice regent was “warned against a battleground mentality” and Mhhossein (another editor involved in these topics and in this discussion too) was “warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility” and “topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed”. I will not report older events – I do support the principle of Non bis in idem and I am not really eager to recall them – one month though is too short for making this a “bis”. --Grufo (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not "aggressively attack" Aciram. It is an WP:ASPERSION for Aciram to accuse me without diffs. Last month Aciram repeatedly put cn tags on sentences, where the very next sentence had the citation along with a quote. I told Aciram about this politely here. And Aciram's comment "these articles seem to be exposed to attacks by (Muslim) people with religious bias against it" is unhelpful.

Baamiyaan2 might be upset that I reported them for sockpuppetry here (where two other users agree with my assessment). And Grufo is connecting this to a completely unrelated arbitration case here.VR _talk 21:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your warning “against a battleground mentality” together with the very same people that keep POV-pushing apologetic content is unrelated? Are you not making confusion with your WP:CANVASS attempt to involve editors from a discussion about Planck units in a discussion about sexual slavery and Islam only because they were the only people you had found in the entire Wikipedia that were arguing with me? That indeed might sound unrelated. Or maybe that time when you asked an admin whether you could contact an Iranian about a controversial Farsi translation concerning Khomeini, and the admin answered that you could, as long as the involvement was due only to their language skills (“I think it would be OK, provided you're asking them because of their language skills rather than because you think they are likely to agree with your position”); except that the day after the Iranian (with whom I barely had any interaction) was already polarized against me and had asked for the intervention of another admin because of my critical opinions about Khomeini (I know it sounds absurd, but apparently the bloody Khomeini has still supporters around). The “uninvolved” Iranian was no less than Mhhossein by the way. So no, your warning “against a battleground mentality” does not look so unrelated. Or should we discuss about how you have literally bombed Mcphurphy's talk page? – no mystery that that editor does not want to get involved in these topics anymore. I was really making you a favor, Vice regent, I sincerely support the principle of Non bis in idem – although for most of these things you have not been really judged yet, so non bis in idem would not even apply. --Grufo (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, I have merely made an unprejudiced observation. Your sock puppet investigation will surely fail because I am not the person you are accusing me of being, I have edited only 5% of the articles he/she edited and thanks to the analysis of Toddy1 which listed out the articles edited by that user, I am even avoiding those articles - nobody has blocked or banned me probably because they believe that I am not who you claim I am.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read through my comment since posting it, I realised I forgot to write something I thought I already wrote in my first comment but did not, so I will add it as a Postscript to my last comment. If the situation is as described (and I will simply trust the description given here) then in that case, what the user Vice regent is doing ("will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles") is more incorrect and destructive than what is described about user Grufo ("not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery"). Concubinage in Islam was indeed sexual slavery, regardless if this form of sexual slavery is a "institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage" or not. Slavery is slavery regardless in what form it is performed; Wikipedia must have a Global view on this phenomena and not, for example, assume that the form of slavery taking place in the US is the only form of slavery which should be defined as slavery. I don't think the fact that Islamic concubinage is synonymous with sexual slavery need necessarily be included in the title of each article, but it was indeed sexual slavery, and that should be made clear in the article text, not hidden. If user Vice regent is indeed making edits of an apologetic kind designed to hide the fact that Islamic concubinage is slavery, then this user does indeed give a biased impression, and are in that case not suitable to edit these pages. There is a problem I have observed in several articles about women in Islam, and that is that they are tagged as non-neutral, vandalized by people who think that they blacken the name of Islam, called racist and even hate pages and so forth, merely because of their subject, and despite having plenty of scholarly references. This does not give a good impression of the intent of the users's and anonymous IPs who perform these acts. It does give the impression of religious bias. I am fully aware of how deeply sensitive this subject is - that is why I prefer to stay away from discussions were users of this kind participate - but Wikipedia as a project must be religiously neutral and give a neutral, non-biased and non-apologetic description of subjects, even when the subject is sensitive to people with religious bias. Apologetics can not be tolerated. Now: I realise that the conflict between these two users may be very infected, and it seems it is. But when it comes to the subject at hand, I feel it is my duty to strongly point out the importance of the principle of religious neutrality, regardless of the sensitivity of the subject, since my observations in this context have sometimes given me concern. --Aciram (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Oddities

There is something funny about this discussion. I go to someone for a question – let's say “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with another question concerning me, something like “What color is you hair?”. I answer the question, then I ask again “Do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with a another question, “Where have you been yesterday?”. I answer also that question. After going on like this with me answering all the questions, I still ask “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. But then the person screams at me, and says “Stop asking that question! Don't you see that we have moved forward, you stupid WP:IDHT! You are just a WP:BLUDGEON with your wish to manipulate the discussion about the time! You know what? I think you are a WP:SPA.”

I am perfectly fine with all you asking me all the questions you want to ask, and look at my contributions as much as you want, and I love the WP:BOOMERANG idea, but I would still like to know: Do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Wikipedia rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

Thanks to all of you who want to give their time to answer. --Grufo (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss whether Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is the only possible place when a dispute goes on for more than one year despite formally closed, and a user keeps forbidding other editors to remove the {{POV}} template that they had placed in Sexual slavery in Islam in the name of that dispute, in spite of the fact that they have even povforked the page in the meanwhile. Where else should it be asked? Thanks for not answering – at least you didn't scream. --Grufo (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is for discussing users' behaviour. The article talk page is for discussing the article. You could raise the issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies. You could use the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process. If you think that one article is redundant, you could propose it for deletion at WP:AFD. But be careful not to engage in forum shopping-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As explained in the introduction, a behavior (#1, #2, #3, #4) is what brought me here. --Grufo (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent's behaviour in the diffs, Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template (again) seem entirely reasonable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

100% agree- ANI is the wrong place to discuss content- stick to behavior here. If you want a moderated discussion of content- your options are WP:RFC, WP:3O or WP:DRN, please head to one of those venues. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I go to WP:RFC or WP:3O and ask what? “Hey guys, there is an editor that keeps pushing the {{POV}} template in a page in the name of a dispute that ended more than one year ago. It is not like anyone forbids them to improve the page, and indeed they often make contributions, they just like to keep the {{POV}} template anyway. Can you make them stop? They have even povforked the page in the meanwhile.” Do you think that could work? WP:DRN might not be a bad idea though. WP:DRN is for solving disputes. There are currently no disputes in that page. --Grufo (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you go to 3o and write a neutral request for a 3rd opinion- you don't put your POV in there. Beware flying boomerangs my friend- I think one is seeking you out. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask them directly. @Vice regent: Why do you think it is better for Wikipedia that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic? Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself? Are there sources that you would like to insert but you are forbidden to insert? Any concrete example? --Grufo (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, please stop trying to discuss content at ANI!-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Things are getting out of ANI scope. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: What is the sense of coming into a place full of admins and trying to convince them that behavior-related questions are not behavior-related? A Wikipedia admin tends to be familiar with rhetoric fallacies, and WP:BOOMERANG applies to everyone after all. These are both behavior-related questions:

• “Why do you think it is better for Wikipedia that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic?”
• “Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself?”

The very fact that a single user “maintains” a {{POV}} template in a page for more than one year without trying to address it is a behavior problem. There are two sections in the discussion – § Neutrality template and § Neutrality template (again) – that were created by editors who attempted to remove the template, not by who keeps pushing the {{POV}} template. --Grufo (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This behaviour by Grufo is called sealioning. As you can see, he/she has been doing quite a bit of it on this page. It is very annoying. Can I suggest a 2 week block for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Wojak6 Needs to be stopped from misusing article talk page. Editor needs corrective action.

Status:     Requires attention

Wojak6 is misusing the Kisii people article talk page (refer to recent inputs on the talk page by editor). The editor is using the talk page to express his personal views and his inputs to the talk page are full of negativity and appear to express hate speech to an editor and a group of people. The editor appears to be using the page to fight another editor rather than using it for a discussion to improve the encyclopedia. The editor posts unnecessary content to the page and does not add anything rather than continuously criticizing an article without providing any solutions. I am personally tired of having to reply to the editor's rather irrelevant posts which seem to be getting out of control as the talk page is now getting overfilled with a lot of unnecessary content. It is also getting tiring to report on this editor and long term solution is needed. I don't want to engage in any more discussion with editor as he appears to be fighting me. The editor need to be stopped from posting irrelevant and unnecessary content on the talk page. The editor seems to post anything he feels like on the talk page. The editor also seems to ignore the feedback and warning on his talk page since he repeats some of the concerns on his personal talk page. Serious intervention is needed to help stop the editor from misusing the talk page. The posts by the editor on the article talk page need to be removed to clean up the page which is now overcrowded with unnecessary discussions. The editor needs corrective action.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea if you were previously the ip editor(s) who have bloated the article into an unreadable wall of text over the years, but ever heard of "less is more"? Wojack6 isn't communication great on the talk page but your long posts on Talk aren't exactly helpful either. Additionally, while you managed to get an admin to previously protect the page as edit-warring, even got Wojack6 warned, a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions. The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter The article has been edited by several IPs and for some reason you seem to assume I am the one who edited the article over the years. That is simply not true. As much I have mostly worked on the article, it does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has edited the article over the years. "a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted....." I have no idea of what you are referring to and I have only done very few reversions on this editor and I have always left reasons for reversions. I only restored earlier to earlier version of the Kisii people article this morning and did not quickly restore content and seek sanctions as you put it. There were intermediate edits between the edits by the editor and my edit where I restored an earlier version. So I did not quickly revert as you put it. The report is about the Kisii people article talk page and not the actual article and was filed yesterday. It does not make sense to claim that I should provide sourcing not restore content and seek sanctions. You are not addressing the report but defending the editor and blaming me and even wrongly accusing me of being the editor that bloated the article on an article edited by several people before I even started editing.

The long posts were just unavoidable. What are your suggestion for the talk page? Should the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page as they are mostly irrelevant and a number of them have negativity. Are editors allowed to deleted content from the article talk pages, or is that the work of the administrator? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1045663114 where you accuse the Wojack of vandalism and restore content, half of which is completely unsourced. And I did not blame or state you were the ip editor(s), in fact I said " No idea if.. " I was pointing out that both the article and talk page are suffering the same problem which is dense walls of text, which make it difficult for a reader to comprehend the article and difficult for other editors to get a grasp of what the issues are without committing significant time. Wojack isn't without guilt as they are removing sourced material as well as unsourced but as other editors have noted here, their concern about the article is not without merit. Slywriter (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter I still don't understand why you state that ...."a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".....That is very biased and one-sided view. The point is that Wojak6 was blanking entire sections and parts of sections and not providing any solutions. The reasons provided for deletion were not good enough to justify deletion of entire sections of the article. And on the basis of the claims on some of his summaries and on the talk page indicate that he did not read through the article for starting blanking it of content. The best solution was to reverse the article as the editor was not helping the article rather than making it even more worse. Why did you even talk about this issue as it was already resolved?

What the editor did to the article was vandalism because he was basically blanking the article without sufficient explanations. Your claims that half of the content was unsourced are also not correct and biased. The editor continuously continued deletion of content despite being reversed several times and then the page was protected. I was basically reverting to safe the article as the removal of deletion of entire sections of both cited and uncited information was not constructive. Was it wrong to seek administrator intervention to stop what was happening on the page? Was the reversion wrong? Should have been left to blank the entire article of content because that is what was going to happen if the page was not protected.

I basically only did the work of reverting the article that was being blanked of content. Why do you then claim that ..." WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".... You seem to be assume that I am the only editor who edits the article that is edited by many. Why should I be the only one responsible for providing sourcing on an article that is edited by many? I did not restore content and seek sanctions as you claim as I only reverted an article that was basically being vandalized. Blanking of articles is really vandalized as both sourced and unsourced content were removed and no solutions provided. It is very surprising that you think an administrator intervention should not have been sought.

Your claim that ...." The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard.".... Indicates that you support what the editor was doing blanking entire sections of the article. Why do you assume I was guarding the article when I was simply saving it from losing entire contents? Was blanking the article a solution? You should admit that you are biased and have only provided one sided views. You have also mostly defended the editor rather than addressing the report. You have only talked about an issue that was already resolved.

What are your stands? should the editor continue with his current editing practices. The editor mostly never leaves summaries for most of his edits, deletes and adds content without providing any summaries and if he provides then they are not good summaries. I suggest talking a look at his talk page to see concerns from other editors. I mean you mostly defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

My stance is simple... you see enemies everywhere, which is not in collaborative spirit this encyclopedia is based on. Even here, you are making accussations against me and accusing me of bias. WP:Vandalism means something very specific here and WP:AGF is not optional.

The talk page is covered in long winded rants by you. Even here, you still insist on writing novellas as a response. And I have repeatedly started there are concerns with Wojack's editing but I do not see them as the only problematic editor on the page, you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.

And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic . Slywriter (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter What do you mean I see enemies everywhere? I only expressed my concerns about your one sided-view in your replies which I found to be unfair. Of course you had bias in that you mostly defended the other editor and made blaming statements that I quoted in the earlier reply against me. How does that apply to collaboration on Wikipedia? I have not accused you anywhere but expressed my concerns about what you said earlier which I quoted. There is no battleground mentality here and there are no disagreements between you and I on anything. I have just expressed my concerns. Please clarify this statement...."you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.".... what are you referring to? ..."And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic.".. which topic are you referring to? you are confusing me with the quoted statement. The report was about the talk page and not the article itself. How come you are now talking about the article and not the talk page? Are you trying to imply that I am the one who wrote the Kisii people article and/or it is based on my personal views and so I have a battleground mentality on whoever disagrees with me? Because if you are assuming that then it is wrong because the article was not written by me. The article was there long before I stated editing and there are many people who edit it. There is no accusing you are having a battleground with you. I am just offended by the statements you have made on your replies which I have quoted. I will appreciate if you can use a neutral language rather than the one you have used in you replies. The only thing that I have done on that talk page is replying to threads by Wojak6. How come you think I am developing a battleground with those who disagree with since the threads were not mine and I just replied to them? Shouldn't be the other way round because it is the other editor who started the threads? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is grossly lacking citations for much of its content. From a quick look, it would appear that much of it is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the 5th time you've brought this editor to ANI in a month [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]. At this point this is simply becoming harassment. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:192.76.8.77 Like I said I am not going to be engaging with the editor anymore. I only had a choice of reporting him and I am just tired of doing so.

I do not see that Wojak6 has been any less constructive on the talk page than Nyanza Cushitic. Both editors need to base their arguments on the sources rather than what they "know" themselves, which seems to be informed by misplaced ethnic pride rather than facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Thank you for your input. I have just tried my best to reply to the editor on the talk page and just got tired and don't want to engage with the editor. Can the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page? Is that the work of the administrator to delete threads from article talk pages? or Can an editor go ahead and delete the threads. If the threads were never posted, I possibly could have not even replied to them. It is the threads that led to replying. Can they be deleted? I believe that will help remove unnecessary discussions and some negative threads from the page. If you can please help delete the threads from the talk page. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to edit an article then you have to be prepared to discuss issues with people who may disagree with you, rather than come running to a noticeboard whenever that happens. I don't see anything so egregious that it warrants deletion from the talk page. Instead of going off on long rants just say in a sentence or two what reliable sources you have looked at and what they say. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil BridgerWhy do you for some reason assume that I am the only one who edits the article. The edits put some input on the talk page which I tried my best to reply. Why do you assume the editor was disagreeing with me and the editor too seems to assume I did this and that according to the input on the talk page. What do you mean I run to the noticeboard? was it wrong to file a report about a misuse of the talk page? The editor put some input which I replied to, so how come you say he was disagreeing with me? I mean the article is edited by many people and for some reason you are assuming that I am the one who wrote the article and the editor was disagreeing with me. That simply wrong. The article is editing by many people and has been edited for wrong before I even started editing, so how come you assume that I am the writer of the article? You claims are simply biased and unfair. So do you probably believe that I did not have or don't have rights to seek administrator intervention? You should accept that some of your claims are wrong. You have also very much defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody misused the talk page, so it was wrong of you to say that anyone did. Your only complaint is that you disagree with what someone said there. Talk about it there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I just read through that talk page and Nyanza Cushitic, I highly recomend you review WP:NPA because you have been incredibly uncivil and have made some unnecessary personal attacks towards the other user. There is no need to question their intelligence or understanding of English because they disagree with you. You must be WP:CIVIL when you interact on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle I asked the editor understood English because he posted content unrelated to the thread being replied to. It was not meant to attack the editor. Is asking whether one understand English really an attack? I don't remember questioning the intelligence of the editor anywhere on the article. I have not attacked the editor other replying to his threads. Your claim that I was incredibly uncivil is simply an overstatement. Is asking whether one understands English really uncivil? I don't remember question the editor's intelligence in the talk page, but to claim that those two claims are incredibly uncivil and personal attack is an overstatement. I have mostly replied to the threads and nothing more than that, unless replying to the threads is an attack. Your claims of attacking the editor could be misplaced. Has Wojak6 been civil in the talk page? The editor has mostly assumed that I am the one who I wrote the Kisii people article and even quotes content from the article assuming that I am the one who did this an that. Whenever he read anything on the article that he does not agree with he assumes I am the one who put it there. isn't that also an attack against me then if asking if one understands English is an attack? It could be great if you can clarify by personal attacks because I could not see any attacks made other than replying to the threads. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You ask at least 3 times if they understand English..... and yet nowhere does there appear to be a language deficit on their side. Their syntax, vocabulary, and grammar all indicate a total understanding of the language. The only problem is- they differ in opinion from you. So yes- that is 100% a personal attack. And Wojak is remarkably civil to you- far more so than I would have been if I had been ridiculed for my opinion by you as they have been. I, again, recommend you review WP policies on civility and cooperation and WP:dropthestick at least- preferably with an apology. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interaction and topic ban proposal

It is clear from this discussion that although Wojak6 (talk · contribs) has made inappropriate edits at Kisii people and its talk page, Nyanza Cushitic (talk · contribs) (NC) has also behaved unacceptably toward this user.

• The two users had an edit war about a month ago where Wojak6 blanked content regarding the origins of the Kisii people. While their edit summaries were clearly based on their personal opinion about the topic, the content they deleted contained lots of unsourced OR, and NC's reverts contained unambiguous personal attacks, including accusations of vandalism. The section in this particular edit was recently removed by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) on the correct basis that it was entirely OR, with no references that were actually about the genetics of the Kisii people.
• More recent edits to the article by NC, such as the first edit after unprotection, have been focused primarily on making genuine improvements such as removing unreferenced content and redundant statements. Hence, NC should not be topic-banned from the Kisii people.
• They have discussed this issue on Talk:Kisii people, beginning around the same time as the edit war, concerning the article's POV. NC repeatedly asserted that Wojak6's concern should have been brought up at Talk:Gusii language, which is incorrect per WP:NOTFORUM since the original concern was about a POV issue in the Kisii people article. Both users' statements are tainted by personal opinion: While it is obvious in the case of Wojak6's statements that their POV is heavily based on the Niger–Congo hypothesis and a misinterpretation of the Bantu expansion hypothesis with unreliable sources (as asserted by NC), NC's arguments were also based on OR with no attempt whatsoever to back up their claims with reliable sources. NC also made a few personal attacks such as, Your assertions [about the Bantu languages and the genetics of the Bantu people] indicate that you clearly lack knowledge on so many things as most of your comments and assertions are absurd.
• NC continued to attack Wojak6 after both users (along with a few others) turned to revising the article and deleting unsourced content and OR, such as on October 13 where NC once again dismissed Wojak6's concern about poor grammar, and order them to fix the claimed grammatical errors themselves. An overview of the later Special:Permalink#1051310691, the last revision before I started deleting OR and redundant content in the History section, clearly shows a number of grammatical errors, mostly missing commas such as, The Abamaragoli though close to Abagusii, their relationship is only tied to having similar oral traditions. Other than that, they are distinct in terms of culture and language and the Lulogooli is very distinct from Ekegusii language spare some lexical items shared through interaction and intermarriage. A recent thread that lasted from October 11–20 repeated many of the assertions from before with new claims (unsupported by RS) about the Khoisan peoples, plus a new personal attack by NC where they told Wojak6 twice to stop putting words in my mouth. Since this started with an off-topic question by Wojak6 about the speakers of the Omotic languages, with zero relevance to the Gusii language or the Kisii people, I think Wojak6 cannot edit productively about this topic area.
• On October 14, C.Fred (talk · contribs) warned Wojak6 about a personal attack about NC in an edit summary at Great Lakes Bantu anguages 3 days prior; Slywriter (talk · contribs) complained about Wojak6's lack of participation here and (without specific examples) that they use rude edit summaries or none at all.
• The fact that NC has filed 5 ANI threads about the aforementioned dispute, including this thread, is a serious behavioral problem in and of itself, as pointed out by the 192 IP. Harassment is often grounds for an interaction ban.

In conclusion, I propose that Nyanza Cushitic and Wojak6 be banned from interacting with each other, and that Wojak6 be topic banned from the migration history of, and linguistic or genetic relations between, African peoples and languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think that an interaction ban really addresses the underlying problem, which seems to be one of neither contributor fully understanding Wikipedia policy, particularly in regard to original research and the need for sourcing. Certainly their behaviour towards each other wasn't at all appropriate, but it seems to me that it arose in the first place because of the poor state of the article as they found it (for which neither seems to be directly responsible), and to neither contributor seeing the fundamental issues with how it had been written. I'm inclined to suggest that the more appropriate action here is to suggest that both contributors read up on policy and guidelines, not just on WP:OR and WP:RS, but on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and the options available when two contributors cannot reach an agreement. Maybe I'm being overoptimistic (not my usual habit) but I'd like to think that given a better understanding of how their interactions might have gone more constructively, they may now be capable of still working together. Wikipedia clearly needs contributors capable of creating appropriate content in this topic area - our coverage of the complexities of ethnicity in an African context is sorely lacking, and what exists is often of questionable merit - and an interaction ban that prevents two such contributors from working cooperatively together may not be in anyone's best interests. If they don't wish to work together, they clearly aren't obliged to, and if we find that they can't, without causing further drama, maybe an interaction ban or other sanctions will prove necessary. For now though, I'd say give them a chance to see if they can work together if they wish to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation for "The Golden Verses of Pythagoras (Rowe/Firth translation, modernized)"

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

---

Status:     No further action currently required

The user Apaugasma has recently reverted an edit of mine.

The reason Apaugasma gave was that

" Rowe is probably more reliable than Westcott as a translator, given the latter's explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools"

By this reasoning, Apaugasma should delete all Christian edits that have allegiances to Christian theological schools. Similarly with other theologies.

And by the way, Wescott did not translate it. It was translated by someone with the initials A.E.A. Wescott was an editor of the volume the Verse was published in. So Apaugasma's reasoning is incorrect on all accounts.

So the reason for reverting was incorrect. Can I revert it back? Or should I just leave it?

The reason I edited it in the first place was the doubt I had about a potential copyright breach for the the modernized translation as no reference was given for that, and is still lacking. Usually, modernized versions are copyrighted by somebody. The Rowe/Firth translation currently on Wikipedia is a modernized version of the Rowe/Firth translation of the Golden Verses. The version I replaced it with is not under copyright. The reference provided for the modernized Rowe/Firth version does not state who translated the modernized version.

I hope I have gone about reporting this issue in the correct manner, if not please tell me.

Regards Daryl

PS. Both Rowe and Firth have "explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools." But we do not know about the translator of the modernized version because it is not given.

Darylprasad (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You should have notified Apaugasma of this discussion. I have done so for you. Additionally, this reads like a content issue to me. As you've already brought it up at their talk page, I suggest you wait for their response. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rummskartoffel

Thank you for that. I don't have much experience in "Talk". Darylprasad (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed entirely about content. I've answered the query at Talk:Golden Verses. The translation I reinstated dates from 1904 and so should be safely within the public domain. The copyvio accusation (also here) is thus entirely frivolous.

@Darylprasad: this noticeboard is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I may have set somewhat of a bad example yesterday by bringing you here after your point-y edits [113], but please take more care in the future before you wrongfully accuse a fellow editor and waste community time both here and on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Also, please try to finish your comments in talk pages with a few less edits: this clutters up the edit history, which many people use to watch the page. Thanks!

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

Incivility/personal attack by User talk:Qwirkle

Status:     Requires attention

Regarding these posts at Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021 (unless otherwise indicated):

Revision as of 02:41, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Not particularly civil but not of itself a concern.

Revision as of 13:53, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Note that the edit posts at two places. I would characterise the second as ad hominem and feel it is quite inappropriate.

Revision as of 14:26, 20 October 2021 Cinderella157: I addressed Qwirkle at their talk page, expressing my concern that I felt their post was uncivil to the point of being a personal attack.

Revision as of 14:30, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Their response at their talk page: If that is all you can assume, then I suggest you take it to ANI. Goodbye.

Revision as of 14:54, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: I believe that this edit falls to casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

In consequence of this last post, I bring this matter here.

Revision as of 05:02, 21 October 2021 Cinderella157: Notification of this discussion

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

De minimis non curat lex. Bishonen | tålk 06:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

This apparently all relates to Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021. While I would support any effort to indefinitely block those who repeatedly generate disruption by arguing over pointless details (in this case Subway vs. subway), the claims of incivility are bogus. I'll take this opportunity to rant on my favorite topic—this is a worldwide encyclopedia where volunteers create and maintain excellent content. Bludgeoning such volunteers until they submit is not productive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

HK unregistered ip cult again

Status:     Requires attention

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

• I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)
• Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058
  • (210.6.10.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
  • (210.6.10.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:Military of Hong Kong, Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
• despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me

  210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402

  210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100

• And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890
• A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.
• Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI "[he] do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what wikipedia should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me WP:RS; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (meaning), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests was keep on WP:RM by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Matthew hk, I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

    • And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

      With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. @Valereee: Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting an interaction ban between User:Benmite and myself

Status:     Requires attention

Almost since the day this person started editing this article HoYeon Jung, he has had an agenda (or should I say vendetta) to remove and censure any contributions I've made and make up reasons why they shouldn't be in the article and when I respond he starts this delusion of how I'm violating some policy. It's normal to alter edits here and there. It's not normal to spend a week constantly trying to undermine someone's output. It started with little things I was willing to look past, but it's been a week now, and over and over again. I've never come across an editor feeling the need to create not one but 2 different concurrent pontifications discussions about every single contribution I've made, as if they're not even valid. Then turn around and ask me, twice, to bring back something they removed. I'm not disrupting the article by moving a sentence or adding one, or hell, even moving a word. But he's actually disrupting it. This hypocrite Benmite believes he has omnipotence on any editorial decision on this article be it an added source or added content then accuse me of "ownership" or "bad faith" when I've broached this subject. This would be understandable if the article had been created last month and was in DYK territory, but we're supposed to be building upon something created 3 years ago from absolute scratch and here he comes with this crab barrel mentality every time the article expands practically beyond his own edits. It's frankly weird. Personally I'm glad to see that the article has evolved from the 137 or so words it began with in 2018, to now being C class and people actually wanting to read it and finally having a great wealth of sources for editors to use. Do you see me wielding a fictional red marker? Anyway, I've grown tired. Interaction ban. Trillfendi (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history and talk page, it looks like there are some content disputes going on which Trillfendi is making personal via assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. e.g. "It must be tiresome being so pedantic, but remember it's not about you: it's for the interested reader's knowledge." Even this post is pretty pointed, in that it accuses Benmite of "delusion" and "pontification". The claim that This hypocrite Benmite believes he has omnipotence on any editorial decision on this article is contradicted by the fact that Benmite seems to be very patiently trying to initiate discussions of content disagreements at Talk:HoYeon Jung. Colin M (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So, someone has finally challenged Trillfendi's claim to ownership of all of our articles about the fashion industry. I can't claim to know who is right here, but I do know that it's a healthy thing that that challenge has occurred. Such a large area of human endeavour shouldn't be dominated by just one editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'd like to be pointed to any instance in the past 5 years where I "claim ownership of all our articles about the fashion industry" (at least stretch before a reach like that, good Lord). 2 years ago I'm told I make articles for "obscure" models.... Having the initiative to create models' articles isn't "claiming ownership of all our articles about the fashion industry". I don't get paid a dime for any of them, so in what way am I actually profiting of any of this? The only reason you call it "domination" is that I'm seemingly the only person, who has stuck around long enough (5 years since Van Rompaey) to keep creating these pages or routinely update them, partly because of Wikipedia's known, multifaceted gender bias problem; anyone else has the ability to do the same if that's what they want to do with their free time. Even you. But I do find it preposterous when Wikipedia editors who can't even tell you what board is which, what poaching is, why an exclusive matters, why one cover is more important than the other, etc. have so much to say about how I edit the subject of fashion on here. That's when I start getting dogmatic. Trillfendi (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Anyway, I've grown tired. Interaction ban." Yeah...that's not remotely how this works. The community only issues bans where significant violations of policy, leading to ongoing disruption, are taking place and the ban is necessary to arrest that disruption. Having just reviewed the article edit history and talk page discussion in some detail, I see absolutely no indication of policy violations or behavioural issues on the part of Benmite. On the contrary, it seems to me that they have followed a scrupulously civil and (wiki-)professional approach in all discussion on that talk page, avoiding personalization of discussion and keeping their commentary focused on sources and policy. All of which belays the rather strong speculation you make in your complaint here (with pretty absolute rejection of WP:AGF) that they have been "pursuing a vendetta against you from day one" for....reasons? Indeed, I think that accusation, based on what I am seeing on that talk page, is saying a bit more about your own approach to the dispute than it is about Benmite's, especially in light of the fact that your own posture has been somewhat less than perfectly collaborative in some instances. And not for nothing, but I note that at least one other editor, unconnected with this dispute, has reached out to you on your talk page in the last week to ask that you adopt a less aggressive tone on that particular TP.

Furthermore, even if we were in a scenario where the community was likely to endorse your perspective on the dispute there, IBANs represent a particularly situational sanction that really only works in certain contexts. Here we have two editors at a loggerheads over multiple editorial questions, which have seen no consensus as yet on the talk page. How would that situation be improved by making the both of you unable to communicate directly while you remain in fundamental disagreement about the content in dispute? Are you volunteering to leave the article or avoid all edits pertaining to the disputes? Because if you were just planning on getting the IBAN and then having it shield all of your edits from "interference" from Benmite, that's clearly not feasible: that would make the IBAN imminently subject to abuse and gamesmanship from both sides. Efforts towards consensus would be further complicated (not aided), and the virtually unavoidable calls for action on the IBAN from two editors still looking to engage at cross purposes would constitute increased disruption for the community, not reduced.

Let's be clear: from all indication on that article, this is essentially a straightforward content dispute, and yet you've come here asking the community to take the extraordinary action of a ban to resolve those matters without having made even the most rudimentary of efforts to avail yourself of the numerous community processes that are available to you to break any deadlocks in opinion: you haven't opened or proposed an WP:RfC on any content question, you haven't sought help at WP:DRN, you haven't requested input on a WikiProject or policy talk page, or put the questions regarding the sources to WP:RSN. You haven't so much as asked for a single WP:3O. All of these are steps that you should have contemplated before coming here to ask that the ban hammer be wielded to resolve a nexus of disputes that could easily be addressed through normal community consensus and dispute resolution processes.

I'll be blunt: I see very little likelihood that the community will endorse your claim that you are being hounded here, when the entire dispute has been contained to a single article and its talk page, over a very short period of time, with the other editor completely avoiding commentary about you, keeping their opinion focused on the content issues. This is my rather strong take on the matter as an uninvolved editor with no previous experience of the dispute, the article, or the parties involved, who is reviewing the matter de novo, as it were. So I would very seriously consider a different tact on this dispute: if you are as certain as you seem to be that you have the right end of the policy stick on these issues (and I'm not certain you should be, but that's a question not fit for ANI), then you should be seeking additional community input on the questions and building WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for your preferred approach on the talk page through sound policy arguments--not attempting to shut down another editor's ability to engage with you on those questions, just because they happen to critical of your approach on multiple editorial points, but have not in any way violated policy or collaborative principles in disagreeing with you. I can't see any realistic chance of an IBAN being implemented here under the current facts. Unless of course you want a unilateral one against your ability to engage with Benmite: I'm sure if you want an !vote on that, you'd be indulged: this situation already has strong shades of WP:BOOMERANG, frankly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: The move discussion currently in place was needed out of protection for the article. I have yet to see any contribution I have made require an RFC, whatsoever (but if you do, let me know). I do find the "every day removing someone's contributions after I edited the page" charade very strange. User Benmite seems to be the only one who has a problem with each individual thing and instead of "talking it out", finds reasons to rebuke them. Simple shit like moving a reference in a sentence is a problem to him. Mind you, all I did was move a sentence for this to have been precipitated. Trillfendi (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A 1-way IBAN on the creator of this thread would be a neat example of poetic justice. Unfortunately I doubt it would be the best way to address this issue. For starters, an IBAN is meant to be a preventative measure. Given that this dispute appears to be limited to one article and short in duration, I don't see how an IBAN would be very helpful. That being said, I'd like to see a short-term block (like 24 hours?) for civility and wasting time at AN/I. The comments directed at Benmite such as "It must be tiresome being so pedantic, but remember it's not about you" [114] or the messages on the talk page of HoYeon Jung are wild. [115] Saying that someone doesn't "know shit about fashion" is sort of uncivil regardless of the truthfulness of such. Likewise with phrases such as "get your lies in order" and whatever else.

Speaking directly to Trillfendi now, I get that it's a heated discussion and you didn't feel that you were getting anywhere. That's exactly the time when you need to get outside opinions and input so you can resolve the dispute. It's necessary to recognize when you're not going to come to a compromise by debating with another editor and go get a third opinion or start an RfC. I'm directing the brunt of these comments at you because you started this thread, but Benmite also shares the responsibility for resolving the disputes, especially when they acknowleged "At this point, I'm just repeating myself" in the thread on the talk page. This whole thread could've likely been avoided if either of you took the initiative to seek a third opinion or start an RfC. The point of an RfC is to resolve disputes in a clear manner. You start the RfC, put in your reasoning, wait 30 days, and the issue is settled.

While you've done an excellent job at more or less single-handedly creating much of Wikipedia's coverage on fashion, you've also clearly not had many content disputes with other editors. As you've said yourself, Wikipedia has systemic bias and there's a lack of fashion editors relative to other subjects. You're the only person willing to stick around. But at the same time, for the systemic bias to actually be addressed, there needs to be more editors interested in fashion. Eventually you will have content disputes with those editors and you will have to resolve your differences with dispute resolution. Right now though, your behaviour at Talk:HoYeon Jung is the kind of behaviour that actively drives editors away from editing Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: And no one finds it a waste of time to just hang out on this page without any administrative usership? It's kinda sycophantic. The primary reason I haven't taken the formal route of doing an RFC over moving one sentence is that only one person has a problem with it because it contradicts his edit. That's the crazy part. He adds trivia, I dare attempt to build upon or substantiate it and he has a problem with it. I move a reference and he has a problem with it. A magazine says the subject is and he thinks this information is worthless because another magazine didn't say so. No one else. After 8 days of that one would just start to get pissed. If other editors had a problem with my contributions then I'd likely do an RFC about it. But making multiple 4 paragraph diatribes because I moved one sentence is ludicrous. The only person who was engaged in it is himself which is how I know my edits were not out of pocket. And for someone to have all these "problems" with an article they just started editing 3 days prior is illogical.

So am I mean? Sure, I guess. But it's coming from years of frustration having to defend the hard work carrying this on my back. If I don't put my foot down, editors will get away with trying to delete an article like Birgit Kos. I had the foresight to create an article for a girl in a Sephora ad (Jung), not because it would one day get a million views, but because I knew even back then it didn't have to take a tv show to make her notable... just to get accused of "ownership". And when I speak on it I'm called "begging for mercy"? I'm not the reason I'm the predominant fashion editor of Wikipedia's fashion area (and I do challenge my critics to make just one article. If I'm "dominating" and "owning all our articles" then give me an assist. Pick up a shovel! It's not just models who need articles or regular updates. Magazine editors, casting directors, photographers, businesspeople besides billionaire owners, products, etc. all need them too). The people that keep up with all the Vogue covers or check what models switched to which agency in what market this month or know what shoe dropped which season or what movie star wore what when, would rather do it on social media than an encyclopedia, on top of learning how to make an article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't come to AN/I very often, otherwise you'd know it's an "administrator's noticeboard" in name only. Admins don't decide to unilaterally impose interaction bans except in subjects under discretionary sanctions (where they discuss at WP:AE). There has to be a community consensus for the IBAN and that comes from discussion here.

You also note that there's "no other editors that have a problem". That's why you start an RfC for other editors to come and validate who is right. You're phrasing this like you're a legionnaire holding back the barbarians from pillaging Rome. That's not what this is, you and Benmite are just refusing to use the established processes that already exist for dealing with the exact issue you are having. You didn't have to argue with Benmite for 8 days, you could've started an RfC after 2 days when it became clear the discussion wasn't going anywhere and avoided becoming infuriated. But you've started this AN/I while being mean & aggressive about the issue and you're going to get a WP:BOOMERANG because of that.

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars contains a list of disputes of far less importance that have had far more discussions on them, most notably Star Trek Into Darkness/Star Trek into Darkness which has had so much controversy & lengthy paragraphs over the capitalization of the word "into" that it made the news several times. The point I am making is that disputes over inane problems are very common on Wikipedia. You are not the first to encounter the problem of feeling that a less informed editor that doesn't know what they're talking about is nitpicking your work.

You can either accept this fact and use dispute resolution like everyone else or you can continue to act like the rules don't apply to you and be blocked. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trillfendi, since multiple editors have said as much here, and your user page seems to support the assertion, I'm just going to assume that it's true that you are one of our most productive editors in the area of fashion on the project, if not the single most active such contributor of recent years. It's certainly clear that you at least believe that, and I see no reason to argue the point. But what you must understand is that this fact does not, in even the slightest fashion, impart to you some sort of special credentials, even with regard to the articles you have created. You seem to believe that your proven devotion to this area establishes that your perspective should be granted some special authority. I'm sorry, but that's just not so. In any discrete dispute on this project, nobody is meant to get any advantage except that which they garner by way of a solid argument about the content, the sources, and the application of this community's consensus policies. In fact, it is in precisely the areas we feel a particular attachment towards that we should show an extra level of self-scrutiny of our perspectives and restraint in the face of conflict.

That said, what I really think we need to focus on here is another concern that this whole situation has raised. Because it seems to me that Chess has hit the nail precisely on the head when they observe that your operation in this partial vacuum of significant collaboration seems to have left your understanding of some critical policy areas, regarding both content matter and behavioural expectations/dispute resolution significantly and problematically underdeveloped. You seem to have very little understanding of how to handle editorial conflicts, and lacking an understanding of how unencumbered your efforts in the largely vacant fashion editorial sphere have been, you are now reacting to rather mundane editorial disputes in a manner that you would probably have already learned is completely unacceptable, had you been contributing all this time in more heavily trafficked and/or dispute-prone areas. Putting aside all other concerns that have been raised in this thread, here are some examples from just your last post--some of these misunderstandings regard nuanced procedures, but a lot of it is also stuff that I would say can be fairly described as "Wikipedia 101", which you need to come to grips with immediately if you want to contribute here, particularly if you are going to do so solely in an area you feel so passionately about:

"And no one finds it a waste of time to just hang out on this page without any administrative usership? It's kinda sycophantic."

You're betraying a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of the very process you are trying to invoke here. Not only is this page a community forum in which community members are meant to contribute irrespective of the level of their privileges, but the specific sanction you have requested is a community ban: IBANs are virtually always applied as the result of a community motion. In fact, to my knowledge, no IBAN has ever been applied under the authority of an individual community member operating in an administrative capacity. I can't say for certain it has never happened, and there is no community consensus stating that it's verboten, but most admins would not feel comfortable making such a pronouncement without community consensus first. So the "sycophants" you are talking about are the people you are meant to be making your case to, if you make such an extraordinary request as an IBAN with editor you are the middle of an editorial dispute with on a single article. And I'm afraid the sycophants don't really see the problem as residing with the person who came here to report...

"The primary reason I haven't taken the formal route of doing an RFC over moving one sentence is that only one person has a problem with it because it contradicts his edit."

In a word: tough. The process that governs here is WP:BRD: as the editor looking to introduce content or a change, the WP:ONUS is upon you to gain consensus for that edit if it is challenged. If gaining consensus is impractical because of a small number of active editors on the article and talk page, then we have processes by which you can summon additional perspectives. You don't just get to ignore those requirements and best practice because you feel you are being put to too much effort based on how certain you are that you are "really, really right" about the subject and are best positioned to decide what is right for the article based upon previous work on it. Do we really need to explain why a project that runs off the backs of millions of people of disparate backgrounds and perspectives needs to have a consensus-based approach, rather than accepting arguments from authority? Knowledge of the subject matter is the value that you are bringing to this project. But understanding of our content and sourcing policies is the more critical piece in an editorial dispute--which, frankly, is where you are running into trouble on that talk page in the first instance. And even having both sources of knowledge will avail you (and us, and the project, and the reader) absolute nothing without your also understanding how to engage in a discussion here without resorting to personalizing the debate, thus burning bridges where you might very well be building them.

"And for someone to have all these "problems" with an article they just started editing 3 days prior is illogical."

Why? What makes you think that is the least bit uncommon or unexpected on this project? People arrive at articles at different times, and aside from some niche WP:STYLEVAR matters, being there before or after another editor imbues absolutely no implicit preference for one party's preferred approach, nor extra weight to their arguments.

"So am I mean? Sure, I guess."

I don't think we would frame the problem here as being that you are "mean", so much as "non-collaborative, dipping increasingly into uncivil and maybe even disruptive behaviour", and all of it further complicated by a lot of WP:IDHT. Look, frustration is part and parcel with this project: feeling it doesn't abrogate you of your responsibility to follow policies and community standards. If you are getting to the point where you are saying something "mean", it's probably not the moment to be contributing anything to the discussion at all, but rather taking a breather to make sure you come at the situation cool as cucumber--which, incidentally, aside from keeping you from inflaming things with a fellow editor with whom you are in dispute, also is the approach that is most likely to win over other editors on the underlying content issue. You're not the only editor who works in areas which try ones patience. You're not even the only editor whose patience gets tried regularly by issues relating to women's representation on this project, trust me on that. But this project provides you with many tools to seek help and break through those problems. They don't always work flawlessly, but they are a great deal more effective than the strategies you are leaning into right now, I assure you.

"If I'm "dominating" and "owning all our articles" then give me an assist. Pick up a shovel!"

Two thoughts occur here. First off, no one is required to contribute any amount of work to any particular discrete content area in order to insist that you follow community consensus on editorial procedure and collaborative principles. Second, it seems to me this kind of help is exactly what Benmite has been attempting to provide. But then, given your following comments:

"It's not just models who need articles or regular updates. Magazine editors, casting directors, photographers, businesspeople besides billionaire owners, products, etc. all need them too)."

If by this you mean there are plenty of other fashion topics out there and people should just go work on them and leave you in peace on your fashion articles, that's just not how this project works. Volunteers choose where to focus their energies and if it happens to be on an article you created/were at first where you feel that they are stepping on your toes, that's just something you are going to have to learn to live and cope with--and all the more so if you get your (I presume genuine) wish that more editors move into this area with you. In many ways, you seem to have operated with some degree of freedom in this area by virtue of the lack of contributors, but you can't count on that always being the case, and I dare say you are learning some important things here about how this project operates, both as regards content requirements and dispute resolution.

Or at least, you are in a position to learn those things. At the moment, you're instead adopting an air of superiority and/or profound close-mindedness with pretty much everyone you are interacting with. Both at the first level of conflict on the talk page, and now with everyone here who is refusing to validate your assessment that the other editor(s) you are having run-ins with are not just the problem, but in fact are "harassing" you. Everyone here who has looked into those accusations has provided you with feedback that you: 1) have failed to supply evidence of compelling indicators that this is in fact what is going on; 2) that your presumptions actually seem to be an indication of failure to WP:AGF on the motives of other editors where there are abundant alternative explanations for their comments; and 3) that your own conduct has actually been subpar when it comes to civility and collaborativeness in the face of differences of opinion on editorial issues. We all arrived independently at some variation of those conclusions from our own un-involved review of the circumstances, and without Benmite benefiting from supplying so much as a single word in their own defense. I must tell you, that's not typically how things play out here. The uniformity of the feedback you are getting here from un-involved parties, despite you having the benefit of framing the situation with your complaint, ought to be taken as an indicator that you have problems here that need addressing, quite separate from any other contributor's conduct. I'm not saying that we don't get editors who do get fixated on other editors inappropriately here. Nor am I saying that Benmite's approach was ideal in every little detail, but a detailed review of the situation by several of your fellow community members has consistently arrived at the conclusion that Benmite's behaviour in your editorial dispute was not especially atypical or problematic, and that some of your own conduct suggests the need for self-reflection on your part.

So it's your choice if you want to continue to keep your head down and charge forward with your accusations that this all about you being mistreated and misunderstood, embracing a turtled-up WP:IDONTHEARTHAT approach, but I'm telling you that each of your comments here so far is only really serving to undermine confidence that you can contribute non-disruptively in your chosen areas of focus and moving you increasingly towards a boomerang sanction of some fashion. I would advise you instead recognize when to cut your loses, go back to the talk page, talk out the issues you can, RfC the ones you can't, and then live with the consensus results. The alternative to adopting this as your standard initial approach in situations such as that which brought you here, is to get into so many unnecessary arguments that you eventually convince the community that you need to be removed from the very area you have worked so hard to develop. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Joiedelacruz6 creating draft hoaxes

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

---

Status:     No further action currently required

Joiedelacruz6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating draft hoaxes such as Draft:A23 (TV channel), Draft:Studio TV, Draft:Sky Network Television Philippines and User:Joiedelacruz6/sandbox (that has the same edit of Draft:A23 (TV channel). These are hoaxes because these came from an opinion of the Solid Kapamila's or Kapamilya Fans from a FB Group called ABS-CBN ( In The Service of the Filipino Worldwide). They like this to happen if ABS-CBN will be given a new franchise on 2022. I cannot find their post about this topic because they posted on the FB group a few months ago (I always read their posts but I am not a member of the group). This discussion was originally discussed in a MfD, but a user said, it would be better if I report it here. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that any action needs to be taken against the reported editor. What has happened is that the reported editor has created unverified drafts reporting planned television broadcasting. My opinion is that the drafts are crystal balling with no references, and so they should stay in draft space. The reported editor hasn't submitted them for review. If they were submitted for review, they should be declined. The filing editor has nominated them for deletion at MFD. I personally don't see a reason to delete them as drafts. If they were in article space, they should be deleted or moved to draft space. I also don't see a conduct issue. I don't think that they are hoaxes. They are unsubstantiated plans or business daydreams. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question hasn't edited in ten days. But, in my opinion, the drafts are not worth the concern. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

These drafts are also WP:FUTURE, it needs to be deleted "ASAP" because as stated on the WP:FUTURE, Wikipedia does not predict the future. As I said above, these drafts were only an opinion from a FB Group. Please, delete it ASAP, no need to wait to die within 6 months if not edited because it is making Wikipedia violating WP:FUTURE. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

They are drafts- not articles. Therefor they are not part of the Wikipedia catalog of knowledge. So- they are not predicting the future. If a user wants to work on an article so it is ready to be published if/when it becomes true- that is on them. As long as they don't actually publish them into article space- its not a big deal. Just ignore it and move on until it does become a problem :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Zerbstill

Status:     Requires attention

• Zerbstill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Glen Glens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He is persistently making disruptive edits to the Piers Corbyn article. Someone else warned him on his talk page which he removed. He has been asked to reach a consensus via the talk page before reverting again, but he continues to ignore that advice and keeps reverting time and time again. If someone check his talk page then one will see that he's been warned in the past about making disruptive edits and then denied it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Glens (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Glen Glens: Looks like you are both edit warring. Think I'll partial block you both to stimulate the discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Glen Glens, you failed to notify Zerbstill of this discussion. I will do so. Noting that Zerbstill's last edit was to the talk page whilst Glen Glens was to revert Zerbstill. We are still short WP:3rr . Perhaps we can discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Someone who is not heading out the door 'cause they live in Florida and life's too short might want to review this more closely. Feels wrong. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Zerbstill's last edit may have been to the talk page, but it was only to inform people that they had changed the article before agreement was reached in the discussion. Glen Glens seems to have simply been reverting to the consensus version. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I did leave a disruptive edit warning on his talk page. This is the first time that I have had to use this reporting method. Thanks for informing him. I have not edited the article, I have only reverted back to the consensus version of the article.--Glen Glens (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to reach a consensus on the talk page, however in doing so Glen Glens began going through irrevelevent previous edits of mine and became incredibly defensive. It went off-topic quickly. Based on this, I tried to rectify the situation by creating an edit to the Piers Corbyn page which took into the account ALL of the comments made in the Talk page, linking to the vaccine hesistency article which had been mentioned to satisfy all users. I do not believe the previous edit to be disrputive at all as it took into account Glen Glens comments. You have to understand, it is very difficult to stimualte discussion whereby Glen Glens is going off-topic. Please view my most recent edit to the article and compare it with the Talk discussion and I believe it to have met the consensus made--Zerbstill (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You did no such thing. No consensus has been reached yet on the talk page, and, at the moment, we have two editors supporting having "anti-vaxxer" in the article and just you against, but you removed the word. That is flying in the face of consensus, not "creating an edit to the Piers Corbyn page which took into the account ALL of the comments made in the Talk page". If you believe that the talk page discussion is not proceeding properly then follow procedures for dispute resolution. Don't put your own non-consensus version into the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I want to point out that I'm not too pleased with Zerbstill calling me and other people's edits vandalism in edit summaries. Likewise, I'm not a fan of them then going on to also call my entry on their talk page where I tell them to please not do this, vandalism. They've apparently done this before, so I could be inclined to suspect that this is them trying to browbeat their edits through. Whatever the case may be, I'd appreciate it if they assumed good faith. Eik Corell (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Noting Zerbstill has received a DS alert for Covid 19. I see Glen Glens is blocked now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Always love it when the OP is sock blocked. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger - if you look at the edit, "anti-vaxxer" was included, though I changed it to "against lockdown and vaccination which more or less covers the same thing.

Eik Corell - I was reverse my views to good faith. Best, --Zerbstill (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

System-gaming WP:HOUNDING and personal attacks from user who claimed he was stopping

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

---

Status:     No further action currently required

Me and Bkatcher had a dispute back on the 19th of September (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkatcher ) in which we agreed to a detente. Ever since then he’s made a series of talk page edits to various users he agrees with (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Renewal6, User talk:Tiredmeliorist, User talk:76.11.71.40, User talk:86.144.76.56), which he all but admitted were meant as subtle digs on me on Chicdat’s talk page (referring to me as “DB”, he says: “I've been talking to a lot of users about his attitude.”, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicdat). He then sarcastically pretended he was “actually” talking about DB Cooper when I called him out. This is basically WP:HOUNDING that deliberately tries to avoid “naming names” to get around WP:NPA and I’m not amused by it. Dronebogus (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here. There is a larger concern here. Bkatcher is WP:Canvassing, and suppression of their email address may be necessary: [116] [117] [118] MarshallKe (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • And that. I guess I should have added that, it’s kind of obvious. I’ve warned Bkatcher, though it’s unlikely to do anything. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• On first looking at MarshallKe's diffs I assumed that Bkatcher must be a naughty child who we should simply ask to come back in a few years, but I then saw that they have been editing since 2004. Some people just never seem to grow up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Nearly 23,000 edits as well. I'm a librarian and I give workshops on the importance of Wikipedia as an education tool (a very unpopular opinion in library circles, I might add). Bkatcher (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • All that and you still invite people to talk about someone behind the bike sheds where teacher can't see you instead of behaving like an adult and having an open conversation. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, perhaps I channeled my inner eight year old there. In my defense, I was attempting to take the conversation to a non wiki platform, and this is my first Admin notice in 17 years. In my defense, I mentioned no one by name in a single one of those instances. But (and I know I sound like a philandering husband asking for one last chance here) I will give it a rest. Unless DB would like to officially become arch-enemies? That could kind of be a blast. Think of it! We could be like Bond and Goldfinger! (I get to be Bond). Holmes and Moriarty! Mr. Pibb and Dr. Pepper! A rivalry for all times! What do you say, DB? You have my e-mail. Bkatcher (talk)
        • Attempting to take a content discussion off-wiki is a bad move and a strong sign that you are attempting to subvert the consensus process by excluding the wider community. Users have been banned for long periods of time for doing exactly what you have done. MarshallKe (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Then I shan't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkatcher (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, Bkatcher's sarcastic non apology is probably more enlightening as to their attitude than any of these diffs here. What's even the point of challenging DB to be an archenemy of yours? DB obviously just wants to edit but Bkatcher wants to start fights with Dronebogus and provoke them. I'll also note that this isn't Bkatcher's "first Admin notice", so to speak, given they were just here a month ago and was already warned about insulting Dronebogus. [119] Convenient that they left that out. I agree with the philandering husband metaphor and would like to see a metaphorical "restraining order" in response, i.e. a 1-way interaction ban. At this point this is the second instance of harassment and Bkatcher has shown no remorse whatsoever. If we let Bkatcher off with no action here they're not going to listen to what we have to say. They're just going to continue to harass DB and try to needle them with bullshit like this. 1-way IBAN and a temporary block for JUST the harassing behaviour because we need to nip this in the bud before it gets worse. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey, c'mon, you're scaring me here. I'll leave DB alone forever, but I honestly am giving a workshop promoting Wikipedia in the near future at the Missouri Association of School Librarians conference. Please. I'm really upset here. Wikipedia has been a big part of my life for nearly two decades and I'm sorry I let my emotions get the better of me. I'll leave DB alone, but please don't ban me. I need this. Bkatcher (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe flippancy wasn't the ideal approach to take to the OP's complaint here. I'd suggest that you operate on Wikipedia as if you have an interaction ban with Dronebogus. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    Consider it done. Bkatcher (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Why do I not believe you? Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I guess I haven't given you reason. But I'm scared, DB. Wikipedia is a major part of my life, and I really can't lose it now. Please don't take it from me. You win. Bkatcher (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I think RandomCanadian once said “begging for mercy isn’t a good argument”, but fine. If I catch you misbehaving again you WILL be coming back here immediately and without warning. Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a one way interaction ban is the way to go against Bkatcher interacting with Dronebogus. Given this response I am going to take that as an agreement to such a ban. Please read WP:IBAN and follow it.

You are worried about losing Wikipedia fine, follow this voluntary interaction ban and you should not have any more trouble from this particular issue. Violate it and you are likely to be blocked. Dronebogus while this is a one way interaction ban you should probably avoid talking to or about this user short of addressing behavioral issues.

I suggest that this thread be closed with the voluntary one way interaction ban as the result. I will be doing so later if nobody objects, or if nobody else does it before me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to make two other requests: 1., that Bkatcher delete all his disruptive/offensive canvassing/hounding posts (or if he doesn’t I be given clearance to do so), and 2., that someone with privilege to do so expunge his email from public records. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Special:EmailUser already exists. If Bkatcher wants to put their email up publicly that's their choice, the problem is the purposes they're putting their email up for. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  It is precisely because they have put up their email address for the purposes of subverting consensus that their email should be suppressed. It's not to protect the editor, it's to protect Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I doubt WP:OVERSIGHT is meant to be used to hide a user's email against their will. It's been used in the past on editor request but I don't think WP:OSPOL applies to voluntarily disclosed information that the editor doesn't want removed unless the editor is a minor or something. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Some LTA

Status:     Requires attention

Some LTA is going around and creating blatantly inappropriate usernames that are borderline offensive, with the clear intent to evade edit filters designed to stop such abuse. See here and here. Note the use of the extra "l" in the first word, which effectively bypasses edit filters. This is clearly some LTA (both of these accounts are without a doubt the same person) but I have no idea which one it is. Admin eyes requested for further account creations. Also, {{checkuser needed}} to figure out who this is. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any other user names with the term "plenis" in them that need blocking? Does this need an edit filter setting up for? Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find a handful: Quarry 59451. Doesn't seem to be too common. If you do want to filter for it, User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist might be a better way than using an edit filter. – Rummskartoffel 21:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Disabling your CU request since a check has been run at SPI. If you see more sox, you can report there. Let's try to give this person as little attention as possible. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Holy moly that's a lot of socks! Seriously, some of those usernames should probably be oversighted. And it seems like this started all recently in relation/response to the recent ArbComBlock of an RFA candidate, which means that it's perhaps not an LTA but some other new troll. Was CU able to turn up an older master, or is this case truly brand-new? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Those sock names sound like track listings from a certain extremely NSFW shock band. But yeah, oversight that crap. Dronebogus (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandry Sm being difficult about accepting his sources are not RS

Status:     No further action currently required

I considered EWN for this, but it's become a conduct issue. User:Sandry Sm has been adding increasingly poor quality sources at Run for Cover in support of a release date, none of which satisfy WP:RS. These range from Last.fm to Rateyourmusic, and some absolute junk website which specialises in celebrity gossip rather than music. I'm certain that the latter have simply lifted the dates previously removed as unsourced from WP.

Via edit summaries and user talk page discussion I have tried to make him aware of this, but he's having none of it. Instead, he resorts to ranting at me on his talk page. Remarks like "You animal!" and "It seems to me that you're doing this either for personal taste or for a fetish" just ain't gonna fly with me. I've been editing music-related articles since 2008 and know full well what WP's guidelines are by now—hey, we all have to learn sometime.

Also, deflections such as "If you're not satisfied, go find your Kerrang or Rolling Stone source. [...] If you think you can do better, then do it", upon my request that he find some reliable magazine publications, says to me that he has no concept of WP:BURDEN. Therefore, instead of ensuring that his sources comply with WP:RS or omit them altogether, he flies off the handle and expects others to do the work for him.

Finally, a quick glance at his previous talk page interactions regarding the same complaints about poor quality sources would suggest WP:CIR issues. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Now he's parroting himself like a child, as well as telling me to "stop talking like a robot. It's making me itch" and to "Don't be stupid". He obviously has no idea why his conduct is wrong, and now seems to have issues with communicating in correct English. Not civil, not constructive. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: The edit-warring/poorly sourced contributions are one thing (which probably would require a sanction regardless), but the personal attacks are just plain not needed. I've blocked them for two weeks ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Generalrelative hounding and tendentious editing

Status:     Requires attention

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

User:Generalrelative is hounding me across numerous articles[120][121][122][123] with tendentious edit summaries and personal attacks (accusing me of "POV push[ing]" [124] and "inaccurately throw[ing] around the 'inaccurate edit summary' accusation"[125], and calling my additions "obviously unencylopedic"[126]). I asked them to please stop harassing me[127], but they have continued to do so.

This is not the first time this user has harassed me (they have previously admitted to "poking" me[128]). Nor is this is not the first time they've followed me around Wikipedia[129], although previously they did not do so in combination with personal attacks, so this new escalation is particularly distressing. Stonkaments (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Rarely have I seen such an obvious candidate for a war boomerang. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

+1, I second Roxy's comment. The four examples of "hounding and tendentious" edits by Generalrelative look like good edits to me. Stonkaments seems to have a habit of deleting well-sourced material or shortening and rewording it so that it no longer accurately represents the source, with an edit summary claiming it was "undue" -- and always in a way so as to skew the article politically to the right. It's Stonkaments, not Generalrelative, who's pushing a POV rather than accurately citing sources. NightHeron (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion; I take issue with the tendentious, accusatory edit summaries and personal attacks, not the merit of the edits themselves. I don't believe there's an exemption to WP:CIVILITY for otherwise good edits. WP:HOUND says: Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "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... Stonkaments (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur that the four examples look like good edits. In particular, the second one really was necessary to fix a misrepresentation of the cited source. The bit about "poking" reads in context like "antagonizing" or "rubbing the wrong way", i.e., not a confession of malice but an acknowledgment that sometimes particular people have a hard time getting along. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the underlined addendum: I read the edit summaries when I evaluated the edits. They seem pretty tame. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: you can’t add to your post after people have replied to it as you’ve done here. If nothing else it makes it difficult for others to follow the conversation. I suggest reverting and posting your latest comment separately after NightHeron’s comment. Btw, there is no confusion. As others have stated your edits are problematic. WP:HOUND doesn’t apply if you need to be followed - which is the case. Generalrelative is protecting the Encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought I was properly following WP:TALK#REVISE, which indicates that it's appropriate to insert text with <ins>...</ins> after people have replied. Stonkaments (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

fyi, that’s for when you just want to exceptionally make an editorial adjustment e.g. typo, withdrawing a comment after you’ve changed your mind etc. Not for continuing the conversation. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is stronger because of editors' ability to notice that a problematic edit was substantively repeated over a range of articles and then revert those changes. I would advocate for making it clearer in WP:HOUND that this is an exception. Obviously personal attacks shouldn't accompany those constructive reversions. The claimed personal attacks here don't count. I doubt you'll find an experienced editor that hasn't accused anyone of inaccurate edit summaries or POV-pushing; Stonkaments has done both, and so have I. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As WP:HOUND currently says, 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. It seems like that that applies here, or at the very least, Generalrelative was within the bounds of reason to believe so. Moreover, The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason (emphasis added). Again, it wasn't out of line for Generalrelative to believe that an overridingly constructive reason existed, and I don't see how any of their edits mentioned here could constitute disruption to the project generally. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I didn't mean to imply the GR's actions here weren't justified by existing policy. Hounding complaints here frequently begin with mass edits followed by mass reversions, and I think it's a particularly clear cut case of good-faith contributions-based work that deserves a mention to avoid a common complaint. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks. Accusations of POV are pretty common and although not nice, aren't really worth making a fuss about. Both editors are apparently bitching at each other through edit summaries rather than talking in the talk page. MarshallKe (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, both editers are not bitching at each other. Before making outrageous statements like that, you should read the evidence. Sheesh. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 21:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I read the edit summaries. Bitching is a pretty subjective thing, so be a little more charitable. MarshallKe (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, looks like there's not much for me to contribute here. And thanks to Roxy especially for pushing back against the allegation that Stonkaments and I were somehow equally guilty of "bitching". MarshallKe, I suggest that you remove that word from your casual vocabulary. Whatever your intention (and whatever my faults), it comes across as highly misogynistic. Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Just want to declare that I've become somewhat involved, as I've encountered Stonkaments purely by chance because I had been watching the Skeptical movement page for a while, and I reverted their removal of a bunch of quotes on the page. Figured that big of a change probably needs discussion regardless of the outcome. MarshallKe (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Not pointing fingers at anyone. But, I would advise using talkpages, rather then back-and-forth reverting. Lowers the tension, as seeing the little 'red' box appear on one's userpage, can be a trigger. PS - I always said, the project adding that 'facebook' characteristic, would lead to increase edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:CompactSpacez

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

---

Status:     No further action currently required

CompactSpacez has a light editing history, but the history is strewn with warnings for uncivil behavior. One of them resulted a week-long block. Most recently, he voted in an article discussion for deletion in which he made a baseless and insulting statement about the nationality and motivations of editors calling for the deletion of an article: [130]. I propose that the editor be blocked for a longer period. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ugh. And the history has stuff like this, so NOTHERE is not totally inappropriate, given the recent edits. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked them indefinitely as not here to build the encyclopedia. While looking at the basis of the various warnings on their talk page, it became clear that this editor has repeatedly engaged in very malevolent behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why was this user not indeffed a year and a half ago after posting this? Better late than never, I guess. Mlb96 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That comment was a major factor in my decision, Mlb96, although I only became aware of it minutes before I blocked. Fortunately, the recipient of that abuse was not bullied off the project and still contributes occasionally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs)

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

---

Status:     No further action currently required

the user सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs) is known for disruptive edits. Almost every edits were reverted and sufficient warnings and blocks are in talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.173.117 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah. You didn't sign this, you didn't notify them, you didn't discuss the matter, so no, you can't ask us to get involved with this. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies Although, on further investigation, the IP that started this (which has now been blocked for disruptive editing) does appear to have a point. सत्यशोधक's talk page is littered with warnings, and their latest thing appears to be repeatedly removing any mention of "Hindu" from Pongal (festival). In this edit, they actually changed the quote from Britannica (which says this). The same appears to be happening elsewhere (i.e. Satavahana dynasty). I don't have a lot of tolerance for religious warriors who actually subvert sources, so I am minded simply to indef them. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, Black Kite, that is probably all true and I appreciate the time you put into this. But anyone who reports here should not expect us to do all the work for them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Very true. But I'd noticed the username before, so I investigated it. Anyway - indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC):
        • @Black Kite: The block did not work. Please check. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I carried out the block per Black Kite's clearly expressed intentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Thanks for doing that. I definitely pressed the button, but clearly something didn't work. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
              • I keep clicking and clicking. Why am I blocked? El_C 14:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Oh no, did you self-block again? Bishonen | tålk 05:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
                  • The moon must be in klutz [131]. EEng 06:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on The Patrick Star Show

Status:     No further action currently required

There has been an IP range disruptively editing on this article for months now, many of their edits randomly removing words with no explanation other than, "______ gone". Primary range is 2003::/19, and they've previously been doing it at 188.146.0.0/15. Some edits (such as this recent one) also adds in information not supported by any of the sources whatsoever.

At this point, it's becoming blatantly disruptive. Is there any sort of block that can be issued, or not given the ranges are too small? Would prefer a blocking (somehow) rather than a page protection, because it will likely just continue on after the protection has expired, and a new one will need to be applied once more. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And again, another disruptive edit from the IP. Magitroopa (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I've semi-protected the article again for two weeks. In the future, you may get a faster response by requesting page protection ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic

Status:     Requires attention

This project has largely just become a canvassing platform for a small group of hard-inclusionist regulars (namely Andrew, Dream Focus, 7&6=thirteen, and lightburst— just look at some of their dubious nomination summaries like “really?” “An effort is underway to delete the [Tuskegee] airmen” and all Andrew’s random pop culture inside jokes). This project also gives users inexperienced in AfD the wrong idea about what AfD is— namely that it’s almost inherently bad, that articles must be “saved” from its all-consuming maw, and that most nominations and delete voters are wildly indiscriminate and disruptive. I understand that it explicitly states it’s not a canvassing operation, but that isn’t an excuse when that’s how it both superficially appears and is treated by its main participants.

This isn’t meant to be a Wiki-political attack or just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT— I’ve voted “keep” on some of their highlights and “delete” on others — but when a project is violating behavioral guidelines I can’t just let it sit there. Dronebogus (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• This same conversation just happened on the ARS page in the shadow of a giant skeleton of an extinct dinosaur. [132]. If you accuse anyone of something, link to specific examples of it, instead of this vague wave nonsense. Dream Focus 10:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I had a look at some of these AfDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature film series with two entries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popes by age and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of water parks in the Americas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. All I see are wildly different opinions on whether or not we should have those articles; there doesn't seem to be any direct disruption or incivility other than basic disagreement. As for the Article Rescue Squadron, I agree that it doesn't really suit the purpose it was designed for; after all, if you want to rescue articles by improving them, simply go to WP:AFD and see what's there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  They haven't got more problematic though. They are just as bad as they ever were, and I'll be very surprised if this enquiry results in anything to rein them in. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 10:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note that the articles for Wikipedia lists mentioned were not listed on the Article Rescue Squadron request for help page. Just a lot of us for years have looked at the List Wikiproject's list of list articles nominated for deletion. And we can't visit all articles, just too many up for deletion each day to properly sort through. If someone wants to request help in improving an article or finding reliable sources o prove its notable, they can make a request. You can look at the current list of things and see where someone asked for help, but no one could figure out how to help them, and no one went to the AFD and posted anything at all. So it is not a canvassing platform. Just a request for help. Dream Focus 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Ritchie333 that the best way to improve articles nominated for deletion is to just go to AfD, and would add that the best way to avoid slogging through dozens of AfDs you have no interest in is to go to deletion sorting and put your preferred topics on your watchlist. The fact that anyone listing pages on ARS is doing so to oppose the deletion and no other reason means the ARS is cherry-picking for the purpose of aiding a particular wiki-faction rather than a particular nonpartisan interest group. I also think it’s problematic since on top of obviously encouraging canvassing it also encourages attacks on “the other side” due to its blatant pro-inclusionist bias. Dronebogus (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• We're near the end of October and so far this month, just two articles have been listed at WP:RESCUE: Big John (dinosaur) and Erynn Chambers. I have attended neither of these matters and so have obviously not been canvassed in the way that the OP suggests. See WP:ASPERSIONS.
• As for the humour, the OP styles himself a WikiHunter on his user page: "... a Wikipedian who devotes his/her time to tracking, hunting and killing articles." See WP:POT.
• Andrew🐉(talk) 11:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

“… that no longer contribute to the herd” i.e. are bad. And I don’t help maintain a canvassing platform, which is what I’m accusing you of doing. Write whatever you want on your page within reason, label yourself whatever you like, just don’t contribute to whole projects dedicated towards pushing your agenda. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• In any case this is just an ad hominem diverting from my main point: it doesn’t matter if poor behavior is inconsistent or ineffectual, it’s still not good, and the ARS is a essentially a canvassing platform due to canvassing being the cherry-picking of editors for their opinions even if it isn’t in the form of an organized conspiracy. Dronebogus (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, that’s an interesting summary you left when you reverted my routine noticeboard alert on your talk page. Always nice when someone’s idea of wit is making fun of my username. Dronebogus (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• The ARS isn't the disruption it was in its heyday, when one member would slap their template on a bunch of articles and the other members would dutifully go through the list to go "Keep- notable. Keep- notable. Keep- notable." on everything. It's been defanged and is now mostly moribund. But it is and always has been a canvassing club and, although the community generally recognizes this, there's general apathy and indifference about actually doing something about it. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I note that most of my AFD's seem to make it onto ARS (lucky me!) and then the pile-on of Keep !votes follow at the AFD. Whether that's because certain Users have me on their watchlists or just follow ARS I can't say. The Keep !voters seldom make any contribution to the page that they are so keen to keep. ARS is a thinly-disguised canvassing site. Mztourist (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The modern ARS is no wikipedia:Esperanza but it’s certainly a clique for inclusionist hardliners to target and complain about arbitrary AfDs they disapprove of and provide resources to promote their wiki-ideology (look at the top of Dream Focus’s talk page for crying out loud). Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Pile-on keep or deletes should not be an issue, because AfDs should be decided by strength of arguments and if a bunch of people show up and say "it's obviously notable! keep! It's obviously trash! delete!" with no useful content other than that, they should be treated as the low-effort arguments they are. If admins aren't closing AfDs because they're afraid of getting dragged to DRV all the time, that might be the bigger indication of an issue. There's effectively no way of stopping this kind of canvassing given the central notice approach of it, short of banning individual contributors or the notices themselves.
  (As an aside, the WP:NOTCLEANUP essay is absolutely out of touch with reality, because the only times any questionably-notable article, even ones languishing for years with all manners of tags on them, consistently get better is through the AfD process. People acting like nominating something for deletion is some sort of personal attack need to readjust their expectations, the same way no one should treat the existence of WP:FAR as an attack on Wikipedia's article quality.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not just nuke the whole project and deny them a canvassing platform? Even Ritchie333, who was largely neutral, admitted the project is pretty unhelpful and pointless. Dronebogus (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • the only times any questionably-notable article, even ones languishing for years with all manners of tags on them, consistently get better is through the AfD process. Indeed. Some have cottoned on to this and are removing banner tags for having been on there for a long time. The point is to impede the identification of bad articles. Reyk _YO! 14:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody else has made any personal attack, or complained about either WP:AFD or WP:ARS.
As to the article that is the new source of complaint, not the article it was when nominated for deletion. So the article and sourcing was vastly improved. What's your point? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nobody’s talking about whatever you think it is, this about the ARS in general. Dronebogus (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist (which I think my record reflects), but I've experienced nothing but woe from ARS folks whenever their practices have come into question. So have avoided for years ever since. El_C 14:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I battled Template:Rescue for several years. I was blessedly without a computer during the time ARS was defenestrated. ARS is a great idea and has some really dedicated very smart users, but as a platform, it has a continuing reputation for canvassing and vote stacking. If all ARS did was source pages at AFD I would be a supporter as I once was. A WikiProject dedicated to a specific outcome in a formal process has tended to prop up pages that aren't ready for mainspace. BusterD (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We've been over this repeatedly, if not constantly, again and again at WP:ANI. Carping isn't helping. But knock yourself out.

I wish you all well, and suggest that we build better encyclopedia together. We have more in common than you think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

While obviously, I can't speak for BusterD (nor have knowledge of their experience with ARS), I do think that after a few years, I'm entitled to revisit and reflect on my view that ARS is problematic, when it is brought up for review. And I'd hope to be able to voice that absent a dismissive carping or knock yourself out exclamations. While I appreciate the well wishing and so on, I feel like unfortunately there's a (familiar ←indeed) dissonance with how the two sentiments contrast. El_C 16:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the sincere well-wishes from User:7&6=thirteen. They are quite correct; we do share much in common. I don't want to see worthy pages deleted either. When I see such I endeavor to source the page, then make argument on AFD processes. I'd like to go on the record to say my experience with individual ARS members is almost entirely positive. I've grown to regard User:Dream Focus, whom I've long opposed in this particular case, as a wikifriend whom I trust and rely on. When that user asserts "Keep" I find that I almost always agree with them. Because of this I have learned not to doubt motives. But for the record, the many times I tried to raise issues with the squadron on project talk or template talk, the response was invariably like the one 7&6=thirteen provided above (repeatedly, constantly, again and again, carping, knock yourself out). We clearly have NOT discussed this issue to death. That we are discussing this issue yet again demonstrates that we may still have a problem all these years later (almost ten years after the deletion of Template:Rescue). A WikiProject as dedicated to deletion as ARS is to keeping would not be allowed to continue. BusterD (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

From the my perspective, this has been discussed to death. Your viewpoint might change if you were on the wrong end of the gun barrel. YMMV. In any event, discuss it as much as you like; I was not attempting to stifle your discourse. I wish you all well in this exercise, and hope for the right outcome. I would only note that I am in the great majority of the AFD discussions in which I participate, and I try to be a positive in building the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are these your AfD stats? [133] Vexations (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As that only lists 2 AFDs, and none since 2013, then it's safe to say, User:Vexations, that are not his stats, given it's easy to see many more AFDs in his edit history. I'm mot sure where you are going here. Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone makes a claim about their AfD stats, it's not surprising that someone else might want to look at them to see if the claim holds up. It's the first time i have seen afdstats return only partial results. Vexations (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm another one who has fought this fight and given up. In 2019 at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 163#Shut down Article Rescue Squadron, I opposed shutting down ARS, but if that RfC were run today, I'd support it. Levivich 16:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Compared to the inclusionist/deletionist "wars" from around 2010, this is really nothing, but I think cautions that ARS should not be canvassing is merited. When ARS works - that is, they see an article at AFD and they actually find sources (whether at the AFD or included at the article) to demonstrate why the article should be kept - that's generally a good thing, though I think the members need to keep in both WP:RS/P and WP:SIGCOV factors (mere mention is not sufficient) for sourcing purposes. But that's at least a far better effort than when ARS was just doing mostly vote stacking way back. I generally think the better solution is Delsorting to draw proper interest, but ARS I think works on those that fall through the cracks in that process. --Masem (t) 17:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not at all surprised that Project Arsehole has garnered these responses from people who I respect. What I want to know is is there sufficient feeling and motivation to somehow deal with their unpleasant general behaviour. I once decided to attend a wikimeet in London in order to confront Andrew, who was recruiting at the time. Looking at comments here, is there sufficient motivation to send the complete Arse project to the Admins workshop at Guantanamo Bay? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn’t use such rough language, but yeah, the ARS’s “gang of four” has had an attitude that’s decidedly smug and superior and does them no favors in the likability department. They clearly seem to think they’re invincible, which obviously isn’t true since I don’t believe any of them hold any real power outside of their little domain. Dronebogus (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • At least one of them was warned here about their aggressive behavior. Not sure if there was any follow-up. That's a side-issue to canvassing allegations, but it's not unrelated. ApLundell (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• thirteen also left this delightful message on their talk page: “I find my involvement in this continuing brouhaha to be offensive. These folks are just doing an end around do-over because they don't like some outcomes at AFD. Indeed, you can look at their editing history to get an education about their motives. They want to kill the article improvers and kill the messengers. I won't do that.“ Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm another who has had very dismaying interactions with ARS at AfD bringing in blogs, crowdsourced, affiliated, irrelevant, or bare mention sources and arguing they prove notability, then backing one another up on those arguments. Everything that article rescue shouldn't be. It left me with a strong impression ARS is about winning rather than about finding quality sources and using them to improve articles. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Correct. Apart from a minority of ARS editors, that's exactly what it has always been. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I want to second (or third) this last assertion from User:Valereee. This issue here isn't with the context of the work ARS does, it's the approach. ARS is a unique WikiProject in that its apparent core underlying assumption is: "keeping" pages=good; "deleting" pages=bad. That is, the premise of the squadron is interest in achieving a specific outcome in a formal process. Unlike any other project. All WikiProjects share the desire that pagespace be improved, with disinterest (not a lack of interest) in the final outcome. Because of the failure of the project's contributors to live up to their own project standards over the long haul, as expressed on their own project pages, the appearance is that of votestacking and canvassing. This is the point I made the very first time I objected to the usage of Template:Rescue a dozen or more years ago. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That El_C 18:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nobody wants to see worthy pages deleted. That should be obvious to anyone. However, what certain editors in the ARS are - and have aways been - unable to comprehend is that it is equally problematic for an online encyclopedia to keep articles that are unencyclopedic and/or do not advance the sum of human knowledge. Where those certain members have misunderstood the concept of Wikipedia is that they believe that pretty much anything, regardless of whether it advances Wikipedia's mission, should be kept. Which, of course, is wrong. However, what are you going to do? If you deprecate WP:ARS, that isn't going to solve the problem of the actual attitude of those editors, is it? Whist I appreciate that sometimes, I have seen some of those editors actually improve articles (6&7 especially), most of the time it appears to be an ideological crusade against deletion. We don't need that. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe we prohibit people bringing in BS sources to AfD? If you bring a blog, crowdsourced, affiliated, irrelevant, or bare mention source at AfD, it's grounds for a user talk warning, warnings to escalate? —valereee (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good, if you could apply it consistently and objectively. People differ on whether a sentence or two is significant enough. But I agree the blogs, advertisements, links to google hits for partial text matches, and title pages of books that don't contain the claimed material- that all needs to stop. Reyk _YO! 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Templating people based on bad AfD arguments is not a good idea. It will devolve into punishing people for "losing" at AfD, since what the AfD process does is evaluate people's arguments to see if they're good and evaluate sources to see if they're reliable/significant. If an AfD closes with "sources were not acceptable" you'll have people who make it their job to give everyone who !voted "keep" based on the sources a userwarning-shitsource template. We already have enough of a problem with groupthink at AfD as it is. It's important that we don't also punish people for expressing a dissenting opinion.

  We're also the number 1 source of knowledge in the English-speaking world and it's important that the processes we have for removing information are perceived as fair.

  AfD io one of our most well known "internal" processes; many people's first encounters with our governance structures comes through seeing an AfD tag on a page they likeThe deletion of Donna Strickland got a lot of flak after she won a Nobel prize and there wasn't an article on here for her. [134] Right now the CBC can blame that on murky systemic issues with the AfD process. But if we start punishing people for dissent, the AfD process looks a lot harsher to outside viewers and that negatively affects our credibility, regardless of whether or not be were actually justified in punishing people. Donna Strickland is such a good example of this because she didn't even go through AfD but yet the perceived credibility of our AfD process was still the subject of that CBC article & influenced the public's perceptions of whether or not we handled the Strickland situation well.. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I’d say a clique of four editors maintaining a whole project where they work to demonize the very notion of deletion is more problematic than “murky systemic issues” and letting those disruptive editors get to be devil’s advocate to try and appease people who don’t remotely understand AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  There are middle grounds such as nuking ARS that aren't Template:uw-shittyAfDargument Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • That’s lovely, but I still think ARS needs to get nuked or at the very least deprecated and locked to emphasize we will no longer be tolerating ideologically motivated wikiprojects. Thirteen and Andrew (and possibly others) should also receive some kind of warning or sanctioning for their general incivility. Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, if you take a look at the sources 7&6 added to Daniella van Graas during that AfD, you might be surprised. At one point they added a 22-second YouTube bio that itself was sourced to Wikipedia. The AfD eventually was resolved as keep after someone with access to Dutch sources came in and found some actual coverage, but up until then ARS, including 7&6, were arguing that appearing on fashion magazine covers and being listed in crowdsourced directories and affiliated websites (such as her bio on her agency's website) were proof of notability. After the AfD I and others had to go back through the bio and remove all the dreck that had been added by members of ARS. It was shocking. —valereee (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have already opined to excess here but now want to cut across the grain. I just made a joke on an AfD and pinged User:Dream Focus, throwing down a gauntlet. And they responded with pretty good sources as I anticipated they would. There is a baby/bathwater situation here. The editors who have been supporting ARS a long time (like DF and User:7&6=thirteen) are pretty skilled at finding sourcing. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I rarely participate in anything major, I am mostly a gnome who curates a handful of pages. But even I have noticed how this group acts at AfD, with such problematic behaviors as pile-on voting and dumping a bunch of (bad) "references" with the declaration of "this proves notability!", when no, they do not at all. As well as writing walls of text in support of their hard-line inclusionist stance. I say nuke them and possibly restrict the four most active from !voting at AfD unless they also work to significantly improve the article as well. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I find it interesting that ARS often vanishes as soon as an article is kept. I've spent a fair amount of time sweeping up after their efforts, and find it annoying. They also don't seem interested in actually trying to save articles before they make it to the theatre in the round that is AfD. The most recent CCI involving Tuskegee Airmen is a great example of this. I have posted links to said CCI a number of times in discussions, and even on the ARS talk page. Yet they still don't seem interested until the spotlight's on an article at AfD. To me it feels like CCI would be a great point to get involved if you want to save articles. Intothatdarkness 19:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can those claiming a problem kindly link to any AFD in recent years where this has happened, and specifically which editors you believe are responsible for doing this. I believe all of us participate in more AFD that aren't on the Rescue list, then the few things that are listed there, so please make certain it was also listed there if your argument is against the ARS. Dream Focus 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniella van Graas. It eventually ended as keep (which I think was correct) once someone with access to Dutch sources came in, but I spent quite a bit of time after the AfD closed cleaning up after what ARS members had done. —valereee (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  A lot of people edited that article after it was nominated for deletion [135] so I'm not reading through each edit to try to figure out what you are talking about. That was back in 2019 so I don't remember. I only made one edit to add in what commercials she had done [136] and linked to where it list this information at a site that seems creditable. They have someone go and confirm information and put "confirmed" there. They also have pictures of the covers of magazines she's been on, so no reason to doubt this information. Anyway, its good a lot of people participated in the AFD and one found something that convinced you to change your mind about the article's notability. If no one had noticed and gone there and worked on the article or searched for sources, then it would be gone now. Dream Focus 15:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus and the fact I had to go back and clean up the mess ARS had made adding absolute dreck as sourcing? You asked for an example of bad behavior. I gave it. If you want to see all the work we had to do and how long it took us, here's the diff. —valereee (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll break my self-imposed moratorium from posting at WP:ANI to comment here.
• 1) The idea that any editor who believes in good faith that an article in notable but needs help finding sources to WP:PROVEIT can ask for help is a good thing. Now, the utility of such has decreased with all the wonderful templates in AfDs which have consistently gotten better over the years, but yes, there is still a thought that someone might need help.
• 2) I find it hard to imagine a world in which people can ask for help as in 1), without it also being a de facto invite for rabid inclusionists to jump in and pile on.
• 3) The existence of an ARS-like signal does not guarantee inclusionists glomming on to AfDs, but nor would the lack of existence of such a signal render AfDs immune from such influence.
• 4) Masem's observation, that things aren't as bad as they used to be, is spot on. I attribute this in part to a general realization that WP:BEFORE, reasonably executed and described, makes a nomination stronger.
• 5) As I've understood and practiced article rescue as a self-proclaimed curationist, I've never counted an AfD keep as a 'win'. I've always believed that improving the article was the way the encyclopedia won, and WP:DTQ was an idea whose time was long overdue and should be better recognized. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

These threads are pretty common. Here's a generalized synopsis: there's a good idea in there, surfacing some articles from the big AfD logs that are worth extra attention, and sometimes they do good work improving articles; other times it's a superficial keep club that spends more time attacking nominators and stoking drama than improving anything; there's never been a consensus to shut down the project, and if there wasn't in years past there's not going to be now; if there are problems with specific members, come to ANI with a pile of diffs. There are probably a couple sanctions that are long overdue, but not at the project-level. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: These last are pretty wise and learned responses. At the risk of sounding audacious, I would be impressed by a breakaway pirate/rescue group of editors who improved pages at AFD but pledged not to !vote on those improved page processes. Heck I would join and fully proclaim that group of disinterested at AFD but fully interested page buccaneers/volunteers as the real SRS (Subject Rescue Squadron)! There would STILL be claims of meatpuppetry. I really admire the work of these current rescue artists. No BS. It is certainly easier to come after a group in a generic way than to produce actual diffs, but that doesn't mean diffs couldn't be produced at some point. I fully diffed my protest about Template:Rescue way back in the long-ago. BusterD (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I would support any action killing off ARS. I think it can only serve as a canvassing platform. Some thoughts:

1. Unlike project pages, where editors with an interest or knowledge of a topic can be informed of an AfD to provide informed insight, ARS only serves to inform editors who are interested in voting keep in discussions. The entire premise of the project is singular: for garnering keep votes in AfDs. Can you imagine an Article Demolition Squadron?
2. I rarely see editors inform others on the AfD that they have listed an article on ARS. Apart from being really bad practice, I think it demonstrates that editors know exactly what they are doing when they list articles there (as much as I try to assume good faith). This also allows a parallel conversation (and 'keep' strategizing) about the topic to go on without the input of all AfD participants.
3. The comments against listing are often quite blatant in their canvassing see: could use some reinforcement and support and Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated!. One particular frequent editor (who often speaks like a cryptic crossword clue) just gives quotations, references or puns vaguely related to the article because an explanation of why something is listed here is not needed - after all it is just a canvassing platform. Give your keep vote and move along.
4. There is even canvassing for DRVs on this page. Even the most generous view of ARS surely cannot see this as anything but inappropriate canvassing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The entire premise of the project is singular: for garnering keep votes in AfDs" - that's easy to check by looking to see if the article was improved by any of the members who were in the AfD. The data is open and available. Check systematically ie. most recent 50 cases.
• "I rarely see editors inform others on the AfD that they have listed an article on ARS" - again that's easy to prove by looking at old AfD pages, divide by how many lack a notice and see what the percentage. 50 most recent cases.
• There are so many things wrong with that "canvassing for DRVs" discussion don't know where to start. There's a sub-text to the discussion involving bad faith, name calling and disruptive behavior. And you can find similar sorts of notifications in other mission-oriented boards. -- GreenC 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure the big deal here. I see some good work by editors listed there improving articles. Which is more than I can say for many of those that participate in AFD - and is far less of a problem than those who manage to do 30 delete "votes", in 25 minutes - which is no where near enough time to do any research WP:BEFORE commenting. Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Systematic deletion by editors not engaging in reasonable BEFORE is one reason ARS came into existence. Vladimir joked about a Article Deletion Squadron but you don't need a squadron because one person can create unlimited numbers of AfDs fairly quickly with little oversight as noted by Nfitz. -- GreenC 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Articles do not get deleted just because editors put them up for AfD. AfD is a huge process to ensure oversight from the wider editorship. Routinely AfDs are dispatched with a speedy keep in a matter of hours. On the other hand there is far less systematic oversight on the creation of articles by confirmed users (not that there's anything wrong with that). Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Huh There's an Article_Rescue_Squadron_Code_of_Conduct that admonishes you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. But that rarely seems to happen. Just sayin'. EEng 04:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW it's 50% tagged in the last 10 AfDs. I might run more to get a better picture but we're closer to the truth then to say it's 'rare', repeated by multiple users here based on conjecture ("seems to") or copycat. I have no comment if 50% is ____ (value judgement), but heads or tails is not rare by definition. -- GreenC 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yet when I did a spot check of the last 20 AfDs at WP:DSBUILDING it was 100%. I wonder what could account for such a vast disparity in an almost identical process. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that there is a clear consensus here that ARS should be killed off, despite the objections of its 3 or 4 most vocal members. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see such consensus here. Given the previous 4 AFDs on the subject, it isn't something that should be taken lightly. Also, I don't think this is the forum for such changes. If there's a desire to have that discussion, I'd think the place is WT:Article Rescue Squadron (and then perhaps a RFC?) I'm not really sure why we are having this discussion here. If there's an issue, it's long-standing. Nfitz (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  As much as I think that's the right outcome, and the very likely one regardless, an RfC would certainly be needed, though I'm not sure where. But not here. An established Wikiproject can't be killed off in 3 hours at ANI. Iridescent is wise in these matters -- what's the right forum? EEng 05:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  WP:VPR is really the most logical space for such a discussion: this is definitely something that should be weighed by the community at large, and hosting on the project talk page is less likely to accomplish broad involvement and obviously would influence the balance of perspectives, insofar as the question presented is the net value/appropriateness of the project itself. Obviously the project should be notified (and notification of particular users with an ongoing interest in the project should not be regarded as canvassing, imo) and there's no harm in adding a WP:CD listing even if it goes somewhere highly visible, but this is more or less exactly the type of issue that WP:VP is meant to be a forum for. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe Wikipedia:Wikiprojects for Deletion?. EEng 06:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given this growing consensus (see SNOWBALL) can we wrap up this ANI quicker and move it to an RfC or noticeboard where a proper discussion and vote on deletion can be done. Or do we need to wait for this to close? Seems a bit of a waste for everyone to blow off steam here and then have to rehash the discussion in a week’s time? Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• While I tend to be a deletionist these days, ARS' mission is a noble one and I would oppose shutting down that forum. However, the conduct of some of their members should be scrutinized by the community, perhaps ArbCom, as it violates AGF and other policies, creating useless noise (for example, with votes that routinely cite sources based on Google hits, ignoring WP:SIGCOV and so on). Resucing articles is great, but trying to torpedo AFDs through a thinly veiled violation of WP:AFDNOTAVOTE is much less so (again, to be clear, I don't think most of the members of this project are guilty of such an attitude, but there are some vocal bad apples that need reining in). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn’t matter when the the project is dominated by four very vocal bad apples. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I can only think of one editor there who displays bad jugdgement and battleground behavior again and again. But I think this is a matter for ArbCom, not ANI. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Although I agree that the problem has become too intractable for the community to deal with, or want to deal with, I worry that enough sitting arbs have had tangles with the ARS members in the past and will need to recuse themselves, leaving only ARS-sympathetic arbs left to vote. Reyk _YO! 12:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Isn’t that just MORE of a reason to torch ARS? And Piotrus, would you mind “naming names” about who you are referring to? Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Compilation of problems with ARS members judgement - The following is largely based off comments I just made on the ARS rescue list (didn't realize this discussion was open): I repeatedly find myself questioning the use of the Article Keep Squadron. Some of the articles listed here are indeed worth being kept, but I get the feeling sometimes that this project tries its best to challenge the notion at WP:ARTN that "no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible is probably one of the worst examples. Some ARS editors would rather support copyright violations and make outright lies than risk losing an AfD, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 5#File:Lena Horne with Tuskegee airmen.png. It also stings when one does more research into the sources than the ARS regulars and comes to a very different conclusion, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination), where two ARS members asserted without evidence the subject played a commanding role in a historic battle (still no evidence of that) and a third advocated outright ignoring the notability policy. See Talk:Mac Ross#Birth for questionable research practices of an ARS member trying to acquire confidential birth records over the phone from a county registrar. Here we have an ARS member withdrawing their keep vote in favor of paid promo article (alongside many a sock) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Farzin only because it was "pointless" to oppose the snowing consensus, not because they could admit they were wrong. Here we have an ARS member suggesting we use blogs as sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mahlon Davis. Here we have an ARS member suggesting sources which do not discuss the topic at hand: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piedmont bioregion. Here we have an ARS member show a complete lack of understanding of the purpose and importance of WP:VERIFY: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller. Even if these are all good faith mistakes (some I have a hard time believing are), I seriously question the judgment of ARS more than I think I should for a project ostensibly dedicated to improving articles, not just retaining them. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Iman Farzin, William Mahlon Davis, and Attack on HMS Invincible had 7&6=thirteen show up and no one else. Piedmont bioregion had Andrew as the only one to show up and vote keep. The ARS was not even notified about File:Lena_Horne_with_Tuskegee_airmen.png. Working on a different article, Lightburst argued about its removal, I noticed this, went there, and commented. Turns out an old photograph from World War 2 was in fact not a copyright violation. Someone referenced it to a book, but obviously the person used a historical photograph. On 21:18, 5 October 2021 you nominated it for deletion and at 06:37, 6 October 2021 you agreed it was fine. Then you state above that "Some ARS editors would rather support copyright violations and make outright lies than risk losing an AfD". Ridiculous misrepresentation of what happened. Dream Focus 09:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Couple of things here, DreamFocus. Perhaps its subjective, but I do consider the multiple ARS members acting poorly across different pages connected by the single thread of ARS listing to be an ARS problem. Also, I entirely reject the notion that I misrepresented the Horne photo situation. Lightburst uploaded the photo as a way to shore up the Willie H. Fuller article, which was at AfD at the time. Thus this is an ARS related matter. Lightburst repeatedly lied to assert it was a US Gov photo and wrote in the description "Military promotional photo" (I'm bolding to show I stand by it) despite no sources indicating that. After repeatedly re-adding this licensing template but meeting opposition from myself and Mztourist they changed to a different rationale (see revision history) saying it was PD-US-no notice. They repeated in the file discussion I opened that it was "clearly a military promotional/propaganda photo published freely" (again without evidence) and that it was "published in the United States between 1926 and 1977" despite the only sources they provided showing it being published in the 2010s. It was only after a lot of back and forth that Lighburst found a source which showed it was published in 1945 (and in a newspaper at that, no evidence it was as US Gov photo). The only plausible reason for them not providing it earlier is that they were making assertions about the rights status of the photo without actually knowing what the status of the photo was beforehand. This seems to be a part of ARS' MO of throwing enough shit at the wall in the desperate hope some of it will stick, which is a terrible way to write articles. It's why an ARS-involved deletion discussion like the ones for Attack on the HMS Invincible, William Mahlon Davis, and Willie H. Fuller involves other editors reminding ARS members that blogs and self-published sources (Find-a-Grave) are not reliable sources. ARS seems to only encourage this behavior. I will say for your part, I have found you to be the most responsible of the ARS regulars. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have only had two meaningful interactions with the ARS, here and here (which continued here).

1. Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal, 7&6=thirteen posted an emotive notice on the ARS rescue list [137] and ... Lightburst [138] and Dream Focus [139] arrived to oppose, neither offered any reliable sources or policy based rationale, just opposes. This was the article at the time, aside from the clear unreliability of many of the sources NONE of them even mention the article’s subject, not even in passing. What resulted was hours of wasted editing hours over months (including having to run an absolutely ridiculous RFC).
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta, again 7&6=thirteen posted a notice on the ARS rescue list [140]. Dutifully Lightburst arrived to oppose [141] and what followed was the pair tag teaming to cram as many UGC and SPS as Google would spew forth as well as clear equivocation and non sequitur claims. Finally a non-ARS member presented two RS to the discussion and it was withdrawn. But ... then 7&6 posted again rescue list [142] about attempts to remove the utter garbage from the kept page and within three hours Lightburst reappears [143] and more drama ensues. Again, hours of wasted effort over a month.

Was the ARS founded with noble aims? Yes. Has it been hijacked by a core group who use it to subvert Wikipedia’s processes and etiquette? Absolutely. Should it be disbanded? Yes. Cavalryman (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

• I did not attend the Ratonero Murciano de Huerta AfD so no canvassing there again. But just look at the outcome – the nominator withdrew after conceding that the topic was notable. So, the ARS rescue of that topic was correct and was vindicated. The fault there was bringing it to AfD in the first place. See WP:POT again. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• So you tried to delete a perfect valid article, others showed up to argue with you, and you then withdrew your nomination. Elsewhere you insisted without evidence that "mountain dog" only referred to Livestock guardian dog, and that any species with "mountain dog" in its name must be a livestock guardian dog. I'm still uncertain if this is accurate or not, and would like someone with a college textbook or link to a website of a recognized authority on this subject to state. What you link to only shows part of the discussion, most of it was below the section linked to. Dream Focus 11:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this discussion should include Arse's dePRODding behaviour. They routinely and unapolagetically remove PRODs without discussion or explanation because ARSe. This has meant that it is more and more difficult to remove the dross that sometimes appears as an article. I have been obliged to apologise to Good Faith participants at AfD for even bringing some crappy article that needs to vanish from the face of the project. The arrogance of the Gang of Four is exlemplified in this diff, from this very discussion. They're correct of course, I've seen this discussion here quite a few times over the years, and seen the results. Perhaps this'll end with another "+ Sound of Crickets +" close, it wouldn't surprise me.

On the whole, from what I've seen, the Gang of Four seem to edit acceptably in their respective areas, and the ideals of the Project are attractive. When acting on project matters they have corrupted the ideals. I'm not certain that just killing off the project is the answer. A more acceptable answer to this may well be a community imposed lifetime Topic Ban for the Gang of Four from deletion discussion, construed like something incredibly broad, thus removing the opportunity for them to continue this disruptive behaviour, and continue contributing positively. Just a (real) suggestion that I want to run up the flagpole and see how it flies. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 13:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have also noticed their dePROD'ing behavior. Mutliple times I have PRODed pages that were clearly non-notable, only for someone (normally Andrew) to dePROD with no good rationale. Generally I abandon my attempt after this because I have neither the time nor experience to bring articles to AfD. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are referring to one guy who people argue about deproding things regularly. I can't recall having deprodded anything except recently an article for the co-creator of a game that sold 30 million copies and had done other notable work in the game industry, and I deprodded an article I created which is now at AFD but others said it should be kept, only the nominator saying to delete it. I did not post to ask for help at the ARS either time, nor did anyone else from there show up to participate. This whole gang of four nonsense needs to stop. The overwhelming majority of edits we do are separate entirely. Dream Focus 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ahem. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I agree ARS is a form of canvassing. Listing an article there draws the attention of editors for "influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Agree with what was said above by valereee and others - they collaborate to "win" by any means and then disappear without actually improving the article. MB 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In ANI, Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. I am loathe to come into this forum. Regarding the "four very vocal bad apples" that the OP has mentioned... 7&6 is one of the best editors I know, just ask him how many DYKs he has had. Recently I collaborated with him on several articles. El C thinks he is snarly? If being snarly was a disqualifying factor on the project many of you would be out based on this thread alone. And AndrewD keeps the PROD process honest, and pardon me... if I read it right in the OP's opening statement - AD jokey? Really? I am not sure there is anyone who knows more about the history of this project. Dream Focus - to my knowledge has never showed up to an AfD to blindly ivote. DF follows the "Lists" AfDs - and so do I. I like navigation tools. I often collegially follow editors I admire - many more than just these three "bad apples".

I come across many articles that I do not think deserve deletion while deletion sorting - and some with zero WP:BEFORE work like this. I am not sure why some editors marry themselves to the first notion they have. In other words, I have been a part of AfDs where a good editor will withdraw their nomination after we improve the article. Sadly, some noms like MZTourist treat it like a win or lose batter. Cavalryman has done this as well - in one of his own examples above, he eviscerated an article that survived his own AfD nomination - I moved on and it remains a stub because that is what Cavalryman preferred.

I read above where Buster thinks we should have a "Deletion squad"? where in WP:5P is that idea represented? And Indy Beetle...tsk tsk. I once heard a lawyer say someone was a liar, and he was much more diplomatic than you...he said they were "less than truthful". Sadly- the only reason you wanted the photo deleted was because it added notability to Willie H. Fuller - you remain married to the idea that Fuller should be deleted. The photo was a military promotional photo depicting Fuller with a famous singer on her USO tour. Calling me a liar in bold is probably a PA. But no worries, if the PA is about an ARS member there is no such civility expectation. It is however in WP:5P4 for all of the other non-ars editors.

I just returned from a one year absence and found several Tuskegee Airmen nominated for deletion. So maybe my post on ARS was a bit testy. Also...Thanks Piotrus! I know I have been on the other side of a few AfDs with you, so it is big of you to say what you did. In conclusion, four editors cannot make something notable and many of you in this thread are not AGF. FYI: 91 articles were AfDd Saturday, 72 articles Sunday, and 59 already today. Not even including files, templates, prods, modules, and portals. My AfD ivotes may be an inconvenient truth for some of you so I post it here. I am not married to a "keep" ivote as some of you have said.

Spoiler: the two wolves will vote to eat the sheep for dinner - every time. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Lightburst: Can you please provide a source that it was a "military" photo? We're still waiting. The only thing we uncovered is that it was published in newspapers and syndicated by the Associated Press. If you feel I've lodged a personal attack, please open an ANI about my behavior. I'm confident in my actions, and I don't think they need a revolving set of explanations until we find one that coincidentally suits my purposes. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a moot point. Dead horse material now. Anyway your PA is not ANI worthy. I enjoyed collaborating with you on another Tuskegee Airman - I thought we collaberated anyway. You never responded to my post on your TP. Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that many people are concerned. Is the concern about canvassing, or is the concern about a Gang of Four editors who are each disliked individually? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are the only two choices? Levivich 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Remember your conjugation. One editor you don't like is "ignoring consensus", a few editors you don't like is "canvassing". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Truth in Labeling

This thread is labeled "Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic". I think that implies that something is new, or that something was different in the past. The Article Rescue Squadron was controversial between 2007 and 2009, as is evidenced by the record of previous attempts to delete it. Has there been a golden age in between when it wasn't problematic? I don't think so. Maybe "WP:ARS is still problematic" is more accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Actions

I see three-and-one-half possible actions at this point. First, there has been discussion, that has made it clear that the ARS has been controversial for at least fourteen years and will continue to be controversial. We can close this thread with no conclusion. Disposition one-and-one-half is that we can continue this discussion for another week or two weeks, and restate what has already been stated, and annoy a few more editors, and then close this thread. Second, a sixth Miscellany for Deletion nomination can be made. My own guess is that it will result in No Consensus, but that is only my guess. Third, this is a dispute that divides the community, and that the community has not resolved in fourteen years. We can ask the ArbCom to open a full case concerning the Article Rescue Squadron, and concerning its proponents and its opponents. My own guess is that such a case will result in a few editors on both "sides" being either warned or sanctioned, and that it will leave the community divided, because the community consists of many different editors with various different philosophies. That might just be another way of closing this dispute with no consensus.

So my recommendation is to close this thread with no conclusion, but other opinions may vary (as they also do in deletion discussions). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I say close this thread, take it to deletion again (the 5th time was me jumping the gun so you should probably ignore it) and if that results in no consensus then take it to ArbCom. We need to stop sweeping this under the rug and shrugging, that’s what’s helped foster the toxic, holier-than-thou attitude the main participants have towards delete voters and deletion in general. Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree close the thread, with no opinion about outcome per sensible User:Robert McClenon. If User:Dronebogus wants to be the latest to hunt white whales, more power to them. BusterD (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• WP:MFD is definitely the wrong venue, as it is for deleting pages and when we shut projects down, we don't delete the pages, we mark them historical. Arbcom isn't going to decide whether or not ARS should continue to exist. They can investigate the conduct of specific users, but they can't decide whether or not we have a specific WikiProject. And even still, I think they'd decline because we have yet to have a "gang of four" ANI (individuals have been brought to ANI, but never the group, AFAIK), so this doesn't clear the "community can't handle it" hurdle yet, until there's at least one community thread about it. The options, in my view, are (1) focus on specific editors with an ANI report seeking TBANs of some sort, or (2) focus on ARS as a whole with an RFC to mark it historical. (I'm not sure which one is better.) Personally I see no reason to rush to close this; let editors discuss so long as they want to discuss. We are still getting new comments from new editors at this time. Levivich 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Close attempt

• I've undone a decidedly precipitate close of this thread. [144] While it's clear that resolution of this problem will have to take place elsewhere, right now people are contributing their ideas and opinions here, and there's no reason it shouldn't continue, at least for a while. EEng 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, I disagree with the revert. When it's clear that resolution will have to take place elsewhere, discussion should be pushed there as soon as possible. Given that several editors here were calling for a close, I do not think you should have acted unilaterally in reverting it (the most extreme form of challenging a close, compared to commenting beneath it or at my talk). I won't reinstate it myself right now, but if other editors feel that the close is warranted, I think they would be justified to put it back. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some of this might spin down to actions taken against individuals. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am copying the contents of Sdkb's attempt at a close here. Even as this discussion continues, I feel it will be helpful for participants or uninvolved readers to see an assessment of the conversation so far:

Despite being open for only a day or so, this discussion has already drawn substantial input and taken a clear direction, so I am closing it to help facilitate further follow-up resolution efforts.

Participants here have found consensus that the current operation of WP:ARS violates the canvassing guideline, and that the behavior of many of its main participants has been detrimental to the encyclopedia. However, there is no consensus on a particular remedy, with many participants expressing the view that ANI is not a venue in which a decision to deprecate or restructure a WikiProject should be made.

Given this, the next step should be to begin a discussion at a different venue. There was agreement that MfD would not be the appropriate venue but limited discussion about what would be appropriate; as a bartender's close, I would suggest a CENT-listed discussion at WP:VPR as a reasonable neutral venue. Ideas for reform raised here that could be considered, among others, include deprecating the project, enforcing a requirement that editors who bring an AfD/DRV discussion to ARS notify the source discussion of that action, prohibiting ARS members from !voting in AfDs brought to the project (limiting its focus to improving articles), etc.

Some editors here argued that the problems derive more from the current members than intrinsically from the project. ANI is the appropriate venue for discussing behavioral issues about individual editors, and those may be brought up in future individual-focused threads if they continue. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Text above pasted here by Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support suggestion that editors coming in from ARS can only improve articles, not vote. That would be huge. —valereee (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good close attempt, shame it wasn't allowed to stick. As more opinion is apparently wanted, the Robert McClenon analyses looks mostly spot on, though it may be more accurate to say the rescue squad has always been controversial, rather than problematic. For me its the deletion process that is inherently conflict prone. Theres always going to be folk objecting to the destruction of other peoples hard work, dissolving the ARS would not change this. See here for how deletionists have been viewed by journalists New York Times, the Guardian and various other reliable sources. Reyk's correct the ARS is now mostly moribund. Despite retaining several extremely impressive active members, the projects is a pale shadow of the mighty force it was back in the naughties. I see no need for action. But if there is to be an RfC, I'd suggest it should be neutrally framed. I.e a simple "What do about the ARS?" Option B could be to dissolve the project, while option A should be to commend it, or at least the most active members, such as the Colonel (Andrew D), Dream, Lightburst and 7&6=thirteen . Their scholarship, helpfulness, and coolness is most impressive, even in the face of mockery and talk of confronting them at London wikimeets , etc etc. (Yes I did read that 7&6=thirteen added some low quality sources to the Daniella van Graas page back in 2019. So the thing is 7&6 had less than 1,000 edits back then. They've since much improved and fully merit being mentioned alongside editors like Dream & the Colonel.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought the close was fine and think this discussion should be moved to where actions can be taken if consensus allows. Can’t see the point in keeping open a discussion where people can air their gripes without action being taken. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivility, and addition of OR and SYNTH by Coinissuer

Status:     Requires attention

• Coinissuer (talk · contribs)

Coinissuer has been adding, re-adding, and edit warring about a section in the obscure article Phanes (coin issuer). Basically, they are adding wp:OR and wp:SYNTH arguing that this pre-Christian coin is a prophecy about Jesus. See the following diffs:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]

Additionally, he has been very nasty and uncivil on the article talk page:

1. [149] When you read User:Caeciliusinhorto's comment, you realize that she starts lying from her first sentense.
2. [150] You have to be completely ignorant to question them, so there is no point in talking to you.
3. [151] Do you have any reliable sources that think that a religious interpretation is impossible ? If not, then you are a vandal

When asked not to perform personal attacks, they have claimed that others are performing personal attacks against them:

1. [152]
2. [153]

Additionally, the material they are adding and expanding on apparently was originally put there by a sockpuppet of a banned user, see their contributions here. It was subsequently removed by ian.tompson ian.thomson, readded by another sock, and then deleted again.

I believe that this user is wp:NOTHERE.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

edit The user has also been edit warring at Sappho, see [154], [155], in addition to adding the rather absurd form "Pphsappho" to the lead.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lets start from the end. ian.tompson tagged as sockpuppet at 2019 a user that stopped talking in 2013 !!!! This is a preview of the quality of the arguments of Ermenrich Coinissuer (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoever is interested in this story, lets talk about it in the talk page of the article Talk:Phanes_(coin_issuer). Coinissuer (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Minor correction to start with: ian.thomson (an admin in good standing) was the one who first noticed the weird editing on Phanes; ian.tompson is confusingly similarly named, but is the sockpuppet of an indeffed user.

As for the issue in question: I believe Ermenrich basically sums it up accurately. The nitpicking about minor typos in this very thread is indicative of how Coinissuer has behaved throughout this dispute, quibbling about minor things while refusing to engage with the actual core of the points being made (e.g. here), and using these minor mistakes as a pretext to attack the users they are in dispute with, rather than deal with the substance of the issue: on talk:Phanes (coin issuer) repeatedly calling me a vandal because I disagreed with them ([156], [157]. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am calling you a vandal because you delete a whole section, without providing reliable sources. Coinissuer (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As has been said to you repeatedly, the wp:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources (i.e., not Homer, various ancient theological treatises in Greek, and some completely unrelated scholarship) to prove your claims, not on us to disprove them.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop disturbing the admins and discuss about it the article's talk page? Coinissuer (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I, and others, have discussed it with you on the article's talk page. You, however, are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type behavior.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop disturbing the admins and provide your reliable sources that state that the wealty merchant is the only possible interpretation for the coin's inscription. Could you please stop vandalizing a whole article section? Coinissuer (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Coinissuer basically admits to WP:SYNTH: " I have reliable sources that associate this coin to Phanes, and reliable sources that associate Phanes with holy trinity ". Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stopping disturbing the admins and talk about it the article's talk page? Coinissuer (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about the article, this is about your behavior. I agree with Ermenrich that there are serious concerns about your contributions and behavior. Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you interested in my behavior more than of contributing in the creation of a correct article? This is a sign of your behavior Coinissuer (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edits show an unfamiliarity with verifiability and reliable sourcing, and your comments on the article's talk page demonstrate an unwillingness to listen to other editors who are trying to explain the issues with your edits. Both of those can be overcome with effort on your part, but unless you demonstrate a willingness to listen and learn and to adapt your editing to Wikipedia's policies, you won't be able to contribute productively. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

An IP intervened in support of Coinissuer, who first agreed with them and then argued with them. I asked if they'd forgotten to log in to their account, but they didn't respond. NebY (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Coinissuer has continued to edit war over the inclusion of the section while this discussion has been ongoing, see [158], [159].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Only one way to deal with such behaviour, while getting the individual's attention. Apply a block. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 24h for edit warring.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

My forecast tells me, longer blocks will eventually be required. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If the behaviour continues, they may be blocked for longer periods of time. Hopefully, it will not be needed.--Berig (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this up while Berig was blocking; hopefully this now makes it irrelevant but I'm going to put it here anyway in case things resume when the block expires. As Ermenrich has now brought up the editing on Sappho, I thought I might as well weigh in on that too. I would argue that none of their edits there are productive, but Ermenrich particularly noticed their weird editing around the Greek spelling of Sappho's name here and here. It's once again indicative of problems with editing. Not to get too deep into content territory on ANI, but they add the spelling "Πφσαπφώ", and cite it to the inscription on the Sappho Painter's kalpis. Aside from the fact that there's no need to include every idiosyncratic spelling of Sappho's name in the lead (of which there are many!) they are misreading the inscription, which says "Φσαφο": note the two missing π's, and the fact that the final vowel is an ο rather than a ω. It's yet another case of misusing a primary source, and making a claim which is not supported by the citation given. (Aside from that, it's pretty odd that after having registered in January and apparently edited consistently on Phanes and not much else since then, they suddenly decided today, after I started the talkpage discussion which led to this dispute, to start editing Sappho, a topic on which they have shown no prior interest and yet is my most-edited page.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He might be a sock-master or a sock. Is exhibiting WP:CIR issues, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, to have both articles 'semi-protected'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done.--Berig (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

External channels

Status:     Requires attention

What does external channels mean in the following:

But if you two don't respond after many days or the discussion fails, then I will have to take this issue to further external channels. Kind regards. Nvtuil (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Report intimidation and bullying from User:Tgeorgescu

The User:Tgeorgescu has made it very clear that they don't like my edits. But instead of discussing it civilly on the article's talk page.

He instead resorts to sending me a large wall of strawman arguments to my personal Talk page. That is trolling and why I had deleted it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051654658

I never once claimed evolution was fake or the other large number of strawman arguments thrown at me. So I deleted it as I won't tolerate any trolling of this nature and magnitude. He owes me an apology for the aggressive trolling via a large wall of strawman attacks. I warned him yet he aggressively says he doesn't care if I report him, and that I am the one trolling him by accusing him of being a troll.

Then he escalates the issue by going to this noticeboard and trying to cherrypick and twist my words by questioning what I meant by "external channels" TO ANOTHER EDITOR (that doesn't even concern him).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051658364

Except it means precisely only that - if talk page discussion fails then I will go to external routes like (third opinion), (noticeboards), etc That is normal that when editors are unable to reach any kind of agreement on the content issue in question on the Talk page - a user can request outside input on-wiki by following the advice at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help.

I honestly wasn't even planning to report him at first. Except his later rude replies on my talk page and his obvious motives in trying to get me kicked out because he doesn't like my edits. I see a repeating pattern of what will likely happen if I continue to "displease" and that is just classic bullying. And I do not wish to tolerate that.

.....

P. S - For context - below are some of my earlier edits on the article in question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051642037

I added in a 2012 systematic review that showed solid evidence that on treatment of pain conditions, research shows it is more than a Placebo effect. My Edit is backed by many sources.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146

I also updated an outdated systematic review from 2005 and replaced it with a newer systematic review from 2012.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051647473

Both edits were reverted quickly without decent reasoning. Instead of edit warring, I went to Talk and made a new discussion on Why systematic reviews should have more weight than a cherrypicked individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acupuncture#Bias_towards_David_Gorski Nvtuil (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Explaining your WP:RULES like WP:QUACKS and WP:GOODBIAS is not trolling. Spurious accusations of trolling are trolling, as I had already told you upon your own talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Those are not external channels !!! -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 21:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you two even allowed to comment here? If we are allowed to talk here then I will give a reply.

• Reply @Roxy the sceptical dog.You should refrain from seeing other editors in bad faith. Especially when you don't know the facts. I wrote it with politeness and bid the user kind regards and was referring to outside routes of Talk Page to resolve the issue. The external accepted routes to resolve a dispute, was obviously what I was referring to. What else could I had meant, without you two clutching to weak and excessively wild speculating? Did I say that I was going to do something illegal? Or did you just assume that based on very little??https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help You two are trying so hard to get rid of me that now you cherrypick innocent words and exploit its moderate ambiguousness. That is bullying..Also @tgeorgescu, You can explain that without resorting to giving me so many fallacious strawman arguments on my talk page. If you have issues with my edits on Talk page - instead of threatening me of kicking me out for voicing my take or sending me a large wall of fallacious strawman arguments to me. Just address my arguments on the article talk page directly without using ANY strawman arguments. My issue was specifically your use of so many strawman arguments thrown at me. And a Large wall of them is practically trolling. Nvtuil (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:GOODBIAS is an essay in good standing, and highly valued by experienced editors. The Wikipedia Community does not regard it as trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Next time, give an essay that isn't composed of a wall of soapboxing and heavily 99% strawman arguments. I never disagreed with any of them except one argument. And all those strawman arguments are unnecessary to send to me and incredibly patronising too.Nvtuil (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't claim that Gorski is infallible, but he is certainly one of our luminaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The opening of this thread by tgeorgescu makes no sense as an ANI report; if he wanted to know what Nvtuil meant, tgeorgescu should have asked Nvtuil. The subsection by Nvtuil seems to be related to discussions at Talk:Acupuncture. Tgeorgescu posted the entirety of User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. on Nvtuil's talk page; a brief summary and link would have sufficed. @Nvtuil:, you are permitted to request that tgeorgescu not post on your talk page except for mandated notices. Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Schazjmd. I would request it if he continues. Nvtuil (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Buenos Aires music genre warrior

Status:     No further action currently required

• 170.51.104.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Partition (song)
• Find Your Love

Someone from the metro region of Buenos Aires has been using multiple IPs to engage in genre warring at music articles. They know they are causing trouble and have taunted a block: "Well, if you dare to block me ... do it if you can ...!"

A few months ago, the person was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/200.123.117.19. The problem was genre warring and personal attacks such as "Fuck You" and more. The two IP ranges made the same genre-warring edit at American Oxygen[160][161] and they are from the same geographic area. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I've blocked the /25 from article space for a week - they are able to create accounts through it (for now), so if you see any new editors popping up... ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and the heads-up warning; I'll keep my eyes peeled. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Last straw - Jonnyspeed20 / 86.14.189.55

Status:     No further action currently required

• 86.14.189.55 (talk · contribs)
• Jonnyspeed20 (talk · contribs)

Please see the previous ANI reports regarding this user ([162], [163], and [164]), the last of which was left unactioned.

A SPI may also be appropriate (as previously suggested by GoodDay).

Jonnyspeed20/86.14.189.55 has returned. In this edit summary ([165]), he wrote "PlatinumClipper96 is a complete retard. The twat will continue deleting boroughs and inserting historic counties for years. Gammon wanker. You're welcome". PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary alone, deserves the IP being blocked & yes, an SPI should be begun. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Jonnyspeed20 for their personal attacks/harassment - the IP is them, based solely on this admission. You may wish to open a SPI, but please note a CheckUser will not link the IP to the account on a technical evidence basis (but, given the above admission, this is hardly needed) ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Constant unruly reversions at multiple pages regarding alternative names in lead

Status:     Requires attention

Inclusion of frequently used, common and historically relevant foreign names in multiple pages, in accordance with WP:NCGN are systematically being prevented by two editors, Khirurg and Therealscorp1an who ignore calls for discussion at the talk page, refuse to abide by the guidelines and instead revert with invalid reasons or none in Lesbos, Chios and Samos:

[166], [167], [168]

[169], [170], [171]

[172]

Talk on Lesbos

Talk on Chios

Talk on Samos

WP:NCGN states: ″The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1). Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name.″

It should be noted that the Turkish names that were being added are both historically relevant and are the sole contemporary names for the locations used by the "group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place".

While the alternative names are briefly and singularly mentioned in the bodies, the prevension of the inclusion of the alternative names in the lead contradict the rest of the guideline, which states:

″Alternatively, all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Where there is such a section, the article's first line should have only a link to the section, phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two."

DriedGrape (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This user is edit-warring pretty intensely across these articles [173] [174], having already reached 3 reverts at two of them. He is trying to ram through by brute force the Turkish name in the first line of the lede. I've explained my reasoning at the respective talkpages. Any help dealing with this would be appreciated. As an aside, he is already topic banned from anything related to WP:ARBAA2, doubtless for this kind of behavior. Khirurg (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have actually not reached 3 reverts in any of the articles. We both attain the same amount, two for each. You have not responded to one talk page, which you were pinged in, and instead kept reverting with no proper explanation. In the only two talk pages you have contributed in, you have given the exact same invalid excuse and accused me of edit warring and forcing POV instead. I do not see how my topic ban is related to this subject but please refrain from WP:PA DriedGrape (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg's reasoning includes the fact that it is a Greek island, this is the English Wikipedia (and no one in English uses the Turkish name i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) and there is no significant Turkish population on the island. And please do not say that we are refusing to contribute on talk pages because that is completely untrue and you can see our contributions. Quite frankly, I only reverted one round of DriedGrape's edits and to try and report me immediately for it seems a bit unfair. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times, common and frequently used relevant foreign names are included in the lead in many cases. There doesn't need to be any current significant Turkish population on the island. The names being the sole contemporary ones used by a population that has inhabited that region in the recent past suffices. DriedGrape (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@DriedGrape: This isn't the first time someone tried to add the Turkish names to the ledes of these articles, so technically even your first addition is a revert. So yes, 3 reverts on both. Khirurg (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not how 3RR works. Refer to WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule DriedGrape (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice to reviewing administrator(s): it seems that one of the users reported, Therealscorp1an, has been autoblocked just now. User_talk:Therealscorp1an#Block_2 DriedGrape (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef ban for DriedGrape

This isn't the first time DriedGrape edit-wars with different users. They've been already topic banned from AA (broadly construed) for the same reasons and more [175]. FYI, DriedGrape, the ONUS is on you to reach consensus as you're the one introducing content to the article [176], [177] (not even with any sources). Yet you didn't shy away from edit-warring (again like in AA previously) with 2 different editors without having consensus for your additions [178], [179]. I think a WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate here, given also the fact that DriedGrape breached their AA broadly tban multiple times in the span of 24hrs:

• Removing Armenian highlands from the lead of Turkish Van [180]. This may constitute as a re-revert (of me) as a new account also tried to do practically the same yesterday [181]. Keep in mind, this is the first edit of DriedGrape in that page.
• Reverting me again, now in an article that directly falls under AA area, [182], [183].
• Editing in another article that falls under AA, [184], [185].

Considering their recent edit-wars with multiple editors and repeated breaches of their broadly tban, per WP:BOOMERANG, I propose an indef ban on DriedGrape. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and per above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of these edits are breachments of my topic ban. We have had this conversation with another admin on a separate report who also supported the notion that one can contribute to articles falling under arbitration without touching the topic they were sanctioned from. And again, if you were to check my actual edits, making a better specification of the origins on a cat species, just re-adding the Eastern Anatolia Region back to the lead in Lake Van and re-ordering alternative languages in the lead of Mount Ararat in accordance with WP:NCGN, it's absurd to classify these as breachments of sanctions. Also are you accusing me of meat puppeteering with the new account stuff? Also, the reason for my report in the first place was the other participants unwillingness to attain consensus. DriedGrape (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

For someone with 183 edits, you know alot about guidelines and policies. You should also know what WP:BROADLY means, and you aren't just "editing" in AA, you're reverting and re-reverting. Just like you do with other editors, but only now, jumping in Turkey/Turks related articles (surprise). That's the definition of a WP:BROADLY breach. Summing up, not only you're reverting and re-reverting in AA where you're tbanned from, you're now doing the same in related topic area of Turkey/Turks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait on the administrators decisions. I'd rather not keep arguing the same points. DriedGrape (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep re-reverting in Lake Van with absolutely no valid reason. Not only reverting a revert with inadequate reason constitutes as an edit-war, but the article directly falls under WikiProject Armenia, which I btw showed above already. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello? My edit was the re-insertion of relevant information I have achieved consensus on much earlier [186], not even arguable to be within AA, that you have removed with zero explanation just recently. Are you WP:GAMING to create the appearance of disruption? Edit: this is getting ridiculous. You are actually mass reverting my edits without proper explanations now? Without even trying to discuss? Getting in to an edit war, ironic.DriedGrape (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you're new here? This isn't the first time editors noticed the strange knowledge of guidelines by a below 200edit account. "Reinstating an edit" isn't a valid reason for re-reverting and edit-warring, you gotta be kidding me, right? Conesnsuses do change and if you have a problem with my edit(s), show how exactly instead of edit-warring. But again, you are in fact tbanned from AA area, broadly construed, and the article falls under your tban. Why on god's earth you're doing the same old edit-wars again and breaching your tban? Is your WP:COI so high that you can't abstain from editing reverting and re-reverting in AA articles with no valid reason?

Edit: this is getting ridiculous. You are actually mass reverting my edits without proper explanations now? – Lol, are you being serious? All the articles I reverted you are articles that I previously edited [187], [188], [189]. Keep in mind, that in Mount Ararat and Turkish Van, you didn't even have any prior edits, only your reverts of today of ... me. If someone is WP:HOUNDING here, it's you. And I did in fact explain my edits. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to accuse me of anything without any proof, go ahead. "wlink" is a valid reason to disrupt a stable lead? The burden of attaining consensus on removing stable information from the first sentence of a stable article is on you. Can you actually not see, or even taste the irony here? DriedGrape (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

oh, so you're aware of WP:BURDEN as well. And btw, please read what WP:BURDEN is. I didn't add anything to the article, and I explained my edit reason both in talk and in edit descriptions [190], [191]. You on the other hand, can't abstain from AA area, which you're broadly tbanned from. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see a double WP:BOOMERANG, accusing one of it but then being effected themselves. You have shown the attempt at discussion only just now, after I created a section specifically pinging you. Your attitude here is quite undesirable and unproductive, as such I won't be continuing this. DriedGrape (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have shown the attempt at discussion only just now, after I created a section specifically pinging you. – are you sure you understand how talk pages work? For someone that knowledge about guidelines, you surely have to. I'm engaging with you currently and replying to your every comment, not just "after you pinged me" lol. And what does that even mean, what do you think pings are for?

Your attitude here is quite undesirable and unproductive, as such I won't be continuing this. – classic withdrawal from a discussion, and some personal commentary on top. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support : I think the topic ban violations are enough to warrant a long term block by themselves, with tendentious edit warring on multiple article added to it I'm sure he needs a indeff vacation, he feels like a possible SP throwaway account as well. The editor has too much knowledge to be a true new editor and thus I'm sure they know how BROAD the sanction is - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging El C as original sanctioning admin. 15:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Czello canvassing

Status:     Requires attention

Czello explicitly canvassed Erzan to 'take his place' in the on-going edit war. After I initiated a dispute resolution to finally settle an issue, he then conveniently "conceded" the dispute which led to the dispute being closed and no decision actually reached (Then began editing the page again afterwards, clearly showing his "concession" was not genuine). This seems like fairly clear WP:GAMING.

Secondly, Czello then filed a dishonest ANI, grossly misrepresented the situation. Unfortunately, the admin just took them at their word without looking into it, and immediately blocked just minutes after the request was made (As an aside, I seriously hope this was just an honest mistake from an admin rather than evidence of a systemic "first-one-to-submit-an-ANI-wins" problem). I had made 2 of the same edits (removing a word), followed by significant discussion on the talk page, leading to a proposed brand new edit that added additional explanation complete with a source which I believed was balanced and reached an appropriate middle-ground. The second edit to this new proposal was made after the other user appeared to accept the revision, but apparently was just confused by what the edit was to begin with and did not actually mean to accept it. This seemed perfectly reasonable and it doesn't appear to violate any Wiki rules. Czello filed a blatantly incorrect ANI shortly after I admonished his behaviour and insisted that they stick to the subject and merits of the actual edit rather than engage in WP:LAWYERING. Perhaps they took this personally.

I thought about whether the optics of filing this ANI could be viewed as petty retribution, but Czello seems to be active in the community and this toxic behaviour shouldn't simply be swept under the rug. And at the end of the day, motivation doesn't really seem to matter. --Twozerooz (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Twozerooz sure looks like an SPA only here to edit-war for their own idiosyncratic opinions on what social democracy is. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Twozerooz really needs to stop beating a dead horse with this, as it's gone nowhere in the past and now I feel they're forum shopping. This is a retaliatory report, despite what they say (which is why they waited almost two months to make it, and only did so after they were blocked for a second time - perhaps they took this personally).

To be clear, after Twozerooz was blocked the first time (for canvassing and WP:GAMING, no less![192]) they returned to the social democracy page with a deceptive edit summary, labelling something as vandalism when it was not. Consequently I reverted them and pinged an editor who was also involved in the content dispute, believing this was a deliberate act of disruptiveness on Twozerooz's part. As I mentioned at the DRN, I believed this was in line with WP:APPNOTE. However, when it was pointed out to me that I might have misread APPNOTE, I unreseverdly apologised[193]. Once again, if I have misunderstood it, I apologise. However, given that the user I pinged, Erzan, was close to the content dispute and clearly monitors the page, I really don't think there's much of an issue here: realistically, if I didn't revert Twozerooz then he would have. It's rather tenuous to suggest I "explicitly canvased him to take my place". However, while we're on this, I agree with 力 above -- Twozerooz is a SPA who has been blocked twice for edit warring on the same page. They clearly have an agenda or an axe to grind: forcing a certain political view into the lead of that article. They also misread the last EWN that was filed: they clearly violated 3RR, as they have done several times in their wikicareer; I wouldn't mention this, but they brought it up. — Czello 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal blocked — could I have a block review?

Status:     Requires attention

I have blocked BilledMammal for 48 hours for abuse of process. The reason is that Nableezy has been dragged to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement with vexatious complaints about minor matters twice in the past couple of weeks, first by Free1Soul and then by BilledMammal, who was clearly aware of the first occasion. Such attempts to take out a perceived opponent from a contentious area are unacceptable IMO. A (comparatively) minor problem is that it wastes admins' time; the major problem is that it's bound to deplete the targeted user's time, energy, and enthusiasm. For the readers' convenience, here are links to both the complaints: Nableezy I, Nableezy II. For quick summaries, see the uninvolved admins' sections called "Result concerning Nableezy", which come right at the end of each report. See also my block notice here. I wanted to do something stronger than the milk-and-water warning by Euryalus here, but wasn't sure what, as it's a bit unusual to sanction for abuse of process. Taking BilledMammal himself to WP:AE? Opening a thread about it here on ANI? Placing a block myself? I went with the third, but I'd like to know what other people think about it, and will abide by any consensus that forms here. Thank you. PS, I considered sanctioning User:Free1Soul as well, as their report was in some ways worse, but it seemed a bit late for that. Bishonen | tålk 06:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

Fine by me. Could probably have done without the "milk-and-water" insult for having a different approach, but whatever. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never thought you'd take that an insult, Euryalus - mainly, I suppose, because I thought of us as on friendly terms with banter allowed. I'm so sorry it bombed. Bishonen | tålk 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

No worries, chalk it up to me not grasping the tone (hard to do in text). Anyway, its a good block. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I had similar thoughts about Free1Soul, especially given their, ahem, "interesting" edit history. Anything that makes editors think twice about trying to weaponise AE against their ideological opponents, especially when they have little or no convincing rationale, is a good start on fixing that prticular problem. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the block, as could be predicted from my grumpy comment at the second AE report. It is unusual, but simple actions like this (a short block without debating for a month first) are needed if a reasonable standard is to be maintained at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I was on the fence about giving a similar block. AE is not for removing people from a dispute that are inconvenient. I only stayed my hand because they withdrew, however this withdrawal only came after it was clear it would not succeed. It has always been important from day one that AE not be allowed to be used in this way, we are representing arbcom there and we need to hold the place to a high standard. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised Free1Soul is still editing given the loud quacking emanating from their account. Filing vexatious AE requests against Nableezy is a red flag that should probably draw more attention to certain other accounts too, given recent events. Number 57 08:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be probably in minority but I think its important to say that block should be WP:PREVENTIVE what does 48h block will prevent?The user understood his mistake and withdrew the complaint and I don't think they will file any WP:AE complaint soon. Also it was user first complaint so he may not fully understood what he is doing we usually warn at first offence. Also if anything the more reasonable approach would be a short topic ban from WP:AE if someone think that disruption may continue Shrike (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike - Considering the misuse history of AE board in general, I believe the approach veteran administrators ultimately have chosen is appropriate. Their action is aimed at preventing further abuse of the board. In these unique circumstances, blocks not topic bans deliver a more powerful message. I'm %100 behind their action. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont really think this was all that necessary, and though I appreciate that people dont want to see some sort of toll from repeated vexatious complaints, but it isnt repeated by this user, and I think for a user's first time ever filing an AE one can forgive them for not quite knowing what is and what isnt appropriate to complain about. AGF and all that jazz. If this is the user's first account, and again AGF unless and until an SPI is filed, then I really dont think more than a logged warning to not file low quality complaints against others is necessary. Ive filed AE complaints that resulted in no action before, never been blocked for it. No they werent vexatious, but still its their first rodeo. nableezy - 12:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy - I disagree, sorry. I believe these added measures were required due to the most recent events. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Im not going to assume every single person who doesnt like me is Icewhiz and act on that basis. I dont see how the recent drama has anything to do with this. nableezy - 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I view this as a message to everyone not this particular editor. I would even suggest adding topic bans from AE to blocks if this continue. Sorry if my view sounds radical but I truly think these steps are necessary. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal received a warning ("BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions.") at the close of the AE, and then a short while later received a block. Was there behavior between the warning and the block, or is this block intended to supersede the AE warning? It seems a bit unfair to get blocked for something you just got warned for if you didn't do anything after the warning. I doubt many admins will second guess Bishonen, but on process grounds this seems to be a modification to the AE close, which I didn't think admins could do unilaterally. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And the more I look at this, the more I think the block was the abuse of process. AE closes with no action but an admin unilaterally blocks anyways - does anyone remember WP:ARBAE? It centered around that exact same scenario and contains the following principle: "Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action." Bishonen, please undo your block as out of process. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. To think that I even linked Euryalus's warning to BilledMammal, the warning BilledMammal actually did receive, on their page, in my block notice and also in my original post above. Perhaps I'd better quote it, too, since Mr Ernie quotes Euryalus's AE close. That warning was couched as a thankyou: "Thank you for withdrawing the filing but please review the level of evidence required for an AE post before posting future ones." That's what they received. Thank you for the tendentious commenting, Mr Ernie. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

I know you saw the warning, which is why I thought it was out of process to ignore it and issue your own block. ArbCom made it perfectly clear that closures, regardless of the outcomes, are enforcement actions. Can you address that aspect instead of attacking me? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It very much was not an abuse of process, and that argument is just silly. BM was a. never brought to AE, b. this was not an AE block, and c. no action was overturned. Not blocking the filer of an AE report is not an AE action. nableezy - 15:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The close was a warning to BM, who happened to be the filer. The warning of the filer is thus the AE action. The principle I quoted says that the closures of AE requests are enforcement actions, even if they are not blocks or topic bans. The AE was closed with a warning, and Bishonen unilaterally upgraded it to a block. This goes against the principles outlined by ArbCom. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And moot anyway since the closer agrees. And no, the warning of the filer is not an AE action cus AE actions are logged in the enforcement log. So no x3 or x4 or x5 or however many wrong things youve written here. nableezy - 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Are dismissals of requests logged in the enforcement log? No, and that's why ArbCom thought it was important enough to create a principle saying that a closure of an AE is an enforcement action. Admins are not allowed to unilaterally alter AE actions, regardless who agrees. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The idea that dismissal of a complaint is the same as not sanctioning the complainant is, as I said earlier, silly. And, again, moot since the closing admin has already agreed. nableezy - 16:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's not something that I just made up. It was a principle that came out of a very contentious arb case. You can read it for yourself right here. Bishonen blocked before she had gotten the consent of the closing admin, so that's not a moot point either, but a key one. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The dismissal of an AE complaint against me is not an enforcement action against the complainant. And yes, moot. As in right now not applicable. Jfc. nableezy - 17:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely is an enforcement action against the complainant. Complaints boomerang all the time and the filing instructions explicitly warn filers they can be sanctioned as well. The request closed with a very clear warning to the filer - "BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions." A few hours after Euryalus closed the request and informed BM, Bishonen unilaterally blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a general consensus against that position. And the case you keep linking to is about blocking the complainee after a complaint is closed. You keep doing this, arguing about the process as though thats the part that matters. Which I guess would be ok if you were right more often than you are, but it just makes people dismiss the actually important part (should this user be blocked) by focusing on the truly unimportant part (did Euralys agree to this before or after Bishonen made the block if that even matters, but it somehow to the people arguing about this isnt moot because Euralys has in fact agreed to it anyway). nableezy - 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. Vexatious AE complaints are a real problem, and all they do is drive away editors. We need to keep all the high quality editors we can. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good block I haven't been following the underlying issue but, on looking at the AE report against Nableezy (not BM!), I see that several admins have commented on the need for action against frivolous AE complaints of this sort. Blocking, with an ask for a review, was absolutely the right thing to do. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Nableezy. While your point is cogent, (a) BM's report came after a blitz of AE filings against several editors, in which socking was prominent (b)after this reality emerged , was verified and was dealt with summarily, with at least 2 reports thrown out as frivolous (c) BM, who followed these proceedings, failed to grasp the point and indeed put their own status at risk by, well not 'indulging in' but repeating what disreputable socking did. (d) it showed a remarkable failure to grasp the context, and looked somewhat (unlike the editor's usual tone) belligerent. Indeed,(e) The report came immediately after a huge thread found BM in a minority of 1 against 3 arguing without any visible policy basis against the force of 13 mainstream academic sources (i.e. reargard POV pushing against the evidence. If anyone can grasp what policy-based reasoning lies behind BM's insistent argufying here I'll hand out a barnstar. That thread was the first time I'd observed BM adopting a wildly subjective ultramontane rejection to solid sourcing). I commended the move because, as a long term serial abuser who has racked up (until I woke up several years ago) a notable number of serious sanctions (from perma to 3 months), two days was amenably light, fair, and not really punitive but measured to the fact this was a first time offense. Even practiced oldtimers still need wake up calls, and if I for one am whacked for loose language out of the blue by an admin watching an I/P page, with a day or two's suspension, it would be to the good. No argument, not lengthy threads, just pull the finger out while briefly in porridge, and, lesson learnt, back to work. It would solve admins and ourselves a lot of time if this were done. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• BM asked for my advice on Oct 4 and I said, "... your options, in my opinion, are: ... take it to AE where there is a strong risk of boomerang". I thought a block would be the outcome of an AE report, so I'm hard pressed to say "bad block" now. However, when Bish wrote ... nor do I find Euryalus's mild warning above (not even a logged warning) adequate. You have been blocked for 48 hours..., that's pretty much an admission that Bish found the AE result inadequate and thus decided to impose a different result. That's out of process; I agree with Ernie that Arbcom was pretty clear that no single admin can overrule consensus of admins at AE. We can't have a situation where an AE is closed and then afterwards an admin comes along and decides to impose a stronger sanction than the one imposed (or not imposed) at AE because they don't agree with the AE result (and dismissal, unlogged milk-and-water warnings, logged fire-and-brimstone warnings, sanctions, etc., are all examples of results/dispositions/adjudications/actions/resolutions/outcome/whatever-word-you-want-to-use, they all "count", as it were). If we're going to do that, let's just mark AE historical, because what is the point of having the very formal process and discussion if the result can be ignored by any admin acting unilaterally after the close? Also, I don't think blocking someone from editing the encyclopedia for 48 hours will prevent the filing of vexatious AE reports. Finally, like Nab, I just don't agree with blocking someone for making one bad report. A warning is sufficient for a first offense; block for the second one, if needed. I very much appreciate Bish bringing this up for review, but I think the block should be undone. Levivich 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• To answer the question of "what should I have done?" Changing a warning to a block is a modification of a sanction. So, you should have first either got explicit permission from the admin who imposed the warning to change it to a block. Or you could take it to AE, AN, or ARCA. In this case the first option would have probably worked best. To make it simple, if an admin has made a decision regarding some actions, then any further admin actions/decisions regarding those actions has to go through AC/DS sanction modification process. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• AE procedure aside, personally, I've had just about enough of the recent influx of vexatious AE filings (with or without Iced Cream). Time for lessons (real or imagined) to be learned the hard way. Also, Got milk? El_C 16:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am looking at the page MrErnie linked and it discusses sanctions (or lack thereof) against the reported user being modified. Here, it is the case of a boomerang. The filer was warned in the closing summary but, whether it was an AE close warning, or an FYI for the filer, I guess the closer will have to clarify. If it counts as the result of the report, there seems to be precedent saying Bishonen should not have blocked without asking the closer. If it was just an FYI, the closer can say so and it gets out of AE-land, I think. The closer also says that sockpuppet claims are best raised at SPI. I am pretty sure that is not AE action. So, I don't think everything AE closers write become AE actions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Christianity Side-boxes

Status:     Requires attention

‎Softwarestatistik is making signficant edits to Christianity sidebars. Some other editors consider these less than progress and have attempted to discuss at [[194]] and [[195]]. This user has reverted the roll back agreed by conensus twice. I make no comment on the edits themselves but the lack of communication, rejection of consensus and the near edit warring isn't moving this forward. Probably time for an administrator to mitigate this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have recently been involved at Template:Christianity sidebar as well, and at their talk page, trying to get their attention. Softwarestatistik (talk · contribs) is a new user coming up on their one-month anniversary. Last I looked, they have zero edits to any Talk space despite repeated requests to respond. I'm conscious of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and wondering if that may be part of what's going on. I don't doubt Softwarestatistik's good faith, but WP:COMMUNICATION is required, and their activity at the sidebar is WP:DISRUPTIVE, as is their pattern of not responding to anything. I'm open to other solutions, but if a block is the only way to wake them up and get them to discuss, then I'm for it. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As a note, as far as I can see their contributions are not tagged with one of the mobile tags, which suggests they edit via the desktop (and therefore get the orange bar of doom) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

He's ignoring everyone? Block'em for 24 hrs & see if that gets his attention. GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning for ‎Softwarestatistik (talk · contribs). I'm planning an indefinite block (until they respond) if they continue. If I miss any future problems, please let me know (a ping from here would be fine). Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

gaming of EC status by User:Petruccio Salema

Status:     No further action currently required

This seems extra obvious, but nearly all of Petruccio Salema (talk · contribs) first 500 edits were the removal of a blank space (eg [196], [197]) and all the edits since then have been in an extended confirmed protected topic area. Should EC status be revoked (at least), and can we have some sort of process for dealing with this. I dont think the 500 edits/30 day rule was meant to have people making bs pretend edits just to gain admission to the topic they clearly want to edit in. I havent yet had any reason to take issue with the user's edits, but this just seems to be particularly blatant gaming. nableezy - 17:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal. I filed several WP:AE about that in the past. The more general question is to ARCA IMO. Shrike (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also support revoking the status and there needs to be a process for dealing with this.VR _talk 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, extra obvious. What sort of process other than this one (post at ANI for admin to revoke/whatever)? Maybe an edit filter for this kind of thing, that would automatically alert someone if these types of edits are being made? Levivich 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• EC flag has been revoked, without judging the motives of the editor. Will let Petruccio Salema know on their talk that it is simply due to "trivial" edits, and that they are welcome to ask at WP:PERM after they have made 500 new non-cosmetic edits from now. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like User:Girth Summit already handled it, so deferring to them; however I suggest the restoration process I was outlining above be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe restore autoconfirmed though? nableezy - 17:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: their autoconfirmed was not revoked. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ok ty, just saw permissions changed to (none) in the log. nableezy - 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Auto/confirmed rights are the clunkiest. You often can't tell what's happening with em, and even when you can, it does not display right. El_C 17:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of comms - I was in the middle of dealing with this when the phone rang. Agree that the edits are either gaming or, at the very least, inadequate to gain the necessary experience to work in that topic area; I've told them they can ask for it to be restored at WP:PERM. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour problem of User:Orbit Wharf

Status:     Requires attention

Orbit Wharf (talk · contribs) has behaviour and other problem. I think we should address those, hence i am reporting.

Month ago the user got blocked because of copyright violation, where i tried to add an helpful advice but the user reverted my comment with edit summary "Go away!". Even before that, the user did similar thing on bnwiki, where the user removed my comment with edit summary "muri kha" (English equivalent would be go eat some popcorn). Yesterday i give the user a standard afd notice but but the user reverted my notice with edit summary "Crazy humans!". These aren't constructive edit summary. It looks like the user intentionally disrespecting. No just with me, with other wikipedian too. E.g. User:Joseph2302 and User:Lugnuts banned the user from their talk page because they felt the user harassing them.[198][199]

The user also has other problem. They selectively remove comment to hide their past. E.g. [200], [201], [202] etc. I know editors are allowed to remove most notices from their talk page, but the user selectively remove notices they don't like/negative while keeps other and don't even bother to archive those removed notices. The user even tried to removed comment from other's user page too.[203][204] The user also published some personal info of other user (If i remember correctly).[205]

The user probably has anger issue. When a school article created by the user got deleted, the user nominated bunch of school article without doing WP:before. Later User:Worldbruce warned the user. See also this. It also seems the user only contributing to get advanced permission. See [206], [207]. We should address these behaviour problem of User:Orbit Wharf.

(courtesy ping User:Joseph2302, User:Lugnuts, User:Worldbruce, User:Moneytrees, User:Rosguill) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've been keeping an eye on their contributions for a week or so now after I grew concerned about hat-collecting, poor communication skills, a lack of awareness of their own shortcomings, and what appeared to be a global rename request to avoid scrutiny of a block they received under their previous username, User:Tajwar.thesuperman. Admittedly, in this time I didn't come across any smoking gun behavior that would have moved me to block unilaterally or start a thread here myself, but my perspective is nevertheless that they're one straw away from breaking the camel's back of wasting other editors' time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I echo what Rosguill has posted. OW made this nonsensical post on my talkpage. I wasn't aware of their username prior to this, but a bit of digging found they'd changed their username recently. However, they had a block-log under the old name, which I flagged up with the blocking admin incase anything was amiss. Which OW throws back as harrassment.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw that Lugnuts had banned them from their talkpage, and yet they still continued to post there. As they'd clearly being annoying towards Lugnuts, I banned from my talkpage because I didn't want to get involved in whatever the drama was, but apparently they can't follow simple instructions. And their talkpage/talkpage archive seems to just be a block, lots of deletion/moved to draft notices about articles they created, some complaints that they've moved other people's articles to draftspace, and whatever they've deleted from talkpage (which seems to be more complaints about their conduct). All of this means that I have serious questions about their competency to edit/engage in a positive manner. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a very odd mix of WP:CIR issues, coupled with edits that I'd expect from a more experienced user, as they've only been here since July. A recent scan of their contributions shows they seem to know their way around Twinkle, reporting usernames for admin attention, work on speedy deletions, article/draft creation and so on. Two complete opposites of the (editing) spectrum. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the two possibilities are a) young and overeager or b) sleeper account for future UPE/black hat editing that does not have the skills to pull it off. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

قيس الهوازني

Status:     No further action currently required

قيس الهوازني (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually all of this new users edits have been WP:TENDENTIOUS and been reverted. Some examples;

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Persian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Persian to Arab

Etc etc.. all this done in this very month. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked قيس الهوازني as WP:NOTHERE ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh

Status:     Requires attention

Neel.arunabh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I closed an "AFD" filed by Neel.arunabh because he wants help in formatting a table. This is after edit-warring to inappropriately remove the content, and after discussing the topic with 4 people on the talk page. He also requested help at WP:Village pump (proposals) for this issue. His talk page has a mile of warnings, and he was recently blocked for edit warning. I think administrative action may be needed to address WP:CIR issues. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I was contemplating opening a discussion here myself. Neel.arunabh has taken to blanket reverting articles, sometimes to quite old revisions. In addition to the AFD'd article, Tesla Model S, examples: Proton, Pluto, Comparison of American and British English, Speed limits by country. Apparently the reason for this is that the current versions of these articles aren't formatted well when viewed on an iPad. I'm not sure that a block is necessary, but somebody needs to find a way to communicate that this isn't collaborative behavior. - MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will resolve this very soon. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

力, but I have thanked you for closing my useless AfD. Next time, when there is any technical issue, I will neither make a blanket revvert, nor will I bring it to AfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I still can't get around my mind how the Tesla Model S was brought to "Article for Deletion" tho, despite the title "Article for Deletion" conveys what it means. — DaxServer (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh does have a bit CIR issues, perhaps a great reluctancy is a better phrase, but that was back in June when resubmitted a Move Review because he disagreed with the outcome. I don't see any further disruption of this kind in his contribs, but the reluctance seems prevalent, looking at the edit warring and blocking last month. — DaxServer (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am facing similar technical issues in List of prime ministers of India too. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: I don't see anything out of the ordinary on that table, which tells me the issue is with your configuration. Expect many eyes to be on you as you proceed with getting assistance with this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:David_Gerard

Status:     Requires attention

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

David Gerard's recent edit history seems to be exclusively and extensively an effort to remove conservative non-traditional media sources as unreliable sources. Targets include sources I would personally consider unreliable but also those I would not. I'm not a very active editor anymore but figured this behavior should be reviewed by an admin. I don't plan on crusading against the user or complaining any further. Jpers36 (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a reliable source that was removed? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

See [208]. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's just a history of the OP's user page, which hasn't been edited since 2016. It tells us nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

First example: I don't consider The American Thinker to be RS as a whole, but I think its opinions can be somewhat representative of a certain voting bloc. [209] This revision removes them as a representative example of a conservative reaction to the Super Bowl LIV halftime show. It's taking time getting past the American Thinker removals in the edit history since I agree that they are not RS, but this one stood out. Jpers36 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there are very few places where AT should be cited for anything, even attributed opinion, and that particular removal was a good call. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So this user is following policy by removing non-RS sources, but is doing it wrong somehow? Should he promise to make sure he removes an equal number of crap sources from each part of the political spectrum? Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's a mix of RS and non-RS being removed. Working to find examples. Jpers36 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure not any RS removals, except by accidental typo. The sources are somewhere between definitely unreliable and probably deprecatable if anyone cared, e.g. American Thinker, whose last discussion, detailing its white nationalism, birther conspiracy theories, etc; I confidently predict American Thinker would be explicitly deprecated in short order if there was actually a need to push for it.

Some are likely not deprecatable in their entirety, but are absolutely not RSes for the purposes they're being used for, and tick all the boxes on WP:QUESTIONABLE. The term "non-traditional" in the user's complaint is a giveaway here.

Some editors have issues distinguishing "not explicitly deprecated" from "a great source I should totally use". This is incorrect. I feel confident in stating that anyone who thinks American Thinker is a useful or even usable source for Wikipedia has greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing.

As usual, all my edits are by hand one at a time, and up for discussion.

In my efforts to make our sourcing suck a bit less, I tend to go a few sources at a time. As a well-meaning suburban liberal of hopelessly centrist and incoherent ideology, I wasn't going for a political theme. Deprecated and even questionable leftist sources tend to get removed from the wiki very quickly, but there's still quite the queue for CounterPunch, if nobody gets to it before I do - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

My biggest disagreement so far would be PJ/Pajamas Media, especially pre-Trump. For example, [210] the removal of an opinion piece by a notable person that happened to be published there in 2012. Or [211] a review of Snakes on a Plane from 2006. Or a [212] statement from 2011 regarding Newt Gingrich's support of a bill. PJ Media may have fallen off a reliability cliff in 2016 -- I don't know, as I try to avoid political websites nowadays -- but I disagree with the idea that they were fringe or unreliable before that. Again, I don't plan to crusade on this; if the admins disagree I'm fine with that. Jpers36 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember PJ Media's 2011 article claiming that the hashtags - literally meant to be the Twitter hashtag - displayed on clothing at Occupy movement sit-ins was actually a stand-in for a swastika. "Bizarre neo-swastika reminiscent of "The Great Dictator" used as power symbol by OWS leaders". I thought at the time "this is the absolute stupidest thing I've seen all week, and I'm from the Internet." I do not believe that it would be the least bit difficult to find similarly clearly unhinged material in the PJ Media archives from before Trump - David Gerard (talk)

This [213] is the edit that grabbed my attention -- Victor Davis Hanson's op-ed piece criticizing Pat Buchanan as a pseudo-historian was removed because it happened to be published in PJ Media. Jpers36 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I did look at the original of the dead link in question in the archive, and editorially it struck me as "so what?" material that adds no useful opinionation to the article. YMMV - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)This removed an attributed view of Benny Morris. Now I know I have a minority view on "deprecated sources", but the idea that Benny Morris should be removed from Palestinian right of return because what he wrote was in the American Thinker or if he wrote it on a napkin to me is incorrect. Also Mr Morris views very much do not mirror my own, if anybody thinks that is a POV issue. nableezy - 20:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument in its favour, though I'd question why a holder of noteworthy opinions specifically chose an absolutely toilet-tier outlet to say it in, rather than one that wasn't absolutely toilet-tier - if he had confidence in this opinion, surely there are non-sewers to express it in - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)