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

Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666

• On 9 June Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said that according to me Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians [1]. I immediately told them that this was a gross misrepresentation of what I'd been arguing for and asked them to strike through their comment [2], but they didn't comply.
• On 20 June VM repeated that claim and made it even more ludicrous: I had made comments, they said, in which I claimed that kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime [3]. I asked them to provide a diff, they published this comment of mine and repeated that it proves that I am proposing to refer to the kidnapping of Ukrainian children (after their parents were murdered by Russian soldiers) as "Naturalisation" and "Adoption". In the same comment your wording actually manages to imply that it was in the interest of the (Ukrainian) child to have their parents killed and then be adopted by some Russians. [4].
• VM was referring to this discussion. Note the following:

1. As I mentioned in that discussion, I was one of the first editors who inserted in the article contents on forced deportations to Russia and arbitrary detention of Ukrainian civilians. On 24 March I added a reference to deportations in the lead [5], on 27 March I added allegations of illegal detention [6] and I created a section on detention of civilians and torture [7], on 29 March and 2 April I added many contents and sources about deportations [8] [9] [10]. Lastly on 2 June I added contents and sources on forced deportation of children [11]. All these edits show that I believe, or rather know, that forced deportation is a war crime.
2. Apart from knowing it, I also repeatedly said it. In the discussion VM mentioned, I said again and again that forced deportation of children is a war crime: This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens [12], Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. [13], n. 2 [Kidnapping is not a war crime] is entirely false: where did you get this from? [14]. AdrianHObradors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) even warned VM, @Volunteer Marek please, try to refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions. @Gitz isn't arguing that kidnapping children is or isn't a war crime, that is not the subject of discussion there [15]
3. In that discussion I made the following points.
   1. First, we'd better use the "forced deportations" terminology instead of speaking of "kidnapping". This view got consensus but unfortunately VM kept on forcing the "kidnapping" terminology upon the article, as they claim that "deportation" is an euphemistic weasel word for kidnapping [16] [17] [18]. I soon gave up reverting their edits simply out of boredom and frustration.
   2. Secondly, I argued that the Russian Duma drafting a law on adoption does not amount to a war crime in itself, no reliable source claim that it does, and therefore we should not report it. I wrote the following: I don't think that this decree is an act of generosity by the Russian state - not at all. But we cannot even depict it as a war crime (...) There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We cannot just say that it is "background and context" to an alleged war crime (forced deportation) and report it without any scrutiny directly from the Facebook account of Denisova. [19]. I haven't changed my mind on this; apparently I did not get consensus and we didn't drop that reference to the new Russian law on adoption. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, but anyway editors must be allowed to share their views in an open discussion without being offended, trivialized and denigrated.
   3. Finally, I argued that genocide is not a war crime - which is simply true, genocide is not a war crime (see here a discussion and here a few references). For some reason this view (which is not a view actually, it's a fact) didn't get consensus either, and we still have a section on genocide. But no one could ever maintain that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Contrary to what VM claims, I've never said or even thought something so absurd.

• In attributing these views to me VM was deliberately and grossly misrepresenting my arguments. This way of doing is contrary to our policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:GF) and is especially disruptive in a sensitive area as this one.
• This was not a one-off. VM is used to attributing mean intentions to fellow editors. A few examples.
• On the 18 June VM repeatedly removed a section on a missile that fell on Donetsk killing 23 civilians [20] [21]. As Donetsk is controlled by a self-proclaimed secessionist republic, it's possible that the missile was fired by the Ukrainian army. The incident was reported by Reuters and The Guardian, among others, and the section had been there since mid-March. Other editors, including me, didn't agree on removing the section and asked VM to discuss on the talk page. Which they did in the following way: we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!") [22]. VM claimed that there had been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article into a piece of Russian propaganda, and that If we were being honest here we'd have text on every single one of those tens of thousands missiles fired on civilian targets by Russia (actually we have nearly 20 sections on indiscriminate attacks by the Russian army, some of them with much smaller casualties that this one; we've basically been reporting what WP:RS say, that's it). In fact VM is now trying to have the main article March 2022 Donetsk attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) cancelled and in the meantime they are making a total mess out of it: [23]. But the point is: whitewashing Russian war crimes, not being honest, attempting to use Wikipedia as a Russian propaganda vehicle... how dare they say so?
• On 3 June, Of course genocide can be a war crime! Wth? Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram here? (...) This isn't hard and removing this info looks insanely bad faithed [24]. What, whose bad faith is VM talking about? On 22 May, speaking to Luizpuodzius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), If you're gonna come to an article in order to push a particular POV it helps if you actually bother reading it first, otherwise the WP:ADVOCACY and the WP:NOTHERE are kind of obvious [25]. And it goes on and on like that, VM's behaviour is unacceptable: talking to me and to Ilenart626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they said What you and Illenart are doing here is trying to give the readers a very skewed presentation of what reliable source say and falsely convince them that reliable sources portray Ukrainian war crimes as on par with Russian ones [26].
• Also their edit summaries are often unnecessarily offensive, threatening and contrary to Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Please stop trying to whitewash war crimes by sprinkling "alleged" in front of everything. That's a pretty clear violation of POV. [27] Seriously anyone who tries to claim that the murders in Bucha are only "alleged" needs a quick trip to WP:AE [28] these may very well be (are) human rights violations and crimes, but they are not "war crimes" and none of the sources actually label these as such. This is just another attempt at bothsideism [29] undo the obvious POVing and obnoxious attempts at whitewashing [30] you REALLY need to stop with this awful POV and white washing [31] no, these are obviously highly POV changes, they are not supported by sources and frankly, given the nature of this topic the changes amount to some very problematic and disruptive attempts to whitewash some horrendous shit [32]
• I find the accusation of being a Russian POV-pusher quite insulting. First of all I'm a friend of the Ukrainian people, also my family originates from that region, I think that Putin is a violent dictator, that the war is an unlawful aggression, that the Russian army has committed hideous war crimes in Ukraine, and I'd very much welcome if the perpetrators will be held on account. I wrote nearly 1/3 of the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means that I've spent dozens of hours documenting and describing horrible war crimes committed by the Russian army (here a selection of some of my edits on Russian crimes [33][34][35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] ).
• On the other hand VM, who always speaks about POV and WP:UNDUE, is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered. They even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [63] [64] - seriously? They asked for RS stating that kneecapping is torture, they were given a lot of them [65] [66] and it's all ok, but it takes time and it's disturbing and frankly there's no need of it. On multiple occasion I had to revert VM pushing badly sourced war propaganda into the article [e.g., [67]), making gross misrepresentations of reliable sources [e.g., [68]) and removing an "alleged" here and there [e.g., [69]).
• I've tried to address their tendentious editing on their talk page, but what I got was not very encouraging Explain to me why I should bother reading past your first two and a half sentences [70]
• VM's edits summaries and comments show the basic and constant features of their contribution to the article (and possibly elsewhere): aggression, rudeness, lack of cooperation and a prevailing almost exclusive concern for the question "who is more guilty?" (the obvious answer being the Russians). VM gives a comparatively small contribution to the writing of the article and an enormous, often disruptive contribution to finding the "right balance", which for them always falls in one direction: emphasising the responsibilities of the Russians (which are indeed huge and catastrophic) and downplaying those of the Ukrainians (which occasionally are serious and worrying). They like playing the role of the self-appointed political commissar on that article, and they've done so in the most offensive, uncooperative and partisan way, always attributing mean intentions to fellow editors ("obnoxious attempts at whitewashing", "awful POV", "attempts to whitewash", etc.). They cannot even imagine that others might have good-faith reasons, different from "whitewashing", for mentioning Ukrainian war crimes in the lead and reporting them elsewhere in the article: e.g. trying to be objective and detached, trying to gain authoritativeness through independence, and trying to do justice to all the victims, no matter their nationality.
• In what follows I was not the victim of their insults, but still seeing a fellow editor Dunutubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treated in this way is humiliating and intimidating: For fuck's sake, this also restores the idiotic notion that two Russian soldiers being poisoned by some pies is ... ... CHEMICAL WARFARE!!! Gimme a break. There's absolutely no source for such a claim (probably because it's patently ridiculous). The given source certainly doesn't say anything so stupid. But it's also frankly offensive (...) even attempting such a comparison is offensive, vulgar and dishonest. I am very tempted to report this fairly transparent violation of WP:POINT. [71]
• This is the way they express their view and I find it aggressive, even abusive. We have a policy (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL) that aims at protecting us from belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"). No editor in good faith should ever be exposed to such a treatment.
• Luckily User:Dunutubble is very calm and reflective and reacted like a true pro saying that Throwing a WP:TANTRUM is not the correct reaction to someone who made an effort to restore many of your edits. But unfortunately Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was less cool-headed. They reacted very badly to VM's editing style and started to repeatedly call VM a "vandal". So on 12 April VM submitted a request for enforcement and Anonimu was topic banned. Anonimu brought it upon themselves, no doubt, but I think that they were reacting to a deliberately provocative and contentious approach, which proved to be highly destructive on that article and talk page.
• I had warned against the risk of escalating the inevitable conflicts among editors: We are working here on a delicate article and we need to discuss in a peaceful and argumentative environment [72]. It's incredibly time-consuming and stressing to work in an environment poisoned by VM. I know they've been around for a long time, but I'm asking you to protect from them both the editors as individuals and the editorial processes taking place in an article as delicate and controversial as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It appears to me that you are bringing here a content dispute Gitz6666. There are other ways to resolve disagreements, you know. You may want to consider outside input to assist in resolving your disputes such as asking for participation from uninvolved editors to create consensus for your desired modifications. Consider also Neutral point of view noticeboard – you can submit inquiries about the objectiveness of articles or Request for comment (RfC) to request replies from a number of editors. If you have an issue with the behaviour of a given editor, the first step would be to talk to them on their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct manner. Have you tried that other than confrontational accusations of disruptive and tendenciousness editing? I will not be suprised if this report ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG -->[73] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with everything Gitz has stated about Volunteer Marek’s conduct. In addition to VM’s abusive language, pov pushing and disruptive edits, he constantly writes misleading edit summaries and when you review his changes you find other changes not mentioned buried in the edits. Plus I have also noticed for any article he does not like he will place a pov tag without leaving any comments in the talk page. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these accusations are false (note that not a single diff is provided by Ilenart626). Volunteer Marek 07:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you asked, here are the diffs that indicate the above statement is true:

Missleading edit summarry

[this one] VM's edit summary talks about "alleged". Scroll down and you find most of the actual edit is removing a section where the Ukrainian Parliament dimissed Ukraine's human rights chief Lyudmila Denisova, nothing to with with alleged.

adding pov tag without explanation on the talk page.

[|here ] Note that VM added the tag on the 9 May but only provide an explanation on the talk page on the 15 May after the issue was raised by another editor.

Ilenart626 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm only going to reply to a couple points here because most of this is simply tl:dr territory.

• The context here is the forced abduction of Ukrainian children by Russia in the current Ukrainian-Russian war [74] [75] (what many sources refer to as "kidnapping" [76] [77]). Contrary to his assertion Gitz666 was NOT the first editor to add this info to the article - you can see here in the diff they provide that the section is already there [78], he's just adding a lot of "according to Zalensky". Once they added the "according to Zalensky" stuff in the very next edit they REMOVE the existing text [79]. So this is basically a sneaky way to remove well sourced text which simply states what is happening and replace it with a WP:WEASEL version of "it's only happening according to the President of Ukraine". Gitz666 has repeatedly tried to remove this info from the article under the very strange pretext that the Russian Parliament (Duma) passing a law which legitimizes this practice of kidnapping of Ukrainian children itself is "not a war crime". [80] Parse that. Since passing a law which gives legal cover to a war crime is not itself a war crime, according to Gitz6666, we cannot include that info in the article. Huh.

• But so far this is plausibly just a content dispute. The real problems are in some of the comments Gitz666 has made on the talk page [81]. The mildest one here is the " But we cannot even depict it as a war crime, can we?" "just-asking-question" strategy. The more problematic parts areGitz6666's assertion that There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). Think about what this is saying. Gitz6666 is saying that the only reason why Ukraine is reporting on the kidnapping of its children is because it wants to "avoid Russian naturalisation" of its citizens. Not because, oh I don't know, kidnapping children's whose parents' you killed is freakin' a bad thing to do?!?! The part about the "interests of the child" is even more disturbing. The clear insinuation here is that while this kidnapping of Ukrainian children is not in the interest of Ukraine, it is "in the interest of the child". Excuse me???

• Along the same lines [82], Gitz666 proposes to remove the text on the kidnapping of the Ukrainian children entirely from the "War crimes" article (but remember, they say that they acknowledge that it is a war crime, so...? yeah, i don't understand either) and instead to create articles called Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Because armed forces abducting children whose parents they have killed (either through shelling, direct military assaults or worse) is just an issue of "naturalisation" and speedy "adoption". I guess the article on Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany should be moved to Adoption of children during World War 2 as well, right? Sorry, not going to apologize for my view that this kind of framing is simply f'ed up. And it's pretty clear and blatant attempt at POV pushing. WP:CPUSH but POV push nonetheless.

• The assertion that "forced deportations" rather than "kidnapping" or "abduction" had consensus by Gitz6666 is simply false (it's a claim of false consensus). Note that this phrasing also tries to minimize the severity of what is actually happening.

• Then we have the whole "is genocide a war crime issue". Yes seriously, that is being actually debated. The thing is, yes, genocide as a concept is indeed distinct from the concept of a "war crime" simply because genocide can take place outside of war. For example the Rwandan genocide was not a "war crime" because there was no international war there. But to then use that to pretend that if genocide IS happening during the war it is not a war crime because sometimes it happens outside of war is just sophistry, pure and simple. And when you start using that kind of argument to try and remove reliably sourced info from the relevant article then once again you're clearly in POV pushing territory.

• For someone who claims that their views are being misrepresented, Gitz6666 really has some nerve to accuse me that I "even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [178] [179] - seriously?". Look at the diffs they provide. I say nothing of the kind. I am merely pointing out that the sources they use say absolutely nothing about torture.

• Gitz6666 also brings up another editor User:Dunutubble, whom they praise as "very calm and reflective". Right. This is the user who edit warred to try and pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from some pie they ate constituted "chemical warfare" by Ukraine. Seriously. [83] (bottom of the edit - but note also the top where Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops (something no serious source questions) and instead pretends that this is only a claim made by the Ukrainian government). Honestly, I should have reported Dunutubble right there and then (diff is from April) because this is just such over top WP:TENDENTIOUSness it really takes the cake (or pie, I guess) but I was busy at the time. Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect). Virtually ALL reliable sources call it a massacre. What's the connection? It was perpetrated by the Russian Neo-Nazi affiliated mercenary Wagner Group. So more attempts at whitewashing. What makes it even worse is the use of flagrantly false edit summaries to justify it [84]. There Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". This is just straight up, blatantly, unashamedly, false. Here is HRW [85]. The title of the article is "Mali: Massacre by Army, Foreign Soldiers". The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Dunutubble is simply... telling untruths. Here is Reuters [86]. It says Survivors said white mercenaries suspected to be Russians took part in the massacre. The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Here is Guardian [87]. It's titled "Russian mercenaries linked to civilian massacres in Mali". The word siege does not appear at all in the article.

But Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". How are you supposed to interact with someone who will just sit there and make blatantly false statements like that to justify their POV and edit warring? And this is the editor that Gitz6666 holds up as an example of someone wo is "very calm and reflective" and, you know, I'm being mean to them, by pointing out the problems with their edits (never mind that calling someone's comments a "tantrum" as Dunutublle does is not very civil, nor "calm", nor "reflective" - it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

Gitz6666 also holds up editor User:Anoimu was another editor that I supposedly "provokoed". Anonimu is topic banned so I don't want to discuss them here since they can't reply, just want to note quickly that cotnrary to Gitz6666's assertion, Anonimu was NOT topic banned for calling me a "vandal" (which yes, that was bad), they were topic banned for "tendetious editing" [88]. Basically for making edits in the same vein and similar to the ones that Gitz6666 has been making.

The fact that Gitz6666 is holding up these two very problematic users (one of them already topic banned) as paragons of virtue in this topic area pretty clearly illustrates where the problem really lies here. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Point of information, there was a war going on during the Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan Civil War. Some (but not all, maybe not most) of those killings were probably classic war crime scenarios, but I'd need to doublecheck with the scholarship. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice. I'm similarly concerned by the pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. This is a very clear war crime, and has been since 1948. Now perhaps the timing of this comment was just unfortunate, but just a day later, the war crime association was made plain as day by Reuters. However, the subsequent comment, after Ukraine had officially announced its war crime investigations into the abduction of children, is less excusable, and points to something else at work. Finding and assessing the readily available sources - like the Reuters one, which explicitly explain the nature of crimes related to forcible displacement - at this point was not hard. Should anyone who can't perform this basic function - availing of the information that sits in plain sight for all to see - be throwing their weight around on the subject? And yet Gitz was pushing the 'forced deportation' terminology (don't agree with VM that his minimizes it), which makes this yet more odd, since 'forced deportation' is precisely the type of technical language used to classify these activities as war crimes. So Gitz is espousing the technical war crime definitions even as he pushes back against the classification. Bizarre. Meanwhile, trying to tow the Russian line of masquerading these abductions as naturalizations or adoptions is a fairly extreme example of POV pushing. Is there anyone outside of the Kremlin's propaganda department and particularly gullible members of the Russian public that genuinely views these events this way? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did not pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. I've never NEVER said or implied that forced deportation does not qualify as war crime and/or falls outside the scope of the article. I just said that the info on Russia passing a law on easing adoption of Ukrainian children should not belong to the section on forced deportation of children in the article on War Crimes in Ukraine; that information - I argued - requires more context and more sources, and basically should be the subject of a dedicated article. That was my argument, it might be right or wrong, but it was an honest argument, and I made a good-faith edit with a clear summary; once reverted, I exposed my views on the talk page and I abode by consensus. So I don't see why I should get flagged and blamed for that, let alone be grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have edited at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and related articles but I was unaware of this particular dispute. I am specifically aware of interactions with Volunteer Marek. I am pretty sure that I have interacted with Gitz6666 but would be pressed to specifically recall. Most editors on these articles have partisan views on the invasion and I would observe that VM is not an exception. However, my recollection is that, while they might be forthright in their opinions, their contributions could not be considered exceptional wrt civility or POV. I have found them to be generally acceptive of broader consensus. These particular discussions might be "tense" but I am not seeing anything exceptional in the circumstances. This is essentially a content dispute and most content disputes can be attributed to a differing POV. It should be resolved through the normal pathways. However, bringing the matter here with a claim to WP:CIVIL is another matter and I'm not seeing that this claim is clearly being substantiated. If there is anything to be addressed here, it would be incivility. But from what I read, it has been used as a throw-away add on. The case attempted focusses on the content dispute, which is a "not here". Waving the civility stick around is a matter that should be considered here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• This should probably be at AE rather than here. I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here and I note they have had an ARBEE alert in April, so going to AE is possible. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yeh, Gitz666 has a POV here. [89] - reverting to say that "The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions" instead of just "Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions". Is anyone in doubt that they in fact attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions? Or this - including word "alleged" 6 times where it arguably does not belong and well poisoning by including irrelevant content about living person. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  The second diff you just shared is actually User:Ilenart626 reverting Volunteer Marek. Note, by the way, VM's edit summary there, where no mention is made of the removal of contents about Denisova's dismissal. When I added those contents (22:33, 16 June 2022, diff. not available) I made it clear in the summary: Denisova's dismissal (+ sources) is relevant here as it was determined also by her unverified allegations of sexual crimes involving children. So that diff actually shows the difference between cooperative editing and POV-pushing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agree I specifically reverted Volunteer Marek’s edits as the edit summary was missleading, refer my comments and examples above. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I think what you both did was misrepresenting or at least editorializing the sources because the inline references did not say and did not even imply a number of "alleged" you restored (a couple of the "alleged" could be fine), as I explained on article talk page [90]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given the lack of qualified observers on the ground in the Ukraine, and how much misinformation (even if unintential) from both Ukraine and Russia sources, we should be careful on stating certain events as facts on Wikivoice until proven out through time. Eg much of the discussion would be better handled if NOTNEWS and RECENTISM were respected, knowing that a clear picture of events is unlikely in the short term. We don't need to include every detail particularly if there lots of questions around it. --Masem (t) 22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, this is not about "sides", but about fairly describing what mainstream RS say on the subject. If they say "alleged" about something, then yes, sure. But if not, this is POV-pushing. What I mean is explained in more detail here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops

Read Talk:Bucha massacre, I've been one of the main contributors to that page and if you somehow see how any of my edits there "deny" the Bucha massacre (especially since I was one of the first editors to support the removal of the words "alleged" from the lede), I don't know where you got that idea from. The reason why I changed the text in that link was because I had used Twinkle to restore an earlier version of the page (and restoring doesn't mean you can pick-and-choose words like that).

Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect)

You didn't read the summaries I gave where I said that There was a massacre but it happened during the siege and Article also covers the siege; massacre occurred during the siege. Why somebody would cherry-pick my edits (coupled with the fact that it was I who actually started the article, so it doesn't make sense to think I'm tryin to deny what happened) is beyond me. It's not uncommon to have "Siege of X" or "Battle of X" instead of "X massacre" article titles which we can see with "Raid on Dartmouth (1751)"/"Dartmouth Massacre", "Siege of Tel al-Zaatar"/"Tel al-Za'atar Massacre", "Siege of Badajoz (1812)"/"1812 Badajoz massacre", etc anyway.

calling someone's comments a "tantrum"... it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

I was pointing to WP:TANTRUM, which is a real Wikipedia essay on civility. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dude, the diff is right here. In that diff, you:

1. Pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from eating some Ukrainian food is equivalent to Ukraine "using chemical weapons". Like, that right there, gives away your POV simply because it's so over the top and crazy that someone would try to put that into a Wikipedia article. Of course the source you pretend cites the information says absolutely NOTHING about "chemical warfare" [91]. So there's another instance of you blatantly misrepresenting sources and pretending they say something they don't.

2. You change the text "(Bucha massacre was) committed by Russian forces, including torture and deliberate killings of unarmed civilians, including children" which is well sourced and beyond doubt in any mainstream source to (Bucha massacre was) attributed by the Ukrainian authorities on the Russian troops" as if the culpability here is in doubt.

You say that you only restored someone else's edit and you had to restore all of it, including the POV parts, because you were using Twinkle. I'm sorry but "I was using Twinkle" is not a valid excuse for reverting problematic text back into the article. Just. Don't. Use. Twinkle to edit war.

And here is the other diff [92] for the Moura Massacre.

In the edit summary there you explicitly claim that "HRW, Guardian, Reuters" despite the fact - that as I've already shown above - this is blatantly false. All of them call it "massacre". NONE of them even use the word siege. I don't care if some other articles on "sieges" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, how is that relevant? Volunteer Marek 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I'm the creator of this article; not currently active in maintaining it. I do not think that this is purely a content dispute. I think that almost all of the active editors of the article who are involved in this discussion at WP:ANI each have some valid edits and valid points in discussing the edits. However, some of the comments are either misleading or outright wrong (verifiable by checking the evidence), and several violate WP:AGF. We are now getting WP:WALLSOFTEXT. I think that as Black Kite said, going to WP:AE might be better than ANI, thanks to the tightly constrained format. Gitz6666's opening comment here is about 2388 words and 70 links (mostly diffs?), and Volunteer Marek's responses are long too. WP:AE's limit of 500 words/20 diffs would make it easier both for the participants and for uninvolved people willing to comment or propose sanctions or constraints (such as 1RR). Despite the abhorrent nature of the content of the article, constructive editing and respect for each other as Wikipedians should be possible. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, of Wikipedia articles on XXIst century war crimes. Boud (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have protected War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for two days to prevent edit warring there. Please help the editors to find a compromise if you can. All editors of the article a good people, working in good faith. The topic is very emotional and occasionally good faith content disputes can offend participants. I implore everybody and especially Marek to assume good faith and before putting an emotional summary to an edit or an emotional entry to the talk page to think that that the other participants a live people who have their emotions too. I do not think any other administrative actions are useful at this time. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Alex Bakharev good judgement.👍, I think the same. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is not a compromise here. Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not aware of this particular dispute but VM accused me of trying to push a certain POV that I wasn't trying to push, which I wasn't- I was simply separating the two to be more specific on who holds what. This probably falls under WP:AGF IMO. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have vehemently disagreed with Volunteer Marek on a number of occasions and occasionally contemplated filing my own complaint against him. Some of the issues raised elsewhere about his behavior are well-founded, particularly his habit of dropping unexplained NPOV tags, then stonewalling when asked to explain them. HOWEVER on the article about war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of the Ukraine, to the extent he pushed anything, it was *back* on Gitz6666’s extremely consistent advocacy of a Russian narrative on every single detail, minimization of sexual misconduct, and attempts to include vague Russian allegations of Ukrainian misconduct. Gitz is aware that he does this and discussed on his used page with another editor how uncritically he felt that the Ukrainian narrative was being accepted. This would be a respectable concern if evenhandedly applied, but it is not, and I as a long-standing editor perceived a chilling effect from Gitz’s behavior. I was involved in the article, first as a copy editor, without incident, then, after expressing some trepidation about the war crimes article, in particular, to ErnestKrause, in an initiative to move some material from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to this and several other spin-off articles. There were few confrontations as I was determined to avoid them, but I do remember one about the video of Ukrainians allegedly shooting prisoners in the leg where the article text simply did not match the source. I was also involved at WP:RSN in the discussion about Denisova as a source, (Raping and killing a 1-year-old in Ukraine as alleged by Ukr. politician and reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo News)and had to stop editing the thread after Denisova was fired, as I found the grave dancing revolting. I agree with My very best wishes that she was not accused of falsehoods, and I will add that most sexual assault is by its nature very difficult to verify. It seems to me that the Rada felt that there were more provable war crimes that were being neglected. Perhaps this is my own bias, but that is what I believe. I am deep in travel on unrelated business, and this whole thread is TL;DR already, but I have felt cowardly for not yet speaking up. Yes, VM can be aggressive and impatient etc etc but his actions in the War crimes article were a net benefit to the project, whereas Gitz’ were not, and I personally agree with the editor above who said that Gitz should be topic-banned from articles about the current war in Ukraine. I am not certain what is appropriate for VM, as his actions also pose issues, but in the context of the war crimes in Ukraine article I am very glad he was there. Elinruby (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that DESPITE all the comments here pointing out to User:Gitz6666 that there are problems with his editing (by User:GizzyCatBella, User:Black Kite, User:My very best wishes, User:Only in death, User:Cinderella157, User:Iskandar323 and User:Elinruby), pretty much as soon as the protection on the article expired, Gitz6666 immediately began edit warring AGAIN. Last time they made 3 reverts in 4 hours. Now we got 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, pretty much tip-toeing up to that 3RR bright line [93] [94] [95].

This is getting ridiculous. There's a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem here. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I am now inclined to modify my position given the confusion that I have now come to believe stems from the MOS:ALLEGED guideline, which fails to draw several important semantic distinctions between "alleged" and "accused", and which I think may cause real problems among nan-native English speakers. I've subsequently raised the issues I believe it presents in a MOS talk page discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek should learn how to follow the WP:BRD cycle, seek consensus, not to force their own will upon other editors. When their edits are reverted, they systematically re-revert to their version, and then re-revert again and again. It might take a bit of time to prove this, but it's also very easy: VM's contributions to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine could be described as a relentless edit war with multiple editors [96]. Unfortunately that strategy is often effective, and editors get bored and let them have it their own way.

We shouldn't deal with contents here, but the recent controversy on using "alleged" vs Wikivoice in the lead section is a good example of POV-pushing, disregard for consensus and lack of civility. VM started to "de-weasel" the lead, as they say, on 18 June [97], and when reverted they went on [98] and on [99] and on [100] and on [101], again [102] and again [103]. While doing so, they were reverted or criticised on the talk page by some of the main contributors to the article: apart from myself, User:Ilenart626, User:Alaexis, User:AdrianHObradors, User:The Four Deuces. VM were using the edit summaries to attribute mean intentions (stop trying to whitewash war crimes by sprinkling "alleged") and to make fake accusations (Are you seriously saying that the mass murders in Bucha didn't necessarily happen and were only "alleged"????); they were constantly adding new contents to their original edit (+ missile in Donetss + attacks on nuclear power plants) making it even more difficult to mediate and reach a consensus. This is their battleground mentality: it had to be a capitulation and they were raising the stakes.

As I've decided to expose their behaviour here, I've also decided to block this relentless POV-pushing in that article. Therefore on the talk page I proposed to open a RfC on the issue "alleged vs Wikivoice" in the lead with regard to indiscriminate attacks [104]. What is VM's reaction to this? They post on that talk page all the comments here at AN/I by editors who have accused me of being a Russian POV-pusher: [105]. Those editors were seriously ill-informed about my contribution (please read here) but the point is that none of them had said or implied anything about the issue "alleged vs Wikivoice" in the lead (apart from User:Iskandar323, who however just said they are inclined to modify their position). So VM is blatantly breaking WP:TALK by publishing on the talk page of that article seven comments by fellow editors who think I'm biased. Moreover, VM is also misrepresenting what those editors said by concluding that That's seven editors right there telling you're in the wrong here, as "here" (on that talk page) the issue under discussion was the use of the "alleged" terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I was the editor that first removed "accused of committing" from the opening line of the lead, replaced with a more accurate, neutral, and sourced "documented committing". There's also a very deliberate and biased application of standards from Gitz when it comes to use of the words "alleged" and "accused" in the article. For example, accusations against Ukraine that are reported by a third party like the UN monitoring mission are described in vikivoice without "accused" or "alleged", but he injects "alleged" for similar instances of third party reports documenting Russian crimes. Selective application of standards is a persistent issue with Gitz and this article; small scale Ukrainian war crimes get detailed explanation in the lead whereas large scale Russian war crimes get sliced into small summaries that leave out key commentary like the notion that Russia is not just committing sexual violence but has weaponized sexual violence as a tool of war. Furthermore, Gitz and llenart routinely ignore talk page discussions when editing, claim their edits are not disputed while there are talk page threads actively disputing their edits, and never actually try opening an RFC thread to see where consensus really lies. The sidelining of talk page discussions to make disputed edits has become so problematic that I have withdrawn from actually trying to participate in the talk threads because it accomplishes nothing; the only way to contribute to that article at this point is to engage in edit warring.

And this may be besides the point at this juncture, but individual Russians have in fact pleaded guilty to committing war crimes in Ukraine, so the continual insertion of "alleged" or "accused" is becoming increasingly tendentious. But like always, I'm sure the goalposts will be moved and double standards will be applied to justify a POV that is much kinder to Russia than the actual reporting from reliable sources. Shadybabs (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth I have no objection to being quoted by VM, and agree with Shadybabs that the sealioning on that page is exhausting. I am here again however because Gitz6666 suggested on my talk page that I had misunderstood him with respect to the Russian prisoners. I have several things on fire off-wiki today, but felt the need to chase this down, as it is actually only fair that I be certain that it was in this article, and not me conflating with some exchange I had with, say, Ilenart626. I was in fact talking about the section on kneecapping, which I have found in the text, sourced to Le Monde.

This edit by Gitz again misrepresents the source, which does *not* say that the video was *verified* but that it was *geo-located* to a specific farm in Mala Rohan. There is in fact some nuance and hedging about what it appears to depict. It is not absolutely certain that a Ukrainian pulled the trigger, for example, although Le Monde seems to believe this. But no, “verified” is not really true, and French language is one of my fields of expertise. I initially thought there might have been a language misunderstanding — the discrepancy with the text at that time was about whether another video from about a kilometer away was part of the same incident. Le Monde does not say so and I translated the full passage on the talk page to make this point. This was dismissed as a minor issue, but, the source does not say this! And the passage is translated to English on the talk page so language is not an issue. I will dig the talk page section up later, if any of this is further disputed, but right now I really cannot.

Incidentally, as I was going through the history, I noted that on this page Gitz has also been denigrating Denisova as described in the current AE complaint about Mhorg, and btw, Mhorg is one of the two editors with whom Gitz discusses on his talk page how unfairly editors give more credence to Ukrainian statements than Russian.

I have not been involved in the dispute about “allegedly” but I see this as an example of what I have called minimization of Russian war crimes. I do not think that in his case this is a language issue, although this may be true for some languages. Glitz is an Italian speaker, and based on Google Translate, Italian, like French and Spanish, has precise equivalents for “allegedly”. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby says that this edit misrepresents the source, which does *not* say that the video was *verified* but that it was *geo-located*. However, Le Monde did verify the video, as they explicitly say, meaning that the video is not a fake, it hasn't been staged, people there are real Russian POWs and they were actually shot. Elinruby is right in saying It is not absolutely certain that a Ukrainian pulled the trigger, but I have never said or implied the contrary. In fact, in my immediately following edit I did not remove from the article "a video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners" and in the edit summary I explained I leave "video purportedly showing" for extra caution, but because the authenticity of the video has now been confirmed, I dropped video "likely" shot in Mala Rohan (RS say we know for sure where it was shot) which "purports" to depict (it actually depicts what it depicts, and the Russian POWs it shows were really Russian POWs. Both my edits and my edit summaries were correct, and Elinruby's allegation Gitz again misrepresents the source (by the way, why "again?) is simply wrong. I never said nor implied that the video (as verified by "Le Monde" and others) demonstrates that the trigger was pulled by Ukrainian soldiers.
Elinruby then says I translated the full passage on the talk page to make this point. This was dismissed as a minor issue and here they are referring to a different article and a different talk page: Talk:Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. But I didn't comment in that thread, maybe I didn't even read it. However, it's quite funny because there Elinruby says that Le Monde is damning and leaves little doubt (...) I would have preferred it if the video was found to be fabricated, but if a Ukrainian unit went rogue and tortured prisoners, then a Ukrainian unit went rogue and torturted prisoners. So basically had I read their comment and followed their interpretation, I would have removed the "purportedly" in the sentence "a video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners"! But I understand Elinruby is now very busy in RL and maybe they can't be bothered with all these details.
Finally, my brief exchange with User:Mhorg is still there on my talk for everybody to see. Elinruby's statement Gitz has also been denigrating Denisova is simply false. The translation of what I said there is the following: Thanks, Mhorg, I was aware of this [Denisova's dismissal]. Perhaps one could place the information in the appropriate place of the War Crimes article. The discussion at RS/N took a surreal turn as the news spread and some users continued to say that the information [rape of a 1-year-old, etc.] was still sufficiently verifiable! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

please don’t patronize me thankyouverymuch. I am dealing with a number of logistical problems in another country related to my dead parents’ estate, and need to leave by the first, so yes, that is considerably more urgent than debating the nature of reality with you. I do think that Ukrainian soldiers may have shot these Russians, keyword “may”. I find your assertion that you were hoping otherwise unlikely, as it goes against my experience with you, but never mind that. My point is simply that Le Monde did *not* say they had “verified” the video as you claimed. I said “again” because of the prior misrepresentation, but ok, if you insist on a blow by blow we can do that but not right now as I just loaded a van full of household goods I need to donate before I can take a shower, so good night. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're continuing to misunderstand my comments and make inaccurate statements.

First, I've never said that I hoped that the Russian POWs had not been shot by Ukrainian soldiers. Here above I was quoting you verbatim [106]: it was you who would have preferred it if the video was found to be fabricated, and it was you who said that a Ukrainian unit went rogue and torturted prisoners. While I feel deeply sorry for this Russian soldier and his family, I literally don't give a damn about the nationality of the perpetrators. I have no political allegiances in this war, I just would like it to end as soon as possible and not escalate further. To that end, I think that we should report war crimes accurately, without exaggerating them and without sweeping them under the carpet.

Secondly, contrary to what you claim, "Le Monde" did write that they had verified the video: L'analyse ... confirme son authenticité, they wrote. That doesn't mean they knew the nationality of the perpetrators, so I didn't modify the sentence video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers.

Most importantly, if the point here is the use of cautious, indirect language ("allegedly", "reportedly", "accused of") vs direct language (Wikivoice), one can see that I used Wikivoice myself to debunk Russian propaganda about the Mariupol hospital airstrike: a disinformation campaign that started trending on Russian Telegram and was repeated in a tweet from the Russian embassy in the UK, I wrote [107]. I used Wikivoice when I created the section on destruction of Ukrainian cultural properties [108], when I described Russian attacks to medical facilities [109][110] and when I described the Bilohorivka school bombing [111]. I also used Wikivoice when I accounted for Bucha in the lead section, which I made already on 3 April with the edit summary Bucha massacre is well-covered in the article and accounting for it in the lead might be appropriate [112][113]. Re lead section, you might be interested in knowing that apart from Bucha I also added by my own initiative both forced deportation [114] and kidnapping and torturing [115]: all crimes attributed to the Russian army. I know that I'm not a pro-Russia supporter and I know that you're completely misunderstanding three months of work on that article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You’re still patronizing me with your fr-1 language skills. If you didn’t read my big caveat on the talk page about the translation of the Le Monde source before you used it in the article lede, perhaps you should have checked the talk page, hmm? I re-reviewed the article last night and watched the video, and as a native-level French speaker, educated in French, I stand by my statement that they do not say they “verified” it. This is just one of many examples, and arguably one of the more subtle inaccuracies, so I will go to the article talk page to explain the fine detail of whyin case anyone else is interested. I am going to be arranging shipping for artwork for most of the day so it may not be until quite a bit later or even tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This type of dispute is better handled at WP:AE. I have formally notified Volunteer Marek of the sanctions. Notification btw does not imply an allegation or accusation of wrong-doing. I suggest we close this thread and take any future disputes to AE. TFD (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

+1 - should go to AE, but I also agree with Masem about RECENTISM. WP is an encyclopedia, NOTNEWS. If facts cannot be added to an article in a dispassionate tone per NPOV, or the material is not factual but rather, it is conjecture/journalistic opinion/supposition/state propaganda, then it doesn't belong in the article unless in compliance with WP:REDFLAG and WP:INTEXT. Atsme 💬 📧 13:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OK what is up with this argument about whether Le Monde said in its article that it authenticated the video?

Here is a link to the Le Monde article. This sentence:

L’analyse, par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants, d’une vidéo censée montrer des soldats ukrainiens tirant sur des prisonniers russes, confirme son authenticité.

translates to The analysis, by Le Monde and independent investigators, of a video supposed to show Ukrainian soldiers shooting at Russian prisoners, confirms its authenticity.

This sentence:

Une vidéo, diffusée le 27 mars 2022 et que Le Monde a pu authentifier et recouper avec d’autres images, documente une probable exaction commise par des volontaires ukrainiens contre des prisonniers de guerre russes.

Means A video, broadcast on 27 March 2022 and which Le Monde was able to authenticate and matched with other images, documents a probable abuse committed by Ukrainian volunteers against Russian prisoners of war.

I don't understand how this is in any way unclear? This edit by Gitz says On 13 May French newspaper Le Monde verified the video and confirmed its authenticity. I think "verified the video" overstates it a bit, but to claim that this edit misrepresents the sources is ... well, itself a misrepresentation. Levivich^[block] 16:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It is not a misrepresentation. Your translation is somewhat inaccurate and I will not have time to fully spell out why exactly until somewhat later. And will do so on the talk page so as not to belabor a thread that people are already saying should go to another board. But let’s mention that although I have some doubts about this incident, Le Monde appears to tentatively believe it is “plausible” (vraisemblable) and therefore so do I. I didn’t like at the time but was talking to someone I thought was trying to minimize it. The video narration is couched in a grammatical form used to carefully attribute statements to others without endorsing them, for one thing, particularly in formal French such as used by this publication. “Censée” is the one of the most dubious of the possible forms for “allegedly”, for another. As I said, there is a great deal of nuance and hedging in the source and “verified” is inaccurate. More later, somebody is waiting for me and literally tapping his foot. Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your loss, and really, if you don't have time for this, you don't need to spend time on this.

I do not see the word vraisemblable in this Le Monde article. However you translate vidéo censée montrer -- whether that's "video supposed to show" or "video allegedly showing" or "video purportedly showing" or "video meant to show" or "video expected to show", or whatever variation... it doesn't matter, because the clause confirme son authenticité means "confirms his authenticity" (in English, "its" rather than "his").

According to Le Monde, whatever that video was censée to show, l’analyse (the analysis) par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants (by Le Monde and independent investigators) confirme son authenticité (confirms its authenticity). While I would write "Le Monde and independent investigators authenticated the video", and not "verified the video" (because in English verified means something different than authenticated), "verified" is hardly "misrepresenting the source". Levivich^[block] 17:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s in the video narration. “Vraisemblablement”, actually, which just makes it an adverb. “Seemingly” is a better translation, on second thought. It literally means “seems true”.

You seem to be making some fine distinctions between an overstatement and a misrepresentation, but ok, I am saying that “vérifiéé” does not mean “verified”, so while it does not, (feel free to ask someone about this this, and other perils of cognates) I am down for the discussion. But I don’t know that the ANI board is all that interested in this one example, so I still think I should refer you to a lengthy discussion that I need to post on the talk page anyway.

However, since you are still politely explaining to me the meaning of words in what my country considers my native language — the US thinks it’s English — I will just mention a few things. I am not offended, mind you; the world is full of unfounded claims of expertise and I don’t believe that we have interacted before. I also thank you for your concern, but I am merely on an announced wikibreak, working on something with an immovable deadline. I realize I do not have to be in this discussion; all I was saying above was that I am simply very short of time (while at the RSN thread Gitz seemed to have enormous energy available to argue ad infinitum).

And yet. I feel strongly about the accuracy of information and given this thread, felt it was important to say that as angry as I have in the past been with VM, mostly recently over some editing he did about a pogrom in Poland, in this instance he persisted when I allowed myself to be intimidated or maybe just exhausted. I am sure Gitz finds VM frustrating. And yet. Gitz feels Russians are being demonized, and dismisses many claims about their behavior, in my opinion on very flimsy grounds. This is also extremely frustrating to other editors including me. And also no doubt to VM.

So. I will tell you again that “verified” is the wrong word, and creates a misleading impression, in the lede of the article about the incident. Language fact: The use of the conditional tense here indicates attribution and a distancing from the statements being made. It precludes endorsement, but does not necessarily imply the falsehood of the statement. The video “supposedly” or “seemingly” shows Ukrainians shooting Russians. Le Monde specifically says that the video came from Russian propaganda sources. I am not completely certain what they mean by authenticated here, but in general, in English, it means that the person is who they claim to be. Ask any information security professional; it is a term of art. Here, most likely, I believe that it means that the purported author is the purported author. I am not aware of linguistic drift with respect to this term. I believe it is a reference to social media videos shot nearby by the commander of the regiment, which *do* show him with these prisoners at a different but nearby location.

Basically, Le Monde checked the story (vérifier) and neither confirms nor refutes it.

They did determine some things. Based on weather, they say, the video was shot on the 25th at sunset. The unit accused of these actions was in military control of the vicinity on that date. The commander of the Ukrainian unit sounds like a piece of work and had just lost a brother to Russian shelling nearby. The particular video discussed and showcased by Le Monde does not offer enough detail to make out insignia on any of the men, they say, but the armbands indicate that the prisoners are Russian and the unit is Ukrainian. They slso say they could not determine the truth of this with certitude. Everyone in the video is speaking Russian. Le Monde quotes an expert who says that based on the pronunciation of the word for “what”, the captors would seem to be native speakers of Ukrainian. (There are some questions about this in other sources and btw, the BBC said sunup not sundown. But here, we are talking about this source.)

What Le Monde *specifically says they are not saying* is that these unidentified soldiers are from the unit named in the Wikipedia article, or, as I recall, that they were Ukrainian at all. I currently believe that this seems likely, but Le Monde definitely didn’t “verify” this in any sense of the English word and specifically declined to agree with the claim repeated in the lede of our article, supported by Le Monde as a source.

You don’t specify your own proficiency in spoken French, so I hope it will not seem condescending to mention that the article says that the video has optional subtitles in English, but I didn’t locate that control and so cannot speak to their accuracy. I am sure that in a Le Monde production they would be well-done. I apologize for the wall of text, everyone.

I will go into this further on the article talk page, and if anybody really is all that interested in this one issue they should follow it there. I brought it up here because it is the instance where I have looked into the detail.

Personally, I think that kidnapping children, and what Shadybabs had to say about sexual assault, are both more important. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

“verified” is the wrong word, and creates a misleading impression, in the lede of the article. "Verified" is not used in the lead of the article, it is used in the section Kneecapping of Russian soldiers. You can improve the linguistic quality or accuracy by editing there. Re Shadybabs on sexual assault (better: rape as a weapon of war) I intend to reply soon. Re kidnapping children, it's not clear what you're referring to because there were a couple of different issues (using "kidnapping" or "deportation", and reporting about a Russian decree/law on easing adoptions). We had various discussions on this, the main one being here. You're welcome to comment there if you have views on these two topics. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not need your permission to edit War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but thanks for the invite. Life is short though, and I have stuff to do in four hours. My remarks above about translation concerned Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. The remark about kidnapping and sexual assault refers to the comments of other editors in this thread here. I am going to sleep now; feel free to refrain from explaining further to me. I am not in your time zone, I do not want to talk to you and I am done here, goodnight. Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Shadybabs (here above at 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)) is more difficult than to Elinruby because they conveyed a comprehensive assessment but did not provide any diffs. I'll try to address all the points they raised while also producing evidence of what I say.

First, Shadybabs laments that in the lead section accusations against Ukraine that are reported by a third party like the UN monitoring mission are described in vikivoice without "accused" or "alleged", but he [Gitz] injects "alleged" for similar instances of third party reports documenting Russian crimes. This is not accurate, as it is easy to check. The lead section has always used Wikivoice for many Russian war crimes, such as "damage or destruction of civilian buildings including houses, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, nuclear power plants, historic buildings, and churches", "overwhelming evidence of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces of Ukrainian civilians", "evidence emerged of a massacre perpetrated by Russian troops, including torture and the deliberate killings of civilians". As I demonstrated in the discussion with Elinruby (see the diffs there), I myself added those contents in Wikivoice to the lead. Moreover, the lead uses Wikivoice for one common war crime ("Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war have been repeatedly abused and exposed to public curiosity...") and for the killing of Russian POWs ("...and on at least two occasions Russian prisoners have been tortured and killed"). The result is IMO well-balanced and broadly aligned to the coverage in RS: the vast majority of war crimes were committed by Russian forces and this clearly emerges from the lead. Wikivoice is supported by multiple sources and is the outcome of discussions to which several editors took part: see 21 March 2022, 23 March 2022, 27 March 2022 (all on having Russian POWs in the lead), 5 April 2022 (on Bucha), 30 April 2022 (on the talk page of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, notified here), 7 May 2022 (again on POW in the lead) and 20 June 2022 (ongoing, on the "alleged" language).

So I think that when Shadybabs talks about the use of the words "alleged" and "accused", they are referring to the first two sentences on indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by Russian forces, which Shadybabs modified two days ago so as to use Wikivoice [116]. It's a topic we've been discussing on the talk page in the last few days, where I argue that the "alleged" terminology is preferable at this stage. It's not a matter of bias on my part - I've spent hours describing indiscriminate attacks by the Russians and I'm also intending to write an article on the topic of indiscriminate attack. The point is that ascertaining this kind of war crimes requires delicate assessments, such as balancing human rights with military necessity, and two of the sources we quote on this (BBC and the Monitoring mission) use themselves a relatively cautious language. So the debate is still open and it's not at all clear if there's consensus for Wikivoice.

Secondly, according to Shadybabs Gitz and llenart routinely ignore talk page discussions. I strongly disagree. On many occasions my views did not prevail and I abode by consensus: e.g., with regard to targeting humanitarian corridors in Mariupol, ill-treatment and torture of Russian supporters and marauders, ill-treatment and humiliation of Russian POWs, attack on nuclear plants, ill-treatment of migrants in detention centres, use of human shields, genocide as a war crime, and possibly other discussions we had where either my arguments did not prevail, or they prevailed but a small group of like-minded editors succeeded in forcing their views via edit war (the missile on Donetsk being the last clear example of this [117]).

Unfortunately what I just said cannot be proved by simply sharing a few diffs. To have an informed opinion one needs to read the discussions we had in the talk page, especially in May/June. What one finds is that, on the one side, there's a relatively small, very cohesive and determined group of editors (Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, occasionally Shadybabs and Adoring nanny), and on the other there's a larger but less cohesive and active group of editors (myself, Ilenart626, AdrianHObradors, Alaexis, The Four Deuces and Dunutubble, often IP 187). Members of the second group don't always join the discussions and occasionally have different views among themselves. The first group wins almost on every occasions, no matter if they are trying to remove contents (e.g. torture of Russian supporters and marauders, humiliation of POWs, ill-treatment of migrants, use of human shields, missile on Donetsk) or to include contents (targeting of humanitarian corridors, attack on nuclear plants, genocide as a war crime, Russian Duma's law on adoption). In fact, one of the reasons why I opened this discussion, apart from VM's incivility, is the frequent disregard for consensus on that article and talk page. In this sandbox I keep contents that have been removed from the article and that I would be happy to restore.

3) Finally, Shadybabs mentions "rape as a weapon of war" to demonstrate that consensus is disregarded by Ilenart626 and me. Yesterday I read the discussions again and I'm sure Shadybabs is wrong. What happened is that Volunteer Marek and Shadybabs had added to the lead that Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war" [118] [119]. I thought that the sources (at the time, the following two [120][121]) were not good enough to support such an exceptional claim, first because the claim had not been made by several "human rights organizations" but rather by Ukrainian officials and (possibly, the point is not clear) by a human right organisation called "La Strada-Ukraine", and secondly because "rape as a weapon of war" doesn't mean "massive rape": it is rape used for military ends, with the complicity of the chain of command, and it is not at all clear that that is occurring in Ukraine. So I opened a discussion on the talk page and rather clumsily also a discussion at RS/N. In favour of modifying the lead there were Volunteer Marek, Shadybabs and My very best wishes (and possibly also Xx236 and Ixtal, who just shared sources); against including a reference to sexual violence as a weapon of war in the lead section there were Gitz6666, Hawkeye7, Boynamedsue and Otr500. So it was 3 (or 5) for including against 4. As per WP:ONUS, we didn't include it, and I can't see any violation of consensus in those discussions and outcome.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr, sorry. But I do not think your diffs support your statements. After quickly looking at this ANI thread, I have an impression that you are trying to catch others on minor imperfections and legitimate disagreements, instead of trying to improve the page. For example, you accused VM of misrepresentation becase he included a comparison of Russian filtration camps in Ukraine and Chechnya. However, such comparison is a common place and was used in a number of mainstream RS, for example [122]. In the first paragraph of the thread you accused him of misrepresenting "of what I'd been arguing". No, he was saying this about your actual edits on the page, rather than your arguments on talk. And what he said was a reasonable interpretation of your actual edits. You are coming to ANI with such diffs and walls of text. This can be a reason for "boomerang". My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are referring to this edit of mine [123]. I wrote that there was a misrepresentation of source because the quoted source, Politico, did not support the comparison between filtration camps in Ukraine and in Chechnya. I didn't look for other sources on that comparison, you are right, but I read the source we were quoting and - as you can see - I added "modern day" concentration camp so as to better use the reference VM had just added. I don't see how I could be blamed for that, as my edit was both useful (I removed a mistake) and cooperative (I retained as much as possible of the new text and source). Surely I could have done better - looking for further sources and retain the comparison - but what I did was not bad at all. As you are among the most active editors on that article, I thought you could have come up with a more serious shortcoming from my part. What you just mentioned is fully defensible. Plus, with regard to your second point, I don't see how "Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption" (that is what VM reproached me for) could be a reasonable interpetation of this edit of mine [124]. At the most I could concede that it was a malicious, spiteful interpretation - the kind of interpretation you make when you want to pick up a fight rather then seek an agreement. And VM repeated it after 11 days, completely out of context, in a different discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you use {{no ping}} to mention editors like me that have nothing to do with the dispute, especially in massively long blocks of text that are hard to read through, Gitz. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Gitz6666}, please do not claim to have demonstrated this or that in a discussion with me, as it makes it sound like you claim to have demonstrated these things *to* me. Perhaps there is an idiomatic issue there on my part or yours, or perhaps I am merely sensitized by our prior discussion of child rape on the RSN board, which I found upsetting enough to ask a friend’s opinion of it. If it is me, I do apologize, but nonetheless I do still make this request.

Also, a friendly suggestion if you are willing to hear it: I note that you are involved in Wikiproject Law. If your work or training is in this field, perhaps this would shed a somewhat more favorable light on your rather disputatious discussion style. Please do not ping me if you answer this; I wish to disengage from the thread. But for the record, if you said anything to me about alleged or wikivoice, it was TL;dr, as I was not in that dispute and still do not wish to join it, simply because life is too short. I stopped myself from saying that your remarks were off-topic, as I did say that I agree that you seem to advocate for the Russian military, so AGF, I guess you were trying to provide examples of you not doing that? I was, fyi, in this article to see what it covered that could therefore be slimmed down in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only.

I did carefully read the entire article at the time, and do a copy edit. And I also read the recent talk page postings, which is good practice, btw. I saw a lot of disputes and formed an opinion about them but chose not to engage. I took issue with the representation of the Le Monde source because I could be absolutely sure of what I was saying about it. Only. Thank you for your cooperation and I hope the suggestion is helpful. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666 I am part of a "cohesive and determined" group? Please. My last 50 edits go back to 13 May, and some are not even related to Eastern Europe. Also I didn't even notice this particular thread until just now. Care to reconsider your characterization of me? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I might have made a mistake in your regard, and in that case I apologize. The reason why I thought you belonged to that group of editors is your stance on the missile in Donetsk [125] which meant choosing the only attack which might have been committed by the Ukrainian army out of nearly 20 indiscriminate attacks, and remove it. I was also impressed by your removing the section on humiliation of Russian POW (re ill-treatment and exposure to public curiosity) while at the same time retaining the analogous section on "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" [126], and by your including contents on unverified audio recordings circulated by the Ukrainian defence ministry [127] while removing the interview to the Georgian commander who justified the killing of Russian POWs by members of his unit [128]. I thought that these edits show that you had a political approach to editing on war crimes in Ukraine. If I was wrong and they fall in the grey area where editors committed to neutrality can reasonably disagree, I am sorry and I apologize for having misunderstood your attitude. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, being part of a group might sound too suspicious, like being part of a plan. I didn't claim that you or the others were coordinating yourselves. I said that one can identify two groups of like-minded editors discussing on that talk page, and that the first one is almost always prevailing notwithstanding the smaller number of editors. There may be some degree of simplification in this account, but the point I was trying to make is well-founded: it is false that I and the others had no respect for consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEATBOT and Guarapiranga

Guarapiranga restored a massive list of nearly every victim of 9/11 (2,944 people!) to List of victims of the September 11 attacks without any prior consensus, following that they created several hundred redirects on June 21 (in just a few hours, no less) I lost count after 900+, which were promptly fixed by a bot and then undone by Guarapiranga, causing them to have 509 edits from 23:11-23:54 today. This is an insane amount of edits for a non-bot (and non-approved, non-consensus based creation fiasco, imo.) I don't know that I can even take several hundred redirects to RFD without breaking the script, so I'm bringing it here. I tried to ask Guarapiranga about it but their response was rather lackluster. I'm at a loss for what to do - I don't see how having what will eventually be 2,944 redirects is useful to anyone and there doesn't seem to be a precedent for it, given other similar level terrorist attacks do not have redirects of every victim. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And to put this in more perspective, when they created the redirects, they had more than 1000+ creations in less than 60 minutes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also asking for a quick block of the creator in mainspace, at minimum now, to prevent further disruption until this can be sorted out. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On one hand, this is clearly a WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT issue. On the other hand, my experience at AfD and RfD regarding non-notable early Olympians suggests that current policy tolerates these redirects, to the point of sometimes creating disambiguation pages when there are multiple articles mentioning different non-notable individuals by the same name. I'm not certain what is to be done here without a broader discussions of when redirects and disambiguation pages are appropriate, although the temporary mainspace block proposed by PRAXIDICAE may be appropriate to prevent further MEATBOT and FAIT issues in the short term. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly the merits of the redirects at this point are the least of my concern. This editor made over 1000+ edits in 60 minutes - and that's without looking at previous hours (I just took the 11th hour on June 21 to get some stats.) That's insanely disruptive, especially when combined with their current attitude. I think a mainspace block is absolutely necessary right now so we can actually figure this out. Regarding the merits of the redirects, while I won't go fully into it, it appears they created this with some sort of script in order to avoid draftification and/or deletion of the above referenced article they created, which is definitely contrary to policy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether Praxidicae is raising the issue bc of the "massive list", bc of the redirects, bc of the semi-automated editing or bc it's about 9/11 and not other "similar level terrorist attacks." She seems upset about a lot of things at once. In any case, for background, those interested in this may find this particular edit being discussed at:

• Talk:List of victims of the September 11 attacks#Redirects to this list
• User talk:Onetwothreeip#List of victims of the September 11 attacks
• User talk:Guarapiranga#List of victims of the September 11 attacks

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop attributing emotion to me that doesn't exist and focus on the argument. And the argument is that all of the above are extremely problematic and you do not seem to understand this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• That wasn't the response I was hoping we'd get from Guarapiranga. The two talk page threads linked above show that Guarapiranga was well aware of the issues ("it turned out a bit of a mess as I started to bump into parsoid's time constraints"). As for what to do? 1) Return List of victims of the September 11 attacks back to a redirect to Casualties of the September 11 attacks; the expansion was reverted, and per WP:BRD, whether we have a list at all (instead of the current prose redirect target) should gain consensus before we decide to do that. 2) Delete all these redirects. 3) Warn Guarapiranga to observe WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT in the future. I think the first step should be a warning, not a block. Levivich^[block] 01:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  What was the response you were "hoping to get", Levivich? Yes, I was "aware of the issue" (not "issues"), and it arose, as you correctly quoted me, when I endeavoured to expand the simple to the detailed list, not when I replaced the redirect by the simple list, or bc the list is "massive", bc of the semi-automated edits, bc it's about 9/11 and not other "similar level terrorist attacks," or bc of the redirects. The issue with the redirects only came up when Onetwothreeip moved the article to draftspace, rather than simply reverting it to the last stable version, which is what I should've done when the editor starting faultering on me, instead of endeavouring to fix it online, perhaps bc s/he did not mean to convey that the article should not be expanded (s/he said he'd done this for now as the latest versions of my draft are extremely large (over 700,000 bytes) and would need improvement before it can be in article space). Having fixed the improvement issues with the detailed list, I restored it to the article, and started fixing the redirects, which had been corrupted by the draftification. I stopped when Praxidicae took issue with the cleanup for all the aforementioned motives. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  The issue with the redirects isn't just your "fixes" it's the fact that you created over 600+ of them in a single hour period without any discussion or consensus and no bot flags. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  If there indeed is an issue with creating redirects semi-automatically, I'm happy to oblige, Praxidicae, but AFAIK, as I've pointed it to you on my talk page, WP:MASSCREATION excplicitly applies to all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace, including articles, most visible categories, files hosted on Wikipedia, mainspace editnotices, and portals, not redirects (which were explicitly excluded in the original discussion referred to in the policy). Your reponse to my quoting policy was:

  You had over 1000 creations in mainspace, with absolutely no consensus to do so in less than 60 minutes. Do you not see how this is a problem? In any case, I'm done discussing it here, you can do it at ANI.

  ... not any other policy ref, or problem with my understanding of it. All you did was express outrage (am I really attributing emotion to you, or are you quite clearly expressing it?), say you were "done discussing it," and tell me to "do it at ANI." So here we are.— Guarapiranga ☎ 03:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  As there is currently a New Pages Patrol backlog of over 13,000 creating over 2900+ redirects in a short period without prior discussion at the AfC or NPP project talk does not seem to be taking the additional workload it would apply to others into account. Gusfriend (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I hope they are not indexed, because they're all people's names. It might affect Google search results. Levivich^[block] 04:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Plus making it just that little bit more effort to create a page for someone notable of the same name in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I fear that any living person who shares a name with any of those victims will instantly become known for sharing a name with a victim, if these redirects hit google. Levivich^[block] 04:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Is this really Wikipedia's problem to solve? Individuals have the exact same name as another has been known since the era of yellowbooks. Non-serious User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are confusing a "problem to solve" with a problem we create. We sell our data to Google, and when we create 3,000 mainspace pages with titles that are common names like this, we affect the Google search results for those names, and that affects everyone who has those names. The number of affected people would be some multiple of 3,000. And we associate all those people with 9/11 for what reason? So that we can have 3,000 redirects to a list of victims of 9/11? If this sounds like a good idea for WP:BOLD editing to you, I don't know what to say other than I hope you don't edit BLPs. Levivich^[block] 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we should take the NPP backlog into consideration when deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I totally agree about not taking the backlog into account when it is a low level of redirects but when there is such a large number in a very short period I would certainly feel uncomfortable creating them without reaching out to the NPP team first if only so that they had some context when they say them come in. Gusfriend (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh, @Gusfriend, users can be whitelisted so their redirects are.automatically patrolled, and it's.fairly easy to do with a script. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  To add onto what Qwerfjkl said, admin's on the NPP team can add users to the autopatrol list. For non-admin adds, users can apply or be nominated at the talk page here. DannyS712's bot, DannyS712 bot III runs every 15 minutes, marking pages created by users on that list as patrolled. In my opinion this makes the number of redirects created not an issue. If getting added to the list needed to be expedited they could also reach out to Rosguill, provided they had a good history of creating redirects, or wanted to explain the intention or plan. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  The response I was hoping for was that you understood you shouldn't have reinstated your reverted bold edits without consensus, per WP:BRD, and should not have created 2,900+ redirects without seeking consensus first. Levivich^[block] 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Since I have commented at the related AfD, I am involved and cannot take action as an admistrator. Since I cannot act, I recommend that an uninvolved administrator take whatever action is necessary to stop this disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  You would have seen in the threads I linked above that the issue raised by Liz, Cameron Dewe and Epicgenius were against the list's draftification, not against the list itself, Levivich. None of them raised any issue about the list being "massive", being about 9/11, or having redirects created semiautomatically. Those are issues Praxidicae—and apparently now you too—are now raising. If there is an issue, sure, let's deal with it, but:

  1. Please don't say I ignored anyone's concerns; and
  2. I'm yet to see a ref to any WP:POLICY I've broken (where's that "Google search results" part, for instance?). — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was surprised to see the draft list returned to mainspace on the rationale that draftifying the list broke the thousands of redirects. Levivich^[block] 04:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  You know, I'm going to say more @Guarapiranga. First, I didn't say you ignored anyone's concerns. Second, don't give me this bullshit about "policy" vs. guideline vs. just common f'ing sense. You created redirects in the names of almost three thousand people and directed them to a list of 9/11 victims. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names? It's fucking common sense, OK? Stop arguing with us and realize what you're playing with here is serious shit that affects living people. Thank God you're not autopatrolled! Levivich^[block] 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  1. Be WP:CIVIL.
  2. Stop arguing?? Am I not being asked to explain myself here?
  3. The list wasn't returned to mainspace on the rationale that draftifying the list broke the thousands of redirects; I returned it bc I fixed the problems that led Onetwothreeip to draftify it in the 1st place (which had nothing to do with the redirects whatsoever; those only became an issue after Onetwothreeip draftified the article instead of reverting it).
  4. You say you didn't say I ignored anyone's concerns, yet you said I was well aware of the issues, and reinstated my reverted bold edits without consensus. You're contradicting yourself (on top of completely misrepresenting the facts).
  5. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11.
     1. It's gonna come up with information saying a John Doe died in 9/11.
     2. What's the problem with that?
  6. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names?
     That's not WP:EDIT. Editors are encouraged to WP:BE BOLD, and WP:MASSCREATE applies to content pages, not redirects.

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think one should tell others to be civil exactly one edit after casting aspersions on the motivations of another editor. - Aoidh (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Of course mainspace redirects are content pages. Redirects are pages - there'd be no need to distinguish pages and articles otherwise - and they're in the main content mainspace. Wikipedia:Content, for all that it's tagged as an essay and you were just about to wikilawyer about that, too, spells it out rather succinctly, with the same definition used everywhere else. That explicit exception in WP:MASSCREATE for "redirects from systematic names" doesn't mean what you think it means. —Cryptic 06:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich, this is not the place for nonsensical moralizing. How accurately non-notable individuals are presented on Google searches is... well, Google's problem, not Wikipedia's, because they're so non-notable they don't have any coverage. And for real, the WP:COMMONSENSE rationale, really? The one conservatives and right-wingers when they use everytime, cause empirical evidence never backs up what they say? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  ANI is absolutely the place for nonsensical moralizing. Is this your first time here? Levivich^[block] 01:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich, I renew my proposal that we get married. EEng 03:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Will the Supreme Court still let us? Levivich^[block] 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, what is the process to request bulk deletion of the redirects? Gusfriend (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Bot requests but you may need to show consensus first, I'm not sure how the potential issue of these being people's names might affect things. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No need for a bot, Special:Nuke/Guarapiranga will let any admin who's not on his way to bed deal with it. —Cryptic 06:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

But what if I want to delete the Main Page? :) Jokes aside, thanks for that I didn't know about it until now :) PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Guarapiranga did not create the main page, so no issue there. I have deleted the A-Z creations of redirects. So the R of BRD has happened. Discussion can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Graeme. I'd still like to understand what was wrong with them (before they were mangled by the draftification). Levivich was concerned they might affect Google search results, but why is that a problem (and not a good thing)? Gusfriend said they were a burden to the NPP backlog, but Hey man im josh, who reviewed most of them (as did DannyS712), said this shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create. Cryptic says redirects are content pages, but the discussion linked in WP:MASSCREATE explains that they added the qualifier content to pages precisely to make redirects the exception to the rule. He says explicit exception in WP:MASSCREATE for "redirects from systematic names" doesn't mean what I think it means, but doesn't offer any clarification either. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Basically I am acting on behalf of those discussions above. I notice that no one supported the creation of all those redirects. Since it would be too hard to do an RFD, the complaint about indexing ( suppose WP:UNDUE would apply), and WP:MEATBOT applies. Perhaps the exclusion of redirects from should be removed. But I think this needs its own discussion. Bot like editing could result in a block. but I do not think that is appropriate, as that has stopped, and you are talking. Any very fast rate mass-editing is likely to stir up controversy, so should be supported by a discussion prior. Slow mass editing is usually not a problem, as people can object before too much has happened. Wikipedia:Bot policy applies if you are using an automated tool, whatever you are altering or creating on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, @Graeme. I don't see any restrictions in WP:MEATBOT though (which, admittedly, I only became aware through this incident), other than an advice:

Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots.

It does say that if there is any doubt, the editor should make a bot approval request, and in such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. Had I been aware of WP:MEATBOT prior to creating the redirects, I don't think I'd still be requesting approval, as I don't think a separate bot account would've been necessary for it. Now, all this relates to WP:BOTPOL; I'd still like to understand what was wrong with the redirects themselves. How does WP:UNDUE apply? AFAIK, WP:UNDUE is about striking a balance of POVs across sources, when they differ, that is proportionate to their reliability, not about redirects. Is it? — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The UNDUE nature of the redirects, is that out of all the people with those names, the most important are those that are 9/11 victims. A separate discussion should take place about that in a more appropriate place, rather than here though. There has also been discussion whether it is appropriate to list victims of death causing events, and the outcome was on a case by case basis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Graeme, I really don't understand that UNDUE argument.

1. WP:UNDUE clearly states its requirement is to:

   fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

   I don't see anything there about redirects causing undue weight to different people (or things) with the same name, do you?
2. Isn't that easily resolved with a dab page?

Now you bring up yet another discussion whether it is appropriate to list victims of death causing events, and the target keeps moving. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Not started by me: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the September 11 attacks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. That's a whole other discussion, no? I'm still trying to understand what is the incident being reported here... With such a variety of claims and accusations, from the redirects to the semi-automated editing to alleged undue weight and bias, with little to no ground in actual policy, and lastly but not leastly the attempted character assassination below, I'm befudlled at what the point of this whole topic really is. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot see your problem, you are at risk of getting into trouble again. You must not do rapid mass editing without getting approval first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. So the problem is not the redirects, Google search results, UNDUE, NOTMEMORIAL, or any other of the allegations above? Understood. Then perhaps WP:MASSCREATE should be made clearer that of course mainspace redirects are content pages, as Cryptic says (in spite of what the policy's linked discussion says), bc my understanding was the same as Qwerfjkl's when I asked about it on JWB's talk page. In fact, given the profusion of allegations that have now turned out blanks, it's still unclear to me whether I did indeed misunderstand the policy, or whether this is all an outburst of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, demanding prior approvals where none are policy required. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a concerning pattern:

• G's account was created in March 2019 and started editing regularly in May 2019 (first 500 edits). Within their first 25 or so edits are talk page edits like their first one ("...Are you crazy?? I'll return you the same amount of time you gave my contribution to respond before undoing this vandalism (WP:DONTREVERT). "), this one accusing an editor of bias ("If you have a horse in this race, refrain from negatively campaigning against other candidates from the SAME party."), and doubling down ("And you say you don't have a horse in this race?! I find that very hard to believe.")
• June 2019 edit warring with combative edit summaries (accusing editors who revert of WP:DISRUPT) on multiple pages: bold, 2, 3, 4; another article: bold, 2, 3, first talk page comment on that article: "If you don't like the way I configured the map, why don't you get off your high horse of "not good enough", and help improve it? Move things forward, not backwards."
• First edit-warring warning in June 2019; G's response: "Did I start the war? No, I didn't."
• Second edit warring warning is the next section on that page, in October 2019. They file an ANEW report: "It is clear he has a POV on this topic, and that he is determined to impose it on Wikipedia by whatever means." (the page was protected)
• December 2019, they're blocked for a week with TPA revoked
• G made less than 20 edits over 14 months between Dec 2019 and April 2021, when they returned to active editing (xtools)
• A few months later, August 2021: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Disruptive editing by User:Guarapiranga
• On August 3, G makes this edit, same tone as their 2019 edits, and took another effective break. On August 18, they archived some thread on their user talk page [129].
• G made <75 edits for six months between Sep 2021 and May 2022, when they again return to active editing (see xtools linked above).
• And here we are at ANI again a month later in June 2022.

This editing pattern is not sustainable. Levivich^[block] 03:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. They don't have a great attitude for a collaborative environment and every time they return to sustained editing they run into problems. They probably should have been indeffed in December 2019 (as the blocking administrator said at the time) and the discussion above is just more evidence of a time-sink WP:IDHT attitude. I would be minded to indef here and would welcome feedback. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  +1, warnings and time limited blocks have already been tried, and this is too broad for a tban. Levivich^[block] 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree that it is not sustainable. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• My thoughts:
  Firstly, mass editing on its own is not necessarily disruptive. The rate limit is 90 edits per minute, so theoretically the maximum pages you could create in an hour is 5400, over 5 times as much as 1000 (not that I endorse high volume editing, but it could have been much worse). I agree with G's comment above that WP:MASSCREATION does not apply to redirects - redirects can be mainspace pages, but they aren't content pages, and the policy could certainly be clearer. The only valid problem I can see is the fact that a lot of pages for people's names have been created, of which some probably would be better served with a dab page. This discussion might have gone better, and not escalated, if G had started a discussion first about these redirects - that would probably be good future advice; that being said, I don't think this justifies a block. If the pages don't already exist, then the chances are they're not going to be dabs in the future, and redirects can always be turned into disambiguation pages (in my opinion, for what that counts). The main problem here (in addition to the only problem above) is not being WP:CIVIL. My own viewpoint may be somewhat biased - I've mass created redirects in the past, such as here. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• There's far more aggressive language from you just a few comments above than what you've been able sleuth out of 3 years of my editing history, Levivich. You're grasping. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Guarapiranga, Which parts of Levivich's posting are aggressive? I appreciate it does not make your editing history look good, so this would be a good moment to explain which parts are misleading or inaccurate. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You know, I'm going to say more @Guarapiranga. First, I didn't say you ignored anyone's concerns. Second, don't give me this bullshit about "policy" vs. guideline vs. just common f'ing sense. You created redirects in the names of almost three thousand people and directed them to a list of 9/11 victims. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names? It's fucking common sense, OK? Stop arguing with us and realize what you're playing with here is serious shit that affects living people. Thank God you're not autopatrolled!

  At best, this is a simple case of disagreement over WP:MASSCREATE's scope (especifically, whether or not redirects classify as content pages, which could've been dealt with at the proper forum), as other allegations (of UNDUE, NOTMEMORIAL and Google search results) seem to have pitted out without basis on policy; at worst, it's unnecessary WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASSMENT and lynching. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

• Support INDEF - It's high time that WP:MEATBOT was given teeth. Especially when the behaviour is paired with WP:MASSCREATE it is the most disruptive behaviour possible on this website, since creating such articles is the work of a minute or less each, whilst deleting them is often the work of a week+. It can result in thousands of man-hours of editor time being thrown away trying to clear up the mess created by others. We saw this in the Carlossuarez46 case. We saw this in the Ruigeroeland case. We're seeing this in the Lugnuts case. Clearly warnings have already been made and the subject of them did not listen. This community needs to protect itself against and stop these time-sinks. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @FOARP, I don't want to be too argumentative, but it is the most disruptive behaviour possible on this website seems unnecessary, and deleting them is often the work of a week+ seems wrong; apparently "any admin who's not on his way to bed [can] deal with it". This doesn't exactly seem like thousands of man-hours of editor time. Please try to check your statements before posting them. Thank you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl - I stand by my statement. Anyone can just go and look at the massive task created by, for example, Ruigeroeland for his clean-up team, and Carlossuarez46 for the California GEOstubs clean-up team, can see the issues that it has created for them. Thousands of hours is an entirely reasonable statement for the impact of abuse of WP:MEATBOT/WP:MASSCREATE given that the two teams above have been operational for years and their tasks are still not yet quite finished. The seven-day period needed for deletion of an article via AFD is of course well-known. FOARP (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@FOARP, thank you for clarifying your points above. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly warnings have already been made and the subject of them did not listen.

Not true, FOARP. Clearly, you didn't read when I said it above that I only became aware of WP:MEATBOT through this incident, or when Graeme Bartlett also said above that while bot like editing could result in a block, he does not think that is appropriate, as that has stopped, and I am talking (though I've also been told by some people here to shut up, stop arguing, and 'get the point', with no recourse to explaining myself, in a clear attempt to Kafkatrap me). If you want WP:MEATBOT to be given teeth, the place to do it is in policy pages, not here at AN/I, with a showtrial. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef per FOARP - reading their latest responses and complete lack of understanding of how disruptive their rate of editing is and was leads me to believe that we're going to wind up exactly in this situation again if action isn't taken, combine that with their combativeness and it's a recipe for disaster. At minimum, a mainspace block and outright ban from creating redirects and any automated or semi-automated editing should be prohibited, either by edit restriction or block. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• In case I didn't make it clear above, I oppose a block (though not necessarily some other sanction of some sort). I don't believe a high edit rate is necessarily disruptive. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as the redirects themselves are not in the scope of WP:MASSCREATE and they've been all nuked anyway. Obviously, if a similar incident happened from the same editor at a point in the future, that would require a further discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose an indef block as the redirects no longer exist and the article is at AfD meaning that things are under control. Having said that I find myself agreeing with Praxidicae above about their understanding and responses and would not be surprised to see them return here in future. Gusfriend (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC) 02:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Whilst I do not wish to support an indef block I withdraw my opposition due to their use of the word showtrial to describe a discussion of sanctions at ANI. Gusfriend (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  I used the term, in its strictest sense, of using my sanctioning as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors,^[130] specifically to describe FOARP's rationale for it to give teeth to WP:MEATBOT,^[2] not the discussion in general, Gusfriend. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Although I understand the MEATBOT concerns, everything else here is total nonsense. Who cares in what time patterns a user edits, and what does it mean for it to be "sustainable"? WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, people. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose although there may be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, a block could be used to stop disruption, but disruptive activity has ceased. So no need. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

IP editor in 2402:8100:2000::/35 range tied to sockmaster Qaumrambista

Since an indef was made permanent on sockmaster Qaumrambista last week, an IP editor in the same range (2402:8100:2000::/35) and the account യോഹന്നാൻ have made edits to a number of articles relating to Indian Christianity. The character of the edits and IP range involved made me suspect sockpuppetry. I am aware of the shared nature of the range, but the overlap in pages edited and sources inserted raised suspicion. Following edit warring by the IP on the article List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, I filed an AN/EW report resulting in a semi-protection of the page. The IP has since continued edit warring with multiple edits on articles including Synod of Diamper and India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province). Once more instances of overlap between the sockmaster and this IP editor became evident, I filed a sockpuppet report that returned a possible to possilikely following a check user. The IP editor has also made uncivil remarks, including intentionally misspelling names of religions (even after being asked then warned to stop that). Editor repeatedly disengaged from requests for discussion on Talk:Syro-Malabar Church and resumed edit warring despite warnings from myself and an admin, resulting in the page being protected.

When I initially brought the original sockmaster to ANI a couple months ago on issues of incivility, POV, and edit warring, the behavior was not met with any sort of serious action (besides talk page reminders of the discretionary sanctions involving articles related to India and Pakistan). It took a month for the SPI team to recognize and respond to just one of the editor's abusive behaviors. The AN/EW team, while effective for single-article issues, can only play whack-a-mole with such disruptive editors. I am here because I have been targeted by this editor with uncivil comments and WP:HOUNDING for three months now and this project really is not that fun when your watchlist is populated with targeted edit summaries and unexplained reversions.

I have two requests: extended page protections on the articles mentioned above and prohibition of that IP range from editing these articles. The latter request should be considered with caution because, even though that range is already subject to specific blocks, the range includes a significant proportion of the people who might want to edit pages on this topic. Further diffs, details, and other material may be provided upon request. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am the admin who semi-protected Syro-Malabar Church. The IP user had contacted me on my talk page. I pointed out my concerns that they were a long-term abuser who had caused an IP range to be partially blocked—which, curiously, led to the next contact coming from an IP4 address outside the /35 range. The IP asked why I was removing good content; I explained at that point that I was not editing in regards to their content, but their conduct, and I would not take responsibility for the content by letting it stand. I feel that behavioural signs point to this being either Qaum or another LTA, so semi-protection is in order. I've only hit the one article where I saw an issue last night my time, and I welcome other administrators' eyes looking into this. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting further action as the IP has continued edit warring my despite request for discussion on a talk page, as well as escalating the POV language of their edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I just semiprotected that article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you! If IP wants to discuss on the talk pages, I am willing to engage (even if that's not standard protocol). ~ 01:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Requesting a semiprotection for the article India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province) too. Same IP series is continuously reverting the edits supported with genuine references. --John C. (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnchacks: Also semiprotected. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you. --John C. (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles

User talk:Oppa gangnam psy has been following me around for several days, getting extremely angry with me and refusing to listen to the points I have to make. Once OGP threatened me with a ban, and when I showed they could not do that they resorted to some of the most childish behaviour I've ever seen from an editor.

The most egregious of OGP's behaviour is at Talk:Soviet ruble. Where in response to evidence I provided in support of my statement they became extremely unpleasant and abusive.

• OGP has a biased preference for American English, and refuses to acknowledge all contrary evidence. See: Add to that post-1945 media torch passed from UK to USA, that's how the consensus for ruble was arrived at. and it's best to issue the check in RUBLES lest you risk a bouncing cheque in Roubles
• After I provided citations disproving OGP's assertion they threatened me with a ban. See: Being a difficult topic, the 2006 debate duly consulted various parties on this and they arrived at 'ruble'. And it's not within my powers to reverse this outcome. Dunno what's the penalty to reversing a settled decision like this. You'll very likely be banned and Above Talk:Soviet ruble#Requested move constitutes prima facie evidence of WP:CON arrived on this - move it to Soviet ruble and no more discussions. Breaking this WP:CON is a terrific way of getting WP:BAN.
• After it became clear OGP could not have me banned merely for starting a discussion, they started behaving in an extraordinarily childish way. See: With 2006 WP:CON firmly in place, what you feel about "rouble" is exactly just that... Feelings... nothing more than feelings... woe woe woe feelings... and Pursuing suggestions to write consistent with milieu, proposeth thee to write William the Conqueror artickle in Old English? ET IVLIVS CAESAR EN LATIN? Practible it maketh not. But MMVI WP:CON achieveth and Soviet ruble declareth it to be.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Complainant questions the finality of WP:CON arrived at in 2006 to finalize Talk:Soviet ruble which goes against what he wants 'rouble'. I can't answer how to reverse 'ruble' consensus and complainant piles pressure to get his way.

Complainant even wants a wipeout of the history of the pound sterling in Talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling by making "sterling", "banknotes of sterling" etc the final page names of "pound sterling" and "banknotes of the pound stering". Completely ignoring to billions worldwide that British currency is most famously known as the "pound".

So complainant wants to engage in historical revisionism by wiping out "pound sterling" and "ruble" from Wiki vocabulary. He wants "sterling" so Wikipedia sticks out like a sore thumb in the Google Search "What is British Currency"? And "ruble" for refusing to acknowledge the end of Pax Britannia.

Isn't it the pettiest of revisionisms to force to audience an unfamiliar word "sterling" and to force that "o" in "ruble"? Wiki audience declared "ruble" final in 2006 as per Talk:Soviet ruble consensus. Faced with an impossible task and an incessant pressure campaign, can I be blamed for running around the circles until complainant realizes the futility of it all?

And do look at complainant's recent edits re: Reichsmark symbol. What is his right to make dozens of Wiki pages look like an unreadable 1940 book with that Reichsmark symbol - without WP:CON? All those unsolicited edits deserve a citation at the very least. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with complaint mechanics. But the complainant's name is TheCurrencyGuy and he's vandalized dozens of pages with irrelevant symbols unrecognizable to Wiki readers to make it look like 1940. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Many of those pages already used the Reichsmark symbol, all I did was to add the Reichsmark template I made to make it easier for other editors to use the symbol. I adhered to the guidelines suggesting using a link in the first instance in a paragraph. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

ADMINS - MONITOR EDITOR TheCurrencyGuy FOR ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. He already has a morbid fascination for the Reichsmark era. I wonder why. Add to that his penchant for wishing to rewrite history to how he wants it. That's precisely how we got to war last Feb 2022. Thank you. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 31 hours for this personal attack on another editor. Please calm down. Oz\^InterAct 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I decided to temporarily focus on one currency for which I made a template. This is bad faith (and bad taste in referencing an ongoing military conflict). Am I also a "FAR LEFT DEVIANT" for deciding to focus on the Soviet currency? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I trust the admins to identify signs of ultra nationalists, historical revisionists, and imperial chauvinists. They can review your talkpage arguments as potential signs of that. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins are also free to review Talk:Pound_sterling#STG_abbreviation on how the modern world has fallen short of your ideals. And how you wish a Final Solution by wiping off Pound from all British Pound references. Wiki admins deal with deviants like TheCurrencyGuy all the time. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Believing in factual accuracy is not the same thing as believing in racial extermination. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling an editor an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" for editing Reichsmark is an unacceptable personal attack, particularly since all they appeared to do on that article was replace some content with templates that produced the same content. BilledMammal (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins can make that assessment based on the totality of his actuations. Requesting a name wipeout of the British POUND. Reversing final Rouble consensus. And all those Reichsmark edits. It's normal for Wiki to attract folks wanting to rewrite history, no? And to even assume all of us have a revisionist agenda. Our edit history should be evidence what our real agenda here is. Thank you. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, when I look at Talk:Soviet_ruble I see that it is you who often posts in a passive-aggressive manner (not to mention that you don't appear to understand WP:CON), whilst TheCurrencyGuy appears to make their points calmly. Meanwhile here, you're spouting personal attacks with no actual evidence in all capitals. What are we to make of that? Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh my goodness the bludgeoning, lack of good faith, aggression and not thinly veiled threats, in that discussion by Oppa gangnum psy is pretty off the charts. TheCurrencyGuy raised valid points and was asking a reasonable question, and OGP just jumped all over it. Not what we expect from a cordial discussion. And looking at all Oppa's other discussions, this is a serious pattern and they simply cannot seem to accept that someone may not see things their way. They clearly cannot accept good faith, or have any discussion without excessive bludgeoning and strawman arguments and seem to have WP:OWN issues as well. Additionally only blocked for 31 hours for those comments? Generous. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If they indicate no lesson has been learned from calming down a bit, I have no trouble extending the block much further. Oz\^InterAct 15:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

He is now attempting to influence an article move under discussion by attempting to declare some editors "disqualified" when WP:RMCOMMENT clearly states that all editors are welcome to contribute. IP addresses are liable to change and a user might have regularly contributed but only recently made an account. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

And he's attempting to fillibuster again, making disjointed statements in all-caps and superfluous bold that are deliberately intended to take up space and be difficult to respond to since he just dumped so much text. This is extremely frustrating. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Your behavior isn't much better. See WP:BLUDGEON and let the conversation flow. As for pointing out new editors, there's a template that is regularly used to highlight new editors joining a conversation as the chances of WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:MEATPUPPET, or off-wiki WP:CANVASS are high and a valid concern. However, The method they are using is less than ideal and their belief that consensus is required to accept the opinions those users or that such accounts are automatically discounted is false and a judgement to be made by the closer. Slywriter (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I may have to simply give up on WIkipedia, he seems absolutely intent on sabotaging me at every turn. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been good since suspension lifted 30th June.

We can't trust folks online and I'm new here so I just had to do lucha libre last 28th June. No regrets if my worst suspicion is indeed true.

And now it seems @TheCurrencyGuy just sockpuppetted his own RFC. Can someone announced adjournment here for heaven's sake? What kind of ban does it warrant?

Oh yes TheCurrencyGuy I'm tracking your edits in real time. Because spider senses. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem absolutely intent on driving me off the website in your obsessional ways, accusing me of being an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" and now accusing me of sockpuppetry. I have rarely encountered someone as frustratingly petty as you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi admins see @TheCurrencyGuy sockpuppetry investigation ongoing now. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You yourself admitted that you intended to keep hounding me and frustrating any and all edits I may make. Your behaviour is completely beyond the pale. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry - developing story

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

---

Sockpuppetry suspected in this ongoing consultation. Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022

I put in a note to this effect and user:TheCurrencyGuy defended "they are welcome to comment".

• Voting record: I and all other commentations voted "OPPOSE"
• While user:TheCurrencyGuy and the three new accounts voted "ACCEPT"

Below editors not notified so you can investigate. This happened just 1 hour ago. Thank you.

Commentators disqualified for making their first and only comment in this survey as per contributor records.

2600:1700:1961:AC00:157E:3EC4:901A:BE9E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1961:AC00:157E:3EC4:901A:BE9E 88.144.12.208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.144.12.208 Vulpelibrorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vulpelibrorum Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RMCOMMENT all editors are welcome to comment. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy (talk • contribs)

• Noting that there is currently a connected discussion on ANI, WP:AN/I#Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You can see that none of my 30 June comments violate the guidelines. CurrencyGuy must have reported to you even if I've been good now. It's in anticipation of a sockpuppetry complaint coming.

Also FYI: RFC is opened by CurrencyGuy. He and three new accounts are voting the same way. Is there any way to shut that RFC after you investigate this one? Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

user:GoodDay now suspecting sockpuppetry and asking RFC suspension - check here. Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022 Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, that RFC should be closed down. Something just isn't quite right. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that you are being disingenuous and ignoring the fact John Maynard Friedman endorsed two of the suggested moves. Trying to claim "ALL" other commentors were opposed is demonstrably untrue. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thats not the point, Friedman can vote freely as he is not a SPA. Your claim of being disingenuous is unfounded, the two IP edits and that other bloke whose username I cannot remember for the love of my life have never made an edit outside that specific talk page, and the fact all three accounts said Support all definitely warrants suspicion. The consensus appears to be oppose anyway... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier incident, OGP has already been suspended for his bad behaviour towards me and appears to be intent on sabotaging me at every turn. I might as well just frigging give up for now and come back years later when OGP has either been banned or lost interest. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, TheCurrencyGuy, I do not care about his behaviour, you can create a new thread about OGP's behaviour and I will comment on that. It looks like they're violating WP:HOUNDING and WP:BLUDGEON to a smaller extent. But for now, we are looking at SPAs and possible meatpuppetry at the banknote article. You can also file a request for an interaction ban if you feel like OGP's actions are disrupting your editing. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not report to PhantomTech, I am not out to get you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged those three single-purpose accounts, GoodDay & Oppa gangnam psy. Hopefully this speeds the process up. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You are required to notify affected users when you open an ANI thread about them - I have done so on your behalf. That said, this is a complete mess. The timing and contrib history behind the "support all" comments are suspicious enough that I'd have brought that directly to SPI. Worth noting that Vulpelibrorum (talk · contribs) was created in 2019 but never edited until today. —{Canucklehead} 05:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I wish to close the RM now, I may reopen it at a later date when OGP is no longer pathologically obsessed with me.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy I will not give you to make major edits anywhere on Wiki. I'll keep this ANI sockpuppetry thread as evidence you cannot be trusted. May your efforts be richly rewarded in Wiki purgatory lol. And oh yea it's really Pound Sterling. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Now you are just incriminating yourself, WP:HOUNDING, WP:BLUDGEON TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - To the best of my knowledge, nobody has opened an SPI on anyone. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been closing a few RMs for like past 4 months. Never seen so many many new accounts jump in to cast a !vote. Even on high viewership articles like '22 Rus v Ukr or Muhammad remark controversy. Something is very suspicious, so I'll open a SPI anyway. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Oppa gangnam psy's continuing bad behaviour

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

---

While OGP was suspended I took the opportunity to open a move request that he had opposed in an extremely visceral and uncivil way. He has since posted multiple walls of text and is now trying to get the entire request shut down anyway. For this reason I have decided I do not want to pursue the move at this time.

I believe his behaviour constitutes WP:HOUNDING and WP:BLUDGEON and it may be worth looking into putting a WP:IBAN on him, as he has admitted he intends to continue hounding me indefinitely.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: OGP seems intent on WP:BATTLEGROUND with TheCurrencyGuy, whilst the SPI investigation is ongoing, I'm assuming good faith and maintaining his innocence, but I do think OGP's behaviour needs some serious scrutiny. Various aspersions, slinging of various politically charged terms around, gives off a very people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks feeling. I am getting Mrbeastmodeallday flashbacks... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @X750 my edit record have been near-negligible. It's @TheCurrencyGuy in bad need of multiple edits. But I'm an expert on the subject matter so his unorthodox edits were highly suspicious. I'm new here don't even know all your acronyms but I'm offering my very, very negligible contributions to Wiki to humble scrutiny. Thanks. Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You've already just come off a suspension for your behaviour towards me, do you want to make it permanent? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way WP:IBAN per WP:BOOMERANG and OGP's conduct in the above threads. I don't know how many more threads these two intend to make about each other, but I think it would be unwise to find out. —{Canucklehead} 05:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have no issue with this, I do not wish to interact with him anyway as he does not appear to be interested in constructive discussion. He has admitted that he seeks out negative interactions with me, I have done my best to keep a civil head, but it can be very difficult. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Canucklehead my edit records have been near-negligible. It's TheCurrencyGuy in bad need of multiple edits. But I'm an expert on the subject matter so his unorthodox edits were highly suspicious. I'm new here don't even know all your acronyms but I'm offering my very, very negligible contributions to Wiki to humble scrutiny. Thanks. Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  there! Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @User:Oppa gangnam psy The issue which the IBAN proposes to solve has nothing to do with your respective edit counts. Rather, it's the fact that you two have chosen to continue filling ANI with this WP:LAME bullshit instead of walking away and letting other uninvolved users look into the concerns you've both raised. You've been feuding with this guy for 2 weeks and you're doing the same things that got you blocked. The more you WP:PEPPER every comment critical of you, and the more you pre-emptively dance on TCG's grave even with the issue completely unresolved, the more negative attention you're going to draw to yourself. Just stop. —{Canucklehead} 06:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN, as both editors might end up getting each other banned from the project. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi admins FYI @TheCurrencyGuy just caught in sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

First I was an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" and now I'm hosting sock-puppet theatre, what will be your next accusation? That I assassinated Franz Ferdinand? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, feel free to peruse @TheCurrencyGuy edits. His Reichsmark Germany edits have been... hmm fascinating :) Considering I know very little of that era. Since we're all strangers here, your guess must be good as mine. See if I could still trust my spider senses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TheCurrencyGuy&offset=20220626145322&limit=100&target=TheCurrencyGuy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I made my panicked URWN reaction based on appearance of above edit record. 31-hour ban wasn't bad since hey I have negligible Wiki edits as of late! I'm relieved to see this is coming to a conclusion actually. How's his sockpuppetry case going on? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You've used the word "negligible" in every single reply, playing the victim when infact you're the aggressor is not a good look. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You are getting back to that unfounded accusation of me being an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST", do you want to be banned? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins can say if my panic was justified. You WP:ANI 'd me so I wanted to be out however I could. We're all strangers here so your edit track record is all we have to judge character. They can review mine as well as yours. My goodness I'm almost tourist level here with mostly boredom grammatical edits! Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You have already been suspended once for WP:NPA against me. And now you're doing exactly the same thing all over again, same WP:STRAWMAN even. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi everyone review my edit record before June 15 Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy I wanna leave Wikipedia alone man! Real life & socmed is more fun lol but then this bloke came along with multiple wrong edits. You'll see I'm not worthy of any further ban. And looking forward to the day I won't even bother with you all. Though for now I feel compelled to clean up this bloke's his mess before I go on much-deserved vacation. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is one of the most insanely obvious cases of WP:HOUNDING I have ever seen. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Goodness how come you know so many wiki acronyms? I can't even recite five. Still reading in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY right now how long you'll be blocked (hopefully over 31 hours). I just understand the three sockpuppets are banned forever. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The amount of naked aggression from you is unbelievable. This isn't even passive-aggressive anymore. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN per above, at least until this whole mess gets sorted out. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Support 1-way IBAN on OGP, if they are ever unblocked. As Black Kite points out, OGP has been far more uncivil, TCG's behavior never raised to that level and viewed with the perspective of what OGP was doing to TCG, TCG's behavior may be more understandable. Neutral on TCG side of IBAN. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN - these two editors can't stop sniping at each other. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 06:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm emotionally drained from it all. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least the two editors should stop posting on this noticeboard until the behaviour in question is sorted out. If that doesn't happen voluntarily then there should be a formal ban. Their positions have been stated ad nauseam, so there's no danger of anyone not knowing where they stand, and nobody has time to look properly at the underlying issues while such bickering and opening of new threads continues. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support 2-way interaction ban AND a topic-ban from the article(s) in question AND a ban from administrative boards until this is sorted out. If all they're going to do is snipe at each other like sanctioned belligerents, they need to be removed from the area and their attempts to weaponise AN(I/3) need to be nipped in the bud now. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OGP is still being abusive, and is trying to start an edit war @ Irish pound. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. They already served a 31 hour block for the same reason just two days ago, so the message doesn't seem to be getting through.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy, Oppa gangnam psy will not be editing for the next week at least, and I think it would be a good idea for you not to post anything further here. This will give admins a chance to look at the behaviour that has been identified already without these constantly shifting goalposts. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1-way IBAN - OGP only There's only one editor persistently getting blocked here for personal attacks, and if OGP comes back from the latest block and carries on, they'll be indeffed and this will be moot anyway. As far as I can see TheCurrencyGuy has been generally polite even when ranted at by OGP and when consensus on the talk pages has been against them. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• 1-way IBAN - OGP only, broadly per Black Kite. Also acceptable would be no i-ban and just indef OGP when they come off their current block and immediately return to the same behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• I would not have opposed a WP:CIR block for OGP having seen their behaviour but that seems inevitable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would have indeffed them as soon as I saw the threats to TheCurrencyGuy that they wouldn't let them edit again [131] and the very suspicious sockpuppetry allegation which they then spread all over Wikipedia as a fact with zero evidence. The week's block was extremely lenient. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm almost tempted to open an SPI for joe jobbing based on the section above. That seems more likely to me than a user editing in a way that they know will draw a pile of attention when something is already under discussion at ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is an SPI open but I don’t think it’s clear cut. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OGP has been blocked for 1-month. I think this thread can be closed. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I dunno, given their last comment, which happened just before 1 week block was applied, it seems that this is behaviour that cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. I did warn them that if they say anything like that again their block would be extended, but given their behaviour I'm kinda regretting that and think they should just be outright indeffed for their comments. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Since I have been mentioned by both parties above, I suppose I should leave a comment with no expectation that it be taken into consideration. (In case it is not onvious, I am not an admin.) My experience is that both these editors have strongly held views and have a rather confrontational style. In general, TCG is able to support their assertions with citations (though, as I have told him, examples of usage don't make satisifactory RSs, but only descriptions and explanations of that use): OGS just seems to make firm assertions without evident foundation and tries to bully changes through. [See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fiat_money&action=history in May, for example.] OGS writes with total but unfounded confidence and has had to be asked to stop contributing to some articles related to finance and economics because WP:competence is required. (Pinging @SPECIFICO: if they wish to comment but who I suspect has better things to do with their time.) Each seems absolutely convinced that there is only one correct analysis, in a worldview that is remimiscent of religious fundamentalism in its expression, though TCG is more likely to acknowledge alternative views. IMO, OGS should be at least TBANned indefinitely on all finance economics articles broadly construed; TCG should take a week to cool off or ask for a voluntary 30-day TBAN on same topics. I have no idea how an interaction ban can ever be realistic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, at least with the last sentence. The two editors both seem to be interested in the same narrow topic area, so, if the editors want to game the system, a two-way interaction ban will simply lead to a race to get to an article or talk page first and so exclude the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• As an FYI even after being warned they continued to make claims that other editors are radicalized and related attacks. They were clearly warned that if they continued their block would be extended, and they kept going. So I've now indeffed them and removed their talk page privileges. Such speech has no place on Wikipedia and it's quite clear they are completely incapable of editing in a collaborative environment. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think he is back at User:Battleofthebands2004, this user with little contribution history just dropped a message on my talk page out of the blue. This would lend creedence to him being the sock puppeteer. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

TCG’s faits accomplis

Although I do not condone any of OGP’s personal attacks, I believe TCG is also performing faits accomplis such as massive changes (e.g. Special:Diff/1094137400/prev) of the British currency’s name to “sterling” under the guise of “minor cleanups”, or “standardization” of pre-decimal £sd notations. As far as I am aware, TCG has not ”resolve[d] the dispute through discussion” - although there were attempts, they were not resolved. I hope my proposal is not too drastic, but I think a TBAN (time-limited or not) is in order. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

TCG had also moved several page names, with editors (including OGP) reverting some of those (e.g. at Finnish mark(ka)), attributing it (correctly) to a lack of consensus. Meanwhile, TCG has also massively “recoded” the former Israeli currency’s name from “lira” to “pound” which they presume to be “correct” - such changes can be found at their Contributions. Thanks again. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

When writing in *English* the name of the Israeli currency was the "Israeli pound", Wikipedia notes that in its choice of article name on the Israeli pound article and the consensus reached on its talk page. I do not consider this to be a controversial decision.

As for the first point you raised, I do not see how it is controversial to refer to a currency by its name. For the time being I have decided not to pursue the idea of renaming any related articles anyway, and that was what the discussions were about. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

IBAN request

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

---

In light of TCG's comments here where the user linked to the above section behind my username ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TCG’s faits accomplis|NotReallySoroka]]), I would like to request that TCG be subject to a one-way interaction ban from making comments about me, time-limited or not. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I made an honest mistake, I thought as the link included your name anyway it was fine. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Issues involving Thundercloss

There is an editor who has persisted in re-reverting 2022 Laguna Woods shooting. In short they made contentious changes [132]. After being challenged, they kept restoring their edit [133] [134] [135]. Their edit summaries accuse another editor of edit warring, without basis in my view. I have nudged them [136] to look at WP:BRD. On top of other issues, they recently restored incorrect charge counts and other information about the defendant [137]. Thundercloss have used some unjustified words such as bootlicking [138], disinformation [139], and appear to have had an editing dispute in the past that also began with deletions. It might be helpful for them to be made more aware of their contentious editing and incivility. Vacosea (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

the claim that I made contentious changes does not appear to me to make sense because (from my point of view and as I have made clear many times in my edit summaries) I am restoring the article to its state prior to the persistent edit warring by another user. I would also point out that prior to the filer’s involvement on the talk page, I had been extensively discussing the edits themselves which have been the source of the alleged contention. The claim that I restored incorrect charge counts and other information is certainly nonsense because it is information that can be found in the multiple independent sources which they are cited to. And I would point out that the prior dispute which I was involved in has been successfully resolved, in large part because I was consciously and continuously incorporating the suggestions made by the opposing interlocutor on the discussion page into the edits I was making on the main article. This was the same strategy I tried to use to break the deadlock on this discussion page, but the complainant didn’t even pretend to pay attention to my compromise efforts as evidenced by the wholesale, totalizing reverts of my edits they have been making Thundercloss (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The article has only existed for 1.5 months so realistically there's no version that is truly a stable version. Besides that, by definition if you're continually being reverted by another editor editing in good faith, there seems to be something contentious about both your edits even where you are reverting to a stable version. Discussing the dispute is good, edit warring is not and this applies to everyone involved. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, in reality they were the one making totalizing reverts, practically restoring 100% their own edits [140] [141] [142], whereas mine allowed changes [143] or added to their older version [144]. Ask JArthur1984 whether Thundercloss' past "strategy" is as claimed, but as far as I can see, they don't understand that BRD means discuss before re-revert, not re-revert then discuss. They unfoundedly accuse others of what they themselves commit. Their eager reverting has brought back inaccurate information about the case. At least a month ago [145], the manifesto date was corrected from mailed one day prior to received one day after the shooting. It is now back thanks to Thundercloss. In California, enhancements are not separate charges but added on [146] [147]. What is telling is that the source already says "amended ... to add a hate crime enhancement" [148], but Thundercloss seems much happier with upping the charge count than exercising due care [149]. Vacosea (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if you were right about these two revisions, it still doesn’t address the elephant in the room which are the totalizing revisions you made on other parts of the article where you either removed entire chunks of properly sources and summarized information or restored entire chunks of poorly sourced and summarized information in the same way the other edit warring user did. Your story is making less and less sense the more and more your complaint develops. Thundercloss (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

On my prior issues with this user's categorical deletions, I think Talk:Michelle_Bachelet pretty much speaks for itself. That's the best place to look, instead of how anyone characterizes it.

To me, the key part of Nil Einne's comment is continual reversions by another editor "editing in good faith."

To me, good faith means a user should be able to respond to specific questions about why they made categorical deletions, and offer a specific rationale. For example, I was accused of "cherry-picking" a few times, but although I asked the user what I was "cherry-picking" I never got a response. Same when I was accused of offering a "tendentious" view. Good faith means being able to explain the principles behind an edit, particularly a mass deletion or reversion. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but WP:BRD is an essay. It doesn't literally mean you have to follow the BRD cycle. The point is that editors should follow the talking and editing policy. I think a discussion is being had on the talk page and that's good. Both editors believe their version is the stable version based on their perspective of what is factual in the sources. I can see where a consensus can be had but it doesn't appear there is one at the moment. Like @Nil Einne, I see how both edited versions are contentious. I also think all editors involved are acting in what they view as "good faith". Rather than arguing that neither side is following BRD to the letter, try reading over the actual policy and even looking at WP:BRB. There may be a different solution found there. What is not the solution is continuing the edit warring either way. Disruption whether done with good intentions or not is still disruption. Admins may have a different view but I don't see anything urgent, chronic or intractable about one side over the other at this point. --ARoseWolf 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 16:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne meant both Thundercloss edits. I wish them the best but it's difficult when mistakes fixed, not just by me but other editors as well, come back to life after a month or so. While everyone else during discussion leaves the article alone or incorporates changes, Thundercloss must have their version exactly at all times no matter what. I shall hope that they at least learn from this. Vacosea (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. I read @Nil Einne's comment incorrectly. I struck that comment as it was not their expressed view. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Since Thundercloss' involvement, the article has been pushed back and stalled for weeks. Not only have old contents been put under new debates, but absurdly, the very fact that Thundercloss initiated extensive deletions is being denied and turned around as accusation against others at Recent rewrites. After I corrected a date that they had repeatedly and erroneously restored, all a good faith editor had to do was to leave it alone, following the source which clearly says "the World Journal said late Wednesday" and "arrived at the paper’s office late Monday" [150]. But unbelievably yet predictably, Thundercloss had to remove the date of arrival and change the paper's statement to Monday (one day after). They call this "more accurately reflect what’s in the sources" [151]. It is as if I'm engaging with someone who insists on a different reality. This has progressed from contentious editing to tendentious even disruptive editing. Vacosea (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I will add this to my comment. WP:Good faith doesn't state that a person need be particularly eloquent in their explanation of their edits, though, when conflict arises an editor is instructed to try as best as they can (emphasis my own) to explain their edits and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict. Editors are also encouraged to assume good faith, even when their own good faith is questioned. --ARoseWolf 16:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

CCING @Vacosea, @ARoseWolf, and @Nil Einne

@Thundercloss has unfortunately responded to the above discussion with retaliation by opening an issue below on the notice board. ("JArthur1984 at Michelle Bachelet").

This retaliation is regrettable, and I ask admin to please step in. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

JArthur's edit was nowhere close to being "disruptive", "illicit", or "egregiousness" as claimed by Thundercloss. They don't seem to understand good faith or aware of its absence from some of their own actions. They appear to be learning the wrong lesson from this. Vacosea (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thundercloss: since the below discussion is (IMO correctly) closed I'll leave this here. If you were learning the "rules" you should know you should not be editing warring period rather than simply refraining from edit warring while there is an ANI thread about you. Editors who think they can escape sanction simply by being on good behaviour when there is a thread about them generally quickly learn they are wrong. Unlike many editors who make it to ANI, you seem to at least do an okay job at discussing disputes on article talk pages. However you still need to learn to concentrate on reaching consensus rather than worrying so much about getting you way for the few days or whatever before consensus is reached. Who cares if the article is the WP:WRONGVERSION for a few days especially when as in both these cases, the particular page is not reaching abnormally high attention at the moment? Isn't it much more important you get it right in the long term? That requires consensus not dumb edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

JArthur1984 at Michelle Bachelet

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

---

The user has persistently and disruptive restored illicit content to the article, the latest example being this edit [152]. I was very tempted to revert the changes given the egregiousness of the transgression but decided against doing that in light of the ongoing ANI case against me. Background information for this case can be found on the Bachelet talk page (under the “Repeated Deletions in UN Human Rights High Commissioner Section” section) Thundercloss (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory complaint by Thundercloss. An editor named Vacosea opened a topic above called "Issues Involving Thundercloss." Thundercloss tried to defend themselves by citing the prior interaction between Thundercloss and me as shown on Talk:Michelle_Bachelet. Vacosea tagged me and suggested to the admin involved in that dispute, "Ask JArthur1984 whether Thundercloss' past "strategy" is as claimed, but as far as I can see, they don't understand that BRD means discuss before re-revert, not re-revert then discuss." I related my own experience with Thundercloss, and shortly thereafter Thundercloss made this complaint.

I am correct about the issues at the Michelle Bachelet page. There is no "illicit" content. The consensus on the page (and under the policies) are that the primary source I have cited is appropriate. Although I have been respectful of his edits, Thundercloss has made many mass deletions and reversions to eliminate any quotations from Bachelet's own statement. Thundercloss refused to engage in good faith dialogue, instead repeating themes like "cherry picking" and accusing me of being "tendentious" without explaining the basis for his claims. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

there is no “retaliation.” If I wanted to file a retaliatory complaint I would be filing a complaint against Vacosea, not you. This complaint was filed due to your persistent and disruptive edit warring on the Bachelet article. As the talk page discussion makes clear, the issue isn’t about sourcing it is about weight (as in wp:weight). your misrepresentation of the problem is yet another example of how you dont even pretend to pay attention to what is going on Thundercloss (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No merit to this claim, imo. It seems purely retaliatory. I am curious about why the OP thinks the content is illicit but I encourage them to engage that on the article talk page. Again, I see nothing chronic or intractable here other than perhaps the OP's WP:IDHT tendencies. --ARoseWolf 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

there is no retaliation. If I wanted to file a retaliatory complaint I would be filing a complaint against Vacosea, not JArthur1984. I filed this claim because they unilaterally decided to restore disputed content as explicated on the discussion page and because I wanted to demonstrate I was learning the rules by not further edit warring while an ANI case against me is pending Thundercloss (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Harassment/Hounding

Hello, long time reader here that recently started editing last weekend. Most everyone has been helpful and friendly so far, however in my short time here Zefr has accused me of:

• Having COI.[153]
• Being a sock-puppet.[154]
• Edit-warring.[155]
• Being a single-purpose account.[156]

As well as demanding I register an account[157], reverting three of my edits in a row[158], reverting my mention of this[159], reverting a source[160] added through consensus[161] during an active DRN where the moderator asked us not to edit the article further.[162]

For context: most of the content dispute has been centered around usage of drugs.com as a MEDRS-compliant source[163] and inclusion of sources showing lavender oil capsules as treating anxiety symptoms.[164]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zefr has now also opened an admin noticeboard discussion against me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as for Lavandula your first edit was at 6:56, June 29, 2022 ([165]), your second edit was at 7:37, June 29, 2022 ([166]), your third edit was at 7:48, June 29, 2022 ([]), your fourth edit was at 7:51, June 29, 2022 ([167]), your fifth edit was at 16:44, June 29, 2022 ([168]) and your six edit was at 17:57, June 29, 2022 ([169]), you already went pass WP:3RR and it is now a violation of the three revert rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

He has opened another against me after User:Pyrrho_the_Skipper and I tried to revert his disruptive edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't going to go the way you think, it's quite clear you're edit warring to add in this material. If you add something, and someone reverts you, you take it to the talk page and discuss. You do NOT revert and edit war for your preferred version, you discuss. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Just to clarify, there already was quite a lot of discussion (including on DRN) for another page that contained the same content/sources. I was merely syncing this page's content with the one where the discussion already happened. Also I honestly don't think my changes count as reverts as I was trying to address Zefr's concerns as well as having opened up a talk page discussion about a revert he made (removing the Research section). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I'd like to thank everyone that participated in the DRN, including the moderator.[170]

Moderated discussion was definitely going well and I think was a great way to talk. Unfortunately, due to Zefr's actions the moderator had to close the DRN. I really wish we could have just continued with moderated discussion to reach a consensus. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Daniel_Case I noticed you handled my case on the edit-warring noticeboard. I'd like to thank you and apologize in advance if this is asking too much but could you please look into this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1096004936&oldid=1096001065

I know that because of page-protection I can't edit the article for a week, but am I really not allowed to discuss the article either? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave him a non-templated warning about edits inconsistent with WP:TPO at his user page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Zefr goes against a consensus established on WP:RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1096137909&oldid=1096095331

Calls me obsessed and to stop participating in the discussion when I point this out. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Zefr was not misusing the Warring template for 3RR Warning, you have gone past the Three Revert Rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is the likely the result, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• One-time DRN moderator here: I don't know whether the IP user has a COI involving lavender oil. I don't know whether the IP user is a sockpuppet, and if CheckUser knows that, they aren't allowed to say. I do know whether the IP user is a single-purpose account. They are one. I know one when I see one. We know that the IP user was edit-warring. I can also see that the IP user is being tendentious about lavender oil and lavandula. I don't know whether drugs.com is a medically reliable source. I closed the DRN because the dispute was also pending at SPI, and it is now also pending at ANEW and here at ANI. I can also see whether the filing editor is harassing or hounding the IP user. They are not. They have a right to report an SPI, which may be closed without action by CU, and they have a right to report edit-warring when there is edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply Robert.

  I am not a single-purpose account. I have only been editing for 3 days and I've already participated in other things besides lavender discussion. I do not hold strong personal opinion about lavender oil, a substance that until less than a week ago I didn't even know you could eat.

  I believe my requests for MEDRS-compliant sources is not tendentious.[171][172] but feel free to point out how they are.

  Yes, of course every user has the right to report any other user. But when taken as a whole in the context of a content debate, where Zefr was the only one strongly opposed to the outcome, and additionally the short-time frame that the reports occurred as well as the other personally-targeted actions listed above, I would say it is very harassing behavior...

  Man, I asked for a moderated discussion and he got it closed down, this whole time we could have been improving the content of the encyclopedia. Such a shame. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not to mention WP:NOBITING and WP:SPATG and WP:NOSPADE. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Continuing behavior of attacking me personally[173]

  This time to try to argue that he was right to remove the "Research" section once it contained information (cited by a MEDRS-compliant source) he personally disagreed with. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The statement by the IP user that they have only been editing for 3 days is misleading, probably deliberately misleading, as is indicated by their discussion on their IP user talk page. Don't cite BITE. If you have been editing long enough to use that guideline as a cudgel, you are not a newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry Robert, your assessment is incorrect. I simply love reading, and have been reading all those fancy "WP:" things people keep linking everywhere, and in turn clicking links on those pages as well. I find user pages also sometimes contain good links to resources as well. If you go through my history you will find my knowledge of various things increasing as time goes on as well as today I finally figured out how to make that cool green quote text instead of "quoting everything like this" which was useful for my RSN posts.

    Also recently I've read WP:NOTCLUELESS, which you may find interesting.

    An example, I was reading WP:BURYES recently which links to WP:SENIORITY which had a nice quote by User:Paulmcdonald whose page linked to WP:ADMINGUIDE which I am now reading through even though I will never do such work for Wikipedia for free. I'd say you dodged a bullet with that one. Twice. (yes I read them both) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The request for medically reliable sources is not tendentious. It is the general pattern by the IP user, and especially toward User:Zefr, that is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Could you be more specific about the details of this "general pattern"? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    • • Look up Wikipedia's article on sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

        You're calling me a troll for making an RfC and RSN post about improving an article?

        WP:VEXBYSTERANG

        Let's be WP:CIVIL please. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the IP has gone seriously overboard in their reaction, it's worth pointing out that both sides are exhibiting bad behavior (as is often the case). It would nice once in a while to see admins have a little more backbone when it comes to the less-than-civil behavior of long-standing editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks and edit warring from WilliamJE

User:WilliamJE was just blocked for edit warring. But that's the tip of the iceberg. This is on top of such personal attacks as :

• "To thick skulled IP editor. Your reference does not corroborate what it is on."
• Oh there is this shit of yours I had to clean up
• After his block writing "Serious you fail reading comprehension.... And as always the incompetent or clueless administrators, punish the editors who take this shit out of the article... Now prove to me you can read what I just wrote."

WilliamJE was blocked in October 2017 (one week for harassment), May 2018 (31 hours for edit warring), August 2019 (48 hours for personal attacks), November 2019 (48 hours for edit warring) and May 2020 (two weeks!!! for edit warring), with an indefinite IBAN in April 2021. The current block for yet another 3RR violation is for 24 hours.

The edit warring is chronic and hasn't gone away. The personal attacks continue on a regular basis and keep on escalating, usually in response to suggestions that editing issues need to be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I still wish WilliamJE would fix the way he signature appears on his posts. It's quite (likely deliberate) confusing. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's another edit caption typical of how WilliamJE addresses those with which they have a disagreement... [174]"Moronic IP editor showing their total ignorance when it comes to categorizing. See this you idiot before you threaten someone with a block- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Problems_with_an_editor_removing_placeholder_categories" Jacona (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only being uncivil and edit warring, but also either incompetence or trolling (can't tell which):

• Here's the last 10 edits to the page prior to full protection.
• An IP adds "Flight 250", and it's reverted by someone else as "unsourced" (which is true, it was unsourced). The IP re-adds "Flight "250" with a source: the source is an article by United Press International and it does say "flight WT-250".
• William reverts with edit summary "IC says no such thing". Assuming "IC" is "incline cite", it clearly says "flight WT-250". IP reinstates it, and William reverts it, for multiple rounds.
• The IP posts on the talk page (with all-caps bold "read the source", etc.); William's only response is the "thick-skulled IP editor" remark quoted above.
• Mifter fully protects the article and blocks William for 24 hours, and provides a second source corroborating the flight number, to boot
• William's next edit is the "Mifter Serious you fail reading comprehension" one quoted above, but look at the rest of it: it's arguing about the number of dead, which isn't at all what the edit was about; the edit said nothing about the number of dead, it was the flight number, 250, which was in the source. Did William think "250" was the number of dead? And he's saying other people fail at reading comprehension?

This is another one of those, either it's WP:CIR because he doesn't understand that the edit was properly sourced, or it's just bad-faith trolling, and it's hard to tell the difference. What I do know is that Mifter has spent a lot of time trying to patiently explain William's error to him, while receiving nothing but insult and abuse from William. That is something the rest of us should not tolerate: Mifter's time is too valuable to be spent dealing with this. William hasn't edited since making that comment at Mifter, but if there were to be one more instance of incivility or edit warring, I would support a siteban, because this has been going on for years now. This should be the last time. Levivich^[block] 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WilliamJE has made considerable contributions to the project and a site ban would be a loss for our readers. Notwithstanding, WP:CIVIL is a core tenant of Wikipedia and WilliamJE's pattern of personal attacks leaves the community with a difficult choice. I support a WP:Civility restriction, but oppose a community imposed site ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:BillHPike, WilliamJE is a valued editor, especially in a number of WikiProjects, although his abrasive style and tendency to revert without reading the refs added are a detraction. As noted, an indef block or ban would be a net loss for Wikikpedia as, in balance, his contributions are helpful to the project. If he can improve his civility that would be helpful, though. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something I'll never understand. No editor is so valuable and important that people need to continually suffer their personal attacks. As Alanshon points out, WilliamJE's been blocked for this time after time after time, and it hasn't sunk in that the behavior is wrong. Civility restrictions have largely went the way of the dodo for a reason, they don't work and are too hard to enforce. I'd support a site ban for one year as a sort of last chance block, and if it continues after, a full block. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

One less jerk on this project would be a net gain not a net loss. If you're uncivil and edit war for years, I don't care if you write better than Shakespeare, get the eff out. It kills recruitment; it's why we don't have enough editors. That IP is less likely to continue editing because of this (nevermind register an account). Support civility restriction or siteban, either way is fine with me. Levivich^[block] 23:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this general take. Climbing the WP:REICHSTAG still counts if you do it slowly and deliberately. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeing a WP:CIVIL failure (see [175]) in responding to an administrator block notice is very disappointing. I also agree about their signature (and was going to write that anyway) when I saw that their talk page has a notice at the top saying I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it. which concerns me as it seems to present a long standing editor that is not concerned about confusing others because they like it which goes against the collegiality embedded in WP:PILLARS and all the good stuff that flows from there. I would certainly support a civility restriction and suggest that changing their signature and removing the associated notice from their talk page would be an excellent way for them to show that they intend to be less confrontational in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There has already been a lengthy and inconclusive discussion on the signature in question, details can be found here. There was a suggest that it could be change in some minor ways, but that it would not be enforced with a block if it wasn't change. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The reminder about the unconventional signage, is to point out a possible symptom of the editor-in-question's behaviour towards others. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been aware of this editor's disruptive behavior for quite some time and took a much deeper look in recent hours. I recognize that several editors are of the opinion that WilliamJE makes some useful contributions to the encyclopedia. However, the editor's propensity for personal attacks, harassment and edit warring is corrosive to a collaborative editing environment. Plus, their refusal to consider changing their signature which many editors consider disruptive is an aggravating factor. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked WilliamJE. Indefinite does not mean infinite. If WilliamJE agrees to an indefinite 1RR restriction, and makes an irrevocable, rock solid personal commitment to refraining from personal attacks and harassment, and agrees to change their signature to something uncontroversial, I will not oppose an unblock. Those are my minimum conditions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree that this is necessary at this point. Many editors are occasionally snarky or sarcastic, but persistent unprovoked outright personal attacks cannot continue indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this move. While in theory, WilliamJE's contributions are useful, the damage they have done to the project is much harder to measure. They can choose to be collaborative and continue, but if they choose continue with the "up yours" WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I believe the damage far outweighs the good. Jacona (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Supporting this action. Gusfriend (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't give a shit if someone solves Fermat's Last Theorem as a result of their work on Wikipedia; if they resort to repeated personal attacks and have been repeatedly warned for it, then yes, a block is absolutely warranted. This is not 2010 anymore. WaltCip-(talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Long overdue. He's a good content creator but a net negative as far as collaboration and has been for a long time now. Star Mississippi 02:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! But given that there is long history to the behavior, he has surely been warned of this consequence before, right? Like a very clear "Hey, if you do this again we will impose indefinite blocks/sanctions." warning; not just intermittent admin-enforced two day vacations. I think everyone deserves a fair warning first. It's not really his fault if the inaction of people meant to enforce policy fairly and appropriately was the reason he felt assured in continuing his behaviors. I mention this because what I've learned in my own incident post on this page is that appropriate admin action (including issuing proper warnings like the above) towards long-standing editors seems to be just something that isn't done. A de-facto unspoken unwritten rule of law (at least until a big enough cabal of other long-standing users finally rally against him and decide to go straight for excommunication). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Sabbatino

Again, this user sabotages the figures, presented in a page made by professional map makers and official statistical data presenters, who use EXCEPTIONALLY official data (this is always presented under every their map and figure), removes explanation on 3,7 mio. figure (which is, if one looks at it – obviously made up, claiming, that all the people in Lithuania are Lithuanians, as per census of 2011, but also only those, born in Lithuania, but living abroad are "Lithuanians", which ignore actual census results of these countries, e.g. Poland, Belarus, Russia, etc.; for example, there was massive repatriation of Poles from Lithuanian SSR in the 1940s and 1950s and this "3,7 mio" counts all these persons, born in Lithuania as "Lithuanians"). So he deletes this explanation, again attacks mapijoziai page as "garbage" with no reason for it whatsoever. Also, he just removed an info, that a specifically Lithuanian religion, called Romuva, is getting omore popular, what really belongs to the article. This person does this again and again and belittles other participants and added sources. Is it normal for Wikipedia to not try to make articles better, more understandable for everyone, but to delete notes with explanation and any data that one "does not like"?

Everyone can see clearly, that under every figure there is an official source, from where it was got. But this user just keeps misbehave, deleting this data. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not an reliable Source Per WP:RS Chip3004 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How is it not reliable, when it uses exceptionally only data from official government agencies as department of Statistics of Lithuania, Ministries, et. al.? Are Wiki maps, for example, reliable source, then? These are created by the users of Wikipedia, but based on some official data. This map is based on Zigmas Zinkevičius work, but it should be considered as unreliable, because it was prepared not by Zinkevičius himself, but by a Wikipedia user? I strongly believe, that the same is true to this data of mapijoziai as they only make maps and present statistics from official sources. Sadly, the inscription to the their page is lost, maybe saved somewhere is Wayback machine and only the map itself is , but this does not mean it is so-called "garbage" or not reliable. Figure of "3,7 mio" is truly unreliable if you inspect it closely, where everyone born in Lithuania are automatically called "Lithuanians", but Lithuanians, born abroad are excluded, etc. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your message is confusing, I think you may have missed at least one "not" there. But maps created by Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia projects) editors, as with all user generated content are most definitely not reliable sources. Even if the creator is a subject matter expert, it's questionable if it should be considered a reliable source if the source of the map is a wikimedia project. If the map creator self hosts the map on their on website then if they are subject matter expert it could come under WP:SPS. To be clear, that means that yes, this map File:Lithuanian language in the 16th century.png is not a reliable source. The original data the map came from (be it another map or whatever), may or may not be a reliable source, the data would need to be created by some party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If the source data is reliable you can cite the source data. But you can't cite the map anymore than you can cite another Wikipedia article. Frankly you've been told this enough that if you still don't understand, I'm not sure should still be editing. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Also Back on June 20th and on June 11th You were edit war as well, and you violated three revert Rule on both days. Chip3004 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Because deleting this data with an exclamation/remark "stop putting garbage" is a legit revert? Haw is it so-called "garbage" and chasing a user by reverting every one's contribution to the project (sourced material and important info) – a good will of cooperation? 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Was you information reliably sourced? You claim it is, but you also seem very confused about our sourcing standards since you keep claiming user generated content is a reliable source when the source data is (possibly) reliable but this is most definitely not the case. Frankly, as long as you keep using non reliable sources, it's not surprising if someone is going to accidentally remove content you add even in those odd cases where you do reliably source it. Just to repeat one last time, user generated content is not reliable. It does not matter how great the source data for the user generated content it, it's not reliable, period. Go to the original data (if it is reliable) or find a different source or stop adding content if you lack a reliable source. This means if mapijoziai is user generated content, then it is not reliable. Please stop using it. If you continue to use mapijoziai as a source (and it is user generated content) then you are likely to be blocked. If the source data for mapijoziai is reliable, you may be able to use the source data where appropriate. However you still cannot use mapijoziai itself if it's user generated content. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Chip3004, I appreciate your vandalism efforts but I'd just like to ask if you understand the conventions around capital letters in English? X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Behavior of Sly Catalyst (NOTHERE, vandalism)

• Sly Catalyst (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user has contributed in blanking articles (1, 2) and vandalism (1, 2) for a rather contentious article area (Philippine politics). In addition, they created this attack page (now deleted) against another editor. Edit summaries and talk page replies also seem rather uncivil. The problematic edits span a few weeks. I understand that they may be frustrated but Wikipedia is not the place for petty squabble. Given their problematic edits, a temporary block might be in order for this user (despite their somewhat constructive work on Philippine high schools). Chlod (say hi!) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Canterbury Tail for 24 hours due to violations of BLP policy. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje - unarchived as it needs closing

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Red Rose 13 started editing Our Lady of Medjugorje back in 2019. The reason for they starting editing here is my effort to rearrange the article, apparently without prior discussion. So I agreed to discuss the whole issue with them and thought there's a possibility for us to make this article a GA [176]. I was wrong.

At first, they doubted me misusing sources when I would translate them from Croatian (Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 2#Google Translating to English?), but when it turned out my translations were authentic, they continued doing that for which they accused me - Using google translator to translate from Croatian In regards to your concern about translating. I have been using Google Translate or Bing Translate to be able to read this pdf. If you want feel free to double-check me."; they using google or bing is way older than that, but this is one of the comments they mention that). So we went through that charade where I spent hours re-translating, inviting other Croatian-speaking editors to check me, only to see that Red Rose 13 has been using google as a translator (nota bene I'm not using google translate, I'm a native speaker and well versed in English).

The initial issue was - as I said - me rearranging the article, ie doing major changes, without prior discussion. Nota bene, when I first started editing the article, most editors were quite disinterested in that subject, so I felt there was not much to discuss (boy I was wrong). Because, then, this hell broke loose. Red Rose 13 rearranged the whole article without any discussion, especially when they noticed I'm not around.

So, I was inactive from 9 October 2021 to 9 January 2022 [177]. Let's look at the history of Our Lady of Medjugorje in that period [178]. Article totally rearranged without any discussion.

Maybe the best description of their editing here is this.

Not only that but Red Rose 13 edits the articles exclusively I'm involved with. These are limited to: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Pavol Hnilica, Frane Franić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavao Žanić.

That in itself might not be problematic if it didn't involve malicious editing.

Namely, both of us were recently blocked for 24hrs for edit warring. After the block ended Red Rose started bullying and malicious editing.

This, this, this and this are the examples in only last two days.

Ever since the block ended I noticed this passive-aggressive stance from them with comments "let's work as a team", and then they went on to rampage to call me out to fix some shit at Romanis Pontificibus, an article I made 1 edit in total back in 2020, and to fix some refs I haven't even added on other articles Talk:Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions#Reference Issues; reverted my edit because she thought it was "my mistake"; changed the meaning of the sentence I added, misusing the source (visible at the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page), and what not.

Now, parce mihi Domine quia Dalmata sum, I did this.

My opinion is that Red Rose somehow tried to "press" me with these ref fixes because they saw this discussion on the talk page. And then they joined in with comments like: "Governor Sheng. You have had enough time to see these comments. Please correct your errors."; "Governor Sheng. You just did massive edits on Our Lady of Medjugorje with some source called Gontermann 2021 and you used the short form reference and did not add any cites for this link. It needs to be fixed immediately."; "Do you plan on fixing it within 24 hours?". These aren't "friendly" questions, but imposing ultimatums.

We've been quarreling over Our Lady of Medjugorje for three, and it exploded on other pages I edit as well. Red Rose 13's talk page is filled with complaints from other editors [179], so I know I'm not crazy here. User:Manannan67 has also been editing Our Lady of Medjugorje and has encountered similar issues with this editor. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was in the middle of preparing a post for ANI about this situation, but Governor Sheng has beaten me to it. So here is my take/history.

I would like to ask for the eyes and opinions of more administrators on the editing at Our Lady of Medjugorje and related articles, and in particular the tendentious behaviour of User:Red Rose 13 and User:Governor Sheng. There has been a very long, 3 year history of conflict between these two editors including in December 2020 a declined request for arbitration. [180]]; in Dec 2020 Third opinion request, which I answered.[181]; in April 2021 DRN: [182][183]; February 2022 I fully protected for edit warring [184] and warned them ; two days ago, I blocked both of them for days of edit warring. Now they are immediately back at it again the tendentious editing, including reverting, insulting and accusations against each other.

A quick look at the main article will show a bloated, virtually incomprehensible article which is the result of the editing of these two editors. Other editors (including myself) are quickly exhausted and give up. Dispute resolution has gone nowhere, multiple times.

In case it helps, here is my understanding of the topic. In the 1980s some teenagers claimed that they received and in some cases are still receiving messages from the Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church is divided in its response. Some are convinced, but some local bishops/clerics, were cautious/unconvinced, particularly when "Mary" came out against them in an ongoing internal local church dispute (the bishops vs local Franciscans). The place has become an massive pilgrimage site, and lots of money and power/prestige are at play.

As noted above, I first became involved via a third opinion request in December 2020. My experience is that many disputes can be resolved by using the best possible sources, so I spent several months attempting to coach them about how identify good quality, independent secondary sources and to make an outline.[185] I even attempted to model how to source and write one of the sections of the article, but I soon realized that there was little hope that either of them would take up the mantle and actually write a neutral well-sourced article.

From my observation:

• User:Red Rose 13 would like to include as much positive information and endless detail about the alleged apparitions and the 'seers'. They have had problems with plagiarism, use of poor sources, synthesis.[186][187] they edit war [188][189]and posts walls of text to talk page [190] They are pointy, following Governor Sheng to articles to post complaints [191][192]. In my view, Governor Sheng's concerns about possible harassment are legitimate.
• In contrast, User:Governor Sheng would like to reduce the fancruft bloat (understandable) but replace it with inappropriate negative/skeptical detail from the bishops’ perspective. They are frequently rude/dismissive/uncollegial. [193][194][195] They edit war.[196][197][198] However, to my mind, what is most impeding progress on the article is that the sources used for this are primary, involved sources written and published by the clerics/dioceses directly involved in the dispute e.g. Ratko Perić;Pavao Žanić;Dražen Kutleša) and Nicolas Bulat. When evaluating the sources, I recommended that these primary, non-independent sources only be used with extreme caution, particularly as living persons are involved. Governor Sheng has repeatedly tried get other answers at RSN [199][200][201], and despite never getting a clear green light, to this day continues to pronounce that the sources are fine to use.[202] [203] A quick look at the reference list of the Our Lady of Medjugorje shows just how frequently they are used. In contrast, he has tried to get other secondary sources dismissed because they are "biased" (in the opposite direction, of course).[204]. I should mention that there are many independent high quality secondary sources that could be used to write the article in the level of detail needed for an encyclopedia article.

On a positive note, on my talkpage yesterday, Governor Sheng accepted fault in editwarring, and wondered if they should both be blocked for a month.[205] I won't go that far, but I do think perhaps if they were both topic banned for 3-6 months of so, it would give a chance to other editors to clean up the article in relative peace. Your thoughts on this or any other solutions? Slp1 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was preparing a response explaining the problems I see with Governor Shengs references when you posted Slp1. I think your idea to topic ban us would be a relief. (Would that include the OLM and its related pages? If you go to bottom of page and click on OLM, it shows all the related pages) And if you were to oversee the page as editors clean it up, would allow me to let go. Also btw I am not "following" GSheng to post about the references on the OLM related pages. I have been watching all the OLM pages for a very long time and do edit on most of them as well. They are all interconnected and not owned by GSheng. Also a reference problem was being discussed on his talk page which gave me concern and I thought it was important to look at all the OLM pages to see if there were problems there to. I thought I was being helpful to list the problems that needed fixing and leave it on the talk page rather than take it to his personal talk page. I was not being malicious. I am just so burned out that I am beyond frustration. It has affected my personal life with the stress. Also I find positive posts from secondary sources to counteract/balance out the large amount of negativity using primary sources that is on the page. Perhaps I over did it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is important to point out that the article by Mato Zovkic is also a primary source because he was appointed to Zanics commission as noted in his article. Translated from page 77 in the last part of the first paragraph. "Furthermore, I was not very interested in Medugorje until the Bishop of Mostar, Pavao Žanic, appointed me a member of the Episcopal Commission for Research of Events in the Parish of Medugorje." [[206]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots of discussion on the article's talk page but unproductive. It's kind of like a pendulum: one perceives the other going in one direction so goes a bit further in the other to counterbalance, which results in the first going further yet in the first direction to counterbalance etc etc etc. I think Slp1's idea to pban both from the article for awhile to give other editors space to work on it would be the best solution for the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I can completely see how this happens. Wikipedia attracts/has an institutional bias in favour of scepticism. You can't fight them all, sometimes you need to put yourself first and withdraw. Secretlondon (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the ins and outs of this particular article, but must say that scepticism (towards anything, including claimed visionaries and the established church) is a lack of bias, and part of a neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't think the skepticism/faith balance of the article is the real problem here: the actual issue is the longterm breaching of multiple policies, including NPOV. Many editors with a point of view can and do edit without problem as their edits reflect "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And that has not been happening. Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And again... [207]. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be welcomed on Wikipedia. As I said these kind of requests from Red Rose 13 are malicious. So, I noticed everytime Red Rose 13 goes around, maliciously editing here and there, they complain how "they're stressed". This kind of hypocritical behaviour was explained earlier - they call me to work as a team, then afterward call me out on so many articles to do some fixes (the articles I barely edited), giving ultimatums and requests. This was a subject of previous discussions here, where they talk how they're "becoming a nervous wreck and I don't think editing on Wikipedia should cause so much stress.", to which another editor responded with: "Other comments: Red Rose, you do not have the competence to judge who is or is not capable of reading, writing, speaking, or translating from Croatian. English sources are preferred, not mandatory. I am incensed by your attempts to portray Sheng as a danger to you. If anything, they've been unnecessarily patient with your insulting conduct.". I'm just saying - there's a very, very long history of them "chasing" after me, and then portraying themselves as some kind of victim of harassment. I intended to stay away from this discussion, and let others conclude what they can (I could have been subjective and accuse someone too harshly), but this just doesn't stop, even after reporting the incident(s). --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing sporadically in this general area since about 2014 and made Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions "easier to read", according to its Talk page. (I'm not sure it still is.) much of this could be trimmed, as it's already covered there, as well as under Herzegovina Affair. I have not done so, as I am not particularly interested in engaging in endless, pointless debate.

I have had little direct contact with Governor Shang, probably (because I am not conversant in Croatian), but I have on a number of occasions simply walked away from the article currently under discussion for extended periods of time due to difficulty in editing with Red Rose 13. While she frequently quotes wiki guidelines, I find her application of same woefully subjective. Apparently if a known publisher decides he can sell a book about Medjugorge, that makes it RS regardless of the author's qualifications. Kengor is a political hack with no apparent experience in the Balkan political scene. (Next, I expect to see that the moon landing was done on blue screen.) Continued to push Mart Bax as RS even after being referred to Bax's article where he is discredited. A litany of hearsay, and in some instances suspect, "private" endorsements by JPII which cannot be verified, but have been contradicted. Red Rose 13 focuses on the visionaries and the alleged apparitions with little or no interest in context or ramifications. If a source supports her views, it's RS.

An inability to grasp the influence of Croat nationalism in either the timing of the apparitions, nor the funds generated from the pilgrims and directed through the Hercegovačka banka to the ultra-nationalist HDZ. ("I am wondering if a couple of sentences couldn't be put in the Political section under Background and then link to the Medjugorje page for the bulk of the information? We are trying to keep the page organized and streamlined."[!]) If anyone thinks Vatican oversight is only to do with "pastoral concerns", I have a bridge in Brooklyn in which you might be interested. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone at SFOR dropped a hint.

It's an interesting and nuanced subject. I listed a half-dozen fine sources but to no avail, The article at present is a waste. Like so many others I just can't be bothered and leave. Manannan67 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not comfortable bashing fellow editors but I do need to say something in my defense. Fyi... GSheng is referring to his edits on the Jozo Zovko page where he edit bombed Sullivans(secondary source) citations with a citation needed tags. I spent many months looking at every single edit and every single source to check for distortions in editing. I found many with Governor Sheng and a couple with Manannan 67 and when I found them I would correct it and then either leave what happened in the edit comments or mentioned on the talk page. They would either leave out critical information from the source or not reflect what was in the source and write their own bias. This just happened with GSheng as you can see on the talk page. In regards to our discussion about Max, I took Manannan67 objections and found a link that supported what Manannan 67 was alluding to and I removed the reference. He forgot to tell you that. I completely support reliable secondary sources even when I don't like what it is saying. I don't know what he is talking about that he presented many sources but to no avail. GSheng actually reverted one of Manannan67 edits thinking it was mine and ridiculed his source. Also I use a primary source for basic information like OConnell because she had basic information about the seers that others did not have. I never removed a post using a secondary book source from this page. Just because I ask a question about what someone is posting, doesn't mean I am trying to block it from the page. The rest of Manannan67's judgements are so off base, I don't feel a need to respond. If an editor is upset because I post something positive on the page using a reliable source, to me that just shows their bias. Thanks for listening. I am looking forward to the page being trimmed way back and will watch in delight.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I got dragged into this and was asked to look into this here, and in short my response was basically for Red Rose to go edit other articles for a while, and if that failed, an interaction ban. See here for that. The very next non-user talk page edit was right back where we started so clearly I wasn't listened to at all, so at the least an interaction ban would be needed, which would in effect be a topic ban on this article because I can see no solution where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here. As an aside, I don't know the source material well enough to determine which user is "correct" on what sources or viewpoints should be used, and honestly I don't care, I'm just looking at the user conduct itself. Wizardman 14:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Wizardman for your input but I do need to communicate a couple of things since you are completely new to the problem. I have been actively editing on this page and other related pages for 2 + years and editing Wikipedia for 10 years. The recent edits you saw on this page was a recent flurry of activity by GS after our edit block was lifted. So your statement "where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here" is completely incorrect. Go further back in the history of editing. After his flurry of edits it is hard for me as an editor to correct the page because I can't revert his edits that are a problem and it is impossible to discuss every single edit with him. I experience him as an edit bully who doesn't want to work as team and insists on using primary sources for controversial edits and refuses to remove it. In fact he refuses to admit that 4 of his sources are primary sources.[[208]] In fact I had to put a tag (secondary source needed) after a few of his primary sources that he was using for a controversial post. He then attacks the reliable secondary source with tag bombing of citation needed [[209]] Jozo Zovko page and reverting edits that use this source as well. Also I did listen to you I was cleaning up one last bit that needed to be exposed. I am hoping that Slp1 puts both GS and myself in a subject matter ban for at the very least 3 months and hopefully longer. I am exhausted. Here is a sampling of documentation of Governor Shengs edit bullying from a variety of OLM related pages. Remember it is just a sampling:

False accusation and uncivil communication bullying

• Accusing me of malicious editing when from the concern of errors in references found and discussed on his talk page with 2 other concerned editors, [[210]] I thought I should review all the OLM connected articles listed at the bottom of OLM page. Many of those pages I have been editing since Feb, March or April 2021- Jozo Zovko, Tomislav Vlašić, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić, Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions(editing since Nov 2020). Out of courtesy I brought the problems I discovered and left them at the page and did not take them to his personal talk page. I did make a couple of errors and I apologize for that but it did not come from malicious intent.
• Right below this post, Governor Sheng again calling me borderline hypocritical.
• Right in his opening statement he calls me passive aggressive
• Here "What the f is wrong with you? " [[211]] Scroll down almost to the bottom.
• Here inappropriate words: "I pooped vs. it was pooped in my toiled during my pontificate" [[212]]
• Here he is accusing me of removing a sentence that had a secondary source using the word malicious - "*Someone* made a little mess... :) Who is it I wonder... Deleting properly referenced sentence... hmmm. Very malicious editing" [[213]]. All he had to do was read the paragraph and see the sentence. You can see it about halfway down. This is on a OLM related page.
  
• User Rotten Rose deleted the source in her rampage [[214]] Just look to the left and you will see Manannan67 did it legitimately. Not only did he falsely accuse me but called me Rotten Rose.
  
• Two more: [[215]] and [[[[216]] For F's Sake]]

Disruptive Editing/Deletes secondary sources and post:

• Deleted a photograph of a statue of the Gospa instead of moving it, saying sandwiched [[217]]
• Here he is deleting sections of this page including two secondary sources one of them being the author Klimek.[[218]]
• Another one [[219]]
  
• Disruptive editing - Here he is rearranging and deleting properly sourced information from the section without a discussion and at the same time adds a new reference with no cite. [[1] Also when making the edit he gives no comment and claims it is a minor edit. At the same time there is a discussion on his talk page about the cite missing on his references on many other pages reported by two other editors as well as myself. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Governor_Sheng#Short_form_references] I took this new non working reference to the talk page to ask about it. His response: “…there was no intention on my side to keep the non-referenced inserts I added.” The question is why disrupt Wikipedia and rearrange and delete words and then revert it? [[220]]

Self started edit warring [[221]] and [[222]] and [[223]] and [[224]] Calling primary sources secondary sources

• [[225]]
  

Adding references without the cite to many pages

• Talk going on at his talk page. [[226]]

Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

No. 271 is me reverting myself, so the comment for F's sake was implied for myself. :) Rotten rose is german for red rose? Maybe I'm wrong. Other than that, finding an example of a year-old edit warring... I don't know why is that even relevant anymore. As for "spamming" "secondary sources", you did that before I have to Kutleša's books, didn't you? ([227]; even though there was an ongoing discussion about this exact subject; when both of us were just out of 24hrs "jail" for edit warring, this was a clear provocation). Like the other user said, "borderline hypocritical". It is my legitimate right as an editor to question sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: [228] Really? During an ongoing discussion where I clearly stated my disagreement, and after both of us were just unblocked? Governor Sheng (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not again!?! I will comment within 12 hours. This was a long unsuccessful moderated discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There is history at [[229]] and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/OLM . I will review the history and comment on it within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Some Thoughts from a Former Neutral Party

I will try to comment on my involvement with this controversy, without having read any of the recent history except to observe that there was edit-warring. This was one of those cases where the disputants both wanted me to read the history of lengthy talk page exchanges, and I repeatedly told them to be civil and concise. What has changed in the past one-and-one-half years is that they are much more openly uncivil.

I first became aware of this dispute on 2 December 2020, when User:Governor Sheng filed a Request for Arbitration. It was a good-faith erroneous request, because they were not really requesting a quasi-judicial process, but help. The statement by User:Red Rose 13 is a good summary of what they wanted at the time: "We desperately need an unbiased, expert editor to guide us." I later came to understand the significance of that request. I said at the time that this was a content dispute with no conduct issues. At the time, it was. I said that they should request a Third Opinion, and maybe use one or more Requests for Comments. ArbCom rightly declined the case as not requiring arbitration. It appears that they then did request a Third Opinion, and that User:Slp1 answered, and worked with them at length, for which thanks are due. They then requested mediation at DRN, and I spent a month trying to mediate. The mediation was largely about Pavol Hnilica, a bishop who was involved in the controversy about the reported visions, and also about Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM). It was excessively difficult to get either or both of them to identify specific article content questions to be resolved by RFC or specific sources about which the reliability could be evaluated at RSN. One of them, Red Rose 13, continued to insist that sources had to be either in English or translated into English. They never did answer my question of why they were asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources. After about a month, they said that what they really needed was an expert editor to guide them in rewriting the OLM article, and the articles on some of the clergy. I concluded that they had the idea that Wikipedia has a reserve pool of editors who are identified and rated as experts who are available for assignment to assist in rewriting articles. I was not prepared to work with them in rewriting the article to their satisfaction, and ended the mediation. They said that they would try to work on improving the article. Based on what Slp1 and other editors have now said, it appears that they have been worsening the articles by quarreling.

It now appears that they have been arguing for another year. They are no longer being civil, because Governor Sheng has said that Red Rose 13's edits are malicious.

At this point, my opinion is that whatever sanctions are imposed should be for at least a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, agree with the above. Wizardman 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I do need to make a correction Robert. I never recall ever "asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources." In fact if you read Slp1's section above there is a link (#37 - then scroll down to Ogledalo pravde) where I am analyzing a book in great detail providing links to all the Wiki Policies. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - It is true that you never explicitly asked me to ignore the Wikipedia policy on sources. But you did repeatedly argue that we could only use English-language sources or sources for which there was an English translation. When it was pointed out that Wikipedia policy allows non-English sources, you ignored this policy statement, and continued to insist that only English-language sources could be used. I asked why you were asking to ignore the policy that allows non-English sources, and you didn't answer, but said that only English sources should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I remember eventually realizing that there was a policy which allowed non-English sources on Wikipedia. I apologize for not communicating that to you at the time. We were communicating about so many things. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Partial Block

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pavol Hnilica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the absence of any other proposal, but since something should be done, I will propose that both editors be partially blocked from Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM) and Pavol Hnilica for six months, and topic-banned from all topics related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina, broadly construed. I suggested above that there be sanctions for a year, but am offering a shorter version to see if the community will agree to and act on something. Something needs to be done. This has gone on too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I oppose such a block because my area of editing is mainly the Church in Croatia and Herzegovina. I don't see how blocking me on writing about the church events from the 18th century could be constructive. Such a block would effectively only affect me, which is not justified. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as long as the topic-ban also includes all the pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje that are listed at the very bottom of the page - not all were in the Croatia and Herzegovina area. I am requesting and hopeful that @Slp1: will agree to oversee these pages. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Partially support but only the topic ban regarding OLM, Hnilica and connected subjects, excluding broader ecclesiastical topics in Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but based on Governor Sheng's comment, I would be fine with the topic ban being for the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1970. One other idea, It is unusual for both editors in these situations to accept restrictions so willingly. Would you both be willing to promise not to edit any of the articles/talkpages about Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 for 6 months. ie make a voluntary restriction and topic ban yourselves? It would be a serious commitment and breaching your promise would have serious consequences, but if you can make that promise and stick to it, it would be much better for your reputation as editors.Slp1 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I could agree with that. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question will the related pages of Our Lady of Medjugorje be included? Some of these are not in Croatia and Herzegovina diocese: Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions, Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Petar Palić, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, René Laurentin, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Herzegovina Affair, Romanis Pontificibus, Catholic charismatic renewal, and Medjugorje International Youth Festival. (Listed at the very bottom of the OLM page) Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these should be included; and anything related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975. Manannan67 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can oblige myself not to edit articles related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 or articles related to the Medjugorje phenomenon. As Slp1 (talk · contribs) said, avoiding "official" block may be the best solution, since Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs) and I have voluntarily agreed to abstain from editing the said articles, to preserve our reputation as editors. The risk of sanction for breaking this obligation is in itself a good and efficient corrective measure for both of us I believe. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: Would it be possible to reword your proposal to include the 14 pages related to OLM page that are listed at the very bottom of the OLM page and listed above? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that this might work for you both. It certainly would be best for you if it works out. I want to be very clear that you would both be promising not to edit anything to do with Our Lady of Medjugorje and the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina after 1970, broadly construed. It is not a good idea to name some articles: the onus is on you to understand that anything related to either topic is off limits for 6 months. That means no edits to any articles or talkpages even faintly related to the topic, no posts to noticeboards about the topic, no asking other people to intervene or take a look at edits, no emailing others. Nothing. Take the pages off your watchlists and forget about the whole area. You are also strongly recommended to promise to avoid each other on Wikipedia: do not to follow each others edits, do not follow each other to other articles and topics, do not comment or make complaints about the other. Again nothing. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. I assume the time frame would be 6/23 - 12/23/22.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: I do need to say that the reason I can easily let go is because I completely trust you and if you are overseeing all these pages all will go well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, you've made variations on this comment several times, but I have not addressed it, but I will now. I may or may not follow or engage in those articles, but I will not be overseeing them in any formal way. Robert McClenon noted that you seemed to hope that "expert" editors would write/rewrite the article, and this seems to be part of the same mistaken impression. Editors and administrators will self-select to improve (we hope) the articles. There is no hierarchy or ownership of articles.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• So, we have an agreement then - no editing of the said articles till 23 December 2022. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

How about January 7th 2023? I am sure you would both like to get through Christmas etc without worrying about what would happen if you both start engaging again?Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

7 January is good for me. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Other editors and administrators, do you agree with this voluntary topic ban and interaction ban? Is it adequate? I have never before been engaged in brokering one, so ideas and advice about what has been missed (or if it is worth trying) would be gratefully received.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Interaction Ban

• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just like Slp1, I find it very strange that the two editors who started this quarrel are both agreeing to be topic-banned. I still think that they don't understand that there is no guarantee that neutral expert editors (who have been appointed by the Editorial Board as traveling experts) will rewrite the articles, and so no guarantee that they will be better in January 2023. I think that part of the problem is that each editor insists on cleaning up behind the other editor, so that each of them would prefer to have the other one excluded. I had avoided proposing an interaction ban as the first remedy because interaction bans provide a first-mover advantage. Now that they are agreeing to be banned from the articles mainly in contention, I think that we should avoid allowing them to spread their apparent antagonism for each other to elsewhere in the encyclopedia. So I will propose that, in addition to the topic ban, the two editors be subject to an interaction ban for twelve months. Each of them should find a topic area to edit, and can edit it without interaction with the other editor.

I am aware that this is an unusual remedy, but this is an unusual case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary We are already agreeing to not engage as you can see above. I have no desire to engage or interact with Governor Sheng anywhere on Wikipedia. And the reason I am agreeing to a topic ban is that I am completely exhausted and secondly, now that many people see the problems on that page I have hope that it will be improved. But you are right, who knows what will happen. The future will take care of itself.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. Whatever you decide. Considering that our antagonism stems from Our Lady of Medjugorje and related pages, I this the self-imposed topic ban is good enough, though, if admins think the antagonism might spill over to the other articles, I have no objection to the interaction ban. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support. The first proposal is mostly useless without this one, since I don't have confidence that this won't spill over to other topic areas even if they both follow the topic ban perfectly. Wizardman 21:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I think it is a good idea to officialize this, unfortunately.~~~~ Slp1 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Question: I think I understand the proposal. We are topic banned and interaction banned for one year. Is that true? Or is it, topic banned for 6 months and an interaction ban for one year. I see what you mean about first-mover advantage. I just read about WP:IBAN and it said that editors can edit on the same page but have absolutely no interaction with each other, so first mover might not apply. I just need clarification. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Persistent WP:NAT behavior that has escalated to WP:NPA - User:Botushali

Botushali has been warned by multiple editors for nationalist POV pushing behavior for many months. Their recent violation of WP:NPA in the course of their actions has triggered this notice. In November 2021, Botushali was warned by other editors for edit warring in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[230] In February 2022, Botushali was warned for disruptive edits across four pages in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[231] In June 2022, Botushali was reminded of the discretionary sanctions at hand for disruptive editing in the area of Balkan/Eastern European articles, an area Botushali dedicates 100% of their efforts to.[232]. Examples of Botushali's behavior includes use of extreme emotive language across talk pages and edits [233][234][235]. Botushali in recent times has had a fixation with the demographic history of Kosovo. Botushali has removed text that referenced Serbs living in the region in the Middle Ages on the basis that the Ottoman census at the time didn't mention ethnicity.[236][237][238][239] Botushali unsurprisingly added text that references to a historical presence of Albaniains in Kosovo during the Middle Ages, using references from the Ottoman census which they themselves claimed didn't list ethnicity.[240] [241][242]. Such one-sided edits create significant disruption and in defense of similar content, Botushali called another Wikipedia editors actions in removing such content as "pathetic" and that of "stupidity".[243] A sanction is requested in order to curtail this ongoing behavior. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Being interested in a subject doesn't make editing about it nationalist POV pushing. I am interested in Albanian history, but I'm interested in writing about it from a perspective which agrees with academic consensus. I don't see the language I have used in the selected examples as "extreme emotive" but ElderZamzam is free to report it on AE if he considers it a problem. In regards to the content itself, ElderZamzam says that I removed content about Serbs because "Ottoman defters don't mention ethnicity" but added content about Albanians even though in my previous argument I stated that they don't mention ethnicity. Like many problems here, this has to do with a misunderstanding of what has been written; ElderZamzam says that I added text that references to a historical presence of Albanians in Kosovo during the Middle Ages, using references from the Ottoman census which they themselves claimed didn't list ethnicity However, this is not the case [244] I cited the defter information but didn't connect it directly to Albanian ethnicity - rather, I connected it to Albanian anthroponymy in a linguistic sense because the defters themselves don't mention ethnicity. The problem isn't that I used the same argument for opposite reasons, but that ElderZamzam has to understand the difference between language and ethnicity. If I say that most people in a village have Albanian names, I'm not saying that they were Albanians in an ethnic sense. It's likely a rational conclusion, but it's not something which I've written because the source doesn't go that far. Furthermore, on the pages of Prizren and Novo Brdo, I have added sources on the prevalence of Slavic toponomy; you can distinguish between Slavic and Albanian anthroponomy based on the names of household heads present in the defters, but you cannot distinguish between a Serb and a Bulgarian since they both have Slavic anthroponomy and therefore those sources that claim "Serb" ethnicity of inhabitants with Slavic names are invalid.

[245] In this case I did use the term "pathetic" and I did so because truly it got to a point where a source was being removed and called "extremist" without any WP:RSN about it whatsoever. If everybody removed sources they consider "extremist", then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to function. There is a process which wasn't followed and nobody even justified any such edit on the TP Talk:Novi Pazar. This is why I reverted and used this term, which I wouldn't normally use on Wikipedia and don't intend to use in the future. The source was being called "extremist" because it allegedly mentioned Albanian presence in a village near a city in today's southern Serbia. Why would the mentioning of other ethnicities in modern Balkan nation-states which were once like most of the Balkans, multi-ethnic and multi-confessional, be extremist in itself? For this simple observation, ElderZamzam considers my stance to be "nationalist POV-pushing". Additionally, labelling a publishing house as an extremist organisation is simply out of order; extremist organisations commit acts of terror and violence amongst other such things, they do not publish books.

I am interested in Albanian history but I am interested in writing about it accurately. I checked to see what the "extremist" source writes but it doesn't mention the information. Content which was added, removed, added (by me procedurally as there was no RS reason to remove it), removed and added again by many users wasn't mentioned in the source. So I removed it myself [246]. I did so because I'm interested in writing valid articles and this isn't nationalist POV pushing, which is a comment on the reasons behind my edits and is in fact a form of WP:ASPERSION. I am open to any questions which any admins consider reasonable. Botushali (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS? Really? You mean like "...utterly pathetic. Stop the stupidity, it's just annoying? I believe you owe me an apology. Btw I have seen editors banned at AE for a lot less. Just saying. Khirurg (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You called a Publishing House an "extremist organisation" - that's absolutely ridiculous. As I mentioned previously, extremist organisations commit acts of terror and violence, not publish books. As far as I'm concerned, the tone I have used with you is the same tone you have previously used with me, which has been condescending and patronising:

• Vjosa TP - "Desperation much?... You are new around here, so try to learn something instead of dishing out "advice" to users with vastly more experience than you. ... No, you can't because it's a bunch of nonsense."
• Kitsos Tzavelas edit history, 18th November 2021 - "We've been over this at Souliotes, no way." You used a similar Nope. on Markos Botsaris' edit history. Very dismissive, unamicable attitude.
• Illyrians TP - "Try again. ... Read my comment above and stop pretending you didn't hear that..."
• Illyrians TP - "You can ping each other and agree with each other all you want, it doesn't change anything..."

I do not see an amicable tone here, Khirurg? I believe an apology from you is in order. Let's not forget this same supercilious, dismissive tone is used by you against several other Wikipedia editors - I can show you many, many examples if you like. It's not a very nice way to interact with your fellow editors... Botushali (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Hajar2022 and copyright violations

• Hajar2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user does not have a lot of edits yet but all of the mainspace ones so far have been substantial copyright violations, from Britannica or elsewhere. They either haven't seen the copyvio warnings on their talk page or haven't acknowledged them, and continued today with a +4.4k addition of copyvio to Cairo. I think a block would be helpful for preventing future instances of copyright violations and for hopefully getting them to see and respond to these concerns. DanCherek (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, they definitely saw this report... DanCherek (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You beat me to the revert. I think an indef until they show some understanding of copyright is in order, and if the behavior continues after an unblock, they should be immediately indeffed. No reason to waste other editors' time checking all of their work and fixing the copyvio issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hajar2022 has just posted on my talk page (User talk:DanCherek#Block) saying that they are editing as part of a weekly school assignment. I'm hoping that they have gotten the message. DanCherek (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

School assignments and editathons should be banned, they cause so many issues. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

IP hopper back to vandalism after block expired

• 2601:C6:C580:6B20:895B:1CAF:7E5F:742 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:C6:C580:6B20:B028:EFB8:F80B:2A2B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I was told to post here after providing the info at WP:AIV. IP range to check is 2601:C6:C580:6B20:0:0:0:0/64, they are evading block and been blocked previously. Their vandalism continued once the month block was over. - WP:NOTHERE – The Grid (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagging Rschen7754 as you performed the initial IP range block in May (sorry, I probably should have messaged you from the start). – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Reblocked for 3 months. --Rschen7754 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Nuh Ha Mim Keller

On the page Nuh Ha Mim Keller there is a problematic editor that has repeatedly deleted reliably sourced material here, here and here from Middle East Eye based on the claim that it is defamatory (not established, substantiated or discussed, and in defiance of WP:NOTCENSORED), and more recently under the premise that it is irrelevant and unverified - obviously sub-standard reasons. A talk page discussion has been opened, but ignored, despite invitations in edit comments here and here, and on their talk page as part of edit warnings. Here they also removed a reliable book source, and here inline primary source tags, again described as "irrelevant". The user has recently ONLY been logging on to vet the information and I can only really conclude that they are WP:NOTHERE. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Abdunibnabd, the user in question, has made 20 edits and never edited a talk page. I think there's good reason to at least give them a warning. Outside of the Keller article their edits have mostly been unhelpful. This edit was vandalistic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai

User:AlsoWukai is engaging in disruptive editing, which often includes incivility. I raised this at the Edit warring section of ANI, but have been informed that is not the proper forum, so I am bringing it here. AlsoWukai was recently edit warring at the Katzenberger Trial article to maintain their preferred wording; myself and two other editors reverted their edits, yet they continued to revert back. The article was then temporarily protected, but it continued afterwards. I raised the issue at AlsoWukai's talk page here and at the article's talk page. Thankfully, they appear to have ceased edit warring at that article.

There has also been similar recent behaviour by this editor at [247], see [248] and [249].

However, AlsoWukai appears to have started reverting my edits with no reason given. The one thing both these reverted edits (below) have in common is that they were both undoing small wording changes I made to the articles the day before. It feels as if they are doing this merely to provoke me into starting another edit war. See [250] and [251]

Previously, I raised this editor's behaviour at their talk page here, and at ANI here - in fact I note that the outcome of the ANI case I filed was "FINAL WARNING" for AlsoWukai. There are several examples of warnings at their Usertalk page for edit warring since that warning. Their language in the edit summaries is also contentious: "smh" (shaking my head), referring to me as a "troll" etc.

AlsoWukai's general attitude is that they are right, to the exclusion of others, which is not constructive for building an encyclopaedia. User:Futurix pointed out in the Katzenberger Trial talk page that AlsoWukai seems to be replacing "however" with "but" in their other edits. There is no mention of preference at WP:MOS, but most articles appear to use "however" rather than "but" to start sentences. My edits have simply been to comply with what I perceive to be the norm at WP. I would be grateful if any administrators could help with this please, as I do not wish to spend my time on AlsoWukai's edit wars.--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai seems to be reverting a number of articles with no justification other than they want their version to be published. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and no user has ownership of an article. However, the general consensus seems to be that the use of "however" is preferable over "but". There is no merit in edit warning over minor changes or using contentious language towards other users. Denham331 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I can only concur with this - starting an edit war because of a personal preference over a word with the only justification of "because I said so" isn't great. This particular article was written this way 10 years ago, survived many edits, and now suddenly it has to comply with a made up rule by a single user. Futurix (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about Johnpacklambert's "corrections" of birth dates

Johnpacklambert appears to have been working his way through birth date categories for some time now. He goes through a category at a time and edits birth date categories if the text and category do not match. A few days ago I asked him about how he determined which of the dates was the correct one. His response was I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text.. From this, I take him to be saying that he does no research other than looking at the article. He does not check what sources say. He does not do a Google search. He does not look at the history of page to see how the dates became different. I have asked him twice to confirm these assumptions, but he has ignored the question both times.

I will give the clearest example of the problem - Mr Lambert changed the birth date category for Julia Adler from 1897 to 1898 so it matched the text of the page. There is only one source used on that page. The source is an obituary which provides the birth date of "July 4, 1897". After I questioned him about this change (giving him the date in the source), Mr Lambert edited the date to "c. 1898".

I am concerned that Mr Lambert, with the best of intentions, has "corrected" many many birth date categories without taking the time to research the problem. He appears to trust Wikipedia text over the sources. What prompted me to finally report this here is that Mr Lambert has stopped replying to my questions on his talk page and has deliberately changed the way he edits birth date categories so that there is no edit summary showing the category change. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. The issue that is brought up above has since had people look into the text more and more sources have been added. I have tried to make sure that I am fully consulting the text of the article, and in multiple cases have reviewed the articles more indepth. I have tried to create discussion around topics in response to the issue as can be seen at [252]. Beatrix Bulstrode is an example of why insisting that someone do extra research to correct these problems is not reasonable. The article text makes it clear that the existing date was a transpostion error, she clearly was born in 1869 as the article says and not in 1896. The claim above that I have "stopped replying to questions on the talk page" is diningenous at best. The most recent ask on the talk page was about Eleanor Winthrop Young. After the question was asked on my talk page, I opened a discussion at Talk:Eleanor Winthrop Young which discusses the matter of when she may have been born. I maybe should have posted about that on my talk page to notify him of it. He further attacks me for doing a direct edit instead of using hot cat, and clearly is ignoring edits like the one I made on Beatrix Bulstrode where I explicitly state this was a correction of the birth year. With hot cat one does not have an easy option to explain the edit, so if I use the general edit I can explain the edits and somewhat anticipate the questions about them before they happen. I would also point out my previous attempts to explain the full issue, such as the case of Louise Little, where I explain why it has been changed to 1890s births, and he responds the way he does. I explain that I had gone to the touble of looking for more sources on Little's birth, and identify one I was able to find which justified the move to the 1890s birth category. When I initially found the article it had multiple statements in the text that said Little was born in 1894 and nothing that indicated any other year was the year of birth. When Polycarpa aurata asked about this, I dug further and was able to find the source, which I mentioned in my talk page and made the edits. His response was a set of questions you see there. I really could not find a good way to respond to those questions. So I figured that a response was not needed, especially since the issue at hand was what birth year Little should be categorized in, and based on the most recent New York Times source I think we can only place the article in the 1890s births category. Johnny Broderick the opening explicitly tells us that sources differ on the year of birth. From now on I will explictly make a note of changing the birth year in my edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Harry Caples is an example of having such an edit summary explaining what I am doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Johnpacklambert After I tried to talk to you about your birth date changes, you stopped leaving edit summaries for those changes, correct? That makes it harder to see the birth date changes when looking at your edits. What was your intention when you changed how you made those edits? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    • No that is not correct. Pretty much the only edit summaries I have made were after you brought this issue up. When one uses hotcat directly to make an edit there is no ability to make an edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      @Johnpacklambert From what I was seeing over the last few days, there was a consistent edit summary like "removed Category:1897 births; added Category:1879 births using HotCat". A couple of days ago, the edit summaries disappeared. That continued until today. For example, this edit changng a birth date with no edit summary. Why did you change how you edited birth date categories? Please bear in mind that edit summaries are not the issue here. I just want to understand why you changed your method of editing, because it had the side effect of making those types of edits harder to find. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think if an editor were to go through every Category:Births in year page and change the cat to match the text, without checking any sources, it would be a net benefit to the project. If JPL is doing even an occasional source check, even better. Polycarpa aurata, if you intend to go through the cats and rigorously check all the date sources, I would counsel JPL to stop his work to avoid duplicating efforts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This looks to me to be simple good-faith and non-controversial editing. If there's a mistake, fix it. It seems that if there are mistakes it would be much less work to just fix it than to bring it up here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. Please don't do this. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as you well know. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I am afraid I come down on this side of the issue--though I will say that I do not doubt JPL's good faith here. If there is such a discrepancy, it means there must be an error somewhere along the line, and I am not convinced the text will always be more reliable. This process may in fact be hiding errors which should be rechecked and which would otherwise be plain to see. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is any disruptive, or bad fait, editing historically which may change birth dates etc (happens all the time) then 99.99% of the time it's in the text. I don't think I've ever seen such a bad actor alter the categories. While I don't condone using it, I'd say it's possible in many cases that the category is more likely to be correct as that would have likely been set up at the article creation and sourcing stage rather than the maintenance editing stage. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the intent of "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is with regards to being a source for other Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure the spirit if that pertained to categories of the articles in which they are referencing. I could stand corrected if specific text states the intent of that statement also included categories. I think I'm in agreeance with @Firefangledfeathers and @Paulmcdonald here. --ARoseWolf 19:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) -edited 19:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here (WP:People by year) states that categories should be added according to the date of birth and date of death in the article. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable in terms of sanctions for John Pack Lambert - synchronising categories with article text is a useful thing to do and the comments he has been leaving on talk pages suggest that he is putting some level of checking into his edits. There is also no requirement at all to perform category edits using hotcat.

I do, however, think that this is a case where the behaviour of the filer is worth looking at, and WP:BOOMERANG sanctions may be appropriate. In the 400 edits they have made to date they have spent a significant amount of time baselessly accusing other editors of disruption and conduct.

• In this AFD [253] Polycarpa aurata uses an unnecessarily combative tone and suggests that it's the fault of the other editors commenting there that no coverage except an interview cannot be found (is not notable because *you* can't find sources?). Later in the discussion they admit that they have made no effort to find sources themselves and imply the deletion is due to racial bias.
• This featured picture delisting nomination [254] was opened because of concerns about quality that were raised when the picture was scheduled to run on the main page [255]. Polycarpa aurata shows up, admits they have little knowledge of the process, and baselessly makes the accusation that the discussion was opened in bad faith to undermine another process [256].
• Here [257] they are criticised for taking an unnecessarily agnostic tone that implies bad faith in a discussion about a mass shooting [258].
• Here [259] They refer to another editor as "creepy" for adding information on a celebrity board member's involvement in a charity to an article.
• In this deletion review [260] they misrepresent an admin suggesting that they userfy a page as being unwilling to restore the page and refer to a couple hour delay for a response as I tried to follow up with them but they stopped replying.
• In this discussion [261] an editor tries to reach a consensus as to whether an image is suitable to run on the main page. After a few messages the op lays out a numbered list of the positives and negatives of the image. Polycarpa aurata ignores the message for 4 days, then turns up to accuse the OP of starting the entire discussion in bad faith [262]. Before the image is run the OP starts another discussion on the main page talk page to try to get feedback [263]. Polycarpa aurata again shows up to claim that the entire discussion was stated in bad faith [264]. FWIW consensus was essentially unanimous that the image was OK to run.

Polycarpa aurata badly needs to stop accusing everyone and anyone they come into conflict with or disagree with of acting in bad faith or with misconduct. They also really need to reconsider the tone that they use in talk page messages, and avoid agnostic language that is simply going to inflame tensions. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've spent ages trying to understand your repeated use of the word "agnostic", and have come to the conclusion that you probably actually meant "antagonistic". Is that correct? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agnostic behavior in hens. EEng 16:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe Mr Lambert is acting in good faith, but his actions are damaging the project. Please understand that I am not making an accusation - I am making a statement. Johnpacklambert is introducing new errors (category errors) which compound the errors in the text. He has been doing this for weeks, if not months. I do not know what percentage of his birth date edits have been problematic, but it was fairly easy for me to find the examples I left on his talk page. You are misinterpreting the guidance for categories. The text and categories should match, yes, but that doesn't mean one should mindlessly change the category to match the text without investigating how the error happened. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extremely poorly thought out boomerang request. You did a deep stalking and that was the worst you found? None of that is actionable or even terribly concerning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I looked at some of the birth date changes that Mr Lambert has been making this week. Does that count as a "deep stalking"? That doesn't even seem like a light stalking to me, but everything on Wikipedia seems to have its own meaning. Anyway, based in what I found, Mr Lambert has probably introduced dozens of new category errors into Wikipedia as he "corrected" birth categories. I think this is worth telling people about so that the errors can be identified and fixed, and so that Mr Lambert will stop introducing new errors. I'm not asking for him to be punished, just to stop, although it would be nice if he would acknowledge that he understands why this was wrong, so he doesn't do the same thing with some other category. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting slightly off topic... Identifying an issue with a specific edit and looking at the author's edit history to see if the issue is limited to one page is one thing, it is entirely another thing to trawl someone's edit history for any and all errors or conflicts in the hopes of using them to influence an unrelated noticeboard discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have not seen it so much in my run from 1927 births back, but back when I was reviewing articles from the 1300s or so, I saw 2 very common cases where those who had created the categories clearly did not understand what the article was saying. In one case there were articles with flourished dates. Another set of articles had the dates a ruler reigned in parenthesis and an editor had misinterpreted that to be the birth and death years. True the majority of rulers over time (as opposed to elected leaders) probably died in office, but very few were born the year their reign started. I have also found some articles in multiple bith year categories. Clearly people were not born in more than one year, so that is not right. As I said going forward I will be clear on what is going on with edit summaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert Edit summaries are not the issue. The issue is that you are not investigating *why* there is more than one birth date. You are blindly assuming that the text is correct and changing the category. You have not been checking sources already available from the page. You have not been looking at the page history to see when the error happened. You have not been trying to find the correct birth date. You are not correcting errors, you are just making two things match. Sometimes that will be fine, but in other cases it introduces a new error, as I have tried to show you on your talk page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I am very puzzled by some of the comments here. @Firefangledfeathers, Paulmcdonald, and ARoseWolf: If someone created a bot that went through pages and just changed the birth date category to match whatever birth date was in the text, would you be ok with that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a net benefit to the project. I'm not familiar enough with the bot policy to comment on that. My experience is that errors are generally caught and fixed in the article text, but that editors rarely update the categories to match. You have presumably checked many of JPL's category changes. Have you found that errors in greater than 50% of these edits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I only started looking at Mr Lambert's birth date edits this week, so I wouldn't want to guess at the error rate but I was able to find a half dozen examples. That doesn't mean that the others were correct, just less obviously wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A half dozen out of how many approximately? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The net number of changes on some birth year categories are in excess of 100. Some of these I process through in less than a week. So I am probably on average making over 100 edits related to birth-year categorization a week.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, yes, I believe a bot that did this task would be with-in compliance with, at least, what is written in the guideline, however, bot policies would also apply and there may be additional restrictions or hurdles that might need be addressed before such a bot was created. --ARoseWolf 13:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That error rate is massive, were you aware that you were making so many screw ups before this thread was opened? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged back here: I'm not sure what was confusing or puzzling about what I said. It was pretty straight forward. The statement in quotations was being used to push the case against Mr. Lambert's edits and a) I don't think it means what the ones using it think it means (the comment by the IP seems to suggest guidelines say Mr. Lambert's edits are in compliance) and, regardless, b) I'm questioning whether this is an urgent, chronic and intractable behavior issue or a just a content issue that should perhaps go to dispute resolution. No where in the guideline does it say you have to check the sources before adding a category. In fact, it can be assumed with relative certainty that the ones that added the categories initially did not check the sources for accuracy. Some might, some might not. But what is clear is that we are asking Mr. Lambert to take an extra step that is not written in the guideline or clearly defined anywhere else in policy for this specific task. While the OP may have a legitimate concern, their focus is in the wrong direction here. If they are so concerned with making sure that anyone adding or editing a category check sources to verify what is written in the article then they should be asking for the guideline to be changed. There is a proper venue for that. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Let met get this straight... there is a discrepancy between the birthdate listed in the text of an article and the birthdate category on the article. There is obviously something wrong in the article, whether it's the text, or the category, or both. No one disagrees with that. If it's left as is, the error remains in the article. An editor is making a good faith attempt to fix it. Now even if this correction is done randomly to match the category with the text or the text with the category, they'll be right 50% of the time (unless both are wrong). So, in the likely worst case scenario here, half of the articles are being corrected and now we're demanding that it should be 100% or none at all? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Response-we're not talking about a bot, we're talking about a person. per WP:BOTS, Wikipedia policy requires that bots be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this editor on John Pack Lambert's talk page; they were constantly repeating the question What research did you do before you made your edit to the category? despite it already having been answered with I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text.

I don't know much about categorization policies, but it did come across as uncivil WP:BADGERing. BilledMammal (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal To be honest, I found it hard to believe that someone could actually be doing what Mr Lambert was doing. I wanted to be sure that I understood the process he was following (ie not checking page history, not checking sources). When I raised questions about specific articles, Mr Lambert became argumentative about sources I offered instead of responding to my question about his process. So I stopped offering sources and just asked about process. When Mr Lambert stopped responding at all, I brought the issue here. If there is a more appropriate noticeboard for these types of things, please let me know. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

JPL, I think you should change your approach and here's why: what you're doing is like clearing a bug report without fixing the bug. If the text and category don't match, at least we are aware of a potential error. If you always match category to text, yes that's technically within policy, but it's not a good idea anyway.

Let's say half of the time the text is right and half the time the category is right. If you always match category to text, you'll never turn incorrect text into correct text, and that's good. But half the time you will have turned a correct category into an incorrect category. And 100% of the time, because you're matching them, you'll remove the evidence of a potential error (which is the mismatch).

So if there is incorrect text and correct category, if you do nothing, at least it's flagged as an error for potential follow up by someone else. But if you "clear" them all, you also clear all evidence of a potential error, half the time correcting the error, but half the time making it worse (change incorrect cat to correct cat) while also making it harder for anyone else to detect it (by removing the mismatch).

Instead of just changing the category to match the text without verifying the text, it should be flagged for further, manual, review. It's better to have a mismatch than to clear the mismatch without investigating it. Clearing the "there's a problem here" warning (mismatch of text and category) without actually investigating the problem, doesn't help, it hurts. What you're effectively doing by removing the mismatch but not actually investigating them is making sure no one else will even find any of these mismatches and know to check them in the future. Levivich^[block] 14:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you are asking Mr. Lambert to go above and beyond guideline and policy to meet a criteria not required of any other editor, whether when an article is created or after the fact. If you want guidelines or policies changed, which might actually have merit, then make the proper request. Don't put the cart before the horse. All that is required is for the category to match the text in the article. --ARoseWolf 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's the whole point of this thread "All that is required is for the category to match the text in the article" - how do you know which one is correct? Levivich's post is a brilliant explination of why just making that one change isn't the best thing to do. I think Template:Self-contradictory should be used on articles like this. The example on that template isn't a million miles away from these issues - change "the cause of death" to "YOB/YOD text doesn't match the category" or similar. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(You make me blush.) Yes, tagging with a template or otherwise applying a hidden maintenance category is a good example of the kind of adjustment of approach I had in mind. Tagging for follow up is better than just changing the category to match the text. Levivich^[block] 14:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You got that straight Rose: I don't want anyone to do anything that makes the project worse, even if--and I want to make this next part absolutely clear--even if it violates no rule. The important thing isn't that we comply with our own rules, the important thing is we build an encyclopedia, and clearing bug reports without fixing the bug doesn't help us do that, it hinders us--even if it's not against any rule, still a bad idea. Levivich^[block] 14:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a lot of issues on this encyclopedia. We have articles that contain contradicting information. If making the project worse was the only criteria by which we built or maintained the encyclopedia then we would have far less articles because that is very subjective. Who gets to say something that fixes 50% of articles is hurting the encyclopedia? Maybe its perspective. That's why we have policy and guidelines. Out of the hundreds and thoudands of editors on Wikipedia we can get hundreds and thousands of opinions on what hurts and helps the encyclopedia. Your opinion that this particular action hurts is contradicted by those that say fixing 50% helps. Your view is no more or less important than theirs, the difference is policy and guideline. I still don't see this being a behavior issue so this AN/I is misplaced. -ARoseWolf 15:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Who gets to say... We do. The community. That's why we're talking about this here and now. And as one member of the community, I say that clearing error reports without fixing errors hurts the encyclopedia. You're welcome to disagree about that, but spare me the Wikipedia cliche "If you want guidelines or policies changed...", and spare me the insinuation that I need to change a policy or guideline if I want to hold an opinion. You may better persuade others by explaining why you don't think clearing the bug reports without fixing the bugs is a bad thing--I explained why I thought it was a bad thing--maybe try actually engaging with the substance of my argument instead of just expressing outrage at it? :-) Levivich^[block] 15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, nobody is asking him to go "above and beyond" anything. It's more like asking him to refrain from doing something: please don't change categories to match text without checking for accuracy. One option available to him is to not do anything. Another option available is to tag the article somehow, rather than changing the category to match the text. Neither option is "going above and beyond" anything. No one is asking him to do more work, we're asking him to do the work differently, because the way he's doing it is making it harder for the rest of us. (We can't fix an incorrect birthdate if we don't know about it, after all.) Levivich^[block] 15:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a technical note but those saying "fixing 50% helps." are either speaking metaphorically or are factually incorrect. Thats just not how statistics works in this case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline and policy here are WP:RS and WP:V - WP:PBY is fine for adding a category if there isn't one, but it's not for correcting it. If Johnpacklambert isn't looking at what the sources say, he shouldn't be changing what the article text says (I'm using "article text" broadly here, to include the category). It's one thing if he looks at the history and sees that a seventeen-edit, now-blocked user changed one of the dates, and then undoes that; it's quite another if he just looks at the current version of the article and capriciously picks which one is right, even if he's always picking the same one. That's like "fixing" a copyright infringement by replacing random words with a thesaurus until the Earwig report's percentage match is "low enough". —Cryptic 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...which, by the way, is something people do that drives me nuts: using elegant variation to lower an Earwig score but not checking the source, and in the process risking turning plagiarism into a V or NPOV or even BLP error. Levivich^[block] 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it doesn't turn plagiarism into a V/NPOV/BLP error; it turns plagiarism into a V/NPOV/BLP error plus still plagiarism, and much harder-to-detect plagiarism at that. —Cryptic 15:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• This complaint makes no sense to me. What citation is there for the original categories? If an article says that someone was born in 1890, and I add Category:2004 births (cited to nothing because categories can't carry refs), is it just required to stay that way forever? Is it not much more likely that they were born in 1890 than, say, 1896, based on the article text? Sure, it would be nice for JPL to add citations for birth dates. It would also be nice if he turned every article he edited into a GA, but it would be asinine to complain about someone not doing this. I sometimes use AWB to fix typos; am I about to get my ass beat at ANI for doing that in uncited sections? I think not. The choice here is not between a cited birth year and an uncited birth year -- it's between an uncited category that disagrees with the article and an uncited category that agrees with the article. I cannot fathom any way in which this is a problem, other than the fact that JPL has been abrasive on unrelated parts of the project, which has (and should have) nothing to do with this. jp×g 15:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • If you're reading an article and you see a contradiction in it, it's an immediate indication that something is wrong and you should look closer instead of blindly trusting it - it could just as easily be the cited 1890 date that's erroneous, say, because it's uncorrected vandalism. (Yes, yes, I know, readers should always look closer instead of blindly trusting Wikipedia, but they don't. We've got research showing that only a third of a percent of page views click on any references.) —Cryptic 16:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Right -- but the problem is not with the categorization, it's with an erroneous birth date being on the page in the first place. Verifying the content of a page is a separate task from aligning its categories. If an article says someone was born in 1890, it may be the case that there's no citable basis to categorize them as an 1890 birth, but there is absolutely no basis to categorize them as an 1894 birth. One of these situations is obviously worse than the other. Sure, there's the off-chance that the other birth date was vandalism, and maybe the cats could be used to detect this vandalism, but "deliberately retain self-contradictory language in articles so that forensic searches can be done for vandalism" doesn't seem like a policy I have ever heard of. jp×g 18:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      Actually, vandals often change the article but not the category, so you should never adjust a category that contradicts the article without at least looking at the article history. —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nellie Casman

Here is an example of a birth date change made today by Mr Lambert. He changed the birth date category of Nellie Casman from 1896 births to 1890s births. The edit summary says he opening says 1896? for her birth year, saying it is less than clear, so we are probably safer saying she was born in the 1890s than committing to an exact year we cannot be sure of. The page has three sources, including an obituary in the New York Times. Each of those sources says that Nellie Casman was born in 1896. Why is Mr Lambert unsure of the date given by those three sources? If "we cannot be sure of" the year given by the three separate sources, how can Mr Lambert be sure that Casman was born in the 1890s and not the 1880s or 1900s? BY this point, I think it is safe to assume that Mr Lambert did not look at the sources at all, but made his guesses based on the question mark in the text. That question mark was added in 2018 by an IP editor. Why? I don't know and neither does Mr Lambert. I think we should go with what the sources say, not with an unexplained question mark. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am waiting to see if he mentions my edit to Victor Gerson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert If you mean me, I'm not a he. We can discuss Victor Gerson if you wish, but I would like to hear your explanation for the change you made to Nellie Casman. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment look folks, editng and research can be tough work even for simple data points like "year of birth" -- can we work to get it right without having a HUGE discussion here? There's no bad fath that I see, no policy violation, no copyvio, no legal issue... just editing and research. Working to align year of birth categories with the content of the article seems to me to be a good thing. If there's a discrepancy--oops, it's a mistake. WP:SOFIXIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Fix it, yes; fudge it, no. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald Mr Lambert, until I started this discussion, was doing no research at all. He was not working to get it right. That is the issue. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please leave me out of this discussion from this point forward. As noted below, there is no administrative action needed here--at least, none that I can spot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

How do we find the discrepancy, after JPL changes the category to match the text? How does anyone ever know that there was a discrepancy? How does anyone fix it, after JPL???

Alternatives to what JPL is doing:

1. Tag it {{self-contradictory}} instead of mechanically changing the category to match the text
2. Mechanically change the category to match the text, but still tag it {{self-contradictory}} with a note saying "I mechanically changed the category to match the text, but there was a mismatch here, someone may want to follow up and make sure the text is correct"
3. Anything else that leaves an indication to future editors that there was a mismatch here that was corrected without being verified (so that someone else can verify it later if they want to), such as adding some other template or hidden maintenance category or message on the talk page or something.

This isn't really asking a lot. Levivich^[block] 15:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...what JPL is doing now is like showing up to the scene of a fire and resetting the fire alarm without actually putting out the fire, on the justification that half the time there isn't a real fire anyway, and people are saying "we should thank him for shutting off the alarm instead of demanding that he put out the fire, too!" Levivich^[block] 15:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not thanking Mr. Lambert for his edits here. I'm saying there is no violation of policy or guidelines. There is no administrator action needed which is what this thread is for. All categories are based on what is written in the text of the article or what we know about a subject based on what is written in the article. No matter whether its just after an article is written or years after the fact. Currently, we don't require those adding or editing categories to do a WP:BEFORE search of sources to verify the information is correct in the article before adding or editing a category. Should we? Idk, but this isn't the thread to discuss that in. Is Mr. Lambert's behavior here a violation of policy or guidelines and thereby disruptive or not. If the answer is yes then perhaps action should be proposed. Otherwise it's a content issue or application of content guidelines issue. --ARoseWolf 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf Surely "do not introduce errors" is part of a policy or guideline? And "when someone shows you that you are introducing errors, stop doing it"? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Polycarpa aurata, Are you now changing your position that Mr. Lambert is acting in good faith? That could alter the purpose of this thread and we can then begin to discuss behavior issues as opposed to content issues which may be drowning out actual behavior issues here. --ARoseWolf 16:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert I believe that Mr Lambert is acting with good intentions. I said as much when I made this report. I tried to discuss it with him on his talk page but his answers were not helpful and then he stopped answering at all, so I brought it here. I believe that he changed how he edits birth date categories to make it harder for me to find his changes, but I'm not really bothered by that. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that ANI is for asking admins to sanction someone. It's not. As the top of the page "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". At least in the opinions of some editors (like me), mechanically changing mismatched categories to match the text is an urgent incident, and to because this has been ongoing and has been raised with the editor without resolution, it's also a chronic and intractable behavioral problem. Again, you may disagree that this is an urgent incident, or an incident at all, or that it's intractable, or that it's a behavioral problem at all... but that doesn't make this the wrong place to discuss whether one view (mine) or the other (yours) is right. That is the discussion happening right now, right here, and it's the right place. Levivich^[block] 17:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ermyntrude Harvey I have edited to move to the 1890s birth year category. The one source that is listed there that I could find online quickly does not give the birth year. The other sources either are not online or the link did not work. I figured since the category was 1896 but both statements of birth in the article were 1895, someone somewhere thought 1896 was correct. I am not sure where this was though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert I don't know why you are bringing this up here. More than one person has suggested marking these pages as "contradictory". Could you agree to do that and stop making guesses about birth dates? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • This is not a guess per se. We have people stating 1896 and 1895. Both are in the 1890s. There is nothing suggsting that the article would fall under any other range, and I have made a post on the talk page about this issue. It seems a reasonable set of actions to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Johnpacklambert I thought we were supposed to be looking for sources stating facts? Without those, you are indeed guessing. Your guess may very well be right, but it is not based on sources. What is wrong with labeling the dates as contradictory? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    • Would you rather I removed the birth year category entirely at that point. Categories are supposed to flow from statments in the text which in turn flow from sources. Articles cannot be placed in categories otherwise. So Either I should remove the category as not being supported, or I should go to one that is supported. I think especially in this case in which it is clear that the date is based on the listed sources, I do not have easy access to those sources, that saying the birth was in the 1890s is reasonable until someone can fully review sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      • Of course you are free to go remove the birth year category from the article on Harvey. I am not stopping you, and none of these edits involve anyone actually reverting an edit you did. So I really do not see why you brought it to ANI at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Incorrect, we are looking for what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Whether it is a fact or not is relative. A reader may read it and determine it is not a fact. That is their discretion. Wikipedia does not tell a reader what to believe is fact or not, nor do we present facts, per se. We make every attempt to verify and make sure what we are presenting is accurate based on what those sources say. Though I agree that we should not be guessing when it comes to content included in an article. That would apply to categories too. Keep in mind that a category is simply a navigational tool. Nothing more, nothing less. What does the article say? Theoretically that is what a category should navigate to. Should we add a template for inconsistent sources? I can go along with that given there is a clearly defined avenue to point editors to the use of the template. I will state this, WP:BLPCAT notes "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." This could seem to infer that reliable sources within the article should be consulted along with the stated text when adding categories or editing existing ones. I think Mr. Lambert should consider all that is being brought up here and evaluate whether what he is doing falls in line with WP:BLPCAT or not. This would seemingly only apply to BLP's as I can tell so far. I haven't looked at others.--ARoseWolf 17:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Cliff Henderson is a place where I 1-determined that the listed year at all places in the article did not agree with the category. 2-I checked sources. Only one listed a year of birth, that was the Western Reserve Historical Society Finding Aid. It listed the same year as the article. The other sources I checked did not tell us when Henderson was born. So I had the sum of the one source that mentioned his birth year and every statement in the article body, as opposed to a category that was only a year off. Based on this information I moved the article to the 1895 birth year category, and I believe explained what I did about as well as I could in an edit note. I am also going to add a note to the talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Victor Gerson

Mr Lambert would like me to discuss his edit to Victor Gerson, so I will. The page was created by MrArmstrong2 in June, 2019. Most of it is a barely re-worded copy of the main source. For example, the source says

Gerson imposed strict rules on his members and despite the circuit being penetrated three times by the Gestapo (June, 1943, October 1943 and January 1944) and although some were arrested the group were able to continue its activities.

MrArmstrong2 wrote

Gerson imposed strict rules on his members and despite the circuit being penetrated three times by the Gestapo in June and October 1943 and January 1944, after which some members were arrested, the group was able to continue its activities.

That sentence has since been broken up into two parts, separated by a list that does not appear in the main source and is likely cut and pasted from elsewhere.

Smallchief changed the birth date from 1896 to 1898 with an edit summary of "fixing birth date according to ref". The main source gives 1898 as the birth date, so I suspect Smallchief looked at it before making the change. A different source used on the page, this one from the UK National Archives, gives the birth date as 1896. Other reliable sources also have the 1896 birth date, including the 1978 book Six Faces of Courage by M. R. D. Foot, which devotes a chapter to Gerson.

If Mr Lambert looked at the first source in the reference list and confirmed that birth date given there matched the text of the Wikipedia page, that is all I would expect him to do. I have done more than that because I think it is worth my effort to illustrate that doing this right takes time. I found when the change to the dates was made, by whom, and why (thanks to the edit summary). That edit summary made me check more than one source. This is complicated by the fact that so much information easily available online has its origins in Wikipedia, so mistakes get propagated. Doing this right is a tedious exercise and not something that can be done at the Mr Lambert's speed. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are indeed some questionable and disruptive things that JPL has done on this project, but this really doesn't seem like one of them. If an article says something incorrect, that is a problem with the article, not with someone who is fixing a strictly technical error in the article (categories that do not align with article text). I don't understand what your alternative proposal is -- that somebody be categorized (with no citation) as being born in 1896 in an article that says they were born in 1898? Is there any circumstance in which this could possibly give useful information or benefit readers? jp×g

  If JPL goes around looking for these issues and is dealing with them not by finding out whether the article or the category is correct, but instead mechanically unifying them, that is potentially harmful and clearly something that should be stopped. Inconsistencies like this must alert us to the fact that there is a problem, and hiding that problem is worse than not touching it. —Kusma (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • • Categories aren't page content. They're subordinate to page content. If there are uncited birth year categories on a page, removing them does not require a burden of proof that they were born elsewhen. jp×g 18:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      If you notice that a page contradicts itself, you should investigate what the problem is before making an edit, or just tag it. You should not make an edit to resolve the contradiction without checking that you resolve it correctly. —Kusma (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    • I dont understand how this is potentially harmful. We can say that inconsistencies should alert us to a problem, but they dont, they dont even get noticed. As our policy stands right now, categories are meant to be supported by article content (WP:CAT says It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories). That being the case, if the category and the article mismatch the best thing to do would to check which is right, but IMO an acceptable thing to do is align the category with the text. Yes, there may be mistakes, but there are already mistakes in every single article that has this mismatch. nableezy - 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      In almost all cases the category has been aligned with article content in the past, and then the article content has changed but the category hasn't. For example because an unsourced edit (whether good faith or not) slipped past RC patrol. If you align the category without checking, at least {{fact}} tag the text supporting that category so others are alerted to it being potentially uncertain or inaccurate. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      • • I agree in general, but I think the view that categories follow pages is totally acceptable, and that aligning the category to the page content on that basis is likewise acceptable. I dont really know what drives somebody to go through hundreds of pages in a category to check if the text aligns but not also spend the time checking if the text is accurate, but I dont think there is anything actually wrong with doing so if thats what you want to spend your time on. nableezy - 21:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

        I certainly won't complain about this edit by Johnpacklambert: he found a contradiction, mentioned it in the edit summary and made the category more fuzzy, then posted to the talk page. That's a decent way to deal with the issue. —Kusma (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I added the above discussion to the talk page in question. I have also moved it to 1890s births since there is no clear consensus it seems to which year this person was born in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Arthur J. Forrest

The birth year was originally given as 1896 (but 1 January is always suspicious). It was changed to 1895 (with a citation that I can't verify) by User talk:Grokett, who made other questioned changes. I haven't found any sources except for this nice contradiction: Findagrave says May 1, 1895 and shows a grave marked with 1896 as year of birth. Perhaps it is better to mark this kind of issues as self-contradictory than to sweep them under the rug? —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have copied this post to the article talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Bringing this to resolution

So this doesn't go on forever, here is my suggestion: The problem, from a wikilawyer/policy perspective, is that JPL is engaged in WP:BOLD editing that turns out to be controversial. A significant number of editors disagree with it, though it seems an equally-significant number of editors agree. Of course there is nothing wrong with BOLD editing, but now that we know it's controversial, it should stop and consensus for the BOLD edits should be obtained before the BOLD edits continue. If JPL agrees to stop and seek consensus before continuing, I think that would be a fine outcome for this thread and it can be closed. Levivich^[block] 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a much better way to resolve this is for the person who brought the complaint to withdraw it as silly and pointless then telling someone to stop making the categories match the article text. One improves the encyclopedia, the other is a distraction. If people are concerned that the article text doesn't match the references then that's a good reason for them to organize an editing project and updating the articles they find with misrepresented sources. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't making sure that the text matches the references already a big part of the project? Maybe I just don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

TPA revocation request for User:Prokeypc

Thought I could just do this at AIV, but because the user is already blocked the bot at AIV won't let me :(. Anyway, this is a blocked user where the username is a company name, and prior to their block they were spamming their userspace and user talk page with copyvios from their company's website about their products. Although blocked, still spamming their talk page: [265]. Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should. Maybe salt the user page as well? (Non-administrator comment) weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, they're blocked so they can't recreate their user page anyway. That's why they have now resorted to spamming their own user talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh. They're posting spam on their talk page because it's the only page they can edit? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is a situation of a blocked user where I am requesting their talk page access be revoked. They were spamming on both their user page and user talk page. They were blocked for this on June 27th, which means they now only have the ability to edit their talk page. Their response is to continue to spam on their talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Orangemike revoked talk page access. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I rev-del'ed some claimed MS serial numbers or similar license-code violations from their usertalk. DMacks (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

personal insults when discussing a wiki page

User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newimpartial responded with insult to logical, source-filled comentaries : If you are using your own, apparently limited, literacy in 21st-century English as a basis to argue that the singular they is confusing and should be avoided - well, I'm afraid you're going to need a more convincing argument. The idea that this article, and others using the singular they, are misusing the pronouns is fairly WP:EXTRAORDINARY in 2022 and would require something more than an editor's strongly held personal opinion / private language to back it up. on the page Demi Lovato.

I wish we could have calm discussions without having to bring out personnal insults in an effort to make a point when one has run out of arguments. Editor is invalidating my comentaries based on a red herring falacy tactic. I am indeed a native french-speaker, but I have always gone to english schools and university. I think my english skills are at least the same level as most americans, and this insult hurts deeply. Especially when I brought concrete examples from both wikipedia articles AND guidelines to make the article better. This is just a personnal attack that has no place here, and I feel deeply insulted. I have gone to an english university, but my efforts have been cast aside based on 'my limited literacy' ? Emli89 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 made an argument based on the premise that using the singular they in the article in question - reflecting the BLP subject's genderqueer identity and pronoun preference - was misusing the pronouns. In fact, the editor intervened at some length to defend this position, interpreting phrases with which most native English speakers would have no difficulty as though they were ambiguous.

As I have argued elsewhere, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and it is more appropriate to provide appropriate scaffolding for readers when needed than to allow the requirements of less-fluent English speakers to override accuracy and policy compliance in Enwiki articles.

As far as my phrase in question, my argument was that no editor should be making that kind of argument from personal experience, and that it was particularly unwise to so so in a situation where their examples would not be persuasive to a person more familiar with contemporary English. I made no personal insult, nor were my comments anything other than calm. Unnecessarily wordy perhaps, but not emotional. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 pointed to a couple of ambiguous sentences, in a discussion that noted that the BLP uses both "they" and "she" pronouns while the article continues to use "they". Wikipedia isn't meant to be read only by native English speakers. One can disagree with a specific proposal, but it doesn't justify insulting someone's language competency for bringing up a reasonable concern.

Newimpartial seems to have a pattern of this; they also recently attacked Jdbrook here, saying, Do not bring your own WP:FRINGE perspective into this, please while reinserting a medical claim cited to a non-WP:MEDRS. That was part of Newimpartial edit warring against 3 different editors, [266][267][268][269] making 4 reverts in a little over 31 hours (compare WP:3RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.) Crossroads ^-talk- 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, this isn't the first time you have intervened on a dramaboard to say, essentially, how about this unrelated thing Newimpartial did. One might think you were trying to remove an opponent from the topic area, or something.

As far as Stella O'Malley is concerned, the relevant issues - and consensus on the underlying matter of the dispute, as set out in the MEDRS - are clearly presented here; why you would revert this sourced material twice without even answering my question on Talk about the grounds for your objection - well, it doesn't really lend credibility to your intervention here IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about removal from the topic. Stopping the personal attacks and the edit warring against multiple editors is my concern. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads your own recent edit history is quite aggressive:

• June 4: Claiming stable text from a date shortly before a disruptive editor was topic banned did not exist and was WP:FAITACCOMPLI as though this were the status quo is what is WP:GAMING
• June 10: Calling out a single editor by name, in this case Newimpartial in a discussion about suitability of a set of older studies, despite as WhatamIdoing succinctly pointed out such objections on suitability are beyond those of a single editor
• June 10: Slightly later in the same discussion, calling out a single editor by name, in this case again it was Newimpartial, claiming WP:POINTy disruption for removing text that there was consensus to remove, and for which WhatamIdoing was writing up a recommendation to remove
• June 13: Threatening one or more users with a trip to WP:AE

You also have a recent history of edit warring:

• June 1: Removing text, that had previously been stable prior to a disruptive editor's edits, claiming "the distant past does not matter", while picking an arbitrary date in the middle of the disruptive editor's disruption
• June 8: Starting an edit war with aggressive edit summaries against consensus
• June 30: Starting an edit war over a fringe opinion within medical sources, then continuing the edit war while saying "Mind the 3RR." to the editor they are warring against (Newimpartial)

Based on this month alone, I would argue that you have a particularly acrimonious and antagonistic attitude to Newimpartial. As such I'm not really sure you want to be casting any stones here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the same thing. The June 1 and 4 stuff was opposed by multiple editors besides myself and the editor who much later was topic banned for separate edits (and especially because of their behavior at AE). The first June 10 edit was literally a reply to Newimpartial. The second June 10 edit occurred before any consensus for removal existed and is self-explanatory. The June 13 edit was because of an attempt to replace medical secondary source material with primary sources and other editors supported my edit in the history. For the June 8 and 30 edits, what you call me "starting" an edit war is just my first edit in each case. And both times other editors supported those edits, either at the time (for June 30) or later (for June 8, which ended up removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Crossroads. Let's take the June 13 diff as an example [270] - partly because, unlike many of the others, your AE threat wasn't placed directly at me. You are now defending that edit for being because of an attempt to replace medical secondary source material with primary sources and other editors supported my edit in the history. But you don't explain (1) why being "right" about this would make it appropriate for you to threaten other editors with AE; (2) how it could have been "right" of you to reinsert - against WP:ONUS - outdated medical content to which multiple editors had already explicitly objected; or (3) how what you did could have been in any way appropriate, as opposed to the intervention that ended that absurd edit war, which was my removal without replacement of the deprecated content to which you were apparently so attached, followed by the development of new content and discussion on Talk [271] [272] [273]. How you could interpret this as a situation where you were "right" to threaten other editors with AE - rather than a situation where you were wrong to reinsert disputed, discredited content and wrong again to edit-war about it - well, I hadn't previously considered you the creative type; let's put it that way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I was restoring the status quo, and that the material was "outdated" was in no way established at the time I restored it - it was just replacement of secondary sources with primary. Nothing wrong with going to Arbitration Enforcement to perhaps get page restrictions like 1RR in the event of a multi-sided edit war like that was. Even easier if just mentioning it could stop the carnage and prompt discussion instead. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, basically, it was fine for you to restore disputed content, against WP:ONUS, because you agreed with the content? That's an interesting fashion choice for you: sort of a left-side speedo for the dramaboard, and it leaves you looking a bit silly IMO. Multiple editors had in fact pointed out that the text in question defied mainstream MEDRS on the issue, which is why it had been repeatedly removed - your disagreement with those editors didn't give you a mandate to wedge in your preferred version, as you should have known. Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

and the editor who much later was topic banned for separate edits I don't think I would describe the sixteen day period between the version that was unstable because of the disruptive editor (12 December 2021), and when that editor was topic banned (28 December 2021) as much later.

Also while you are somewhat correct in saying that the editor was topic banned due to their commentary at AE, the only reason a request was brought against that editor was because of the disruption earlier in that month. The two are still intrinsically related. The primary issue with the earlier edits not forming a part of the reasoning for the topic ban was because the ds-awareness had expired, however multiple administrators did comment that comments made during the lapse in awareness were problematic and had the awareness not lapsed those would have warranted a topic ban. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The singular "they", is confusing. But, I suppose its usage is here to stay, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oddly I find this confusing. I grew up in a not progressive English speaking country and I've been using singular they as a pronoun for people in general my entire life (and that's from the 1970s.) It's normal English where I come from and not even related to people's pronoun preferences. It's perfectly regular English English for situations where someone's gender is not relevant to the point being made. Difficulty with it seems to be a North American thing. It's been part of regular British English for centuries. Canterbury Tail talk 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as I pointed out on NewImpartial's talk page, it was good enough for Bill Shakespeare. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(e-c)In my experience, there are two, slightly overlapping, categories of editors who "find the singular they confusing": (1) ones who were taught "rules of English" in which "they" only takes plural referents; (2) ones who will go to great lengths to object to the preferred pronouns of nonbinary and genderqueer people (the ones most likely to prefer "they"). I WP:AGF by placing editors in the first category, rather than the second, where the evidence is unclear. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC

Sorry, relevance? I was taught the rules of English and I know fine and well that they can be used singularly and plurally, I do not see how this contributes to the discussion at all & it actually seems to be discriminatory, some people have not received the same level of English education as others but putting that down to WP:CIR is trudging close to WP:BITE, it is possible to let someone know in a friendly, or at least civil way that a word can be used in another way. I'm not one to brag about my own English literacy but unless someone's English is bad to the point where understanding them becomes difficult, there is no grounds for incivility. Like if someone places the odd capital letter in the wrong place or misses a comma, I'm not gonna throw the whole kitchen sink at them, however if there is a prolonged misuse, there's grounds to at least gently question them. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

On the surface, this is a content dispute over pronouns. This is sadly pretty common in trans and non-binary BLP articles, particularly for those who use either they/them or neo-pronouns. Based on reading the discussion at Talk:Demi Lovato#Demi using female pronouns again, Emli89 has explicitly mis-gendered Lovato when saying There is nothing surprising about refering to a woman with 'she/her'. (diff) Based on reliable sources, Lovato is non-binary and does not call themselves a woman at present.

There is also some relevance here when Emli mentions their cultural background. French, as a language, is heavily gendered, and while one dictionary has added a gender-neutral pronoun it has, unsurprisingly become part of the current anti-trans culture war. As such, I sympathise to a degree with the lack of familiarity with singular they due to it not having an accepted French counterpart, however that sympathy ends when it comes to our policies and guidelines which fully support its use in biographies where appropriate. I'd also like to point out that this is the only time that Emli has revealed that they are not a native English speaker. As such any implication about Emli's literacy as a result of this, while unfortunate, is purely unintentional.

Multiple editors at Lovato's talk page have disagreed with Emli's requested change, with many saying that the recent addition of she/her after they/them on Lovato's Instagram profile is a clear indication of preference to use they/them pronouns. I agree with that assessment, as pronoun order in social media bios is pretty frequently done so to indicate order of preference. When contrasted against MOS:GENDERID, I see absolutely no reason to change the state of the article at this time.

While I would not use precisely the same language that Newimpartial has used, I do agree with the broader points they have raised. As a frequent contributor in the GENSEX content area, I do find it to be a fairly extraordinary claim that many of our biographies on trans and non-binary individuals are as Emli asserts misusing pronouns (diff). Changing that practice would require a substantial discussion and RfC on amending MOS:GENDERID, as well as substantive and weighty evidence to assert that singular they pronouns should not be used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sideswiped. I would like to make some things clear first. I am NOT in any kind of anti-trans culture war. PLease do not accuse me of such. As for my use of the word 'woman', I did use it reflexively , it was unintentional. It is true that Demi does not view herself as such, but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. So while I might have mispoken, accusing me of mis-gendering people is a bit far-fetched. I am careful with words, but will be even more so going forward.

Second, I do not disagree with the use of singular they, I disagree with abusing it. Singular they is used when the person is essentially unkown. For example: I wonder who stole my identity, they emptied my bank account... But in this case, we know clearly who we are talking about : Demi. Using singular they again and again where unnecessary is adding confusion. That was my point.

Now, I understand that a lot of editors do not find the current wording confusing, and that I accept. I can agree to disagree with y'all ;).

I am not here to make war, but I will absolutely not stand by when my literacy is, very intentionnally , being insulted. Newimpartial was very clear in his wording, and his attack against my english competency was very much a directed personnal attack. It had nothing 'nonintentional'. Just like people saying mother*ucker without knowing anything about the other person's mother still being an insult.

While I simply meant to increase conciseness and clarity, I understand that other editors do not wish to proceed as it would be too much work and time on their part.

I look forward to the discussions you have mentionned in order to change the current practice, in an effort to make writing more concise and clear. If you have the link, I would like to read those!

Lastly, thanks Sideswiped for the links you added to my page ! Much appreciated :D. Emli89 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. I can see why you are having trouble with singular they. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am NOT in any kind of anti-trans culture war. PLease do not accuse me of such. I did not accuse you of such. I made a remark on the culture war in relation to the French language, not to you as an editor.

but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes You might want to look again at the WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions, because that statement of biological essentialism is very problematic in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You may have hit the crux of the problem surrounding the gender-pronoun topic. It's not so much what goes in or is taken out of a page, that's a source of frustration. But rather, it's the restrictions on the talkpage discussions, that creates friction. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Misgendering BLP subjects (and editors) on Talk pages would create friction even if there were no restrictions against it. Indeed, I dare say that if there were no restrictions, there would be more friction than presently. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: You might want to look again at the WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions.

I did say I would be more careful going forward. I'm not sure if you are threatening me with sanctions, but it is unnecessary. I simply meant to say that , it is not semantically wrong to say that a biological woman has XX chromosomes. It does not change how she, or they, perceive themselves. It is also not meant as an insult, it is merely a biological fact. My statement had nothing to do with Demi's identity, it came from a place of science only. My original phrasing should have specified as such, it is my omission. Emli89 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would never intentionnally make personnal attacks. I will, however, continue to point out the limits of people's linguistic competence when that affects the arguments they make about what Wikipedia article text should be.

Re: but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes - there really ought to be a rule against ungrounded speculation about the chromosome complement of BLP subjects. Like a rule against "OR" where the "research" is really just semi-educated guessing, right? We don't have a policy covering that, do we? Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But you DID make a personal attack ? My 'literacy' has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. There is a way you can explain your point without resorting to insults. Denying it is even more disgusting.

Re:Re: but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes - there really ought to be a rule against ungrounded speculation about the chromosome complement of BLP subjects.

Oh my. How is that speculation? If you really think so, perhaps you should revise you biology classes... Here is an article you can use to educate yourself on basic biology. I want to bring your attention on the definitions of sex chromosomes: Females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.

This should have never become the point of an argument. You are still very much deflecting every single issue. From the beginning we have only being discussing 1. your personnal attack on my 'literacy' and 2. the excessive use of neutral pronouns, making it confusing on whether it is plural or singular in a lot of paragraphs. We have already come to a conclusion on point 2. , as a majority of editors have agreed that it would be too time-consuming to modify the article. Please stop deflecting, a simple apology will bring this conversation to a stop. Emli89 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my. How is that speculation? Are you aware of any reliable sources that state that Lovato has had a karyotype and has discussed the results of it? If not, then it is entirely speculation as to what their genetic makeup is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Emli89, okay, is your issue with the use of the singular they in Demi's article with readability? Because this talk of DNA and chromosomes gives the impression that your real worries lie within your personal beliefs and not with improving the article. --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have said, I only want to discuss 2 issues :

1. your personnal attack on my 'literacy' and

2. the excessive use of neutral pronouns, making it confusing on whether it is plural or singular in a lot of paragraphs.

I already said I do not wish to discuss those side topics that have absolutely nothing to do with anything. But somehow, @Newimpartial keeps bringing up new issues...

I only want an apology from @Newimpartial, as the second topic has been closed already. Emli89 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

correction : 1. your @Newimpartial 's personnal attack on my 'literacy' Emli89 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you want that, I guess, but please review WP:BOOMERANG. I would like to see an apology to you, but I confess I am rather more troubled by your apparent approach here. Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean troubled ? I read the boomerang article, but I believe I did everything neutrally. I did not want want those side issues to pop up, but they did and I will not shy away from them. Just like your link says , i was ' up front concerning any of your actions that might have contributed to the problem'. I explained my reasoning, and apologized for the bad wording I unintentionnally wrote. Everything I did was in the spirit of cooperation, and I have no qualms amdmitting my wrong. I do not believe I have 'shot myself in the foot'. Emli89 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Emli89, if you believe that females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y chromosome is a generalization that applies to all individuals, so that you can reason inductively from their assigned sex to their complement of chromosomes, then (1) please don't edit articles on human biology and (2) perhaps you should revise you biology classes. I haven't insulted you once in our interaction - my statement that you are using your own, apparently limited, literacy in 21st-century English as a basis to argue that the singular they is confusing and should be avoided is an observation, not a personal attack, and doesn't come close to your comments that I should revise (my) biology classes, or your repeated insistence that I am insulting you or engaging in personal attacks, for which the only evidence is that you feel insulted.

I don't want to involve WP:CIR, but to be clear, I did not make the ad hominem argument you are attributing to me, that because you are apparently an ESL speaker, that your argument should be dismissed. Rather, I noted that an argument where the examples you use were only confusing to you because of limited language competency, and would not be confusing to a competent speaker of 21st-century English (a minor premise that many other editors have subsequently confirmed), therefore your argument should be set aside. That isn't an ad hominem or an insult - some of my best friends and most respected colleagues have been francophone - it is a policy-compliant argument about how to edit article text.

Your decision to make a dramaboard issue out of this tells me two things: (1) you badly misinterpreted my argument and (2) your feelings were badly hurt. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean either that you understood me correctly or that your views on English pronouns and gender (or biology for that matter) ought to be taken into account in editing Demi Lovato. Newimpartial (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, does every single BLP need to have a karyogram so that we can ascertain assigned sex at birth and rule out other associated syndromes such as Klinefelter's syndrome? If they do not exhibit signs of aneuploidy it's wholly silly to propose that... There does not need to be a policy either. You haven't explained to him why two X chromosomes and one X & Y chromosome is a generalisation (it is), it's because conditions such as trisomy X exist, you should at least try to explain to them why. We do NOT need a policy on this... unless there is suspection of aneuploidy I see it wholly unnecessary to have an idiogram in someone's article... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this entire thread can be closed, as Emlie89 is no longer interested & has walked away from it. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering they decided to open this thread on ANI to call out another editor instead of talking directly to them first, then called some of the editors in this thread (particularly Newimpartial) ignorant of basic knowledge of Biology, and when things were clearly not going how they expected they bailed, I'd recommend either a very strong warning against further disruption, or a topic ban from Gender and Sexuality. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato I have not bailed. One editor kindly asked me to close the thread, another not so kindly. I have respected their wish. I'm genuinely confused if you want me to continue with this thread or not ?

If you want to give me a very strong warning based on what I said, please do so impartially and also give a warning to NewImpartial. Emli89 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've logged a WP:GENSEX warning to you, Emli89 (AEL diff) against engaging in tendentious prounoun-driven arguments. Please tread lightly. Anyway, as far as I understand it, she or he can also be confusing sometimes, when it's difficult to tell which person is being referenced (thus, you use that person's name in that instance). That problem, then, isn't unique to singular they. While, granted, singular they can sometime bring the added confusion of plural/singular, it's still quite manageable. And the pronoun choices of BLPs should generally be respected. Also, Crossroads, you know, you don't have to show up every time Newimpartial is mentioned (to the best of my observation, they are not doing the same to you). Oh, and I see that GoodDay is still going on about how much they dislike singular they — gotta play the hits, I suppose. El_C 03:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For months I've been dying to use the new shortcut WP:VEXBYSTERANG. If Crossroads keeps it up I may get my chance. EEng 05:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw that today when I linked to Boomerang, and I suspected the hand of EEng must be involved.... Dumuzid (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The credit goes entirely to JG66 [274]. EEng 05:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't normally. This time, though, based on what I had just been dealing with, I did. Nevertheless, OP (Emli89) did later on get more tendentious in starting arguments about chromosomes and such, so I'm not defending that. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Damn, I missed that (chromosomes, a place of science, etc.). My reading comprehension is... not great. Probably should have banned. Oh well. El_C 03:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 142.192.224.129 for one week — what is going on there? El_C 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you can't revisit the logged warning and replace it with a ban? If you think think the commentary you've read or re-read after is worthy of it, it seems strange to me that you can't reconsider the action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nah, someone else can do it (I have zero objections). I don't want to deal with a lengthy appeal over this, seeing as they've not edited the topic area much, plus my aforementioned logged warning. Obviously, if further problems arise, then that'd be a different story. El_C 23:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend (again), this thread be closed. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend you go do something else. Your comments on this matter on various pages are skirting the line. This is a formal warning alebit un-logged. El_C 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Question: Off-wiki behavior

Asking generically, if I were to search a user's name and find that they have a web presence demonstrating bigoted opinions that appear to be reflected in their problematic on-Wiki behavior, is that something that can or should be mentioned on forums addressing said user's problematic behavior? (Not this extreme, but Tyciol would be an example of someone whose off-wiki behavior was reprehensible and was related to his problematic on-wiki behavior). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I would email arbcom so there's no risk of outing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruption and Edit warring by new account

New account Agney Mendon has been disrupting article Kundapur, removing citations [275], [276] and information supported by them. Even after warning on user's talk page [277], continued to remove citations and information on the article and replacing them with unsourced, and poor writeup, further committing edit warring. [278], [279], [280], [281], [282]. An administrative action needs to he taken to stop disruption by this user. MehmoodS (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS In the future, please report edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, or general disruption to WP:AIV.331dot (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the report, MehmoodS. It's not easy to find one's way around Wikipedia's noticeboards. I have blocked Agney Mendon indefinitely from Kundapur, and pointed out that they can still edit the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC).

Odd Behavior and possibly impersonating

Banglahindu account was created on 15:04, 13 June 2022 [283], but the user claims that he is back after many years. [284]. 

Odd Behavior 1 - On talk page of article Shivaji, Bangahindu replies to a user with these comments [285] on 00:33, 1 July 2022. The comment is copied from what I replied to another user on 18:13, 10 June 2022 [286]. Why copy? Possibly impersonating?

Odd Behavior 2 - Banglahindu sent a note about unconstructive editing to IP 122.163.186.131 on 03:46, 1 July 2022 [287] for article Battle of Purandar. What is odd here is that, this IP made the last edit on 19:54, 3 June 2022 [288] which I reverted on 19:56, 3 June 2022 [289] and since then other editors have made changes to the article but Banglahindu specifically uses this IP 122.163.186.131 to send a note. Why? Banglahindu himself just joined WP on 13 June. So what is he trying to portray here?

Odd Behavior 3 - Possibly following my edits as user Banglahindu made edits to articles that I recently made updates to such as Keshav Sthapit, Sikhism, Battle of Bhangani.

Little while back, one of the blocked user rejoined WP with a user name similar to mine, causing disruption and even going as far as directing their user page to mine. User was blocked for impersonation [290]. So I want to make sure this isn't a same situation. Maybe I am over thinking but what do you think from these behaviors? Or maybe Banglahindu can explain his actions. MehmoodS (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• As expected, Banglahindu has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet account of Nenetarun [291].MehmoodS (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

MicoKovalevski part 2

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

I'm surprised nothing was done in the previous report [292]. Now this user has made another attack towards me: "From your username it is easily understandible that you are Iranian nationalist. Because of you, wikipedia is not the trusted source". They are obviously WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Juice3kh

Juice3kh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This users talk page is filled with warnings, and loads of his edits have been reverted. They also seem to have anti-Shia and pro-Sunni motives, as seen in the last 3 diffs out of the 4 disruptive diffs.

4 January 2022 Removed sourced mention of the bolded bit; "A large number of Zoroastrians converted to Islam to avoid discrimination and the effects of second-class citizenship in in the caliphates."

8 April 2022 Removed sourced information that mentions that Al-Nawbakhti explained and defended the Occultation against Shia doubters

14 June 2022 Removed sourced information that suggested that the "Sunni Revival may have resulted in the decline of scientific output in the Islamic world"

30 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Shia"

And last but not least, some typical WP:NPA remarks;

"By the looks of it, it seems like you are an extreme Iranian nationalist trying to hide history."

"The sources literally states what I wrote. Can you not read?"

"If anything it seems you are the biased one?"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Technoblade severe image vandalism

Multiple users are spamming penises and goatse images on the Technoblade article which is currently very high traffic due to recent death. ECP needed urgently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This has now been implemented, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Bunch of ancient accounts there messing around, obviously compromised. Widr (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

6 reverts, all separate edits

I have spent a lot of time and effort improving a page over three days and essentially all of it has been reverted by User:SPECIFICO. This occurred at Trump Tower wiretapping allegations which is admittedly a touchy article but I have shown much willingness to discuss any issues on the talk page in order to get consensus. User:SPECIFICO, on the other hand, has been very unresponsive on the talk page, only posting twice asking what I'm "trying to achieve"? I'm trying to improve the page, which would seem to go without saying. This has occurred by the same user on the same page in 2017. And while those two users have seemed to mend bridges, the repeated occurrences are concerning and frustrating to relatively new users as myself. As far as I am aware, we should "revert only when necessary" (WP:BADREVERT) and prioritize making further edits to the page. The reverts in question are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'm not saying all of my edits need to stay. Fully admit that they were WP:BOLD. But reverts then not trying to resolve them is unsustainable. Nweil (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI should just ignore the first two diffs (identified in the OP as revert 1 and 2), made prior to Nwel's comment of 18:12 UTC June 29 2022, because at the article talk, this user got feedback from a third party (User:TheTimesAreAChanging) and agreed to re-submit their desired changes taking the third-party's input into account.[293]. Until this report I did not know that article existed, and I have not yet looked at the other four diffs, but the first two (at least) should be considered moot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO routinely removes negative information about centrist Dems and adds supporting material, while doing the opposite for their opponents, regardless of policy. Recently, he is asking editors to read a book by someone who has been noted for Islamophobia and fake news on the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch site.[294] TFD (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You could be right, but that DIFF does not demonstrate what you claim. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It does. The editor is willing to recommend a book, even though he knows it is not reliable. TFD (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I also recommend editors watch Fox News, NewsMax, etc. I don't recommend they cite them as sources for article text. But since the subject's come up, I would say Bolton is more credible than the Intercept on some things, not on others. Go figure. Please don't misgender me. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Casting of ass

Persians

Been a while since I trotted this one out -EEng
...... shouldn't this just be a single pic of cat asses? -NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
Would you settle for a cat-ass-trophy [295]? -EEng

You'll need to provide more diffs and explain how they establish your claim, because the diff you gave merely has the editor saying "deny" via wikilink to WP:DENY. I have an open mind, even when my friends screw up, but I have no idea what aspersion you are trying to cast, much less the evidence on which it is based. Feel free to explain.... but please assume I'm stupid and walk me through it point by point. No hurry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's original comment was, "You might look in some of the books that were published in the second half of his presidency -- by Phil Rucker, Woodward, Mary Pence, John Bolton, and others."[296]

This was in reply to, "You mentioned the idea of writing "a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters ... without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time." Do you have any suggestions on what that might look like and what sources we could use? That sounds much more encyclopedic than just cherrypicking several things he has said."[297]

So it seems that SPECIFICO has no concern about the veracity of sources, just what they say. They ask us to accept sources provided they support their political view, which happens to align closely with the Democratic Party establishment. Hence the comment, "I would say Bolton is more credible than the Intercept on some things." Hence they reject the assessment of the Intercept as generally reliable at perennial sources, and reject their statement that Bolton's Gatestone Institute, which routinely published false stories and conspiracy theories about Muslims, is a "fake news" site. Furthermore, it does not affect them that the SPLC specifically lists their article on a page they devote to what they interpret as Islamophobia and hate speech by Bolton.

SPECIFICO, your user page says, "This user prefers to be referred to by whatever gender pronoun makes you feel comfortable." When you post that and complain about misgendering, it seems that you are merely trying to score points. TFD (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A good reason to suggest anyone read anything is (A) to learn what it says and (B) think critically about it. If you didn't like Specifico's reading suggestions, where exactly did you calmly suggest others? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I really can't imagine editing American politics articles without reading the works by and about its major figures. That was how I learned that Bolton is not part of the "Democratic Party establishment" SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would not suggest that someone use a book, written by someone accused in reliable sources as heading a fake news website, as a source for any article.

I also know that Bolton is not a Democrat, which is clear from his positions on Islam and many other topics. SPECIFICO is also aware of that, but suggests we read him because of his claims against Trump. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the saying goes. But that does not justify using unreliable sources.

I have not read anything by Bolton, precisely because I have no confidence in his writing. However, I have seen him many times on television, beginning with his false claims about Iraq in the run up to the invasion.

TFD (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to make very broad inferences from very little data. This is rarely a good idea. Especially when there's little feedback that could correct a 49% error rate. The milennials would say you are Fooled by Randomness. I haven't read it, however, because some of what he said on TV is incorrect. This is not really the proper venue for your comments, so feel free to try your luck in user space. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Another CIR/IDHT editor - AmericanEditor350

While I do think this editor means well, their edits are ultimately disruptive and, well, pointless for lack of a better word and they seem to be unwilling to listen to reasoning from multiple experienced editors (Theroadislong, Curbon7, Rubbish computer, Velella etc...) They have created a handful of articles about x people in y place that are poorly sourced, unsourced or otherwise just a single factoid that can easily be covered in Immigration to/of XYZ country, if at all. Not to mention, in many cases, their content is outright incorrect, where they've done terrible original research and cited numbers that simply don't exist. I have repeatedly asked them to stop creating these, as have others and all of them are currently at AFD, overwhelmingly slated for deletion and other users make a relevant point, this opens up a precedent for silly things like Minnesotans in Iowa, etc...

• Malians in Sweden
• Kenyans in Norway
• Cameroonians in Norway
• Senegalese people in Norway
• Zimbabweans in Italy
• Sierra Leoneans in Italy
• Cameroonians in Italy
• Senegalese people in Sweden
• Guineans in Italy
• Beninese people in Italy
• Guineans in Sweden
• Kenyans in Italy
• (This isn't including any in draft space)

So here I am, after discussing with the user followed by their complete lack of understanding of norms here asking for a p-block from mainspace or an editing restriction prohibiting them from editing or creating such articles as they cannot be trusted to do so within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and are at best misrepresenting what sources actually say, if they exist at all.

I also recognize that I haven't been quite as diplomatic as the other editors who've tried to help them but it doesn't appear sugar coating things, breaking them down or being direct gets through. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As an example of some poorly sourced crufty factoids: According to the 2016 census, there are 7,240 Guineans who live in Canada. 3,785 of those people are men, while 3,455 of them are women. Most Guineans are Muslim. Most Guineans in Canada live in Quebec (5,255) and Ontario (1,105). which I can't for the life of me figure out what it's supposed to be sourced to. from this PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I got the population information off of some website. And I know that Most of Guinea’s population is Muslim, so it would make sense to write that Most Guineans are Muslim AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't even begin to address the substance or merits of my complaint, like the rest of your "explanations." PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Warned. AmericanEditor350, attributing your claim to some website (sounds mysterious!) is basically meaningless. You need to adhere to the reliable soruces guideline (WP:RS), an essential pillar of the verifiability policy (WP:V), as well as avoid doing your own original research (WP:OR) or otherwise synthesis (WP:SYNTH). Thank you. El_C 17:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this user would benefit greatly from a WP:Mentorship. Curbon7 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree given their inclination to ignore all other advice and do as they please anyway. They can have a mentorship simultaneously with a ban from mainpace/article creation of this nature. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone else may remember this, but I'm pretty sure we've had an editor previously who has created lots of articles like this. My memory isn't good enough to remember who, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A few days ago I found a similar created article that was g5'd, but I can't remember what it was and I remember digging into a comparison and it didn't connect (as in, the dots didn't connect between the two accounts for me to pursue an SPI)

With that being said, there are many AFDs that have been used in the past to delete nearly identical articles, so there's a precedent already. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes @Black Kite this was the relevant article that was deleted by way of AFD precedent, which I should have just used to tag the rest instead of wasting all of our time at AFD. And this one which you closed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Prax! Your suggestion is music to my ears! Atsme 💬 📧 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

hey, I mean if you wanna tag 'em... PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do need some mentorship, honestly. Am I am absolutely truly sorry if I have been disrupting Wikipedia. I should have token the advice. I do need some help creating articles. I never wanted to disrupt Wikipedia at all, or violate any guidelines. User:Praxidicae, User:Curbon7, User:Theroadislong, User:Rubbish computer, User:Velella, I just want to apologize to you all for not taking advice in the first place. I got all of this information off of websites that mention Statistics, such as Statistics Sweden, Statistics Norway, ISTAT, etc. I came here to Wikipedia with the intent to edit and create pages on diasporas. I never wanted to violate any Wikipedia guidelines, ever. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As Praxidicae says, and as I have noted on AE350's user talk page, most of the information they added to the articles they created can not be found in the websites they used as sources – it's original research at best, and partially incorrect or misleading guesswork. Unfortunately, after their 24-h block expired, AE350 immediately made new disruptive unsourced edits of the same kind, [298][299]. I support a p-block from mainspace to limit the time sink for other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi AmericanEditor350, my offer for mentorship still stands. I would take a break from creating new articles for the time being, as a start. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And I’ll be taking a break from creating articles for the time being. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AmericanEditor350, please stop spamming user talk pages with the same question, as you've done here, here, here and elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a social media site. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry don't forget this, this and this among others. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not spamming. I'm only asking that question once, and that's it. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What relevance does this line of questioning have to editing an encyclopedia? Do you plan to use their answers as sources? PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No. I’m just asking these questions out of curiosity, Praxidicae. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a misuse of user talk pages and is unwelcomed. Listen, AmericanEditor350, not to be harsh, but if you can't focus on what this project is about—writing an encyclopedia (WP:ENC)—then maybe it'd be best that you find another avenues for this sort of thing, like a message board, a blog, and so on. El_C 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I won’t ask these question on User pages again. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• And in case we needed more evidence that AE350's word cannot be trusted, they've continued to undo constructive edits after adequate explanation as to why.[300][301] PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours: User_talk:AmericanEditor350#Block. El_C 01:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

is this just a temp measure based on the edit warring or as the outcome here? PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 01:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C: ah, understood. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 05:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible COI on Marlo Anderson

I have a suspicion that User:SommerLarson, who included this in their user page (note the use of "National Day Calendar") may be close to the subject of the article Marlo Anderson, perhaps wp:COI editing. (Please also note Marlo Anderson is the founder of National Day Calendar.) Nythar (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

They also uploaded the image used in the article as their own work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious COI...WHEW that article is a hot freakin mess. And I quote: During this time, the two were curious about what was going to happen with all the memories on video tapes PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at how many edits were done by UPE sockpuppets and other now-blocked UPEs. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing IP

I have edited the pages Tunisian people and Tunisian Arabic to add sources to the unsourced areas, however the IP address 2603:7080:301:A358:8580:23C0:B5B9:90EC/2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F kept reverting my edits without explaining and deleting the sources I added. The IP even accused me of making political edits and an ideological stance in the edit summaries. I also warned the IP on their talk page to stop edit warring [302] but they ignored it and broke the three-revert rule on both pages. Reporting this situation to the edit warring noticeboard only led to one of those pages getting semi-protected, ignoring the addition of my sourced edits. 86.129.184.51 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP. You made changes that were reverted, what you should have done at that point is try to get the other IP to discuss the changes on the articles ntalk page (per WP:BRD). You have instead edit warred to get the changes to stick, the other IP is equally guilty of edit warring the other way. Tunisian Arabic has now been locked due to this, and neither of you will be able to edit it for awhile. The same will likely happen to Tunisian people if you continue. I suggest taking the time to start a conversation on the articles talk pages, try to find out why you were reverted and if you can persuade the other IP that you changes are right. Hopefully the two of you can come to a compromise. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Certainly

Absolutely Certainly (talk · contribs · count) Not here. POV pushing. Seems trollish. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor seems to be on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about the Bible being a made up story, when the article he's focused on (Ark of the Covenant) does not present the Bible as factual, it only cites references of the Ark of the Covenant in the Bible. He's taken offense to the fact that the article cites the Bible as a source for things contained within the Bible, and also does not seem to understand that we can say "The Bible says X" in an article and it's a perfectly valid factual statement. Despite his insistence on the use of logic, he doesn't seem to be willing to accept that logic. He's also developing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and trying to play "debate me" about things that have nothing to do with the content being disputed.- Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

A crusade. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If not trolling, certainly not understanding the purpose of talk page discussions mixed with a bit of WP:CIR in regards to communication. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I was hesitant to invoke WP:CIR but it certainly does seem like either that or just willful stubbornness/ignorance. - Aoidh (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Cullen328 blocked them for 30 days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the thanks links on the block logs? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen a thank link for that. I'll thank on the block notice on the talk page, but only for obvious vandals. I personal feel it's in bad taste to thank for a block unless the editor was acting in unambiguous bad faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Only in bad taste to post a thanx publicly, hence the thank link. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked Absolutely Certainly for a month but that does not mean that I believe that the Ark of the Covenant actually existed. I do not know one way or another, but I do know tendentious editing when I see it. Even the username is an indication of a dogmatic approach that may well be incompatible with a collabortative editing project. Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I came here. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It definitely exists, I saw it in a documentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As have I, featuring noted expert Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.! Dumuzid (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please, not the place for this discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it belongs in a museum. - Aoidh (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Munir1999 not responding to copyvio warnings

• Munir1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Every contribution from Munir1999, who has stated on their user page that they are editing for a class, has been a substantial addition of a copyright violation to the lead of a relatively high-profile article. They were warned about copyright violations on their talk page on May 17, then again on May 28, then by me on June 3, and then another time by an administrator on June 5, but have not acknowledged any of these messages. I suspect they are in the same class as Hajar2022 (see my report above), but anyway, I am reporting here because they just added copyvio to another four articles today. DanCherek (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek I've revision deleted the recent copyright violations. I'm going to wait to see if they respond in any way, but will block if they do not. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

GregKaye on Amber Heard/Heard v. Depp

GregKaye has a history of problematic editing with WP:BLP implications relating to Amber Heard and the Depp v. Heard trial. Among many other examples:

• 1. GregKaye wrote a lengthy post on Talk:Amber Heard entitled "How to really help Amber," in which he opined: "Cards on the table, I think Amber ~needs or could gain advantage from some level of psychological help. Sure, I know it's not Wikipedia's role to be greatly involved but, for the sake of background understandings, I thought it might be worth giving a potential prompt to people's thoughts on the subject. From what I've seen she is in denial and that's just for starters. She gathers people around her that agree with her and then her friends still leave her. Personally I think that the only way a person like this may actually seek or at least be open to help is if people, at any closeness of connection to her, are open that there at least might be issue/s. [...]"
• 2. GregKaye edited the Depp v. Heard article to read "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK," though the sources cited in his edit clearly said the opposite: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."; "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct."; "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case: The actor had lost a similar libel suit in the U.K. against the tabloid The Sun in 2020."
• 3. GregKaye added thousands of bytes of unnecessary, salacious information to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, including a (lengthy) verbatim text exchange in which Johnny Depp disparaged Heard as a "50 cent stripper" who was "begging for total global humiliation," with no secondary sources. After these additions were challenged, GregKaye conceded that "I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies."
• 4. GregKaye falsely accused journalist Fran Hoepfner of lying (specifically referring to "commentary by Fran Hoepfner, a writer whose content is proven falacious (sic)"), all because he did not understand the difference between live chat and the YouTube comments section; he struck a small portion of his post after his error was pointed out, but even this was not the end to the saga (see bullet point six, below).
• 5. GregKaye diluted the findings of reputable fact-checkers PolitiFact and Snopes to the effect that Heard did not recite movie quotes or use cocaine during her sworn testimony with absurdly detailed in-text attribution (e.g., "Dan Evon from Snopes is among journalists with views such that"; "Nur Ibrahim of Snoops (sic) is one of several journalists observing"). Furthermore, he changed the article text to read that the former accusation was "implausible" but not necessarily "false" or "disproven," contradicting the sources (see, e.g., PolitiFact's "False" rating). On the talk page, he explained that he did this because he saw a YouTube video with 8,000 views titled "Amber Heard mimicking Rihanna," which he found to be credible, and which informed his view that "Wikipedia should certainly be wary against implying ... Heard did or didn't borrow from Rihanna's account of abuse survival." Moreover, he reiterated that his edits (and his talk page suggestion regarding Heard's testimony being likely "borrow(ed) from Rihanna") are based on things that he "heard of ... on social media."
• 6. Additionally, while GregKaye is usually careful to adhere to expected norms of civility and (as seen in some of the examples above) to at least partially walk-back especially controversial actions/statements when confronted, this veneer of civility falls apart on occasion. His edit summaries, even for copyedits and minor wording tweaks, routinely claim to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors (e.g., [303]). At one point, he appeared to suffer a breakdown and left the following edit summary: "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" On a related note, a few days after rescinding his accusation that Hoepfner's article "is proven falacious (sic)," GregKaye again referred to it as "provably fallacious nonsense," with no new evidence.
• 7. GregKaye's conduct has been a matter of acute concern to several editors active in the topic area, among them Gtoffoletto (e.g., [304]; [305]) and TrueHeartSusie3, who stopped editing the article in large part because of his behavior.

To be honest, I considered filing a report after just the first two examples, but instead I attempted to engage with GregKaye in good faith, reasoning that since he has the capacity for civility, it was possible to conclude that his desire to build a clean, well-written, and properly-formatted article would ultimately override his admittedly quite strong personal bias. Nevertheless, he has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and continues to prove me wrong; frankly, he does not seem to have the competence to sharply distinguish between his personal views, things that he saw on social media, and coverage in reliable sources. I am asking that GregKaye be topic banned from anything related to Amber Heard, broadly construed, to prevent further disruption and draining of volunteer resources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light.
  • For #2, this diff, made around the same time, proves that Greg changed the lede to reflect content he just added in the body. [306] Unfortunately, he didn’t change the lede’s references, and the new lede content contradicted the lede’s old references. starship.paint (exalt) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see that any of the sources cited in that edit directly substantiate (or even relate to) GregKaye's statement (in wikivoice, and in the lede) that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." (To the contrary, as documented above, the preponderance of RS actually say the opposite.) At the very best, your defense means that GregKaye's edit constituted WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but perhaps not deliberate source falsification. Either way, the conduct is concerning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I did say before on the talk page that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below. starship.paint (exalt)

quotes from sources inside - starship.paint (exalt)

WaPo - The outcome of the Johnny Depp defamation trial turned a bit of celebrity jurisprudence on its head — the long-standing conventional wisdom that it’s easier for a VIP to prevail with a libel claim in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The reason, according to legal experts, may simply boil down to the fact that Depp’s action in the U.K. — which he lost — happened to be decided by a judge, whereas his case in the United States was decided by a jury. [...] Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer ... Even though the Virginia case had a much higher standard to cross for Depp’s team, “that didn’t impact the outcome because essentially what you have got is a jury believing evidence that a British judge did not accept, so that’s where the difference lies here. Unusually, not in the different legal frameworks.”

Insider - Almost certainly the most significant difference between the two trials was who got to choose the winner. [...] While we can't know the details of what the jurors thought, Insider's Ashley Collman spoke with legal experts who said Heard failed to get the jury to believe her and that Depp's team successfully undermined her. Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said Heard appeared to be caught in a lie several times, such as when she described her interactions with the media. Rahmani also gave a lot of credit to Depp's personality in the trial: "The jurors loved him. The public loved him. Everyone on social media loved him." Depp's charisma likely had less influence on a professional judge like Nichol.

iNews But instead of shopping for a court in the UK, where defamation laws favour the plaintiff – the person bringing the case -he went shopping for something else: a jury that he could convince. That’s the key difference between the US and UK, and why Depp won his case.

Rather than a judge in Britain looking at the facts, the case went before a jury of seven people from Fairfax, Virginia – a location that wasn’t chosen by chance. Depp likely sued Heard over her Washington Post op-ed from 2018 in Virginia, where the newspaper’s servers are, because at the time it had weak protections against defamation lawsuits, known as anti-SLAPP.

Depp didn’t sue The Washington Post either, he sued Heard directly. Not that her legal team were shabby, but it would have been a very different story taking on the full force of a national newspaper and the deep pockets of its owner, Jeff Bezos ...

Another big difference between the UK and the US trial was that Depp was able to call various experts to bolster his case ...

It also meant the jury heard another key piece of evidence that was not aired in the UK – from two police officers who attended the scene in May 2016 after Heard claimed that Depp threw a phone at her ...

At the start of the trial Depp’s team briefed reporters that the part they were most relishing was that Depp would be able to tell his story more fully than in the UK. Rather than being asked pointed questions and giving limited answers, he could speak expansively about what effect this had on his life.

• • For #4 Greg’s assertion of content fallacious is not necessarily asserting “lying”, could be asserting a mistake. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #5, actually the original Wikipedia text (Widely-shared falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts … were disproven) could be interpreted as inaccurate, that’s why Greg made the change. Both Snopes and Politifact addressed that it was false that Heard quoted one specific film (Mr Ripley). However, Snopes also discussed different allegations that Heard quoted other films than Ripley, and Snopes stated that some social media users expanded the allegation to include lines from other movies as well … We reviewed several of these rumors and found the claim that Heard was “stealing” movie lines implausible. That’s where Greg got “implausible” from. Yet, Greg wrote the claim Heard stole movie lines, such as from the talented Mr Ripley, was implausible - which is itself inaccurate, and perhaps that is why TheTimesAreAChanging protested. This would be accurate: the claim Heard stole movie lines ... was implausible, but clearly the articles said that the Ripley allegation was false. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #7, that diff [307] you provided of TrueHeartSusie3 is quite offensive and incivil, Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids here, esp with @GregKaye,@Rusentaja, @PizzaMan and @HurricaneHiggins […] please don’t burn yourself out in the process of trying to reason with MRAs and conspiracy theorists. Further context, TrueHeartSusie3 isn't afraid to show her POV on the matter on her user page [308] - lauding an excellently written summary [309] which had the sub-headline How a washed-up movie star, men’s rights activists, and true-crime fans duped America. starship.paint (exalt)

Response:

• I am an editor that puts cards on the table, I go by my own name without embellishment and what you see is what you get. Outside of Wikipedia one of my first reactions was to challenge harsh contents against Amber Heard on social media in fear that she might suffer a similar fate as Caroline Flack who also publicly faced accusations of domestic abuse. TheTimesAreAChanging is adept in not providing fair diffs on issues, which I give here:[310] I don't want to justify that post but it finished: Example text My thought was that content might have been removed with a bias based on views on what might be best for Amber and I rashly flagged up what I thought was an opposing view. I don't keep track of all talk page additions but it's been pointed out that editors can have opinions and still edit according to WP:NPOV which is something I fight for.
• As previously explained. "... I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article.[311] It was in those same four consecutive edits I also made a mistake by, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link, "US and the UK", directly into wording "US than the UK" on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form: "[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]". In my four edits, I'd amended the total wording from:
     "Many legal experts had doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK."
  to read:
     "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better [[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]", while also adding the freedom of speech material into the Differences between the..trials section.
  I was late in addressing this particular but this was in context of TheTimesAreAChanging failure to provide a contextualised diff in an intro of the previous related thread and I was busy addressing the other bullet point issues presented (which were largely shown to be my corrections of previous POV bias in article content). I previously spoke[312] of going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" in a discussion on "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" These accusations perpetuate and still, as noted by the editor above, regarding "incidents [that] have been misrepresented".
• Yup, I admit when I'm wrong. That particular edit, if anything, made Depp look bad. It's hardly an indication of POV. The whole thing might have been sorted out a lot sooner if editors had pinged me to discussion instead of just talking about what I was trying to do. I suspect that this was part of an early attempt at WP:ROPE When finally getting notification, which came among TheTimesAreAChanging's other accusations, I added an edit[313] to the relevant page to give indication that I was "making some checks on the approach taken" which I did with appreciated response on the WikiProject Law talk page.
• Issues related to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker are discussed here
• The Wikipedia content presented had stated "falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts ... were disproven." As indicated in the discussion[314], confirming that statement would take WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL mindreading. The way editors had presented the issue was as opinion and I mistakenly evoked those related rules. I made an edit with clear edit summary. It was reverted and we've now moved on to a more encyclopaedic solution.
• I've encountered lots of misleading content such as the above and worse. Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply.
  Again, in relation to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker, all this was covered here. In my reply I said, "(Also, following WikiVirusC's helpful comment, and as much as anything for my own peace of mind, I downloaded 33070 chats via the Save Live Streaming Chats for YouTube app from the chrome store and found one reference to "is cooked" and one for "is a cooked" with no other cooked references. I found 31 "I love you" references but with a significant proportion about "Issac")." I'm happy for my workings to be checked. Wikipedia certainly should research ensure that article contents are WP:NOTFALSE.
• Pinging select editors who have supported your views is not appreciated. Gtoffoletto harasses me pointedly and relentlessly as can be seen through talk pages as in example here.

The sheer level of spin in all the issues presented above displays clear POV bias and, if anything, it should be TheTimesAreAChanging facing the topic ban. GregKaye 07:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that TheTimesAreAChanging needs a topic ban. I assume good faith and think that TheTimesAreAChanging needs to describe issues more accurately. I wouldn't say the above by Gtoffoletto is harassment either. I just feel that there doesn't need to be a war here between any editors of this topic. My analysis of the above incidents of Greg: #1 is problematic and unneeded, #2 is a mistake of overreaching analysis and carelessness, #3 is a mistake of using only primary sources, #4 is a mistake of research, #5 is a mistake in writing (Ripley fragment), #6 'breakdown' is also problematic, as for #7 ... personally I feel that Gtoffoletto may have overreacted regarding this topic, from what I quoted above, TrueHeartSusie3 should assume more good faith (or, if she cannot, at least, not be incivil). Context, I acknowledge that TrueHeartSusie3 has been harassed by an IP over their editing in this topic. Overall, Greg has certainly made several mistakes, and it is up to the community to decide if these are worth a topic ban. Personally, the mistakes do cause concern and I would support a warning for Greg. He has to be much more careful going forward. starship.paint (exalt)

• Oppose any action against GregKaye. I've not contributed much to the Depp v Heard article, and don't believe I've edited it at all since the trial concluded, but the page has been on my watchlist since day 1. I've been following the talk page discussions the whole time, and I find nothing eggregious with GregKaye's contributions. He's made a couple of mistakes, but has apologised and corrected them as soon as they're pointed out.
  I concur with starship.paint's analysis that the diffs presented above don't exactly match up with the actual version of events once you click on them. I would've been more than happy to support a topic ban for GregKaye based on #6 alone. Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING#1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"GregKaye has never in any way 'routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors', or anything of the sort." In just the past month, we have seen edit summaries/comments from GregKaye including:

• 1. "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" (06/06/2022);
• 2. "The Broadcasting live should only have been relevant for the viewerships - unless editors are wanting to tenaciously (sic) suggest something without evidence." (06/08/22);
• 3. "Not sure why we're quoting Guardian journalist opinions but PLEASE GET IT RIGHT. even per this cite, the case was always trial by jury. pls, pls cut the WP:Tendentious editing." (06/22/22);
• 4. "rmv: 'in the stream chat' from WP:Tendentious editorialising on claims NOT made in cited articles. The 'stream chat' at Sky News shows 'Comments are turned off.'" (06/23/22);
• 5. "WP:NOTOPINION 'Although some topics, ... tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this.' (we'd at least need secondary refs to primary ref to journalistic opinion)" (06/24/22);
• 6. "chg to: 'the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults' editors keep misrepresenting content in citations." (06/29/22); and, of course,
• 7. "Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply." (07/02/22).

Others should evaluate the diffs above to make their own determination, but to my mind none of GregKaye's allegations of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or deliberate "misrepresentations" were properly predicated: #1 concerned text from a secondary source which accurately quoted The Sun's original article, as opposed to a later revised version (GregKaye replaced the secondary source with a link to the updated article on The Sun's website, implicitly conceding that the previous text flowed directly from the secondary source and was in no way "misrepresented" by any Wikipedia editor—if there was any "cherrypicking," it was by GregKaye himself, who did not like the coverage in secondary sources); #2 concerned text that simply noted the U.S. trial was "broadcast live" and that this "was a major difference between the two trials"; #3 involved GregKaye changing "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian referred to the case as 'trial by TikTok'" to "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian said that Heard v Depp had turned into 'trial by TikTok'," which is a minor wording tweak, not a desperately-needed correction of an egregious distortion; #4 appears to have been another misunderstanding by GregKaye; #5 is civil on its face, but radically misconstrues policy to suggest that opinion sources are unusable unless they have been commented on by other opinion sources—an interpretation so novel that GregKaye once mused "there's a chance it may change the entirety of Wikipedia" itself—and implied that editors who refuse to accept this misinterpretation are engaged in WP:SOAPBOX behavior; #6 involved GregKaye changing "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the allegations against him had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'" to "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'"; and #7 is probably not the tack that GregKaye should be taking in this forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Why are we discussing Amber Heard's mental state and "How can we best help Amber Heard"? That is not our concern. We build an encyclopedia by reporting reliable third party research, we do not play armchair psychiatrist on BLP articles. Full stop. Wikipedia isn't therapy for editors and it's not therapy for your favourite celebrity either. Darkknight2149 05:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Harassment by TheTimesAreAChanging

The continued misrepresentations in talk page discussions and here in a waste of time to other editors and a source of distress for me. I appreciate previous comments made above:

• by starship.paint to say that "Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light."
• and by Homeostasis07 to say "Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING #1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging."

I mentioned going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" and this kind of thing is continuing on repeat. When getting notification of this discussion I dragged myself into giving a by no means complete rebuttal and then just had to get away. It's horrible. Old issues are continually dragged up and misrepresented. TheTimesAreAChanging, as far as I remember, has never addressed me directly other than as response where I was addressing TheTimes directly. In all (or near to) other cases, TheTimesAreAChanging, has limited this to talking about and disparaging often with misrepresentation me. The irony is not lost on me that its in relation to an article on a defamation trial that these activities have happened.

TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits here I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned. (My comments regarded misrepresentations in edits while having no idea in regard to a number of editors involved. My intention was to highlight the problem but not to specifically point fingers). So much heat was generated on the talk page that I felt the need to attempt cordial exchange with editors personally[315].

On the way to this I'd pinged TheTimesAreAChanging in a conciliation seeking edit[316] to explain "... I know of a specific editing instant that was pointed out to me which was a certain mistake. I'd like to get it in context. I'd previously made an edit[317] "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." Later, when editing an internal link into this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of producing this edit[318] to rewrite the same text as I'd previously written to say "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK."
The talk page subsection on "A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits"[319] has also been on the talk page at the end of TheTimesAreAChanging's accusation thread since 13:01, 16 June 2022. Here I'd stated that "I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article." Regardless of all this TheTimesAreAChanging persists in presenting the related accusation above.

TheTimesAreAChanging can insist that I withdraw accusations,[320] yet none of the accusations by TheTimesAreAChanging, even when full of misrepresentation, ever get withdrawn. GregKaye 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Longterm disruption by multiple IP ranges at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic

Aside from the obvious band aid of locking the article, the issues are how far back the disruption goes, and how deep a reversion is called for. Hoping wiser heads than mine can ascertain the answers. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ollieinc, you've tried admirably to keep up with this. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Bookspamming

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

---

I've deleted several edits by Vedantabooks2022 (talk · contribs), issued a COI warning to no apparent effect, and reported to AIV. User is adding references only to books published by the Vedanta Society of St. Louis. Requesting more eyes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Widr. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 50.45.170.185

I would appreciate it if admins could take a look at the recent editing habits of this anon IP. The editor has removed content that is verified to cited materials at the article on Kathy Ireland and American Football. The editor has also claimed they are doing the work of removing material added by a sock, but without disclosing which sock puppet and the relevant SPI case. In addition, the editor seems to have some sort of vendetta against articles and content on the historic Pennsylvania Van Leer family (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Need help completing AfD - Articles created by some sock obsessed with the Van Leer family; even though several of these articles have reliable sources (others need work). In addition, there has been recent concerns about the edits made to the Lavender Oil page, which you can read at the IPs talk page. All of this to say, there is a pattern of disruptive editing that needs to be addressed.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur. The user is removing cited content from History of Atlanta, History of Georgia (U.S. state), and Sugar Bowl, with similar edit summaries. For a new user, this is all quite odd. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It took me quite a while to write up an accurate and fair summary of the events based on the NY Times article.

Does anyone really think the sock puppet's text is better than the one I wrote? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Atlanta&type=revision&diff=1096175951&oldid=1096115594

I don't feel like I've removed anything, rather just changed it to be more easily readable and actually reflect the content of the source. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, only 1 user has accused me of disruptive editing at the Lavender oil page. And an admin has already given him a warning for his constant warring with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZefr&type=revision&diff=1096010398&oldid=1095847751

As for the Van Leer drama, I'm sure User:Drmies can offer insight here. I was simply there offering a third-opinion when the admin found the sock accounts. So I went ahead through their changes and saw how they have been trying to put Van Leer in every page possible even when it's undue. For example on Batman.

The particular change in summary of the 1956 Sugar Bowl is also an example of this. The sock added a paragraph about it on every possible page he could, but worded it in a weird way and tried to make it sound like Van Leer is the reason a black man was allowed to play in the game, when in reality it was protests, media criticism, the coach and players wishes, and eventually a vote by the board of regents. It's pretty obvious if you read the source https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/sports/ncaafootball/grier-integrated-a-game-and-earned-the-worlds-respect.html 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the thing to do would be to leave the source, and alter the prose to match what is in the reference rather than remove valuable sources from the article. That said, your zeal to undo the work of a sock has led to problematic editing. For example, you have made some inaccurate claims at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Need help completing AfD - Articles created by some sock obsessed with the Van Leer family. For example, it was very easy to verify the accuracy of the content at Maryly Van Leer Peck from the cited sources in the article and elsewhere in a standard WP:BEFORE search. (For example this source is from an official biographical document from the Florida Women’s Hall of Fame which is a state government program verifying that she founded the college https://flwomenshalloffame.org/bio/maryly-vanleer-peck/ ) Likewise, it's likely the majority of these articles would pass an AFD as there are sources with WP:SIGCOV if you bother to follow the steps at WP:BEFORE. I would caution you to be more careful in how you choose to address the edits of the sock within articles. It's fine to remove content not verified to the sources, but please do not remove RS from articles or remove content that is verifiable. It's best to look at the sources, and alter the prose of the articles to match the source if there are errors or misrepresentations. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That website claims she founded the 'Community Career College of the University of Guam', a thing that doesn't exist. The Community College of Guam website says it was founded by the Guam's 'Community College Act of 1977'. In fact, you can search their entire site for 'Van Leer' and you'll get no hits. She may have been a dean, so possibly could have deserved a footnote on the Guam_Community_College page, but since no other deans are listed about this tiny insignificant college I doubt it is due.

I would very much appreciate it if you or @BilCat revert to the clean-ups I did.

I will not fight you though. If you prefer the sock-puppet's version of reality to be what's on Wikipedia then it's no skin off my back.

Thanks. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

50.45.170.185 This is a perfect example of biased editing leading to false assumptions. A reliable source (the Hall of Fame bio) confirms a fact, and yet you are denying that it's accurate. If there is a contradiction the responsible thing to do, is to dig further. Doing a university library search, I was able to locate an offline reference which explains this discrepancy. William J. Fitzgerald (1989). The Overall Economic Development Plan for Guam: 1989-1993. Guam Department of Commerce. p. 157. details that the majority of the programs of Community Career College at the University of Guam were moved to newly founded Guam Community College in November 1977; thus it's accurate to say that she founded Community Career College at the University of Guam which is now part of Guam Community College. This is exactly what the first source stated and in keeping with the other reference.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

>details that the majority of the programs of Community Career College at the University of Guam were moved to newly founded Guam Community College in November 1977

Good source, but...

>thus it's accurate to say that she founded Community Career College at the University of Guam

Your source literally does not say that... what are you talking about? Also, public colleges are created by government, they don't have "founders".

>A reliable source (the Hall of Fame bio) confirms a fact

Self-published anonymous primary source, does not back up their claims, claims contradict other sources and simple facts like what a public college is and what the 'Community College Act of 1977' is. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Self published? It's an official document of the Florida Women's Hall of Fame and published by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women which is under the office of the Florida Attorney General. Claiming that this is A. Anonymous or B. Self published or C. Unreliable is ludicrous. Additionally, the hall of fame article states " She was the founder and dean of the Community Career College of the University of Guam, which is now the Community College of Guam." This exactly matches the history of the two schools as related in the other source. 4meter4 (talk)

The only source that claims she founded it is the hall of fame website. Which is impossible since it's a public college created by the 1977 act. If the hall of fame website claimed she worked as one of the cleaning maids for the 14th Queen of Guam would you just nod your head and say "hmmm yup this is a reliable source so it must be true even though Guam has no queen, being a maid isn't an exceptional claim! Neither is being a founder of a college!" like you are doing right now? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You are making several errors and are confused. 1. Nobody is claiming she established Guam Community College. Not even the hall of fame source (which incidentally is not the only source we have on this as there are others cited in the article) 2. The sources say she established the "Community Career College at the University of Guam". This was am institution at the University of Guam not the GCC which existed for years at that university prior to the establishment of the GCC. 3. The sources state that in November 1977 the "Community Career College at the University of Guam" moved from that institution to become a part of Guam Community College. 4. Guam Community College was established by Public Law 14-77, “The Community College Act of 1977". This established the GCC as an institution but had nothing to do with the merger or move of the Community Career College at the University of Guam to the GCC.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

>The sources say she established the "Community Career College at the University of Guam"

Which sources say this besides the hall of fame website? And how exactly does an individual "found" an institution at a public university? They can't. Look man, the sock also claims that she founded the University of Guam itself when she was 22 years old. Something seriously fishy is up and I don't think we should give this sock the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to know just how non-notable her position was at the college look no further than her name simply listed among other non-notable people https://www.uog.edu/_resources/images/seprs/files/2004_retrospective-of-uog.pdf 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As it turns out, I was wrong on one point. I found another offline source which discusses Public Law 14-77 in detail. That law established Guam Community College by consolidating several pre-existing programs from a variety of institutions, including the Adult Evening School of the Guam Department of Education, the Community Career College of the University of Guam, the Apprenticeship Training Program of the the University of Guam, and other programs originally created by Guam's Department of Labor and the Guam Police Department. See Guam Economic Research Center (1980). Guam Annual Economic Review. Department of Commerce, Government of Guam. p. 12. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw the IP's comments at Talk:Anthony Wayne; I believe they thanked me for my actions regarding the Dcgene/Drstrange/etc. sock. I am not going to look at all their edits, but I will say that their edit at History of Atlanta was an improvement. And it is true that the socks had an almost unhealthy obsession with the Van Leers, so I am not surprised to see the IP editing in a way that downplays their importance which had been inflated by the socks: I believe I was fully justified in making this big revert. Perhaps the IP needs to be more careful, I don't know, but the enterprise they had engaged in has merit. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. My main change has been doing this across the six articles where the sock injected this paragraph trying to imply that somehow Van Leer was the reason a black man was allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl, when really he had almost no role at all. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, if we have any sleuths around--one wonders where the IP from Romania got access to to and knowledge of GA Tech archives, or how User:Kathrynlemieux materialized into Anthony Wayne. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I say the IP needs to link to some discussion of the sock when making such reverts, or at least identify the sock in their revert summary. I can understand removing Van Leer's name from some of the articles, but he probably is noteworthy in the Sugar Bowl article, the Atlanta history article, and probably the Georgia article too, which are the ones I reverted. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies An IP from the same location as the sock's just posted a weird message on my Talk page. I think they are trying to make me look nefarious lol, but they are (once again) being way too obvious. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Editing from the IP is very clearly disruptive and I don't see how having an SPA account against an article subject is any better than the SPA that originally was obsessed with adding to them. Outside of this IP's obsession with adding pseudoscience health claims to the Lavender oil article, of course. The proposed AfDs were clearly out of order and being aimed at notable article subjects whose articles themselves openly made their claims to notability, sourcing included. Silverseren^C 02:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since there are recent meta-analyses published to reputable peer-reviewed journals showing effectiveness, it would be incorrect to label it as " pseudoscience" and frankly the labeling is not constructive, we should focus on the content of the encyclopedia by summarizing reliable, third-party published secondary sources, from roughly the last 5 years as per WP:MEDRS guidelines:

  • 2021 meta-analysis, published to Brain and Behavior (a journal cited on Wikipedia 26 times)[321]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Phytomedicine (journal cited 131 times)[322]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Scientific Reports (journal cited 6424 times)[323]
  • 2018 systematic review, published to World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (journal cited 46 times)[324]

  Let me know if you have any questions. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2

Hi - I'm seeing some odd behaviour from a veteran editor @Scope creep:. He's marked several of my articles as reviewed, and then nominated them for deletion in rapid fire. Otrium was written in February, Cambrian Biopharma was written in March, and Contentsquare was just added this week. I looked at his block history and he has a history of being warned and blocked for disruptive editing, so I wanted to get some extra eyes. I don't mind defending articles from legitimate concerns, but this appears to be targeting. After the first nomination started to get heated, I tried to dial things down by reaching out on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be able to read and understand what he's reading. He threw a fit when I mistakenly inserted a comment into a discussion, for which I apologized, but when I pinged him, and he replied by instructing me how to ping. He also accused me of being a paid editor, in a very condescending way, even after I told him I was trying to get access to the helper script for my work at the AfC help desk. Despite the rapid deletion nominations that suggest WP:BEFORE was not done, his work seems to be fairly good, so something weird is going on here. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TechnoTalk ScopeCreep is an active participant at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. It's not un-common for patrollers to review articles and then nominate them for deletion through speedy deletion, prod, or AFD. The latter process is used if the nomination is possibly controversial. I wouldn't take it personally, as Scope Creep nominates articles routinely on a daily basis as part of his work as a patroller.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to take a deeper look at WP:NCORP if you are going to take on the task of creating articles for tech companies. A quick review of your created articles shows several more that are likely to be nominated for deletion as routine coverage of funding rounds do not satisfy notability requirements. Need in-depth independent coverage of the company. AfDs are a routine part of the Wikipedia editing process and the most important thing is to not take them personal. Slywriter (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

TechnoTalk, why not just find and include 1-2 sources that meet GNG requirements with the additional NCORP source requirements. That way you can avoid creating articles that shouldn't be created, avoid having your articles AFD'd, and get "keeps" on any that go to AFD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As NPP reviewer here. The tool we use allows us to mark the article as reviewed and file the article for deletion at the same time. It is common for us to do so as if the articles in question do pass the afd, they definitely pass whatever criteria NPP has for reviewing. – robertsky (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• without comment on the merits of the articles or any history between the editors, I'd say That is completly illegal and abusive and its not done is a little over the top from Scope Creep. No one is going to jail for poor AfD formatting. Star Mississippi 01:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment What an absurd and slightly abusive ani report. The reality seems to be that can't accept the idea that your articles have to be sent to Afd because they are atrociously written and clearly fail WP:NCORP, a notabiltiy standard that you clearly don't accept and seem somehow to think don't apply to your articles, that in the majority, are private business articles, that look and read like native advertising. That combined with your bludgeoning behaviour at the Otrium Afd, is the real abuse here. Kicking up a stink because your articles are sent to Afd is natural, but this is the wrong venue and you've likely stymied your chance of becoming a page reviewer. scope_creep^Talk 08:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment While I do not condone Scope Creep's abrasiveness, as a New Page Patroller myself, I would support their choice to nominate several of your articles, as they do seem to fail NCORP with the citations currently provided. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998

Special:Contributions/Avica1998 has been running riot over Taylor Lorenz with little but a hand wave at talk page consensus.

• I lost count of their reverts but they've blown past 4RR in the past 24 hours.
• Despite warnings, they continue to label the good-faith edits of other Wikipedians as vandalism (eg. [325], [326]).
• They are massively overtagging the article. For example, this version of the article has ten of their tags in a four-sentence section.
• Collaborating with this user is challenging or impossible. In this series of talk page comments, I responded to just one of their failed verification tags with a request for clarification and got stonewalled.

I haven't yet reviewed their contributions in other areas, but I'd like to see at least a temporary page block, as some more talk page consensus-building would help. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

one or more editors have laid claim to this article and refuse to allow inlines pointing out the deficiencies as set forth in the history section by multiple users. Avica1998 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an unfair assessment of what is happening, Avica1998. Avica1998 has been warned multiple times of edit warring, mis-labeling edits as vandalism, and failing to engage in meaningful discussion to build consensensus. Seems to want to just steamroll to get their way. I, and others, have tried ot make reasonable edits and comments, to no avail. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In taking a look, I would agree that the editing by Avica1998 is disruptive to the article and disrespectful to the editing community at large. Particularly concerning is the massive reverts that falsely accuse other editors of vandalism and otherwise misrepresent the contributions of others or materials being altered. I think a temporary block of all editing privileges and a permanent article block is warranted as there appears to be an editing bias at work here which prevents neutral editing on this subject. 4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The only block needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG for you. Blocks are not given punitively for bad edits made in good faith, and you should know that. Metallic Lord (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that this is this editor's second edit ever, and their first edit is related to the same article that is being discussed directly one section below this one. Nothing suspicious here! Sergecross73 msg me 05:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF, plus the litany of essays about new users not needing to be novice. And even assuming bad faith, maybe I'm Joe jobbing on behalf of Avicii. Or paid by a shadowy government organization to add minor errors to the source of truth future ai will use to train itself, leaving a few glitches for the future resistance movements to fight back against a robotic menace. Sus. Also, maybe I vented. Metallic Lord (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone else has now blocked this editor for socking, so please disregard. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Reversions involving removal of [non-primary source needed]. Currently applicable to:

use of Substack as reference in "Early life and education" section. "Substack articles are self-published blogs (WP:BLPSPS)." Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

court documents used as reference in "2021 lawsuit" subsection. "you can't use primary court case documents in a BLP (WP:BLPPRIMARY)..."Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"|date=June 2022}} Avica1998 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: You’ve continued to add back your edits despite several users asking you to take the issues to the talk page first for consensus and despite the ongoing discussion here on ANI. Please refrain from editing the Taylor Lorenz article until these discussions have concluded. X-Editor (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

there will never be a consensus on this page as long as there is selective editing taking place butadmin convo is concluded Avica1998 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I will refrain until convo is concluded. There will never be a consensus on that article due to the history. See talk page and view history. requires admin eyes on. Avica1998 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

On the talk page this editor is claiming that because certain sources require a subscription to access the contents of the article are unverifiable. I explained WP:SOURCEACCESS to them, in response they stated that the subscription login page does not contain the quote from the source, so the quote is therefore unverifiable. As I see it there are two possibilities here:

1. Avica1998 is deliberately timewasting with ridiculous arguments to try to get their way, and accordingly need a block for disruptive editing.
2. Avica1998 is legitimately unable to understand "you need to pay for and login to this website to access it", in which case they need a block for Lacking the competence to edit here.

In either case I do not think it a good use of the communities time to allow them to continue editing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Example from the article's talk page:

@Avica1998 tags citations behind paywall precluding verification of peacock prose used in quote

@192.76.8.85 gets abusive, cites WP:SOURCEACCESS

@Sideswipe9th agrees w/ @192.76.8.85 re WP:SOURCEACCESS but demonstrates solution to precluding verification

someone edits the quote to fix the problem

still does not address the concerns shared by 128.235.13.0 talk at 20:45, 27 June 2022‎‎ Avica1998 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Use_of_Primary_Sources as illustrative of the scope of the problem Avica1998 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998 has edited problematically on Tim Pool as well. In this series of edits, they added enough promotional material in favor of Pool and enough negative material about his critics that another editor reverted it on suspicion of paid editing. The edits included an untrue and unsourced description of the Election Integrity Partnership as partisan and addition of negative material about Taylor Lorenz cited to sources which don't mention Pool at all. And one of the sources was an opinion piece, making these edits hypocritical, as they add an opinion tag to a straight news piece from The Independent, along with some fake failed verification tags. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Examine for bias (from the article talk page, references removed):

Lorenz worked for the Daily Mail from 2011-2014. After a short stint writing for the The Daily Dot in 2014,she was a technology reporter for Business Insider from 2014-2017. In 2017 she wrote briefly for The Hill’s blog section, and was assaulted by a counter-protesterin Charlottesville, Virginia. From 2019-2022 she was a technology reporter for the The New York Times, during which time she was made a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism. She likewise signed a contract with publisher Simon & Schuster for a book titled Extremely Online: Gen Z, the Rise of Influencers, and the Creation of a New American Dream and was sued for defamation resultant from one of her articles. The book has yet to be published and the lawsuit is ongoing. Avica1998 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998:: this is not the place for content discussion/disputes. If you think there is bias, bring it up on the relevant talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: I'm confused by you response. Can you clarify you now understand that you should not tag content as failed verification just because the reliable source is behind and paywall and you do not have access; and you should also generally not remove it either? If you wish to verify content behind a paywall yourself, there are various ways you can try and obtained access as outlined to you, and if for some reason you have strong reasons to doubt something and you cannot view the source, it's generally acceptable to tag it with {{verificationneeded}}. But I can't see any situation where it makes sense to tag something as {{failedverification}} if the problem is that you were not able to obtain access because the source is behind a paywall. To be clear, whatever other problems may or may not have existed with the content in question, this does not make it okay for you to have tagged something as failed verification because you the source was behind a paywall. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I took Taylor Lorenz off my watchlist because Avica1998 was too frustrating to deal with. Steamrolling an entire article when you're too new to Wikipedia to understand how everything works, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines etc., is bad enough on its own, but just reverting the article back to your preferred versions whenever multiple other editors take issues with your edits is incredibly, incredibly disruptive. I don't really have the patience to continue dealing with this time sink, so I'll leave my comments at that. Endwise (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Their continued refusal to engage in any meaningful discussion is increasingly frustrating. Latest at Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Selective_biography. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Southwestmetal

User:Southwestmetal has been edit warring on Sonic Frontiers and the accompanying image ([327] [328] [329] [330] [331]; see also image history). User has not provided any reason to change the image, has already been warned, and has refused to engage with other users (even when I started a talk page discussion myself). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning on their talk page. Also, @Cyberlink420: you engaged in substantial edit warring on File:Sonic Frontiers gameplay screenshot.png, a mess I had to clean up by deleting a dozen previous versions of the image. This should have gone to WP:AN/EW long before this. In the future, if you find yourself in this situation, please do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for that. Will make sure to be more careful going forward. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A minute after I placed the final warning on their talk page, they continued the edit war. I've blocked them for 31 hours. They're appealing their block, but given their unwilling to recognize their error, it's not likely the block appeal will succeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. If the ban expires and they immediately get back to it, I'll take things straight to AN/EW next time. Thanks much for your help, and apologies for the trouble. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Once the block expires, if they continue the edit war I will block them for a considerably longer period of time. If they do, please do not continue to revert them. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Earlier I noticed that this user installed Twinkle on their very first edit, uses the wrong name in their signature, and tried to game 3RR 30 edits into their career, which seemed rather precocious to me. I was going to ask if anyone wanted to play "guess the sockmaster" but apparently there's this now. —{Canucklehead} 05:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked User:Metallic Lord as a suspected sockpuppet of Southwestmetal. WP:QUACK. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"No Lamb Chop Society" comment

[332]

Links

• Talk thread — justices have no party

• • Article — United States

• Project talk thread — Question

96.74.77.193 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice unable to be left at User:Chipmunkdavis talk page 96.74.77.193 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears that this is an experienced editor IP hopping (Mrbeastmodeallday?) disputing over a (somewhat nonsensical) comment left by Moxy. Regardless, attempting to remove another user's comment with the rationale that the comment is WP:NOTHERE (which doesn't appear to apply to single comments left by longstanding users) is clearly against WP:TPO. Perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG may be applied to the reporter? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hard to boomerang someone already blocked. If someone wants to block this proxy IP they can, but otherwise there's not much to do here. CMD (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had to semiprotect Talk:United States because of abuse. If we can figure out the proxy network they're using to hop IPs, that could mitigate future damage. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I thought it said "No Lamb Chop Suey". Not sure which makes more or less sense. EEng 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Kremlin talking points by IP

I'll start by saying I'm not actually sure if I'm justified in opening this report as no rules have been explicitly broken.

24.42.166.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an WP:SPA, almost all of whose contributions have been promoting pro-Kremlin propaganda at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War and Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. They seem to have a clear agenda and I don't find that any of their contributions have been constructive or even made in good faith. The IP has suggested renaming the Russo-Ukranian war "USA's proxy war with Russia"[333] or "US/NATO Proxy war with Russia", [334] they've said that it's "false" to say "Russia launched a full-scale invasion",[335] and they've made a series of posts talking about "Western propaganda" that I can't link to as they were RevDel'd. Almost every one of their contributions can be described as tendentious.

Again, I was hesitant to open this report as there is no strict rule-breaking. At the same time, we're not dumb and it seems very clear this user isn't here to construct a neutral encyclopedia and instead wants to troll talk pages with ridiculous pro-Russian propaganda. Other users have also expressed frustration with this IP, including @Slatersteven,[336] @Acroterion,[337] and @Lute88.[338] As full disclosure I'll say I've removed one of the IP's comments (which they reverted) and hatted a bad-faith discussion. — Czello 13:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I would rather have waited as they are a new account, but right now I am getting strong wp:nothere vibes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It is likely a user that has already been blocked. Good riddance.--Aristophile (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I recognize this person from Wikiquote (style, IP range, etc.) where his IP and sockpuppet army (example) have been banned for exactly this behavior. I strongly recommend shutting him down every time you see him. Everything this person does is tendentious, and pushes the idea that the US is behind everything evil that is happening in the world, etc. etc. Absolutely WP:NOTHERE and a colossal waste of time. Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

With that, block em. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I had no idea this user was active on Wikiquote. Thank you. — Czello 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That explains why they sought to transplant quotefarms into WP, which I had to revdel as copyvios. Probably worth looking for other cross-wiki abuse.Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oooh boy. Yes. Have a look at this WQ noticeboard section about the problem. We never did finish that cleanup, but it would be good to obliterate any copyvios here, of course. Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Antandrus There are a some unblocked accounts on this wiki, including Will-SeymoreIII which has edited recently. Perhaps they should also be blocked? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. This person has been mighty active. Where are we policy-wise on this? I've just issued a 3-month block on the IP. It's absolutely certain that is the same person. What do you all think? Will look for other socks presently (a CU wouldn't hurt, if any are watching). Antandrus (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've found three so far:

• GaneshaSis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Libraryclerk0191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WeNotMeC020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm going to shut them down as abusing multiple accounts. Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Range block in order? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen three ranges on WQ so far - will have to dig a bit to find them. Any CUs watching? Antandrus (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm a CU. I have taken a look, but am limited by policy in what I can say with regards to making connections between accounts and CUs. The Will-SeymoreIII account was editing out of an IP that did a lot of logged out editing; there weren't any other accounts on that IP. WeNotMeC020 edited out of a completely different IP, which does have an unused account on it (possibly a sleeper), but I'm not confident enough to block without more evidence. There's no other activity on that IP. The other accounts mentioned are long-since stale. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok -- no worries -- I will try to dig them out using non-CU methods. I have some offline-life kinds of things going on so may not be right away. Antandrus (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Found one more - Om777om (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and also found one IP (131.) which has no edits here. I remember another but can't seem to find it at the moment. Antandrus (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Found the third one - (24.214.) no edits on enwiki. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

User JamesJohn82 has resumed self-promotion after one week block

User:JamesJohn82 was blocked by User:RegentsPark for self-promotion for promoting jagatgururampalji.org. He apologised but has since returned to adding references to that website. The discussion was carried out on this page but unfortunetly, I can't figure out how to restore it properly. Kenm v2 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101 § User:JamesJohn82 giving me warnings for fixing his edits - 174.21.23.32 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with the IP above. Thank you, IP. This discussion? It doesn't have to be restored; readers are encouraged to just follow the link. Note my own comment right at the end, saying that if JamesJohn82 continues their egregious sourcing errors after RegentsPark's block expires, an indefinite block might be appropriate. It may be a little too soon for that right now, however, since I can only see one reference JJ82 has made to their own site after the block and the apology, here. It's one too many, though. I have blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC).

Esetok

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

Can someone explain to Esetok that we don't make personal attacks and aspersions towards other users just because they don't agree with us?

dear false historian of Iran, I've deleted false information without sources

You are false "historian", reverting edits and adding fake information in articles.

This is nothing new, back in January 2021 he was already unpleasant to discuss with [339]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• User HistoryofIran adding false information to articles (fake names, ignoring all sources - Iranica/Encyclopaedia of Islam/etc.) and reverting edits. Just read talk pages: Talk:Bindu of Bukhara, Talk:Rashid al-Din Vatvat. Nothing to say more. --Esetok (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Esetok: So, you concede that your conduct is unacceptable? And you understand that if you do it again, you are likely to be blocked? —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred, if the English Wikipedia continues to contain false information and no one is allowed to remove it without the permission of this person (HistoryofIran), then please block me for as long as you see fit. I will find it more useful to contribute to those Wikipedias where it is allowed to remove fake information from hoaxers (I have already explained why this information is unreliable and provided links to sources). Thanks. --Esetok (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with C. Fred. Any more personal attacks or accusations(like the one above) from Esetok, should result in them receiving a block.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Esetok, the issue here is not the content dispute. Rather, it is your pattern of insulting other editors. If you stop that misbehavior, it then becomes possible to discuss the content in a collaborative way. So, will you stop the insults? Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. Cullen328 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)