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

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (September 2019)

User:STSC is continuing to make POV edits regarding contentious China-related issues. This was raised in 2015 by User:Feminist in the aftermath of the 2014 Hong Kong protests, and has come up sporadically since then.

The latest batch of questionable edits surround the ongoing 2019 Hong Kong protests. Here are some examples:

• Implying that police violence only took place against “violent” protesters (12 September). This is not reflected by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Innocent bystanders, peaceful protesters, and even press and medics have been injured by police tear gas and rubber bullets.

• Writing that a general strike held by protesters “failed” (12 September), a claim that is also not reflected by any reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources reported that the strike snarled traffic routes, and was both "massive" and "unprecedented". To write that the strike "failed" or was "not so successful" is pure POV; a view that has not been published by any reliable secondary source.

• Referring to the protests as “riots”. In Hong Kong, the term “riot” has hefty legal ramifications. Given the fluid and most often non-violent nature of the movement, reliable sources have not broadly characterised the protests as “rioting”.
  • 15 August
  • 8 September – the cited sources do not use the term riot in relation to the Sheung Wan protests, as the edit summary falsely suggests

• Changing Tiananmen Square “massacre” to “protest”, even though the legislative motion in question specifically applied to the June 4 massacre, not the 1989 protests as a whole (9 September, 10 September)

• Denying that “protesters” are citizens, or falsely suggesting that crowdfunded newspaper ads were not funded by “citizens”, but exclusively by “protesters”, which is a claim not reflected in any of the cited sources (8 September, 12 September). Meanwhile, STSC portrays pro-Beijing protesters as "ordinary Hong Kong residents" (12 September). The difference in how the two groups are characterised is suggestive of bias.

• Using misleading edit summaries to blank content without explanation (9 September, 12 September)

• Removing mention of Hong Kongers’ self-identity as Hong Kongers (i.e. as opposed to Chinese)

• Blanking “potentially libellous” content from the article for Junius Ho, a pro-Beijing legislator (2 August, 6 August, 21 August, 10 September, 10 September). In order for something to be libel, it must be false. However, the “potentially libellous” content in the article is all well-sourced to reliable secondary sources.

Considered altogether, these diffs are additional evidence that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a particular political agenda. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Out of all these diffs, the only one that rises to the level of a behavioural issue as opposed to a content dispute is this. Several of these look, honestly, like improvements from the perspective of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'd suggest, at most, that STSC be cautioned not to use misleading edit summaries. But to claim WP:NOTHERE no. That's overreach. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(For instance, STSC's argument that a small-sample survey from a potentially biased source isn't WP:DUE seems quite solid.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the extent to which respondent's sentiment to being considered Chinese changed was documented at less than the margin of error for the survey. As a result, it's questionable the extent to which Wikipedia should be making interpretive statements of the raw data per WP:SYNTH notwithstanding the issue of the small sample size and risk of bias in sample selection, which is a bit of a black box here. We know they conducted phone interviews with a live interviewer but there's no information about the interview script, or number selection. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

For additional grounds why this particular edit on STSC's part was actually probably a net good for the project see also WP:PRIMARY as the removed source is, in fact, a primary source. I use this as an example of why it's for the best not to initiate AN/I complaints to settle content disputes. However I should note that STSC did not deny that the protesters were citizens. STSC clarified that the citizens blocking traffic were protesters. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Oops, hit publish too fast) I mention that one in specific because there are some complaints on this list that fail verification in similar ways. I'd suggest that the Citobun's POV may be colouring their perspective on STSC's edits. I do not think a boomerang is at all necessary here, but I would suggest that this complaint be closed promptly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You can find elements of some questionable edits that are constructive in some way. Others are purely blatant POV-pushing. Regarding the Ho example, potentially controversial content on that page is well-sourced. His polemic makes him one of the most notorious politicians in Hong Kong. It isn't "potentially libelous" to write about these incidents as long as it is all well-sourced. Citobun (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Simonm223 seems to have hit it on the head. I concur in general that, for example, "Tienanmen Square Massacre" is the appropriate verbiage to be used. While the protest indeed spanned a longer timeframe, he appears to be expressing support for those killed in the crackdown/massacre. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by STSC - Just recently user Citobun has been blocked for harassment [1] but he/she still does not want to give up his/her hate campaigns against other editors in content disputes. STSC (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment if this is in fact part of a pattern behavior wherein Citobun has targeted STSC it might be appropriate to reconsider whether a boomerang was appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I was told by an admin (User:NinjaRobotPirate) that I need to provide more substantiation to claims that STSC is engaging in unconstructive POV-pushing. I have therefore provided ample evidence above. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This clearly does not constitute a personal attack – it's about content. On the other hand, STSC repeatedly accusing me of undertaking a "hate campaign" is indeed a personal attack. So is your baseless claim that my supposed POV is "colouring [my] perspective". I have barely ever edited the protest page. Citobun (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I had raised the concern on the article (or the set of article) for POV pushing and the emerge of a few SPA account. Experienced editor that synthesis source, that made up new thing from source is not that surprising to appear in the article. Just are there any admin dare to lock the article and allow editors to settle stuff on talk page first. Matthew hk (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Regardless of this specific complaint, and the long term interpersonal conflict it appears to be part of, I concur with Matthew hk that edit protection would be a good idea on these articles. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment and question about BLP violations I recently removed this defamatory/libelous statement [2] from Talk:Joshua Wong (originally posted [3],[4], went to look at the editor's talk and came here. I am actually quite surprised to see users allowed to use the talk page for posting rumours about living people and then discussing them like a forum? I thought the WP:BLP policy applies everywhere. What is Wikipedia's mechanism to address such issues?--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seem a serious BLP violation by User:STSC (edit: the ip 94.134.89.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), i misread the talk page. 09:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)) regarding Joshua Wong. Unless the user genuine believe the fake news / misinformation on state-owned newspaper inside the Great Firewall of China. BTW, his father seem a highly educated professional, which at least South Horizons is an expensive private estate. To add my point, even they are Vietnamese-Chinese (i did know some personally), it is a serious OR and UNDUE accusation on linkage to their political spectrum . Tung Chee Wa was from Shanghai/Zhejiang, Bernard Charnwut Chan is a Thai-Chinese diaspora and so on. Carrie Lam and her family have/had British citizenship too, so do predecessor CY Leung . Matthew hk (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I dismissed that rumour as I could not find any reliable source to confirm it. Even if it was true, being a Vietnamese person does not mean he would be a bad guy in Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your so called "dismissing of the rumour" was actually not a dismissing, but rather indulging in gossip and using the talk page like a forum to discuss unsubstantiated rumours. This is a serious BLP violation. We are not supposed to further discuss unsubstantiated claims (which is exactly what you did). I also wonder what do you mean in comments such as [5] where you say I agree. The "5 deaths (all suicides)" in the infobox does sound like they were suicide bombers for their "revolution". I don't know if you are doing this intentionally and trying to game the system by casting aspersions, but no English speaker would confuse "suicide" with "suicide bombing". I want to WP:AGF here, but your behaviour is somewhat close to what is described as Sealioning. I trust that you will take the advice and refrain from such behaviour.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) A user wanted to include a piece of information in the article, I replied there're no reliable sources to back it up. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?

(2) A user expressed his/her concern about a piece of information maybe misleading in the article, I replied and exchanged my opinion on that issue. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?

STSC (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I will describe what happened

(1) A user posted unsubstantiated libelous content on a talk page which was clearly a WP:BLP violation. Instead of removing, you engaged in discussing claiming "you've heard something similar". Then you added you don't don't have sources so cannot say it is true to false. We are supposed to remove unambiguous BLP violations, instead of commenting that "yes, I have heard something similar" and using the talk page like a forum

I would rather give the user a chance to reply and back up his/her claim in the talk page. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your second edit which I pointed out is an example of a borderline edit which (while not breaking any explicit Wikipedia policies), tends to either show a deliberate attempt at Sealioning or a non-understanding of English (though I find it hard to believe the latter). It makes it hard to assume good faith, that's all.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If you have any issue, why don't you discuss it in the article's talk page? Your problem is you don't even participate in that discussion about the deaths but tried very hard to make a meal out of nothing on here. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I am commenting on your behaviour, not the content. This is the correct venue, not the article talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You disagree to my opinion about "suicide" in the infobox, that's very much about the content. Just say my opinion is not to your liking. STSC (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said again, the issue is with your behaviour, your civil POV pushing.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all "POV pushing". I hardly engage in edit wars. I just make edits and corrections per WP:NPOV in a relaxing way. You and your friends do not seem to be able to accept in a real world there're people with different views from yours. STSC (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We also don't give let users post unsubstantiated libelous claims about living people, in the hope they maybe they will back it up someday. That's pretty much against BLP.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I dismissed the claim because I myself could not find any sources, not because I know Mr Wong personally. I don't believe it's true but I chose to let the user justify the claim if he/she can. STSC (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Letting someone justify a BLP violation is not OK. It is still a BLP violation. Anyway, I trust that you will understand.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, you may say it's a false claim but please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people. STSC (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying stuff like "please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people" is precisely the problem with you. This [6] comment is definitely defamatory and libelous but you seem to not accept it. All I see here is a refusal on your part to even understand the basic fact that the comment was a BLP violation.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

To say someone is Vietnamese is libelous and defamatory? You don't see that's insulting to Vietnamese people? STSC (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that there is nothing defamatory or libelous in [7], correct?--DreamLinker (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You avoided my question. STSC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

When you answer whether [8] is libelous or defamatory, I will answer your question. Your answer is important because it indicates if you understand WP:BLP, which is actually quite relevant here, since we are discussing your conduct.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I asked you the question first but you avoided it. I take it you agree it's defamatory and libelous to say someone has Vietnamese descent. STSC (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so not answering means saying yes. Wow.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I consider this comment [9] to be libelous/defamatory statement and a BLP violation, since you are so insistent.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, this seems like over-reach based on the diff presented. STSC acknowledged they'd heard the rumour, said there were not reliable sources and that it shouldn't be included. That's precisely how one should respond to a BLP question like that.Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but posting random unsubstantiated rumours is very obviously a BLP violation and should have been removed immediately, instead of acknowledging the rumour itself. I would find it extremely unsettling if editors are allowed to post such rumours and let it stay anywhere on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your initial dif was somewhat misleading. This isolates STSC's comment separate from the IP who made the initial statement. It's quite evident when reviewing the correct dif that STSC was, in fact, stating there were no RSes supporting the assertion regarding the subject's background. This is patently ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 issues. First, it is unclear if STSC even acknowledges that [10] is a BLP violation. Second, instead of removing the comment, they decide to say "I have heard something similar...". We don't do that. The BLP policy is very clear that we do not allow BLP violations (particularly unsubstantiated ones) to remain on Wikipedia. I am actually quite surprised that you would think it is OK, given that this is the exact kind of behaviour which makes women and minorities stay away from Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• This was a few years ago, but it demonstrates that STSC has been pushing for a pro-Chinese government POV to an extreme degree, justifying the "elimination" of a religious group: Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society.[11] That is quite shocking IMO, but that said, "detestable" views itself are not blockable. It should be assessed whether these pro-Beijing views were pushed in a disruptive way and how they communicated with others. --Pudeo (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to bring up here this old FG issue of 2015. Arbitration Committee had dealt with it long time ago. STSC (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ok multiple issue here. For boomerang i don't think Citobun well communicate to other editor either. See his practice on oppose a merge in Talk:Shenzhen Bay Port (i mistook his was an admin or someone high enough to hide the log?) Also, the revert in City University of Hong Kong. Reaching CIR level? May be not , but just like at Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack#Requested move 27 July 2019, a bit ad hominem instead on based on the issues and for RM, the evidence.

For STSC on Wong's article. It is nothing really wrong as the misinformation did wide spread in Mainland China. Blanking the talk page thread my be the best practice, but believing the ip from Germany (an international [Chinese?] student at Germany? VPN? Intentionally attack the page due to Wong's visit at Germany recently? We don't know) in AGF and reply them, is reasonable.

For this edit Special:Diff/915348212. The source material was discussed in Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 12 ""Despite the territory's current political association with the mainland, most of the population self-identify as Hongkongers rather than Chinese.". Please really start a discussion on it before remove it, or just restore the original wording , also cut the reason due to synthesis. You can't due to the reason you don't like the source then say it is UNDUE and when you like it it is DUE. I would only say HKU POP is respectable source, widely reported by local media. The opinion poll did reflected in 2008 many citizens considered themselves Chinese, but there is a trend in recent year there is more people to choose Hongkongers. But it mean nothing as the opinion poll provided options HK-Chinese, China-Hongkonger, and it is a quantitative survey so that no one know the meaning of HK-Chinese and China-Hongkonger. Also, 1000 is a good number for statical purpose. HKU POP did even reported the standard error or something similar. Matthew hk (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you want to say every Western source is not reliable. Then i have nothing to say because The Economist also use the same HKU POP opinion poll as their source material in a reporting [12] Are there bias in these opinion poll due to some people refuse to response? May be, but it is out of wiki editors to judge. Matthew hk (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Without digging into the wonkiness of methodological questions, which is (honestly) beyond our remit, it's simply put a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to be interpreting the results of this WP:PRIMARY source. If this is a respected survey, then I'm sure WP:SECONDARY sources can be found that will interpret the results. The language that I removed was clear WP:SYNTH and as such inappropriate. However, that's neither here nor there as STSC's edits are easily in the realm of a content dispute there. The edits regarding the survey certainly don't rise to the level of a behavioral issue regardless of how you feel about inclusion. I think you and I agree entirely that this entire AN/I issue is inappropriate for this forum based on the difs provided. DreamLinker's claim that STSC should be guilty for the sins of the IP because they didn't oppose the IP's edit request hard enough are patently absurd. Pudeo's mention of Falun Gong material from 2015 is deeply irrelevant to any current edit discussion except to establish that STSC is a person who holds opinions about things. And that is true of every editor on Wikipedia. And then there's Citobun's initial complaint, which I contend, based on it being part of a pattern of harassment against STSC as established in this dif, should probably pull a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't think there'd be any harm in cautioning STSC about avoiding misleading edit summaries, but considering the misleading use of difs and misleading commentary regarding edits that the complainants here have presented, STSC's comportment, as presented seems mild. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by STSC: User Citobun pointed out 8 "questionable edits", has he discussed these edits in the articles' talk page? No. Has he tried other dispute resolutions? No. What he's actually doing here is using the ANI process to harass his opponent in content dispute. We can all see his so called "evidence" is as thin as paper but it doesn't matter for him because he's still got the satisfaction of having me harassed by way of this ANI. I've been stalked by this user Citobun since 2014, and he already has a failed ANI against me in 2016. He has been warned by admin EdJohnston and NinjaRobotPirate not to abuse other users but he continues his stalking and wanted to have another go at harassing me by ANI here. There must be a deterrent to prevent users like him from abusing the ANI process to harass other users. STSC (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not stalking nor harassing you. I have provided ample evidence of chronic POV-pushing despite multiple people raising concerns about this in the past. Yet you carry on as usual. As it pertains to a "chronic, intractable behavioral" issue, this discussion is best suited to take place at ANI. Citobun (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been stalking me and harassing me for about 5 years. My God, I don't even know you. STSC (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me. Over the past five years I have made several complaints about your editing behaviour. But so have many others. Such complaints go back years before we ever crossed paths, and centre around the same issue at hand today – chronic POV-pushing on contentious China-related subjects such as Chinese territorial disputes, Hong Kong, and the Falun Gong (until you finally received a topic ban). Accusing me of "stalking" is just a bullying attempt at distracting the discussion here. You have been called out by many people over the past decade, and the common point of contention is your long-term POV editing. Citobun (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not personal attack, I just described how you abused other users. You also have this disgraceful habit of scanning through other people's edit history. Of course you and your friends would not like me hanging around when I improve articles according to WP:NPOV. But if you accuse other editors POV editing, they would also say the same to you. It's a two-way traffic. In your case, we can see you have very much anti-police POV. STSC (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of my supposed "anti-police POV"? Yet again you are making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me. Citobun (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all PA, you accuse other editors having POV, I just point out you too have POV. Your allegation no.1 above clearly shows that. There's just a normal sentence saying the police taking actions against the violent protesters [13] but you also wanted to include other people. You said this is "police violence"! I remember particularly in one occasion where the source clearly says the police searched the flat of the activist but you deliberately changed it to the police broke into the flat of the activist.[14]. There's a very big difference between "searching" and 'breaking into". Your intention clearly wanted to deceive the readers into believing the police broke into the flat. (Note also how you abused me in your edit summary). STSC (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a personal attack if you make these allegations without evidence. I have provided evidence of your chronic, long-term POV-pushing, which you have been sanctioned for in the past after you advocated Falun Gong be "eliminated". You're implying that police were only violent against "groups of violent demonstrators", which is plainly WP:OR. I provided sources refuting that in the original posting above. For the second example, again, I didn't add that content in the first place. I was reverting your POV-motivated blanking which included removal of a lot of other content. By the way, that example you chose is another great example of your use of misleading edit summaries (in this case, "undue detail") to obfuscate your political agenda editing, which I and others have provided ample evidence of. Citobun (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Based on what i read so far, In my belief Citobun's arguments are far more convincing than STSC. 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) DoctorHell (talk)

I would say before went to ANI, it would be a good gesture to open a thread in the talk page, state the problem (e.g. completely no source, synthesis of source, or just 3RR with 24 hours), state the wording on the newspaper or academic paper or reliable source, invite the party involved to participate in the discussion. Use dispute resolution tool etc. Yes there is rare case that the user completely not engaged in any talk page discussion or just running circle to protect his point of view, but then these are the step to show the user is CIR or NOTHERE. Matthew hk (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In general, I agree with what you say. However, the issues I pointed out here are not content issues.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

There was a behavioural issue you pointed out here. That of the IP. Not STSC. Your proposal to blame STSC for not opposing the IP's actions hard enough remains inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, (1) BLP violations (particularly unsubstantiated ones) are supposed to be removed. The policy is very clear about this. We don't acknowledge them (or attempt to refute/prove them). Without this, Wikipedia would become like a forum where anything can be posted (making the platform a haven for the likes of Nazis and supremacists) (2) The second issue is that STSC's comments do not seem to demonstrate if they actually understood that the IP's comment was a BLP violation. In any case, my proposal is simply for a warning.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You should note that I did not actually discuss any detail of the rumour itself in my reply to the IP. Wikipedia is not compulsory, I'm under no obligation to delete any material in Wikipedia. I understand BLP policy very well, and I've removed the libellous contents from Junius Ho article but Citobun strongly objected the removal and DoctorHell repeatedly put libellous content back. They should be warned instead. STSC (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I explained in the OP that libellous content is false. The content at Junius Ho is well-sourced, and therefore doesn't constitute libel. I don't know why you are choosing to ignore this. The fact that you continue to call the content "libellous", deliberately ignoring the basic definition of the word, further demonstrates that you are removing content on purely POV grounds (and defending such behaviour by misrepresenting unrelated policies). Citobun (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Other editors would also say you want to keep the libellous contents on your POV ground. Why didn't you put back what I have removed if you have the sources? Give us the sources now. STSC (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edits because, from past experience, I know you will simply start an edit war over it. I am not interested in edit warring. The content in question was already sourced in the body of the article. Citobun (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't make excuse, it's because I have served a DS notice on you. Give us the sources here now, if you cannot then don't make any false accusation against other editors. STSC (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources are all in the Junius Ho article. Everything there is well-sourced. I don't know what you mean by DS notice. I asked you on my talk page what you meant by that and you failed to explain it. Citobun (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot make up libellous wording just based on the sources per WP:SYNTH. You have deleted the DS notice, it's your problem. STSC (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add that content in the first place, nor have I reverted you. Please stop trying to portray me as exhibiting editing behaviours that I have not. Secondly, I didn't delete your "DS notice". I asked you to explain exactly what you were asking of me – and you didn't. The "DS notice" is now archived but still plainly visible. Citobun (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Point by point response:

(1) Original sentence "Riot police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators", I thought it was too general so I edited it to "Riot police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against groups of violent demonstrators". It's because the police started to deploy tear gas and rubber bullets against groups of violent demonstrators as they remained in the streets after the lawful protest march has finished. Citobun said it's "implying that police violence only took place against “violent” protesters". What a nonsense! So, basically, he wants me to add that the police is evil and they hit everyone in the streets. The police was just doing their duty to deal with the violent protesters, but Citobun says it's police violence; in his eyes, other editors would be guilty for not following his POV.

(2) I added "not so successful" about the general strike because a general strike is supposed to have everything halted but on that day mostly everything was normal while the biggest union did not join the strike. Source: [15]

(3) Of course they were riots, many protesters have got arrested and charged with rioting already.

(4) I used the same description as the article title which is Tiananmen Square protests.

(5) 'Protesters' is a more precise description than 'citizens'.

(6) Some of my edit summaries were short because of my laziness, it's not my intention to mislead. Actually many edits from Citobun do not even have a edit summary at all.

(7) It's a survey of just 1000 telephone respondents, it should not be presented as a fact.

(8) The potentially libellous contents I removed from Junius Ho have no sources.

2 August: I did not blank, I removed potentially libellous wording "He is known for encouraging violence against his opponents" added by DoctorHell. I moved the rest of the content to a new section.

6 August: DoctorHell put back again "He is known for encouraging violence against his opponents", I removed it. I also served a DS notice on DoctorHell.

21 August: I did not blank, I moved the content to another section, I stated very clearly in my edit summery "mv to 'Controversies' section."

10 September: I removed "scandals" because of no source.

10 September: I changed "Advocating for the killing of Hong Kong independence supporters" to "Call for killing of Hong Kong independence supporters", I thought the word "advocating" was too strong and potentially libellous.

STSC (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

1. STSC be warned to avoid misleading edit summaries.
2. Citobun be given a short-duration block for WP:HARASSMENT and advised not to bring complaints about STSC up again unless they do something actionable.
3. Edit protection be applied to articles related to the Hong Kong protests until such time as the current situation concludes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, particularly the second action. I don't see any evidence of harassment by Citobun in this complaint, where some valid issues have been pointed out by multiple editors. I don't see this complaint as disrupting Wikipedia either. Blocking people for bringing up legitimate issues at ANI only serves to create a Chilling effect on Wikipedia. More importantly blocks are supposed to prevent disruption, not be used punitively and I also note that for the evidence of harassment presented here [16] is from July and has already been acted upon.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Citobun was [17] blocked for harassment in July for PAs against STSC. And their response two months later is this trumped up AN/I filing. I don't think that a clearer picture is needed than that. They clearly have personal issues with STSC and they are clearly allowing those personal issues to cloud their judgment around proper comportment on Wikipedia. I don't think they need to be indeffed, but they do need to be reminded to behave. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• And that's the second time Citobun pulled a block in a situation where they were tangling with STSC over a Hong Kong article [18] - the 2017 edit warring block, if you look at article history, it was Citobun in a 1AM situation, and STSC was one of the M in that equation. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• [19] Here's the history in question. The page is essentially inactive now so it's easy to find the appropriate edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I found the 3RR/N case that led to Citobun's first block and while both were blocked for edit warring at that time, Citobun was admonished by the blocking admin to avoid PAs on that occasion too. This is a long-standing grudge that has to be put to bed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see an edit war (that too dating back to 2017) for which both STSC and Citobun seem to have been blocked. The other complaint is from July for which Citobun was blocked. I don't see anything in this particular ANI filing which would would remotely count as harassment.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Simonm223, what gives? This ANI filing is clearly not harassment nor a personal attack. I've already responded to that claim above, though you chose to ignore it. Citobun (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the second action, the issue here is about STSC, not Citobun. DoctorHell (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose #2. It makes no sense. I'm ok with 1 & 3. Buffs (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

STSC should be warned. In particular, they should (1) demonstrate an understanding of our WP:BLP policy (2) avoid misleading edit summaries. Any future violations should be blockable.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as it leaves Citobun without any response to their vexatious and unnecessary AN/I complaint. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is vexatious or objectionable about this AN/I complaint? You keep making completely baseless claims that I am attacking people. I have already linked you to the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Read it. I have provided ample evidence to back up my original allegation. I have not made any personal attacks here, nor harassed anyone. Stop making these baseless accusations. Citobun (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Between Citobun and STSC, I view STSC as the greater problem due to the POV slant of his editing and violations of biographies of living persons policy. This is fully demonstrated by the diffs already presented in this thread. I think that a warning to STSC should be sufficient to get the message across.Krow750 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. STSC should be unequivocally warned to cease making politically slanted edits of dubious veracity that are not backed up by citations to reliable sources. I provided multiple examples of such edits in the original filing above, which neither STSC nor Simonm223 addressed, instead choosing to frustrate the discussion by making baseless personal attacks against me. Citobun (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Citobun has provided amble evidence. The issue here is STSC's behaviour, not Citobun. I believe to penalize Citobun is to shoot the messenger. DoctorHell (talk) 3:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support in addition to the first proposal (either one or both is ok). Buffs (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98's edits in the area of Germanic languages

Hello. Over the last year, IvanScrooge98 has made a series of dubious edits in the area of Germanic languages (specifically IPA transcription). The issue reminds me of LoveVanPersie. What's the same is this:

• Inability or (even worse) unwillingness to read the relevant literature - in other words, issues with WP:COMPETENCE and sometimes also with complying with WP:RS.
• Issues with WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.
• Relying on other users to clean up after him (or at least to notice his mistakes, he tends to clean up after himself after that).
• Relying on other users to teach him phonetics/phonology for free instead of reading the literature.

I should've reported him sooner, definitely.

First the discussions, which IMO show his lack of competence:

• In this discussion, he asked me whether we could manufacture a pseudo-consensus regarding the use of the secondary stress mark in IPA transcriptions of Swedish, regardless of what reputable sources say about the subject (so that he could keep editing in the area of Swedish phonetics). Other discussions about that include User talk:Kbb2#Blekinge and User talk:IvanScrooge98#Long consonants in Swedish - I think that they prove that he hasn't improved his knowledge in the area of Swedish phonetics and phonology at all. He had a year to do that.
• In this discussion, he was pointlessly arguing with me that Swedish [ɪɛ] can be understood as anything other than a sequence of two vowels, which is unlikely (especially if you only consider those of our readers who can only read English IPA - in English, [ɪɛ] [mostly written as [iɛ] or [ie]] can't be compressed to [jɛ]). Plus, the pronunciation with [j] is possible in Swedish. Maybe not in all words, but it is possible and I gave him a source for that. That argument, as well as this discussion was a waste of time for everyone involved and a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What else should you call repeating "I'm not convinced" or "I don't agree", no matter what I say? Pronouncing "copy-edit" as [ˈkɒpjɛdɪt] (or [prəˌnʌnˈsjeɪʃən] for "pronunciation") is impossible in native English. Here's a quote from Geoff Lindsey's "English After RP", page 25: [S]ome of the words which are most commonly mispronounced by non-natives are ones in which weak FLEECE and GOOSE are followed by a vowel, such as association and situation (see Chaps. 8 and 9). In such words, non-natives very often fail to separate the two syllables in 'ua' and in 'ia'. Here, FLEECE should be taken to mean HAPPY, which isn't a true phoneme in English (HAPPY = KIT in older Received Pronunciation, hence the transcription ⟨ɪ⟩ in some sources. Other sources use ⟨i⟩, which is a symbol that means "either /ɪ/ or /iː/".
• In this discussion, I noticed that he misheard [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan], which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. He was partially right about the long consonants though.

Now the diffs.

• He's made a series of mistakes when transcribing German:
  • He transcribed /ən/ after /m/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [20]
  • He transcribed /ən/ after /ŋ/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [21]
  • He transcribed /əm/ after /t/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [22]
  • He mistook the syllabic [ɐ] for the non-syllabic [ɐ̯] just because it was preceded by a vowel: [23]
  • In this edit summary (of an edit that's a part of [this edit war), he told me that we should either transcribe [ʁ] everywhere (no source does that) or use [ɐ̯] instead of it (which is a solution used in a minority of sources). This shows that he's not reading the literature (AFAICS, he also wasn't aware of the fact that [aɐ̯] and [aːɐ̯] fall together with [aː] for all speakers who consistently vocalize their /r/ [though in regional SG there may be a difference of [aː] (phonemically /ar/) vs. [ɑː] (phonemically /aː/ and /aːr/)] - ⟨aɐ̯⟩ and ⟨aːɐ̯⟩ is just a convention used for the sake of phonemic identification, mostly for speakers of Swiss Standard German). The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. In it, he admited that he can't really distinguish between a uvular approximant and [ɐ̯], which is an amateurish mistake. Most sources use ⟨ʁ⟩ or ⟨r⟩ after short vowels and ⟨ɐ̯⟩ after long vowels.

The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. These are amateurish mistakes that nobody who's well-versed in the area of German phonetics would make.

• He's made a series of edits in the area of Icelandic phonetics, here are some of them: [24], [25], based solely on Help:IPA/Icelandic and Icelandic phonology#Vowel length (I guess he didn't know that Wikipedia is not a source and that they can be incomplete or even plain wrong).
  • This edit has an alarming edit summary - he shouldn't have performed it if he wasn't sure of the correctness of the IPA. Here's basically the same kind of an edit in another article.
• He edit warred with me on Henryk Sienkiewicz over a regional IPA: [26].
• He's made a series of dubious changes to Swedish IPA:
  • Somewhere in this discussion it becomes apparent that he changed tone 1 to tone 2 in some transcriptions based on his assumptions and/or his untrained hearing (again, how can you mishear [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan] if you claim to be competent enough to transcribe Swedish into IPA?). I'm not sure what those edits are ([27] is one of them) exactly, but they were performed roughly between August 25, 2018 and September 1, 2018.
  • Here, when fixing the Swedish IPA, he forgot to change the first vowel to [æ], which is an obligatory allophone of /ɛ/ before /r/ in stressed syllables. Again, an amateurish mistake.
  • In this edit he basically told me that he WP:OWNS Help:IPA/Swedish (that's how I understand it anyway) and I should just accept that edit based on the fact that he knows what he's doing (whatever that means, he didn't feel the need to clarify that).

I propose a topic ban for editing anything IPA- and phonetics-related in general in the area of Germanic languages (excluding English, with which he seems to have no problems). With such disregard for WP:RS we have no idea what he's gonna screw up next. It's not our role to clean up after him.

It'd be great if someone could check his edits in other areas (Italian, French, Slavic languages other than Polish, etc.) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, you did not understand (or pretended not to) my argument regarding Swedish [ɪɛ], involving instances where an English speaker might use /iə/. The examples you put are just unrelated.

What should I say about the rest? My fault is that when I see a transcription that is more or less incorrect or does not follow what appears to be the implicit consensus stated in the help, I tend to try and correct it myself instead of using template tags such as {{fix}}. I must admit that, and all can do now is promising I will use them more often when I am not sure about my editions, however late this may be coming. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: If they can read IPA it's impossible that they'd confuse [ɪɛ] for [ɪə]. Pronouncing English /ɪɛ/ as anything other than two consecutive vowels is a non-native mistake (and, in Swedish, unlike English, [jɛ] is a possible pronunciation of /ɪɛ/!)

You need to have the WP:COMPETENCE to perform those fixes. That you can gain by reading the literature (WP:RS). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A concern is that editors are coming to conclusions about IPAs based on their own opinions as to how indirect sources in literature such as textbooks should be interpreted or as a result of their own WP:OR. Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Help:IPA/Italian is a further snare in that it seems to encourage original work.SovalValtos (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the concern with this but I still think it's the optimal approach. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. It is also preferable for our IPA pronunciations to line up with IPA help pages, which means occasionally transliterating into IPA from other pronunciation systems or making trivial tweaks to what is in sources like dictionaries (remember that there is often more than one acceptable or established way of transcribing something in broad phonemic notation, for example in Czech the vowel <o> can be transcribed as /o/ or /ɔ/, it doesn't matter, but we use /o/ to be simple and consistent.) IPA help pages can be created from reliable sources in such a way that any native or competent speaker of a language can interpret them and know how to transcribe anything by analogy to the example words given next to each phoneme. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. The main purpose of the help pages however was to help users unfamiliar with the IPA make sense of transcriptions (hence the "nearest English equivalents"), and when they were first created they were made intentionally over-broad and simple. I am not sure how much that still rings today as certain pages such as Help:IPA/English have become overcomplicated to the point of just becoming summaries of technical phonology articles like English phonology. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Yes please. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. Not if it is just made up by random people with no basis in anything but their own opinion. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. Obviously translation can be OR, and if there is a question of two different meanings/translations then the correct way to settle it is by consulting reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Presumably a Wikipedia IPA help page should not be used to justify one editor's preferred transcription as was done by User:IvanScrooge98 in this edit [28] having previously changed another editor's preferred version in this edit [29] without source? Later in this edit [30] he persisted in adding his version without supplying a reference and without consensus.SovalValtos (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: I had explained there was no need for further refs other than the one I had provided, as Modern Greek pronunciation is constantly predictable from the spelling. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This may not be directly relevant to 'edits in the area of Germanic languages' but I think it reveals the perhaps over self-confident attitude of User:IvanScrooge98's own opinion as to the value of his edits rather than those of others. I note that he did not add an acceptable ref after than the one he had earlier suggested was rejected [31]. Neither did he use talk to attempt to achieve consensus. His opinion that no ref was needed reveals an unacceptable approach to WP:V policy, as applicable to himself, when in disagreement with other editor's edits; his unilateral assertion is that his edit is exempt for some reason of his own.SovalValtos (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I quote SovalValtos. Just have a look at this sample list of edit summaries: [32]. He was also blocked in en.wiktionary and nl.wikipedia, and his talk page contains quarrels with many different users. This may not be directly relevant to the thread but might be helpful to frame the individual.Yniginy (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like Trollhättan is indeed pronounced as I have heard in every single recording I have listened to. Just to say. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Perhaps. But Karlstad and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir aren't. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: I clearly meant it as a reply to I noticed that he misheard [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan], which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. Apparently you misheard it but were convinced I had, which means we are at least on a similar level when it comes to knowledge of the Swedish pitch accent and neither of us should correct the other. Regarding Karlstad, the present audio separates the two consonants, but we do not know whether it is the regular pronunciation or some kind of “more careful” one, considering how Karl is normally uttered. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: A year ago you were changing tone 1 to tone 2 in Swedish transcriptions based on your hunches. That transcription was a part of your editing spree. Whether it was correct is, I think, less relevant than the bigger picture itself.

I'm not convinced that you should use your untrained, non-native ears (which are like mine in that regard) to judge the pitch accent in Swedish, especially in words with three syllables or more. The fact that multiple people oppose a topic ban for you doesn't give you a carte blanche to do as you wish. It's better not to provide IPA than to guess it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: yes, but you seem to have done the same when you first added the stress, instead of either removing the transcription, tagging it as incomplete or looking for a source.

I am not taking it as carte blanche, don’t worry. I have understood when I should edit and when not. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This is really unnecessary and premature. ANI is your last resort; you shouldn't bring anything here until other resources have been explored. Seems like you learned nothing from the friendly caution FeRDNYC gave here just a couple days ago. It also seems you didn't notice the warning at the top of this page, which tells you to be concise: I mean, do you seriously think admins and veterans who frequent here are going to read and understand all of what you wrote there? Invite editors well-versed in the area for their opinions at a more appropriate forum (like WT:LING). At this stage this is simply a content dispute. So seek for arbitration, not sanction.

  IvanScrooge98 is a prolific editor in this area and, as far as I've encountered and as far as the languages I'm familiar with are concerned, a very competent one. And there are few competent IPA editors, let alone such prolific ones. So far I see no reason to believe he will not be persuaded when confronted with reasonable evidence that disagrees with his behavior. So if he's not, then maybe you haven't been doing a good enough job convincing him. Have you, for example, asked for a third opinion? (I know I've been asked by Ivan, which I was about to get to, but then this happened. Thanks for your patience.) I advise Ivan to stick strictly to WP:BRD, i.e. always prefer the version before you arrived at the article whenever your edit is challenged until it is settled in a discussion. I advise Kbb the same. Nardog (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: You're probably right. I'll let this discussion come to an end in a natural manner (unless more users join and decide that a topic ban is a reasonable solution after all - that could happen too) and will start a discussion at WT:LING. Though I don't see how this report (apart from the wording of a few sentences, which could be improved) could be understood as a personal attack. I saw sufficient reasons to report him and so I went ahead. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Agree with the above, this is premature. I did as you asked and checked Ivan's scant contribs in Czech and Slovak and found one incidental error which anyone could be forgiven for and is of little consequence. I have more bones to pick with some of the English transcriptions being added (not just by Ivan) which I will gladly elaborate on in a more appropriate venue. Also, responding to one specific point raised above, if IPA help pages like Help:IPA/Icelandic are wrong (as in actually wrong, not just intentionally broad, which is by design), then I think our priority should be fixing them first before we get into disputes over individual pronunciations. I recommend using sources published by the International Phonetics Association to adjudicate any disputes around IPA help pages, as no one can sensibly claim that those are unreliable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• I checked the Icelandic edits that are linked to and they are fine. The first vowel in Katrín is indeed long and IvanScrooge98 was right to correct that.[33] Haukur (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I checked the German edits that are linked to. I see no basis for claiming that any of them should be “an impossible pronunciation”. On the other hand, I know that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @J. 'mach' wust: Then you also don't know how syllabic consonants are formed in German. The first three mistakes in transcription are, in fact, an impossible pronunciation (which is how I phrased it). The first two would be heard as [m̩] and [ŋ̍] [which is a correct pronunciation and not necessarily very informal] by native speakers (their established transcription is [mən] and [ŋən], nobody would write them [mn̩] or [ŋn̩] except for few phonologists, these transcriptions are very abstract by the way and so is [tm̩]) and the last one as [pm̩], which is a serious pronunciation error. Neither German nor English allows the schwa in /mən, ŋən, təm/ to be dropped (in that manner anyway, the first two can be pronounced [m̩] and [ŋ̍] in German).

The pronunciation of /eːər/ as [eːɐ̯] is colloquial and shouldn't be transcribed in an encyclopedia.

Please leave the topic of Help:IPA/Standard German out of this. I have nothing against posts that genuinely support Ivan but your message shows a similar lack of research in the area of German pronunciation as Ivan's edits themselves. IMO it's also alarming that a native speaker that's been dealing with IPA for at least 15 years (if I'm not mistaken) would endorse those specific edits. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have dealt long enough with German pronunciation to be extremely skeptical when somebody claims that some plausible transcription should be a mistake or impossible or not allowed, especially when these bold claims are not backud up with any sources. You are accusing IvanScrooge98 of making mistakes and of using impossible transcriptions, but you have not given proof to substantiate your accusation. I therefore oppose a topic ban. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: You cannot be serious right now. Insisting that [mn̩], [ŋn̩] or [tm̩] are plausible pronunciations shows that you have no idea what a syllabic consonant is. Again, an amateurish mistake. I really hope that you're joking, because you're a native speaker of German. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly was not joiking. Substantiating your accusations would help you more than personally attacking me. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: It's interesting that you, a person who's been dealing with IPA and German pronunciation for more than a decade, haven't provided a single source yourself. My source is the 7th edition of Das Aussprachewörterbuch, pp. 39–41. I'm sorry but this is either a provocation or your knowledge in the area of German pronunciation is seriously questionable. Nobody who thinks that Atem can be pronounced [ˈaːtm̩] has been dealing with IPA for more than a couple of weeks. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First: Why should I have to cite any sources? I am not making any claims, let alone accusations. Please read and understand WP:BURDEN. Second: I wonder whether you have actually consulted the Aussprachewörterbuch. It does not say anywhere that the transcriptions IvanScrooge98 has used are “mistakes” or an “impossible pronunciation”, as you have claimed. It just explains the conventions used in that dictionary – IvanScrooge98 has not followed them, but that obviously does not mean that IvanScrooge98’s transcriptions are “mistakes“ or an “impossible pronunciation”. Third: I feel silly for having to point this out, but a dictionary could not possibly prove your point that certain pronunciations are impossible. You would have to find peer-reviewed phonetic literature that uses hard empyrical data. I seriously doubt that you are ever going to find it. Empyrical data is likely to prove you wrong by showing that the pronunciations you so insultingly reject are really possible and do occur. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: Someone please warn this guy and remove the conversation. This is a case of deliberately spreading misinformation. I'm ending this per WP:DONTFEED. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. If you are trying to win an argument by claiming your POV is obvious and then implying that anybody who does not agree with your POV is stupid, you are not going to succeed. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 19:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Luckily no one understands what this IPA stuff means anyway, so it doesn't matter except to those involved. EEng 02:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, that is what helps are made for. To help people understand. By the way, I’m thanking everyone who’s taken the time to constructively intervene so far. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Don't ban IvanScrooge98. Although I have differences with that user, at least he's providing information (both English & foreign words) on phonetics & pronunciations. If you are a native speaker of other languages (ie., French, Spanish, etc.) & knows the rules of phonetics & pronunciations, do provide the correct information. Banning that user would be total loss to Wikipedia. NKM1974 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@NKM1974: We're discussing a topic ban (so that he wouldn't be allowed to edit in certain areas), not a block. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You can place me firmly in the category of "dealing with IPA for ... a couple of weeks". I.e. I'm looking at IvanScrooge's edits and physically trying to replicate the sounds proposed.

1) To go from m to n without a vowel between requires a pause. In transition without a pause, there'll be a schwa (an "uh" sound) (i.e. muhn). It's not (afaict) possible to do otherwise. The "m" sound is made with the mouth closed (it's a bilabial sound, meaning that it's made with the lips). So if you open your mouth while saying "m" it becomes "muh" (i.e. mə). In tandem, the "n" sound is made with mouth open and tongue pressed against the alveolar ridge. So, in transition you get "muhn" ("mən").

2) It's more plausible to go ŋ to n without a schwa. Try saying "singn", but not "singuhn". It's possible, but difficult and unnatural. The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge without creating a pocket. The reason is that the dorsum (back of tongue) touches the roof of the mouth when making a velar sound (ŋ), whilst the tip of the tongue touches the roof of the mouth when making an alveolar or post-alveolar (n) sound.

3) Tm is a lot like mn. You get a "tuhm" (təm) sound. Again, when making a "t" sound, the mouth is open. When making a "m" sound, the mouth is closed. You can again do "t pause m".

I hope my explanations make sense, and forgive me that I don't know the terminology well. I cannot replicate these sounds, or if I can, it is absolutely unnatural. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge – It’s because of filth like this that Wikipedia is blocked in some countries. Please, think of the children! EEng 10:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: what is this comment even about and how is it even relevant to this discussion? 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's one of EEng's patent-pending(?) comedic comments intended to provide levity. Honestly, the dirty sounding nature of my explanations is why I departed every instance of "lips parted" from this a few days ago. A good call, all-in-all. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I must really have a problem with taking people otherwise than seriously. XD 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Swedish phonology, but not for other languages. The evidence provided by nom, if correct, shows that IvanScrooge98 is incapable of editing competently in that topic area, especially with regards to the language's tones. (Admittedly, I don't know anything about phonology in any foreign language, but I know many of the sounds.) However, Haukurth and Filelakeshoe have shown that there isn't a serious problem in other languages.

On the flipside, I found a couple of edits by Kbb2, [34] and [35], where Kbb2 admits wrongdoing on his/her behalf with regards to edits by IvanScrooge98, both regarding IPA in North Germanic languages (Icelandic in the former, Danish in the latter). This suggests that Kbb2 is acting near-preemptively against IS98 because of the latter's history with Swedish phonology. In addition, the claim by J. 'mach' wust that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly is backed up by edits like [36], [37], [38], and [39]. This is contrary to the unnamed foreign-langauge analog of MOS:RHOTIC, and suggests that the rest of the problem lies with Kbb2, not IS98. Perhaps Kbb2 should be banned from interacting wih IS98. Kbb2 should also be warned about RHOTIC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User Nicoljaus

User Nicoljaus returned his version ([40], [41], [42]) in article John of Kronstadt, did not allow me to edit the article at all. He does not write neutrally. I suggested to write according to Kizenko ([43]), ([44]), but he doesn’t want. He wrote that it will be a fan club ([45]). I consider this to be an absurdity. I am sorry, if my edits were edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:AN3#User:‎Nicoljaus reported by User:Aleksei m (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, where should I write or can I correct his phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The best way to solve this is talking it out, which I see you folks have been doing on the talk page. I will chime in my 2 cents there to try to move this content dispute along. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What Aleksei m does is ordinary trolling. All his comments, all his nit-picking is nonsense. He himself will not contribute anything constructive to the article. He has one goal – to remove from the article all the negative facts about John (anti-Semitism, the patronage of the sect, the excuse of Kishinev pogrom, the shameful escape from Kronstadt) and make the Life of the saint from this article. To do this, he will seek a ban for his opponents. So he acts everywhere.Wlbw68 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This is boomerang territory. I tried to engage at the talk page, and got a combination of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems. This dispute? Over the use of the word "moreover". Aleksei seems impervious to logic, and is incensed that someone would use the "moreover" instead of "however" or "also". Perhaps a language barrier? Or just a competence barrier. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I explained why it is no need to use the word "moreover" and did not receive substantive objections on the Talk Page of the article. Aleksei m (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a language barrier here, as "moreover" does not connotate what Aleksei seems to think it does. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the barrier? I have provided a link according to which the word "moreover" means "also and more importantly" ([46]). Why is the second phrase "After the 1990 the rehabilitation of the sectarian Ioannites started" more important for the article than first phrase: "John was subsequently canonized by the Moscow Patriarchate"? Aleksei m (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Per dictionary.com, moreover means "in addition to what has been said; further; besides"(ref1), no mention of importance. Per Merriam Webster, "in addition to what has been said : BESIDES"(ref2), no mention of importance. Per the Macmillan dictionary, "used for introducing an additional and important fact that supports or emphasizes what you have just said"(ref3), does not say more important. I do not think it means what you think it means.--Darth Mike^(talk) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Never-ending dispute

• The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AnAudLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KyleJoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AnAudLife and I have been involved in a dispute regarding the sorting of The Real Housewives of New York City article since June due to their bold edit that did not adhere to WP:BRD. Since said edit, we engaged in an edit war, for which I received a block. During this block, AnAudLife proceeded to form a conclusion based on their own argument with zero user involvement. After the completion of my block period, a formal discussion on the article's talk page commenced. However, after a while, it felt as if they and I were regurgitating the same points over and over, which prompted me to request for a third opinion on the matter (given here), open an RfC, and request dispute resolution, all of which have not resolved the dispute. Now, I am starting to think that the reason for this lack of resolve is due to what I perceive as AnAudLife's refusal to accept that not one (myself), not two, not three, but four users believe otherwise and that the only person on the article talk page that explicitly supported their theory has been checkuser-blocked.

Another isue that I would like to address is the constant broadening and narrowing of the scope of the dispute. After a third opinion was generated, AnAudLife, fully knowing that the dispute has always been about the sorting of a specific name on a specific article, broadened the scope out of left field. Then, during the RfC, it was back to the sorting of the specific name. I believe this confuses the discussion and makes it harder to assert points.

In relation to the scope, AnAudLife keeps contradicting themselves. Regarding the subject of one's nationality and the part it plays in determining indexing, they originally stated: Myself and others still don’t know why you think her nationality is a factor at all. Then it became: That is why this conversation was started, sorting indexing, alphabetizing...should be done according to the name itself, not exclusively the nationality, acknowledging that there's merit in the opposing view without acknowledging the shift in their view in regards to the dispute. During this process, they also referenced a WP guideline without addressing that the exact guideline was used to challenge their view.

AnAudLife has also exhibited a tendency to regurgitate points that have already been discredited. In regards to their claim that Alexandre de Lesseps is a Count and Luann maintains she is still a Countess . . ., I referenced two articles from the New York Daily News and the Miami Herald, respectively, that says the exact opposite. They then kept arguing their point, citing a dead link from a gossip site to support it.

They also failed to adhere to WP:OR, with statements such as . . . I’ve spoken with 2 English professors casually regarding this debate . . . and In order for Luann to carry the title of Countess, she had to become a French citizen and maintain that citizenship . . . without citations.

And finally, a personal attack in the form of an accusation of bullying. KyleJoan^talk 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's ... a lot of discussion about whether to alphabetize it as "Lesseps, Luann de" or "de Lesseps, Luann". A lot. I understand it's easy to get sucked into this kind of thing. Eons ago I was sucked into a long argument about capitalization. Luckily I had a friend who noticed the dispute and pointed out to me that it really doesn't matter. I have some small hope that I can do the same for you. KyleJoan, I promise that it really doesn't matter how it's alphabetized. For that matter, AnAudLife, I promise that it really doesn't matter. The first one of you to realize that "wins". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Floquenbeam. I think at this point I have realized that it doesn't matter that much. However, I still take issue with the way the discussion was conducted. I don't know if you ever felt gaslit during your dispute, but I certainly have felt that way multiple times during ours, especially being accused of bullying, which was why I felt compelled to open this ANI discussion. KyleJoan^talk 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you start this dispute here? When the moderator on the dispute page (that you initiated) here hasn't even written the RFC on MOS?

I honestly can't believe most of what you just wrote on this page and I refute most of it. I invite everyone to read my contributions elsewhere on this topic, addressing every point you make, leaving nothing out.

Why are you starting yet another argument in another place before allowing completion on the dispute page?

Also, I didn't think I've ever accused you of bullying, but I have certainly felt that way myself with the never ending disputes and accusations. However, if you feel as if I have bullied you, I do apologize.AnAudLife (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never felt bullied by you. Never said it. Never felt it. Regardless, thank you for the apology. KyleJoan^talk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was so long ago that "gaslit" wasn't really a thing yet. I mean, certainly not before the movie, but before it became a popular reference. But yes, at the time I did honestly feel that way. With time and distance, I realize he probably honestly felt the same way. The "bullying" accusation is sub-optimal, but (a) if you take it as an honest description of how AnAudLife feels, it's useful info even if not objectively true, and (b) you're kind of accusing them of intentionally gaslighting, right? Seldom are these things 95% Person A's fault, and 5% Person B's fault. Usually they're 45% Person A's fault, and 55% person B's fault, and it takes a lot of real, honest effort to figure who the 45% is and who the 55% is, and at the end of the day, after all that work, the difference between 45% and 55% is so small that the best solution is "why don't you guys kind of avoid each other for a while?". For something as low stakes as this, is it really worth finding out? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"gaslighting" dates to the 1930s. --Jorm (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm in no position to determine whether someone does something intentionally or not; I'm only saying that I feel gaslit, especially when every single one of my grievances contains direct links to specific instances of the problems I presented and they're still being disputed. I also do plan to avoid the dispute from now on. I think this ANI discussion is my final attempt to ensure that I address these problems in case they ever arise again in the future. KyleJoan^talk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, that's... special. Is there even a MOS guideline for this? I have seen "De Word, William", "Word, William de", an algorithm that says De Word for single syllables and Worsmith, De for multi-syllable, I have seen "de Word" but alphasorted as Word, and so on. It's a muddle, so I am not surpised it's not settling. Much as I hate the MOS, this is really a job for a style guide. Best of luck. Guy (help!) 22:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a vague, horrifying recollection that Belgium and the Netherlands traditionally treat the nobiliary particle differently (one omitting it and one including it in alphabetization), so it's...difficult to write a broad rule for this that won't make swathes of people unhappy. Choess (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Different nations use different rules. The content issue that I was trying to resolve at DRN is whether the national rule should be based on the nationality (citizenship) of the person, or on the national origin of the surname. I thought that I had agreement that the matter would be resolved by an RFC, which I was in the process of drafting. Their arguments weren't going to affect me, because I was drafting it to be a neutral RFC to be resolved by the community. I had asked the participants in the DRN where to post the RFC to get the most responses. I am now asking the community here where I should post the RFC. I have failed the DRN discussion because DRN does not handle a case that is also pending in another forum including ANI. I am still willing to try to address the content issue with an RFC after any conduct issue is resolved here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I felt that the DRN had become a proxy forum for more regurgitations of points already made, and I knew this ANI discussion wouldn’t affect the neutral RfC Robert McClenon was drafting. My intention with this ANI was to address behavioral issues related to the dispute. If the dispute itself could still find a resolve, then great. KyleJoan^talk 01:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I thought KyleJoan planned to avoid the dispute from now on, as I stated previously, I personally would still like to see the RFC that Robert McClenon is drafting come to fruition to be discussed with other users. I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general. I noticed when KyleJoan begins a dispute she visits other users talk pages and asks them to visit said dispute and give their opinions. Is that standard procedure? Can I do that as well? AnAudLife (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@AnAudLife: To clarify, I'm distancing myself from arguing for the acceptance of one theory over another regarding this dispute. I still find your behavior problematic and will continue to respond to questions and comments revelant to said behavior as well as previous discussions that took place. Speaking of problematic behavior, it's difficult not to feel gaslit when viewing statements such as I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general because you know good and well that you have personally initiated two MOS discussions, which others can find here and here, that did faciliate further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general, so the idea that the deliberation process on this matter did not go far enough is outright false. KyleJoan^talk 03:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to see that my "behavior" is any different than yours, you have argued your position just as vehemently as I have so there's that. When this journey (yes, that's what its starting to feel like) began, I felt that this case particularly was all that needed to be addressed, but then as other editors weighed in it became obvious that a more broader guideline needs to be established, not to mention all of the outside information available, it's mind-boggling. So the scope changed a little, it is not the end of the world. Either way it's a win for Wikipedia if we clarify this AND other cases in the future where this may happen. The discussions you spoke of, which I have NEVER denied initiating....nothing came of them. Nothing was concluded. Nothing was decided. Conversation dried up and that was that. Nothing changed. I'd like to see a RFC written by a NEUTRAL party and have other editors, not just the ones you recruit, to offer their opinions. Now if we're allowed to ask others to join in the conversation, then I will do so as well. AnAudLife (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@AnAudLife: One key difference between our behaviors: I've legitimized your view. Never once did you legitimize mine. You simply changed the scope of the discussion multiple times and took bits and pieces out of my analyses and presented them as if they've never been said in the discussion (i.e. acknowledging that one's nationality is a factor in indexing after weeks of denying it, referencing WP:MCSTJR, etc.), therefore, gaslighting. I'm going to stop engaging you now. I'll continue to address my concerns regarding your conduct if anyone else would like to discuss it. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 04:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't even know what gaslighting is and certainly didn't do anything underhanded or intentional. I merely stated my position and presented facts, when you would bring additional points to be discussed, I discussed them, you changed the content, you set the tone, I simply followed suit. You consistently brought up nationality, I had to address it, right? As well as all the other points you brought up? And if you must know, in this case, it's a mixed bag. Luann de Lesseps is French, Algonquin and French Canadian, born in America, married to a Frenchman. How's that for confusing? I'm sorry if you feel I did something wrong, I certainly didn't mean to and not sure that I did. Is this just because you don't like to be challenged? No one does but isn't that what we're all doing here, trying to better Wikipedia? Isn't that the ultimate goal? AnAudLife (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC

I have posted the RFC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RFC_on_Sorting_of_Names_with_Particles . Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal A: Interaction Ban

The above uncivil back-and-forth between User:KyleJoan and User:AnAudLife is oddly clarifying, in that it shows that we have two users who do not like each other and do not get along, and their interaction is a problem. I propose an interaction ban between these two editors, with the usual exceptions. I will complete posting an RFC within 48 hours, which should resolve the content dispute. The interaction ban will prevent the conduct dispute from interfering with resolving the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Genuine question: Is pointing out patterns of behavior complete with direct quotes and direct links and addressing how said patterns make one feel considered uncivil? I really tried my best to focus on content, so I apologize if some of my comments went beyond that. That was not my intention. I always aim to use discretion to maintain civility, and I'm sorry for the times that discretion was lost during this discussion. KyleJoan^talk 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Genuine question: What does all this mean? Does this mean when you post the RFC that neither one of us can comment on it? And that if we run into each other again like say 6 months from now that we can’t change each other’s edits...or challenge the validity of their content or even converse on each other’s talk pages? And that we can’t ever address each other again? While I joined Wikipedia in 2012, I didn’t begin actively editing until this year so I am new to it and am learning as I go along, please pardon my ignorance with what you’re proposing and help me to understand fully. While I’ve felt attacked and belittled and falsely accused, I still don’t hold it against KyleJoan and have also apologized if they felt slighted. AnAudLife (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @KyleJoan and AnAudLife:

Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

• edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  
• reply to each other in discussions;
  
• make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
  
• undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  
• use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

From WP:IBAN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So you can both post to the RFC, just not comment on each others' posts. You have been commenting on each others' posts at too much length. You will notice that it also says that a no-fault two-way interaction ban is used to prevent a dispute from spreading. Also, you haven't been interaction-banned yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not plan to engage the other user, but if I can't raise concerns regarding their conduct or even reference their conduct at all, then I'd like to ask for another solution. KyleJoan^talk 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support (if I’m allowed) Assuming the other user abides by the ban, I can't imagine there would be a problem with this at all. I would feel a bit safer and happier if I knew this would end the turmoil, the reverts, the arguing. BUT, if they continue to revert or undo my edits or contact me in any way on Wikipedia, will I have a means to report them? AnAudLife (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (if I get to state a position). I feel that the interaction ban does not address the conduct concerns I raised about the other user. Now, if anyone would like to raise concerns about my conduct in this dispute and reference specific instances of when said conduct needed correcting, then I would like to hear them and have the opportunity to address and correct it. KyleJoan^talk 23:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The statement by User:KyleJoan that "Now, if anyone would like to raise concerns about my conduct in this dispute and reference specific instances of when said conduct needed correcting, then I would like to hear them and have the opportunity to address and correct it" shows a lack of self-reflection. We have already tried to raise a concern about her conduct, which is that their focusing on the other user's conduct is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to restate this, so believe me when I say I always aim to use discretion to maintain civility, and I'm sorry for the times that discretion was lost during this discussion. Aside from that, I'm really confused. How am I supposed to reference conduct if I'm not able to point it out directly? Also, if asking for an evaluation of my own conduct to ensure the discussion remains balanced is improper, then I apologize for that statement as well. KyleJoan^talk 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This feels like an overreaction to a first appearance at ANI, where, at most, there has been some mild incivility with probably not-overly malicious intent. And We have already tried to raise a concern about her conduct, which is that their focusing on the other user's conduct is tendentious feels like an overstatement; all I saw was a couple of editors advising taking a breath and walking away. KyleJoan has asked for specific diffs where they could have improved, and that feels like a good-faith request that shouldn't result in a sanction. Grandpallama (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grandpallama. This seems like overkill. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Long-term financial vandalism at selected pages

This is the second time asking help for this matter due to continued vandalism. Last time it was archived without even a reply. Last post:

A Mammootty fanboy is repeatedly exaggerating the budget of Mamangam (2019 film) and reducing the budget of his professional rival Mohanlal's Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham, disregarding sources. This is the nth time this guy is fudging the budget, even after multiple range blocks. IPs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (and probably more). Because of a single guy, both pages were page protected. Sometimes also damaging other pages by reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating Mammootty films, a terrible version of that can be seen in the 10th and 11th IPs. Another trick of this guy for reducing the budget of Marakkar is exaggerating it first to a HUGE number beyond expecting and then reducing it in the next edit to a desired low figure like he was correcting it. Probably unaware that there is a page history and people can see.

New IPs: 1, 2. This guy has now created user accounts, Ayisha1209 [47], you can see other edits are all exaggerating the box office numbers of Mammootty films and the same "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7", now blocked and created M0hamedr0shan007 the next day [48], same activity and articles and the "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7" and there is Xskullxxrider, Bharathkm54321. Please use a check user or anything and find out who this is. 2405:204:D285:C47F:955F:3C32:2586:C082 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• A film about breast cancer screening is a worthy project and I hope those involved can resolve their differences. EEng 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  What does that mean? 2405:204:D30A:9DB9:854D:97BC:7D37:892A (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Mamangam. At least I'm keeping your thread from being archived. EEng 01:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion disrupted by Meatpuppetry

• Bosanska Krajina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (destination for proposed merger and its TP is place for merger discussion)
• Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (problematic page, protected three times in last two months)

It started with editors attempt to organize response against merger, with one editor alerting another editor to "take an eye onto discussion" at User_talk:Peacemaker67#Turkish_Croatia, former quite assertive and demanding in "discussion"; then this later editor alerting third editor, emphatically asking third editor if they can send them (second) an email.
This exchange predictably resulted with involved antagonistic editors resorting to requesting assistance of like-minded people and campaigning outside English Wikipedia, namely by placing couple of inciting request at Croatian Wikipedia - two evident are instances of this behavior HERE and HERE (we can only presume what was going on beyond these pages (WP:STEALTH)) - to which few responded in attempt to give boost to their (systemic) biased POV by means of "voting" on the merger. Another dedicated (and up until that moment uninvolved) editor, myself included, tried to get their attention on this behavior, but we were dismissed with comments of explanations and justifications. And, not only that they voted more then once(!) each, they also, apparently, using WP:Single-purpose accounts as well. Obstructed discussion at: Talk:Bosanska_Krajina#Merger_discussion. As an aside, I would also like to examine the possibility of extending the page protection (current pg. protection expires in couple of hours), at least until the ensuing merger discussion and disruption of it has been resolved.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It actually all started with editor who disrupted ([49], [50]) a long-time more or less stable content [51] of the article „Turkish Croatia“, and who began edit warring. Later he alerted admins ([52], [53]) and one of them protected the page, but with problematic content, and opened merger discussion. By the way, the page was protected only once, not „three times in last two months“. Some other editors (among which were also those who previously took part on the talk page of the article) reacted to behaviour of the disruptive editor and opposed the merger, giving reasons for that, including facts, sources, references.

During the merger discussion, there was no one who clearly supported the merger, but only made comments. Perhaps because there are a lot of sources that prove the notability of the article, as standalone one. Most of sources were systematically ignored and removed from the article by disruptive editor. He added his POV sources instead, which have almost nothing to do with the original content. And, as for my „double“ voting, I clearly stated that I confirmed my previous discussion on talk pages „before the merger discussion had been officially opened“.

Instead of contributing constructively to the article dealing with distant past, this editor uses the article as some sort of political pamphlet, and uses words like neologism, hapax, claptrap, pseudo-history, Austrian-Hungarian conspiracy theory etc. to describe the term and original content of the article. Could anybody explain how, for instance, an at least 300 or 400 years old term (Turkish Croatia) can be neologism, or how the term with a lot of various sources in English, German, Italian and Croatian language ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]) can be hapax?

The most important things to be stressed here are:

1. The article is a significant integral part of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian history, but the Croatian history as well.
2. The article deals with distant past and not with recent history, e.g. Bosnian War or Croatian War of Independence in the 1990s.
3. The article refers to the territory which does not overlap with the area of Bosanska Krajina, neither geographically nor chronologically.
4. The original content of the article has a lot of references from independent and reliable sources.

--Silverije 22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Silverije: Two wrongs don't make a right. The only reason so many people left oppose votes was because you canvassed them to do so, something you neglect to mention while engaging in personal attacks. Perhaps if you had just left your oppose vote and left the discussion to proceed naturally, you would have had a stronger case for your accusations. You allege bias, but Croatian Wikipedia isn't exactly the most unbiased place, far from it in fact... DraconicDark (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Dum felis dormit, mus gaudet et exsi litantro.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Sure If This Belongs Here.....

I have been having some edit conflicts with user User:KStrain2000 - the most recent issue being with List of programs broadcast by Family Channel" I put in a reference stating that Speechless was a Disney Show since User:KStrain2000 decided that it should be listed under the "Disney" section, which is under the "Former Programming" section in List of programs broadcast by Family Channel. This station aired Speechless after Family Channel decided to no longer air Disney Programming (see "Loss of Disney Channel programming rights and other changes" in the "History section of Family Channel - several references are given. Speechless did not start airing on Family Channel (nor was it even made) until after Family Channel ceased airing any Disney programming.

In the Wikipedia article for Speechless there is no refer3ence to Disney owning it, at all. I found a reference for the List of programs broadcast by Family Channel to state that Disney was owned by Disney; however, a little while after I did this, User:KStrain2000 reverted that edit, stating "Speechless doesn't need a reference because everyone already knows it's owned by them; those Nick animated shows weren't by Nickelodeon themselves and Strawberry Shortcake isn't a Family original".

I reverted the edit and fixed it so that the shows no longer aired under the "Animated Series" section for "Nickelodeon" in the "Former Programming" section; but the fact that User:KStrain2000 stated "Speechless doesn't need a reference because everyone already knows it's owned by them" is extremely rude; I didn't know they were owned by Disney since no reference (nor was it ever mentioned) showed that Disney bought rights to Speechless - that's why I found (and provided) a reference stating that Disney bought rights to it (Disney is listed in the fifth paragraph in the reference I provided - https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/speechless-tv-show-wheelchair-planet-episode-jj-disability-801320/).

Also, in another past edit User:KStrain2000 made (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=909636189) involved the plot summary "Bro WTF is wrong with you?"

Two rude edit summaries; I know that's not exactly punishable but the most recent one - stating that "everyone already knows it's owned by Disney" is false - am I wrong to think that a reference shows that Speechless was bought by Disney? Like I said before; the reason I put the reference in was because Family Channel lost Disney programming rights before it aired Speechless. TheBlackKitty (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a reminder to be civil in edit summaries. Let me know or post here again if they don't take heed and attempt to be less combative and dismissive in their summaries. KillerChihuahua 14:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I will do so if anything else happens. TheBlackKitty (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Harassment from User:RichardWeiss

This guy's started showing up on my talk page, screeching like a howler monkey about a single edit I made to a random IP page. Nine years ago. I don't know who this is, nor do I remotely care. I do, however, have an issue with him throwing his feces all over my nice clean talk page. Could someone do me a solid and put a cork in him? HalfShadow 19:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's unpick this.

• Here's RichardWeiss' original message
• Here is HalfShadow's response, and RW's response to that
• Finally, Here's another post by HS on RW's talk page, and, uhh, Notification, of this ANI filing

This is silly, and should not have made it to AN/I. All parties involved need to chill, and go back to whatever they normally do here. Yes, RichardWeiss (talk · contribs) should pay better attention to time/dates of edits, and perhaps refamiliarise themselves with WP:SOCKPUPPET and the related policy. However, HalfShadow (talk · contribs) should probably stop referring to other people's talk page edits as "feces", and is encouraged to consider the responses they leave on people's talk pages a little more.

I have not dug into either editor's history any futher - they've both been around the block for long enough to consider themselves "old hands", and should really, really know better.

Seriously, folks - calm down. It's just an encyclopaedia.

Trouts all round, methinks. -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 20:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. Both of you go have a cuppa tea and try to be nice. Not impressed with either editor's behavior here. KillerChihuahua 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

He comes on to my page shrieking about something that happened quite literally a decade ago, like I'm supposed to scratch my chin, say "Oh yes, I remember that!", the camera does the swirly effect thing and then I narrate the event. What dimension is this guy from? HalfShadow 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's try this again. "He came on my page, referencing something I didn't recall. I told him 'I'm not sure what you're referring to, would you please give me a link or a dif?'" and he did, and I said "Oh, that was 10 years ago, did you realize that? Old news. I'm not sure what you're expecting from me now?" and he said "my error, I'm sorry!" and we were done.

Also, "shrieking... what dimension is this guy from?" both very snarky. May I suggest you take the time to read WP:CIVIL? KillerChihuahua 20:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My guess is he was logged out, saw the notice for the first time without the date, and then came to you. That's the most benefiting of the doubt excuse I can make for it. Other edits seem sane. spryde | talk 20:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that is how it looks to me, also. He also seems to be a bit confused about what the suspected sock tag is, and is not. He seems to have taken it very personally. I'm not sure what else HS did or didn't do at the time, but the tag alone is merely suspicion. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps both move on and get busy building an encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read HalfShadow"s user Page ... the guys has Benn blocked before for not being civil .. Boomerang Jena (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jena Fi, what are you talking about? His userpage says nothing about blocking or civility or anyone named Benn or Ben. It hasn't been edited in 2½ years, so it's not a matter of the page being changed after your comment was made. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe "benn" is a typo, "been" would make more sense. Blackmane (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant the User talk page . and yes it's Blank .. he deletes everything! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&action=history and look at his Block log. Jena (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I took it as a pot-calling-kettle-black statement ("he got someone else blocked for incivility, and now he's doing it"), and since the userpage didn't say anything of the sort, I was confused. HalfShadow has seven "justified" blocks (thirteen total, minus some that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and some that changed block settings), of which four were related to personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Are you talking about HalfShadow's block log? He has a fairly extensive log, from 2009 and 2010, with ONE block last month (and FWIW, it was for harassment, but it's completely unrelated to this instance.) Many editors have difficulty learning the behavioral rules here; they come from other areas of the Internet where incivility and outright personal attacks are the usual way of handling even minor disputes. That HS had trouble in 09 and 10 is clear. That he's mended his ways is also clear. He overreacted to this situation, brought it here, was told to calm down and have a cuppa, and so far as I can tell hasn't escalated or pursued it. He's dropped it, and presumably is having the recommended cuppa somewhere calm and peaceful. Not seeing why you'd bring this up. This was over several hours ago. KillerChihuahua 00:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While you were writing this, I was recounting the blocks and changing my comment. "Thirteen minus bad equals seven" is wrong. I was planning to change it to eight "justified" blocks (sixteen blocks total, minus three that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and four that changed block settings). Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And so far as blanking is concerned - I find it annoying myself. Its still perfectly acceptable, and is specifically allowed per user talk page guidelines. We had huge Rfc's about it and everything. You can blank your talk page whenever you like. KillerChihuahua 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua's said it a good deal better than I could have. I don't like it one bit when people blank their talk pages (it's confusing and makes it hard to follow the history), but unless the page is up for deletion for some crazy reason, there's absolutely no reason that a non-blocked user may not blank his own talk page, so there's no reason to make an actual objection to the practice. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This argument has no effect on the issue at hand. Make a separate report if you want to continue this argumentHeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in and I believe that this is not harassment. The person in question was very respectful, however he may be wrong. Him being wrong is not the point, harassment is not an issue present.HeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what part of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" this falls into, but a close of this is probably for the best. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have the right to reply to this thread, which I just discovered. On New Year's Eve 2010 an ip made 2 comments (the only edits they have made) to a thread about me on this page, here and here. [@HalfShadow: then slapped this tag on the ip's user page. All fine so far. However, they made the comment "...unless you can give me compelling evidence as to how this IP's only edits can be to AN/I in a topic concerning SqueakBox" (see [60]. Note that instead of doing what they were required to do at this point, which was to file a sockpuppet check, they put the onus on me and on the ip to prove our innocence. They did not inform me of what they had done so I had no right to reply. I discovered this a few weeks ago while doing routine maintenance. I was User:SqueakBox in 2010, this name was changed by an admin, they aren't separate accounts but the same account and I checked what linked to SqueakBox and discovered this ip page. My discovery had NOTHING to do with me logging out, that would assume this ip address was genuinely linked to me, which it was not. I was in India on that last day in 2010, and have never edited from a German ip in my 16 years here, nor have I been to that country since 1984. So HalfShadow made a wrong assumption and didn't get a sockpuppet check, this was an attack on both myself and on whoever was using the IP at the time, falsely linking us together because HalfShadow could not be bothered to do a sockpuppet check. There is no statute of limitations on past Wikipedia actions and I considered this serious enough to take to HalfShadow. I didn't do so in an aggressive fashion so to my mind HalfShadow has compounded their 2010 attack with a 2019 attack by bring me here for alleged harrassment. The only harrassment which ahs occurred is when HalfShadow slapped his suspicions on page that had nothing to do with me and didn't then bother checking. I have re-opened the thread in order to give myself the right of reply. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't like it if someone incorrectly accused me of socking, so I can understand why you were upset. But I also wouldn't like it if someone rebuked me for something that happened 9 years ago, so I can understand why HalfShadow was upset (although their response was over the top). Your post on their page was a bad idea and their decision to open this thread was unwise. It's time for everyone involved to move on to something else. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A decade-old tag? There is absolutely no reason to be so upset over this. Let it go. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."

Please look at Psalm 100, known as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.", present version this, demanding that you (you!) revdel a copyright violation. Nothing happened in several hours.

The psalm is known in the King James Version, Wikisource, as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."

Beginning in January 2018, Yoninah and I have improved coverage of the Psalms. She, knowing Hebrew, their original language, added the Hebrew text with its English translation, "A song for a thanksgiving offering. Shout to the Lord, all the earth.", per [61] - Yesterday, Elizium23 removed that as a copytight violation, with a fat tag for the article and a tag for Yoninah. When I removed the tag for the article, Elizium23 had another tag for me, and the request to revdel that I still see!!

We have now four threads, Yoninah, two on Elizium23 (sorry for the one I started, I had not noticed the other one, and the one Yoninah started has the numbers of all Psalms that have Hebrew text and translation, showing me how many are still missing). and my own.

We need to sort out:

1. Is this translation of a biblical text a copyright violation?
2. Even if yes, does it need a revdel?
3. For the announced investigation: are 5 psalms five cases? (I'd say no.)
4. How can we help our readers to the original language of the psalms and a translation? Leaving them alone with the King James Version - in old-fashioned English - doesn't help help them to understand the original meaning.
   1. Can we make a tranlation in Wikisource?
   2. Can we request permission from the publisher?
   3. Other ideas?
5. How can we spare our readers the lengthy tags in article space? In general, not just here. The discredit the information. One line in article space, the rest on the article talk page should be enough, no?

Not an incident? May be, I am not familiar with ANI. I am most concerned about the tags in articles that are highly visible, and called by many other articles, see Der 100. Psalm. (So far: palms 1, 23, 42, 51 are also tagged) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, am very confused. If we start with the premises that the bible's original text is not copyrighted, and likewise, the King James Version is in the public domain, then it would seem to me just fine. Similarly, if one follows the link in the copyright template, the chabad translation is quite different, if more literal. My hunch is that the tag is simply a bit of a mix-up, but I would be happy to hear others' thoughts. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you mean by "just fine". The King James Version (KJV) is public domain, yes, but it often represents the original Hebrew badly, and it's also in an old-fashioned English. Just compare the two translations above. Should we inform our readers about that? I'd say yes. How, that is the question. Another example: Psalm 42: KJV has "As the hart panteth after the water brooks." The other translation - now removed - has: "For the conductor, a maskil of the sons of Korah. / As a hart cries longingly for rivulets of water". Note in both cases, that the author credit is missing in the KJV, on top of the language. Also: using KJV only supports a Christian bias. The original is Hebrew and Jewish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ancient biblical texts are in the public domain. Translations, whether they are Jewish or Christian, which were published before 1924 are in the public domain, and there are plenty of them. More recent translations are presumed not to be in the public domain, unless there is good evidence to the contrary. Any distinctive quotation of a specific translation should be attributed to the translator, and should be brief if the translation is copyrighted. Original content published since 1924 and republished on Chabad.org is subject to the crystal clear copyright notice at the bottom of that web page. These are the basic principles that seem pretty clear to me, unless I am missing something. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For example, the Jewish Publication Society of America Version of the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) was published in 1917, is in the public domain, and is freely available online. It may not reflect the full range of modern scholarship but I would submit that no single translation meets that standard. It is always best to use fully free translations, unless there is a convincing need to quote non-free content instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of modern religious texts is often quite generous (see [62], [63]). However, Chabad is pretty clearly copyrighted. But they seem amenable to letting their work be used in periodicals if you first contact them for permission ([64]). Emailing them could clarify the copyright status, the date of the particular translation, and to gain their explicit permission. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless their permission is in the form of a release under a free license, the choices remain fair use or deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know how we've handled it here, but the situation with the KJV is unusual: it functionally has perpetual copyright in the UK. See King James Version#Copyright status for details. Of course, this doesn't affect its standing in other jurisdictions. Nyttend (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Cullen: the Jewish Publication Society source, while public domain, is completely unacceptable for a modern-day readership. The language is archaic and anachronistic. The Chabad translation is adequate, although it does not always reflect the classical Jewish commentaries, some of which are cited on the newly revised psalm pages under "Background and themes". It's important to note that the KJV often skips the incipit and starts the psalm with verse 2 of the Hebrew; using the KJV as the English translation would thus omit the translation of many verses. Yoninah (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So, first of all, a general apology for skimming too quickly before bed and misunderstanding the issue! I don't think we should be offering our own translations. Translation, especially from a language like biblical Hebrew, is not a mechanistic and one-to-one affair (hapax legomena, anyone?). As such, that strikes me as very much WP:OR. Strictly speaking, no, I don't believe the translation offered was a copyright violation. At the same time, I think this problem will reoccur and be a headache, and we don't have much choice but to acquiesce. So we do need, I think, to cite to a usable translation. And while I will always champion the KJV as part of the history of English, it certainly does not follow the Hebrew particularly closely. The JPS version, while not ideal as Yoninah notes, might be the best we can do given the current copyright regime. Its wording can indeed be awkward, but it is (for my money) far less anachronistic than the KJV and much more faithful to the Hebrew text. Note the translation of verse 1 of Psalm 100: "A Psalm of thanksgiving. Shout unto the Lord, all the earth." That's pretty close to the deleted version. So, for now, I think my position would be "the JPS text until something better comes up." Just my opinion, of course. If we DO start translating, I have lots of opinions, beginning with Genesis 1:1! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Previously responded here, but to answer your questions:

1. If it is a translation that is still in copyright (as Cullen said, published before 1924), is not published with a compatible license, and is not used as fair use (again, we're not lawyers here, but I'd say copying an multiple Psalms isn't fair use), then yes, copyvio.

2. iff 1.

3. *shrug* not my department.

4. WP:COPYLINK, perhaps? I'm seeing plenty of opportunity for holy wars (pun entirely intended) over choice of translation, but if there's a source like Biblegateway which legally hosts copies of the translations you're interested in, you could put that in the external links. I doubt the publisher will give permission given that anything they let us use gets an open license (i.e. anyone can take it off of Wikipedia and use it freely), but I guess you could ask.

5. The revdel tag will go away as soon as an administrator handles it.

^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So I don't exactly know where to point to policy here, but I have always taken it as a given that, on Wikipedia, we always refrain from including the full text of any work of significant length. Now, many Psalms are short (this began at Psalm 23, a classic masterpiece weighing in at 6 verses.) But if we consider that there are over 150 Psalms, each with its own separate article, it adds up! My NABRE edition runs 97 pages in normal-sized print. There is no "fair use" involved in scraping every word of every Psalm from Chabad and the JPS without permission. Furthermore, I do not envision JPS granting CC-BY-SA permission to us for the aforementioned every word of every Psalm. Even if they did, I believe it would be beyond Wikipedia's remit to reproduce them here. That is what Wikisource is for! Wikisource is where we publish full-length renditions of freely-licensed works, and we point to Wikisource whenever we need to cite such a work at length. Now, the good editors Yoninah and Gerda Arendt are diligent, WP:GA and WP:FA powerhouses, and they are rightly concerned with top-quality content. How do we have articles on the Psalms without top-quality renditions of them in the original and in Modern English? Well, the same way we have articles on the Simpsons episodes without full-length videos; the same way we have articles on Shakespeare's plays without editors re-enacting them, and so forth. I think Wikipedia's job is to provide plenty of out-of-universe exegesis, context, commentary, history, and reception, and none of that requires the full-text. And if they really want full-text, we have already given them ample public-domain options, and we can just live with the "archaic" (IMHO, poetic and beautiful) language therein. Elizium23 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see sources like Chabad.org being included in the external links. But we really need to tweak the public-domain JPS translation. We cannot write "Yahweh", for instance, which is not accepted by classical Jewish sources or Orthodox Judaism in general ("God" will do just fine). I'd also like to note that the Hebrew text being copied from the Chabad site includes cantillation notes, which are really unnecessary for a straight Hebrew reading. Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to understand what is happening in this thread, but I'll try and clear the air on the topic of copyright: If a website with an "all rights reserved" notice contains text that is unambiguously in public domain, then that text is in public domain. They can't change the copyright unless they own it. If it's a translation being copy and pasted into the article, and that translation is not in public domain, then it is a copyvio. Whether or not it's editorial appropriate to mass copy the verses into the article, if they are public domain, is up for you article's editors to decide. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Judaica Press English translation is most assuredly not public-domain. That's the whole reason I raised the complaint. English editions are still for sale at JPS' website. I can't rightly object to whatever Hebrew text you wanna include, I wouldn't even know how to determine if it were some kind of copyright-encumbered transcription anyway. Our issue is with the modern English Judaica Press translation, which is clearly marked on the linked Chabad website with a current copyright claim, "all rights reserved". And I am confused about why you say we cannot write "Yahweh" — Wikipedia has a neutral POV, not a Jewish one — out of fairness, the Psalms articles must represent both Jewish and Christian patrimony and not exclude or favor one or the other. So by all means, complement the KJV with a rabbinic translation. But you can't come in and say "Yahweh out!" to the Psalms. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23--with all due respect, I believe you have what in my business we call "versionitis," that is, a mistake regarding two different versions of the same text. The modern JPS bible (or "NJPS") is most assuredly copyrighted, and no one is arguing it is not. The 1917 version, sometimes called "Old JPS" or "OJPS" is in the public domain. If you don't believe me, believe the JPS themselves when they say "The 1917 edition, now in the public domain, is not available from JPS in print form." They then go on to offer a free download, since it is a public domain document. As such, there is no problem with using the 1917 version or sourcing to it for Wikipedia purposes, and I think it is a good counterpoint to more floral translations--though, as is often noted, it owes a lot to the RV. We'll all muddle through this together! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: if you can satisfactorily prove that Chabad.org has reproduced the PD 1917 English translation, and that's the text that Yoninah has included on these articles, then I will gratefully retract alllll of my complaints. But I am not sure you can. Why would Chabad use a 1917 translation, when they have obtained express permission to use a "new and improved" 1980s version as advertising to sell JPS books? Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Right -- I am suggesting we replace it with the 1917 version! It's not ideal from anyone's point of view, but I think fills a void that currently exists. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It already appears to be identical to what's in the King James Version, which is public domain. I can't see the text which was removed, but this, as far as I can tell, is clearly not a copyright violation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC) This was incorrect, my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel or not?

What I can't believe is that the revdel tag still sits on Psalm 100. Can an admin please decide NOW if the copyright violation - if accepted - is severe enough to need a revdel, and if yes, do it NOW for all psalms listed by Yoninah, and if no remove that tag (which as far as I know is only on that one psalm? The same translation will still be listed in the external links, among other translations, including the mentioned biblegateway. The tag doen't create trust in our content, imho.

For the next step: If we decide against the Hebrew text in that version, I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text which is anyway always on top of the external links in those palm articles already expanded. Poor readers then can open some windows to study the differences, instead of seeing them at a glance. I can't judge if the older translation of the Hebrew would be of value instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• KJV is public domain. The issue is copyright, and nothing else. Please don't try to cloud the issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  I am sorry, I don't understand. KJV is not the question. The question is if the translation of the Hebrew text is such a severe copyright violation - if any - that a revdel is needed. More time passed with the tag saying "Blatant copyright violations" on Psalm 100. If revdel is needed, the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful. If it's not needed and the article wrongly tagged, even more so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, Infrogmation was responding to your statement that I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text. The problem that needs to be dealt with here at AN/I is the copyright dispute, nothing more. The question of including the KJV is a content dispute and can be dealt with on the article talk page, or failing that, any of the resources at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

  Also, please stop calling things "shameful." Your repeated use of it is getting close to being a personal attack. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  If "shameful" is not the correct word for "I feel ashamed for it", please forgive me. English is not my native language. I will have to look up what Infrogmation may mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  If I say something is "shameful", it means not that I feel ashamed, but that you should feel ashamed. Hence, "the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful" is saying that admin (all of them) should feel ashamed that none of them has gotten to this request yet. I'm glad you explained that's not what you meant–until now, I thought that's what you meant. :-) – Levivich 22:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any question that there's a copyright violation. For example, text in this diff is clearly the same as copyrighted text from this website. In my experience, it can take two or three days for a {{copyvio-revdel}} template to be cleared by an admin. As we all know, there aren't enough admin to handle all the admin tasks (nudge, nudge, Gerda, ye with 10yrs and 200k edits). If there are no good, public domain, modern translations of the Psalms from Hebrew into English, someone who is capable should write and publish some... then we can use them in our articles. – Levivich 18:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Everything you said has been said above, while I said above that my experience with ANI is almost zero. Until this gets resolved one way or the other, I will remove links to Psalm 100 from articles for which I feel responsible. I feel awful sending people to "Blatant copyright violations". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, please don't do that. That's outright disruptive behavior. creffett (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  No one should feel responsible for any articles, because none of us are responsible for any articles. – Levivich 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict:)

  Note to self: Chandos Anthems, Chichester Psalms, Der 100. Psalm, Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt (Mendelssohn), Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt, Service in B-flat major, Op. 10 (Stanford), Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  After edit conflict: you can't tell me how to feel. If I write a featured article such as Der 100. Psalm, and it sends to an article with a "Blatant copyright violations"-tag I feel like cheating every reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, ah, don't shoot the messenger here; if you feel that copyvio tags are "shameful" then, as one of the active editors of Psalms articles along with Yoninah, y'all should've considered copyright issues before copying the disputed text into the articles in the first place. The reason the tags are there is because we have to clean up after someone who misappropriated content that never should've been here in the first place. When I added the tags and reported the articles, the wheels were set in motion. Now you're quite impatient and attempting to jump the queue: as has been explained, admins have quite a backlog in all areas, including copyvio reports. Sometimes it takes a week or two for an admin to clean up, revdel, and remove the tags. In the meantime, nobody's gonna die; I am sure our dedicated readers will forgive Psalm 100 for having an ugly tag on it for a week. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by removing links from "your" featured articles. This will all be handled. There are plenty of good options to us going forward. This, too, shall pass. Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was forced to revert @Graeme Bartlett: who seemed to believe that the Hebrew text was why I filed the complaints. No, folks, I have no problem with the allegedly PD status of the Hebrew text. It's the JPS English translation we're concerned about here. (And I have no reason to suspect that Chabad.org is hosting the 1917 PD JPS translation rather than the 1980s copyrighted one.) Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely to me that an ultra-Orthodox organization like Chabad would host anything from a relatively liberal interdominational group like JPS, no matter the copyright status of the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I must apologize; I am not communicating well. As I said above, I don't mean to suggest that chabad is hosting the 1917 text--rather, I am suggesting we replace the chabad quotations with the 1917 text, which, while perhaps not optimal, is decidedly in the public domain. As for revdel'ing the old versions, I guess I would say better safe than sorry, but that's above my pay grade. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we can rely on supposition here. Certain chapters of Chabad have been used as fronts for global political corruption. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the site uses NJPS rather than OJPS, unless they specifically state which one they use. (That said, I've never been a particular fan of using mass revdel simply because some old versions of a wiki article inadvertently had some lyrics/translations that were still under copyright.) Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand the use of revdel when someone has blatantly copypasted a large swath of original work from a book, article, or website. I do not understand the use of revdel for instances where a translation of an ancient text or an old song, which translation is now found to still be under copyright, was inadvertently used in a wiki article but is now removed. These are good-faith errors that do no real harm to the copyright-holder, being visible only in old versions of text invisible to the public. Heck, revdel was not even available until around mid-2009, and was not in wide use until 2015 or so. I don't think there is any reason to plaster copyvio demands for revdel on things like important Wikipedia articles that had, in good faith, provided English translations of important old material. In my mind it's a waste of administrative time, and serves no real purpose while disrupting and damaging the appearance of valuable and important articles. I propose that we drop this and remove the tag, when a clearly fair-use translation has been established and provided on the article (or at least when the questionable translation has been removed from the article). Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• I do not think that revdel is required for text that has been used legally. Perhaps the copyright is not compatible, but it is still legal to have a small piece on Wikipedia. However it is in appropriate because our mission is to have free content, and other commercial uses may not be legal. So that means it just needs to be removed from the current version(s), but that revdel is not actually needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose revdel; support immediate removal of tag; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments just above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE: MLauba has now completed the revdel, zapping 37 good-faith versions/edits to the article, and making all of those edits invisible to editors. Was this really necessary and useful? Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• The primary purpose of Revdel in these cases is to avoid the text in question being reverted back into the article, compounding the problem. As with all copyright matters, we apply a precautionary principle, meaning we'll err towards removal of the material, which is why I decided to action the tag. That being said, the text in question, as some editors note just above, is minor, and I pondered outright declining the request for quite a bit. The exposure here weighed in favour of redaction, however, in addition to the fact that in practice, the content in question is 100% of the psalm itself, which by the letter of the rules is not acceptable. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

An unrelated issue has come to my attention as a result of this discussion. It looks to me that Jewish Publication Society has been spammed with "references" to various Chabad related websites that have nothing at all to do with JPS. It is now past my bedtime in California. Can other editors remove the spam references/links from that article? Is this a problem on other low visibility Judaism articles? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It's great to see that one article has been cleaned up. That only leaves 32 more articles with infringing text: Psalms 1, 2, 8, 13, 22, 23, 24, 36, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 51, 70, 75, 91, 93, 96, 97, 110, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 138, 139, 147, 149, 150. (I did not tag all of them manually with copyvio because that is a manual and arduous process. I thought it would be enough to tag 5, leaving the door open for a WP:CCI, and report them as-is to WP:Copyright problems. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose revdel on any other articles; support immediate removal of tags on any other articles; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). There is no consensus that revdel is needed for this extremely minor issue, and if no live version contains copyvios, there is no reason to disappear hundreds of edits. I think Elizium23 has lost perspective. Pinging Diannaa for perspective. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Antandrus (talk · contribs) is accusing me of 'defacement' by following procedure, removing blatant copyvios, and adding tags to articles. I deserve an apology, because following Wikipedia policy and procedure to protect you from legal action is the opposite of 'defacement'. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm only sorry I did not remove the defacing tag sooner.

This is copyright paranoia, to suppose we will be subject to "legal action" because of the presence of some copied and pasted verses from a Hebrew psalm, in old revisions of an article which a casual reader cannot even see. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you actively and willfully lying now? It is false that the copyrighted text was invisible. It was live, visible, and active before I followed Wikipedia procedure to remove, tag, and report it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Back off. You're just wrong and sometimes you have to have the humility to admit it. Your previous addition of this tag was also on a version without the material. No, I'm not asking for your "apology", just that you tone it down. Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• The articles are already listed at WP:CP: that was done on September 16. If there's copyright content, it needs to be removed, and revision deletion is appropriate as well in my opinion. I would revdel such edits; I have done so in the past, lots of times: national anthems, copyright translations of PD songs, stuff like that.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

[Subheader changed by Softlavender - point seems moot now]

There is no proof yet whether the Chabad site or the books they quote from use OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright) translations. So these claims of "blatant copyright violation" are as-yet unfounded/unproven. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed: A quick search from [65] and [66] (both clearly marked as public domain) shows the phrase is equivalent to the KJV and is in the public domain. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• As in all copyvio matters, the point is moot. Unless there is conclusive proof that the material is free for use, the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted, a practice that isn't limited to Wikipedia BTW. The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so. That's explicit in WP:C but also our terms of use. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Why do you dispute the conclusiveness of this? See [67] and then match it up with the link above, the text is clearly public domain. It's also on wikisource. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• MLauba, please indicate where in WP:C it is explicit that "the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted ... The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so". Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Softlavender and SportingFlyer: How are we not on the same page here? This edit contains text that is a word-for-word copy of this page. And that text is different from the PD KJV links posted. So what am I missing? How is it not an obvious copyright violation? – Levivich 00:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Update: I forgot it's already been revdelled ... nevermind. – Levivich 00:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is no indication on the Chabad site whether that Hebrew-to-English translation is OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright). The translation itself is not original to Chabad. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Are we looking at the same page? No indication? There's a disclaimer at the bottom that says English translation, (c) copyright The Judaica Press, all rights reserved. And another one below that: "© 1993-2019 Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center". – Levivich 00:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• OK, then I was misled by what was said far above this subthread, that stated what I stated. I'm going to strike some of my previous comments. Thanks for pointing that out. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• My apologies - this is generally a confusing thread. Even though I looked at the original website I think I conflated the issue with the KJV text. Having looked into it, chabad.org is clearly copyrighted and anything we have copied directly from chabad.org should be deleted and revdel'd. We should keep the KJV text or similar translations on the article, and no reason why we can't use chabad.org as a reference if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel done

Revdel was done for Psalm 100 by MLauba, and the tag removed accordingly. Two questions: Is that a good solution? All edits since June 2018 are now a secret for whoever is interested, and the revdel suggests that something criminal took place. Can we solve the concern that nobody should accidently bring that content back in a different manner. How about an edit notice appearing when one of those old versions and describing that unfortunately copyrighted material i part of these version, so they should not be stored? Or would it even be technically possibly to protect those versions from being edited? - I still believe that replacing one translation of a well-known psalm by a slightly different version, which is older but copyrighted, should not involve so much secrecy as revdel over more than a year, in the name of transparency.

The other psalms

Palm

Other palms

EEng

What should we do about the other psalms which host such a translation? The easiest way would be to remove all text, as it was before the expansion. To have only KJV raises the concern of Christian bias for originally Jewish literature. If ANI is no place to discuss that, where else? My talk is open. We could also - perhaps better - use Talk:Psalms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having trouble following the technical discussion about revdel above, but I'm prepared to remove all the English translation copied from Chabad. Would that be all right?

BTW this is going to open up the Psalm pages to all sorts of additions from people's favorite English translations. See what Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has been busy doing on Psalm 100. (Gerda Arendt and I have a long-term goal of streamlining all the Psalm pages, so much of what's going on on Psalm 100 is going to be reverted.) Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted texts were removed and revisions hidden. We now have naked text in Hebrew, which needs to be complemented by a decent English translation FROM HEBREW which is not under copyright, with added comments/footnotes if necessary, based on more recent translations. Example: not everybody will know what a "hart" is (Psalm 42). (Same problem in the KJV, btw.) Short phrases can be quoted from recent translations. No time for more, everybody welcome to help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors

An admin might want to check up on this page, it came to my attention when a bunk of references were removed. I am not sure if it is being targeted or not based on recent edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some days...people are invited to use the talk-page to discuss things. Lectonar (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I would revert all the recent changes to status quo before the reference removal, but cant right now in my given surroundings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

KrishRoyceInc issues

KrishRoyceInc has been blocked before for editing while logged out to make controversial edits. There are 3 open SPI items out there for this user who is clearly masking his real IP, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KrishRoyceInc. The reason why I am here is this user is now making other edits that I feel warrant bringing here despite the SPI being open.

This user just made two redirects at [68] and [69] followed by minutes later the IP user changed a page to that name [70]. These changes are a clear example of vandalism as they are inaccurately now changing pages.

Additionally this user I guess was tired of all their articles getting moved to drafts, so they just created their most recent one as a draft, but they are now linking to it from the mainspace [71] [72].

This user clearly knows that its doing because any of the controversial edits are made while logged out, but to be clear, I am bringing them here for WP:NOTHERE separate and apart from the open SPI. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that this isn't a content dispute. I'm not seeing evidence of NOTHERE. I cannot speak to the sock allegations, that's out of my purvue. KillerChihuahua 14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a content dispute. The two issues here are 1) the user is making disruptive edits while logged out to avoid WP:SCRUTINY including edit warring and 2) they have been copy pasting content from other articles to create articles without proper attribution. I will elaporate future below. StaticVapor message me! 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that KrishRoyceInc will create articles by copying parts of other articles and fusing them together into these super messy articles that others have to clean up. Then any furthur editing after creating the articles, is done via their various IPs that trace back to Italy ([73], [74] and [75]). You can see an example here, where the IP edits the article less than five minutes following it's creation. You will also see at Draft:The Glorious Perfection, the IP edits the article one minute after KrishRoyceInc creates it. There is no way a random reader found this obscure draft a minute after it was created. Clearly same person based on the singular focus on articles and drafts created by KrishRoyceInc, the only other edits being linking to said articles. Except the new IP 79.37.163.88 is now introducing deliberate factual errors to The Undisputed Era and The O.C. (professional wrestling). They will also use the IP to edit war reverting without edit summary as seen here, most notably on The Riott Squad article, and on The Boss 'n' Hug Connection. The Riott Squad even had to be protected to make the redirect stay there. Clearly the logging out is to avoid warnings and WP:SCRUTINY. Article's that have been copy-paste created without CC attribution by this user include Draft: The Rascalz, Draft:The Absolution, The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, Draft:The Glorious Perfection, Draft:The North (professional wrestling), Draft:Shirai Sisters, Draft:The Kabuki Warriors and The Riott Squad (now a redirect). Also of note the majority of the drafts were published to the mainspace, but moved to drafts due to the such poor condition of the articles, due to the copy paste merging of separate articles into one. Check users cannot connect IPs to users but this is an obvious WP:DUCK. This is a good forum for this as the SPI has not been responded to for days and the disruption is ongoing and needs to stop since it is getting worse (now adding deliberate factual errors to BLPs).StaticVapor message me! 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Competence of SHISHIR DUA

• SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs)

I have numerous concerns about this editor. A quick glance at their talk page sees a large number of warnings over a relatively short period of time, as well as two blocks in a few weeks - unsourced content, disruptive editing, and copyright.

I came across them with concerns about the creation of a larger number non-notable articles - by my count they currently have 6 articles at AFD, with another 3 at PROD.

I have tried to explain to them how notability works and the other issues above, but my comments appear to have fallen on deaf ears, and the editor is now hopelessly attempting to become an administrator, see this (deleted) and this.

I don't doubt that they are a good faith editor, but they are one who severely lacks competence. They have already had two blocks and in the absence of somebody with the patience and skill to get through to them (I have neither, it seems), a third can't be too far away. Posting here for advice/action. GiantSnowman 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You can add copyright violation to the long list of issues that SHISHIR DUA has: [76][77] 86.134.77.93 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@SHISHIR DUA:, it would be really helpful if we could get some response from you here to all the things brought up both here and on your talk page. I'd also be curious as to whether you would consider entering the WP:ADOPT program so an experienced mentor can help you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC) I tried to maintain all the rules according to Wikipedia but due some personal reasons it might have crept in. I apologize but citing that don't doubt on wiki editing abilities and I solemn I'm gonna maintain the policy of wikipedia in future.

Lots of edits, little communication

TheHistoryBuff101 (talk · contribs) since joining last month has made several thousand edits, only a tiny percentage of which have edit summaries. They've received numerous complaints on their talk page but have never responded. Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences, in accordance with MOS:CAPTIONS. The edits are in good faith and are generally constructive, though there are a fair number of errors (see e.g. Gulf War).

It's often difficult to see or understand what the changes are, because they are so small and so many, and this has led to accusations of vandalism or disruption. Other editors have repeatedly requested the use of edit summaries. After requests from me on 10-11 September, they made a few edits with summaries explaining what they had done (though not why), but then went back to not using them, making several hundred more edits. The same thing happened following a complaint yesterday by BeenAroundAWhile; they left edit summaries for a grand total of 24 minutes, then proceded to make more than a hundred more edits without them. I'd like them to address these concerns. --IamNotU (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While leaving edit summaries is good practice and we should all do so, it is not a requirement. And, per WP:FIES, Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections which seems to be what you're describing when you say "Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences".
Editors are also free to ignore each other except in limited cases and I don't believe this is one of those cases. If there is disruption or vandalism occurring, it might be helpful if you could post some diffs, either here or at WP:AIV (I've looked at their last five edits and don't see anything wrong but in the absence of any diffs I can't say if that's the rule or exception). I'm not sure we can do much to forcibly socialize TheHistoryBuff101 if s/he's decided to be the J.D. Salinger of Wikipedia. While I share your curiosity about what motivated their crusade to correctly punctuate sentence fragments this might be a mystery with which we have to live. Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If a user is very problematic and also refuses to communicate, there is a case to be made for a block to get their attention and emphasize that this is a collaborative project. However, a case has not really been made here. As noted above, diffs would be helpful so others can easily see the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And today they did in fact make a post to their talk page: "Hello. I have just received a notification on my talk page that there is ongoing discussion about my editing. While I perfectly understand that I have not provided edit summaries and have not responded to your complaints, I just want to make absolutely clear that I have not been engaged in neither disruptive editing nor vandalism, as the edits I've made have been only about removing periods from certain image captions, rewriting image captions, fixing incorrect links to articles, and removing or replacing unnecessary pictures. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and I'm taking steps to ensure I edit articles the right way." So, without evidence of serious ongoing disruption I don' think there's anything to be done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've read their response and it's a very positive sign. As I noted, their edits have been in good faith, and generally constructive. I do think that if someone repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), it may constitute a pattern of disruptive or problematic editing, even if there is no one edit, by itself, that is. My concern is as much for TheHistoryBuff101 as for others, as they've accumulated a number of "disruptive editing" warnings which may or may not be valid. I agree that there's not really a case for a block, but a nudge to follow the advice in Wikipedia:Communication is required to work things out. It seems to have had a good effect, and I hope that they'll continue to be responsive, work with others to allay any concerns, and maintain a good environment for collaborative work. --IamNotU (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. In this case, however, it doesn't seem any questions or requests were posed on their Talk page, just a lot of templates were plastered to it which contained statements. Unless I'm missing something, they ceased editing the articles named in the templates almost immediately after getting hit with each. In any case, though, it's great this was resolved! Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, you're right that most of the previous templates were not really questions or requests (and were mostly unfounded as I noted below them). Just for the record though, I did write a personal message rather than another template last week, requesting explanations concerning the captions edits, with some suggestions, and I specifically asked for a reply. This was the day after the first uw-editsummary template (which in itself I guess is a request for explanations via edit summaries) was ignored. I suppose the third message from BeenAroundAWhile technically wasn't posed in the form of a question, but still it's clear they were requesting explanations. In any case, the response on the talk page will help other editors understand what TheHistoryBuff101 is doing, and they've started using edit summaries, so as you say it's great that it was resolved! Thanks again for your assistance. --IamNotU (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my presuming that TheHistoryBuff101 does not really spend a lot of time managing their own talk page, and further presuming that I may remove the erroneous templates that have been splattered across their talkpage and that have led to misunderstandings? I will of course leave notes so that subsequent comments will remain intelligible. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, I understand the concerns about some of the earlier templates - that's exactly why I already made several comments to try to help clear up any misunderstandings. But I don't think that extends to deleting good-faith (if misguided) messages from other editors, from someone else's talk page. If you'd like to offer to help TheHistoryBuff101 learn how to archive their talk page messages, that would be generous of you, and I think it would be great! Or perhaps ask those who left the templates to strike their own comments? Otherwise I would think it's best if TheHistoryBuff101 takes responsibility for their talk page themselves, like everyone else... --IamNotU (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Templated messages wrongfully accusing them of vandalism are disruptive, and as such can be removed by anyone. Any minute now someone will be turning up to splash another template on their page, this time having a go at them for not signing their response on their own talk page. This is not productive. MPS1992 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unattributed copying despite previous warnings

User:Ssolbergj has apparently moved material from Astrium and Airbus Military to Airbus Defence and Space without providing any attribution. This user has been warned previously about the copyright requirements when copying within Wikipedia, and frequently advised about providing edit summaries, but appears to have ignored the warnings. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

These were both articles of poor quality/rarely edited, and i reckoned the content fits better in the common article regarding the current, merged company. Therefor i made a bold redirect. I agree with the point with regard to edit summaries, I apologise. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide the attribution, as required by WP:CWW. This is a copyright requirement. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken the creation of Operational headquarters of the European Union on 10:39, 19 September 2019 also has a WP:CWW copy issue ... is something like a user ban on undiscussed merges possible or appropriate? Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Behaviour noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#Undiscussed moves-copying-merges of set of Brexit related articles which was cleaned up but probllematic behavior seems to have continued ... in particular about multiple bold merges/moves in a short period of time. i may have dragged him a little soon to ANI then but continuation of behaviour perhaps not. I might try to AGF but difficult to judge if the issue is WP:COMPETENCY or disruptive .... either may might be more helpful if Ssolbergj started to retro-attribute either one work. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, an apology is nice but could you read over these suggestions and comment on whether you might start providing attribution? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:BMW E24 timeline

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

---

Hi. The outcome of WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_28#Template:BMW_E24_timeline was to delete the template. However it has now been re-created without any discussion. It is not about whether the decision was correct or not, but this is about following proper process. Therefore I request that the template is removed until if/when a proper review decides that it should be restored. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It has been recreated by the original creator, claiming that it was "nominated for deletion by troll", but it wasn't, it was nominated by a long-time and very experienced editor. And it's still ugly, and used only in a single article, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion per CSD G4... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A user with 6 edits who was CU-blocked? Sounds like a troll to me! 158.106.203.154 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The original "Lukeno94", who made the edit in 2015, has been renamed and (voluntarily) vanished, the account the link now leads to was created (and blocked, see block log) as an impersonation account. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• This template was deleted years ago. Any question now as to whether WP is improved or not by its use is a content issue, not for WP:ANI. OSX has disappeared. Luke disappeared in the midst of considerable argument (if not an actual cloud overhead) because of issues like him seeking to delete templates and infoboxes he disapproved of.

The BMW E24 series is a notable and long-lived subject. A timeline box is appropriate and consistent with our similar pages elsewhere. It's also appropriate to modularise its coding as a template. If the results are currently "ugly", then that's a question for Template talk:BMW_E24_timeline, Talk:BMW 6 Series (E24) and maybe car projects, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: As WP:Templates says "... templates are used to add recurring messages to pages in a consistent way" (note "recurrent", and "pages" in the plural), while this template would fit only in a single article (BMW E24), and isn't being used even there. So I suggest you selfrevert your removal of the speedy-template... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Templates are not solely used for recurring uses. There is also a widespread and valid use of them to encapsulate complex sections of coding which don't need to be in the main wikitext of an article. We do this a lot, we aren't going to stop doing it.

It's only "not used in any articles" because it was recently removed from the BMW article, presuambly as part of this deletion effort. That is no reason at all to delete it: if we're objectively better off with it, then we should use it.

As to the speedy template, then the last thing we need is that overlapping with a discussion here. Although I'd have no objection to relocating all of this to TfD, where it belongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The template was removed from the article after this thread was started, and not by the OP but by another user (who quite possibly knew nothing about this thread since the edit summary says that the edit re-adding the template was reverted because the template had been deleted...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• And JzC has deleted it as G4 anyway as either an admin supervote, or more likely just to piss me off. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• ... or simply because they agree with me, that is feel that my speedy-nomination was correct (don't automatically assume that *everything* is about you). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• As a challenged speedy, it's invalid to re-add it. In no way is it a vandalism, copyvio or BLP issue. There's a tag on the template linking to this discussion here. At the very least, this was an admin supervote in a content dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, no, it's a perfectly correct G4, because it's an exact re-creation of something that was previously deleted via XfD. Having said that, given that it's four years since the TfD, and only two peope opined on the original discussion, I would have been tempted just to send it back to TfD again. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Exactly. I had no idea it was challenged, but that would not have been relevant as the sole valid basis to challenge a G4 is that the content is not substantially identical. I saw this thread, reviewed the deleted version per TFD and the current version, they are visually identical, as you verified. The creator's explanation is implausible: it was deleted over four years ago and he suddenly decided it was a troll, so he'd recreate it? I have heard more plausible things from Sean Spicer. He could have challenged it at DRV at the time, he did not. He could have raised it now at DRV, he did not. The rationale here is straight-up WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (help!) 20:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

And I wonder when Andy Dingley was thinking of pointing out that he had a beef with the TFD nominator? [78] - always best when you have a dog in the fight, to admit it, rather than wait for people to hear it barking, right? Guy (help!) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone here is driven by your personal animosities. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

See also: projection (psychology). Guy (help!) 20:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The correct procedure for challenging the outcome of a deletion discussion with few participants is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, not re-creating the template and then having a new deletion discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe so. But we are where we are, and the question is what to do next. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Knowing you, I am guessing that "leave it be" will not be on the list of options. Guy (help!) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Of course it's not a valid CSD. It was a valid one when Thomas tagged it, but it was then obviously challenged here and I removed the tag to avoid a careless admin deleting it despite. Guy ignored that and deleted it anyway. But as all admins are surely aware "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. ". But Guy persistently just creates new policies, like WP:RSONLY, as he feels fit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Deletion per CSD G4 can't be "controversial" if the re-creation is identical to the one that was deleted per XfD, and "administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) if a page obviously meets CSD G4, so removing the speedy-tag isn't the supervote you seem to believe it is. And as I wrote above any challenge to the deletion should be handled at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's a hell of a mis-quote.

"The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, " (emphasis mine). Your quote is not a statement that admins have such consensus, it's a statement that they will only have such consensus, if they comply with the constraints of CSD otherwise (such as I noted above). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I write before replying the next time, or maybe the parentheses confused you. So let's try again: "administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" if a page obviously meets CSD G4", which is what we were discussing. Or in other words, I did not claim they always have that right, only if pages meet the criteria for CSD. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• You wrote, literally, Deletion per CSD G4 can't be "controversial" if the re-creation is identical to the one that was deleted per XfD,

Yet deletion of identical content under G4 becomes controversial (to the level that CSD can't be applied any more) once, "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. " applies. This is clearly stated in WP:CSD. Which is what had already happened here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No, creating a page that is identical to one that has been deleted at XfD does not become "controversial" (in the sense that it makes it impossible to speedy the re-creation) just because someone removes the speedy-tag. Nominations for A7, G11 and similar can become controversial, since opinions can differ as to whether there is a claim for fame or not, or a page is purely promotional or not, but not G4 (or G5, creation by blocked or banned user, if the creator has been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock). And I stand by that. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. "

It's a direct quote from WP:CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, G4 is unambiguous. A substantially identical copy of material deleted via a valid deletion process. A G4 where the content is visually identical is never controversial. As a non-admin you can't see the deleted version. I can.

The third incarnation was character for character identical with the second. Guy (help!) 22:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's not about whether G4 applies, it's whether CSD applies. Thomas's G4 was correct. But once it has been challenged, you can't re-apply a CSD (BLP etc. apart), so your G4 on the same template no longer was. Maybe you don't know what CSD means? It's not "speedy" as in, "I'm an Admin, I'm too important to wait for others" it's for deletions that are obviously and uncontroversially appropriate. Once they're questioned, and this one has been, that's just not an option. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, If your idiosyncratic interpretation fo G4 were true, every single deletion - especially those contested by armies of meatpuppets - would result in an endless succession of XfDs. Fortunately for our ability to delete anything at all ever, that's not how it works. Same user, same content, G4. End of. Guy (help!) 23:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peter.shaman: - are you aware of this thread? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The thread isn't about him, but a question about what to do with a recreated template. But he is well aware of the speedy-deletion nomination, as can be seen here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter.shaman blocked

Peter.shaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Template:BMW E24 models, which is word for word identical to the last deleted version of Template:BMW E24 timeline. I have blocked for 31h for persistent re-creation of deleted content. Guy (help!) 20:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you just imagine for a moment all the opportunities a better admin might have had, and used, for resolving this in a better way? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you just imagine for a moment what it would be like not to pour petrol on every single fire you come across? Rhetorical. Andy, we are both cunts, the difference is that I realise it. Guy (help!) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Andy "forgot" to mention that he just WP:FORUMSHOPPED this to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Guy (help!) 23:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like a very valid CIR block to me. Period. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Keddie murders edits

I did extensive work on this article last year and recently revisited it to find there have been numerous recent edits made with rambling edit summaries critiquing the sources used as insufficient. The user, Motthoop (talk · contribs), appears to have some personal involvement with the case and disputes the newspaper and book sources cited. I cannot make sense of what s/he is saying in most of the edit summaries. I looked back and they have a history of editing this page, and were doing it long before I was making regular edits to it. They posted on the talk page a few days ago, endorsing a single web article as the only source that contains the ostensible "truth" (mind you, this source was already cited in certain parts of the article), but again, the details are rambling and indicate a personal investment in the case; some of the post seems to be declaring guilt at certain suspects. I responded on the talk page and attempted to explain that just because s/he believes and/or knows certain details about this case, that the policy on Wikipedia is that we have to go by published reliable sources, but I don't think the message was conveyed.

Given the state the article was left in (riddled with typos, informal language, reference problems, and other inconsistencies), I reverted the article to a former version without this problems, but someone is now making edits while not logged in. I've never dealt with a problem like this on here and am not sure what to do here. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - From the few interactions I've had with Motthoop, it seems evident they[79] are[80] not here to contribute to this encyclopedia. Lupin VII (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - To add onto what Lupin VII said, this guy seems to be pretty angry at Wikipedia in general. Nearly every comment he has made on a talk page and edit summary he has left on main space has had some kind of personal attack or profane insult directed at other users or at Wikipedia as a whole. His talk page is also covered in warnings to stop edit warring and to tone down the personal attacks. Nothing seems to have worked, so I think it’s time for admins to (at a minimum) admonish him to stop being so aggressive and also consider semi protecting the page to deal with the IP edit warring. This guy seems passionate and he might actually be knowledgeable about the case (reading between the lines he appears to be an investigator or reporter) but he can’t trash articles or other editors to make his point. Michepman (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user indefinitely per the above. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That user talk page is a textbook example of determined, tenacious original research. I endorse the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

IP hopper changing language templates to Wikidata format

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

---

There is an IP hopper making such edits [81]. I reverted some a couple of weeks ago, yesterday they changed the IP and I have to revert about fifty edits (example); I noticed that @Fram: today reverted a bunch of edits made by yet another IP. Irrespectively of what I think about the Wikidata integration, there was an RFC with the results that such edits are not allowed. I left a note on the talk page of the yesterday's IP, which apparently had no effect. Any ideas what to do next? Range block? Edit filter?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: Grandpallama (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: what is the extent of the "hopping"? If they are within a range, range-level contributions can be checked. If they are all over the place, then edit-level controls (e.g. edit filter) could be looked at to detect or prevent future cases. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not know. I will now provide two IPs which I know of; I am sure there was another one editing a bit erlier but I do not know how to find it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

2001:b07:6442:8903:3da1:25fa:3859:5d7c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2001:b07:6442:8903:8c2f:1b4c:7ff5:dc0a (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

@Ymblanter: try Special:Contributions/2001:b07:6442:8903:0::0/64 - does this include everything you are looking for? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, thanks a lot. Should we just block the range? I will revert the recent contributions in the meanwhile.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: sorry, I'm a bit at a loss here - what is "wrong" with the edits that were made? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We had an RfC which specifically outlaws any usage of Wikidata in the text of articles (it can obly be currently used in infoboxes). I personally opposed, but this was the outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

On Tuesday, I told the Ip that there was no consensus for these changes, and that I will be reverting them, but apparently it did not have any effect.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a wikilink to the relevant RFC, so that it can be pointed out to this IP and to any subsequent offenders. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I hoped someone would help me, because it is not convenient for me to search right now, but if not, I will look for it in the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Most likely, this is this RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 204#New RFC on linking to Wikidata, though it might have been another one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That one was more about a subset of such uses, but basically confirmed the original RfC from 2013, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, which said that it is "not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia" and which, as far as I know, hasn't been overturned on this point (and found consensus in related subdiscussions like the above RfC or Listeriabot AfD discussions). Fram (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: sorry, I'm still at a bit of a loss, in the edit you started this section with: Special:Diff/916139100 - it appears that both the "before" and the "after" include #property invocations, which has been in that article for two years; as such I'm not seeing much at fault from this IP editor since they were just continuing the editing style that was already present. In your own revert you edited the article and left a #property tag right there so not really editing by example. The subsequent edit by Fram seems much more appropriate, in that it cleans up the entire issue. It is certainly fine to not make an edit - but when you are saying "don't do this thing" and it is literally next to another copy of the thing you don't address it doesn't send a clean message to the other editors. Additionally, a quick search shows that wikidata items are fairly heavily being used in articles now, so perhaps an old RfC at least needs some better explanation? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is fine, but I got so much mud throwing on me during the last session, that I am certainly not going to start any Wikidata RfCs, and most likely will not participate if one has been started. If the community thinks the edits by IP are fine, it is ok with me. Concerning my edits, i checked a couple and then started using rollback - apparently, it was not a good idea. I will go through them again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The majority of the pages showing up on that search appear to use #property inside infoboxes or other templates, which has always been permitted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: thanks for the note, went back and actually read one of those old RfC's that were prohibitive of use within the body of the article. @Ymblanter: if you think this is happening a lot, you could post at WP:EF/R and we could write an edit filter to at least detect property invocations in the text (would have to think about the formatting of it to ignore non-body sections, but it could be possible). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will think about it. I guess the IP just edit all articles about Wikipedias, in the decreasing order in terms of the number of articles, so it is not difficult to predict what article would be the next.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Frank marine

The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([82], [83] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).

You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Rochdale A.F.C.

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

---

This article is being promoted as a "happy customer" on the Wikipedia page creation site https://www.thewikiexpert.com/ and I was unable to find a single disclosure in the edit history (or talk page) for paid editors. I don't have the skills to track this down but I figured someone would like to defend the community by identifying this violation. Thanks. Luke Kindred (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Chetsford (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is what I found.

• The article was created in 2004, which was 15 years before thewikiexpert.com URL was first registered.
• The article creator and three most prolific editors don't have any obvious, telltale indications of being undisclosed WP:PAID editors.
• There have been no dramatic edits to the article since thewikiexpert.com was first registered earlier this year.
• It's not a very well-written article but I see no signs of WP:PROMOTIONAL language.

I think either (a) thewikiexpert.com is claiming to have worked on this page when, in fact, they did not, or, (b) their edits violate our WP:PAID disclosure policy but are otherwise content policy compliant, or, (c) their edits violate our PAID policy and are not content policy compliant, but there is enough GF activity on the article as to obliviate any practical impact of the PAID editing. I'll watchlist it. Chetsford (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC); edited 23:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued unsourced edits by IP 84.248.191.201

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

---

As can be seen on their talk page, this user is choosing to ignore continued warnings, including several final ones for genre changes and additions without sourcing their edits as can be seen here on their contribution page. Examples here, here, here, here & here. Robvanvee 13:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like they just realized that Materialscientist's block had expired and they decided to pick up where they left off. I've reblocked the IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Category moves by Yasminsabri

If anyone has time/inclination (I'm nearly done for the weekend) please can you fix the C&P category moves of Yasminsabri (talk · contribs)? I've just merged a couple of histories; in both of them the 'new' name was actually correct, it's just their method of C&P was off. User is now blocked. GiantSnowman 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

CodeInconnu

User:CodeInconnu has shown a chronic pattern of edit-warring and intractable behavioral issues, frequently personalizing content disputes and casting those with whom they disagree as lacking in intelligence.

Immediately after registering on en.wiki, CodeInconnu began edit warring on the 2017 Barcelona attacks. You can read through the massive wall of text here, but CodeInconnu's first few posts already showed an unnecessary level of antagonism:

• "opinion pieces carry the authority of the writer, not the paper": wrong [84] (after being told that an opinion piece published in The Guardian is not the same as a Guardian editorial)
• The only intelligent thing you've said among all of your hogwash is [85]
• By the way, shits and fucks are usually given, not cared [about]. Merriam Webster. You're welcome. [86]

Their editing in this area pulled the first of their EW warnings [87] and ended with an ANI case where CodeInconnu lobbed PAs at a number of users [88] [89] [90]. CodeInconnu moved on to Citizens (Spanish political party) (you can read the massive walls of text starting here). There was significant incivility from a variety of editors, but CodeInconnu continues to stand out. Excerpts:

• My "rant" may be incomprehensible to you (how surprising) but it won't be to the people reading it when they decide whether or not to block you, which you seem to be begging for with your puerile ad-hominem gibberish. . . We've all had tantrums on Wiki over the months and even years, nobody is perfect, but intelligent people learn from them. Maybe you'd feel more at home in the Spanish wiki. [91])
• This might not fit in your black-and-white narrative, but nothing does really, which is why you sound so clueless. [92]
• I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. Are you sure you think things over before writing them down? [93]
• Like I told you in the change log, if you have references to other things you should add it to. Otherwise just stop being a nuisance. You're not in the Spanish wikipedia now. [94]

When CodeInconnu filed a request at DRN [95], it was closed as incomprehensible and with a civility warning, which earned these ugly responses [96] [97] [98]

At Talk:Tabarnia, behavior became so bad (and off-topic) it was hatted by another editor [99]. CodeInconnu has since moved to primarily editing film plots and has racked up a number of warnings and reminders to observe both BRD and MOSFILM [100] [101] [102] [103] (largely ignored, other than the FILMPLOT length guideline) while still picking up civility warnings [104]. CodeInconnu's most recent edit warring was at Jair Bolsonaro in June 2019, where their insistence on adding the category "Racism in Brazil" to Bolsonaro's page had them ignoring BRD when they were reverted, instead playing chicken with 3RR and insulting users on their own pages; CodeInconnu never once posted on the Jair Bolsonaro talkpage.

My first encounter with CodeInconnu was after a fairly routine reversion [105] [106], where CodeInconnu responded on the talkpage by opening a discussion in which they exhibited resistance to BRD and took an unprovoked swipe at my intelligence [107]. The discussion basically devolved from that point; they also tried to re-insert the disputed content while the discussion was ongoing. Once they began boasting about intellect (Not sure who you think you're talking to (or who you're used to deal with) but I have a 3-digit IQ and I've watched this film several times, thank you very much), I disengaged. I later thanked another user on their talkpage for an earlier effort to intervene, where CodeInconnu showed up and attempted to continue [108].

There's a clear overall pattern of incivility when challenged and an unwillingness to engage collaboratively. I think they're entirely capable of being constructive (this apparent effort at shit-stirring notwithstanding [109]), but at the very least, they need a formal warning from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This is why Grandpallama didn't reply to anything else for days: he was busy compiling all the negative bits of my entire Wiki history. Fortunately for me, I don't have that much free time available so I can't pay attention to Grandpallama or to the very dishonest way in which he tried to curry favour in User:Nardog's page (copying carefully chosen incomplete interchanges to try to paint me as problematic, etc). An individual who threatens he'll take things to ANI at the next (perceived) slight, then takes it to ANI anyway just because the other user he was trying to woo did not see him as any less toxic than myself and erased all comments to their talk page, is a person who cannot make a constructive contribution to this encyclopedia. The mere fsct he turned me into his own private project during these days is indicative of a very unsound behaviour and I'll be sure to trigger a Wikipedia:HOUNDING here if this behaviour persists. Grandpallama, I may have a temper but I'm essentially a reasonable guy. You, on the other hand, need help. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coming in hot with additional personal attacks and an accusation of hounding is not going to convince anyone at ANI that you don't have a civility problem. I warned you future personal attacks would result in ANI, and you chose to double down and continue. My (admittedly unsolicited) advice to you is that you consider addressing the diffs that have been provided; this is not about a conflict between you and me, but about an ongoing pattern of behavior, of which our encounter was only a small, and recent, part. By the way--making claims about what I did or didn't do, such as accusing me of selective quoting at someone's page to curry favor, without diffs is also a personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused about a number of things, but especially the boundaries of what constitutes a personal attack. The selective quoting, the snowflake behaviour and the unctuous flattery of a third party is there to see by anyone who understands how to browse diffs in page histories. And I repeat what I told you earlier: you don't get to tell me what to do. I don't even think you're an admin and you're very right; your advice is completely unsolicited. Get over your obsession about me because it's not doing you any good, and the worst thing that could happen to me is being blocked from a place that is neither a central part of my time nor my source of monthly salary. Big deal. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ps/ In fact, many of the things I've written that you label as personal attacks or insults barely qualify as oblique criticism. Like I said, you can't even distinguish between the two. Not only is your ANI section ill-intentioned, it is basically mendacious. ANI should be used as a resolution centre, not as a passive-aggressive weapon. This is the classical behaviour of pulling the headmistress' skirt in a school playground while pointing at someone else saying "missus, missus, he's been bad to me". CodeInconnu (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi, this IP is continuously making unconstructive edits, they have been warned by several editors, but they don't seem to be ready to stop. Admins' eye would be welcommed. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this request would be better suited here Curt内蒙 22:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor hasn't edited since the warning notices were posted on their talk page so I'm reluctant to block now. Please update if vandalism continues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, i hesitated between going to AIAV and coming here ... Thank you guys for your input, @Liz: ok, i'll do that if they come back at it again ;-) Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph and accusations of Holocaust denial and revisionism

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On at least three occasions in the last two months, Sir Joseph has either directly accused other editors of being holocaust deniers or revisionists, or claimed that administrators, either personally or individually, are blocking editors for combatting antisemitism.

Examples:

1. Accusing Objective3000 of being a holocaust denier [110] by distorting a quote. See also discussion on talk page about it. This quote was eventually removed by El C
2. Accusing me of blocking someone for fighting antisemitism: [111], [112]
3. Comment on Sandstein's talk page on't bother. It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned. Look at AE and ARBCOM. And then Sandstein comes in like a hammer without waiting for any other admins to comment and then just blocks. followed by edit summary reverting not worth getting blocked by Sandstein over the direction of New-Wikipedia
4. This archived ANI thread, where he didn't directly name an editor, but as was noted at the time, didn't exactly behave in the best way regarding implication of antisemitism on this project.

I'm sure if anyone wanted to search for more, they could find them. Antisemitism is a cancer that has no place on Wikipedia, but fighting in contentious areas and using direct or indirect charge of antisemitism against both other editors in the topic areas and administrators is a chilling tactic that has no place here as well. I'm not exactly sure the best way to handle this, but it needs to stop, and I am of the belief that Sir Joseph has had more than enough warnings. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't distort O300's quote, that was his quote verbatim [113]. Secondly, why did you block Yaniv? He reverted someone who claimed that the Jews were able to come back after the Holocaust and reclaim their property.

As for AE, yeah, Sandstein could have blocked for an American TBAN violation, but the other edits were indeed reverting Holocaust revisionist edits, as @Paul Siebert: pointed out. As for that archived ANI thread, there is nothing wrong with my comment on my talk page. Further, I point you to Warsaw_concentration_camp which stood for many years until @Icewhiz: and others removed the hoax that there was a concentration camp there that killed over 200,000 Poles. And yes, looking at the ARBCOM decision, I stand by my statement. Talk about chilling, this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia, and they get called out for their editing, they deserve the scorn. This is the terrible chilling effect, you are planning on punishing me for pointing out hypocrisy and antisemitism? Shame. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Further, you are now casting aspersions on me regarding that ANI thread. Nishidani brought NMMNG to ANI, not me and you are implicating me that I called Nishidani an antisemite, or made implications similar to that, when I have done no such thing. All I did was post his comment on my talk page. Please clear up that confusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been notified about this discussion, but I'd prefer to let other admins handle the matter raised by TonyBallioni. Sandstein 23:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have long been concerned about Sir Joseph bringing a battleground attitude to editing. They've been a frequent-flyer at AE for some time; just to make sure I wasn't misremembering, I checked their block log, and their history at AE and the AE logs. There's a degree of aggression and of a "if you're not with me you're against me" attitude that isn't compatible with collaborative editing. So far as I can tell, what Tony highlights is just another example of this. I'm as yet unsure of what to do about it, because if it's a problem restricted to alleging holocaust denial the solution is obvious; if it's an attitude problem, it's not. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind. We should absolutely take a zero-tolerance approach to genuine holocaust denial. For that very reason, crying wolf about holocaust denial isn't okay. I cannot agree strongly enough with Bradv below. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Can you clarify which quote you are talking about? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  It's this quote. I also read this entire discussion on your talk page. I repeat, there is no holocaust denial here. O3000 isn't saying that the generally accepted estimate of holocaust deaths is exaggerated; they're saying that some people have exaggerated it. Likewise, they're not saying that the casualties are actually 75% of what they were; they are saying that even if they had been, it wouldn't have made the holocaust less horrific. In that discussion on your talk page, you continually draw unjustified conclusions from what O3000 says. You also repeatedly insist that because you quoted verbatim, you cannot have taken something out of context, which is a nonsensical argument; the "context" is the stuff not in the quote. And you've repeated that mistake here, multiple times. Even if no sanction comes of this discussion, you need to step back and think hard about why you are jumping to the conclusions that you are. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• In light of the fact that there are holocaust deniers/revisionists and similar that have edited this website, we are better off with a iron curtain approach from a few editors that draw a line in the sand and confront this hideous POV. I have read the back and forth between 03000 and SirJoseph and it appears to me that 03000 made a comment that he should have immediately retracted and apologized...had this happened the issue would have ceased then, for I see it as one that has an insinuation of at the very least, revisionism. That 03000 has subsequently made it clear he was highly offended by the denialism label and explained themselves adequately so this issue should be dropped by all immediately. As far as Sandstein issuing draconian and unilateral blocks and bans, that's nothing new. Sandstein should voluntarily remove himself from that venue until he can demonstrate some empathy and fairness.--MONGO (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned by Sir Joseph, let me voice my opinion.

• Don't you agree that blocking a user who says that anyone who raises the antisemitism issue will be blocked would mean to confirm what he is saying?
• We have two problems: 1. Baseless accusations in antisemitism is a serious violation of our policy. 2. Antisemitism is a real phenomenon on Wikipedia pages and it is a serious violation too. That means, accusation of antisemitism or Holocaust denial, or Nazism whitewashing, cannot be considered a violation per se. However, as any outstanding claim, it requires outstanding evidences. Therefore, the questions are:

1. Had Sir Joseph sustained his burden of evidence?
2. Do admins treat evidences of antisemitism seriously?

I have no answer to the first question (I hadn't examined evidences), but I have some thoughts on the second one. My resent conversation with Sandstein suggests their approach to that problem is not as serious as it should be. Indeed, I presented the evidences that the accusation in defending Hitler, which were a subject of the recent AE, had some ground, however, these evidences were rejected or ignored by him for purely procedural reasons. That means any person who will face similar situation will prefer to think twice before throwing accusations of antisemitism, even in a situation when there are serious reasons for that. Although I agree that Sir Joseph is redundantly emotional, a non-zero possibility exists that there is some reason for that. Indeed, there is a big difference between showing one diff and saying: "Look, he accused me of antisemitism!" and presenting long and detailed explanations demonstrating that that was a real example of antisemitism. I have a feeling the first type evidences is what admins like (because they are simple to deal with). In contrast, second type evidences require thoughtful examination, and I have a feeling admins prefer avoid that.

To summarise, in a current situation, the one who has been accused of antisemitism has, by default, an advantage over the one who has thrown this accusation. I doubt that state of things is normal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is wrong, unless the theater is actually on fire, in which case it's a public service. – Levivich 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  If someone is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, presumably the evidence is obvious. If not, they usually wouldn't be permitted to remain in the theatre. – bradv🍁 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  This. We block antisemites and holocaust deniers on sight (or at least, I advocate for that.) The issue comes when someone begins accusing established editors in content disputes of it or when one accuses administrators of it for not getting involved in content disputes on your side. That's when it ceases being a public service and starts being a tactic used to win battles. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• My ancestors include Jews who escaped persecution. I can tell you stories that are hard to digest. My friends and coworkers have been mostly Jewish for decades. Sir J repeatedly accused me of holocaust denial despite my numerous statements that I know that the holocaust occurred and that it is one of the most egregious events in history. He would not stop no matter how many times I stated this. He demanded that I make a statement declaring that his exact definition was correct. I was so disgusted that my editing has dropped by over 90% as I have such a sour taste in my mouth every time I look at this site. Personally, I don’t give a damn what religion a person is and I think all religious texts are apocryphal. I guess I am just not Jewish enough for him. He should not be anywhere near anything related to religion. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sir Joseph's treatment of O3000 was repugnant. He's lucky that he wasn't blocked then, but it seems he didn't learn anything. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni needs to stop casting aspersions about me. I never called O300 a Holocaust denier and I never said anything about Nishidani. He is poisoning the well. Further, pointing out my blocks from 2016 is wrong since those were during the reign of Coffee and regardless, they are from 2016. I stand by most of those edits. I'll be offline for the next day but I hope you read what Mongo and Levivitch wrote as well as Paul Siebert. I would also ask why BradV's only action at AE was to bring me and Icewhiz and nobody else. I even asked him why he didn't do anything about VM who also violated a TBAN and he opted out of blocking or doing anything about it. Do what you want, but don't pretend that there is no problem on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  You know what you did to O3000. I'm increasingly tempted to propose a site ban. Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph: I would also ask why BradV's only action at AE was to bring me and Icewhiz and nobody else. How is this relevant? What are you suggesting? – bradv🍁 01:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Bradv, we are talking about blocks and bans about Poland and Holocaust and I asked you to do the same for Volunteer Marek and you refused. Seems self explanatory. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Pretend I and the other readers of this page are dumb. Explain. Because the hanging insinuations are about to get you booted from this site. spryde | talk 01:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Your reprehensible behavior in this section alone is enough for me to support a block. From casting aspersions to denying your history of incivility, it's simply unacceptable. It's quite evident you take Wikipedia to be a battleground in which you label other contributors holocaust deniers/revisionists without any substantial basis, and in an incredibly insulting manner. Further, this comment above seems to be a veiled attack on Bradv; if it is not, please explain it. Your conduct has instigated conflict where it was unnecessary, and inflame incivility where it was avoidable. I support any action that prevents this behavior from continuing. Vermont (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, since you brought it up, let's talk about it. On May 9, you said If only the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they could have had it many years ago. Sadly they don't. They'd rather continue killing people. ([114]) I had never interacted with you before this point, but I found this comment so egregious that I reported it to AE, and you were subsequently topic-banned for 3 months. (discussion). Now you are still claiming that I did something wrong by reporting you, implying that you haven't learned anything from that topic ban.

  Regarding Icewhiz, I don't see how any of that is relevant, but anyone interested can read our interactions on that here and here. – bradv🍁 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note: after this thread started, in a reply to Vanamonde93, Sir Joseph repeated his borderline libelous comment that Objective3000 thinks less Jews died in the Holocaust than the historical consensus. Sir Joseph would obviously know this was false, as O3000 said this on SJ's own talk page and clarified the comment was that people who claimed more Jews died in the Holocaust than there were Jews existing in Europe were wrong. Sir Joseph has removed that here, instead asking for clarification of what quote Vanamonde was talking about, but this shows he is still willing to blatantly lie and accuse others of things that he knows to be false. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Quoting someone in full, can't be libel. Again, I did not take anything out of context, not sure why you keep missing that. That is O300's quote. That's why I undid my edit because I'm not sure what Vanamode is referring to. But not sure what you are referring to, since the quote of O300 is indeed Holocaust revisionism, and O300 has clarified that he wasn't talking about his views but other views. So not sure what you're trying to get at. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to propose a ban from all religion related articles. But, now that he has yet again falsely accused me of an egregious act, I believe a six month block is warranted. Going to bed now. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything, as I explicitly stated, that's your quote but not your view. For some reason TonyBallioni and others here would like me banned and they are using this and other edits and reopening things to do so, but this was already clarified and closed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"...the quote of O300 is indeed Holocaust revisionism..." - this is clearly an statement of accusation that O3000 is a Holocaust revisionist, yet the quote does not seem to meet that threshold. You may wish to stop now, before you dig yourself a bigger hole. Waggie (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to sign off, but this was already clarified, but I do wish to point out that the quote is a form of revisionism [115] Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. However, since you seem to have missed the part where as MONGO pointed out much earlier that O3000 clarified that this isn't his views, or just right above where I explicitly said the same thing, and he was just quoting, but apparently TonyBallioni would like to reopen this old thread for some reason. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, in this diff, only "revisionism" is the term that may be considered questionable. Meanwhile, "revisionism" is not the same as "denial". "Historical revisionism" does not always refer to something negative, sometimes that may refer to some views that have not became mainstream yet. Any new historical concept was seen initially as revisionist. "Holocaust revisionism" is a form of historical revisionism, and that is not necessarily Holocaust denial.

@Sir Joseph, I think not every attempt to adjust the number of killed Jews downwards is something terrible, provided that solid evidences are presented. In connection to that, I think SJ's crusade may distract a community from real cases of Holocaust denial or antisemitism. In my opinion, an attempt to see antisemitism, or Holocaust denial, or Hitler whitewashing (that is not the same) in virtually everything has an opposite effect. IMO, if your declared goal coincides with your real goal, everybody will benefit if you become less emotional.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but the original quote was not used that way. Regardless, this was already clarified and closed months ago. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you can't claim this was clarified and closed months ago, while continuing to repeat the accusation. – bradv🍁 02:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was replying to this comment, "For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind." that is why I sought clarification. And as I said up top, the quote itself is revisionism, as O3000 acknowledges, he clarified that he was just quoting what others say, it's not his opinion. But the quote itself is revisionism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I was only using the term Sir Joseph used to describe O3000's quote a month ago: I never said you didn't say the Holocaust never happened, you just are denying six million Jews were murdered, and you are OK with saying that it can be 75% of that number. As per the Wiki article, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, that is indeed Holocaust Denial. (diff). Like Waggie stated, he was accusing someone else of downplaying the numbers today after knowing that was not their view, and after stating that he considers it to be denial and also linking to the article on denial on his talk page when he placed the quote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was replying to this comment, "For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind." that is why I sought clarification. And as I said up top, the quote itself is revisionism, as O3000 acknowledges, he clarified that he was just quoting what others say, it's not his opinion. But the quote itself is revisionism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, you said above, "this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia". If so, that would be a WP:COI problem. Which editors are you talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Typically, the editor who makes a racist or antisemitic statement is the who gets the ban hammer, not the editor who was offended by it, and/or became overzealous trying to prevent it from happening again. Antisemitism does rear its ugly head in some of our AP2 articles, and I find it highly offensive even though I'm not that easy to offend. My interactions with O3000 have taught me that he can be easily offended and becomes battlegroundy over the least little thing - like when I added *sigh* to the end of my comment. He let me know right away that it was belittling to editors, so out of respect, I leave with an unwritten *sigh*. But seriously, isn't it plausible to think that an editor who is offended by a written exhale would be the one who exercised the most caution when crafting their own comments? How could O3000 have been so negligent? Anyway, there is no use crying over spilled milk. I think Sir Joseph should simply agree to not bring up O3000's antisemitic quote again, and if he is exposed to any further antisemitic or racist comments by another editor, to simply leave a diff on Tony's TP and let him take care of it. Problem solved, let's move on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)      

  The general consensus is that O3000's comment was not antisemitic. Unless you can present a good argument to the contrary, please refrain from repeating discredited allegations. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• We should be deeply concerned at Holocuast distortion on this site - not users calling this out.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Seriously, Icewhiz? Users falsely calling out holocaust denialism do serious damage to any effort to deal with real holocaust denialism. When I described Sir Joseph as "crying wolf" above I wasn't just making a reference; that parable is very applicable here. If O3000 were to say something genuinely problematic about the holocaust a couple of weeks down the road, and if Sir Joseph happened to be the one who called attention to it, he wouldn't be taken seriously. Holocaust denialism is serious stuff; therefore by definition accusing someone of it is a serious accusation. With evidence, it's grounds for a indefinite block. So, either you think that making a false accusation this serious is fine, or you actually think that that quote constitutes holocaust denialism; both of which are extremely troublesome positions to take. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Saying the Holocaust death toll is exaggerated - and should be set at 75% is blatant and deep within Holocaust distortion turf. See USHMM - "Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.". Instead of acting swiftly to counter denial on Wikipedia - we are acting against those who complain - making Wikipedia a safe harbor for Holocaust distortion (and not surprsingly - as a result - articles in mainspace have had conspiracy theories on the Holocast persist for over a decade).Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - boomerang - desysop

TonyBallioni has blocked a user that described content (false content, misrepresenting sources) on Jews as antisemitic - [116]. When Yaniv asked to appeal the block to AN, as his right as a blocked user, Tony (who was WP:INVOLVED, removed talk page access - see User talk:יניב הורון#Block Review - an abuse of admin tools to avoid scrutiny.

However, when an editor was brought to WP:AE, for several infractions - including directly calling multiple editors "Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" - which is much worse than Yaniv's comment on false content - Tony wrote "I would close this with no action: I see nothing approaching sanctionable here". AE.

Tony is using his tools in a discriminatory manner and prevented an AN appeal by revoking TPA from the user attempting to appeal against him. He clearly is quite touchy about antisemitism - which is another big red flag here.

Now Tony is attempting to act against a user who is complaining of his action. The community should decide that Tony should be desysoped for unfair misuse of admin tools, and refer this to ARBCOM.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• You're building this case on two incidents from months ago (and an insinuation that you disguise as a 'red flag'). And you're doing this in the context of a thread in which numerous editors have agreed with Tony's objections regarding the behavior of Sir Joseph. You don't actually expect this to work, do you? Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc

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

This user frequently says "FUCK YOU!" On his edit summaries to IP editors whenever they add-in false information. He has also been known to attack other users who disagree with him and his replies on talk pages barely make sense due to the poor grammar he uses, which is odd as his grammar on most of his edit summaries is better. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at his use of fuck in edit summaries, there have been 8 in the last 500 edits. 1 was reverting himself and 1 did not stick as it seems that Benjaminkirsc was wrong to undo. The other 6 appear to be fixing vandalism. I would prefer that we find other ways of expressing anger than by telling IP editors to fuck off. However, I think the community consensus is that telling vandals to fuck off is OK so I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. That said, Benjaminkirsc has a lot of edits with no edit summary at all, which does go against community consensus, and which makes his fuck offs all the more noticeable Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Telling vandals to fuck off is OK" is not my view of the outcome of that RfC at all (I closed that RfC). If there was any consensus at all at that RfC, it is that there are no hard-and-fast rules—there are cases where we should sanction an editor for telling vandals to fuck off, and there are cases where we should let it go with a word of discouragement. If you believe that Benjaminkirsc should be sanctioned for inappropriate edit summaries, then you should not interpret anything in that RfC as prohibiting us from doing so. Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your chiming in here Mz7. I will stand by the fact that I am troubled that among his very few edit summaries are so many fuck off statements. I would love to hear from Benjaminkirsc. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at all the times the word fuck appears in his edit summaries, this one in particular, though from May, stood out to me as pretty bad. While it turns out the date change was vandalism from thirteen days earlier (the previous edit to that page before Benjaminkirsc's was eleven days before his, and most of the vandalism had been cleaned up already), it's not at all clear from "got the date wrong" that he even knew it was vandalism and not just a mistake - and besides, that's burying the lede anyway, since that one was insulting to more people than just the vandal. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If I’m reading that right, it sounds he is accusing the vandal of being a homosexual, which is problematic because it implies that homosexuality is bad / shameful or something that is linked to vandalism. (I’m not saying that necessarily meant it in a bigoted way. But I believe that it’s best to avoid using homophobic, racist, or other prejudiced terms even when criticizing vandals. Perhaps the policy doesn’t back me up on that this. Michepman (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have notified Benjaminkirsc of this report. – bradv🍁 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lock shemale edit Autoconfirmed

Lock shemale (edit=Autoconfirmed) (move=Autoconfirmed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeravich23 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There has only been one IP that edited shemale recently. Their two edits were reverted and nothing further is needed. Next time please use WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

What can be done about the disruptive editing carried out by User:Wallyfromdilbert? Rather than read the references provided, this person seems to simply revert hundreds of edits a day without actually reading what they're doing. A more reasonable person would add a 'citation needed' or 'verify' type tag, but it appears this person isn't able to actually take the time needed to make WP better. Apeholder (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Apeholder: I only removed two content additions by you for being unsourced: [117] [118]. Both of those additions are not supported by the sources on the pages. They are also not accurate, and so I did not put a citation needed tag. Also, you were supposed to have notified me on my talk page about this ANI report. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly expect both parties to stop issuing each other inappropriate template warnings and start discussing the reason for their edit wars, which seem to be taking place across quite a few articles: [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]. I'm not sure who has a vendetta with whom, or why, there seems to be some concern with "See Also" sections and a remarkable usage of WP:BRD to justify edit warring at [125], but no edits to the talk pages of any of these articles, and very little discussion or explanation beyond edit summaries and templated warnings. You clearly both believe that your edits are correct, so please go to the talk page and explain why rather than labeling the other side "disruptive". ST47 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

ST47, I didn't realize that removing content once from an article was considered edit warring. The only times I reverted a second time were when the wikilinks added to the page were already linked in the main body, which goes against the MOS, which I left a template warning about. All three times I reverted the user's edits a second time, I left a message on their talk page explaining why. What should I have done instead? Also, do you think my template warning about adding a semiprotected template to a nonprotected page was inappropriate? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Was inspired to read the ”Wally from Dilbert” article: “Wally is a fictional character from the Dilbert comic strip. He is characterized as an employee so deeply jaded that instead of doing any real work, he spends all his time and effort successfully gaming the system.” A counterexample to that lifestyle would be building content instead of destroying it, seeking sources for unsourced propositions instead of deleting them without tagging or warning. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)