Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165

Monbot

User has been adding unsourced information to the articles and has been warned multiple times on his talkpage. -- I.Mahesh (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh: when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Hi, I have encountered a bug similar to this, that temporarily prevents me from adding or removing data on specific Wikipedia pages for a time being. I have a screen recording of the issue, which can be presented to the technical team during this year's technical conference. I've added a notice as soon as I was able. Thanks for the reminder. --I.Mahesh (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an aside but they are a mobile editor who has made 16 edits. They are likely not to have even seen the talk page messages left for them and may not know they even have a talk page. This doesn't resolve the problem their edits are causing but just adding some context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh: Can confirm that they "provided latest and accurate information" over at 2023–2024 mpox epidemic while actually providing wildly inaccurate nonsense. I checked every edit they've made, and it's been that same complete nonsense: just pulling numbers out of a hat, often directly contradicting the ironclad source (e.g. there was weather data for 1971–1986 per the source it was obtained from, and they changed it to '1971–2024' with the summary 'Fixed typo'). I'm confused if this is a malicious pattern of injecting false information into articles hoping no one will notice (although if that's the case, why go to a heavily edited article like the mpox one and more than double the death count?) or if this is somebody who's genuinely just extraordinarly misguided and doesn't realize or doesn't care that there's a talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And their user name violates the Wikipedia:Username policy. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User:AndriesVN

For the past 2 years or so this user has inserted fringe views into various articles about the early Christian church, essentially arguing for a form of "Great Apostasy" theory. When he is not pushing original research generated on his own blog he is quote-mining actual scholars such as Richard Hanson and Lewis Ayres to support his POV. He has persisted in his edits despite multiple warnings; several articles (Prosopon, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Homoousion, to name a few) are affected by his "contributions" and will have to be reviewed. I think it's clear that nothing less than a topic ban would suffice. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nautical Mongoose. There is no user account, User:AndriesVN, it's User:AndriesvN. But thank you for posting them a notification of this discussion. I don't see that you gave them a warning, where have you discussed your issues with him? On any article talk pages? Please post diffs of edits you find improper. You should provide these so editors can see what you are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They also haven't edited in two months so this doesn't seem like an urgent problem and it's also unlikely that they would be participating in this discussion which is really part of the process of addressing an editor's behavior. What made you post this complaint today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They also haven't edited in two months – They've made up for that below by compressing two months' editing into one day. EEng 17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my edits.

A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a store of ancient documents has become available over the last 100 years. For example, "in the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents." (Williams, p. 11-12)

Due to this new information and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. For example, Lewis Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2). R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost English scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. He says, "The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored." (Hanson, p. 95).

Unfortunately, older books and authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still offer the 19th-century flawed version which says, for example, that the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy, winning many supporters. While despotic emperors supported the Arians, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy, which ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

In contrast, Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote a recent book on Arius in which he describes Arius as a conservative. Arius did not cause the Controversy. He did not teach a new heresy. He did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term 'Arian', therefore, is a serious misnomer. The Controversy was the continuation of the controversy during the third century. For example, “We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)

If anybody was to be blamed for causing the Controversy, it was Alexander because, as Williams shows, he maintained a 'one hypostasis' theology, similar to the Sabellianism that was already rejected in the third century.

With respect to the 'orthodoxy' when the Controversy began, it was not today's Trinity doctrine. It was subordination. For example, “until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” [RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.]

What is today regarded as orthodox evolved during the fourth and later centuries. The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.”  (Ayres, p. 13) “This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix-xx)

I can list many other examples of errors in the 19th-century version of the Arian Controversy that is still prevalent on Wikipedia. Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published. Of those, R.P.C. Hanson's book in 1988 is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson's book, and Khaled Anatolios's book in 2011. Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) is also an essential point of reference but is only available in Italian. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the revised account of the Controversy.

This has been my chosen field of study for several years now and, if I am allowed, I will continue to edit Wikipedia articles when time allows. Previously, Wikipedia opposed my efforts to defend the authenticity of the Book of Daniel, but, with respect to the Arian Controversy, science is on my side.

I do appreciate the sensitive nature of this topic. It deals with the most fundamental doctrine of the Christian church – one which many regard as the mark of true Christianity. However, the authors I am quoting are all highly respected Catholic scholars. AndriesvN (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AndriesvN, this is all very interesting but is quite a tangent from the post that opened this discussion. Can you address the concerns brought up in the post at the top of this complaint about your editing? Please be more concise and stay on topic. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The bold sections are quotes from Nautical Mongoose, to which I added my responses:

For the past 2 years or so this user has inserted fringe views

The view I defend is not 'fringe'. It is the view of the scholarship of the last 50 years which, based on research and documents discovered, is very different from how the Arian Controversy was explained in the 19^th century.

into various articles about the early Christian church,

I focus on the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

essentially arguing for a form of "Great Apostasy" theory.

No, I do not describe it as a ‘Great Apostasy’, as if there was a clear break from the past. From the second century, it was a war between two views. But the side that eventually won, formulated a polemical strategy with a very biased view of history, for example, claiming that its theology always was orthodox and that all opponents of Nicaea are followers of Arius. I argue that the history of the Arian Controversy, as recorded in the older textbooks also often in Wikipedia, is distorted.

When he is not pushing original research generated on his own blog

No, I do not do my own original research. I do not read the primary sources. I read and summarize the views of the authors of the last 50 years.

he is quote-mining actual scholars such as Richard Hanson and Lewis Ayres to support his POV.

Hanson and Ayres are the two leading scholars on the Arian Controversy of the last 50 years. Since I do not do original research, I justify my conclusions by quoting them and other scholars. "Quote-mining" implies that my conclusions differ from theirs. That I deny.

He has persisted in his edits despite multiple warnings;

I am not remember ‘warnings’. Some editors have bluntly deleted my carefully compiled explanations. I think that is most unfair and even destructive.

several articles (Prosopon, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Homoousion, to name a few) are affected by his "contributions"

That is true. I am trying to work on all pages dealing with the Arian Controversy.

and will have to be reviewed.

I hope the reviewers will consider the quotes I provide as proof of my contributions and read the modern books on the subject.

I think it's clear that nothing less than a topic ban would suffice.

This revised view of the Arian Controversy has been in the public domain for the last 50 years. It must eventually filter through to Wikipedia. I am convinced that I am opposed because this revisionary scholarship threatens Christianity's primary doctrine; not because my contributions are erroneous. AndriesvN (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit's non-admin closures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yesterday, I gave a warning to ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that they need to answer the four(!) outstanding questions on their talk page regarding WP:NACs they made:

1. § Requesting review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton MFD from last week
2. § The presidential navbox RM (note that this appears to be referring to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 22#Template:Presidency of Richard Nixon) from two days ago
3. and 4. are both at § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seneb-Neb-Af from yesterday

As I explained to TE, WP:NACD says Non-admin closers are accountable to the policies at WP:ADMINACCT, so TE's failure to communicate while they are actively editing is an ADMINACCT problem. Instead of responding to those ADMINACCT questions, they have been improving their user page: Special:Diff/1240750958/1241973317.

This is far from the first time TE has been a problematic closer:

• User talk:ToadetteEdit#Closing wikiproject-related MfDs where TE said I wasn't aware of the consequences that result from closing mfds... after they closed mfds.
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 July 23#Template:Cantic small table – they originally closed the TFD as keep even though it was actually userfy'd.
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#Trump raised-fist photographs – I will let this thread speak for itself, other than noting a newer non-admin should have known to avoid such a hot-button issue
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#NACs at CfD – knowing how to properly work the tools you use is the bare minimum
• At their unsuccessful RfA, unnecessary relists of discussions was brought up as an issue: 1, 2

With all that said, I am proposing an indef topic ban from closing discussions, appealable in six months (for the avoidance of doubt, this would include a prohibition on relisting discussions). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 08:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, their refusal to adequately communicate, with those who have left messages on their user talk, in regards to their closes is inexcusable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Toadette has said at their talk page that they're quitting RM and AfD. My impression is that they're editing in good faith, but perhaps a bit too enthusiastic for their current experience level (and aren't doing fantastic with handling criticism). I'm not sure I see a need to impose involuntary sanctions on top of that right now, although it'd be worth revisiting if the same problems come back. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did a bit of digging. It appears that they made a similar pledge a few months ago (full text: I am indefinitely banned from closing XfDs, broadly constructed. I should also consider to halt participation as it is constantly making me a lot of problems) after yet more problematic closes (which I somehow missed in my original report), and yet here we are now. I think we need to make this official. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 08:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah. Well then, I support with a heavy heart. I sincerely hope Toadette doesn't quit altogether, although I have a sneaking suspicion that's probably what'll happen. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for this topic ban per my comments here back in May. Daniel (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral. @Ajraddatz: has given a similar warning (or advice, however you want to construe this one) at their Meta page. There are two ways to look at it. One is that a ban isn't imposed, and this editor finally understands what's going on, and goes to hibernate for a while. Evidently that "hibernate" hasn't happened from what I see in the comments, otherwise I would have nominally opposed this. The other is that the ban is imposed, and they rage-quit and start hibernating again (this word is used because the hope is that they wake up and start being a productive and contributive editor). The reason this is not a support is that a ban stings and I do get the feeling that this editor is good-faith and essentially ... petrified. Leaderboard (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• This reminds me a bit of User:Celestina007 who was a great, productive editor but who got ahead of themselves and took on (or assumed) too much responsibility than they should have tried to handle and got into trouble. I'm someone who has posted notices on TE's User talk page, especially when they were a new editor, and have had mixed success with it making an impact. They do good work, by and large, but are just moving too quickly with trying to take on advanced responsibilities. We need editors willing to do that but at a pace that reflects their level of experience. Having a thread about oneself on ANI can often be enough of a reality check that further sanctions aren't required. I just think this editor needs to slow down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The user displays a very limited range of reactions to feedback and/or not getting what they want (I am sorry, I will quit, I will cry, etc), which strikes me as a fundamental maturity issue. Obviously they want to be seen as a positive contributor, obviously some of their contributions are positive, and obviously their positive contributions are always welcome. That said, it would be nice to believe what they promise about their future behavior and move on, but unfortunately, as others note (and link) above, the user has already shown that their level of self-control does not match their ability to make promises. If they can demonstrate a greater level of self-control and maturity while editing and responding to feedback in other areas, then they'll have no problem appealing this topic ban down the line. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support This is not a user who should be closing any discussions. I'd like to say I could support some sort of "unless consensus is obvious", but I no longer have any belief they can judge when a consensus is obvious. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - it pains me, because they mean well. But issues like this keep arising. I don't think they're ready to be closing discussions. I feel they should stick to basic editing for now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support – While ToadetteEdit has made valuable contributions in anti-vandalism and other areas, they frequently misinterpret consensus, which is essential for closing discussions. I'm concerned that allowing an appeal in six months won't provide enough time for learning and breaking out of this pattern, though. A one-year period before allowing an appeal might be better. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree User:ToadetteEdit has jumped ahead of themself. I encourage the user to edit boldly and feel free to make a few mistakes along the way. Seeing the user has agreed not to close or relist, I won't endorse any block or ban; neither will I oppose community consensus. BusterD (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Ugh. Non-admins should never be closing highly controversial discussions, or ruling against strong consensuses, period. Ever. That this editor just keeps on doing both, is poor at judging consensus, and doesn't lack the judgement to figure out that if they're bad at closing XfD, they're likely bad at closing other types of discussion as well, these are bad indicators. Ravenswing 00:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh, indeed. Non-admins close highly controversial discussions all the time, for decades now. Non-admins close more highly controversial discussions than admins. And nobody should be "ruling against strong consensus," we call that a "supervote" and it's not allowed for admins or non-admins. Judge Toadette based on Toadette's conduct, not based on which permissions they hold. Whether a close is good or bad has nothing to do with whether the closer is an admin. Levivich (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, this cycle of criticism & quitting isn't productive for the community, nor for the editor. Definitely involved as I weighed in on one of the discussions and that we're here again is inevitable. It's clear that Toadette isn't familiar enough with the nuance of consensus to close discussions. This time will allow them to learn more from watching other editors close discussions. @Levivich it's not just that they're NAC, it's part of the broader hat collecting with this editor. If anything they're seeing it as the super user status, not @Ravenswing, me or anyone else.Star Mississippi 02:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Controversial discussion closures should have been reserved to uninvolved admins. I encourage everyone to read WP:BOLD and WP:NAC before closing a non-controversial discussion. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Well meaning but not yet mature enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC).
• Support per above. They are really talented and I can see the brimming enthusiasm in them for editing and housekeeping/clerical works, but the slight immaturity and rushing into things needs a breather. 6 month period is adequate to lay low and take a break from the closures and then they can resume it again. Their latest reponse on the talk page about quitting Wikipedia is kinda similar to the rant on their RfA a couple of months ago, which all points to a little immaturity. ToadetteEdit is one of the most enthusiastic editor I have came across in a while but they definitely need a breather this time. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support – not much else needs to be said but I'm not convinced much has changed, especially since their failed GR request. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate conduct - Personal attacks

I am reporting inappropriate conduct made by User:Starigniter. In a recent discussion [1], they called me a "pathetic liar" and a "hypocrite" and snark remarks like I have never open a "dictionary in my entire lifetime". They also afterwards, claim I am using a "bad dictionary" despite I used Oxford. So not only do I have to put up reading their long line of derogatory remarks [2], but they are unable to accept being wrong without a large amount of verbal defensiveness. Example is when they argue that tiebreakers must always involve additional gameplay, and that dictionary supports them. I explained the dictionaries are a limited reference source that merely gave examples of common tiebreakers but doesn't actually specify anywhere they must absolutely require extra gametime to settle a tie, and gave them Oxford dictionary definition [3] that defines it more comprehensively, as well as real world examples of tiebreakers, such as FIFA football and USAGA golf, that don't involve additional gameplay in their tiebreakers, but they will dismiss FIFA football as being a silly game, and accuse Oxford dictionary as a bad dictionary while simultaneously calling me a liar and a hypocrite. Why must I argue against that reasoning/personal attacks? I already gave them a warning, yet they repeated it again[4] and I see no chance of them changing on their own in the future. Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours to prevent further personal attacks. No views on the underlying content dispute but there's no need for this level of rudeness over the definition of the word "tiebreaker." -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like they doubled down. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm now involved, since I've provided a 3O for this dispute, but I'd encourage passing admins to take a look at OP's behaviour here as well. -- asilvering (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Block extended to indefinite given they're just using the block period to make more attacks. Re OP, @Asilvering: happy to have a look, which specific diffs are a concern? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I share asilvering's concerns about the OP's approach, notably with these comments [5] [6] [7] that it seems like they're more interested in winning disputes or being proven right rather than in working out what's best for our articles. However I don't think it's at a level that requires administrative attention especially considering the OP is likely a little heated given the personal attacks. I've personally spoken to the OP about my concerns, and asilvering has as well. Any other editor, or an admin is welcome to speak to them if they will it useful, but hopefully the message will get through to that they need to change the way the approach disputes here and focus on what's best for our articles and not on "winning". I would add that frankly, I don't feel the OP's responses to Starigniter were that bad. Maybe they could have been more civil at times, but especially considering the personal attacks if it has stopped there frankly I would have no concerns. For me it's only the way they responded to the 3O that really causes concern. So AFAIS Starigniter really has no cause for blaming the OP in any way, not that there is any justification for the personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, Nil Einne. Since I personally was the one who had failed to give the answer that OP wanted, my worry was that they would be completely unwilling to hear me, and it would take another editor to help them actually step back. I was also concerned that they might be getting into the habit of "winning" disputes by getting the opposing editor blocked for bad behaviour, but I've since had time to look into their contributions and I don't see evidence of that happening. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Leverett Ball is getting out of hand

• ConstructionNGardening (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GAL666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NoobSaibot69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Laurencemball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can we get some sort of community/administrative action on this? SPA article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry after using two accounts to try removing the AfD notice on the article, and now two more brand-new accounts showed up !voting to keep the article. Got a total of four SPAs by now. Left guide (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the two more recent accounts as likely meat puppets. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi'ed the AfD as I'm sure we'll have new friends. Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Harimia's slow and fast edit warrings

Harimia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has perennially returned to certain articles over the past months to silently or abruptly readd large and small chunks of contested material; they seemingly have no interest in talk page discussion or consensus. (Or verifiability for what it's worth, given their recent streak at List of modern great powers.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I just put UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India and Brazil as Modern Great Power. I don't have any intention to disrupting that you imagine. Due to technical errors, I could make my mistakes. Some one who delete these articles have faults. Not me. Harimia (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Your changes were contested with firm arguments rooted in site policy, and you refused to discuss them with other editors like you have been repeatedly asked in multiple situations up until this point; instead, you just put your changes back. In addition to edit warring, the onus is on the person who wanted to add the disputed material to establish consensus for it. Remsense ‥ 论 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User in question’s also repeatedly duplicated the article within itself, seemingly not realizing they’ve done so - I’ve got some WP:CIR concerns. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I always follow the law of Wikipedia although I have mistake. I am sorry so please do not report it and remove your reports. Harimia (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the venue to discuss the myriad problems with the contributions themselves that resulted in their being contested. I mean, I certainly hope this stage helps and you know to start discussion on the talk page first, but others will likely be better judges of that. Remsense ‥ 论 06:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense. Harimia has displayed a pattern of disruptive behaviour, lack of understanding of basic wiki policy, and a total lack of willingness to cooperate with other editors. Admins, please see the case of Special relationship (international relations). The article was outrageously cluttered and an editor had placed an "Excessive tag" for it to be cleaned up/trimmed. I completed the task on 14 May 2024. Harimia has, since that date, persistently attempted to restore their preferred version of the article, often without providing any WP:ES, ignoring the "Excessive tag", and not cooperating with others. Based on this pattern, I believe sanctions are in order. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Not with the edit summaries in this and this you didn’t.

You know, there’s a Chinese speaking Wikipedia, if that’s more your language. Your edit history suggests it. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, List of modern great powers has been protected, so that takes care of any immediate problems and sends a message to the editor (along with the warnings on their User talk page). What sanctions are you proposing? If their previous edits are fine and the problem just involves one or two articles, they can be issued a partial block. I just wonder whether or not this is a recent problem or more extensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

A partial block seems fair to me. I would also recommend protecting Special relationship (international relations) as it seems that article has been a target of Harimia's for many months. And Harimia's edit summaries like "Do not erase", are quite indictive that they only wish to see their version of article upheld and not seek collaboration with others. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I could not understand why you erase the references that are officially recognised. Your behaviours are also not fully persuable. Harimia (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because the references exist doesn’t mean they back your claim of these special relationships - most of the sources you’ve used seem to be on normal relations. Very few, if any, meet the bar of inclusion for a “special relationship,” and you’ve seemingly refused to understand this. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by one user across multiple IPs/accounts on Kerem Bürsin

A user has been repeatedly removing a chunk of content from the article Kerem Bürsin without explanation, despite its restoration by other users numerous times and warnings on their various talk pages. They have been editing as the account Grace Wilkins (talk · contribs) and the IPs 185.160.225.33 (talk · contribs) and 185.160.224.59 (talk · contribs).

It's obviously the same person from the behaviour, but the moving between accounts and IPs also seems like a very deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. Yesterday, when I gave them an edit warring warning on their IP talk page and an editing while logged out warning on their account user talk page, they immediately switched back to logged-in editing. Then, when they reached their final warning on that account this morning, they suddenly went back to logged-out editing (on a fresh IP, though they may not have had control over that). AntiDionysius (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Grace Wilkins (talk · contribs)' methods may leave a lot to be desired, but on the content I see no evidense that Bürsin or his grandfather had any connection to a Jewish sect. And the relevance of his grandfather's burial is unexplained. Not everything that can be sourced belongs on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving the content out of the article, personally - it is the behaviour I am concerned with. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

WeyerStudentOfAgrippa in Existential risk studies

This user has maintained a persistent disruptive and dismissive behavior in the article talk page, making several totally unsubstantiated claims against the article (not a single source was invoked by them), and has been trying to push his POV since the beginning, making changings that go against the present sources. I have already sought multiple instances of mediation, both opening a request for comments and asking for reviews in the philosophy wikiproject talk page. All the users that engaged agreed that the article has no major fault which justifies their claims or the addition of the NPOV flag (which, again, their havent justified at all). Now, after I spent some days without using Wikipedia, I see that they have deleted a massive amount of the article, all of which was substantiated by reliable sources. This is a unbearable degree of permissiveness to disruptive behavior that only hinder the development of the encyclopedia. The user doesnt understand a thing about the subject, has dragged the whole process and failed to present a single source to dispute the content. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. AN/I is only for major conduct issues. It appears there is ongoing discussion on article talk. Don't bring someone to AN/I to win an argument. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior, failure to engage with the discussion, failure to argue based on principles. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears there is ongoing discussion on article talk.

The user is not listening nor engaged with the discussion. They didnt provided a justification of the NPOV flag, even after being questioned by another user, and has removed this content without justifying or having any base in the discussion. As I said, they have selectively and dismissively engaged with the discussion, only extending without listening or arguing with sources. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Which of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have been tried, out of curiosity? Daniel (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

1) First of all, I invited to user to review this article because I have been justifying its need before even making it, in the global catastrophic risk talk page. After the article passed the new article review process I started to receive these dismissive comments by another user, which was soon joined by this one. The first user has mostly retracted from their initial position. But I have extensively argued every single point of WeyerStudentOfAgrippa questioning, showing mentioning and quoting reliable academic sources on the subject (should I say, again, that they havent mentioned a single one? I am starting to doubt that it matters). The user has disrespectfully characterized my attempt of discussion as "unfocused walls of text".

2) I tried to open a request in the dispute resolution noticeboard, which were cancelled on formal grounds, and the editor didnt tried to help me much. Then i decided to use the request for comments as well as asking for reviews in the philosophy wikiproject talk page. The users that engaged with this process reaffirmed that the article has no major fault which justify the flag or the deletion of the article. One user questioned WeyerStudentOfAgrippa justification for the NPOV flag, which is totally unrelated to NPOV issues, and not true by the way. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, it appears that the NPOV concerns revolve around the focus on Nick Bostrom in the article (verging on UNDUE). But in this edit, you say the subject is forcing their POV? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

They are, they are systematically forcing a conception of the field that goes against the reliable academic sources, they have not offered a single source that contradicts the previous (now destroyed) version of the article, even after I requested it multiple times. The introduction sources do not say what they attempted to say. Shouldnt this be the most important thing about Wikipedia? The whole strategy is to downplay the relation between the field of studies and the concept of existential risks, which is unequivocally established by reliable academic literature. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The question about Bostrom has two sides. My understanding is that, as the sources affirm, Nick Bostrom has provided a foundational definition of the concept of existential risk and has laid the first 'paradigm' for the field, nonetheless the field has spurred the creation of multiple centers and foundations, as well as other stream of thought with dedicated schoalrs. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa questioning of the article depends on a confusing and contradictory point - both affirming that the field isnt a field at all, just a derivation from Nick Bostrom, as well as going against the sources to force a even more straight subordination of the field to this author. The idea is most unreasonable in the moment it affirms that existential risk, as presented in global catastrophic risk, cannot be reduced to the field of existential risk studies (because it is too dependent on Nick Bostrom work), even when the article on global catastrophic risk is totally based on nick bostrom and associated when it mentions existential risks... JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeyerStudentOfAgrippa: You removed a section of the article with the edit summary: removing section for now -- see talk on 19 August 2024, but didn't add anything to talk and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find on talk that justifies removing that section several days later.

@JoaquimCebuano: I think Weyer is correct that there were some NPOV issues:

1. Referring to Bostrom's essay as "foundational".
2. "Perhaps mostly significantly, the EA community has contributed a momentous amount of financial resources to ERS, fueling the expansion of its academic and popular reputation."
3. You characterize Schuster & Woods's quite scathing critique:

   There is a stunning lack of attention in existential risk studies to the huge amount of research, activism, and human rights work on the history and prevention of genocides. The technocratic outlook and terminological narowness of Bostrom's assessments are partly at fault, but more disconcerting is the way his work ends up disclosing a colonialist attitude that downplays the history of genocides and Indigenous suffering.

   as follows: Some scholars consider the concept of existential risk established within ERS to be excessively restrictive and narrow, which discloses an attitude of neglect to the history of genocides, especially the one related with the colonial genocide of indigenous peoples.

I also think that you have been engaging in some presistent ... dismissive behavior:

1. Your response (emphasis added) to a reasonable, constructive critique, is to suggest that that critique is so, so below the purpose of this encyclopedia that I dont think its worthy to answer in detail.
2. The user is not listening nor engaged with the discussion. When Weyer has responded, they've engaged with your points constructively. This is a volunteer encyclopedia. Nobody is obligated to respond to your approximately 0.35 tomats of text.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

1) It is foundational, all the sources affirmed the same thing, thats not my fault at all. If there is another word, then i am open to change, no one tried to change this specific phrase.

2) Its true, but i am open to rephrasing, that hasnt not been a subject of debate until now.

3) Cant see the problem...

4) How it is 'reasonable' to dictate what the readers need or should read with justifications unrelated to the sources?

5) They have not, and have not presented a single source to contradict the presentation. The whole policy of verifiability has been utterly ignored. If this is constructive, then I dont know what is the purpose of Wikipedia after all. If my fault is to explain the subject for someone that refuses to engage with the academic literature and just makes unsourced claims based on assumed truths, then I might be guilty indeed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is reasonable to point out that it might be better to present information in a different manner, such as by merging articles. That is not "dictating" to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think that "a long section about the "Background" and the "History" is not as essential as explanations of the concepts." is about how to better present the information, its about negating information. But you are correct, I was excessively harsh, mostly because no one expects that the first section of an article that took a lot of work is going to be a 'What?'. But you should note, as I already said, that I invited Weyer in the discussion and took their question with patience, I sought instances of mediation and I only opened this notice after this surprising and unjustified removal of sourced information. I can no longer assume good faith and my interest is simply the development of the encyclopedia. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

How can you attempt to justify Weyer with problems they didnt even pointed nor change? The Schuster & Woods's criticism you quoted still there. Have you read the Concept section they removed? What is the problem there? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a volunteer. I am the one who took time to build the article. I a obligated to deal with criticism without base, criticism that doesnt take the effort of using sources, with suspicion from very beginning? It seems like I have been the main suspect of this notice also. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a volunteer. I am the one who took time to build the article.

You don't own the article. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

But someone owns the subject, it seems. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they saw the ANI notification as it was just posted as a comment in a previous discussion without a separate header. I have now invited them to participate here. It would be helpful to hear their point-of-view on this editing dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to share my perspective: The draft had multiple strong sources and passed AFC, but it was essentially still a draft and needed higher-level editing. I find the draft author's committed defense of the original content and their related attacks on me utterly bizarre. Frankly, their behavior seems consistent with testing what spam, DARVO, or other tactics they (or someone else) could get away with here. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You both are in a mere internet content dispute that became personalized. "DARVO" is a term used to refer to behavior of perpetrators of violence, typically sexual violence. Using this term on your adversary here is a highly uncivil personal attack. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with such a narrow interpretation, and my experience matters too. I think it's possible to talk about harmful dynamics without implying personal use. The linked article suggests that understanding of the tactics can reduce their effectiveness.

More generally, I'm not sure potential spam tactics are being taken as seriously as they should be, but I don't know where that discussion belongs. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A Third-Party Summary

The Original Poster says that they tried to open a request in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which was cancelled on formal grounds. They filed two requests at DRN. The first one I closed because they had not listed or notified the other parties to the dispute, and said that they could file a new request after 24 more hours of discussion on the article talk page, in which they would list and notify the other editors. Maybe that is a formal ground. At about this point the other author put a {{NPOV}} tag on the article. Then the OP listed the other editors in a new request. They didn't notify the other editors, which is a required formality, and I would normally have told them to notify the other editors, and waited. However, when I read the discussion on the article talk page, I did not see any issues about what to change or leave the same in the article. I didn't see a content dispute of the type that is handled at DRN. I saw discussion of whether the article should be draftified, or whether the article should be cut down and redirected. DRN is not the forum for such discussions. Those are alternatives to deletion that are best decided by AFD. Deletion and alternatives to deletion are content disputes, but not content disputes for which DRN is the proper forum. So then the OP filed a request at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, which I think was a better forum.

About 36 hours ago, the other editor deleted two sections of the article. At this point there is an article content dispute of the type that can be discussed at DRN, or resolved by RFC. There is also a tagging dispute, but it is my opinion that tagging disputes are a distraction, and should be resolved by addressing the content dispute. I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion at DRN if that is agreeable to the two editors. Otherwise some other method of content dispute resolution is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think I chose the best words when I said you didnt help me much, given that i did failed with the formulation of the notification, but it can be quite frustrating to deal with this kind of dispute where someone is allowed to ignore basic policy. Given that, I cant be certain that it can be solved as a content resolution without the recognition that this conduct has indeed verged on WP:DISRUPTIVE:

Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.

Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified citation needed or more citations needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic.

Fails to engage in consensus building

Campaign to drive away productive contributors JoaquimCebuano (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:JoaquimCebuano - What do you want? What do you want the Wikipedia community to do, if anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on my experience in lusophone wikipedia, a disputed unjustified removal of sourced content would immediately trigger the restoration of WP:STATUSQUO. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Weyer said in their edit summary: removing section for now -- see talk. Given that there was nothing on talk to justify the removal, you could have just reverted it and started a talk discussion. You still can revert it per STATUSQUO—just don't edit war if you get reverted.

AN/I is for chronic and intractable behavior. This is a slow boiling content dispute, not a pattern of disruptive editing. Let the RfC play out (you can also neutrally advertise it at relevant WikIProjects (see WP:APPNOTE) and consider what other editors have to say. I've already pointed to some NPOV problems for you to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So you, User:JoaquimCebuano, came to WP:ANI to resolve a content dispute. Should this thread be closed as a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I came here to notify about a user that has been systematically forcing their POV in disregard to the verifiability policy. This is one of the definitions of disruptive behavior. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOV discussion after coming there from WP:NPOVN, I agree that this matter is a content dispute. Although I have some disagreements with WeyerStudentOfAgrippa's reading of the NPOV policy, I don't think anything said raises anywhere near the level of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. It is way too premature to handle this at WP:ANI. I will copy the new concent concerns that have been raised here back to Talk:Existential risk studies. To depersonalize and deescalate, I recommend closing this ANI thread. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano You are unlikely to achieve a positive result for your cause by continuing to pursue this here on ANI. You can see that other editors haven't been convinced by your evidence, and you won't change that by just restating your view. On the contrary, this may skew people against you. Please keep a WP:CALM appearance (sorry for saying this), don't personalize the discussion, and continue to follow the normal dispute resolution procedures. It may be slow and frustrating, but in the end you will most likely reach a state that has consensus and grounding in content policies, which so far seem to have been unveiling in your favor.

(for some reason the Reply button didn't work for me on your nearest above comment, so I'm replying here)

NicolausPrime (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Iwaqarhashmi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts § Iwaqarhashmi

User:Iwaqarhashmi is repeatedly nominating good-faith user pages for speedy deletion. They are leaving messages on the user's talk page according to the following template:

--

Hello, $username, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:$username, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development

Standard layout

Lead section

The perfect article

Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

---

This is followed by the nomination itself, again, a templated one:

---

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Neodiprion demoides requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

---

This behavior has a number of issues.

• Alluding to notability in the context of user pages is nonsense.

• Calling WP:U5 / WP:NOTWEBHOST is usually inappropriate. In reality, the applicable rule is often WP:UPGOOD, for example, as "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material".

• Ignoring WP:DELETEOTHER: "Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion".

• Misleading about the appeals procedure: linking to WP:RFUD, while the appropriate venue, per RFUD comments, is deletion review.

---

Having seen a relevant warning to this user from their fellow editors (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iwaqarhashmi&oldid=1132532942 - "Please take care", Jan 03, 2023), I see no point in talking to them directly, as the behavior seems to be systematic.

See, e.g., User talk:Neodiprion demoides for an example. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging by their CSD Log, the deleting admin agreed in almost every case. I have not counted, but approximately 6 user pages are still present out of almost 300 nominated in August so far. Since the deleting admins have a duty to check prior to deleting it seems to me that there is no case to answer here. Or are you going to bring every admin who acted upon every nomination here to answer charges? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem very well versed in some of the ways of Wikipedia. Have you edited previously under another user name? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent

• Since the deleting admins have a duty to check prior to deleting it seems to me that there is no case to answer here.

That's the strongest point which I'll answer. The check might be cursory because the deleting admin recognizes the nominator (who does their things every time) and assumes their good faith.

• but approximately 6 user pages are still present out of almost 300 nominated in August so far.

That is absolutely expected, because a typical user won't bother contesting the deletion. I also checked the existing pages. User:Shubol3D was a blatant misnomination, and, IMHO, even that lonely misnomination warrants an action given a previous warning. The others were just recreated and not touched anymore by the same nominator.

• Have you edited previously under another user name?

Almost nope: two anonymous edits in my lifetime, beside those under my account. I am a longtime reader, that's it. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neodiprion demoides Then bring every single admin whose actions you disagree with here to answer your accusation. Each of us, editor and admin alike, may be called upon to justify our actions to the community. I cannot see any of them objecting.

For clarity, I am not an admin here. Never have been, never will be. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Alluding to notability in the context of user pages is nonsense. The first template notice is a standard welcome template that is left by Twinkle when you notify a user talk page of a CSD nomination and their talk page hasn't yet been created.
• Regarding your second and third points, see Iwaqarhashmi's CSD log. it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion. The template is that notification.
• Regarding your fourth bullet point, Iwaqarhashmi didn't create the template.

An independent administrator agreed with Iwaqarhashmi that your user page should be deleted. The way to handle this would have been to wait for @Fastily to respond to your request for undeletion rather than try to get someone punished. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts See this edit by UtherSRG. It seems to me that this is an example of asking the other parent. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think asking Fastily to undelete was an issue. That's what Uther told them to do. The issue was coming here with a frivolous complaint and not waiting for Fastily to respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts I may have mistaken the timings. My apologies if so. If you will forgive me, this is so frivolous a complaint I choose not to re-check. It is this complaint which I see as asking the other parent.

One of the reasons I have made a conscious choice not to request admin status on nay WLF project is because I believe firmly in a dual key approach to deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts

• The first template notice is a standard welcome template

I do not think anyone is forced to use an erroneous template, which it is in this particular case.

• The template is that notification.

I'm calling nonsense on this. It carries no additional information beyond the nomination itself. Also, "notification" != "contacting the user". In my world, "contacting the user" is posting a meaningful message on their talk page and waiting a reasonable time for response.

• Iwaqarhashmi didn't create the template

Again, they neither were forced to use it. Correct me if I am wrong.

• coming here with a frivolous complaint

I don't think this complaint counts as frivolous, given the previous warning to that user, acknowledged by them, but subsequently ignored. This is what I cited in my opening message to justify my approach. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I have moved this discussion from an inappropriate venue to here. I have notified Iwaqarhashmi and am about to notify Neodiprion_demoides of the new venue. I do not, however, see a case to answer and would like to propose this be closed with no action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Neodiprion demoides, you've just experienced a sequence of actions that happen thousands of times a day on this project. Articles and pages are tagged for deletion consideration, notifications are posted, this happens all day long, your situation is far from unique. If you take issue with the deletion, you contact the deleting administrator but the editor you are complaining about did nothing wrong, patrollers tag many, many pages every day and attacking them for doing their "job" will get you nowhere on this noticeboard. You are a very new editor and you are raising questions about an experienced editor who was just going about their patrolling tasks. I think you are completely overreacting here and I hope this discussion will be closed before you dig yourself even deeper into the hole you are digging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz

"a sequence of actions that happen thousands of times a day on this project."

Please back this with data or retract. We are speaking about speedy deletion of user pages, in which, I am afraid, you are off by a factor of 100 or so. I would not be surprised if a user under discussion is single-handedly responsible for most such nominations.

Per the above:

• this editor had a warning for exactly this behavior;
• already this month, their nomination of User:Shubol3D was manifestly blatant;

At this rate, I would be much happier if the task of patrolling new user pages went to a more skilled editor. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have data, just 11 years of experience reviewing CSD-tagged pages. Where are you getting your data of "off by a factor of 100" when you've only been editing for a few days? All User pages tagged CSD U5 can be found at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations where a patrolling admin will review them and this category is almost never empty. Your page is just one of many User pages that get deleted every day. I'm sorry you are taking this so hard but you are ignoring the advice I was trying to offer you in as kind a way as I could.

Now you could keep on this fruitless campaign, which might result in a block or you could wait for the deleting administrator to respond (which should have been your first and only action) or you could move on and go on to edit other articles. But I'm not going to get into a no-win debate with you over a speedy deletion you disagree with. I have many other tasks I do on this project, including reviewing CSD-tagged pages, and will not engage with you any more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

On 26 Aug 2024, between 00:32 and 09:33 UTC, there were 35 non-sandbox U5 nominations. This is much less than "thousands" daily, not even a hundred daily at this rate. Regardless of the rest of the discussion, which I find quite frustrating, I just don't think that factually incorrect statements have any place on Wikipedia. Please retract. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I just can't understand why this conservation is going on for this long. The user is clearly trying to do personal attacks on me, and I'm not even convinced they are here to contribute positively. They didn't wait for the deleting admin to reply to their message, and they didn't even bother to contest the deletion or contact me; instead of that, they just requested the user page to be undeleted, which was declined by the uninvolved admin, but they didn't listen to them either and filed a complaint against me on the noticeboard. Even the deleting admin agrees the user page was a gibberish page and unrelated to encyclopedia, and despite lots of admins trying to do the same, the user is not listening to anyone at all and profusely arguing with everyone. I would suggest if that behavior and personal attacks continue, an indefinite block is warranted to save other editors and admins valuable time. Waqar💬 08:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your main user page, the policy (Wikipedia:User pages) states Its normal use is to give basic information, if you wish, about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. Other uses likely are inappropriate and should be deleted or moved to a more appropriate location. It’s really that simple. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you alluding that the background of one's username counts no more as "basic information [...] about [...] your Wikimedia-related activities"?

Also, "Other uses likely are inappropriate and should be deleted or moved to a more appropriate location. It’s really that simple" is as much simple as it is made up. WP:UPGOOD reads differently. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @Neodiprion demoides With respect, this discussion has now deviated substantially from what I think your original purpose in dragging an editor here to answer your accusations. Consensus on that appears to be solidly against you, so I ask you, what is now your purpose in continuing this discussion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, this is getting really annoying now. They're wasting everyone's time, and I strongly believe WP:NOTHERE applies here. Waqar💬 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Iwaqarhashmi I think they should be given the chance to explain what they wish to happen. After all, they brought this discussion here. Let us see what they have in mind.

Others may share your opinion, but I have not yet abandoned my good faith. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Okay, fair enough. I agree. Let's hear what they have to say. Waqar💬 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for keeping WP:AGF, much appreciated.

I do not want to drag in the specific editor, these are the rules of this space to notify them. I prefer to minimize my direct interaction with persons of whom my opinion is strongly negative.

It is rather my purpose to have an independent editor to assess my arguments.

Importantly, I would like to hear a point-by-point assessment, and certainly something beyond editor-splaining (I have such and such extensive editor experience, so I cannot be wrong) and made-up facts ("thousands" of daily cases similar to mine).

To recap:

• The editor in question has already been warned about frivolous nominations for speedy deletion.
• The editor in question has posted at least one blatantly unjustified nomination for speedy deletion no later than this month (and that was not my user page).

Additionally,

• IMHO, the approach by the editor in question is running afoul of the above-cited WP:AGF. Quoting them, "I've been patrolling user pages for 2 years and tagged thousands for speedy deletion. I just know for a fact they weren't here to contribute positively".

Finally,

• Let's wait for the outcome of the discussion about my user page. So far, the argument against its restoration was literally, "spidey-sense" (whatever that means). I simply do not see how it is a good closing argument. This also weakens the "but the editors approved the deletions" argument: in how many other cases was "spidey-sense" also involved?

Overall, unless I am convinced to the contrary, my belief is that the task of purging new user pages is better performed without any further involvement of the editor in question. Other editors can do it better (hopefully).

Otherwise, WP:NOTHERE is a fair outcome for me if editor-splaining and "spidey-sense" are a standard approach here. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neodiprion demoides Thank you. I find your explanation interesting, though I am not persuaded by it. I think your need for chapter and verse to be excessive. It may be that consensus disagrees with me and you are furnished with what you request. If so, that is good. If not, that is good.

One thing that perturbs me is that this is centred around the behaviour on one editor. You have restated that above, yet you say "I do not want to drag in the specific editor..." which seems to run counter to that.

I would counsel you against using the noticeboard for what I think many perceive (I most assuredly do) as Wikilawyering, since I feel that detracts from what you are seeking to establish.

Are you here to create an encyclopaedia?

I ask in all seriousness. Some of the evidence in your contributions is that you are, but this has become a timesink for you and others here, which, in and of itself, detracts from the building of content, the creation of an encyclopaedia.

You obviously have not chosen to head to advice I gave you on your user talk page. That's fine, I have no issue with that. Even so, is the strong discussion here the path you really wish to tread?

Shortly, perhaps very soon, a consensus will be formed to close this discussion. An experienced and independent administrator will close it with due regard to the merits of arguments on all sides. They may choose to sanction any party to this discussion. See WP:BOOMERANG and WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG.

I think there is a strong probability that you are, will be, have been, an excellent editor. You have an eye for detail. I'd rather see you as an editor than as a combatant. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In a random order and briefly, because it is a deviation:

• Are you here to create an encyclopaedia?

Yes.

• this is centred around the behaviour on one editor

My fault in previously misunderstanding your question. So you are asking why I raised the behavior of this editor and not of any other one. Simply because I had reasons to check their record and was convinced with what I saw. If other editors are equally bad or worse, not my problem ATM. However, I might look into any of them in the future.

• I would counsel you against using the noticeboard for what I think many perceive (I most assuredly do) as Wikilawyering, since I feel that detracts from what you are seeking to establish.

Well, I believe that WP:DELETEOTHER exists for civil handling of non-straightforward cases, rather than for being a weapon in WP:WL. Treating borderline (or benign) cases as blatant WP:U5, the editor in question discourages many good-faith new Wikipedians. For the remaining cases (the clear-cut ones), this editor's expertise is not quite valuable, as almost anyone can do the same.

I'd stop here (again, because deviation). Neodiprion demoides (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You're relying on over-one-year-old feedback (not a warning, as you've framed it) that doesn't reflect the current state of Waqar's CSD log. Waqar clearly changed his practices in response to that feedback, given that almost all of the U5 CSDs are redlinks in his CSD log. You seem to understand how CSD works, but you're consistently omitting that a neutral admin has agreed with Waqar in almost all cases where he's tagged U5.

I'll note also that Fastily has now responded and declined to undelete your user page:

I saw it as a gibberish page created by a new account with few contributions. Happy to re-evaluate if someone knowledgeable on the topic can explain to me how this text is useful in an encyclopedic capacity, but not going to lie, my spidey-sense is tingling; I strongly suspect OP is a troll/NOTHERE.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is going in circles. As I pointed out above, "neutral admins" relying on "spidey-sense" in their actions are not the best quality metric for the nominator. Nor is "spidey-sense" the best criterion for approving deletions.

I see the CSD log of the editor in question starting March 2023, past the warning / feedback. How can you measure the difference in behavior when the data "before" is missing?

I also see a significant upwards of monthly nominations by them. Why not speculate that they are pushing the limits? Neodiprion demoides (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not speculate that they are pushing the limits? Because ANI is not for speculating; it's for dealing with chronic and intractable behavioral problems, such as, for example, casting aspersions. I think others are correct that you are NOTHERE. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Support blocking Neodiprion demoides per ASPERSIONS and NOTHERE. Several editors have now tried explaining to them why they were wrong to bring this complaint, but they've now doubled and tripled down. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment I feel that motions and voting are not wholly useful even though the discussion is circular. If there is to be a formal vote I will recuse myself from it. I believe that any consensus can be judged by any independent, uninvolved administrators without formal expressions of supporting or opposing. I understand why voorts feels it may be useful, but I suspect it will create an unpleasant taste in the mouth. May I suggest that voting be abandoned in favour of simple consensus, please?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's the normal procedure when someone steals a draft you made and claims they made it?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's been quite a long time since something like this has happened to me. Been working on this draft for the past week, started it on the 21st. Was just about to move it to mainspace when that was blocked. I found out that Norma Phillips exists, when it didn't previously. And it reads somehow exactly like an earlier version of my draft. A new account, User:Mannawoke, made it two days ago on the 25th, claiming that they wrote it. They also made two further additions that essentially added in any changes I had made to the draft in the meantime. Including just an hour or so ago when I added the infobox to my draft.

Strange timing for someone to try this, making me wonder if this is related to the ANI filing I made earlier this month. Completely unrelated topic to then, but since the harassment was directed at me in particular (and, after that event, also had the person post a really vulgur image to my mostly unused Commons user talk page), it just makes me wonder.

Anyways, what even is the proper procedure for something like this? Silverseren^C 04:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor notified. Silverseren^C 04:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor's two most recent edits at the current moment make me feel stronger that they are indeed a sock of User:Lemmaille from the prior ANI discussion I linked. Mannawoke as a new account voting in the AfD for Cal Horton falls in the same trans topic area as Lemmaille was focused on. Then this random addition on Fur Affinity seems like exactly the kind of trolling that Lemmaille took to in a flurry right before they were banned. So I suppose I should head WP:SPI-ways? Silverseren^C 04:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, that is an obvious copy/paste of your draft, right down to the red links and disambiguation links in the citations, and the exact same citation style, and exact same refs. I don't know what the proper procedure is, but copying within Wikipedia says duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia) requires attribution. So if the article is to remain, they must fess up and attribute the content to you. This appears to be the version from your draft, they initially created their article with. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it's a copyvio of my draft, I honestly would just prefer it be deleted so I can move over my fully completed version. Silverseren^C 04:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, definitely strong sock smell, note that two ([8], [9]) of their edits were related to articles of mine, so it looks like this user is hounding people that recently reported their sock as I filed the SPI following the ANI that @Silver seren referenced and seems to be following Silver and me.

It looks like a lot of these sock accounts were all registered on 27 December 2021, but are lingering with 0 edits until they get activated for sock usage now. Is this something that a check user could use to preemptively see how many more of these accounts with same registration date and 0 edits exist? I filed an SPI investigation for this new account. Raladic (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have had the druther for a while that someone should enbluen WP:KILLSTEALING, because this does happen from time to time (and accusations of it are made regularly). On one hand, yeah yeah yeah WP:OWN etc, but on the other hand I do think it is, at the very least, uncollegial to snipe a draft from somebody. There is after all a popup on the redlink page telling you about a draft if it exists. jp×g🗯️ 05:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The article can be Speedy Deleted per G5 (and maybe G7?), then you can keep your draft as you add content to it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I deleted Norma Phillips as a copyright violation of User:Silver seren/Norma Phillips. I have seen attempts in the past to muddy the water and claim that putting a template on the copyvio's talk page would be enough but that misses the point IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I just finished moving over the draft. What should be done about Mannawoke, do you think? Edit: Ah, I missed that Raladic already filed the SPI. Guess we're good then. Silverseren^C 05:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The SPI is open, but an admin could easily indef while the case is pending. Conyo14 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Alexchuan1998, copyright, and non-communicative

Alexchuan1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been trying to add copyrighted images on this project (and in Commons as well) since the start of their editing career. On here, they had added three copyrighted images (two of which had been deleted, and File:Kara Karasia Aug 2024.jpg), with the latter added here after it was deleted at commons c:File:Kara Karasia Aug 2024.jpg. They are also non-communicative, not responding to the messages on their talk page and even reverted on my earlier reversion of their copyvio edit (Special:Diff/1242327857) without edit summary. I consider myself involved with this editor at this point and would like another admin to step in, but I believe this editor at this point exhibits WP:CIR and WP:COPYVIO issues. Also to note that this editor also has been blocked at Commons. – robertsky (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've deleted the image. I note the user also seems to add gossip/unsourced/badly sourced material to pop culture pages, which isn't good. Together with the image issue and their uncommunicativeness I wonder if a short block may attract their attention? Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Good idea, except not a short block, they may not even notice if they edit sporadically. Just indef with a relatively gentle "please reply to the concerns on your talk page in order to be unblocked" message. I'm not sure if we still need to assume that someone doesn't even know they have a talk page or not; maybe WMF has fixed that, at least for non-IP's? I've lost track. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  If it helps, I mobile edit everything, it’s from my device’s web browser (not through an app), and I get notifications of new Talk Page messages, and reversions. Happy to go into more detail / answer further questions to inboxes of users with WP:NONPUBLIC under their belt. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam, @Matticusmadness: Well, there's WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Unsure how required it is for WMF to keep that page up-to-date, but it did get edits by multiple WMF employees and was most recently edited by @Suffusion of Yellow about the iOS app in June.

  It's likely the best overview short of testing things yourself. – 2804:F14:80E7:9C01:2940:4A05:7800:86B7 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't quite understand why we're talking about this since the editor has only once in their 96 extant edits used mobile apps or sites which were what caused concern. I have no idea if the editor knows they have a talk page, but their ability to know is not that different from any other similar use over the past 10 years or so since the massive notice was replaced with the smaller one assuming they are using the default skin. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  BTW the editor does or did know they have a user page on commons [10] and was able to find a talk page to sort of ask for help [11] Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Imo, I think indef block would be good until they realised that they are blocked and respond on their talk page. – robertsky (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked the editor with a permalink to come and read this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Wahreit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Wahreit has been continuously adding historically inaccurate claims to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. Wahreit has been asserting their claims primarily with various low-quality English sources. Most of their historically inaccurate claims can be traced back to a web article they and their sources are citing, which itself has no citations, and is highly likely to have copied un-cited and erroneous claims from a much earlier version of the Wikipedia article in question (passages in the article as very clearly reworded from the mid 2000's version of the Wikipedia article). I open multiple RfCs regarding the sources and content of the article but ultimately due to other users not being able to read Japanese sources which are the leading scholarship on the subject, there was no resolution met. I have already compiled the major Japanese sources for the subject and translated them on the article's talk page. The persistent changes made by Wahreit has resulted in the article presenting a baseless ahistorical depiction of the Japanese forces, which quite literally conflicts with all major Japanese sources (as well as many modern Chinese) on the subject. None of the sources presented by this user actually lead back to primary or scholarly Japanese sources, in fact most of them do not cite anything at all for the erroneous claims. I have attempted to explain this to the user on both the article's talk page and their user talk page but to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adachi1939 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Adachi1939, can you a) sign your comments and b) present diffs/edits that are evidence of the problem you see? You are supposed to present an well-developed argument so we can see what conduct you are objecting to, and that is supplied with diffs, not just a narrative. Without evidence, you are unlikely to get much of a response here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If they state that many claims from the article lack WP:V, that should not be so hard to establish. Of course, providing some examples would be appreciated. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

The most questionable of the sources were brought up on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The most egregious of these sources is Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" which was published in December 2007. There are no citations in the article despite it being used to support claims on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. There are passages which seem to very likely be directly lifted from Wikipedia, for example:

"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

And for comparison, this uncited passage from the 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article.

"The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time) had suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Chinese 88th Division, whom they called the "Hated Enemy of Zhabei". However, their organization, officer corps and command structure were mostly intact, and Japanese forces enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars. Japanese infantry used the Arisaka Type 38 Rifle."

Another so-called historian's source brought into question—Stephen Robinson's "800 Heroes"—has almost no citations that verify the IJA 3rd Division's involvement, with most passages lacking citations altogether. The one citation that does back up his claim is the aforementioned Niderost's Chinese Alamo, which evidently has issues. This has been discussed on the talk page over a year ago.

Paulose's "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" is also cited. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd Division. The book is rather expensive and no libraries near me posses it.

Another web article with no citations by Peter Chen is used as well.

Lastly, Wahreit has cited page 166 (Frame 93) Marta Kubacki's Thesis "On The Precipice Of Change" which has a chart noting the IJA 3rd Division's involvement at Shanghai, however the author notes the data was "compiled from Wikipedia and Simon Goodenough’s War Maps."

It seems ridiculous to give these types of sources equal weight to Japanese sources that include official war histories and reports from the Japanese military themselves. Not only did the Japanese military staff present at the actual battle report the IJA 3rd Division was not present and it was only the IJN's SNLF, but also military historians at Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies have concluded the same in their postwar studies.

Rather than acknowledge this fact, Wahreit has rewritten the article to make it seem like the Japanese sources on the subject are unclear on this matter.

Compare the article on 2024/08/24 before his edits:

"...the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse, instead noting the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation at the time. Period Japanese military reports similarly record the IJA 3rd DIvision as outside of Shanghai at the time (although not far away), with only SNLF listed in the attack. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies—have no mention of IJA forces attacking Sihang Warehouse in their volumes covering the Second Sino-Japanese War, crediting naval landing forces as the sole participating force in the attack on the warehouse."

To what he has rewritten as 2024/08/26:

"There is some contention with Japanese sources, as the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 notes the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation as it's primary focus at the time. Period Japanese military reports record the IJA 3rd Division was positioned just west of the Warehouse (although not far away), with the SNLF (Japanese marine force) instead listed as the primary attackers on Sihang Warehouse. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies— credit the Special Naval Landing Forces as the main participating force in the attack on the warehouse."

The fact the IJA 3rd Division's unit history makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse has been completely erased by Wahreit. They have also changed the information about SNLF being listed as the sole attackers to primary or main attackers. The original sources do not leave room to interpret the IJA 3rd Division being involved, but Wahreit has rephrased the content of the article in a way it may seem so.

Overall it seems they are of the belief that there is some sort of western narrative or western academic consensus with the Japanese participating forces when in reality there is basically no detailed high quality English material on the matter. Wahreit has stated:

"the consensus: the established consensus is that the primary attackers on sihang warehouse were the 3rd division from the Imperial Japanese Army. this was established on the defense of sihang warehouse page since its origin in 2006, and was only removed by adachi in early 2022 in the spirit of "removing chinese propaganda.""

None of the sources presented by Wahreit so far have been able to disprove Japanese-language war monographs and military records. If the IJA 3rd Division was in fact involved there should simply be some Japanese literature either about the division or at least one of the four subordinate infantry regiment's fighting at the warehouse. But there is not, because it did not happen. Someone wrote it on Wikipedia nearly two decades ago without a source, Eric Niderost copied it into an article, and that misinformation has been repeated up to present day. Wahreit also is unware or perhaps ignoring non-English scholarship on the subject. Taiwanese Historian Jack Hwang for example, had already written in 2018 that the attackers were SNLF in a Chinese-language article and provided a number of citations with his writeup.

Sorry for the exceptionally long response, but hopefully it is of use to others checking in on this discussion. Adachi1939 (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 It seems to me that this is not the correct venue. This looks very much like a content dispute, better resolved with mediation at WP:DRN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have requested others to look over the sources on numerous occasions but it never went anywhere.

IMO this user's issue is not just their poor choice of sources and constant manipulation of the article to present misinformation which suits their opinion, but also their inability to engage with me in a respectable manner.

Rather than acknowledge the sources I have presented which contradict their information, they have framed me as a historical revisionist pushing a narrative by stating things such as: "user @Adachi1939 has been suppressing the involvement of the 3rd ija division in the battle of sihang warehouse". With this sort of statement there is little doubt their mind is already made up about the participating Japanese forces. It doesn't matter what reliable sources on the matter say, they would rather see me as wrong.

In addition, they have left a number of immature comments across the website which provide nothing of value to the discussion:

Example 1: "if youre still stalking me adachi do smth less weird with your time, would ya"

Example 2: "hey partner, checking in to see if you're okay. while i don't know you, it seems from your activity and interactions with others on the battle of shanghai and sihang warehouse pages that you're very stressed out and upset. for two years actually, that can't be good for your health. from one guy to another, i want you to know you shouldn't take this personally, and that at the end of the day this is volunteer work, not an actual job with real consequences. in the chance that you don't respond to this with an angry tirade, you should check this page out. if there are trees where you are, i'd also recommend you go on a long hike in the outdoors or maybe try taking a break from here once in a while. remember, it's wikipedia. it's not that deep. have a great day :)."

Example 3: "it seems that this adachi guy has been implementing his own narrative of sihang warehouse by framing the battle as a skirmish and chinese propaganda."

I don't see these types of comments as seriously egregious, but their overall behavior of negatively altering articles to suit their opinions coupled with poorly punctuated unprofessional writing style in discussions across the site makes me question if this user even possesses the maturity to engage with Wikipedia as an editor. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

figured since ive been mentioned here, i'd say my piece.

the reason why adachi's RFC's didn't go anywhere was because it wasn't an rfc in the first place: there was no easy to follow question or guidance for external users to comment, rather it was an accusation of me promoting misinformation and requesting someone support his side (he did the same with user @KresyRise some while back. editor @Awshort (the only response) agrees with me here:

"No comment on the content itself, but this RfC seems improperly done. There is no neutral easy to follow question for participants to answer. I have to agree with the statement by Wahreit above regarding the RfC itself." (Battle of Shanghai talk page).

the content dispute in question was one i stumbled upon a while back when making some edits based off a book i own (stephen robinson). upon editing some information in the sihang warehouse page, i found out that user @Adachi1939 has been controlling the narrative on the sihang warehouse page, where edits made by prospective editors (e.g. @Kapitan318, @KresyRise, @SPQRROME) are constantly reverted to fit his own interpretation of the battle (check the sihang warehouse page history) under the guise of "fighting chinese propaganda" or "historical revisionism." it's behavior that's resulted in adachi getting sanctioned twice (check adachi1939's talk page).

it's also strange that adachi's accusing me of being immature, when his behavior has consisted of:

accusing editors of malicious lying:

"I think you should add reading to your hobby as well. Your last edit on the Sihang Warehouse Article is yet more proof that you do not actually read sources. I'm still waiting to hear back from you on why you decided to fill the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article with a bunch of claims that your citations didn't even support." (September 2, 2023)

accusing editors of being illiterate:

Kapitan318 appears to be unable to read Japanese sources or is involved in vandalism to this article. (April 8, 2023)

accusing editors of spreading chinese propaganda:

"This has moved far beyond making reasonable corrections to the article and into edit warring to try and force your viewpoints across. There is no doubt you are trying to frame the Chinese account of events and figures presented as some sort of western consensus." (July 15, 2024)

accusing editors of being victims of brainwashing:

"While I get a strange sense of satisfaction in receiving negative responses from victims of historical propaganda to my corrections to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article, your hostile remarks and unjustified revisions have the potential to cause serious damage to historiography on the Second Sino-Japanese War if continued elsewhere, so please reconsider your actions." (May 12, 2023).'

accusing editors of distorting history:

I am not a big fan of people that taint history. (May 16, 2023)

trying to gatekeep and control other editors:

If you are able to do this your research has no basis and your changes are not welcomed on the article (May 16, 2023)

accusing editors of spreading misinformation:

How difficult is it to just say "I was wrong about the IJA 3rd Division being at Sihang Warehouse" and move on? You are wasting precious time in your life asserting something that is simply false. Your behavior is part of the issue which is why I am calling you out on it. You've been shown why you are wrong time and time again for months now and just ignore it and try to push your fictionalized view of history. I'm sure you are an otherwise fine person but that doesn't give you a free pass to spread misinformation on one of the most viewed platforms for knowledge (July 15, 2024)

ill provide more on request.

for my part, ill concede those comments could have been more polite, but adachi has been constantly watching and following my profile for the past two months, which is evidenced by the fact he interjects into convos i have with other editors uninvited to accuse me of spreading propaganda and lies:

"Have you ever stopped to consider this sounds a lot like projection and you are in fact the one promoting your own version of the battle and attempting to suppress changes?" (on user @Alexysun's talk page, one of the first times he reached out to me despite me not involving him)

i have tried being cordial because i was genuinely concerned for adachi's wellbeing (some of the language he uses seems quite concerning), but my patience has a limit. id wish that this issue could've been resolved this without escalating to this, but i really don't like seeing the wikipedia community and its editors being treated like this. Wahreit (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

All the users mentioned including yourself were wrong and shoehorned bad quality sources to try and support their opinions. There is no "Adachi interpretation" of the event. There is simply official records and war monographs which state what happened which I have referenced in the article. Not a single source you have presented nor the others can verify the IJA 3rd Division's involvement. This is not a matter of conflicting opinions, you are in denial. If you had respect for me as a fellow editor you would at the very least apologize for mistranslating the Japanese KIA report as 2 dead when it clearly didn't say so. You don't know what you're doing and don't take responsibility for it. One can only wonder what misinformation you have added to other articles.

Do you really think Niderost or Robinson has some secret source which confirms the IJA 3rd Division's involvement? They don't. They are bad historians, who got caught by an enthusiast on Wikipedia.

We know down to which companies of the Shanghai SNLF were involved. These so-called historians can't even tell us which regiment of the IJA 3rd Division participated.

If this were an actual academic debate and not Wikipedia your ridiculous attempts to rewrite well documented events with low quality poorly cited sources would not be tolerated for a second. Adachi1939 (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Except for the incivility, this seems like clearly a content dispute with different opinions on sources and, as such, is more suitable for Dispute Resolution than ANI. There are times when some editors in a dispute come to ANI, hoping that their "opponent" gets blocked, and the dispute will be over. But reading over these comments, I just don't see that happening here. The nature of the dispute rests on nuances of sources and their interpretation and ANI is not the place to come to a resolution over these differences of opinion. While I can see that you don't have much respect for each other, you really need to talk this out with a mediator instead of trying to be the last one standing. But, at least, do not follow an editor to other discussions and pages you are not involved in just to cause them aggravation...that kind of behavior CAN lead to a block. This is just my take after reading through all this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Liz. I will admit I am guilty of incivility as well. Based on your comments as well as those from Timtrent‬, I suppose it would be best to close this discussion and start a Dispute Resolution over the content. Adachi1939 (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  appreciate the feedback Liz. i'm willing to compromise (i've actually reached out to other editors for mediation before) over the content. it's just gotten annoying having a stranger shadowing my activity and trying to provoke a reaction in every interaction he starts with me. Wahreit (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS:RETAIN and Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64

Hi, this is a duplicate of another section I opened here several days ago that made it through this board without any response. The behaviour has continued since the section was automatically archived. Please see the old section. Tollens (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiresome ENGVAR warrior with few positive contributions, none major. A block seems reasonable. Folly Mox (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week to start. Izno (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Out of the ordinary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So today at work we had a tray of doughnuts, my colleague called out to the office, "I'm going to have the last one unless anyone else would like it?". At this point, I realised that I don't think I've ever heard anyone respond saying that they would like the last thing and neither had any of my colleagues, which made me curious about how you would actually respond to that.In the UK, it is fairly common to ask questions like:"Would anyone like the last thing?""I'm going to eat the last thing, unless anyone wants it?""Does anyone want the last thing? Otherwise I'll have it."Such questions are a common way of declaring to people that you would, in fact, like the last thing that you're offering to others. So, it's a bit strange when someone would reply 'Yes'. I don't know how to respond when someone would do that. 109.166.233.126 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Wikipedia? 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:8109:980C:14AE:425F (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The anon probably thinks this is social media. Deb (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So is anyone gonna help me out here or what? 109.166.233.126 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Couldn't someone have linked them to the WP:REFDESK or something? jp×g🗯️ 18:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because REFDESK ate the last doughnut. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm being followed around by other users and don't appreciate it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I hate to bother, but there's been one or two users who've been followed me around and reverting all my edits for seemingly no good reason. I'm all for reverting edits if said edit is flawed, but all of my edits are sourced reliably. The reason given for all of my edits being reverted is that I didn't discuss them beforehand, but there is no policy that calls for doing this. I've edited on Wikipedia back in the day, around 2016-2017, but can't for the life of me recall my username. I tried to create this account a month ago or so, but couldn't because of some sockpuppet in my area called Diskyboy. I'm well aware of the rules and how everything rolls. I don't appreciate being followed in this way, but am most concerned about a block threat I got on my talk page. The user who sent this doesn't seem to be an administrator, but I'm still scared to do any more edits with that possibility. I just want conformation that I'm in the right here and can continue on editing. If that's somehow not the case, please don't hesitate to tell me. Sorry for wasting your time. An example of this kind of behavior can be found on the article Feuer frei! where I removed an unsourced genre and got my edit reverted. So odd... thanks in advance and hope you can help. Carnivore82 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response here when asked if you've ever edited under different accounts is interesting: I tried to create this account a month ago or so, but couldn't because of some sockpuppet in my area called Diskyboy. (Diskyboy SPI archive page). Diskyboy also genre warred over metal songs. I think I hear some quacking. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never checked to see what edits said user has done, but if so that's quite the coincidence. I don't see how you can accuse me of something like that without any real evidence other than assumptions. I'll tell you myself that none of those edits are mine. Carnivore82 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You literally reinstated (with different phrasing) an edit made by a Diskyboy sock with a source: <sock edit>, <your edit>.

Your edit summary was "Nope. The source never claims the song is groove metal, but that its merely reminiscent of what would come to be known as the genre. I did reword some things and add another source however to make things a little more clear and accurate." - at this point it doesn't matter if you're truly 2 people, you're doing the same disruption from the same place in the same topic, you're going to be treated as one person. – 2804:F1...32:E973 (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even notice such a thing. Whatever, if you think I'm a sockpuppet than do whatever you have to. I'll be retired by the time you see this reply so it's not going to affect me much in the end. Happy editing to all, and wish you well in the expansion of Wikipedia for years to come! Carnivore82 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DelusionalThomaz515610

DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It does not seem likely that this user will stop removing all mention of Vietnam from discussions of East Asia or the Sinosphere, which is not very nice of them. Remsense诉 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This user returns every few months to revert a dozen articles to their preferred version, removing Vietnam but also intervening edits by other editors,(e.g. [12]) and ignoring attempts to communicate.[13][14] Kanguole 23:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas from those articles they have have shown an disruptive interest in. For those following along here, in the various historical states and kingdoms in what is now Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea and so on, Classical Chinese was the shared language of scholars, sort of analogous to Latin in Mediaeval Europe. Case on point: the "nam" in "Gangnam Style" is the same "nam" in Vietnam - please see Wikt:南--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, "OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas..." would appear to be pretty much synonymous with "OK, I'm going to precipitate unnecessary WP:DRAMA".: Change of plan. I'm just about to ask DelusionalThomaz515610 about this about this. And if that there isn't a satisfactory outcome there, seek more opinions, discuss it further, and so on.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not Cambodia, I think (used Khmer written with an Indic script), but the rest, yes. If past behaviour is any guide, DerangedThomaz is now gone until he returns in a couple of months to repeat. Kanguole 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Unarchived, as he's circled back around for this month and done the exact same thing again. Could someone please help me out with this? If you need a single revision to clue you in, this one will do. Communication has not helped here. They blatantly remove all discussion of Vietnam or Vietnamese from articles centered in the Sinosphere / East Asia, including removing all the sourcing in each case that discusses Vietnam just like the other relevant countries, fully attesting its equal relevance—with the only consistent justification being that "Vietnam is part of Southeast Asia, not East Asia". It should be clear from the supplied reversion (et al.) that there's nothing I can do but revert him each time he comes around, but I don't want to do that anymore. Remsense ‥ 论 02:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are a couple of prize edit summaries. [15][16] Propose an indefinite block. This user is clearly not here for any purpose other than to push their personal crusade. Grandpallama (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DelusionalThomaz515610. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it—though something in me always wishes I could communicate better in these situations. I just don't have the patience. Remsense ‥ 论 04:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 according to the block log you blocked them for three hours. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, thank you for noticing my misclick, which I have corrected. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Lindenearlejones

Lindenearlejones (talk · contribs) This user was repeatedly warned about inappropriate editing of "Short description". After the last remark his response was "You're being uber trivial; no need acknowledging such trivializing", meaning they have no intention to change their behavior. I suggest blocking is a reasonable measure now. --Altenmann >talk 04:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Without thinking, Like here But most of then they remove "None", that's how I noticed. Another common nuisance is wrong capitalization like here --Altenmann >talk 04:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That edit also referred to the otherwise-unknown Swiss canton of Calais (should have been Valais). Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I left a warning at User talk:Lindenearlejones#August 2024. Let me know if problems persist, perhaps by raising any new issues at user talk and pinging me from there. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Returning personal attack behavior of SchroCat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yesterday evening I was casually reading our articles on the Marchioness disaster and on the vessel MV Bowbelle (1964) which was involved in that disaster. I noticed the article on the vessel has a properly sourced claim it sank itself years later, under different ownership and a different name, with all of its crew perishing. The article on the Marchioness disaster, on the other hand, in its aftermath section claims only one crewmember died when the Bowbelle sank. I then decided to edit the article on the Marchioness disaster to adress the contradiction based on the sources in the vessel's article. This was immediately met with aggressive and continuous reverting by SchroCat, who kept backing themself up by naming the crew of the Marchioness[17][18][19]. This shows very clearly they misunderstood what I had actually edited. I posted a warning and a follow-up message on their talk in vain to try to point out they were mixing up the sinkings, but all that resulted in was two edit summaries directed at me with plain insults[20][21]. ShroCar has shown that behavior in edit summaries before and was repeatedly blocked for it, to the point of an indefinite one at one point. Clearly they haven't changed and such direct insluiting of other editors should not be accepted. This is why a post this report. Update: my mandatory notification of this report on their talk page was removed with similar disdain Tvx1 10:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Not only were you also aggressively and continuous reverting, you didn't bother with the talk page, despite the fact I requested you followed BRD and, when you didn't, opened the thread: you continued to edit war. Two different editors asked you to provide sources on the talk page, but you didn't. You edited an FA-rated article by inserting incorrect information that was not supported by the sources: that's just poor. The reliable source you were relying on did not support the information you inserted into the article. If you had bothered to follow BRD and use the talk page, the whole thing could have been sorted out much more quickly without problem. If you'd have provided sources, it could have been cleared up easily. Instead, despite there being a thread open on the talk page, you thought it best to harass me on my talk page? That's just poor. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing of what I did justifies insulting me like you did in your edit summaries. No Wikipedia policy of guideline allows that. You should know that by know from your earlier blocks. You could have just acknowledged that you mixed up the sinkings in your edit summary. You chose to characterize my edits to your talk page as "harrasment", my intention was just to make you accept your mistake. Tvx1 11:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"to make you accept your mistake". To make me? That aggressive battlefield approach is just a personal grudge, rather than any serious attempt to discuss how the article should be phrased. That pretty much sums up opening this ANI thread too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not hold any grudges. I just do not accept being insulted like you did. Wikipedia forbids personal attacks and if you cannot see, even after all your blocks, that your behavior in those edits is unacceptable I'm really at a loss. I think we've said enough between us, let's let the administrators deal with it now. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find a constructive solution to the content dispute, but that isn't reprocitated. Tvx1 11:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely with SchroCat: to make him?? You have been on Wikipedia for far too long to blurt out such an egregious crack as that. If you think that we're on Wikipedia to count coup or force our enemies to submit, you are very badly mistaken. Ravenswing 11:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat is not my enemy in any way. I hadn't even been involved with them before that I remember. I just don't accept being insulted like that. Can you point me to the policy that allows insults?? Why do you flatly ignore their past repeated misbehavior? They were blocked repeatedly for this exact behavior, even indefinite at one point. So why is that exact same behavior acceptable now?? Tvx1 11:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the secondthird time you've misspelled my name: could you try and spell it correctly please. It's the fourth time you've mentioned by block log. Why the obsession with it and why the obvious desire to see someone blocked? This approach is leaving a rather bad taste. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Because you repeatedly insulted an other editor (me) which is utterly unacceptable and because your block log shows that you clearly haven't learned from your past and you have barely changed and I want to prevent any other editor from being subjected to what you have subjected me to in future. Tvx1 11:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tvx1, a key policy of Wikipedia is verifiability. This means that sentences should be supported by the citations at the end of them. In this case, you refused to consider that the sources cited in Marchioness disaster might support the relevant sentence, until you found that they did—something you neglected to mention above and which you have neglected to apologise for, as far as I can see. I would personally classify that as tendentious editing; would that designation be incorrect? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious, certainly – and, tangentially, in English law there is an offence called Wasting Police Time. We have something of the same thing here in Tvx1's accusations, it seems to me. Tim riley talk 11:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So in your opion issuing insults to other editors in edit summaries, especially by someone who was blocked indefinetely for that before, is proper acceptable behavior. Have you checked those diffs? Tvx1 11:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Look I can admit my mistake, but as explained in the talk page discussion the other editor was mixing up incidents so I couldn't be sure he was referring to the right one. Verifiability is indeed key, but not every source is a easily verifiable, so it took me some time. At the same time the other editor showed no intention to be colleboratively. I kindly asked them to share the link to the url they used to verify the source, but they flatly refused (and still do) and only responed with a blunt "find it yourself". I eventually did a while after. All of that could have been much easier if they just had posted the url to begin with, and the fact remains that there are contradicting sources. Nothing of that justities issuing these insults though. They have shown that behavior against other users before, were blocked but persisted, did it to me now and what's to say they won't do it to others in future. Why would these insults be acceptable. Tvx1 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You couldn't be sure SC was referring to the right incident, and you couldn't verify the source, so you decided that the best course of action was... to repeatedly revert without posting on the talk page? Where's the intention to collaborate there? As far as I can see, this aggressive edits summary of yours was the first escalation in tone, followed by accusations of being "utterly disruptive/utterly ridiculous", and templated user talk warnings. You have now proceded to deny that you were edit-warring and sanctimoniously claim "I can admit my mistake" without actually having done so.

Let's be clear: I would say that this edit from SC breached the civility line, as it commented on the contributor, not content. However, they are under no obligation to provide a direct link if a quote has been provided. Meanwhile, I find your self-presentation as an innocent martyr when your edits were escalatory and tendentious to be quite manipulative, Tvx1; it seems like it would be far more productive to collaborate with SC than you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an innocent martyr in any way. I already said I made a mistake and own up to that. Sure there was no obligation to provide the url, but it would have been constuctive and collaboratibe to do so, no? I mean, I ultimately provide it and it should even already be in the article. Regardless, this report isn't so much about that content dispute. It's about the insults SchroCat dericted me. Most importantly it's about them having repeatedly been done that before, been blocked for that and clearly not having changed their behavior. That's actually very worrying. Can you please focus on that? Tvx1 11:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As addressed, while they directed one insult at you ("Idiot", you directed two at them (an accusation of WP:OWN, "utterly disruptive"). I can see no reason to focus on SC's conduct instead of yours; see WP:BOOMERANG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinds when are claims of ownership behavior and edits being disruptive insults?? I just issued my concerns about their behavior. That's cleary no the same thing. There is clear difference between that. Tvx1 12:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you made accusations of severe misbehaviour with no evidence, which is the definition of WP:ASPERSIONS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but they aren't personal attacks like insuslts. Massive difference. Please do not mischaracterize my edits. Tvx1 13:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When they are untruthful - as they are here. See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Ownership_and_stewardship, and note "the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership". You should probably read WP:FAOWN too - it's also core to this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Erm.. Tvx1 was edit warring (on a FA), which I warned them against on their Talk Page. I protected the page for 24 hours to allow time for some dust to settle. Their response to this was, and to my warning, to be frank, rude. "And putting the page under full protection was an uneccesary overreaction". I suggest we close this report and move on. Graham Beards (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Why are you leaving messages on my talk instead of keeping the conversation in one place? SerialNumber54129 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: FAs are not listed as an exemption under WP:EWNO, and your warning was (putting it gently) misguided. Both parties reverted four times. Having said that, Tvx1, SC told you to fuck off; while possibly uncivil (I'm not sure the community has codified a position on it yet) is neither an insult nor a personal attack and it might be deemed an aspersion to suggest you have been so attacked. SerialNumber54129 12:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you check the second diff of a personal attack I posted. How is that not an insult? Tvx1 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Tvx1, I know, but Schro is an on-wiki pal, as he is to Graham and Airship. I mean, watcha gonna do, you know? SerialNumber54129 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So that's what's going here. Friends are backing up one another here defending their mate. Not sure that sort of behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia either. Tvx1 12:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I have never had a conversation with SchroCat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You're missing out. Intelligent conversation is hard to find on Wikipedia. Almost chimerical  :) SerialNumber54129 12:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So you honestly state that issuing of insults in edit summaries, despite prior blocks for that, is perfectly fine? Why do you accept such behavior? And why does everyone need to assume the worst of my comments? My reply to you was actually intended to be an assurance to you that I had no intent to revert any further anyway, so your protection wasn't necessary, yet I get critisized for being rude?? Tvx1 12:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I has now emerged that some friends of SchroCat have joined this discussion in their defence. This seriously calls in question the objectiveness of some of the comments here. The most fair thing to do here is for those editors to refrain from this discussion and let the (other) administrators actually look at it.Tvx1 12:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Anyone who has worked with SchroCat is ineligible to comment here? Pur-lease! Perhaps Tvx1 would like to name a few editors whom s/he regards as eligible to comment? Tim riley talk 12:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. It's just that a bunch of friends defending against a reporter isn't entirely fair. It's always better to have uninvolved people. Tvx1 13:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved admin here. Tvx1, don't edit war or call other editors ridiculous. You're lucky to have escaped a 3RR block. SchroCat, don't edit war (good on you for starting the talk page discussion, though) or call other editors idiots.

Anything else to do here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree but also don't think enough weight is being given to the spirit of WP:FAOWN. SchroCat's indiscretions on the whole are far less severe than Tvx1's in my opinion, only compounded by Tvx1's conduct in this very thread. While closing it with a slap on the wrist all round is an adequate solution, I hope we don't see Tvx1 back at this noticeboard anytime soon as the conduct above will potentially need to be considered at that point. Daniel (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Before we go, I would like to hear why Graham Beards thinks that a comment such as putting the page under full protection was an unnecessary overreaction is "rude", but calling someone an idiot is OK? Please explain why the former merited an implied use of your admin tools, while the latter did not? SerialNumber54129 13:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Graham Beards (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing more drama, could you do a quick review of WP:ADMINACCT and make a better reply? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And why are you going so lightly over SchroCat's behavior? Why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that this editor was blocked for this exact behavior repeatedly, to the point of indefinite. Why do they continue to get so much credit despite their history? I posted this report because I'm concerned that an editor is continuing to display behavior for which they were blocked indefinitely in the past. This is not about me, but about protecting any editor from being subjected to this in the future. Instead, I'm being portrayed as the sole blame of all of this. Really disappointing.Tvx1 13:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Specks and planks, mostly. I wagged my finger sternly at both of you, but I'm not going to block someone for personal attacks reported by someone who personally attacked them during an edit war where they broke 3RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What do I really have to do to point out that this is not an isolated incident? I posted this report because of a continuous pattern of such behavior which resulted in repeated and serious blocks that still haven't appeared to resolve it. Why do you keep ignoring that? You can criticize my edits and I have no problem admitting my wrongness, but I have NOT been repeatedly blocked for posting personal attacks. So please, do not put me on par with the editor I reported. Tvx1 13:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JacktheBrown

I have reviewed the edit history of @JacktheBrown and observed that they have been involved in several edit wars, consistently motivated by a personal, seemingly nationalist POV. Their aim appears to be the removal of non-Italian influences or antecedents to certain dishes that they consider to be Italian.

In the article on Cappuccino, they first removed a referenced statement, claiming it was not reliable, even though it came from a professor of food history. They have now labelled this professor as "controversial" within the article.[22]

Same in the article Carbonara: [23]

Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference: [24]

In Zeppola, they refuse to include a mention of the American version of the dish, saying it’s “absolutely not necessary” while other users asked for it in the talk page: [25]

They have also been engaged in edit wars on the article Orzo, removing names and versions of the dish that are not Italian, with another editor restoring them: [26]. The only argument they have is saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge”: [27]

Furthermore, in the article Porchetta, they had an edit war and refuse to acknowledge that the dish is also typical of another region outside of Italy. The discussion in the talk page [28], in my opinion, lacks respect and demonstrates an inappropriate behaviour for Wikipedia, by refusing to engage in discussion. Here they even ask to remove an ANI: [29]

In Penne alla Vodka, they removed an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American: [30]

I noticed that today they edited the Mont Blanc article to list Italy before France in the infobox, even though alphabetical order would suggest the opposite. This change was made without explanation. This small detail reveals their nationalistic bias, as they always seem to prefer placing Italy in the first position: [31]

In the article Cappuccino, there was a consensus to include both Austria and Italy in the infobox, as seen in versions prior to February 2024, for example here: [32]. I wanted to change it to include only Austria but did not reach consensus. However, I noticed that Jackkbrown decided to remove Austria in April [33] without reaching a consensus and does not accept any changes.

I believe that they are not contributing positively to Wikipedia. Their bias consistently leads them to advocate for a subjective nationalist point of view instead of considering the facts. Additionally, they never use references to support their changes or statements. They claim to have expertise ([34]) in Italian cuisine, but I only see someone who avoids using references, refuses to engage in discussion, and promotes a nationalist perspective. I think this does not help Wikipedia, and such behaviour should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapsby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sapsby: only from the sentence "Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference" it can be clearly stated that the seriously problematic user isn't me; you just want to hurt me. The white pizza (Italian: pizza bianca) has always been Italian, it's like saying the calzone is American... JacktheBrown (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'm totally open to the idea that Pizza bianca is the precursor to White pizza. But I'm also open to the idea that they are two different foods that have a similar name. Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio seems to be more like focaccia, and pizza that is sauced with bechamel and topped with cheese seems like a very different food. I value that you can search in Italian, are bilingual, and are knowledgeable about and interested in Italian cuisine, we definitely need that, but you do seem to be having trouble editing without getting yourself into trouble in even areas that would normally be assumed to be noncontentious, which is fairly unusual for someone with nearly 70k edits and 20 months' experience. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: a few minutes ago I changed the article, now the origin is both Italy (precursor) and the United States (modern version): Special:Diff/1241158526. Update: the change has been cancelled; perhaps it's best that I abandon the encyclopaedia completely for a while. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'd actually recommend not abandoning now, as there are two open discussions at ANI, but you could certainly stop making major edits without prior discussion while those discussions are going on. That reverted edit was not bad, it was just not how we generally handle a food item (modern version/precursor) in an infobox. If I were enwiki food czar I'd leave place of origin off the infobox until I'd decreed there needed to be two articles, one for Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio (which as an apparently recognized DOI food if I'm reading correctly is the kind of thing enwiki could really use your work on) and one for the 'white pizza' known outside of Italy. :) Valereee (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO an important thing to remember is that if you find unsourced content that you think is wrong, the solution is rarely to replace it with other unsourced content that you think is right. Instead it's either to find sources and adjust the content if needed, or failing that just remove it. You can also tag it, but if you're really sure it's wrong but can't find any sources easily, it's entirely reasonable to just remove it IMO. (I mean you can remove it even if you think it's right, but it's far harder for an editor to complain about you removing unsourced text without giving others a chance to fix it or making enough effort yourself; if the reason you removed it is because you think it's not only unsourced but also wrong.) But the other thing is, AFAICT, this is a dispute largely over the infobox with almost nothing in the article to support it either way. What really should happen is someone needs to introduce text about the origin of white pizza and it's possible connection to Pizza bianca. As it stands, the infobox is source of whatever, since the article just discusses two different things without connecting the two in any real way. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This type of constantly shifting problem has been a regular issue for this editor, who has been here already recently for things like spamming the Teahouse, making rapid-fire edits to fit their style desire, ignoring WP:ENGVAR, and the likely GENSEX topic ban above. The thread of nationalism has always been there, but the hope was that he would direct this impulse towards productive editing, not warring. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of the diffs presented fully, but I am concerned about edits such as this, where an academic is vaguely described as 'controversial', in defiance of MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications for anyone perplexed like me: JacktheBrown was JackkBrown until an account name change on 17 Aug 2024[35], but their sig had been JacktheBrown for a while. The above saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge” refers to two edit summaries last month, both ending I am Italian, and I have no right to own this page, but I have more knowledge than you, because it is an Italian food, justifying capitalising the infobox alternative name of Orzo, from "risoni" to "Risoni",[36] and putting single quotation marks around pine nuts[37]. The tban from Gensex proposal is above at #Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). NebY (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Involved comment since I decided to participate in the Cappucino discussion but other than the MOS:CONTROVERSIAL violation by JacktheBrown, it seems like the point around cappucino is entirely a content dispute about whether Austria should also be listed as a place of origin along with Italy. Sapsby says "there was a consensus" though it is through simple editing which is the weakest form of consensus on wikipedia. Some of the recent additions of Austria being in 2021 with this edit, removed at some point and reverted by the same editor in 2023 with vandalism claims, all of which were not subject to any talkpage discussion. The two most recent discussions on the issue where both JacktheBrown and Sapsby are involved resulted in what I can best describe as no consensus and weak consensus in favor of removing Austria, with pretty low participation in both cases. No other form of dispute resolution was seeked.

I will also add that white pizza has general issues on sourcing and the edit by JacktheBrown was neither challenged nor discussed and the original statement of originating from America was also unsourced therefore making a fairly weak claim on breaking any WP:RULES in this instance.
No comment on other issues.

Adding: an ip address brought up suspicions of WP:SOCK by Spasby relating to Xiaomichel on the cappucino talk page if someone more familiar than me with WP:SPI procedure could look into it. Yvan Part (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Block, Jack's editing is exhausting and a time sink as he doesn't retain the information despite numerous attempts at helping him. It's benign -- a mix of not having the English-language fluency (not a PA, I don't have it in Italian) to get the nuance and context of discussion. This is happening above in the CTOPS discussion and he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above. It's time to enforce it. Star Mississippi 01:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: according to Talk:Cappuccino#edit war, User Talk:Stephen Hui#Obvious sockpuppets and more, the user who reported me (Sapsby) is, unfortunately, very very problematic.
Furthermore, as I said, I would like to stop editing Wikipedia these days, or weeks (except for active discussions and rare edits to non-controversial pages). I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement". Reply to "he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above.": absolutely not, don't come to unfair conclusions; as I said a few lines earlier, "I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement"." (behind the Wikipedia user, user who always tries to improve, there's a person with feelings). Thank you and have a very great day, Star Mississippi. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we need this discussion in two places? Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think I'm semi-involved here because I've participated in some RMs initiated by Jack. I won't comment on the broader issues here, but I don't believe his labeling of "a professor" (Alberto Grandi, since no one else has linked to him directly) as "controversial" is as problematic as others have suggested, though maybe the phrasing could be better. This is because Grandi's claims are in fact controversial. See [38] [39] [40] [41]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• In my close of this discussion from 6 months ago, which resulted in a 1 month block, I wrote "Any further disruption following the lifting of the block is likely to end up with an indefinite block implemented by any administrator." I cannot say I have yet read through this thread in its entirety, but this may potentially apply. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree Jack's nationalist attitude is somewhat problematic, but I think he should be let off with a warning to focus on adding content rather than removing it and to propose potentially controversial changes on the talk page before making them. Regarding the alleged misbehaviour:

• As has been noted, the professor is in fact controversial.
• I've proposed a solution to the dispute at Talk:White pizza. We went through something similar a while ago with Italian sausage.
• Adding the American version to Zeppola may well be a good idea, but all Jack did was object to a proposal on the talk page that it be added. No one has actually added it so Jack hasn't actually removed anything.
• Jack seems to have accepted the changes at Orzo.
• The "sourced paragraph" at Penne alla Vodka was only added recently and the source was a blog. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Jack accepted Sapsby's changes at cappuccino, improving them, although "Unfortunately, I was forced by Sapsby to accept their changes"; see: [42] and [43]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that the OP of this thread has been blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel. Pinguinn 🐧 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but given the concerns brought up, I don't think this discussion should be closed yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that Jack has been t-banned from WP:GENSEX in the previous discussion, and has reacted gracefully to the notification of that. Valereee (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Valereee. This discussion involves food articles though so not covered by GENSEX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I just thought it was worth pointing out that this editor seems to be trying to take concerns on board. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I wish I'd seen this discussion when the previous one was going on. Eating a lot of italian and watching a lot of shows about cooking and cooking history I probably agree with Jack on some of these things (Carbonara and Pizza Bianca), however the manner in which they have been WP:POVPUSHING and disregarding consensus is unacceptable. After the comments by admin in the other discussion about their problematic editing elsewhere, and now this, I think a indef block is necessary as a preventative measure to put a stop to further disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @TarnishedPath: I have never ignored consensus. An example? On the discussion page of the porchetta article I wrote for several weeks with the IP address, but they never convinced me and my idea remained unchanged; if you read the discussion carefully, you will notice that I advised the IP to add what they wanted within the paragraph "In France" (obviously without errors). Furthermore, a very expert, competent and skilled user agrees with me (part of their comment: "In regards to the origin of Porchetta, you need to draw a distinction between "a tradition" and "originates". Just because there is a tradition somewhere does not mean that that's where it originates. Both the "traditions" and origins can be discussed, suitably sourced, in the article. But generally the lead should be focused on the origins and locations that the food is most identified with. Most reliable sources seem to think it is an Italian."). Finally, regarding the cappuccino article, as written on the discussion page, "...the consensus for "Austria" that Sapsby claims to have achieved never existed...".
    In conclusion, the sentence "...and disregarding consensus is unacceptable." is completely, totally wrong. I wish you a very beautiful day, TarnishedPath. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think for all the concerns -- which are valid -- Jack is still a net positive. Oppose indef as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Irrespective of anything else, I have had quite enough of JacktheBrown's endless editing of his comments. After leaving this comment here, JacktheBrown has made 17 edits to it over the course of 7 hours. He has been warned about this in the past but seems unable to stop. Enough already. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• This doesn't really feel like a good faith report.
  At Carbonara, JacktheBrown characterises as controversial a figure in a sentence sourced to Italian academic cooks up controversy with claim carbonara is US dish (Giuffrida, 2023).
  At Penne alla vodka, he removes a single sentence formatted as a paragraph, which had stated a New York origin of the recipe is "a common claim", sourced to the corporate blog of a New York based pasta sauce company, which itself goes on to give three other proposed origins, two of which are cited to cookbooks. The report characterises the removed text as an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American.
  The manners at Talk:Porchetta aren't exemplary, but I'm having trouble feeling judgemental towards an attitude that seems to amount to "I'm not going to be able to have a productive conversation with you here while you have open ANI reports against me."
  I haven't looked at everything. I'm aware JacktheBrown has filled up at least one or two ANI stamp cards for being such a loyal returning customer. Yall see the absurdity in arguing the "origin" of recipes, right? Like in all the kitchens in all the world, no two people have ever looked at the same ingredients and had the same idea? Folly Mox (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  At Penne alla vodka, they removed a paragraph that was sourced from a blog, as you mentioned. However, a quick search can yield reliable sources (I will add some to the talk page). It seems that this user is not motivated by objective knowledge, but rather, as stated before, by inserting their nationalist views into every article they're interested in.

  I see there have also been issues with their edits at Imane Khelif, which in my opinion fall into a similar category. In that case, as Imane Khelif won against an Italian boxer in the Olympics, and Jack wanted to promote the version that she did not truly deserve her victory. Enamait (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with an indefinite block. This user seems to need more education about Wikipedia's culture of collaborative editing. Their bias is obvious and makes them unable to engage in constructive discussion.Enamait (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding: IP 79.21.222.19 who is active at cappuccino talk page has just been blocked due to edit warring and seems to share a similar nationalist Italian POV with JacktheBrown. This IP was also restoring JacktheBrown's version at cappuccino ([44] and [45]). I find it a bit suspicious, maybe someone should investigate more.Enamait (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Enamait: could you please stop creating false reports? Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I opened a SPI case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JacktheBrown Enamait (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Nori Bunasawa / user DN27ND

This general topic has been discussed at ANI before, [46]. The issues have continued however so I'll give an abbreviated account below including recent developments (diffs can mostly be found on the previous thread)…

Earlier this year, new user DN27ND wrote the article on Nori Bunasawa off-wiki and forwarded it off-wiki to another newly created user, 110347nbtough, who has identified themselves as Nori Bunasawa at Commons. User 110347nbtough then created the article as a draft and referred it to AfC. DN27ND, who had no previous experience at AfC, then approved the article into mainspace as one of his first actions on Wikipedia.

The article was later referred to AfD for notability reasons here [47]. During that discussion DN27ND resorted to bludgeoning, battleground behaviour, misquoting of policy and racism. Before the AfD was concluded the user was blocked from both the article and the AfD by Star Mississippi (for disruptive editing, COI and bludgeoning). The article was then deleted.

Shortly afterwards the user recreated the article as a draft. While the article remained as a draft it was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G4 by user:Lavalizard101. At that point DN27ND recreated the draft in Sandbox3, apparently to avoid losing the draft through deletion. Ultimately the draft wasn’t deleted under G4 because it hadn’t been moved into mainspace.

Earlier today DN27ND did move the article into mainspace, in clear breach of his block. I nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:G4 (recreation of deleted material), although it could as easily have been nominated under WP:G5 (created in violation of a block). The user contested the deletion but it was deleted and salted by Novem Linguae.

DN27ND then took the issue to Requests for Undeletion, here [48] (copy pasting their note to contest the original speedy deletion) and has resumed the same kind of uncivil behaviour that affected the AfD.

As far as I can see, the user has a clear conflict of interest, has spent most of their time on Wikipedia trying to get this article into mainspace, has continued their attempts in that regard despite being blocked from the article, and is generally disruptive. I’d therefore suggest that the user be site blocked to prevent further timesink.

Also copying in Marchjuly and Daniel who had previously been involved. Axad12 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you guys are that important. And the allegations of "During that discussion DN27ND resorted to bludgeoning, battleground behaviour, misquoting of policy and racism" is your interpretation and I disagree. I think the article should be judged on the sources and whether it meets the criteria. Block or no-block, that's pretty miniscule and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Just check the article and judge its quality and whether it meets criteria. The subject of the bio I wrote has lots of international fans, are you going to delete and block everyone? The article was written using legitimate quality sources and sources that are accepted within that particular community and its available online or through a paywalls. DN27ND (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Daniel, Star Mississippi, Lavalizard101. Who are these people? Are they checking these articles using some sort of criteria? To me these users are anon. Are they high school graduates, just wiki contributors, editors of known journals, college or high school professors? How about just check the quality of the article rather than try to check people's behavior and wikipedia might get more donations. DN27ND (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing further evidence of your general MO, much appreciated.

The request for undeletion has already been turned down by Novem Linguae and user:Black Kite. How many more 2nd opinions do you feel you need?

Also, re: your block evasion being pretty miniscule and insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I don't expect you'll find many to agree with that here... Axad12 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a block evasion. It's a new article and it included evidence from Kyodo News in terms of notability. I think having a huge production company adapt a book for a feature film is a notable artistic project. DN27ND (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you have some sort of personal issue with me? Perhaps review the sources and the article? DN27ND (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal issue with you. Only with your conduct. This forum is the appropriate location on Wikipedia for raising conduct issues. Axad12 (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious that Wikipedia is a conduct regulating website. I thought it was for general information about topics.

I really contribute to a few sports and martial arts articles on here on my spare time. A block for me isnt that big of a deal. Isn't this place all volunteer based anyways? So no one is getting paid to contribute? DN27ND (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious that Wikipedia is a conduct regulating website. Don't all social groups have norms and rules? Hard to get multiple people to work together if there's anarchy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We moderate our content/disputes/discussions here. This website just doesn't happen, you need people to move all the widgets and throw the switches that keep this place moving along. Volunteers yes, still work though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, Marchjuly, Daniel, Star Mississippi, Lavalizard101, NovemLinguae, Axad12, etc sound like members of a local high school journaling club who spends more time discussing other user's behavior rather than the substance of articles. They have way too much free time on their hands. DN27ND (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

DN27ND, if you make another personal attack, thereby violating WP:NPA again, I will block you immediately. You don't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What I see is DN27ND is blocked from Nori Bunasawa. They worked on a sandbox article and then moved it to Nori Bunasawa. What confuses me is they then seem to have edited the article directly thereafter. I'm not sure how that technically happened, given the block. This does appear to be a violation of the clear intent of the block at the very least. I'm unsure if DN27ND should just be blocked indefinitely or if we should first attempt a WP:TOPICBAN on martial arts, broadly construed. I think given the bludgeoning and COI concerns, probably an indefinite block is more appropriate, but I'm not casting my vote yet. --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, the technical issue has been addressed here [49]. Axad12 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It does help! And the explanation makes sense to my software developer brain, too. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind of interesting that wikipedia is some sort of pseudo-democratic community of computer programmers? I only contribute to some sports and martial arts related content, a block is not that huge of a deal DN27ND (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you contribute to non-martial arts related sports content? Presumably under an alternate account? Axad12 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to ask leading questions to find out if I have more than 1 account? DN27ND (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest, you already gave it away. There aren't any non-martial arts sports related edits on the contribution history for DN27ND, so you must have been doing them on another account. Perhaps that's why you're so untroubled by the prospect of being blocked? Axad12 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure bro...you run with that one DN27ND (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You would make a good lawyer in real life. Too bad they require bar exams. DN27ND (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems most of the people proofreading for quality control have no expertise in the subject they are proofreading on, and personal issues between users affect quality control of the content published independent of whether the content is quality or not. DN27ND (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And they are asking for donations to wikipedia to keep this type of format alive DN27ND (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Enough's enough, please indef block' DN27N for civility and battleground mentality issues. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef blocked just now for personal attacks. There are two in this thread, one of them after Yamla warned them for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, got a diff for 110347nbtough, who has identified themselves as Nori Bunasawa at Commons? This will make it easier to block that account. Oh and would also need a diff of DN27ND identifying themselves as Nori Bunasawa. Or any other on-wiki evidence of a link between the two accounts (no off-wiki evidence please, as that would be WP:OUTING). –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. It's right at the top of this COIN thread [50].

Many thanks for your help with this today, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see enough to block 110347nbtough at this time. They haven't edited since 2021. If they come back to life, feel free to ping me and I'll take another look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it also worth deleting this version [51] of the deleted article, currently sitting in the user's sandbox? Axad12 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a pass on deleting that. I think that might stretch WP:G4 a bit. Any other admin may feel free to act on it though if they are more confident about deleting it than I am. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Novem Linguae for taking action here — full support from me on the indefinite block. Coming to you live from the 'local high school journaling club', Daniel (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

unexplained revert - engaging in edit war - VIOLATED 3RR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:CFA has engaged in edit war in artcle Onam and violated 3RR here [52][53][54]. He is reverting content without explanation. Suspect he is using some bot to edit.

He is aware of 3RR:

"The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."

Thank you Kllbj (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

They have not performed more than three reverts. You should've taken this to the talk page of the article. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, i will let the user know. But please warm him for this as he is reverting unexplained. Kllbj (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article for previous discussions about this topic. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits of blocked sock user Herplas whom invloved in the talk and edited the artccle.

Added few pics too. Kllbj (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. Log into your original account and request an unblock. I have no opinion regarding the article content. C F A 💬 18:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And to no one's surprise, OP is a sock evading a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPA

2600:1004:b059:e97d:4c45:e92e:7536:36b9 (talk · contribs) is blocked and needs TPA revoked. Remsense ‥ 论 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Done across the /64 range. I'll hide the edit summaries momentarily. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated spam

Emmanuel Anin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Spamming AI-generated nonsense to articles. They've been warned several times prior to this. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that, upon review of the history of Draft:Vivian Jill Lawrence and the info at User talk:Pirate 064#Mass draft creation, this appears to be related to yet yet another project where prize money is being offered in exchange for editing articles. I have never not seen such projects backfire, regardless of the intent of the organizers.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we just ban all contests with any sort of monetary prize involved? I don't think I've ever seen anything positive come out of them. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:9C04:452A:DEA1:1BE5 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

User:SLIMHANNYA

User SLIMHANNYA seems to be using WP:BADFAITH for poltical gain and run over wiki neutrality, in the page about Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School user uses unecessary and weirdly redundant info to try demage the reputation of the school intentionally (eg. the school article text already cites that the school has 30/70 korean/japanese split, but he stil wants to double down saying that the number of korean studants in some clubs is smalller than that, even if sources from MULTIPLE countries say that the split overall of the school is 70/30), user also seems trying to use a ideologically Uyoku dantai source (Bungei Shunjū) non stop and deletes any type of sources that comes from other websites, even if other third party sources posted by me and other third party users tends to point, the same info posted as the source he deleted, even if i try to put 10 different sources telling the same thing as the original source he tries to delate it and change it back, when warned about the vandalism, instead of stop, he doubled down and tried throw the blame to me in a long post in the the talk page.
since he seems that dont want to reach consensus, i decided that is worthless engage with conversation and instead i am asking anti-vandalism action to be done for him and to original page so writing quality and neutrality be followed, i am open to futher questionaments from the moderation . Meganinja202 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For extra context, Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School has just won the Summer Koshien probaly the biggest japanese sports tournament in Japan, the school is a japanese-korean school and atracts the ire of jaapnese ultranationalists for various reasons it was cited in various sources in japan and outside japan as you can see here here and here Meganinja202 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment You should respond to Talk:Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School#August 2024 first before reporting to this WP:ANI.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• SLIMHANNYA has opened a talkpage discussion, which you have completely ignored. My past experience with them is that they reliably oppose nationalist editing, so my initial response to your claims here is skepticism. Suggest you participate there and drop this ANI report. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• User:Meganinja202 - Two points:
  • When you open a report about another user at WP:ANI, you are required to notify them. I have notified them for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • You filed a request at DRN after filing this report. The request at DRN has been closed as pending in another forum (this one). If you want to request moderated discussion of a content dispute, this report must first be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Monjento consistently removing AfD templates and AfD listings

Monjento (talk · contribs) has been removing AfD tags and templates for Remah Naji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See [55], [56] and [57]. They have had 2 warnings on their talk page [58] and [59], and the behavior continues despite these warnings. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Further removal of AfD template [60]. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

An admin has stepped in and partially blocked User:Monjento for edit warring. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting their blatantly dishonest edit summary [61] "Updated spelling error" and their battleground mentality [62] "Truly exemplifying using process to oppress women's history". duffbeerforme (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, an account with similar comments appears now. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monjento LibStar (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Monjento has now resorted to personal attacks basically at all editors opposing their view in the AfD [63]. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an editor who clearly cares about this topic, doesn't really understand our notability policies, and is being piled on. This could still be a learning moment for this editor, hopefully one that allows them to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've left a message for them on their talk page: User talk:Monjento#Some advice. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a pile on. I see an editor engaging in personal attacks against multiple editors. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • On 16/08/2024 with the edit at Special:Diff/1240636409 @Deb moved Remah Naji to draft with edit summary "Deb moved page Remah Naji to Draft:Remah Naji without leaving a redirect: Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): nowhere near ready for article space".
  • Deb notified Monjento on their talk at Special:Diff/1240636897.
  • On 17/08/2024 Monjento submitted the article to AFC with edit Special:Diff/1240645572.
  • On 17/08/2024 the article was rejected by an AFC reviewer at Special:Diff/1240651098 with them leaving edit summary "*Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH)".
  • On 17/08/2024 Monjento, despite the article being rejected by AFC, moved it to mainspace at Special:Diff/1240708788.
  • The next edit at Special:Diff/1240708996 Monjento removed the AFC templates, including a comment left by the AFC reviewer, and left a personal attack in their edit summary writing "Removed the editorialised and uneducated opinion of someone that does not live in Australia".TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  The personal attacks continue [64]. I get a real sense that this user thinks they WP:OWN the article in question. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  They probably do. This is their second article, and the first one was approved through AfC. I can understand why a new editor who has never collaborated on something might think that the article they worked on and put out to mainspace is their work. They responded well on their talk when I suggested they join WIR. I think this editor can be a productive member of the community. I'm not excusing the personal attacks, but I can understand why someone who is being templated instead of talked to might react negatively. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  "editor can be a productive member of the community" whilst this may be true, they really need to cease their personal attacks of anyone who disagrees with them if they want to stay in the WP community. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  And they have for a good while. I hope they continue to desist. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's become common for new contributors, especially those whose first language isn't English, to take the attitude that everyone is against them and refuse to accept that they've done anything wrong. If this pattern of editing continues, a block would be appropriate. Let's wait and see how the sockpuppet investigation goes before taking action. Deb (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have my suspicions, but we can wait to be certain. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN Proposal

Due to there behaviour at Remah Naji and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remah Naji, Monjento be topic banned from Australian politics broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a bit excessive for edit warring over one article. There's been no evidence presented here of broader disruption. I think instead of jumping to the big guns, somebody should first explain our guidelines on notability to Monjento, specifically how we're cautious about the notability of candidates for political office. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec) If the disruption is confined to one article, this seems like overkill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, don't see the need to topic-ban an editor who has 73 edits and is currently disrupting only one article. The next step here if the disruption either continues or spreads is an indefinite site-block based on their short tenure. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the proposal. Hopefully their behaviour doesn't continue. TarnishedPath^talk 05:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• removal of the AfD templates is concerning, but not enough for a complete topic ban I think. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thenightaway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Yesterday, after adding the "criticisms" section to the article on the Innovation Agency, which operates under the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport of Azerbaijan and is one of Azerbaijan's major state agencies, I realized that I had mistakenly edited the ministry's page instead of the agency's page. However, I later realized that the Innovation Agency's article had been redirected to the ministry's article, and since I accessed the article through language links, I was automatically redirected to the ministry's article. The issue is that this redirection was done without any discussion, and moreover, the content about the agency was not transferred to the redirected article. The user who carried out the redirection, Thenightaway, similarly redirected the articles of other Azerbaijani state agencies and committees to the respective ministry's article without transferring the content, simply deleting it instead. (State Agency for Compulsory Health Insurance, State Fund for Development of IT, State Service for Registration of Plant Varieties and Seed Control, State Agency on Renewable Energy Sources,State Service on Property Issues, Academy of State Customs Committee, Azersu Open Joint Stock Company) Despite my investigation, I couldn't find any discussion or consensus for this action. As a result of this action, information about more than one organization has been lost because no content was transferred during the redirection, only deleted. There is also no consensus. Generally, I should note that I believe the said user (Thenightaway) is not neutral toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. Previously, the same user accused two administrators of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia of a conflict of interest without any evidence, and both administrators have been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia since then due to this accusation without any evidence. (you might find this discussion interesting as well). As an administrator of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I have been familiar with the activities of both administrators for years and am confident that the accusations are unfounded. The user even did not provide any evidence. I had already noticed that Thenightaway was not neutral regarding Azerbaijani topics, but this action, redirecting articles without discussion and deleting content, is also against the policies of the project. I suggest applying a topic ban to the user. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Thenightaway's actions were motivated by anti-Azerbaijan feeling rather than, say, entirely normal policy concerns? I must say that the latter looks far more likely to me. Axad12 (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, you didn't inform the user that you had started this thread, as per the note at the top of the noticeboard. I have informed them for you on this occasion. Axad12 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Rosguill as the admin for actually blocked the two Azerbaijani admins.

Also just to note blank-and-redirect is not against policy, unless deliberately done for a disruptive purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The COIN thread provides a lot more discussion and analysis from multiple editors than Sura Shukurlu gives credit here and its invocation en passant here undermines the primary complaint. I’m not necessarily endorsing the BLARs at issue, but these should have been challenged/discussed directly before bringing to ANI, either by opening a discussion on Thenightaway’s talk page or even just by reverting the edits. Jumping to ANI is premature and topic bans seems very premature here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the substance of these redirects. For example, should the training program for Azerbaijan's customs agency have its own Wikipedia page? I don't think it should and therefore re-directed the page[65] to Azerbaijan's customs agency. However, if I didn't follow the right process or if this was controversial, then my apologies. The same applies to the other pages. Every single subdvision, program, project and initiative by an Azerbaijani ministry does not merit its own page. They might if there's abundant reliable sourcing or if they're clearly notable, but these pages are exclusively sourced with non-RS, mostly government sources. In a lot of ways, these pages just look like English translations of Azerbaijan government websites. Thenightaway (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to take responsibility for this discussion thread, the OP came to my User talk page asking me to impose a topic ban and I defered him to ANI saying that most topic bans I've seen imposed arose out of ANI discussions. I didn't look into what previous discussions had occurred (or the lack of any) which I should have done before replying. I have no experience with this subject area so I also advised them to reach out to admins who have dealt with sanctions in the Azerbaijan/Armenian area and they could probably assess the situation better than I could. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• The Innovation Agency is one of the largest state agencies in Azerbaijan. The decision to delete the content of an article about such a significant state body, and to provide a redirection should be made through discussion. --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Out of interest, do you intend to retract your claims that the redirection was motivated by anti-Azerbaijan bias, or is that still your opinion? I'm not sure how things tend to go on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, but those sorts of allegations don't go down very well here. Axad12 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Axad12, I have never labeled anyone as anti-Azerbaijani biased, and I am more in favor of discussing the redirection that was made. Since I am not familiar with the administrative processes on enwiki, I wrote to an administrator about this and approached here based on their advice. Based on the recommendations here, I will revert the full deletion of content and redirection in the articles I consider notable. I hope we won't encounter such a problem again. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that won't do.

  In your original post you said Generally, I should note that I believe the said user (Thenightaway) is not neutral toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis and I had already noticed that Thenightaway was not neutral regarding Azerbaijani topics.

  Evidently you were not suggesting that the user has a pro-Azerbaijani bias, therefore you were accusing them of having an anti-Azerbaijani bias.

  For you to now claim that you have never labeled anyone as anti-Azerbaijani biased is clearly untrue (as were some of your comments in the original post in this thread).

  Also, I don't think you should revert the edits. Axad12 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I may not have expressed my thoughts correctly. Let me explain again. I reached out because I believe the user cannot make neutral decisions regarding articles on this topic, given their actions in numerous articles related to Azerbaijan's state institutions. I have never used the term "anti-Azerbaijani" in any of my statements, nor have I accused anyone having biased actions or edits. Therefore, my comments should not be taken as an attempt to slander or falsely accuse anyone. Regarding the reversion, one of the administrators mentioned in this discussion that it was the correct step, and based on that, I am reverting the redirection and content deletion in the Innovation Agency article, also considering that this agency is one of Azerbaijan's largest state agencies. I hope the user will not delete content and redirect articles about Azerbaijan's state institutions in this manner without discussion again. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't use the term "Anti-Azerbaijani" but your meaning was entirely clear, i.e. you accused the user of being biased. Indeed, you have even doubled down on that general sentiment above, saying that you believe the user cannot make neutral decisions regarding articles on this topic. And then in the following sentence you claim, contrary to all logic, that you haven't accused anyone [of] having biased actions or edits. The whole situation looks to me like you are acting in very bad faith. Axad12 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I expressed my personal opinion and explained why I came to this conclusion. I also mentioned several times that this is just my personal opinion. Please do not accuse me of having bad intentions, because that is not the case. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You expressed your personal opinion that the user was biased, and then (directly afterwards) you said that you hadn't accused anyone of being biased. Instead of arguing, why not retract the allegation of bias, which is entirely unsubstantiated, which the user has denied (stating that the edits were based on policy concerns), and which is effectively a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. Axad12 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Axad12, sorry, but I don’t understand exactly what you mean and why my comment was considered a personal attack. Maybe I didn't explain my point properly. Could you please indicate the part you interpreted as a personal attack so that I can retract it? I want to emphasize that I had no intention of making a personal attack or making claims as you mentioned. If you think any part of my comment was a personal attack, I am ready to retract that part Sura Shukurlu (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Stating that a user is biased against a certain nationality, when there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim, is a personal attack.

  Your intention in making such a claim was perfectly clear, as you have now made it on at least 3 occasions. Axad12 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't understand how my comment escalated to a personal attack. This page is for such observations and requests. I made my request based on my own observations. If my observations and conclusions are incorrect, so be it. There’s nothing wrong with that. I made a request, and the user themselves and other users have evaluated it, provided feedback, and given recommendations for appropriate procedures. Thank you for clarifying the issue and for your recommendations. --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you still believe that There’s nothing wrong with that then we are wasting our time. Axad12 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More block evasion Rishabisajakepauler from Texas

• Rishabisajakepauler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.189.244.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Banned User:Rishabisajakepauler from Texas has been using the range Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22 for the past few weeks. His signature style is to ask for a redirect to be created, then later he will create an article from the redirect, bypassing the requirement for article creation to come from registered users. He has been editing articles about hip hop music.

• Example 1: On July 4, Special:Contributions/104.190.206.106 from Texas requested a redirect to be created for American Dream Tour.[66] CFA approved the request and created the redirect the same day. On August 15, Texas IP 64.189.246.115 removed the redirect to create a new article.[67]
• Example 2: On August 23, Texas IP 64.189.247.245 requested a redirect for Drugs You Should Try It. [68] CFA created the redirect the same day. On August 27, Texas IP 64.189.246.115 created a new article from the redirect.[69]

Past IPs

• May 2022 and August 2024: 24.28.41.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 2024: 72.181.10.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March to July 2024: 104.190.206.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2023–2024: 98.6.144.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked six months)
• 2023–2024: 76.183.116.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• In 2022, Special:Contributions/2600:1700:74C6:E80:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for a year to stop Rishabisajakepauler's disruption. Many more IPs have been involved in the past two years.

I am asking for a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22, and extra eyeballs on the problem to catch whatever disruption comes next. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

... Yet another AfC/R block evader to add to my list. Thanks for the ping. C F A 💬 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding Special:Contributions/129.120.67.51 because of this reversion today. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked all of the active IPs/ranges for roughly the same amount of time the sock has been active on those IPs (anywhere between 1 month to 1 year). This includes Special:Contributions/129.120.67.51, Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22 and Special:Contributions/76.183.116.95. @Binksternet:, did I miss anything?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that should do it. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing by Zlogicalape

This user @Zlogicalape: has been pushing his POV for days. Adding that Joseph Barbera has Lebanese descent. Which is a minority view. And which creates a false balance. And also has been casting aspersions on me by claiming that I use multiple accounts.

The issue is explained in the Talk Page which Ive started but I'll try to summerize it: Joseph Barbera wrote an autobiography, in this autobiograohy he says that his parents were Italian/Siclians, and says that his grandmother was from siciliy too. He also talks about his Italian heritage and Sicilian ancestors and doesn't mention anything whatsoever about Lebanon or the Arab culture. The majority of reliable sources say that he was a son of Italian/Sicilian immigrants. However, the daily telegraph and the Atlantic (the atlantic only mentions it in passing) say that his parents were of Lebanese descent, contradicting what barbera state in his autobiography. And also contradicting what one of the closest friends of Barbera stated.

I have provided many reliable secondary sources on Talk Page, such as The Independent and the Gaurdian, which state he was a son of Italian/scilian immigrants.

To reach a middle ground, I had previously added an explanatory note stating that the daily telegraph states that his parents were of Lebanese descent contradicting what barbera states in his own autobiography. But later user Zlogicalape reverted it saying that there's no contradiction and implying that his father was Lebanese who was granted the Italian citizenship. A claim that has no reliable source to back it up. He added that his father was only of Lebanese descent. And removed what the many other sources, including Barbera's autobiogrpahy, say.

I opned a talk page to start a discussion with him, but his only real argument seem to be that Barbera's ancestors were Lebanese by origin, and that Joseph Barbera had hidden sentiments about his Lebanese heritage. The issue with this is that this is not what the daily telegraph states, it doesn't state that his parents were Italians of Lebanese descent, or that Barbera had distant Lebanese ancestors. it only say they were of Lehanese descent. This in my opinion shows that the daily telegraph simply made a mistake here. Besides, Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.

I seeked a third opinion

I asked an administrator to help us in the discussion

i took the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard

But nothing worked, after 3 days of discussion, the user removed my reliable sources and the accompanying note, again https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=prev&oldid=1242917953 The user seems to be playing games by misusing wiki policies, they said that I'm engaging in original research and other things which clearly I didn't

Also during the discussion, the user was engaging in original research and started personalising the topic and said weird things like moooooo!! He also casted aspersions on me which is a personal attack by saying that I'm using multiple accounts without providing evidence.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1242818262

They also made several unsupported implications that im misusing multiple accounts which can be seen on Talk page I think my position is the most policy based and represents all views fairly, since the majority of reliable sources say he was a son of Italian and not Lebansse immigrants. And since that is what Barbera's states in his autobiography. Adding that Barbera's parents were Italians with an explanatory note stating what the daily telegraph states should be enough.

Note there was previously a consensus on talk page that the Lebanese descent should be removed but it was later archived. See Joseph Barbera ethnicity. I know consensus can change but I thought the discussion they had would be beneficial to read Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This user has taken matters into his own hands while displaying "innocent intentions" all while sticking to his main rhetoric and avoiding the arguments presented to him. In addition to avoiding what he has been told on the dispute page:

"Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be used to obtain community consensus."

Not to mention being in violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV as well as WP:THISORTHAT

Note: Everything is available on the talk page.

P.S: His statement towards the end "And BTW, I just found out that the Lebanese MTV's actual name is Murr television" is also meant to throw ppl off as showing good faith. Not that it matters to me or the conversation but i just wanted to state that he ain't foolin no one. Zlogicalape (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, weird stuff.

I was the one who requested a comment, and the third opinion agreed with me.

I'd also like from this user to explain how I have violated WP:NOR.

I'm the one who opened the talk page discussion and discussed with you for 3 days, I requested a third opinion, I requested an admin opinion, I took the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard in which you refused to engage productively and casted aspersions on me which is considered a personal attack

I also said MTV (Lebanon) is unrelated to MTV because an admin whom I requested their comment, thought they were related.

What's your issue with this exact action? How am I throwing people off? It's just weird Whatsupkarren (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Gerryyabes and copyright violations past fifth warning

In Special:Diff/1242570748, User:Gerryyabes added a large section of text very closely paraphrased from this website.(Worryingly, they didn't cite the source) I went to warn them, only to discover that they'd been warned five times in the past two months for similar behaviour by @Fram and @Diannaa. I'm perhaps foolishly hoping that this is a compromised account, given the fact that I can find no earlier warnings - but I think that, given their unresponsiveness, they'll likely need to be blocked (at least from article space) until they show that they understand copyright. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if Gerryyabes responds here, noting they appear to live in the Philippines so time zones may be an issue. But yeah, it does look like this has been an ongoing issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gerryyabes doesn't respond as of replying to this comment. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked Gerryyabes from articlespace as a preventative measure. As far as I can tell he has never responded to any concerns brought up on his talk page; at the very least, in my opinion, he should acknowledge the issues and explain how he will avoid them in the future before he's allowed to edit articles agai, with the very clear understanding that he'll be given the hook if he continues his current trajectory. This isn't a newbie editor, they've been around for 18 years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I endorse this block as a reasobale measure until such time as they choose to engage with the community over this issue. We can leave this discussion open for a little while in the hope that they will respond. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

MGBD and IP socks on SM Kamrul Hassan

• SM Kamrul Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MGBD (talk · contribs)

Over the past couple weeks I've been dealing with a slow-motion edit-war over on SM Kamrul Hassan with MGBD and a handful of IPv4 addresses that may as well be them; more specifically I've been removing content that is unsourced/badly sourced while MGBD has been reinstating it using the argument "But every other article on Pakistani military officers is sourced this way!". I've asked for protection once but it was declined on the grounds that MGBD isn't too far off from attaining the extended-confirmed userright. Since I'm tired of having to strip out BLP-violating material on a daily basis, I'm coming here to figure out what needs to be done here to stop MGBD from mindlessly reinstating content removed per BLP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, masses of unsourced stuff in a BLP is not great. I have reverted it back to the sourced version, and fully protected it for two weeks. If MGBD et al want to add material to it, they can provide a request on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey jeske why are you so after this page. This information is accurate and found from military pages. I have previously given you links. and cited it but you just keep deleting them. I am the creator of this page and been running it for 4 years now but you are kind of attacking this individual. I can understand it. But please stop this is a very important person in the country. next time when the information is provided it will be cited again but donot delete this again and please leave this page alone. MGBD (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am the creator of this page and been running it for 4 years now *ahem*. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't issue instructions to other editors to leave a page. Also you need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi thats understandable.. but when the information provided was it was sourced at some point. even the template..was being repeatedly deleted... MGBD (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, MGBD, there isn't any version prior to my gutting the article where everything was properly sourced in compliance with WP:BLP; I've looked. Every revision from the creation of the article to when I took an active interest in it has had swathes of unsourced text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

there was a citation done from, the official national defense college (NDC) bangladesh page...after your request of citing them properly. but you said this was extracted from a prior version of the wiki page which is not true. this information is accurate in offical NDC page. Also today I also cited the lietutenant general tittle (3star) on the office template, along with comand of 66th Infantry division and BMA commandant, which is written explicitly in the news references used in this page. So please do not say. So this information is accurate and what can be done now to restore this information and keep in on this page then, tell me.. Please. MGBD (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This version (which is how you left the article) is almost completely unsourced. Whether the information is accurate or not is irrelevant. Unless it can be sourced, it must stay out of the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Look at this version I did few days ago. this was deleted by @Jéské Couriano, based on that it was pulled from wikipedia. But is put on NDC Page and still is (please click on the link and sm kamruls picture to load his biography). So he deleted that and i tried to re-instate it. However since the general is a big public figure I think other indiviuals tried to fix the info without citing it. MGBD (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Please look at this version and kindly re-instate it. That would be very appreciable. Thanks MGBD (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite also please look at this version most of the information was already cited if you see from the reference of this version especially from BMA commandant and Chief Instructor DSCSC Archived wesites. before @Jéské Couriano started deleting them. MGBD (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

all of the referred websites provide the same information written in different words and was updated with time. MGBD (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite also I think @Jéské Couriano is after this page only with some kind of intention... isnt it double standards that other similar pages are not being deleted and only this one... please consider this. This page was never attacked like this in last 4 years, but started since last week... since the sm kamrul got promtoed to lietutenant general... MGBD (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My only intention is making sure the article is in compliance with WP:BLP, which is a policy that has legal implications and thus has to be adhered to more-or-less to the letter. I also explained why I removed content that appeared to be properly sourced; the NDC article is copied from Wikipedia and the two sources in Bengali do not support the claims they were being used to cite. As to why I'm focusing on this article specifically, we had a helpee come in and complain about it while demanding we also lock down the article so only they could edit it. My gutting the article addressed their complaint minus the impossible protection request. There is no nefarious conspiracy here beyond the fact I have zero tolerance for people reverting edits that were clearly labeled as BLP-compliance-related. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also Bangladesh Militray academy page and Staff college bangladesh page which was archived... also if you notice all the other bangladeshi generals also have similarity in their pages with the lietutenant general rank and 3 star images on template and other information's are presented from similar military websites and so on.... My question why are you specifically onto this page only? and not any others? they are not sourced.. based on your standards... MGBD (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

MGBD, if you'd bothered to actually read the NDC source you'd have noticed it's pretty much taken from Special:Diff/1085141269, right down to copying the citations (very poorly). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot determine @Jéské Couriano that an official website page of national defence college is providing false information on their website ok. It was upto them to choose where they take their information from but on official website theres always official and accuate information. Please no more war. lets work together if necessary. MGBD (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Official does not mean accurate, and official websites are not immune to WP:CITOGENESIS by copying information from Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also please look at this version most of the information was already cited if you see from the reference of this version especially from BMA commandant and Chief Instructor DSCSC Archived wesites. before @Jéské Couriano started deleting them. MGBD (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you'd read the edit summaries, you'd know why I removed them - they couldn't support any of the claims they were used for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD, content needs citation to an WP:INDEPENDENT source. (Please read that link; it's important for you to understand this.) The Army and its PR service are not independent; they have a vested interest in making him look good. So the fact they say something doesn't mean we include it. About the only thing we want from an affiliated source is bare dry facts, such as date and place of birth, parents' names and occupations, college/degree/date of graduation, dates of promotion, etc. For everything else, we need independent reliable sources to be discussing. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21

Hystricidae21 (talk · contribs) has been adding essay-like content promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV to various articles. I have reverted a few of his additions, but he's been at it for a whole year and, while some of it was immediately reverted, much of it went unnoticed. For example, Compulsory cartel contained several paragraphs claiming (in Wikivoice) that public healthcare was "economic totalitarianism" for the better part of a year. I have warned him on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable and asked him to familiarize himself with WP:NPOV.

Due to the extent of his activities, I don't know if I am qualified to handle this by myself. Should I just revert everything to the latest version before he made any edits? Some of his changes may be good, but there's so much to go through, and what about later changes by other people?

I originally posted this at WP:NPOVN, but was told to post it here. Un assiolo (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell him (on his take page) about this ani (see top of this page). Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, 8 minutes before you posted. Is the fact that I didn't use the template a problem? It says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. (emphasis mine). I understood this as meaning that the template is not mandatory. Pinging User:LilianaUwU who subsequently added the template (immediately below my message saying that I have reported his activity at ANI). --Un assiolo (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a thread about the NPOV thread, not this ani, however, someone has done it for you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So the problem is that I didn't add a new heading? Neither did User:LilianaUwU. She posted it immediately under my message. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)]

No the problem is you did not link to THIS ani. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, they did. Are you reading the same user talk page? Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I included a link to ANI followed by a link to this section, which I thought would be helpful since the user has never done anything outside mainspace and may not know how to navigate. That's more than the template does. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, it seems they posted theirs at 5:02, then someone else did the same at 5:16, I missed their edit, and just saw the second person. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice doesn't even link to a particular thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You also need to share diffs here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Here (see lead section), also here, adding political content unrelated to the topic of the article, more of the same. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why someone would have told you to bring this to AN/I; this looks to me like an extremely obvious content dispute over whether an article should have cited language to some economist or some other economist. Why is this a conduct dispute? Because you think that they are an anarchist? jp×g🗯️ 23:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? Because this edit on the "Health care rationing" page looks absolutely looney-tunes to me. It includes this as a reference:

<ref>Verify yourself why www.bergmanclinics.nl the largest private supplier of medical services in NL offers it's services only and normally with a prescription from a gatekeeper.(+31 88 9000 500)</ref>

as well as a photo of "Armed Hamas gunmen hijacking patient in hospital" which is quite bizarre for the article topic. Toughpigs (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

At best this should warrant a warning for them to correctly cite. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

83.87.67.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) must be the same person. They added similar content, sometimes to the same article as Hystricidae21. The IP's edits go back to 2021. Diffs: [70] [71] [72] --Un assiolo (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And another one: 84.107.129.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is absolutely a conduct dispute. They were involved in multiple edit wars and never posted anything on a talk page as they were told to do in other users' edit summaries. User talk:83.87.67.120 has a bunch of warnings. The fact that nearly all of their edits are POV essays indicates they are WP:NOTHERE. On one occasion, they removed "useless references to bad works" (academic works on the subject) and replaced them with a reference to Atlas Shrugged.

I have to ask: how did this go undetected for nearly three years? Many people reverted his additions but no one bothered to investigate the person behind them? For around a year, anyone looking up self-ownership on Wikipedia got a 20 kB essay instead of a lead section (half of it an anti-abortion WP:COATRACK). This is not an obscure article; looking at the pageviews, this was seen by tens of thousands of people during that period. A major lapse on the part of the Wikipedia community. I've spent several hours cleaning up the mess and will most likely spend several more. Much of this could have been prevented had it been detected earlier. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Bump. I agree with Un assiolo, the edits of Hystricidae21 should be examined. (Although the IP edits may be precursors, not WP:LOUTSOCKing.) Examples of Hystricidae21's edits already given above include violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and not merely a misunderstanding of WP:RS but replacement of adequate sourcing with poor sources:
  • [73], [74], Un assiolo example, degradation of sourcing
  • [75], Toughpigs example, insertion of POV essay content in mainspace, instructing reader to "Verify for yourself" as a reference
  • [76] (by one of the IPs) and subsequent edits by Hystricidae21, converting the introduction of Self-ownership to a POV essay, Un assiolo example, see their revert on 17 August
  • [77], article referred to by Un assiolo, POV rewrite of intro of Compulsory cartel and insertion of essayistic sections on "Compulsory medical cartel" and "Compulsory banking cartel" and a paragraph presenting the "Dutch medical welfare state cartel" as an example of Economic totalitarianism.

This is surely enough to establish that there is a serious behavioral/judgement issue with their editing. (Yes, un assiolo promply notified the editor, and someone else then notified them again; Hystricidae21, can you please respond here?) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I assume the logged out editing was in good faith and was not meant to conceal anything. I have cleaned up all of their edits, both from the account and from the IPs, so that's been dealt with. They are active intermittently so I'm not expecting a response, but I will keep an eye on them in case they come back. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This needs an indef or site ban, TBAN at the least. If you look at the "Toughpigs example," not only does it literally cite to OR ("verify for yourself"), but there are large swaths that are entirely uncited (all the "Marxist" stuff), and the stuff that is cited fails verification (check the first cite in that diff, for example). "Absolutely looney-tunes" is an apt description. I don't think this person should be touching mainspace. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to not block them, so that we can track their activity if they come back. If they are blocked, they might just come back with a different account or IP and thereby remain undetected for a while. A topic ban sounds like a better idea. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans require the editor themself to stay away from the topic, and can't be automatically enforced. So the community would still have to watch out for POV editing of articles in the topic area either way. The fact their edits have been 100% in mainspace—no talk space participation whatsoever—also doesn't inspire confidence that they will respect a community decision. Which is why I pinged them to participate here. Since as you say they edit intermittently, I suggest an indefinite partial block from mainspace to get them to engage when they return (an AGF step below Levivich's suggestion of a simple indef). Yngvadottir (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo already made the rip containing the diffs: Non-aggression_principle, Market_economy], Self-ownership, Health_care_rationing, Compulsory_cartel, Economic_totalitarianism, Totalitarianism, Anti-competitive_practices, Johannes_Voet, Free_market_democracy, supposedly to restore a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Since these contributions were clearly added to create more NPOV, he is actually creating bias by reverting. Take for example the article on Free_market_democracy, which provides a different (non-fringe) view on the concept of democracy.

Most of these contributions ripped contain references to reliable sources, giving evidence of facts that were added. There might exist other references to contrary facts, if so Un Assiolo should resolve the conflict by adding nuance to the facts/matters (by for example adding context) and provide the references Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems, Wikipedia:ASSERT. Some matters (for example inferences) may look like original research, but may have reliable sources that support a POV Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation, possibly by adding some more context. Un Assiolo could have only reverted those parts and point out sources for the contrary of the matter. Sources are still lacking on pages like Market_economy, Self-ownership,

Un Assiolo should actually come up with the precise reason why he could not resolve the problem and preserve. NPOV is a very broad topic. A simple example would be the article of Johannes_Voet, where the voetstoots norm including references was removed. How was that a NPOV problem? Another example is the removal of the definition of economic totalitarianism from the compulsory cartel page, leaving us with no definition at all.

On the Health care rationing page Un Assiolo claims political screed and that NPOV needs to be restored. I suppose that he means that the page contained subjective political opinions instead of facts, but this is not the case. It is a commonly known fact in the netherlands that all medical care, with only a few exceptions require a referral of a GP. I have several references for this: "In the Netherlands, as in many European countries, the health care system has been organized in such a way that people cannot enter higher levels of medical care directly." and "Primary Healthcare In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) function as gatekeepers for patient referral to specialists." and "Private Spending Out-of-pocket payments have been declining steadily in the Netherlands – from a share of 9 percent of total healthcare spending to 7.1 percent in 2005 and then sharply to 5.5 percent in 2007.". I was about to add these references in support of this fact. So clearly this is a compulsory monopsony eliminating the market economy for patients as buyers of a basic necessity good and service (medical care).

The page Non-aggression_principle (NAP) a reversion was made of material already reviewed by many and extensively supported by references. But there is always the issue of interpretation of academic documents. Reference Roderick Long "ANARCHISM/MINARCHISM" (2008) does not give a definition of the non-aggression principle or formulate the principle currently stated on the NAP page: "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts)". No citations from Long (2008) are given. Long does talk about initating an action including a possible threat in: "initiating the use or threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force." (p157), but does not come to a principle there. But anyone who disagrees can contest this by providing citations. So the reversal actually introduced less support for any formulation of the NAP inso creating more bias. Zwolinsky (2015) also does not define the NAP. He does cite Rothbard "For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto" (1973) on page 516, a document that was referred to for the NAP in the version of the article directly before the reversion: 'Murray Rothbard (1973). For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.Citation (p. 27) "... that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else."'

Un Assiolo claims that Self-ownership before his reversion was an anti-abortion essay and that is was WP:COATRACK. I will try to understand him and provide some citations for how he may have come to this conclusion: (a) "Since the legal norm of property title claim incapacitates (or bans) other people (except the zygote) from claiming property title over the same resource at the same time, the right to control or interfere with one's own body in any arbitrary way is secured." and (b) "The conception action is legally a power norm that imposes the (positive) parental duty on the parents which is understood not to violate the individual's sovereignty or impose involuntary servitude because it was imposed on themselves by their own behavioral physical interference action with a zygote as a negative claim right of the zygote to the parental duty which is an implicit obligation similar to a sanction norm in corrective justice. One is obligated not to create a zygote by an pure (physical) interference action or perform the parental duty which is an obligation resulting from negative sovereignty by assuming an implicit law on the zygote." Part (a) is based on Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of liberty" and a reference and citation is provided. It is not an anti-abortion essay, but an explanation for how self-ownership of the conceived baby comes to be. By the way Rothbard actually thinks that you can abort a baby but after birth, as he talks about in the same book. Libertarianism contains abortionists and anti-abortionists, but self-ownership is less contested and is partially supported by Rothbards principle. In extend to the anti-abortionist position, there are also many people around the world who think that there is a parental duty. In this article I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. I thought that would not be contested :D The parental duty is relevant to the concept of de-facto self-ownership, because without the parental duty many newborns may die or never achieve de-facto self-autonomy. I provided two references that support the parental duty position.

I mostly respond to comments made after reversions, at least the first time one occurs on a particular contribution, but I respond by resolving the NPOV issue by adding context and references. I don't see how intermediate edit results half a year ago are of any interest. I might have made an error which I corrected. It takes too long for now to go into a defense of all articles reverted. Hystricidae21 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

@Hystricidae21: I left a note regarding Johannes Voet on your talk page to avoid cluttering things up here. If you believe the sourcing at the NAP article is inadequate, you can add sources and possibly discuss it on the talk page, but a novel is not an acceptable source. Most of the sources you added were WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not the preferred kind of source. The problem with the text you added was that it was presenting one point of view as objective fact and not just a subjective point of view.

The topic of your article on Free market democracy is not how the term is usually used, and I don't think Mises's usage is notable enough for a standalone article. Also, most of the article was original research, which is not accepted on Wikipedia.

Regarding the health care article, those sources are better than the "verify yourself" citations you originally added, which are completely unacceptable. But your interpretation that this constitutes a "cartel" or "economic totalitarianism" is original research. You need a source saying Dutch health care is a cartel if you want to add it to the article on cartels. Regarding Self-ownership, you say I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. Again, this is original research and is not acceptable. See also: WP:NOTESSAY. Some of the content you added may be appropriate if you add it to a separate section, not to the lead, and if you present is as just one point of view. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Un assiolo's summary appears accurate. Hystricidae21, thanks for responding, but you're both drawing conclusions and selecting examples to support your analysis. That's not so much encyclopaedic writing as argument; note in particular the policy against original research and the policy that the reader must be able to verify everything from citations. Since you say you were intending to add better citations, consider proposing a refined form of some of your changes on the article talk pages, with better referencing (avoiding primary sources, the novel Atlas Shrugged, and instructions to the reader to make phone calls, now that you've been made aware of what we consider reliable sources). That's recommended practice when edits are contested. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo is misrepresenting things by saying that replacement of Long (2008) and Zwolinsky (2016) with 'Atlas Shrugged'-Rand (1957) (and Kinsella) is a problem, because many references were added later, including 'Virtue of Selfishness'-(1964), a reference work on objectivist thought. The most import sources of the NAP are objectivism, libertarianism, and international law, in particularly just war theory. The following references were present on NAP right before the reversal. Reference Rand (1957) the novel is mainly important because it is the first known written work in which the 'non-initiation of force' principle is formulated, especially the usage of the term 'initiation', in the meaning of 'relative initiation', is a first, even though many writers in history have written on the NAP in this meaning, they never-expressed themselves clearly 'Non-aggression principle a short history' Fuller (2018). User:Yngvadottir was also participating in this misrepresentation. Hystricidae21 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

These are considered primary sources for our purposes. We can't use such sources to make claims about their own legacy. Directly citing John Locke, for whom neither "libertarian" nor "non-aggression principle" existed as terms (I just checked) to support claims about the non-aggression principle is not acceptable for a tertiary source like Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Hystricidae21, are you calling The Virtue of Selfishness a reference work? Valereee (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: mainspace pblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support partial block from mainspace per Yngvadottir's suggestion above and WP:CIR. <ref>Verify yourself ... is the kind of reference that no editor should ever be adding to mainspace. Same with replacing academic works with references to works of fiction (Atlas Shrugged). Same with adding, e.g. a picture of a three-toed sloth to an article about health care rationing, which is just bizarre (as is the Hamas photo). In addition I see other examples above of failed verification, and in the article histories, edit warring to reinstate those edits. Their responses above show that they do not understand WP:OR, so they don't have the competence necessary to edit mainspace. The damage they did is significant; this is almost hoaxing, it's certainly POV-pushing, but I assume it's more a lack of competence than malice. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree with this. It is fine for a new editor to use some questionable sourcing every now and then, so long as they are willing to learn and improve, but it is not fine for them to just insist on continuing to do so after everybody tells them this is awful and obviously violates policy. jp×g🗯️ 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Valereee. Rands' VOS is a reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work on the topic of Objectivism as indicated on that page. There are more references there. Should those be copied to the NAP page too, to sustain the VOS reference?

  @User:Levivich: On the NAP page the previous and current references to (A) Zwolinsky and Long were not replaced only by Rand's novel. As indicated above a whole list of reference works was added: Hamowy,Rand,Hoppe,Molinari,Friedman,Rothbard,Locke,Kinsella, including citations. It remains to be investigated whether these are 1st,2nd or 3rd type references. To all these references, citations were attached, in contrast to the existing references (A). Hamowy's encyclopedia (probably a type 3 reference) was put together with Long in a single reference, does that indicate a relation. You mention that that these are academic works, but I requested citations above to supply support for the current definition of the NAP: "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts)". Many different formulations have been given to the NAP. One way of checking the quality of such a formulation is running it through some basic logical and semantics evaluations. For example: (1) Does interference mean physical interference or the beaching of some other constraint, e.g. a right (liberty-from whatever). (2) The principle seems to indicate that initiation of force forceful interference is illegitimate, but also that all threats of forceful interference are illegitimate. But such a threat cannot be retaliated with forceful interference and the initiation of forceful interference cannot be retaliated with any threats. Since the NAP is usually understood as a fundamental principle of morality or law this would leave severe enforcement problems. So most probably this principle is wrong and not identified as the NAP in either Long or Hamowy. But please give me a citation to prove me wrong.

  @User:Levivich: You stated "I see other examples above of failed verification, and in the article histories, edit warring to reinstate those edits.". Please can you give links?

  The damage that was done by the rip of User:Un_assiolo is significant, because not all of his deletion and reversions violated the NPOV. In one case he does not give any reason in the comments: Natural rigths. The deleted piece on Lysander Spooner contains text from his page in 2020 including references and citations from his book The Law of Intellectual Property page 63. So a summary of the book was made from the context of natural rights, using a citation. Is this an acceptable level of interpretation? I don't think you can expect a secondary source to exist for a summary (incl. citations) for every book in the context of every subject for which such context reasonably does exist.

  @User:JPxG Please give links were someone does "just insist on continuing to do so after everybody tells them this is awful and obviously violates policy"? Hystricidae21 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work

  Our point is that if we're writing about the prominent concepts within a particular intellectual movement, we usually do not cite what we deem to be the "original source" of those ideas—for our purposes, those are primary sources. Instead, we almost always cite secondary sources that have analyzed and contextualized the historical impact of said primary sources on establishing those ideas, since we are a tertiary source. We cannot use a text to verify claims rooted in the conceptual impact said text had after it was published, which are implicitly the types of claims you're trying to verify.

  Hamowy,Rand,Hoppe,Molinari,Friedman,Rothbard,Locke,Kinsella, including citations.

  Let's hone in on one example here to best illustrate what we're trying to tell you: is it not a major problem to you that Locke at no point used the term "non-aggression principle" throughout his entire œuvre, and was writing in a totally different context where most of the intellectual and social concepts we use in 2024 were either situated entirely differently or did not exist at all? We cannot directly cite what he says because he was writing in a different world and to successfully do so requires an interpretive layer in between by someone who is qualified to navigate the historical differences that always result in interpretive errors among laypeople.

  I don't think you can expect a secondary source to exist for a summary (incl. citations) for every book in the context of every subject for which such context reasonably does exist.

  If such a summary doesn't exist, then it reflects too niche a point to be made on Wikipedia. We only present claims sources plainly say; we don't provide novel interpretative claims of said sources. Remsense ‥ 论 01:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  As one example, same link Toughpigs posted above and below: Special:Diff/1214758081/1215141021. Levivich (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Hystricidae21: I'll start simple. Do you understand why you adding stuff like "Verify for yourself that you cannot order an MRI scan at private hospital eng.medassist.co.il, Tel Aviv, without a gatekeeper's prescription. (+972 37724228)" is deeply concerning and not something you should have ever done? Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Other examples of "verify yourself" references: 1, 2. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Levivich:

  Link to Natural rights diff.

  Link to Lysander Spooner 2020. Hystricidae21 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry everyone, I'm slow on the uptake here. When I first saw it, I thought this diff adding a picture of a sloth to the health care rationing article was some kind of copy/paste error or CIR thing. It just dawned on me: it's a statement that government-run health care is slow. Duh, I should have known from the heading of the added section, Economic totalitarian market-driven medical welfare state in the Netherlands, described in the edit summary as Added a reference. Improved wording. No political opinion present, only political analysis.. I no longer think this is a CIR issue, I think it's anti-government-health-care POV-pushing. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, just noting I (slightly) edited your opening comment (replacing {{code}} with <code><nowiki> tags), as the stray <ref> tag caused most of ANI to be invisible until the next reference many threads below. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support block of any kind. These edits to Health care rationing are completely inappropriate for mainspace: arguments and opinions, including bizarre non sequiturs. Hystricidae21's wall of text responses in this discussion have not included a single instance of self-reflection, only excuses and defensiveness. Toughpigs (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support some block unless Hystricidae21 can demonstrate some emergent understanding why all of 1) the exceedingly silly sloth edit, 2) a reliance on citing Locke and Rand directly in the NAP article, and 3) "verify for yourself" are not acceptable to do. Remsense ‥ 论 05:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block from article space. This editor's axe grinding and POV pushing of fringe theories at Health care rationing has been way out of line, and any editor who thinks that a fictional novel is a reliable source for anything but the plot of that novel must be prevented from editing encyclopedia articles until the editor repudiates that bizarre notion and fully commits to the neutral point of view and our other core content policies. Proper use of neutrally written, well-referenced edit requests might help teach this editor how proper encyclopedia articles are written, but if tendentious editing resumes elsewhere, a sitewide block may be necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Hystricidae21, I know you are getting a lot of feedback right now but I just want to say one thing. Your writing looks like a college paper where you are using primary sources to put forward an argument that you put together. That's great writing for other venues but it's not encyclopedic writing. We don't share our own ideas and conclusions but those of reliable, independent, secondary sources. If you can't see the difference after all of these words, then I don't think your time here will last very long. If you can adjust to Wikipedia's styles and standards, well, maybe there is a way forward here but it does rest on you understanding while your contributions are not in line with Wikipedia's approach to encyclopedic writing. It's all resting on you and how you can adjust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Aye. When I participate in deliberations like these, I only do so when I think there's some point to it: my comments above weren't rhetorical or meant to pile on someone who's already beleaguered—I would very much like that cases like these that are brought here to result in something other than one fewer motivated editor. Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN+pblock: This user seems to have serious WP:CIR issues, as evidenced by the fact they seem to confuse primary and secondary sources and their questionable use of images. A broad Economics and Politics TBAN and pblock on the respective pages would probably be good. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a permanent banning is wrong. I am sorry for my Wikipedia:SYNTHs. There's no doubt that a permanent ban would give some relief to you.

@User:Remsense Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Look to me that it is allowed to keep the Lysander Spooner citation on property rights. Can you please give detailed links to and citations of the wiki rules were claimed to exist: 1) "We cannot directly cite what he says because he was writing in a different world and to successfully do so requires an interpretive layer in between by someone who is qualified to navigate the historical differences that always result in interpretive errors among laypeople." and "a reliance on citing Locke and Rand directly in the NAP article is unacceptable. 2) Images of sloth crawling the road and terrorist hijacking of patient in Israeli hospital are against wiki policy.

@User:Toughpigs and @User:Levivich: Note that the reference NL GP waiting lists was also added to health care rationing. Would it have been acceptable if I would have replaced the footnotes like "Verify yourself at the largest private diagnostic healthcare provider in the Netherlands, whether colonoscopy and gastroscopy's are available" with a footnote refering to the talkpage indicating that there is an issue with proper references to original research about what is a common known fact, that the answer to the above citation is no for all healthcare providers for buying patients?

@User:Cullen328: Please explain me what fringe theory was added to Health care rationing and what wiki rule was violated (links and citations). As discussed many times above, the Rand novel was not meant as a reference for the NAP, there were plenty of other primary sources added. The Rand novel could have been added as an interesting early source of the NAP, in the same sense as a movie can be a source of a particular song. Long (2008) a reference that was removed, unfortunately is not a reference for any formulation of the NAP. Are you suggesting to put a wiki page on lock or make Wikipedia:ER imposed on me only.

@User:Allan_Nonymous: Please give a link where a confusion of No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources primary and secondary sources lead to a wrong contribution to wikipedia?

@User:Levivich and User:Un_assiolo: The title "Economic totalitarian market-driven medical welfare state in the Netherlands" is not an anti-government or anti-welfare state POV. Economic totalitarianism as a concept was introduced by Ludwig von Mises in Planning for freedom (1952) and by Milton Friedman "Capitalism and freedom" (1962), and Mises clearly explains that totalitarian economic management is where interventionism eliminates the market economy, which obviously means in a particular goods and services group, because even the soviets were not able to eliminated money altogether. A monopsony or oligopsony would be an example of such a elimination of the market economy, even though these organizations consist of private enterprise, because we are looking at the market economy for the patients. A secondary reference for Mises (1952) is. This reference also explains that a welfare state does not have to be totalitarian. The NAP is not anti-government either, it just rejects illegitimate governments (territorial rulers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hystricidae21 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite partial block, or really any block. it seems clear that Hystricidae21 cannot even understand the extreme basics of Wikipedia, like why they should never be posting in article to "verify yourself" by calling a number or visiting a website and finding if they offer some service without a gatekeeper. I sometimes approach editors I feel I can get through to help them, but this editors misunderstandings about how wikipedia operates are so fundamental that I wouldn't even know where to start. Others are welcome to help, but I expect it to be a very long process and until that happens, I don't see much hope for them editing productively by themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Re your statement that I think a permanent banning is wrong. What's proposed isn't a ban, it's a block from article space. That means you can directly edit anything except articles, where you'd instead have to make a requested edit, per WP:EDITREQUEST, rather than making the edit yourself. Basically this means at least one other editor agrees with your edit. It's also not "permanent". Generally these types of blocks can be appealed, and often are successfully appealed once the editor understands what they're doing wrong and knows how to avoid doing it in future. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block from article space, to be appealed in six months at the earliest. I'll say it one more time: the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most important resource. It's not for squandering like this. Bishonen | tålk 19:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

The above is yet another wall of text that doesn't include even a single instance of Hystricidae21 saying that something they did was possibly incorrect. H21 is litigating every single point. I don't think that there's much reason why we would want this kind of behavior even on talk pages. Toughpigs (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hystricidae21 Final reply unless some indication is shown that I'm not wasting my time. I will state plainly that I am talking about Locke and Rand specifically, not other edits since I haven't perused those.

Can you please give detailed links to and citations of the wiki rules [...]

Directly above and below your excerpt:

2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.

3. [what you cited]

4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Images of sloth crawling the road and terrorist hijacking of patient in Israeli hospital are against wiki policy

Wikipedia:Image use policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Remsense ‥ 论 20:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite p-block from mainspace. Hystricidae21, thanks for responding here, and I've been reading your posts as well as others' responses, but it's clear you are still thinking in terms of making a point and supporting it. Wikipedia is a general reference work, not a set of lectures. I'm not dismissing your knowledge in the topic area, or your willingness to help us cover it better. Blocks can be appealed—they are different from permanent bans—although if you are blocked, the blocking administrator may require you to wait for some period, such as six months as has been suggested, and demonstrate in the meantime through edit requests that you've gained an understanding of how to explain with references in the context of an encyclopaedic article, and of issues of focus (WP:UNDUE). I agree with the others that you haven't yet reached that point of understanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support at least a temp ban from mainspace due to the various reasons mentioned above. Although I'm worried the behaviour might continue when the temp ban time is up. A perm ban wouldn't be out of the question either, but I'd give them a chance with a temp ban first.Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:Valereee: Since you did not respond to my Rand-VOS question, I assume you are dropping your objection concerning this reference w.r.t the NAP page? Imposing the Wikipedia:Edit_requests assumes that a block was imposed for editing, which first needs to be justified. I assume that this would be based on disruption or disruptive editing (@User:Levivich: which is also what Wikipedia:Competence_is_required refers to), which in turn would be based on edit warring. Edit warring happens when editors repeatedly override each others contributions. Wikipedia does not define what overriding is, so for now I assume it is a revert. Let's check whether an edit war actually happened.User:Avatar317 made the following reversions of section "Economic totalitarian market-driven medical welfare state in the Netherlands": first after which I added the following [update] of the section, which is not a revert to the earlier version but an improvement also addressing the Wikipedia:NOR objection by adding reference zorgverzekeringswet and news article about waiting lines (WL). Later on the sloth was added and reverted by User:Avatar317. The 'verify for yourself' footnotes were not reverted or discussed in contribution summaries or talk pages, until User:Un_assiolo started this threat and performed the rip above. The final update contained new phrasings and new reference Palyi (1950). User:Avatar317 and I did not start a discussion on the talk page. There was no repeated overriding of the same text by neither of us. The earlier revert] by Special:Contributions/76.167.105.62 was also not reverted but followed by an update of the text and references concerning public health care spending. So consensus by silence was reached on the page, until User:Un_assiolo started this issue on ANI.

@User:Toughpigs, @User:Nil Einne, @User:Levivich: Adding the ‘’verify for yourself..’’ footnotes was probably wrong because it is imperative mood, which is not a fact or inline citation. Wikipedia article text usually contain factual statements and citations. Even the statement "Everyone can verify at private medical diagnostic healthcare providers in the Netherlands, whether/that colonoscopy and gastroscopy's are not available for booking without gatekeepers prescription" would not fit article text because Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal. The fact would be within the scope of the the concept of medical rationing because medical rationing is the situation where everyone is unable to buy medical care, which is the action of contacting the medical provider and negotiating for a price on a medical good or service delivery. A medical services guide could be a reference for this.

@User:Valereee, @User:Yngvadottir: Let's go to the procedure for editing a page: 1) In contributions added information should be [verifiable], which does not mean that references must be added immediately, but those are requested if the added information is challenged/contested. If added information is deleted with summary 'rv Wikipedia:NOR' editors can still try to reach consensus through compromise by editing (see image) instead of boldly overruling the revert: 'Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.'

@User:Levivich: Failed verification can be solved by challenging it. Ask for references for a particular line or interence. What POV-Pushing do you mean, Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing? Can you give me a link and citation to what the POV-Pushing rule that was violated.

@User:Yngvadottir: You said: "you are still thinking in terms of making a point and supporting it." Can you give me an example of what you mean by this? Can you point me to the wiki rule that states that this is not allowed? Where did I violate Wikipedia:UNDUE?

@User:Valereee, @User:Bishonen, @User:Cullen328, @User:JPxG, @User:Liz admins. Who is entitled to participate in this voting for a sanction and according to what wiki rule. Link and citation please? Does the sanction satisfy [78]? How is the sanction justified by the violation [79]? Was there disruptive behaviour? Some participants in the discussion did not keep to the rules concerning discussion Violators: User:Oaktree_b, User:Bishonen.

@User:Remsense: There is always some level of interpretation going on. It is allowed to quote primary sources, but this usually happens within the context of the article. Often no explanation is required. For example Natural_rights_and_legal_rights#American_individualist_anarchists Benjamin Tucker is quoted with "Man's only right to land is his might over it" with a primary reference to "Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 350". How is this different from the Lysander spooner quotation? This text is equally old as Spooner’s quote mentioned above. In law a few centuries is nothing, jet in software programming a decade can change the world. Why should old primary sources always be interpreted and new ones not necessarily? Should we remove Tucker's quote then? And please refer to wiki rules, or are you trying to promote a wiki philosophy? You quoted "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people,things, activities, and concepts described in the article.". The images may depict analogies instead of the concept itself, by generalization of the concept described in the article: The sloth crawling the road, depicts a creature that is severely handicapped in performing an action that is essential for his survival, crossing the road. Not being able to pay for medical care, and instead having to rely on cattle farm GP's is handicapping (bourgeoisie) people. Quite similar. The hijackers of the patient are putting him in detention (imprisonment), while the regulators creating the medical welfare state compulsory cartel, are putting patients in economic detention (not being able to buy medical care). I did not contest removal of both images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hystricidae21 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What you need is a blog. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support both indefinite p-block and siteblock. Whether the above is the WP:SEALIONING it appears, or just WP:CIR on how to collaborate, I feel a p-block would just move what seems to be a WP:RGW problem to talk space from article space. Hystricidae, you've had WP:NOR explained to you many times. If you still don't understand after thoroughly reading that linked policy, it's either WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. You may also wish to consider shorter replies, per WP:WALLOFTEXT. I do believe there's a way out so you can keep editing: if you step back, announce that you understand that you've done something wrong, accept the p-block, and will take time to consider it, perhaps you could still make edit requests on talk pages. After six months of collaborating well and showing understanding of wikipedia's policies, I expect an appeal would succeed. But the first step is realizing that if everyone is telling you that you're wrong, it's unlikely that they're all mistaken. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hystricidae21, re: Since you did not respond to my Rand-VOS question, I assume you are dropping your objection concerning this reference w.r.t the NAP page? which was referring to Rands' VOS is a reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work on the topic of Objectivism as indicated on that page. There are more references there. Should those be copied to the NAP page too, to sustain the VOS reference? No and no. I didn't respond because your question just confirmed you don't yet understand what constitutes a reliable source.

Re: Who is entitled to participate in this voting for a sanction and according to what wiki rule. Link and citation please? Does the sanction satisfy [39]? How is the sanction justified by the violation [40]? Was there disruptive behaviour? The fact you're asking these questions is reminding me how inexperienced you are here on Wikipedia. Which is fine, we're all unfamiliar with policy when we start. The problem is when a newer editor insists they're correct over and over again, even when other more experienced editors are trying to help them learn, which wastes those editors' time, which is disruptive. The partial block from article space is to require you to spend some time learning. Which means it's preventative. Anyone can participate here, we work by WP:CONSENSUS. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term disruptive editing – 68.234.69.0/24

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor from the range of 68.234.69.0/24 has been repeatedly making poorly sourced or entirely unsourced changes to American football templates and articles, specifically American football positions, which from what I've realized this morning, goes back a couple years. Within the past two days, this IP editor has been edit warring based on sources which explicitly state that they are unofficial. I've made significant efforts with this person, as have others, and I feel I'm too involved at this point to take further action. Given how many warnings and blocks they've had in the past, I think it's time for a long term block for this range.

Some of the edit warring within the last 2 days:

• Template:Philadelphia Eagles roster: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Bryce Huff: 1, 2, 3
• Brandon Graham: 1, 2, 3
• Source the IP is using, which explicitly states THE UNOFFICIAL DEPTH CHART IS COMPILED BY THE EAGLES' MEDIA RELATIONS DEPARTMENT.
• Sources which show Bryce Huff as "DE" (defensive end) and not "OLB" (outside linebacker): The Eagles, ESPN, NFL.com, Pro Football Reference
• Sources which show Brandon Graham as "DE" (defensive end) and not "OLB": The Eagles, ESPN, NFL.com, Pro Football Reference

Some of the evidence that this is a long term issue from this range:

• Poona Ford: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• T'Vondre Sweat: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• Devonte Wyatt: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
• Jarran Reed: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
• Jabaal Sheard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Dexter Lawrence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Kayvon Thibodeaux: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Xavier Kelly: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Some past warnings and explanations:

• 68.234.71.61 talk page, which has been blanked a number of times. Hasn't edited from this address since July of 2021 (so I wouldn't ask for it to be blocked, but it is part of the /22 if you went that wide), but the warnings and edits are very largely related to American football.
• 68.234.69.24 talk page on April 27, 2024, prior to being blanked. Lots of diffs there.
• 68.234.69.24 talk page on June 20, 2024, prior to being blanked on June 21. Has more diffs.
• 68.234.69.26 talk page on August 23, 2024, prior to being blanked.
• 68.234.69.218 talk page today.
• 68.234.69.24 talk page today, prior to this being posted. Has some relevant very recent diffs.
• 68.234.69.26 talk page today, prior to this being posted. Has some relevant very recent diffs.

Some relevant block logs of the IPs:

• 68.234.0.0/16 – 1 rangeblock
• 69.234.69.24 – 1 block
• 69.234.69.27 – 1 block
• 68.234.69.28 – 2 blocks, with a third that looks like it might have been a mistake
• 68.234.69.218 – 1 block

Which translates to..

• May 1, 2022, 24 hour block from article space on 68.234.69.27 (Edit warring across multiple articles)
• May 11, 2022, 72 hour block on 68.234.69.28 (Persistent addition of unsourced content)
• May 11, 2022, 1 month block on 68.234.0.0/16 (rangeblock) – note that this was adjusting the above block to be longer and to apply to the range instead
• September 24, 2022, 1 week block on 68.234.69.28 (Vandalism)
• January 9, 2024, 31 hour block on 68.234.69.218 (anonblock)
• May 9, 2024, 31 hour block on 68.234.69.24 (Persistent addition of unsourced content)

They appear to have been at 68.234.71.61 from September 2018 to July 2021 (Xtools) and have been at this /24 range since then. Note that many of the warnings, especially the recent ones, are focused on their new focus of sources which explicitly state they are unofficial and explaining that this is not appropriate. Given the extensive history, and their insistence on pressing forward regardless of what's been voiced to them, I do believe the /24 should be given a ban of a decent length to prevent further disruption. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the range from article space for three months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much @ScottishFinnishRadish, but would you also consider adding template space to the block? They typically update the relevant roster template (from Category:National Football League roster templates) with these sources then go to the player pages to do so as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated :) I'm good with this being closed since the matter has been addressed. Now I at least have everything noted down for if this resumes post block. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated disruptive AfD nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DaynneDarrylleDelosSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 112.209.31.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are repeatedly creating fake AfD nominations that are copy-pasted from other noms (I didn't care to figure out which ones), including comments, and they switch some of the names and signatures around. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tidal Wave (2009 film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Healing (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYDL, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Neighbors (2012 film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Taste of Money. I have repeatedly warned them, but in the last two nominations, all the signatures were changed to impersonate me. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Both blocked (indef & 1 month). I am going to delete all the AfD's as they impersonate other editors, which can't be allowed to stand as a matter of public record. Daniel (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ජපස's intractable incivility

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

At the end of March this year, the behavior of ජපස, signed JPS, was raised at this noticeboard. During the course of that thread, The Wordsmith issued a 1 week block as an AE action. A hope was expressed that the latest talk page response and jps's experience will lead cause this to be one-time event, and no further community or administration action was taken.

For the past month, JPS has resumed an aggressive pattern of behavior:

• Zanahary expressed concern that JPS was needlessly temperature-raising; JPS replied by accusing Zanahary of tone policing.

• Epachamo left a comment pleading with JPS to presume good faith and give another user the benefit of the doubt and work with them rather than against them; JPS noted this but otherwise expressed a rejection of the advice.

• Yesterday, while talking over our different interpretations of some secondary sources, JPS called my participation bloviation, i. e. being empty and pompous, and when I asked if JPS would retract the insult, JPS did not, replying that he considered it of an equivalent register to saying someone was wrong about what secondary sources said, which he said he did not consider a personal attack. I recognize that JPS says he meant no insult, though I'm not sure how calling me 'empty and pompous' isn't insulting, and I don't see how it's equivalent to disagreeing about what sources say (we seem to mutually think each other are misunderstanding the secondary sources).

Related to this behavior is a continued tendency to raise the temperature by speaking caustically about source authors. In the last ANI thread, it was pointed out that JPS objected to sources he disagreed with by making sweeping assertions and accusing scholars of being "fringe". In a similar vein, in the present, JPS is objecting to citations of the academic work by characterizing professional scholarship as flights of fancy. Seemingly according to JPS, when historians like Dan Vogel, Sonia Hazard, and Ann Taves argue that Joseph Smith manufactured a fake set of 'metal plates' (not that he possessed a supposedly magic ancient set like his followers believed; just that he fabricated a prop to use with those followers), they are engaged in psuedoscientific apologetics.

Sometimes Wikipedians disagree about how to interpret secondary literature on a topic. It happens in complicated subjects and fields, including and certainly not limited to religious studies. But whether or not one is right about the issue doesn't justify incivility. Others in the thread disagreed with me without incivility. The current behavior, even if not yet at the same sharp peak as was reported in the last ANI thread, is still part of the same pattern of temperature raising, incivility, and rejecting requests to turn the temperature down and contravenes our fundamental expectation of respect and civility. With multiple requests by different users to tone things down going disregarded, the behavior seems intractable, and I'd hope users aren't required to simply take such chronic incivility until it gets the worst it can possibly be. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

{Uninvolved comment) I have read the back-and-forth here, and this seems to me a content dispute. I do not consider anything written by jps in that thread to be a personal attack, whereas the OP is listing heavily into tendentious WP:IDHT territory. I suggest that the OP withdraw this complaint, step away from that discussion/topic for a while, recognize the possibility that they are not on the "winning" side of that particular content dispute, and consider that attempting to silence a content dispute "opponent" at ANI does not always work out well. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way I can reassure you that my concern is about the incivility and not about the content? While JPS and I did disagree about how to interpret the state of secondary literature, other users in the thread, like Feoffer and Fiveby, also disagreed with me, and I didn't bring up their behavior in the OP because they weren't uncivil. In the course of the discussion I haven't attempted to add content to mentioned articles—golden plates and early life of Joseph Smith—and as the thread stands, I don't expect my sense of the secondary sources to be added to them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this reading. JPS really does insult and disrespect those with whom he disagrees—that’s why I, as an uninvolved observer, raised the concerns that Hydrangeans has linked to here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: This comment reads to me like you believe there is an objective standard by which "insult" and "disrespect" can be identified. In my brief reply to you, I was expressing my honest worry that it is easy to fall into tone policing in these contexts. For example, I have said things like, "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims" and people have told me that this is insulting and disrespectful. However, I think this kind of straightforward analysis serves a clear purpose in improving the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is free to click on the diff and see that you did not say "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims", you said a bunch of hostile, unnecessarily rude stuff that did not need to be said in order to make your point. And your raised example of "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims" being so far from the real material of (I paraphrase) "Worst sentence ever? Is this a joke or something? I know you Book of Mormon-obsessed folk are all drooling over this, but…" shows that you know what incivility is, and you know that you’ve been enacting it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It strikes me as you are strongly in favor of tone policing. YMMV. jps (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

LOL ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair your tone could do with some self policing. Abrasion only polishes so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I really like the section at WP:ESDOS, and might be what User:Zanahary is getting at. Specifically:

"

• Use neutral language.
• Don't make snide comments.
• Don't be aggressive.

"

Epachamo (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

[off-topic?] I do see this commentary as tone policing, whether y'all intend it that way or not. Compared to the inordinate amounts of discussion on this website as to what is civil or not civil, there are very few discussions of what tone policing looks like within our online community and whether it is unduly encouraged by a robust WP:CIV policy. jps (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not it's tone policing, the question is whether you are going to police your own tone or whether others are going to police your tone for you. Self-regulate or be regulated. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia loves to regulate those they believe are insufficiently self-regulating. That's for true! jps (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Er weren't you (Levivich) involved in an extensive thread a few days ago about the evils of the pearl-clutching civility police cabal or something? Seems inconsistent. Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Legitimate question, is there a tone policing policy, or something like unto it on Wikipedia? Epachamo (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Only really been discussed a few times: six months ago, in 2016, in 2020. Wikipedia culture has just always really kinda been okay with it. jps (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

To echo some of what was said in the 2020 discussion, appropriating the term and framework of tone policing seems pretty insensitive. Tone policing is about folks with systemic privilege silencing the marginalized and oppressed. Appropriating the language and concept implies claiming that Zanahary asking you to be less inflammatory was a form of oppression comparable to the misogyny that women experience and the racism that people of color experience. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it is civil to accuse another editor of appropriation? jps (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: it is called WP:CIVIL, and it is one of the five core policies around which all other policies and guidelines are based. As far as I can tell, the thing which is here being referred to as "tone policing" is "when people expect you to follow it". jp×g🗯️ 05:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

One thing I note is that WP:CIVIL does not come right out and say that people should give the benefit of the doubt to comments about which reasonable people might disagree. Below, I was accused by the filer of this report of being uncivil for asking a question about tone policing. I have had people accuse me of being uncivil for saying something was "uncouth". It is obvious to me, at least, that this policy is a favorite one to WP:GAME precisely because there are so rarely any consequences for accusations that don't land. jps (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

[80] I thank Hydrangeans for clarifying that she was hurt by my use of the term "bloviation". I am happy to taboo use of that word with respect to her in the future. jps (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

While I'm grateful you have, albeit after multiple several requests, retracted the personal attack, I'm not sure why this commitment to changed behavior is limited not only to just one word but apparently only to me. The pattern of temperature raising and aggression also concerned other users and involved behavior toward other users. While on some level it can be nice to get special treatment, a sense that other users won't be victims of incivility would be more reassuring. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming you were unable to discern that using the word "bloviation" to describe another contributor's comments would be taken as an insult? jp×g🗯️ 06:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously. jps (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the incivility? Nothing here from JPS looks like it belongs at ANI Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no incivility. But in looking at the links provided, I'm struck by the post two comments up from the "hope" post Hydrangeans linked to about Hydrangeans' behavior: I am slightly concerned about what might amount to a desire to take an opponent off the board, so to speak. The last time I checked, the primary definition of "bloviate" is to be long-winded or unnecessarily verbose. This filing is borderline vexatious. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I also fail to find a definition of bloviate which is not an accurate description of Hydrangeans' arguments, verbose and windily with an emphasis on the windily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree too with regards to definition. It comes across as misrepresentation is this filing when bloviate is a pretty accurate and concise description (and concise is important when dealing with an editor that doesn't get to the point). There is no insult there unless self-manufactured and such reminders to stay on topic are occasionally needed.

Hydrangeans' portrayal reminds me of the trope of an English teacher making words sound bad to students (as a teaching moment in how people often trick themselves in vocabulary). Something like, "The girl defenestrated her boyfriend in front of the entire school." That teaching moment often catches people thinking it has sexual meaning when it's instead a dispassionate way of saying she threw him out the window. Maybe Hydrangeans' way of portraying that was retaliatory, but the WP:BELLYBUTTON approach I'd take here is that they simply learned a new word (relevant xkcd) and didn't check the definition before jumping to conclusions. KoA (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, while I don't think it's quite at ANI levels in a vacuum, reading the same discussion I did independently notice that jps was being very aggressive. In combination with past warnings, I do think it's probably deserving of a filing here. Loki (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be misrepresenting Epachamo's comment and JPS's response, they made an identical one on my talk page [81]... And you seem to be presenting one thing as two, there is no plea seperate from the quote but "and" suggests that there is. JPS also does not reject their advice (he does not go and try to chase anyone off or say that he will... He says he will continue to AGF even though its being stretched to the limit). Epachamo's advice isn't bad though as a universal maxim for effective editing, I find it fitting in this situation as well "I beg you [Hydrangeans] to give him [jps] the benefit of the doubt and work with him rather than chase him off, even if it takes time, patience and effort." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No incivility here, just an editor pushing against some pro-religion POV-pushing and the POV-pusher getting upset that their religious views fall afoul of WP:FRINGE 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how saying that Joseph Smith had a fake set of plates is promoting Mormonism. Wouldn't that be the opposite? Epachamo (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Indignant Flamigo's semiotic square with emic, etic, true, and false at each corner kinda explains the problem. Certain religious studies scholars don't like debunkers -- in my estimation because they don't like the quiet part being said out loud. There was even a footnote to that effect in one of the proposed sources! jps (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that jps enjoys arguing, and while that sometimes is helpful in situations where POV-pushers are trying to wear out opponents, it is so fucking tiresome when there's no "off" switch. I have also noticed a tendency to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary, e.g. an explanation that might not entirely oppose a religious viewpoint becomes "apologetics", a comment that takes time to parse and consider becomes "bloviation", a human person asking for some human consideration of other humans participating in a collaborative environment becomes "tone policing", etc. I don't think that approach encourages collaborative editing.

At the same time, in this particular area of the encyclopedia, we've got multiple people who actually share an opposition to the purely religious interpretation of events, but are camped out in different corners of the semiotic square. So unfortunately we get situations where (for example) "the whole golden plates thing is bullshit" is set against "the whole golden plates thing may not entirely be bullshit in one or two specific aspects but is obviously not true in the religious sense" (aka "not not bullshit"), rather than both recognizing that they share an opposition to "the golden plates were real and confirmed and holy" (aka "not bullshit"). That entrenchment is not helpful to the encyclopedia, either. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I 100% second this comment. Couldn't have said it anywhere near as well myself. Loki (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, I worry about our encyclopedia being written in a way that confuses physical reality with subjectivity and contextual belief. So while I think it fine to have an article on the golden plates, I don't think it's okay to pretend that there is any meaningful argument over whether there are or were literal physical objects... and unfortunately I saw the conversation veering in that direction in a way I continue to find contrary to WP:ENC... as in not directions a serious reference work should be going. jps (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, but Hydrangeans has provided sources that appear to show at least some secular religious studies scholars think that Joseph Smith did have literal physical plates (likely forged by him). Wikipedia follows the sources no matter what they say, so I found it very odd that you responded to this by yelling at her rather then providing contradictory sources.

Plus I don't see why this feels so odd to you? Like even outside the fact that sources exist, if I happened to be a fraudster whose claims relied on my possession of a physical object that people were going to want to see, I would also go out and make myself a forgery of said physical object. Loki (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What I have been trying to explain, but have been accused of "misreading" or "misunderstanding" is that these scholars are arguing on the basis of "plausible explanations" for what they think are the contexts of these texts. I have absolutely no objection to Wikipedia mentioning, even in some detail, these scholars "flights of fancy" (yes, I called it that and, no, I don't think it insulting). I don't even object particularly to the story itself. It's a nice one. Clever. I like it. But there is no way to confirm (or disconfirm) that this is what happened! So what I object to is a problematic conclusion, reiterated multiple times by multiple people in that thread, that "Joseph Smith likely had a physical object...." No, there is a plausible explanation (story) for how it could be that he might have had a physical object, but there is also no real evidence that he had anything at all. Everything is based on a web of "testimonies" which were, as far as I can tell, a kind of currency of truth in that time and place but do very little to confirm any facts of the matter from the perspective of a person interested in knowing about, say, physical evidence for a claim.

My main motivation comes from how I see how Wikipedia phrasing gets consumed and interpreted by students in their research. Something as simple as "Joseph Smith had physical objects" in wiki-voice with a buncha citations after it is basically taken at face-value. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. I would like Wikipedia to avoid that very particular wording because it is misleading. jps (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

JPS... I am sorry if I am being thick, or am missing something, but would you mind (since you've raised the argument) explaining what exactly WOULD be satisfactory evidence of an historical fact to you? In this case, the incredibly mundane question of whether or not a man did have plates made of metal in his possession, irrespective of whatever looney claims he made about them? How is anything in history "verified"? Is there some minimum number of people that have to be present to witness a thing? In addition to secular observers, should there have also been a Roman Catholic priest, a Baptist minister, and a Jewish rabbi? Would a physicist with a PhD have to have shown up to verify that metal objects were physically present, then publish it in a journal? Whatever it is you're claiming to be insufficient seems unrealistic, but it might be helpful if you would say what WOULD be sufficiently "verifiable evidence". 73.2.106.248 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASF. As I said over at WP:FTN, we can say in WP voice that the Joseph Smith Papyri exist. jps (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is it's really unclear at least to me, what you mean by any of that. As someone who thinks most religious stuff is silly but a lot of the LDS believes is particularly silly, I've been observing this from afar on FTN and frankly without knowing much about the scholarship, it's looked to me like the others have been far closer to trying to promote text that is in accordance to our policies and guidelines than you have.

As others have said, the existence of plates is fairly unrelated to whether you accept Smith's story about how he came to them. It's perfectly possible to think Smith's story was utter nonsense while accept one or more set of plates which Smith showed to people did exist at one time.

If I may use a different example, AFAIK and supported by our article it's widely accepted that someone called Jesus of Nazareth did exist around the time Christians believe he did. It might be fair to say we cannot "prove" he did exist anymore then we can prove virtually anyone specific, beyond I guess those who show up in modern gene pools, existed that far back. But AFAIK the evidence for him is considered so strong that claims he didn't exist are generally considered fringe. In fact, I think it's been said that our evidence for Jesus is stronger than we actually have for a number of other historic, non-religious figures we generally accept did exist.

Accepting the existence of Jesus does not require accepting that he was the son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead, that he turned water into wine or performed other miracles etc. But we do get the occasionally skeptic who incorrectly believes that the correct skeptical position is to reject the existence of Jesus when it's clearly not. Yet your approach to the existence of these plates has struck me as similar to those skeptics trying to convince us we shouldn't generally accept the existence of Jesus.

To be clear, I'm quite sure the evidence for these plates is not as strong as our evidence for Jesus, but it seems perfectly possible to me that it is strong enough that our articles should present them as factual, just as I'm sure our articles largely present the existence of Jesus as true. But it's not clear to me you understand this.

An alternative might be because the evidence is lower, we might present the plates as something which most likely did exist, but there are alternative non fringe theories which suggest they didn't. It's possible the evidence is weak enough that even this is too far, but there's definitely no reason why we should present the existence of plates as something in significant doubt, just because Smith made a number of nonsensical claims about them.

What matters is ultimately what reliable secondary sources who have analysed the evidence from a non-Mormon POV have concluded about the existence. If the vast majority of such sources have decided these plates do exist then that's what our articles should present, no matter whether editors may disagree with their analysis per WP:RGW etc. Such editors are welcome to do their own analysis, get it published in a reliable secondary source and wait their analysis to get widely accepted and then present it to use along with their WP:COI for us to evaluate and improve our articles.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is different from Christ Myth Theory because, basically from the get-go, the issue was that people accused Joseph Smith of making it up and not having the plates. I know of no comparable argument going on in, say, 1st/2nd Century Roman Empire about whether Jesus existed. Do you? jps (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, unlike Jesus where there are plenty of independent, non-religious sources which state without equivocation that Jesus existed, I don't see any of the sources about the plates saying anything definitive. Instead, arguing that something existed is couched as plausible. jps (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, there are absolutely zero sources that even mention Jesus during his lifetime. All sources that exist mentioning Jesus were written after his lifetime. We have zero independent sources from people that met, saw, or heard of Jesus during his lifetime, only from his close followers. The first anti-Mormon book was written by E.B. Howe in 1834 Mormonism Unvailed, which you can read here. We even have the story of transporting the plates in the beans. "A box, which he said contained the plates, was conveyed in a barrel of beans, while on the journey." Howe heavily alludes to doubts about the existence of golden plates, but NOT that Joseph Smith had a box which he said contained plates. Howe knew Smith, and hated Smith personally. You would not find a worse enemy to Smith than Howe. This is primary source analysis, but is evidence even historically to show that there was little doubt that he had a prop. Epachamo (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We can argue over the close reading of Howe elsewhere but, suffice to say, I see no categorical acceptance that there was a prop... certainly not enough for us to make a declaration in WPvoice. jps (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I've said enough but just wanted to note that "non-Mormon POV" was poor phrasing on my part. I meant to exclude those treating the existence of the plates as a matter of faith, but of course that isn't the only problem. In fact we shouldn't trust someone approaching this from a "Catholic PoV" etc either. Instead what matters is an academic historian PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this formulation... but what I think is relevant here is that Wikipedia doesn't go beyond what the sources say. There are lots of sources that ask the question "If Joseph Smith was showing off something that he was saying were Golden Plates, what explains that?" A decent question, but what I don't want is for WPVoice to use those sources, which all seem to approach the subject as a plausibility argument, as an argument to include text in WPVoice that says something like "Joseph Smith was showing off something" as though this is a plain fact. jps (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I also 100% agree with this description, and one part is so apt I will quote it:

I have also noticed a tendency to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary, e.g. an explanation that might not entirely oppose a religious viewpoint becomes "apologetics", a comment that takes time to parse and consider becomes "bloviation", a human person asking for some human consideration of other humans participating in a collaborative environment becomes "tone policing", etc. I don't think that approach encourages collaborative editing.

I would sum it up as unnecessary hyperbole that increases the temperature of a given discussion. It is confrontational rather than collaborative, and not cool. Less of this would be cool. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that using "bloviation", which has negative connotations, unnecessarily escalates confrontation in a discussion. A more dispassionate description can be effectively used to convey the desired point. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the behaviour of ජපස. Recently, they blanked a section in Worship of heavenly bodies. When I restored it, rather than taking the issue to the article talk page, which would be the correct and respectful path, they went directly to a noticeboard [82]. The way their characterize my edit "Skyerise insists we have a section ..." and "I am worried that this is WP:POVPUSHing" seem to verge on personal attacks, considering we haven't yet even discussed the issue on the article talk page. In my opinion, this editor needs to moderate their pushy methods: premature forum shopping? Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In response to this, they posted this rudely terse post on the article talk page, not even deigning to engage in any form of actual discussion. Is this the way editors are expected to behave? Perhaps a bit of a wikibreak, voluntary or enforced, is in order when an editor can't even use their words? Skyerise (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well certainly if we're going to talk about editors who need to have their tone policed, it seems sensible that you should be here. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Would someone wanting to support a case against jps please provide three diffs of recent incivility (and nothing more). It's ok to post a dozen links in an opening statement, but please start with the punchline and don't make us wade through fluff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Worst sentence (said of an editor's writing)
  • Unintelligible (said of an editor's summary)
  • tone policing (said to an editor about their advice)
  • bloviation (said to an editor about her reply)

  Borrowing Loki's phrasing in this thread, while I don't think it's quite at ANI levels in a vacuum [...] In combination with past warnings, I do think it's probably deserving of a filing. The intractability and repeated dismissal of requests to dial down the temperature resulted in ANI seeming necessary. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  The first three diffs are two months old. The fourth quotes some text, then, referring to the text, says "This is bloviation." That is followed by an assertion that no reliable sources support a claim that apparently lurks in the quoted text. The current FTN discussion shows "bloviation" was struck. Calling part of a comment bloviation might be unpleasant but it's not a CIVIL problem. I think people should focus more on the plain meaning of comments rather than feeling slighted. That is, are there any reliable sources supporting the claim in question? If not, words which cover up the situation might reasonably be referred to in a disparaging manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Calling part of a comment bloviation might be unpleasant but it's not a CIVIL problem. I think people should focus more on the plain meaning of comments rather than feeling slighted. Yes. But a bit more than that, Hydrangeans went out of their way to link to an article about a style of political speeches, so that they could allege a more insulting version of "bloviate" than the common usage. That's disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and a large part of why I called this a borderline vexatious report. It mostly suggests to me that we might not be out of line considering a one-way IBAN for Hydrangeans. Grandpallama (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Only comment so far, but I don't think an editor identifying incivil comments counts as "tone policing". That's a euphemism that deflects an accusation and turns it back on the other editor instead of addressing and explaining the original comments. It's as if an editor identifying racist language is then being called "hateful" for pointing it out. I'm not addressing individuals but talking about the language we use to discuss problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I would call tone policing a euphemism, but I completely agree that the majority at this website seem to align with your opinion on the matter. Wikipedians as a group just do not think tone policing is a problem when discussions turn to civility. jps (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is Tone policing. This filing doesn't try to discredit your content arguments because your tone is bad. You may be right on content; that doesn't mean your tone doesn't break the site rules. And if your tone did break site rules, that doesn't mean your content argument was wrong. Put another way, if you start commenting loudly in the theater about the acting, you may be right on content, but it's not tone policing for other patrons to shush you. They're just trying to enforce the rules of the forum, regardless of whether you're praising or condemning the actors. So too here in Wikipedia; WP:CIV is one of the rules of the game, and you have to abide by them or else go somewhere else.

  If it's alleged that this filing is an attempt to silence you on content, then you could provide some diffs and make a case for WP:GAME against the filer. Absent that, the complaints about Tone Policing seem to misapply what that term is used for and ignore the actual issue alleged. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the filer did the classic WP-thing of hopping over to dispute number 2 and reflexively took the "enemy of my enemy is a friend" approach -- a daring WP:AGF maneuver:

  • [83]
  • [84]

  This isn't the first time she has done that, neither.[85]

  But generally, I really don't like this kind of score settling argumentation in spite of the obviousness of this low-level harassment she continues to direct at me. While I continue to have concerns over her signal to noise in areas where we overlap, I remain convinced she is a net positive for the project.

  jps (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think it is obviously false that "Wikipedians as a group just do not think tone policing is a problem when discussions turn to civility"; it would be more accurate to say that "Wikipedians as a group do not agree with jps's definition of the term 'tone policing'". jp×g🗯️ 04:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Obviously false", eh? I am interested in how you were able to determine "my definition" of that term. jps (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  How would you define the term? Epachamo (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do not object to the Wikipedia definition. jps (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• On a brief look, it seems like this report heavily relies on history -- it's hard to see these most recent diffs as particularly beyond the pale such that admin action is needed. I haven't looked in detail, though, and mainly wanted to jump in about this "tone policing" stuff. Tone policing is the phenomenon of a dominant or otherwise powerful group dismissing grievances from marginalized groups because of the way they made their argument, thereby derailing the conversation or avoiding the subject. It degrades understanding of a real tactic to apply it to "people keep telling me to stop being a jerk even though I'm right" situations on Wikipedia. We're a collaborative project where, in theory, nobody has more power than anyone else (but if anything, the long-time, somewhat more aggressive users have more power), and we have a civility process because we have to figure out how to co-write encyclopedia articles. Black Lives Matter activists, Republican politicians, and Fox News pundits are not in a situation where they're all on equal footing trying to collaborate on a single task. It's one side who wants change/action but lacks political power and another side looking for ways to dismiss/mischaracterize them. That's not what's happening here. Now that I'm writing this, I'm realizing it's become enough of a pet peeve that I should probably write an essay... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would appreciate such an essay. But I will say that power dynamics on WP don't necessarily settle out in neat up-down dichotomies. jps (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something, this wall of text has had only one administrator comment in it. Like most disputes about civility, people feel strongly, but this is looking to me like diminishing returns. If any admins see anything that requires them to act on it, that hasn't emerged yet, and otherwise, this isn't going to accomplish anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is more here than just incivility; this editor is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND-type tactics, revert-warring just up to the line on multiple articles, abandoning ongoing talk page discussions in the process, and forum shopping for support. Check their edits as Worship of heavenly bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), then stalking me to Liber OZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which unless I am mistaken, they never edited before; opening threads at WP:FRINGEN after a single edit was reverted, without going to the article talk page first, etc. Adding a whole "list" of article at Talk:Worship of heavenly bodies not as a serious query, but as a WP:POINTy edit. In short, this editor has been and continues to edit in an abrasive and dismissive manner, doesn't accept that other editors can have good faith differences of opinion from them, and occasionally strays into incivility when they are called on their behavior. Skyerise (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Popping in here to note that my biggest problem with jps' conduct is an unreasonably expansive definition of FRINGE that encompasses every alleged religious miracle, as readily recently admitted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Humphreys: Claims that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead or that the Red Sea literally split apart [...] are fringe claims. (my edit; see the full AfD discussion for context). jps' insistence that religious beliefs be treated as FRINGE scientific theories is a persistent Category error present throughout our recent interactions, and I can see why less experienced editors might find that position offputting and uncollegial. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would love to have this discussion, but I'm not sure what venue is appropriate (I doubt it is here). Wikipedia seems to prefer etic versus emic approaches, and to the extent that it does, we are under a sincere obligation to make sure the text does not say things in WP voice like, "Jesus bodily rose from the dead" or "There is evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the dead" or "There is controversy over whether Jesus bodily rose from the dead" or "Some scholars accept that there is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead". There are, of course, a myriad of ways to talk about the subject of miracles that satisfies everyone, but there are definitely ways to talk about miracles that Wikipedia needs to eschew as a WP:MAINSTREAM reference work. jps (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  And just to be pedantic, people come back from the dead all the time. It's called Lazarus syndrome, and we don't have to appeal to miracles to explain it. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with this explanation, but it has nothing to do with the discussion I was referencing. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with JPS and HEB on this one, and wonder if there was a miscommunication. In an article about theology, these miracles (or Young Earth creationism) would not be fringe. In an article about the creation of the universe, it would be. As you pointed out, the article on Creationism shouldn't treat YEC as fringe, because it's in the context of theology. However, History of Earth very much should. In the linked AfD, I got the feeling JPS was arguing that insofar as Russel Humphreys would only be notable for his Creation science work, that work itself is considered fringe and thus not work covering. (Note "pseudoscientific" in the creation science article.) JPS, please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have thought for one whole day on how you can simultaneously agree with this explanation and also think it has nothing to do with the discussion you were referencing. I think you are taking something like a non-overlapping magisteria approach to religion and science here on Wikipedia, but I don't think Wikipedia is set-up to accommodate the strictest separation of the two. But, obviously, there is something I don't understand in your critique and maybe this isn't the place to discuss this. You say your talkpage is open. So is mine. But after this comment, I actually don't even know where you want to begin the discussion. jps (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe this is overly technical but isn't that just stating a truism? A miracle is something that lies entirely outside of conventional scientific and medical knowledge and practice... That is it has no explanation other than the supernatural. Theories which lie entirely outside of conventional scientific and medical knowledge and practice are fringe theories as wikipedia defines them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens: now that we appear to have established that you were wrong about that being disruptive behavior (because FRINGE does actually cover every miracle, including the religious ones) perhaps in the spirit of civility you could apologize to JPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  There are no less than three separate unfounded or incorrect assumptions in this statement. I could provide an apology that's not related to what you think it should be, but I'm afraid someone would object to that as snarky or petty. jps knows where my talk page is, and is welcome to bring up any concerns with my statement there. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is surprising to me, what are the three or more unfounded or incorrect assumptions you see? Always happy to correct/explain/strike when mistaken Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @Hydrangeans: What is your primary objective in starting this report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

For a chronic, intractable behavioral problem to be resolved. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak report. The only admins who have commented so far (Johnuniq and, briefly, Liz) don't seem interested in sanctioning jps without much better and more recent examples of incivility, and I'm not either. And it's humorous, if anything, to see Skyerise (currently blocked) complaining in several posts above about an opponent's incivility in discussions where Skyerise themselves displayed rampant incivility and edit warring. Hydrangeans, do you want to improve this report, or withdraw it? Bishonen | tålk 12:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC).

  For completeness, I'll note that a third administrator, JPxG, also has commented.

  With community discussion about the user's behavior apparently ongoing, withdrawing the report seems premature. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Probably also worth mentioning that JPxG clearly does, at a minimum, think jps has done something wrong here. Tho I'll leave it to him to say if he actually wants to do anything about it. Loki (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll second the recommendation that this report be withdrawn, but reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will third the recommendation. The primary issue as I see it is that jps does not suffer fools gladly, and I have often been on the receiving end of this many times, even when I was pretty sure that I wasn't being foolish. To his benefit, I think jps has toned it down quite a bit in the last year or so, and is no longer vying for the curmudgeon of the year award. I also note a measurable improvement in his approach to other editors, including idiots like myself. For what it's worth, I tend to lean on him for his help and expertise, so I find him to be a valuable resource in spite of his blunt and unforgiving attitude at times. He's corrected my mistakes in several places, and he managed to do so with respect while leaving my dignity intact, so he can be a nice person when he wants to be, and for that I thank him. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything actionable here. The diffs don't demonstrate incivility. This comes across as reporting someone for an issue that there are already preconceived notions of in the expectation that traction will be forthcoming because of prior discourse. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you agree with the characterization offered by Indignant Flamingo and Levivich above? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's time to close this and return to our regularly scheduled construction of an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• It’s unfortunate to see this pattern come up again. At this point I think it's a knock it off rather than a sanction, maybe a formal warning, but it is a demonstrated pattern of not understanding community norms. It doesn't matter of you are right, you don't act like that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 92.40.212.171

I would like to ask for help with User: 92.40.212.171. This IP user engages in disruptive editing. See: Special: Contributions/92.40.212.171, and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=92.40.212.171]. When I attempted to contact them about verifiability on their User Talk page, no response was left (see: User talk:92.40.212.171#Your_recent_contributions.) They then changed "the" to "stfu" in the Welcome template left on my User Talk section. They also tried (IP so not autoconfirmed so abuseFilter prevented them) to add "Don’t change my edits luhanopi" to my User page.

Luhanopi (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for three months for personal attacks and harassment, and also for vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights and close paraphrasing

User:Jpbowen recently set off copypatrol (view report), and a manual check has confirmed that they very closely paraphrased this source beyond what is acceptable. Upon further examination, I discovered their other most recently created article, Gunfield, also contained close paraphrasing from one of its sources. (Outlined here.) They've fixed the issues I've pointed out and I trust they won't re-occur, but it's probably best for the time being if somebody removes the autopatrolled flag from their account.

You can view our conversation about the issue on their talk page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. This seems pretty cut-and-dried and the user has admitted their error. You are right to have told them recent cases of close paraphrasing issues does disqualify anybody from either holding or receiving the autopatrolled right. I have indicated in the log that they may re-apply at any time, but obviously a couple of creations without these issues first would make a better case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways Thank you for responding and confirming my interpretation wasn't completely off-base. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:James Conan Niag and IP cohorts

They are disrupting the infoboxes of articles related to leaders that are of interest to both WP Bangladesh and WP Pakistan. I first noticed the issue in the A. K. Fazlul Huq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where they altered his birthplace to its present-day location rather than the location as it was at the time of his birth, all while remaining logged out. After I requested protection for that article, they logged in under the name James Conan Niag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continued the disruption. They then moved on to the Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where they removed the present-day location from his birthplace. When I confronted them, they reverted my edit with an offensive summary (while logged out), calling me "illiterate" and "paki", a derogatory term used to describe people of Pakistani heritage. I am reporting this disruptive behavior, sockpuppeting, and the personal attack. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I've noticed over the past few days there has been a big spike in the number of incidents related to Bangladeshi articles. I could just be sleeping under a rock, but what could be the cause of this? I didn't see much of what is appearing now 20 days ago while the protests were occuring. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The outright coup? An authoritarian government toppling? New tensions with India and all the fallout? This isn't going to be a matter of a sudden and brief spike. Ravenswing 07:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of office-holders were replaced after the unrest, though I don't think it explains the issue of East Pakistan politicians here. Borgenland (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Now they are targeting my edits on Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), can an admin take an action here, this is blatant vandalism and wikihoundimg by this editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I would like to add to my previous comment that I attempted to engage them in a discussion here, but instead of participating, they chose to revert my edit, simply stating "leave it as it is." They then followed me to Pakistan, where they reverted my edits and removed the sources I had added. I spend considerable time researching for the sources, and their battleground behavior is really discouraging. After that, they reverted my edit on the Muhammad Ali Jinnah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page but later self-reverted, claiming it was a "recent edit," as if it was acceptable to wikihound and revert me as long as it wasn't recent. They then moved on to the Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, restored an edit they made while logged out yesterday with an abusive edit summary, which they reverted it as an eyewash initially. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Being followed around by an editor with an apparent grudge

There is a user, Ybsone, who is following me around and either reverting my edits or objecting to my proposed edits on talk pages. His conduct strikes me as that of a "grudge" mentality because we had content disagreements in some RUSUKR articles in late July (e.g., War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine), and because of these disagreements he has taken to opposing my future edits on even unrelated topics. This conduct does not strike me as being in the collaborative spirit of the project. He is making the editing process a personal battleground. This is in particular a violation of WP:FOLLOWING.

The majority of these "following" cases are in RUSUKR but the most blatant ones would be those outside this topic area where there isn't any plausible deniability; those are selected below as examples.

Example A: Most recently, he has reverted an edit I made on the alcohol article within 30 minutes. This revert is his only contribution to the article. The latter fact combined with the short time window is strongly indicative of a decision to follow me around rather than an organic interest in editing the article.

Example B: A bit over two weeks ago, he objected to a proposed change I suggested in the article on controversial psychologist Kevin MacDonald. Again, he has never contributed here before.

Example C: This is within the RUSUKR topic area where we originally had a content dispute, so I cannot accuse him of following me around for this case (it is plausibly genuine interest), but it is illustrative of his grudge and battleground mentality towards me. Consider the RfC Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?. The user in question wrote five separate timestamped comments underneath my yes vote. These were five separate "original" comments so to speak (they were not replies to replies addressed to him, as is typical). They were made over a five hour period (08:49 UTC on 13 August to 14:01 UTC on 13 August). This is unusually aggressive bludgeoning. It is an unusual level of personal interest in another user's vote that you would make multiple comments about their vote over a five hour period, unprompted by anyone else. Noteworthy also is that the user devoted far more bits of text to criticizing my vote, than justifying his own vote, which was left as a short (and frankly incoherent) sentence, seemingly an afterthought.

Indeed, if you look over the user's edits over the past month, it's mostly either chastising me (both within RUSUKR and without) or editing about sports cars (which is a favourite topic of his).

Finally, I note that the user has been warned of his conduct by another user, Mellk, on his talk page here.

I would request that the user be asked to cease this conduct. JDiala (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You could just take the criticism of being wrong when trying to change the tone of a long standing articles and move on. YBSOne (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when pointing out that You have changed the lead of an article because of mistakenly thinking that "is one of the most widely abused psychoactive drugs in the world" is "undue". Again, nothing to do with drinkers it is just being widely abused out of other psychoactive drugs. Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when Special:Diff/1236158164 preventing You from WP:SOAPBOXing and changing the tone of the lead in a long standing article? Has Your enjoyment of editing been disrupted? YBSOne (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Other instances of soapboxing reversal by me with talk page discussions. Special:Diff/1236481183 Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 27 and Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Lead_is_clearly_POV; Special:Diff/1238537335 Talk:Vladimir_Putin#Public_image_in_Lead; Special:Diff/1237547921 Talk:Russia#"Very_low". In my opinion this user is WP:NOTHERE to better Wikipedia but to clear Russia/Putin/Russian aggression, of a bad image and change the tone, to spread propaganda and to WP:SOAPBOX, hence my behaviour that may have been mistaken for WP:FOLLOWING. I urge admins to check the editing history of other subjects like: Special:Diff/1238510210 Talk:Kevin_MacDonald_(evolutionary_psychologist)#Ordering_of_labels_in_lead_sentence.

User spends majority of edits on [talk page battles] with other editors to make their way by any means necessary. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

See as an example [86] where he argues that Nazis don't believe in white supremacy]. Nazism has sources saying they did. I topic banned him in June from ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: "Mention that she's Jewish in the first paragraph, as this is most natural." and Talk:Jesus#Do_not_call_him_Jewish_in_the_first_sentence. YBSOne (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: Special:Diff/1240305960, Special:Diff/1238429006, Special:Diff/1237921444, Special:Diff/1237852938, Special:Diff/1237502321, Special:Diff/1237004405, Special:Diff/1236988703, Special:Diff/1236988472: allowing themselves to discredit or discard RS or parts of it when it doesn't meet their expectations nor agenda, as mentioned by other editors. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a legitimate technical question whether "white" as a category adequately describes the particular group the Nazis regarded as being superior, especially since, as I note, they regarded many racial groups conventionally regarded as "white" (namely Slavs) as being untermensch. I certainly was not suggesting the Nazis weren't racist, which is what your misleading phrasing suggests. It's also not clear what the point you're trying to make here is. This is disappointedly sloppy engagement by an administrator. JDiala (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala Nazism included in the definition of Nazism white supremacism. They didn't think that Slavs etc were white but were Untermensch )eg Jews, not just slaves) as you say, sub-human. For them, only Aryans were white. I'm not suggesting you don't think the Nazis were racist. I'm not surprised you don't show good faith to someone who topic banned you. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a content disagreement. I'm not sure what the point of you bringing up this separate content disagreement is. Is it to imply I'm a WP:NOTHERE as suggested by Ybsone? It's not a usual expectation for editors to look at other WP articles (in this case Nazism) for definitions of things when editing a given article (in this case White ethnostate), especially since WP articles aren't themselves considered reliable sources. I've presented what I think is a sensible rationale for my position, and I note that for the relevant content dispute (the inclusion of Nazi Germany in the White ethnostate article) there are other editors agreeing with me (indeed, it was someone else who brought the matter to NORN in the first place.) You can object to my position, you can present sources disagreeing with it, but that's a far-cry from a NOTHERE case.

While I don't mean to assume bad faith from you, and I appreciate your reply here, I hope you can see my perspective. I present what I think is a legitimate concern that I think I am being stalked by someone with evidence to boot. You join the discussion as an administrator, don't engage at all with my concerns, and assert what amounts to "heh, he said Nazis aren't white supremacists, here's a link" which is an awfully simplistic description of my position and that entire discussion in general. Considering also the power balance here (you are a highly experienced editor and an administrator), this interaction made me feel deeply unsettled. I'm not sure that was intended but it was the effect. JDiala (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: Special:Diff/1239684673 Talk:2024_Kharkiv_offensive#Propaganda_Posters. When sources say just that, too bad for the sources. YBSOne (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice to anyone reading the linked thread how myself and Cinderella157, the user agreeing with me in the discussion, have clearly articulated policy-based arguments whereas YBSOne provides nothing but a link-dump and a (usually grammatically incoherent) rant. JDiala (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is a victim here, given that they have showed a rather strong WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern, particularly when it comes to RUSUKR. This is usually under arguments of improving "neutrality" followed by double standards on how sources should be used to attain this "neutrality".

WP:FOLLOWING says: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles"

It seems more likely to me that JDiala would find themselves "followed" because YBSOne wants to prevent disruption, rather than this editor in good standing with well over ten years of experience suddenly deciding to single out an editor to harass them.

All in all, I think if anything should be done here it's a WP:BOOMERANG, if that is in the form of another topic ban for this user or something else I don't know. TylerBurden (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There was never a double standard on how any source should be used. You incorrectly alleged a double standard here which I responded to and refuted. Your appraisal of WP:FOLLOWING is likewise incorrect. Note the word "unambiguously." These cases aren't unambiguous because there's talk page discussions with reasoned disagreements in each cases (in KM's case, we have a lengthy discussion with multiple editors agreeing me). This is a typical content dispute not a reversion of NOTHERE content.

Editors can judge my contributions in RUSUKR for themselves. The two major editing positions I have been pushing for in the topic area over the past two months—the more liberal inclusion of Ukrainian war crimes in the War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and increased emphasis on NATO expansion in the Russian invasion of Ukraine—both are being endorsed by the editing community in their respective RfCs (1, 2). I convince other editors with the strength of my arguments; others use more insidious mean like stalking, lawyering or making "boomerang" demands when called out on their inappropriate conduct. JDiala (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad You mentioned this particular instance where at first You pushed for inclusion of the content when there were allegations, or word for word "concerns", nothing else:

You have added those allegations 4 times "no consensus for this revert. AI report explicitly frames Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation", "No consensus for this removal. You need to start an RfC if you're trying to remove all Ukrainian allegations", "(1) This is a BRD violation, (2) the link to the Amnesty report was removed, (3) allegations UAF violated IHL were removed, (4) I object to moving it to a different section." "There's an ongoing discussion about this." basing it only on twisting the Amnesty International report that only says it raised "concerns". But when this did not pan out, You imidiatelly started pushing for speedy removal of the same content: "Report says Russia didn't commit war crimes here, so why is this in this section?", because it was no onger under Ukrainian allegations so better get rid of it so not to cast shadow on Russian allegations. "Reducing length of this to two sentences per past RfC decision. This is ultimately pending the outcome of the current RfC." and "The past RfC decided it is 1-2 sentences. Please do not engage in disruptive editing. This is a compromise position I've agreed on which is literally verbatim what the past RfC says.". Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Ukraine_accusations; Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Lead_is_clearly_POV; and Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_27#Reversion_of_attack_on_care_home_edit. My original WP:NOTHERE allegations are still standing. YBSOne (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, as for "increased emphasis on NATO expansion" there is already a section for it: Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Allegations_of_NATO_provocation_and_aggression YBSOne (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You evidently have strong opinions on the content here. That is fine, but it is important to accept situations where consensus does not reach your favored outcome. As I’ve mentioned, it is apparent from both RfCs that the position I espouse is that endorsed by a solid plurality of editors at this time. This is far from NOTHERE. It’s actually highly productive editing in a contentious area. JDiala (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"increased emphasis on NATO expansion" is not the same as "Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion" which was in fact just a pretext, but You cannot see that because of Your pro-Russian POV. Incluson of those demands is not the same as real expansion and real threat of NATO, as was already presented to You with a RS in that discussion Special:Diff/1240079541. YBSOne (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my views here. As far as article content goes, my position has always been to include a variety of perspectives on NATO, not necessarily state the anti-NATO claims as being factual in wikivoice. JDiala (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he's misrepresenting your views. My one encounter with you was about three weeks ago where you argued public polling on Vladimir Putin should be included in the lead with reasons such as him having higher approval rating than American leaders. Given the article itself discredits public polling as useful in the body it's unclear why you wanted to use it in the lead.

Looking through the other links provided here in the topic area and it's evident you're only making changes that benefit Russia. Some edits you make have merit such as mentioning Russian expansion in NATO (I strongly disagree with that, and many policy experts refute it but nonetheless the issue exists at all). In other cases though, you seem willing to ignore Wikipedia policy arguments to advance a pro-Russia view like the example above. If your edits all had good sourcing to back them up I'd have no problem but this just isn't the case, you need to be more rigorous with sourcing and policy arguments especially in a topic area as controversial as Ukraine-Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Putin#Public_image_in_Lead HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You are writing that "I'm not convinced he's misrepresenting your views" but you reference a separate content dispute which has nothing to do with the topic at hand (NATO). In general, if you're going to opine on someone else's views, it's best to provide germane evidence, for instance in the form of diffs, not bring up something entirely unrelated. You write that "the article itself discredits public polling as useful." This is misleading. The body of the article makes no such claim in wikivoice. Rather, it briefly attributes a claim made by the director of the Levada Center where he indicates that polling in Russia is not comparable to polling in the West due to a lack of political alternatives. It is also an incorrect summary of his quote. For instance, the summary uses the word "irrelevant" where nothing in what he actually said in the quote (or in the cited article overall) would indicate the usage of such a strong word. This is all followed by extensive polling evidence indicating that Putin enjoys considerable support in Russia, often with concrete, non-propaganda reasons given like an improvement in living standards and an improvement in Russia's standing internationally, which cannot just be handwaved away as disinformation or brainwashing. OK, we can talk about this and how these disparate facts should be weighted. This is a content dispute more suitable for the talk page. I am open to a compromise position where his widespread support was discussed in the lead but framed in the context of a personality cult. But the position I'm espousing isn't per se wholly unreasonable or a blatant misrepresentation of the source material presented in the body, which is what a NOTHERE allegation would entail.

You are also writing that I have a "pro-Russia" bias. This is incorrect. I have a pro-neutrality bias. The topic area is currently, in my estimation, leaning heavily to the pro-Ukrainian side. I am working to mitigate this bias in accordance with policies. Note that I can cite multiple cases (1, 2) where I made edits which could be regarded as anti-Russia as well. My edits thus aren't uniform in their POV. JDiala (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic area is currently, in my estimation, leaning heavily to the pro-Ukrainian side It is not Your job to estimate that. This is the point all those editors are trying to make. Your edits are not NPOV, Your edits are pro-Russia-POV to balance the mythical pro-Ukrainian-POV, that does not exist in reality. YBSOne (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, editors are allowed to make judgement calls on the neutrality of a given article or set of articles. As a side note, the words "you" and "your" are not capitalized in the middle of a sentence in the English language. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This subthread is also emblematic of the bludgeoning Ybsone regularly engages in. Notice he has two separate replies beneath a comment that was not addressed to him (I am talking to HetmanTheResearcher here). JDiala (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And your correcting capitalization of another poster in the middle of an ANI thread for no reason? YBSOne probably deserves a trout, but your PIA behavior seems to have been neatly transferred to yet another contentious topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

YBSOne has on multiple occasions personally attacked me in this very thread. In fact, he started the discussion off with the following: "Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when pointing out that You have changed the lead of an article because of mistakenly thinking that "is one of the most widely abused psychoactive drugs in the world" is "undue". Again, nothing to do with drinkers it is just being widely abused out of other psychoactive drugs. Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when Special:Diff/1236158164 preventing You from WP:SOAPBOXing and changing the tone of the lead in a long standing article? Has Your enjoyment of editing been disrupted?.

The sarcastic tenor here is intended to insult and personalize the dispute, not really appropriate for ANI. Politely correcting a spelling mistake is comparatively far more minor. JDiala (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You have mistaken an insult with a genuine quote from the policy You cited: "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". YBSOne (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"British lawmaker", "Ukrainian official", etc. are awful sources. and random allegation made by a belligerent in the conflict (btw US Embassy nor US are a belligerent in the conflict), and yet You have no issues quoting Russian lawmaker and Russian official and belligerent Putin, right? Putin saw the role of NATO in Ukraine as a direct military threat. This has nothing to do with neutrality as You are not here for neutrality but to correct the mythical anti-Russian bias. YBSOne (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents in a war are generally considered dubious sources for statements of fact. That was the point I was trying to get across. I apply the same standard to Putin. Any claims made by Russia or Putin I would want attributed to them, not in wikivoice. I also don't think claims made by foreign politicians or lawmakers who are not investigating matters on the ground and who lack any particular wartime or IHL expertise should be weighted highly, irrespective of their country's stance in the war. There was also a clear consensus from multiple editors on the corresponding thread that random US embassy tweets are poor sources for war crime matters. I'm sorry that you are upset that your views on content aren't always what consensus reaches but that's something you should learn to accept; you don't always get your way here. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Some more ungrammatical rant on Your alleged NPOV. Removing a critical and sourced information on the death of the critic of Putin's regime Anna Politkovskaya, while claiming sources do not state this fact: the mention of Putin's birthday in the lead is speculative, undue and also not discussed in the sources provided. and The link with Putin's birthday is undue and unencyclopedic; it's just meant to elicit speculation., while that is what cited source tells, even emphasizes this; that was also debated in numerous other sources; that can be used too if needed and the source provided: "If there is a connection between the Politkovskaya and the President of Russia, it is the day of her death - his birthday.". Other sources that You didn't bother to check "She was assassinated two years later, on October 7th, 2006, the day of Putin's birthday." "On Putin's birthday in 2006, Politkovskaya was murdered" because Your goal is to distance Dictator from this clearly political murder. YBSOne (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no proof that this was a "clearly political murder." The article doesn't say this, and the sources do not say this. It was at best a suspicious-seeming murder. You are inserting your own POV into this issue and basically soapboxing, ironic as you are the one accusing me of being POV. As for my edit, I didn't feel like the birthday coincidence was sufficiently WP:DUE to warrant inclusion in the article. I was later told that it was established consensus from years ago to include it. I ceased pursuing the matter further. This is a standard WP:BRD cycle. JDiala (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add "clearly political murder" to the article because that would be speculation. I added an important fact that was pointed out by many different reliable sources, that was deleted by You because of Your pro-Russian POV. YBSOne (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This response does not inspire confidence. Putin is a central figure in the Ukraine War and giving hi a favorable view does by proxy gives a pro-Russian stance to the conflict (as opposed to, say, making edits about Russian cities and their histories. Still related to Russia, but not to the conflict). Although, I won't press further what's a talk page dispute as you said.

Nonetheless it's still evident your bias is pro-Russian. The first edit you show seems very tedious more than showing bias since I've seen scholarly sources which go both ways in calling these territories disputed (For disputed, look to 1. Arel D, Driscoll J. A Frozen Conflict Thaws. In: Ukraine’s Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022. Cambridge University Press; 2023:171-196. "The process stalled from the beginning for lack of an agreement on how to conduct local elections in the disputed Donbas territories."). The second could be seen as neutral, but you also mention that "belligerents in a war are generally considered dubious sources for statements of fact" just above me so this doesn't diminish my case of bias. In any case, one response is not enough to show neutrality when most if not all of the other edits you make in the topic area are pro-Russia. I'd have more issue with Ybsone if your edits were using scholarly sources instead of ephemeral news articles (for lesser-known topics I can understand, but in the Ukraine-Russia space there's a wide selection of articles published after 2022) but you're not, so I view Ybsone's efforts here as preventing additions with dubious quality rather than any grudge against you. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if I grant all of this (I don't — I firmly insist that my edits all intended to promote neutrality, not out of any particular admiration for Putin or the Russian regime), I don't think it's remotely unusual for editors in a contentious area to make edits which appear to have a bias towards one POV. This is not unusual. I can cite multiple editors (including YBSone and TylerBurden in this very thread) who have a clear pro-Ukraine bias in their editing tendencies. The singling out of me here is odd. Ultimately, I don't think it's possible to read someone's mind and determine "bias" and the default WP:GF assumption should be that they are here to improve the project. For each and every one of my edits, I believe I have consistently provided cogent, policy-based reasons for them. In the few cases I have erred, I have accepted the community's decision to revert (for instance the Anna Politkovskaya article, where an edit I made was inconsistent with an established consensus). I don't think I have done anything wrong in this topic area or anything indicative of WP:NOTHERE. JDiala (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Bias is fine, I'm not concerned with that so much as justifying your edits with good sourcing. My problem is you're not using scholarly sources and peer reviews to justify your claims. You want to mention Putin's popularity in a lead? That's fine if there's scholarly sources showing this polling can be taken seriously. You want to add the Amnesty Report on Ukraine? Go for it, but find peer-reviews which establish the article as a good one for the topic. You can make your arguments much stronger through scholarly sources and articles peer reviewing those sources.

For a topic outside the Ukraine War, your proposal in Germany. You want to improve the article about Germans (which, I do agree a dictionary is not a good source)? Then provide scholarly sources showing the German nation's history since antiquity. It's always nice to look into a wiki article and find fresh perspectives from citations. But I haven't seen that from your edits. Rather I see a lot of edits that taken together look like POV Pushing in a contentious area that force other editors to waste their time correcting your edits, which it seems Ybsone has been doing (along with their edits to automobile-related articles). I don't plan on editing anywhere close to the Ukraine War anytime soon, even when I get EC status on this site, so I won't make more replies in this incident thread as I've said all I need to say. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

then to be consistent it makes sense to accept them for anti-NATO material YBSOne (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"in wikivoice" This diff is completely consistent with what I wrote above. JDiala (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt

User left a message on my talk page accusing me of "lying about his country" and "displaying al shabaab as mighty warriors". After reverting their uncited edits. Lots of previous personal attacks on edit summaries and Wiki commons as well. WP:NOTHERE. Ecrusized (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

They weren’t uncited. And I’m simply trying to have consensus with you to stop our edit war. And I wasn’t even going after you personally! Zabezt (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized and Zabezt, consider this a warning that edit warring behavior is a blockable offense, and the way to avoid being blocked for edit warring is to strictly avoid any edit warring behavior whatsoever. Being convinced that your point of view is correct is not a valid defense. There are a variety of types of legitimate Dispute resolution options available to you. Both of you, please explain the failure of either one of you to discuss the map dispute at either Talk:Somali Civil War or at Talk:Somali Civil War (2009–present). That simple fact makes both of you look bad. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized

This user started an edit war on the Somali Civil War and Somali Civil War (2009-present) articles, and is refusing to have a discussion with me to end it. Instead of talking to me so we can come to consensus, He decides to report me any chance he gets. (Victimizing himself in the process, for example in this page he said I’ve done “personal attacks” on him, when I haven’t.) The articles in question has a problem with the maps, because no one can decide which map is correct and should be used. I don’t want this user punished, nor am I intending to do a revenge request or have personal hatred for the user, I simply want to end this fight with the user so there can be peace and truth to the articles about the civil war that’s happening in my home country of Somalia. Zabezt (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(raises an eyebrow) You don't consider "Stop lying about my country" [87] a personal attack? Ravenswing 03:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt, please heed the warning in the section above. Please also explain why you have failed to discuss this map issue on either of the relevant article talk pages? Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been trying to discuss it with him any way I can, he simply won’t respond to me for some reason. But I will take your advice and try to discuss with him on the talk page. Zabezt (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That should have been your first step, Zabetz. Debating through edit summaries is a very poor practice. That is not what edit summaries are for. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but I’m still new as an editor, So I expected something like this to happen. Zabezt (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m still new as an editor Zab, I’d like to give you some advice that our dear old Mop, ArbCom member, and CU Yunshui gave me, when I was new. ANI is your big shiny red button. Do everything else, before you push it (well, that was his logic, I think). I appreciate that you didn’t start this ANI thread, but I wanted to pass down the wisdom, and this seemed like a good reason to. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 08:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that justifies a "personal attack" more than it's said from an obvious connection / standpoint on the unfolding Somalian war and its history. But I also think an institute of war style map is probably ambitious given it would need to be updated frequently and this issue will probably exist forever. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t mean it aggressively! It was more like a suggestion. Zabezt (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And one carrying the obvious premise that he IS "lying." Which is a personal attack. You may indeed be a new editor, but keep on just assuming that someone whose opinion differs from yours is doing so out of malice, and you likely won't have the chance to get more experience. Ravenswing 07:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Zabezt (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt, you failed to inform the editor that you started a discussion about them here. There are multiple notices, including a bright message on the edit page when you posted this complaint, informing you that this is mandatory. This is required. Please do so now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Zabezt (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait… now done. Zabezt (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Ecrusized

I think this is a retaliatory filing by the inexperienced user, who in my opinion is not here to build an encyclopedia.

1) Narrow self interest or promotion of themselves or their business

Zabezt entire editing history is limited to trying to change the Somali Civil War map to a prior version, before Al-Shaabab offensive in 2022-23. Additionally Zabezt has referred to Somalia as "their country". And referred to the latest revision as trying to portray Al Shabaab as "mighty warriors".

2) Treating editing as a battleground

Zabezt has attempted to get the file deleted initially, after this attempt failed, they started an edit war by reverting the file to a previous revision, (which resulted in the file being protected). After these attempts, they started removing the map all together from Wikipedia pages (citing ongoing discussion, despite being explained multiple times that their revision is being reverted for not citing a source).

3) Personal attacks

Zabezt has resorted to personal attacks after being reverted by calling me a liar, and accused me portraying a designated terrorist organization, Al Shabaab as mighty warriors which prompted me to open this notice. And the user appears to further their battleground behaviour by filing a notice again me WP:BOOMERANG.

4) Possible sock puppeting

There are multiple account and IP's doing the exact same reverts with Zabezt on the map file, one of which Zabezt has admitted to being their own IP. SPI is currenty ongoing. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Ive done edits beside the civil war articles. You can see that by simply looking at my edit history.

2. The edit war started weeks after the nomination. and if you really want to point fingers, blame someone like @Munsaar55, not me. And I only removed the map because people were discussing the map on the talk page, so I thought until they sort it out, a map shouldn’t be there at all, and I did find a good source on the file itself and you still deleted for the same reason you just mentioned.

3. I’m sorry. I simply freaked out when you reverted the map and resorted to saying.. that. I promise to not try to do something like that again.

4. I can assure you that I’m not a sockpuppet account. I have no other accounts other than the one I mentioned. I have no idea who people like Munsaar55 are. Zabezt (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential user impersonation

The account CaliforniaAbuBakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recent created, and User:CaliforniaAbuBakr states "I am CaliforniaAliBaba's second account". While I would love to see CaliforniaAliBaba back editing, from CaliforniaAbuBakr's edits so far, I suspect this isn't true, but I'm unsure what we do in such situations to establish the veracity of the claim, so I'm bringing it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

CAB is already retired or missing. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d say a Behavioural shout is on the cards. On my own investigations, I don’t think they’re the same. Mind you, people can change in that many years. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This[88] kind of subtle vandalism by @CaliforniaAbuBakr is typical for the socks of NogeetaSangiwari, e.g. here[89][90]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. It's definitely the same user as MrM0y33 and Faggala501. Seems likely to be NogeetaSangiwari. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive/vandal editor

Jamesroberttn is clearly WP:NOTHERE, this is no better highlighted than their latest edit inserting personal ethnic attacks into the article boddy ([91]). The MO of this single-purpose account is Tamil ethnic POVPUSH and the user disrupts/vandalizes any sourced information which does not align with this world view especially ethnically labelling and/or removing sourced information from articles. While the user had been warned just over a year ago about this exact behaviour, he seems to learned none the better (that should have been expected considering the reply was this). Here are some recent instances where the user inserts OR, removes sourced content and/or replaces it with OR: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97].

A need here is felt for some kind of block, as the user clearly does not understand that disrupting Wikipedia is not the way go to despite multiple/repeated warning and alerts. Gotitbro (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Racial comments about other editors on top of general disruptive editing. Indeffed. It's never acceptable to judge other's edits based on their nationality/race/colour/etc and always gets an indef from me. If they wish to reobtain their editing privileges they'll need to convince someone in an unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 22:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, obviously good block, we don't need that nonsense here. That fist diff was more than enough for me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup I'd make the block and determination after that first diff. Barely looked at the others. Canterbury Tail talk 01:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Good block, assuredly, and I hate to qualify it and validate such problematic behaviour....but there is something to be said about that "not a single drop" wording being far outside the window of encyclopedic tone. Obviously not an ANI issue, but it's worth noting all the same. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The way to fix that would be to be simply WP:BOLD (an account disrupting from 2015 would have clearly known) and remove/alter it not racially attack other editors. Gotitbro (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Continued off-wiki legal threats and sockpuppetry related to Bryant & Stratton College

In mid-June (edited to add: of 2019), CollegeMeltdown reported off-wiki legal threats they were receiving in connection to Bryant & Stratton College. A few weeks ago, Nat Gertler also reported off-wiki legal threats. The general conclusion was that the threats were bogus.

This morning, MenuGt removed information in Bryant & Stratton College that has been the focus of these legal threats. This information has been removed several times, most recently by unregistered accounts, and restored by several different editors. In the wake of this disruption, Aoidh protected the article for one year on July 24 so it can only be edited by autoconfirmed editors. MenuGT's account was created on July 9 and only made one edit until early this morning when they quickly made 16 small edits to other articles and then edited Bryant & Stratton College. I reverted their edit and a few hours later someone contacted my employer alleging that they work for the college's "Division of Legal Services" to ask them to direct me to cease editing the college's Wikipedia article. As far as I can tell, there is no such unit at the college nor does the person who supposedly sent the message work at the college so it's not only a bogus legal threat but a poorly constructed one.

MenuGt is clearly operating in bad faith and a block is more than warranted. A sockpuppet investigation may also be helpful but I'm not entirely sure who the sockmaster would be as the most recent similar edits to the article were done by unregistered IP addresses (2a02:1210:2c5a:ae00:5009:4c2d:53ea:c03a and 2a02:1210:2c5a:ae00:c82e:a757:de0c:bd0c, specifically). ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Contacting your employer is seriously messed up. I think you should probably contact both ArbCom and T&S by email. arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and ca@wikimedia.org. I have to go somehwere right now but I'll look at the rest of it later if nobody else does. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Given those IP addresses and subject matter, I think you'd have to look suspiciously towards User:Supervisor635 (this is neither confirmation, nor checkuser info). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm about to head out for a few hours but I did want to acknowledge that I've seen this and will take a closer look when I return home. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note that CollegeMeltdown's being threatened was in mid-June of 2019, while mine was this summer (and has gone multiple rounds, through both physical mail and email, the most recent being a threat two weeks ago via email to report me to the police.) As such, this is a very long-term matter dealing with someone willing to put effort in, and should not be treated as short-term. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I really screwed up that year! That is very irresponsible of me. But I agree that this makes the situation worse as it indicates a problem that has persisted for many years. ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've upped the protection to ECP for a year. I suppose I'm in the crosshairs now, but I lived through nearly five years as an arb so I can probably take it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That does seem to be the best course article-wise for this circumstance, thanks for doing that. @ElKevbo: I would echo Just Step Sideways in saying that if you are comfortable doing so, please email ArbCom and T&S with any relevant information regarding the off-wiki harassment. - Aoidh (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that the article is now protected but is no one going to do anything about MenuGt who has clearly gamed the system and appears to be directly involved in these off-wiki legal threats and harassment? ElKevbo (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

And the sockpuppet investigation on what seems to be another account for the same user has gone uninvestigated for over a month. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a way to remove autoconfirmed? Seems like we ought to be able to do that.

I've blocked to force discussion of the possibility, @ElKevbo, but obviously that does nothing about the problem itself. Valereee (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Valereee. We can't control what people do off-project but I appreciate you blocking this editor to address what we can do on Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of legal threat by IP user

49.36.176.122 (talk · contribs) posted something which kind of is a legal threat but kind of isn't on Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident; they're demanding a given change be made to the article and saying that if it is not then Indian employees of the Wikimedia foundation will be in legal jeopardy (something I'm fairly certain is untrue, but I digress) - but not directly threatening to report it themselves. One could construe it as a misguided if good-faith attempt to be helpful, I suppose. Anyway, it probably warrants a look. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one, they are talking about Indian law without threatening to take action but they are making demands for an editorial change. It's complicated because they are an IP address. If they were a registered account and they made a clear legal threat, we would indefinitely blocked them until they retracted their threat. But we don't indefinitely block IP addresses and this account was issuing a warning about potential future actions rather than making a specific threat. I'd like to hear what other admins and editors think. I'm also doubtful of the accuracy of what action they say could happen. But their remarks could serve to intimidate editors working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The message looks to me like the ip may be concerned about WP editors rather than a legal threat to take action? Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There's been ongoing requests at that page to remove the victim's name under Indian law, and repeated replies re WP:NOTCENSORED. In this particular case, I read this as an IP trying to scare editors to make the requested change out of the supposed liability under Indian law, and the supposed stance that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't properly protecting users. I don't think any of this is true, but I don't think it is a specfici threat from this user themself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an attempt to chill discussion and weaponize the law in a content dispute. It is definitely against the spirit of the rule if not the letter, and ought not to be tolerated. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it covered by the 'Perceived legal threats' section, "Your edits could be illegal..." wink wink nudge nudge. Reading their further replies that certainly seems to be what they are suggesting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They're saying that it is an "ORDER to WMF by India's 2nd most powerful court" and that "WMF counsel has agreed to comply and turn the user details over for service of court summons/notice." // "WMF is certain to throw its editors (admins) under the bus". Seems like very obvious legal threats to me. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll consider this edit Special:Diff/1241706132 to be a legal threat in the context. I see the IP user to be physically involved with legal bodies Special:Diff/1241714216 to be of much concern as to whether they might, if not already, initiate such legal processes themselves or thru their proxies. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading their responses since I posted my opinion, I think both you and MrOllie may be correct. Knitsey (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

For fairness' sake I should note that the user posted on their talk page in response to the ANI notice. Being an IP user, they can't respond here directly. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They have also posted about this on the non autoconfirmed subpage. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 02:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The somewhat personal attacks should not be accepted (as seen here). Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Whereas I read those "personal attacks" as a good faith attempt to sensitize an editor from India about the potential liablities of editors under their own (often draconian) local laws, as also set down in our Terms of Use. FWIW I view Special:Diff/1241719272 as a genuine advice to that editor by the IP. Sectioneer (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as a legal threat, just throwing big words around in an attempt to get their way. Concerning, but nothing to worry about, yet. Should it escalate, that could be another discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

throwing big words around in an attempt to get their way

That's kinda the heart of WP:LEGAL. They're attempting to browbeat others into editing in favor of their POV by using legal language, or "cautioning" others that they could be prosecuted. That's the chilling effect mentioned, and the entire reason WP:LEGAL was created, so people can't use claims of legal action to drive other editors off the page or make them perform specific edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone has information they think relevant to legal matters, they should forward it to WMF legal. They should not be giving I-am-not-a-lawyer legal advice to other editors. EEng 23:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP had mentioned the "Hindu Raksha Dal" in one of their early messages. This fringe religious group (but armed with automatic weapons and many police case of violence and intimidation) had posted a PDF on their website earlier this week. They've reported the Indian Wikipedia editor to the Supreme Court Empowered Committee for namimg the victim and refusing to take it down, asking for his/her arrest and also made some legal threats against Wikipedia employees in India. Sectioneer (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Racial abuse by IP

103.115.24.69: Uses an extremely racist slur used as a personal attack against other editors ([98]), right after vandalizing the very article that lists them. Looking at the constant vandalism and OR with no course correction (as evidenced by the slur and the litany of Talk page warnings), looks like its time for a block. Gotitbro (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting speedy revision deletion too. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I revision deleted the racial slur. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation by User:Yewtharaptor

In Special:Diff/1242371226, User:Yewtharaptor added a large section of text which, for the most part, was a near exact copy of a piece of text from this abstract booklet, page 10-11. I intended to leave a warning on their talk page, but was reminded that they have previously received warnings, article deletions and blocks (including two indefinite ones) because of copyright violations.

I'm also paging @Diannaa, @Yamla and @Rosguill, seeing as they were involved in the process surrounding the user's previous bans. Although they were unbanned in March 2023, and don't seem to have received any warnings since, I am of the opinion that this is a troubling return to the behavior seen pre-ban. Hence why I was inclined to bring it up here. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing what I promished, Crafting detailed articles respecting the rules os the wiki as I told I would do. I have been editing a lot of articles SINCE 2023 (Specially polishing bad writing) and in all the cases with full respect for the rules. In this Case, there wasn´t a proper translation of the cited anatomical features of Asfaltovenator (Difficult without quote the Same name that they have featured on the Abstract). But, I solved that error by deleting the compromised names and polished the overall article to be ON RULE.

My defense is all the edits I have been doing since 2023 within the rules.

I´m not going to touch any anatomical-related section since I have seen I can´t write them, I will limit to what I know to work well

Or nothing, at this rate I gess...

It was fun to have the Tafraout group done, I had the wish to add our future articles data

Yewtharaptor (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems they've righted their wrong and acknowledged the copyright violation by fixing the section. Conyo14 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to stress that this is not a single event. The user has already been blocked indefinitely twice for copyright violation, and has shown at numerous times that not only they have a bad habit of recidivism after a few months once they believe they can get away with it, but also lack the maturity needed to reflect on their bad habits and actually correct them, trying to find reasons why they shouldn't be blamed and trying to pressure other editors instead of actually apologizing and correcting their way. Larrayal (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to say about me really spambot

As per m:NTSAMR, please can someone delete User:BenjaminCoombe and block the account? IPs can't tag userpages for deletion. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged the user page for deletion. Knitsey (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

And reported as per edit filter. Knitsey (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked per Alexf. Thank you ip. Knitsey (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring User:Joshua Jonathan

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) appears to be engaged in WP:SOAP and WP:TE on a WP:BLP article titled Michael Witzel. I am not very aware of the subject but I was asked by an editor RealPharmer3 (talk · contribs) to come and try to help on the article where they asked me User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#Wanted_to_get_your_opinion_on_WP:BLP. It appears to be a situation of a Joshua editing generally in a religious genre and maybe trying to push a particular WP:POV. I am not an expert in religion but just my somewhat uninvolved quick view on things. In this matter specifically professor Michael Witzel appears to be a Harvard professor with a controversial (at least to some) opinion on Hinduism. His article seems to contain too much POV content that attempts to frame a WP:FRINGE debate between various opinions about Hinduism (I am maybe doing a poor job to summarize, forgive me). I have warned Joshua here about edit warring as well as WP:BLPRESTORE. Maybe just one of these cases where you wade into a dispute you dont understand, but at least from a BLP perspective we should be careful of what defamatory content we put on the article, particularlly in that it appears to promote some controversey that might not even exist in the mainstream WP:RS, thus it has no business on a BLP, and certainly not promoted to the WP:LEAD.

Edits:

• first revert 07:39, 30 August 2024 Appears to violate BLPRESTORE and after the editor had been warned.
• second revert 03:09, 30 August 2024

Users:

• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• RealPharmer3 (talk · contribs)

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You selectively removed info with an appeal to WP:CRIT and WP:RS; I explained at Talk:Michael Witzel#Criticism that WP:CRIT does not apply, and that you retained other info from the same source. In response, you issued an edit-warring warning after one revert, which is misplaced, if not rude, and stated at the the talkpage that WP:BLPRESTORE applies, without explaining how. Instead, you're escalating further. You should step back, and simply discuss and explain, instead of throwing around warnings, policies, and vague accusations ("maybe trying to push a particular WP:POV"). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And don't forget to mention that you did mass-reverted yourself diff, with a minimal explanation at the talk which did not address my concerns. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Where in the discussion have you ever articulated what the actual BLP issue is supposed to be? I can’t find any place where you (or RealPharmer3) have articulated anything like “this particular part of the article violates this particular part of this particular policy, because [explanation goes here].” 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan - I asked @Jtbobwaysf because we worked on a previous article and was able to learn a bit about WP:BLP and the standard necessary to uphold such an article. Can you explain which content was retained from the same source? From the interview and the Pacific News Service, it was removed if it wasn't backed with another source. If i missed one - please remove it - because my opinion aligns with the policy for WP:BLP.

I also dont agree with you suggesting that it is misplaced or rude that @Jtbobwaysf responded the way he/she did because in my interpretation of the policy, it should have been discussed about before bringing back to the page because an Interview and Pacific News Service is not a high quality reliable source and can easily be misconstrued. I touched upon how WP:BLPRESTORE applies here.

Lastly, lets have calm discussion about this and see where we land. Willing to work together. RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3; thank you for your kind response. The Reditt-source has been completely removed indeed; my mistake. Regarding Jtbobwaysf's response: giving an edit-warring warning to a regular editor after one revert without adequately responding to my concerns is misplaced and rude; edit-warring is repeatedly reverting without discussion, and 'don't template the regulars'. It's not exactly the kind of response that invites a collquial discussion - in contrast to your response. For the details, we can duscuss them at the Witzel-talkpage. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan - not a problem. I'd like to say that @Jtbobwaysf is an experienced editor and I'm confident his intention is in good faith, and ultimately I do agree with his judgment here. I don't believe he is acting out of line - you moved too quickly in reverting the edits without trying to discuss anything on the talk page (WP:BLPRESTORE) about its inclusion within the article. Again, I have no problem having a discussion and hearing your POV and thoughts - regardless of the content - as long as it is sourced by high-quality reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I'm confident that @Jtbobwaysf agrees. RealPharmer3 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont see regular editing here by Joshua Jonathan, I see WP:SEALION. It appears from your xtools stats that you have quite a lot of activity yourself at ANI here so you know the rules. You need to work with other editors on the article with RealPharmer3 to find consensus, just as on every article at wikipedia. If the content is disputed, it gets discussed, and if it is a BLP it gets removed first, then discussed second, then re-added IFF there is consensus to do so. If you continue the civil pov pushing you will face consequences. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Jtbobwaysf - thank you for the response. @Joshua Jonathan I agree with @Jtbobwaysf on this one as well because of the way you handled this situation.

If we want to make Wikipedia a resource that is fair, balanced, and comes from independent and reliable high- quality sources - you will need to become more comfortable having a discussion before going in and adding what you like without reaching a consensus and forcing your POV without sufficient support. I dont think its sufficient by any means to begin including things without a clear consensus (WP:BLPRESTORE), because you feel it is appropriate. It is clear that others may not feel the same way (us), especially for a WP:BLP. We need to have a discussion about this if you want inclusion- it is simple.

As for WP:SEALION, I think further investigation may be necessary to conclude, but after a quick look, I can see there seems to be a trend to your edits on this page, and perhaps others under the same topic (we would need to take a closer look). I looked at your recent edit history for this article and it looks like you are pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, which is incredibly questionable: diff diff diff diff - all of which are fixated on calling to light specific words such as, "right-wing Hindu activists", "Hindutva supporters", "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh", "RSS Linked", etc. Also, here where you attribute that updates by an expert panel on the California textbook topic were due to "lack of knowledge of the board members" (?) These seem to look inappropriate to include as you are building a narrative, not an encyclopedia article on the actual subject.

By pushing the NPOV and accusing others of a "certain one-sidedness" (like you did to @Jtbobwaysf or myself on the talk page), you are inadvertently undermining the undue weight clause that should be applied here for the material or the sources you want to include.

I will not make any accusations or speculate at this stage, but after seeing the way you are handling this discussion, along with recent edits.. it looks a certain way.

If we want to reach a resolution, lets please have a clear discussion. I am willing to hear you out and see if we can reach a consensus. RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I do react strongly, but over the years I (and others) have seen so much po-pushing, edit-warring, and misrepresentation of sources at India-related pages, that I don't take removal of critical info, or receiving a warning after one revert, lightly.

My recent additions to the Witzel-page come from sources which are already used at that page; sources which also repeat info and quotes similar to the ones you removed. So there is a certain one-sidedness to your removals, which I've explained at the Witzel-talkpage; I don't see a response yet there. Nor do I see a response or explanation by Jtbobwaysf on his WP:CRIT "argument." With regard to the RSS-links, that's basic information repeated in almost all publications on the California textbook controversy over Hindu history (not a fringe-topic, as one of you suggested). And yes, Witzel is quite outspoken in his opinions with regard to this controversy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This ANI is related to your behavior on the article and isn't refuted about your opinion of the article subject (you said "Witzel is quite outspoken"). We have articles about horrible convicted felons and we still apply BLP while they are alive, you seem to be confused about policy or just want to continue to SEALION. In the edit above you refer to "misrepresentation of sources at India-related pages" giving us a window into your potential WP:RGW in this topic. In this edit you appear to add a link to some source/website flonnet.com that seems to be attempting to attempt to load malware on my machine. I am having trouble understanding how an ANI is ongoing about your actions on an article and during the ANI you are adding sources like this to the article in question. I'm baffled. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Pay attention, will you? That's a source that's already being used at the page. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am an uninvolved editor and am not up to date on this article nor the content. I do now see this source is used 6 times on the article. Why are you using a website with apparent malware (flonnet.com) to support what you are stating is coming from Frontline (magazine)? Why not link to the magazine story directly? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's all cool down; I noticed your other comments at the Witzel-talkpage; they're good and non-partisan. Just know that scholars like Witzel, Romila Thapar, and Sheldon Pollock, are continuously targeted by right-wing editors with signal-words like "leftish" and "communist," just like the HEF and related organisations did. And believe me, I know what I'm talking about; I've been editing for thirteen years now, and have seen dozens and dozens accounts being blocked for their pov-pushing and bullying.

Regarding that site, it happened to me too, but didn't pay attention and followed the next link; I think we just have to remove the first link. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: You are not "an uninvolved editor". Some of your edits evoked WP:NOCRIT in a way that does not appear to address the kind of issues covered by that essay. You may formally be right about WP:BLPRESTORE, but you should be careful with labels like "SEALION" when Joshua Jonathan – apart from reverts that formally indeed violate BLPRESTORE – at the same time exactly does what is required: discussing the content and the rationale of your changes/edits. You should substantially engage with their concerns about the misinterpretation of WP:NOCRIT in two instances. It is not enough to say "it is UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" when you simply alter text about the LP's own activities that were characterized as "criticism" in the stable version of the article. Lack of your engagement and talking about JJ's "sealioning" turns this content dispute into a behavioral issue on your part as well. –Austronesier (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

In fact this should be closed, no Admin is going to take action, at least against JJ. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Apologies, I probably shouldn't have used the term uninvolved, so i struck that above. However, until the other editor asked me to get involved as an uninvolved editor, I then came over and made a couple edits to remove what I viewed as CRIT, thereby agreeing with the editor that asked me to have a look. So as of the time of me writing uninvolved on this ANI, yes that would be untrue. What I meant was when I made the article edits I was uninvolved and at this time I am still not knowledgeable about the article subject. Thank you for pointing that our and allowing me the the clarification. If someone with some admin tools or skill could look at the addition of the odd content mirror website flonnet (I mentiond above) maybe they could see if something else odd is going on with the links. Why is an editor pointing to content behind apparent malware rather than using the native website for the RS? Seems odd. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The only odd thing about it is that you haven't noticed, even though JJ already explained it, that JJ didn't add that reference -- it was already present in the article. (The existence of an archive-url, which was also already present, suggests that the URL has been usurped; but I haven't checked that myself.) Your approach here seems to suffer from an unfortunate lack of WP:AGF towards JJ. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Joshua Jonathan - replying to a few of your comments because I'm still catching up on the last day of discourse between the noticeboard and the multiple talkpage threads as I was enjoying a day with family. I'd like to start off this by saying, I completely get it. You've been editing wikipedia for a long time, and you've accumulated a whole lot of interesting experiences with a whole lot of editors. Regardless of whether the material is positive, negative, or neutral, i find the material at hand questionable because of the nature of the sources.

Not sure if there has been a clear consensus but - can @Joshua Jonathan or @Jtbobwaysf please help me understand why some of these sources are seriously being used to justify statements within the article? Interviews, Pacific News Service, and (sacbee..? i think it was mentioned somewhere) do not meet the criteria for a good quality reliable source. WP:BLPRS states all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

If the information that you are eager to include came from high quality reliable sources, it would be far more appropriate? I'm worried things like transcripts from interviews alone can easily look like original research.

Additionally, could you please address my comment about pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, because i feel that in many areas of the article, which have been pointed out above or on the talk page- you are inadvertently undermining the undue weight clause that should be applied here for the material or the sources you want to include. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you please take it to the Witzel-talkpage? There you can also explain what you think "pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV" is, especially in the light of your extensive editing on Swaminarayan-related pages, which may give you a WP:COI. You're probably also aware that a large, Swaminarayan-related sock-farm was cleaned-up three years ago ( see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88/Archive), a few months after your account was created, so you probably understand what I meant when I wrote that I've met a lot of pov-warriors at India-related pages who have been blocked by the dozens. And, coincidence or not, they had the same over-polite tone you have, requesting clarification after clarification and questioning each and every source that didn't fit their, eh, well, 'narrative'. Sounds familiair? That's where Wiki-experience matters. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

RealPharmer3, you mentioned "sacbee" which is the online handle of the Sacramento Bee, the newspaper of record for the state capital of California, the most populous state in the United States. The Sacramento Bee has been published since 1857 and has won six Pulitzer Prizes and many other journalism awards. Please explain the problem you have with sacbee, also known as the Sacramento Bee. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thanks; I was the one who questioned the reliability of sacbee; see Talk:Michael Witzel#"Sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong". The sacbeesource contains the same kind of info which was removed by RealPharmer3, with an appeal to WP:RS; I have the impressiin they just removed info they don't like, without checking the other sources, or with enough background-knowledge. But, if sacbee is indeed such a high quality standard source, then we've met the threshold for If the information that you are eager to include came from high quality reliable sources, it would be far more appropriate, and we can get back to improving the article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, I have lived in Northern California for 52 years which is almost my entire adult life, and I am the sort of news and politics junkie who, back in the 1970s, read the San Francisco Chronicle every day during my morning coffee break and the San Francisco Examiner during my afternoon coffee break. I was living in San Francisco at that time. I am quite familiar with dozens or maybe low hundreds of Northern California periodicals. Despite dramatic changes in the media landscape, I believe that in 2024, there are three world class newspapers still published in Northern California, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News and the Sacramento Bee. So, it does not matter to me who does it, but I want to know specifically why editors are questioning the reliability of the Sacramento Bee? Maybe you can help me understand that. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think you have to read Talk:Michael Witzel#Reddif-interview and Pacific News Service; critical comments made by Michael Witzel and Vinay Lal were removed with an appeal to WP:RS, sourced to Rediff and Pacific News Service, but other info sourced to Pacific news Service was retained, which appeared to me as quite selective. I then checked the sources for the sentence "Witzel was accused of being biased against Hinduism, an allegation he denies.", the first of which is sacbee. Given the lay-out of the page I wondered how reliable that source is, in the light of this selective removal of info. But I'm glad to hear that sacbee is reliable, since it contains more or less the same info thjat was removed. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
PS: what's your take on this source? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, as for the Pacific News Service, I am also very familiar with them. They were founded in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War which brought overwhelming death and destruction to the people of Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, to the people of the United States. Pacific News Service published journalism intended to oppose the Vietnam War, and when that horrifically counterproductive U.S. war came to an end, they shifted to journalism critical of U.S. imperialism around the Pacific Rim. Without a doubt, PNS produced opinionated journalism with a strong point of view, but I am unaware that they regularly published falsehoods. Sadly, the economic crisis of 21st century journalism led them to close down in 2017. They remain respected in Northern California. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey both @Joshua Jonathan -

Yes, we can focus our conversation on the talk page as we progress there. And well, I've edited a whole range of articles to varying degrees and all i have to say is... uhm.... should I not be polite? My family is from Canada, so we're all polite (not sure where you're from but that's how we function up here). Please note that this is a hobby for me, not a full-time job. If I aim my efforts at constant arguments and disagreements with other users, it no longer becomes enjoyable for me. PS- I have met some equally polite and kind editors on Wikipedia.. Also, besides the last post i posted here, i dont believe i asked for any clarification ... I was out all day with family, and there are ongoing conversations happening on the talkpage and here, where i did not see a level of consensus or see all the conversations.. so i wanted to resurface.

Nonetheless, I agree - we can continue the conversation on the talk page as there is an ongoing conversation.

@Cullen328 - thank you for your input, it helps to understand the context of these sources and where they come from. RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of NPP perm by Miminity

Miminity (talk · contribs) was recently granted NPP and has been reviewing a page every few minutes. I left a message on his talk page to discuss the speed of his patrols and some patrols that I found concerning. I also advised that he slow down and re-review the patrol guidelines. The patrolling has nonetheless continued so I am compelled to come here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll slow down quite a bit but the latest reviews I have is tagging it review for deletion. Sorry about the previous misuse of NPP as I misread the workflow. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Another example of some concerning patrols. WPSL PRO marked patrolled at 03:13. Saed Al-Rosan (with all sources in Arabic but two) marked patrolled one minute later. One minute after that, at 03:15, Tristen Robins is tagged with {{sources exist}} and then marked patrolled at 03:18. There is no way that Miminity is checking for copyvio in foreign language sources and doing source checks for notability in the span of one minute. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I tagged Tristen Robins as sources exist, as I find it notable enough and will try to fix it myself later and about the copyvio, I use the automatic tool use in page triage. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

At least one of the reviewed articles is already marked for deletion. I reviewed another: Szczecin Gumieńce – Gumieńce-Tantow border crossing railway line and the only reference is a primary technical document that does nothing to establish notability and almost all the content is unsupported. I think all the articles need to be marked as unreviewed to go through the NPP process again. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. @Miminity: I think you should voluntarily give up your NPP at this point, request training at NPP school, and then re-apply when your trainer thinks you're ready. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll just let the admin decides, If they spare me, I'll try to work at very, very slow pace for now on until my perm expires, but if they remove it, I accept it. I ADMIT that I done wrong so I'm really sorry! Also, thanks for showing me the NPP school, I think personally think I needed to attend it for understanding NPP more. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair to expect. They got the permission only a few hours ago, so it's understandable that they wouldn't fully understand its expectations. But I'll ping Hey man im josh as the granting admin to decide. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. And also thanks to @Miminity for taking this criticism to heart. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I did originally message josh on discord to ask about what to do in this case since he was the granting admin, but when he didn't respond I spoke with Miminity on his talk page and then came here. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well this makes me realize I need to open Discord lol Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

But will slow down again once more, One again Sorry! Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I am very encouraged that Miminity has been self reflective here, has admitted errors and accepted criticism and resolved to do better. Those are the traits of a newer editor who has the potential to become a very productive and respected editor. When I first began editing 15 years ago, I made a few newbie errors and was gently chastised. I took those warnings to heart and never made those mistakes again. I am not an administrator who is regularly active at WP:NPP, so I will decline to comment on permissions. So, thank you, Miminity, for your good contributions. Keep it up. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not too many people "win" ANI threads by charging in and swinging fists. Too many seek to do so. Good on Miminity. Ravenswing 09:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming into this a bit late, but I'm very happy to see how @Miminity is responding to the feedback. Based on their responsiveness, I don't see a need to strip the perm from them at this point in time. With that said, I'd absolutely accept if someone else felt differently. Based on their interest, and how they've responded to criticism, I think this is a user we can coach and guide who has, at least as far as I can tell so far, a pretty decent temperament.

This is a good opportunity for me to remind people of WP:NPPSORT, which is where I encourage new reviewers to head to. Focus on areas of notability you're comfortable and confident with. Get comfortable reviewing and tagging pages, focusing on the process and doing quality reviews above all else. Learn other guidelines by searching WP:N(relevant term), such as NACTOR, NPROF, NSPORTS, etc., once you've started to feel comfortable, and leave anything you're unsure about for someone else. You'll pick up speed as you get more experienced and see the nuance in situations, but speed is absolutely never the priority.

When I process perm requests I know there will inevitably be mistakes, both by me and by the people I grant the perms to. We all make mistakes, myself included, but we need to try not to repeat those mistakes and to clean up after ourselves when we can. I think this is a spot where there isn't really anything more to be done, they've been exactly as responsive as we'd hope someone be. The goal is to improve Wikipedia, which is what we're all trying to do at the end of the day, and it takes time. So long as we continue to communicate and discuss things civility with one another... we'll get there, even if it means some bumps and coaching along the way. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Lesson Learned, I will not rush the process now and also will use WP:NPPSORT which I didn't know it had, I can finally review pages, I'm familiar with. Thank You Man and all of you especially @Voorts: for telling me, I'm doing the process wrong. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Miminity, Voorts, Hey man im josh, Ravenswing, Elli, and Cullen328: Update: Miminity had requested me to be their instructor for the WP:NPPS program and I have responded that I would be happy to help them out. However, he declined the offer - see HERE. Wish you all the best Miminity. Be safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 08:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That's quite disappointing. Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [99] where User:Sectioneer uses a NYT article[100] to say " As per the New York Times it is a disgustingly filthy market with blood everywhere and large rats running around'. The article actually says "New Delhi's INA Market, which is not air-conditioned, caters to expatriates and middle-class Indians. The air inside was heavy with the smell of blood and damp feathers in the 110-degree heat of a recent afternoon. Plump gray rats scurried across floors smeared with blood and guts." Doug Weller talk 16:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed with the editor on their talk page rather than here. There wasn't even a warning before coming to AN/I and the only other warning on Sectioneer's talk is a CTOP warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Might be a bit strongly worded, so I think taking out the "disgustingly filthy" should be done, but I wouldn't see it as outright vandalism, given that the NYT article appears to factually describe the conditions of the market with blood and rats part, so maybe a more neutral factual word of "unsanitary" may be more in line as wikivoice. Raladic (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if not vandalism per se, WP:UNDUE? But maybe that's for another board. I really don't see why the Ina colony should be tarred with that at all. I have notified the editor. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate for any noticeboard until you've actually discussed the edit with @Sectioneer per WP:RCD. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So what do you want me to do now? Do you want to hat this? I can discuss it with them when they are around again. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think hatting this would be appropriate. While this edit concerns me, there's no chronic, intractable conduct issue here that needs resolution at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you do that? I’m on my iPad and won’t be on my pc tonight. I’ll leave a message on their page. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The link in the article for INA market links back to the article btw. Knitsey (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Knitsey I’m not sure what you mean. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, the third article linked as "INA Market" is a circular link, linking back to itself, which I can just remove anyway. Procyon117 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Situated on Aurobindo Marg, across Dilli Haat and behind INA Market, the colony lies... Second paragraph, INA market links back to the article. Circular link? Knitsey (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If this were a BLP I think I'd be on surer ground. But it does tar the people of INA Colony. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure that that was even necessary to add in the first place, although I personally wouldn't call it vandalism per se. Procyon117 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitewashing

Whitewashing going on at In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing reading on several neo-religious/spiritual movements on this website. A number of them are free of such descriptions as you ascribe to In the Light of Truth. Claims of cultism and cult-like leadership, if anything, should be a separate section of 'criticisms' but descriptions of the group and its beliefs should not be described with such bias. The Eckankar page is a great example of how such discussion is addressed Johnthewhale (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. @Tgeorgescu, your obscure message repeated on the article's talk page and the new editor's talk page does not seem to be an attempt to resolve the dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism sections are dissuaded.

My opponent seeks to whitewash that cult. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not seek to whitewash anything. However, the descriptions of Bernhardt and the failed coming of the Kingdom and the 'bafflement' of adherents at the failure have nothing to do with the contents of the book itself. It is off topic and few other spiritual movements are treated as such on Wikipedia in general. Why is this any different? Johnthewhale (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. That failed coming and the bafflement are WP:V in a mainstream scholarly WP:RS. Also, predicting that coming is all the book is about.

Predicting the imminent apocalypse of the 1940s and quickly preparing for the coming of the Kingdom of God are the main topics of the book.

In other words, Abd-ru-shin thought he is the Second Coming of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This also feels like a content dispute to me. My prescription for this involves a healthy dose of discussion in an attempt to hopefully achieve a WP:CONSENSUS. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If everybody were allowed to delete WP:V information based upon mainstream WP:RS, Wikipedia would go to the dogs.

My opponent seems to pit a paper of cult apologetics against mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP ([101]). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, you may want to take another look at what is going on here. Last week a new editor, Calvasche (now blocked, prior ANI), arrived at Grail Movement, pushing some "source" posted on a blog "REFUTATION of the text “MILLENNIAL EXPECTATIONS IN THE GRAIL MOVEMENT” by Zdenek Vojtisek". The blog promotes the works of this Brazil publisher. They really don't like the work of cs:Zdeněk Vojtíšek of Charles University, near as i can tell our best authority on the group(s) involved. Now comes Johnthewhale, removing content cited to Vojtisek, taking issue with new religious movement, and pushing the same "source". He is also arguing pretty much as Vojtisek says the main group does here: downplaying or rationalizing the millennial aspects. fiveby(zero) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

fiveby, maybe you should open a case at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnthewhale. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note I have not made similar changes to Grail Movement, which is where I think it is more appropriate to include such statements Johnthewhale (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The millenial aspects are not my concern, though what Vojtisek states does not really match other sources I've seen. My only concern was the line in the synopsis (as it has nothing to do with an actual synopsis). I also stopped editing the 'new religious movement' section because I realize other similar movements are discussed in the same manner. Works in other new religious movements Armstrongism, Theosophy, and others are not described in the main body of their respective articles using words like cult and the like. Such a framework is reminiscent of New religious movement#Opposition, which reflects bias even if on a scholarly basis. I simply feel that such descriptions belong in a separate 'criticisms' or 'controversies' section. These changes are meant to contribute consistency in the way these things are discussed and have nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Johnthewhale (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, "Criticism" sections are frowned upon. They're a vestige of early Wikipedia, and do not conform to modern editing standards. Any criticism should be naturally written into the article, alongside whatever point is being criticized. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And what of 'controversies'? Johnthewhale (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In articles on WRITTEN WORKS, I am sure all veteran editors here are aware that criticisms are generally placed in a section called "Reception"; using the new editor's lack of knowledge about this minor detail of general practice seems to be like Wikilawyering.. (not you say it IS, just that it seems like it COULD be). 73.2.106.248 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I managed to find one of his WP:RS at https://www.ezw-berlin.de/publikationen/artikel/70-todestag-von-oskar-ernst-bernhardt/ . Contrary to what Johnthewhale claims at WP:SPI, it does not contradict Vojtisek's paper. As someone wrote elsewhere, let's call it liberal approach to sourcing. Namely, the source never denies that the Grail Movement is a millenarian movement, and agrees with Vojtisek that Abd-ru-shin called himself the Son of Man. Marloes Janson states that the Grail Movement adopted the "supermarket model" of New Age religion, rather than stress dogmatism. I do not have access to all those pages, but it does not seem to me like she is denying its millenarian beginnings. She wrote "The Grail Movement was founded by the self-proclaimed Messiah Oskar Ernst Bernhardt..." tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I never used the word contradict. I simply said disagree. A disagreement does not have to be a direct calling out or an explicit difference, but rather an inconsistency with the approach and voice of Vojtisek. Moving the goal posts you are Johnthewhale (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because they stress different aspects of the movement, it does not mean that either WP:RS is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeated and disruptive personal attacks

Coming across Bamboo network, a simple look at the lead made it clear that the tone of the article was non-neutral. Seeing that the edit and its summary which restored/inserted the material were needlessly confrontional and bordering on a personal attack (besides the incorrect citation of WP policies none of which address NPOV), it was not a surprise that the talk page of SimeonManier who made the edit is repeatedly filled with aspersions and personal attacks against other users along with a smattering of racialized connotations contained within large walls of text, a sampling (emphasis mine):

My claims with regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines and policies towards other WP:DISRUPTIVE editors and certainly emotionally whimsical IP editors like you are not what you derisively characterize as "accusations."

[102]

as it appears that individuals like yourself with your emotionally-charged pejoratives find it difficult to acknowledge the facts I have presented, no matter how pleasant, inconvenient, or harsh they may be for you to accept. ... Your emotionally-charged reactionary butthurt response is typically illustrative of an editor who has not only been exposed a fraudster and disgruntled editor, but also as someone who doesn't have a credible argument to expostulate, let alone maintain. Good luck spending your time in the Wikipedia gulag, as you're going to need it since you have a lot to think about, given your long record reflective of being the petulant fraudster of peddling your biased and bloated Pro-Burmese manufactured assertions while constantly having displayed yourself on Wikipedia as the fraudulent rule-breaker that you really are.

[103]

Why is it wrong to show the truth that the Hoa have economically hamstrung the Kinh on the economic food chain for centuries?

[104]

It palpably shows your intellectual deficits and that you also don't have a convincing argument coupled with the corresponding evidence to put forth as your venomous characterizations, horrendous tirades, and execrable diatribes are not only low-bar, but it maligns your image while reflecting badly on your reputation as a Wikipedia editor overall. ...
Your baseless tirade is a prime illustration that shows that you don't have a sound counter-argument to back up your unconvincing accusations against me, which is indicative of nothing than a seething bitterness when it comes to the fact that the Kinh Vietnamese are not as economically prosperous as their Hoa counterparts. In which you are taking out that resentment by expressed through your emotional-laden diatribes patently rooted in your own insecurities, grievances, and acrimony. ... The Hoa community is under no obligation to accommodate your grievances and insecurity, nor should they feel any pity for you, due to the lack of economic success on part of their Kinh Vietnamese counterparts. ...
It's no wonder that you're a first-class joke posing as a legitimate Wikipedia editor when your only and biggest retorting rebuttal is just raw emotion-laden ad-hominems.

[105]

Oh gosh, woe is me, I'm ranting about my edits again because they must have hurt the fragile feelings when the uncomfortable facts eventually say otherwise and run contrary to a particular worldview. Well, excuse me, it's called the stating the facts and reality as they are per the sources that I used. If the factual reality on the ground as per the sources stated in the article isn't to your liking, then I guess you can shove your emotional-laden accusations, expectations, and myopically idealistic wishful thinking where it doesn't shine. ...
And it's also quite the bold reply coming from you, being the unestablished anonymous IP editor that you are. I'm sorry to hear that on-the-job training on Wikipedia had to be so tough for you even though I expected that you'd reply to my "rant" on an emotionally-charged whim. Why do I say that? It's because intellectually decimating you by tearing apart your puny, inadequately substantiated, and fragile rebuttal of no substance that is expressed in such poorly written and infantile manner while playing you out as the idealistic amateur that you are on Wikipedia would be a decent warm-up for me before I resume with my usual editing activities. And you wouldn't know the difference between a "rant" and constructive feedback if you took a wrong turn, even if it's on Wikipedia. And how eloquent of you to neurotically rattle your ticked off butt-hurt garbled rambling that you try to masquerade as a so-called counter-argument any different when you falsely try to accuse me of cutting, editing, and even twisting the words of others to fit a "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" worldview on top of myopic "nuances of Chinese superiority?" Based on your previous editing history and rebuttal, I see that you are acting on your misguided feelings which is evidently seen in your frangible rebuttal. This on top of your other modifications that you have made on Wikipedia are clearly shaped and motivated by your own emotionally-laden inculcations, which is not only reflective of an editor with a frail argument and a bone to pick against the modifications of others. But also signifies the editing contributions perspicuously reflective of a linguistically impaired rookie editor, given the apparent intellectual deficits that are evidently seen in your superficially-induced editing patterns (many of which have since been reverted) of the lowest common denominator. Though my edits seem openly vocal and controversially explicit regarding Overseas Chinese economic dominance but I adhere to maintaining Wikipedia standards of integrity as per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH by showing the facts and truth. ...
signifying your own intellectual laziness and weakness since you cannot counter my logical-based edits that are buttressed by reliable empiricism and robustly factual scholarly data grounded in realism and practicality. ... coincidentally which happens to be brutal and uncomfortable for the fragile likes of you to emotionally contend with, let alone emotionally process and accept. ...
Besides blindly bashing another editor without an iota of rationality, you're deploying ad-hominems common of an intellectual cyberslacker who all too often like my other Wikipedia detractors simply want to silence, punish, and suppress other editors with regards to edits that they find disagreeable or if it fit fails to fit a certain conventional narrative. ...
Well, I guess that previous statement is too "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" for you to mentally confront and digest as well, since your salty rambling amounts to nothing more than a useless emotionally-charged reactionary response rooted in your own deeply-entrenched grievances, insecurities, and resentment that is not grounded in any riveting facts and truth to back up any credible counterargument that you are propagating that holds water. And especially a poorly written one at that is based on grievance, resentment, and insecurity coming from an unestablished IP user such as the likes of you, that's pretty low-bar.

[106]

Oh boy, shocking that not action was taken or any warning served to the user (I guess no one bothered to read through the long walls of texts). But the user seems to be clearly familiar with Wikipedia policies to know that this isn't acceptable and if recent edit summaries ([107], [108], [109]) and edits are any indication it is unlikely any change of tune is going to be taking place here. The user also thought they would be somehow justified at ANI. Well here we are. Gotitbro (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• The user hasn't edited in over a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely not currently active, Bbb23, but these two links are interesting. [110][111] Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I know that the editor is on a five week wikibreak, but they have been active for five years with nearly 7,000 edits. The behavior documented above is unacceptable. I have indefinitely blocked SimeonManier for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Worst of all, in my book, was that he used the word expostulate in a way which shows he doesn't know what it means. Outrageous. EEng 23:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Dgoldman0

User WP:NOTHERE

Diff Diff User talk page Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor keeps on making edits to Talk:Zionism which stray outside of making edit requests in breach of WP:ARBECR. The editor has been warned and yet they persist. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Dgoldman0's discussions on their TP and Selfstudier's TP are classic WP:IDHT and do indicate WP:NOTHERE. They might also wish to read Weaponization of antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for severe personal attacks and ECR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I would like to know why, having stopped editing on 2024-05-10, they chose that particular article today out of 6,876,552 articles. What is source of this mysterious force that article seems to emit? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Their response has been to blame others for their behaviour. Not a good argument for them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

See their talk page, their appeal and the post above oy. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There will be more of them, but according to some of the comments happening at WP:ARCA at the moment it's a both sides problem. TarnishedPath^talk 01:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Numerous ignored warnings

Strattonsmith has collected a couple dozen warnings over the last few years, most ignored and a few met with hostility. I went on their talk page to leave a comment about their page creation, particularly the use of bare links and promotional tone, but I counted: 2 warnings about bare links, about 9 or 10 warnings about edit summaries, and several other misc warnings about repeated issues regarding sourcing, tone, and the Manual of Style. I checked their history for deleted warnings and found a few more edit summary warnings and transphobic comments after a GENDERID violation (from 2021). Since another warning would presumably be ignored, and they're still doing these things at a fairly high volume, I'm bringing the issue here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of problematic edits please. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors are not obliged to fully format citations or use edit summaries. I don't see anything obviously disruptive in their recent edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

At a certain point not using edit summaries does appear to be against policy. See WP:UNRESPONSIVE and H:FIES. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Strattonsmith: You've made 40 000 edits and nearly 99% of them do not have edit summaries – at a certain point, it becomes disruptive. Ignoring the messages about it certainly isn't helping your case. You can enable an empty edit summary reminder under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. C F A 💬 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

A very concerning comment from Boscaswell

I'm very sorry if this is not the best place to report this; I don't know how can I report such a thing, but Boscaswell made an unsubstantiated racism flavored claim that a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs. This misbehaviour was pointed out to them by DWMemories on 20 August 2024, yet they didn't retract it. I'm afraid that leaving such comments for too long may give the false impression that such comments are allowed on Wikipedia even tho they aren't.

I also believe their talk page may suggest that they're on some WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade.— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have redacted that bit of particularly unpleasant racism and revision-deleted it from the history. User:Boscaswell, you are almost certain to be blocked from editing if you pull a stunt like that one again. If any other admin wants to take further action, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Considering they're trying to pretend the racist English Defense League no longer exists, it seems this person is just here to spread bigotry. Per WP:HID, I'd say they need indeffed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, there is genuine doubt as to whether the EDL still technically exists. A number of their other edits are ... dubious, though, it has to be said. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, compared to the now-redacted comment, the view that the EDL no longer exists isn't particularly controversial. I heard it expressed by several commentators during the 2024 United Kingdom riots, including by Hope Not Hate. Our own article on the organisation refers to it as "defunct". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In my defence… the statement originates with UK Labour Party MP for Rotherham Sarah Champion, who said in 2015, "There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now." One massive and now very well known problem which existed around the abuse is that anyone drawing attention to it feared being labelled as racist.
On my user page I am merely reflecting the views of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. Boscaswell talk 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a solid defense, she didn't mention anything that concerns the background of the rapists or the race of the victims.

Should we understand that you are doubling down? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 21:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, the complaint revolves around a statement I made being unsubstantiated, but when I do substantiate it, I’m at fault? The information in the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities section of the Sarah Champion article also refers, in particular the quotations in paras 2 thereof. All that having been said, I accept that my making the statement where I made it was not a wise move. I bid you good day. Boscaswell talk 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

But your comment hasn't been substantiated for the reasons Cheesedealer explained.

Your original post also included other invented statistics to back up your flawed argument. DWMemories (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't show that "a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs", it says "There could be up to a million victims of child sexual exploitation in the UK" without any mention of the perpetrators. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

From the statistics 89% of the perpetrators will be white.[112] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's not Islam that's the problem religion: [113] Daveosaurus (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps it is, if you look at the comments on this current AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday the original article content and name where well meant, but it was immediately highjacked and the current title is still an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Boscaswell has AGAIN written a troubling comment. This time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom DWMemories (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Cban. We're an encyclopaedia; our purpose is to inform. We're not here to help these people spread the paltering that justifies their nasty little views.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose any action as Boscaswell has been here for a long time. Support sanctions against S Marshall for the personal attack and violation of the civility pillar. Fistagon my son (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Sock go bye-bye. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia rarely takes much notice of newly-created accounts whose sole 'contribution' to the project is a comment at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Conversely, if you're here long enough you get away with racism and abuse. Fistagon my son (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sock. [114] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I guessed as much. Nice catch. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• That talkpage makes pretty clear why they're here and it's not to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. The conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom is also disturbing and illuminating. They refer to efforts to cleanup this page from being a racist, conspiratorial diatribe as having "emasculated" the article and it should now be deleted as there is "no point in having something which does its utmost to minimise and belittle something which is so horrific". I cannot see how someone with this attitude and views can ever contribute constructively here. AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm wondering why/how this editor is not yet indeffed? GiantSnowman 13:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Propose community ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is clear that user is editing based on a point of view of hate, and hate is disruptive. Propose sitewide WP:CBAN. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOFASH. GiantSnowman 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support As I noted above, this is a clear-cut case of an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, is unable to work collaboratively with others, and fundamentally does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Their talkpage makes that clear. The original comment was disgusting enough, right down to the snide usage of the archaic "Moslem", but the fact the editor comically attempted to justify it by citing comments from a politician that never even referred to the background of the perpetrators demonstrates either a complete failure of comprehension (a competence concern) or was deliberately misrepresenting the original comments which is frankly a BLP concern. Their behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom is probably even more concerning than a single offensive comment. They refer to the removal of racist, conspiratorial content as the page being "emasculated" and say the whole article may as well be deleted now it lacks the racist and conspiratorial content. AusLondonder (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - A longstanding editor who has unfortunately experienced a severe regression and now spends their time on Wikipedia attempting to right great wrongs, as clearly indicated in their userpage ramblings and as demonstrated with their recent edit history. At minimum we would need a TBan from British politics and from Islam-related topics, but this is frankly an "ought to know" case therefore I support a CBan. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, in case that wasn't blatantly obvious from my post above. Nothing about Wikipedia is fair, patient, or tolerant towards the far right, thank goodness.—S Marshall T/C 15:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to quote from WP:HID: Wikipedia policy does not concern itself with people's private views. The disruption caused by hateful conduct lies in the expression, not the belief. It is that Boscaswell expresses those views disruptively and without regard for WP:NPOV. People on that part of the political spectrum can nonetheless edit appropriately (e.g., by avoiding editing in areas where the extreme point of view causes problems). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Not just for the racism, but the fact that they deliberately misrepresented a source as having made the racist claim in order to justify its presence on their userpage. They can't be trusted. Grandpallama (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Blatant racism combined with an utterly dishonest representation of a source constitute ample grounds to show someone the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support. Tried to defend this racism with invented statistics and, when warned about their comment, continued to spread hate. Wikipedia does not need these kind of unhelpful edits. DWMemories (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I know they csn be very strident, but I was not award of this unacceptalr behaviour. Clearly a cban is justified. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Bigoted editing coupled with source fraud in support of same? This as clear-cut we we can get with something like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. An open and shut matter. The user's unretracted xenophobic behavior unacceptably violates our charter's principles of equity and inclusivity, and as a community we ought to give such bigotry no sanction. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: Outright bigotry is something I just don't like. That's really all. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 21:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: the comment below really seems to be nothing more than an attempt to excuse their bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: WP:UNBLOCKABLE applies here, it does not matter how many edits one does; there is no good reason to be spreading racial vitriol on wikipedia and whatever this account was, it only destroys what is supposed to be a supportive and diverse editor community here. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, this would be a straight up indef if it was someone new. This is also straight up racism, no matter what the concerned editor says. Also see their user page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh yikes. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 05:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - clear RGW (judging from their userpage) and racist behavior. MiasmaEternal☎ 00:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I hesitate to write anything here, as it is like entering the lion's den, as can be seen from the level of vitriol and name-calling in the comments above. I am not a racist, and my contributions to Wikipedia have always been fair. 8000 edits, a contributor for getting in for 14 years, and even though I say so myself, I am a first class copy editor. The only problem is that I made two comments neither on main pages which other editors consider to be racist. As I said, I am not a racist, never have been, and I am proud of that part of me which is my Bengali heritage. Boscaswell talk 21:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any vitriol or name-calling, I'm afraid. You might not like what people have said about you, but nobody has made any personal attacks or called you names. Theknightwho (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your editing history is not significant. You made TWO damaging posts and one of them was after you had been warned. Nobody has made personal attacks against you - we are discussing racism in your writing. I’m afraid saying “I’m not a racist” isn’t an invincibility shield. DWMemories (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't like to pile in on these things, but you are missing something very important here, and the fact you are does raise a legitimate concern, either over WP:CIR or else over WP:HID. You made a statement about a million white victims that was clearly wrong, and equally clearly offensive. You were sanctioned, but you defended yourself by equating all victims of abuse in the UK with victims of those gangs. That you could think such gangs commit all such offences (and, indeed, that all are against girls) is at the very least a significant CIR concern. You have allowed the false narrative to affect your judgement. At this point, I think you need to acknowledge that and understand why that has caused so much outrage against you, and apologise. You may want to consider if you should be editing elsewhere in the encyclopaedia for a while instead. Any further doubling down will show that the issue is not competence but settled prejudice. I am leaning support. I'll wait to hear from you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support with regret. An editor with such tenure and extensive contributions absolutely should know better. Promoting hatred and deliberately misrepresenting sources to promote racism makes it difficult to trust this editor from repeating similar actions in the future. CBANs are not punitive, but I struggle to imagine what steps or actions editor can take to restore our trust. I would also suggest scanning their previous contributions for any edits that violate our policies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per my comment above. Boscaswell edited elsewhere today but did not return here. Silence may be a good strategy on this board, but in this case, the lack of acknowledgement that the misuse of the source, quoted here, was a grave error suggests an unwillingness to confront and recognise the issue. Whether it is competence or prejudice, it would clearly be disruptive to edit in this area and perhaps in any area. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTHERE, WP:HID. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Once might be a lapse of judgement. Repeatedly points to an agenda. The mendacity about the source along would warrant being blacked. King Lobclaw (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - we don't need fascists on Wikipedia. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scanning prior edits

Taking Shushugah's suggestion, I started looking at prior edits. I'm splitting this out from the CBAN discussion to avoid confusing the !voting process. Four of Boscaswell's edits were rev-del'd. I haven't looked at more than a couple of the prior edits. Many are in non-controversial topics. The one edit I looked at in a controversial topic appeared to minimize the intent of Sall Grover, who developed a women's cisgender-only service, but the edit (Special:Diff/1241788348/1241792033) was already addressed by another editor.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, the very next edit I looked at was for Douglas Murray (author), in which Boscaswell labelled the Guardian as "left-wing". Looks like we will need to review most recent edits.] — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is, quite deliberately, left wing, mind. How is that a problematic edit? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Centre-left is how we describe it. Not left wing. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this edit conflicted with a clarification I was writing: "Well technically liberal is what is deliberate [115] but it is left of centre". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I should also clarify that the New York Times and the Middle East Eye was also included in the paragraph and thus got the "left-wing" label as well. With Boscaswell's edit, the paragraph started with Left wing reviews of the book were highly negative. One last newspapaper in the paragraph is properly left-wing: The Intercept. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That adds a whole extra layer of bias. "Reviews in a left-wing paper" would be a violation of NPOV, "left-wing reviews" moves even further from any semblance of neutrality. --bonadea contributions talk 19:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess - and y'all know better than I - that it is considering an act of POV-pushing, because this is done to express bias/conflict of interest of the source. This reminds me of a long discussion taking place rn on whether stating that the Gaza Health Ministry is Hamas-run is due or violates NPOV, and I guess it's the same thing here with the Guardian as a source, no? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess I should have linked the revision to provide context, where it does seem to be an undue edit: Special:Permalink/1240495659. Read the third and fourth paragraph under "Publications". The fourth paragraph had formerly started with "Other reviews..." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Holy shit. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I waited to follow on to this topic, as I did not want to make late additions of negative information to the CBAN discussion. I felt that would be unfair to Boscaswell; not giving them the time to respond in the middle of a !vote. People who know my style also know I abhor long posts: both reading them and writing them. Well, this is a long post. My apologies.

While I urge other editors to look at Boscaswell's edits, I personally think this topic that can be closed on ANI, as a full discussion of the edit issues would flood this page and I'm not sure this is the right venue to take on this task. I will note several things: 1) the editor is skilled, and the edits require a close look to understand the implications, and 2) the problem goes back much further than some think. Looking at Boscaswell's talk page doesn't reveal much but viewing the talk page history shows lots of issues raised by editors that were deleted by Boscaswell while positive posts were retained. Boscaswell did nothing wrong in deleting those posts, as it was their right to do so, but does mean that casually looking at the talk page isn't sufficient to understand the depth of the issues.

To give one example, see Special:Diff/1238645737. This edit on Hamilton Brown did not add any information but changed the wording to make the Snopes report on the possible relationship between Brown and Kamala Harris sound more positive than it was and is a BLP issue even though Brown died long ago, due to the potential link with Harris and the use of that link by some opposed to the Harris candidacy. If people hadn't been using it negatively, there would be no way I'd see that potential link as a potential negative BLP issue (lots of descendants of slaves are also descendants of the slaves' masters), so current context matters. I've addressed that edit, I believe, with Special:Diff/1243883477.

To give a second example as to why a quick discussion won't work, just look at my attempt above to explain the problem with the "liberal" edit. My initial attempt at briefly explaining it was certainly insufficient, and it really takes looking at a large chunk of text to appreciate the issue.

In short, there are many WP:NPOV issues in the edits, and some WP:BLP issues as well. I expect the heavily-trafficked pages to self-correct, as usually happens in Wikipedia, but I do believe this prolific editor has left behind a number of these issues that people are just going to have to track down on their own. Sorry. If anyone has a better solution, please express it here!

Sincerely, a very frustrated — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's how it goes on wikipedia sometimes. Volunteer time is limited, and admin time is limited more still. I don't think anyone wants to go and scan thousands of edits to see the impact of an editor, and we have to just trust that whatever knots are left will (eventually) untie themselves.

Perhaps this CBAN is quickest and (relatively) cleanest way to deal with the issue, even with the mess left behind. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced/unexplained date changes by Coco cejero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Coco cejero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making unsourced and unexplained date changes to articles for films, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced/unexplained date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Coco cejero is still making unsourced date changes with no communication (1, 2). Waxworker (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Coco cejero is still making unsourced date changes (1, 2, 3) - I've also made a SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coco cejero regarding Carloscejero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Waxworker (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

They've finally been blocked it seems. Procyon117 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendentious editing

Editor user:Lavalizard101 has created a whole series of small articles, reverted from a redirect that are duplicating content already found in better detailed articles that they foremly redirect to. The editor is using this rationale: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units as the reason to keep the articles. Its a whole shabby mess and its disruptive and tendentious. I don't see the point of duplicating articles and then not referencing it. These are some of them.

• Black River Formation
• Knox Dolomite
• Kerbel Formation
• Pötschenkalk

scope_creepTalk 17:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said at my talk page, I did not create these articles, just reverted an undiscussed merge by Zigismon. Note that I reverted the merges a month ago after which Zigismon went to AN and was told to discuss, he hasn't edited since so their has been no other issues. Until today, when you unilaterally ignored BRD and reverted back to the redirect. Worse is the fact that Knox Dolomite and Kerbel Formation (the discussion is occurring at the merge destinations talk page Talk:Munising Group) currently have discussions on them, so you effectively ignored the discussion. Even worse is that the Munising Group discussion has a 1-2-1 consensus against the merge, with only Zigismon who proposed it supporting the merge, me and Викидим being against and Elriana being neutral and seeing both sides. As for Pötschenkalk that wasn't duplicating content, Zigismon copy pasted Pötschenkalk to Pötschenkalk Formation, then redirect to it, which I reverted. So how is enforcing brd disruptive, especially when discussion is ongoing for two of them? Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like WP:TEND, if this continues, a WP:TBAN may be in order. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Why/How is my editing WP:TEND? Scope creep ignored the fact that on two of the articles discussion is ongoing. The first one is at afd and I accept the result will probably be merge. The other two have discussions ongoing at talk pages and the fourth one is not duplicating info.Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

After attempting to restore a redirect from the permastub at Edwardsville Formation, this editor reverted me immediately. Rather than start an edit war, I took it to AfD, only to have this editor tell me "This is the standard article size and layout for geological formations. That you appear to not know this suggests that you are just going to random pages to 'curate' without appropriate knowledge." (diff) I considered this borderline uncivil (diff), and subsequent conversation showed that by no means is permastub length the "standard article size and layout." I ended up withdrawing the AfD out of deference to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units, but if the other AfDs on these permastubs stick to WP:GNG/WP:NOPAGE rather than a WikiProject essay, I may renominate it. This editor appears very quick to cast aspersions on editors doing normal new page review functions and does appear to be WP:TENDentiously insisting on a particular definition of notability for geological formations in the face of multiple editors reviewing them with a little more distance. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

subsequent conversation showed that by no means is permastub length the "standard article size and layout.

Except it did, you picked a couple of start-class articles and decided that was the standard despite the majority of geology articles being stub class. I then provided examples of stub class articles, showing that it was the standard. You claimed my argument was an WP:OSE argument however under the same logic yours would be an WP:OSE as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I gave 10 examples, not "a couple," and I offered them not as proof of my point but only to rebut your OSE argument that stub length is standard for this type of content. I was basing my rationale on P&Gs (GNG, NOPAGE), not on the state of other articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky and Turkish IPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MariaJaydHicky (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Inveterate sockpuppeter MariaJaydHicky has switched from using UK IPs to throwaway IPs from Turkey. I don't know whether she's visiting Turkey or using proxies, but the disruption has been heavy recently.

• Example 1 – Glassheart: Sock adding the R&B genre in May, followed today by Turkish IPs 212.252.143.128 and 88.241.46.25.
• Example 2 – Heartbreak on Hold: Sock adding the R&B genre in March, followed by Turkish IPs 94.54.0.176, 85.101.66.177, 24.133.88.252 and 85.106.138.134.

Active IPs

• 24.133.88.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.168.147.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.170.244.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.97.232.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.101.66.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.102.183.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.106.138.134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.106.152.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.227.76.61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.234.228.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.241.46.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.54.0.176 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 176.235.169.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 195.155.169.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 212.156.113.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 212.252.143.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Targeted pages

• Glassheart
• Heartbreak on Hold
• In the Lonely Hour
• The Truth Is (Alexandra Burke album)
• Normani
• Overcome (Alexandra Burke album)
• Break It Off
• If I Never See Your Face Again

Because of the difficulty in predicting which new IPs will appear, I recommend we put the above-listed pages into semi-protection. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I have pending changes protected all of the pages except In the Lonely Hour which doesn't have enough disruption in its page history to justify it (yet). Glassheart is protected x 2 years. The rest for 1 year each. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP keeps putting "big" tags, improperly italic-ising and capitalising

2607:FEA8:1C03:BD00:30:ACE8:E6AE:B40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made a lot of MoS-violating edits to Mufasa: The Lion King and List of The Lion King (franchise) characters, like in here, here, here, here and so on. I have to stop reverting because of WP:3RR and I'm not entirely sure is it "obvious" vandalism (though it is disruptive editing). The IP has be given four warnings but they have been ignored. Note that the IP only edits these two pages. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

IP has been blocked. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance Couch Hoax Disruptive Behavior

This issue has been taken to WP:BLP/N and has been subject to a long and drawn out debate. After a brief edit war yesterday, the controversial subject matter was removed, but a few editors have persisted on the talk page insisting that sources must be cited to prove the subject matter is controversial. @Cortador in particular has continued to persist in demanding sources be presented or the material restored despite BLP policy clearly stating that disputed content should be removed until there is affirmative consensus.

I warned Cortador in this edit, and he has continued to make the same argument without citing any policy to back up his argument. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I was notified, but I can only summarize what I said on the talk page and at BLPN: I don't think I've ever edited this article or talk page. I saw the discussion at BLPN, looked at the material in question, looked at the talk page, didn't see a clear consensus to include contentious material in a BLP, and so removed it because we need consensus to include rather than exclude. Regardless of whether it should be included here or elsewhere in some way, a hoax claiming a BLP had sex with a couch is very obviously going to be controversial and anyone arguing that it isn't should probably take a step back from editing BLPs. (To be clear, this doesn't mean I think the situation is ANI-worthy and am not arguing for any admin action). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Whilst BLP is obviously the overriding policy here, I sort of understand the point they are making. The hoax was widely covered by lots of reliable sources, and the section (before it was removed) make it very clear that it was a hoax and it was false. We have entire articles about hoaxes with BLP implications so I am unconvinced that a sentence or two here is UNDUE. Regardless, I don't think that Cortador or the others arguing for its inclusion are in any way being disruptive, so I don't think any admin action is required here. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking into this. At this point I'm not fishing for sanctions, however, perhaps an admin coming along and reiterating the policy on BLPs and that an RFC should be opened rather than continuing what appears to be an unending discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, for whatever it's worth, there is no mention of the Pizza Gate hoax on James Alefantis page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are you replying to me or @Black Kite? Because sword cuts both ways. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not the place to play games. You made some very signficant allegations about disruptive behavior which you have failed to substantiate, that is a big problem. Please substantiate your allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal for Kcmastrpc

Please see the talk page at Talk:JD Vance, but Kcmastrpc has repeatedly used the threat of AN/I to try to disrupt and discourage discussion at the talk page after finally getting their way and having the paragraph under discussion removed. This is not collegial interaction, and threatening users who are in no way being disruptive is, itself, disruptive. Instead of answering the questions posed (likely because they can't) they've chosen this instead to try and find an administrator to end this for them. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Since this discussion has been spiraling out of control for over a month now, wouldn't a formal RfC be wise to establish a consensus for inclusion/exclusion? No opinion on a boomerang proposal. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

^ Would advise discussing options before launching this, because this is a case where the wording and placement will matter quite a lot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe we could use the removed content as a starting point for wording, since those who supported inclusion in the first place seemed to be fine with, and then discuss proposals for placement. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Support boomerang, the pattern of bludgeoning and attacking... Then threatening ANI... Needs to stop. Kcmastrpc appears to be NOTHERE, they do almost nothing editing wise that could not be described as participating in the political pissing contest de jure in at best a not helpful manner... Top ten articles edited: JD Vance, Twitter Files, Chloe Cole, Lauren Boebert, Tucker Carlson, Riley Gaines, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Andy Ogles and 2024 Solingen stabbing... Top ten article talk pages edited: Talk:Chloe Cole, Talk:JD Vance, Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting, Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene, Talk:Hunter Biden, Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks, Talk:Andy Ogles, Talk:Tucker Carlson, and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [116]. Wikipedia is not a political forum, there is no reason to keep this Yahoo Comments style disruptive editor around when they don't even do any good work to balance out the negative personality traits and constant disruption. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: de jure du jour 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Haha, yes. If you had seen my high school report cards it would come as no surprise to you that I have badly bungled the French language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

lol :) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Locke Cole Suggesting WP:BOOMERANG for behavior you yourself have exhibited is a WP:BOLD move. Per @Horse Eye's Back, I brought diffs, and I'd suggest you bring diffs and not just a list of articles that I engage with. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of bludgeoning are tedious due to the sheer volume of comments... For example at Talk:JD Vance you appear to have bludgeoned at least three different discussions amounting to some 80 edits over only 17 days. Now to be fair I myself have 58 edits on the same talk page so my house has windows, but those 58 edits are over a period of more than two years not less than three weeks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc For anyone curious, please look at the diff Kcmastrpc provided and the context. Traumnovelle was casting WP:ASPERSIONS (claiming, that editors in the discussion were acting out of a political ideology/motive and not on the basis of sources or WP:PAG) without any evidence whatsoever. I rightly told Traumnovelle to provide evidence and open a discussion at WP:AN/I instead of repeatedly casting aspersions. This is significantly different than what Kcmastrpc did: I'm about to take this to AN/I if you continue to persist and I'm literally drafting the AN/I report right now, which were attempts to silence the discussion they didn't like. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not voting, but I will point out that a look at @Kcmastrpc's talk page will show that there has been other problems with this users talk page behavior in the past.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to when I had to literally invoke WP:USERTALKSTOP after @Horse Eye's Back wouldn't stop engaging me when I asked them politely to continue the discussion on the articles talk page? I would argue that most of my interactions are cordial, with disagreements coming to an amenable conclusion. I'd ask editors bring examples or diffs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't say other wise, and not declaring support for this because of that. I am talking about the other sections of your talk page, which present a picture of this being a issue which has been raised in the past, independent of this article.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be presenting history in a way which is favorable to you but not entirely factual... You chose to invoke USERTALKSTOP as a trump card after doing poorly in a discussion about your use of misleading edit summaries (you know that a discussion about user conduct can't be conducted on the article talk page, so insisting on directing a discussion about user conduct to a talk page is a kosher but sneaky way of getting out of the discussion), not because I was being disruptive on your talk page (or anywhere else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This also isn't the first time @Kcmastrpc has been accused of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions or of Wikipedia:Edit warring. See here.

Also see here: Talk:JD Vance#Introduction of PRIMARY sources by Skyerise - Acknowledgement of possible 3RR violation & accusing others of Wikipedia:Gaming the system while offering no evidence. Wozal (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise is currently blocked for 1 month after edit warring, and blocks seems to be a recurring issue for that editor. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of who was or was not banned, it's not an excuse for the behavior that I've expressed concerns about in my original comment, especially as it involves other users who are not banned. Wozal (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In the same token, I'm not sure how an instance of a single 3RR block, an accusation of aspersions (both made years ago), and a recent interaction with a user who has a record of incivility and edit warring that was recently blocked has anything to do with this particular AN/I boomerang request, especially in light of the reporting editors behavior. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And what would be your issue with the reporting editor's behavior in the linked diff? That once again seems to be vaguely casting aspersions of misconduct without ever actually drilling down and explaining yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

For interested editors, the conversation was archived to Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_3#Introduction_of_PRIMARY_sources_by_Skyerise. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Per the BLP discussion about the couch hoax it seems clear that a number of editors who aren't engaged with the Vance talk page do see this as a BLP issue. This is coming across as more like an opportunity to get rid of an editor who isn't going along with the group vs an editor who is distributive. We shouldshouldn't confuse disagreeing with distribution. Springee (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)correction Springee (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

to get rid of an editor who isn't going along with the group So far there's a not-insignificant number of editors opining here who aren't involved in either of the immediate talk page discussions that are being considered here, so I'm not sure if you're just not WP:AGF or also casting WP:ASPERSIONS. But you really should qualify these types of statements more... as to disagreeing [or] distribution, I'm assuming you're meaning disruptive for the second choice, and if so, Kcmastrpc has absolutely drifted into disruption with the AN/I threats, conversation trolling at Talk:Imane Khelif, and their use of Wikipedia as a political forum as noted by Horse Eye's Back. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The article discussion is at Talk:JD Vance#Remove the nonsense about the couch and, as noted above, the two BLPN reports are here and here. The issues discussed above (who has been most bad) are trivia because there has been pushing and shoving on both sides. What needs to be sorted out is what should happen regarding text in the article (and at Talk:Tim Walz#Inclusion of Horse S*men Controversy?). My feeling is that the normal procedure of bludgeoning and low-level edit warring should not be permitted. Instead, contentious material should be omitted until a well-advertised RfC supports inclusion. I was thinking of asking for views at WP:AN regarding that as ANI is not really suitable, but we are here now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support broad boomerang - In addition to the above instances of bludgeoning and tendentious editing on AmPol articles pointed out by others, they violated BLP at Talk:Imane Khelif with this edit by "just asking questions" re: Khelif's gender. At this point, with their propensity for engaging in American Politics and tangentially-related culture war issues, I would go as far to support an indef as WP:NOTHERE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Just to note that Kcmastrpc has upped the ante to engaging in false claims of canvassing. Support Horse Eye's Back WP:NOTHERE statement as well, there appears to be a distinct attempt to use talk pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Requesting rangeblock for 114.10.100.0/22: LTA football vandal from Indonesia

114.10.100.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin please place a rangeblock on 114.10.100.0/22? The user behind this IP range has been causing rapid, wide, significant disruption to Indonesia football articles, without any sign of it stopping or slowing down, despite many warnings and reversions from other users. Just about every single last 500 edits from this IP range has been reverted.

Also worth noting that Achmad Rachmani has mentioned that this IP editor is actually a sock of id:Wikipedia:LTA/LAMPUNG, and this IP address/range is definitely listed in that LTA report (the /16 range is blocked for three years on Indonesian Wikipedia). — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, admins can. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

it is not me. I do not edit Indonesian football articles Strattonsmith (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying you did. You likely responded to the wrong thread. (points at the next one uptopic.) Ravenswing 14:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 I've blocked the /22 for a month. Feel free to ping me if they go wider or or there are problems after that block expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell! Will do. Phew it's over. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

not here

A10slowburner (talk · contribs) May need no action yet, but this statement [[117]] given its a repsnse to beg told they can't insert OR into an article [[118]] gives me a strong feeling that at the very least they need to be kept an eye on. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I know they are a newbie, but that should be a suicide pact either. They (at the very least) need an admin to mentor them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

TheGreatWhite99 (talk · contribs) seems to be related in some way. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a pair of new accounts which appear to be here just to play around together. I have given both of them warnings that they are likely to be blocked from editing if they carry on as they have started. I think now we should wait and see. JBW (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems fair, but this [[119]] may indicate we will not have to wait long. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, as soon as I had posted my message above I went back to check the two accounts for any more editing, and I found that A10slowburner had done more infantile vandalism, so I have blocked the account. TheGreatWhite99 may or may not soon follow... watch this space. JBW (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait why though TheGreatWhite99 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your talk page explains why, three experienced users have now wanted you to behave, and follow wp:policy. We do not want to waste our time dealing with silly edits or silly comments, we are not a social club for your amusement. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Racist Redirect made by Mewuragap

Hello, while editing for the September 2024 drive for page patrolling, I came across this redirect. [120] Made by this user: [121]. @Mewuragap:

The redirect specifically says "Pajeetland" and redirects to India. For people who don't know, Pajeet is a racial slur intended against South Asians -- specifically Indians.

Requesting that action is taken on this user ASAP as they clearly are not here to contribute. Noorullah (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging this Administrator as they've interacted with this user before. @Clovermoss: Noorullah (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Would this qualify for G3? If someone inserted this slur into an article, it would likely be considered blatant vandalism. Don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply to a redirect. C F A 💬 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

G3'd and given a final warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Do they really need a final warning? I try not too be too hasty but between these two incidents I think it's clear that they're WP:NOTHERE. Just my two cents. I felt like I was being lenient the first time telling them "don't do this" and probably should have used a higher warning level than I did. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed per WP:ZT They've been here for all of two days but know how to create a racist redirect? If they want to try to explain themselves, then they can open an unblock request. As of right now this doesn't look like someone we really need here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I spot checked a stone if their other edits, and they seemed reasonably constructive, so I went with the warning. No objection to the indef, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Liz has nominated a pair of redirects for discussion involving some idiotic rounding of Nazi-related blocks in video games involving a 'nicer' and lesser-known English fascist named Oswald Mosely being rebranded as "Gamer Mosely"; Mewuragap also provided an edit for the National Indian Gaming Association which...read the acronym. They took out the "N" in 2022 though, so now that minor racist thorn is officially taken care of and now is under its current title of the Indian Gaming Association (note that I'm not actually linking to said word in the article of course). Ad Orientem's gut was correct in indeffing them. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I couldn't see any connection between a 20th century British fascist and gaming culture and was hoping that someone could clue me in. But I think it is some inside 4chan joke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh my God. Who would think that it would be okay to do that, and I'm not even gonna even show anything else, just, that is disgusting. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolf (He/Him | Talk! • Contributions) 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Mer764Wiki, if you find that content disgusting, I suggest you not frequent ANI. This noticeboard is where editors bring objectionable content to be seen. Frankly, these redirects don't rate that high on offensive content I have come across. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• I note that they have posted an unblock request. As the blocking admin, I will let someone else handle it, but as I stated on their talk page and in my comment above, they would have to explain what appears to be overtly racist vandalism. That's just not something I am inclined to cut any slack over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Vinit KG: Disruptive editor repeatedly inserting WP:OR material into various articles, these are covered under WP:CASTE sanctions and the user has been warned multiple times. As expected the user is completely unresponsive and continues with their disruptions. Looks like its time for enforcing a ban. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotitbro, you need to notify them of this discussion and it would be helpful if you provided diffs of some recent edits of the editor's conduct that you are finding problematic. They only made one edit today so I'm not sure about the urgency of this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Forgot about the notification, done. Here are some diffs (mostly the user inserting Gadaria into a whole host of articles): [122], [123], [124], [125]. I mean every edit from this single purpose account is exactly this. Gotitbro (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

IP 2.97.214.7 reported by TheWikiToby

@2.97.214.7: only began editing today on 1 September. When a bot reverted some of their first edits, they responded to the bot on their talk page by saying "You're a bot so I'll ignore you thank you." [126], where they then blanked the page. [127]

They then went on to have an absolutely wild personal attack streak for the next eleven edits. [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137]

Me and @FilmandTVFan28: warned him, FilmFan with a level 2 and me with the last level for personal attacks. After asking us to stop harassing him, [138] the IP promptly blanked the page. [139]

The IP also broke the 3 edit rule for edit warring [140] [141] [142] [143]. They absolutely know they're edit warring since they mocked someone who warned them about it and promptly blanked the page. [144] [145]

TheWikiToby (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

TheWikiToby, this IP just started editing today so I'm not sure this is an intractible problem. If the editor is edit-warring, I'd file a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, complete with diffs from the article involved. If you believe it is vandalism, it's best to go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Any editor is free to remove notices from their User talk page, that is not evidence of misconduct. I agree that the hostility is not ideal but they are complaining of harassment because of the notices which resulted in them blanking the page, I'm not sure it's blockworthy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; the IP's edit summaries are personally insulting. Examples from mainspace edits:

• [146]: you lot are the biggest idiots I’ve ever seen and I’ve encountered Adamstom.97 and you make him look smart. Lol biggest dummies around hahaha.
• [147]: now next time do your research and stop being so ignorant no wonder we all hate you cos you’re a liar
• [148]: Impressive you got one thing right for a change not saying much but still
• [149]: Not about improvement jerk change it again and I’ll happily report you did I mention you’re a jerk?
• [150]: Barry wom you’re nothing but a vandal if you wanna behave that like that do go outside and sniff some flowers quite being disrespectful to the man who’s film watching was a big basis for the 2016 remake shameful. Vandals like you make me sick

If this is what the IP is doing in their first two days on Wikipedia, I imagine it will only get worse. They need a clear message that calling people jerks, liars, idiots and dummies is not acceptable. Toughpigs (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Toughpigs, you were right, I should have looked more closely at their contribution history. My oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked for 31 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the relatively narrow range of pages edited by the IP, this is block evasion from the user behind Polywog701 (blocked on 27th August for disruptive editing, personal attacks and block evasion). Axad12 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, in all likelihood, this IP [151] threatened with a block in July, this IP [152] blocked early in August, and the IP who started this ANI thread [153] back in June. Presumably the activity extends further back in time... Axad12 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you are on to something, Axad12. Looking further into this, I came across User:2.98.153.89 and from their talk page comments and their editing interests (everything Disney, some Warner Bros and DC), they look like the same editor, too. Maybe we should be thinking about a range block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Further activity from the same user, who seems to be quite persistent:

16-18 May: User Farmer4-89 [154], blocked as a NOTHERE socking troll, who made this request for adminship [155] as their seventh edit.

4-17 July 2024 IP [156] blocked for disruptive editing.

17 July 2024: User FishyTimes196 [157], blocked as a sock [158], who opened this thread at ANI [159].

23 July 2024 IP [160] blocked as a block evading sock.

All the IP addresses here and in previous posts geolocate to Birmingham UK. Interests seem to be almost solely film related. Presumably the disruption extends further back than May, as the user won't have suddenly arrived at a request for adminship... Axad12 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that from their first edits, Farmer4-89 was complaining about editor Adamston.97. That rings a bell to me, I could have sworn that there was a case on ANI months ago of a new editor who was harrassing Adamston.97 because they were reverting unconstructive edits. This sock farm also has intense feelings about their User talk page, calling it "my page" and complaining about notices placed there as vandalism or harassment. It would nice to have an umbrella to place this mixture of registered and IP accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is another ANI report where they say that an editor who reverted them was threatening their family, with no evidence to back it up (that was User:92.15.149.196). They are not adverse to coming to project pages to complain about editors they have disputes with. They keep saying they are quitting but a week or so later, they are back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Liz, the issue with Adamstom.97 (raised by Farmer 4-89 on 10th May here [161]), probably related to edit warring that occurred directly beforehand at She-Hulk: Attorney at Law involving user Doctor Strange19 (contribution history here [162]). My assumption would be that all of the subsequent activity relates to disruptive socks set up by that user. Axad12 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The earlier ANI report that you mention (involving Adamstom.97) may have been the one involving Holydiver82 [163], blocked as NOTHERE on 21st August by user:Canterbury Tail and noted as having a strong interest in Disney films. Can the Disney link be coincidental? Axad12 (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Holydiver82 is unrelated. Holydiver's "not here" goal was to add negative things to pages related to Disney/Marvel releases that are seen as "woke": The Marvels, the director of The Marvels, and The Acolyte. Polywog/Farmer4-89/FishyTimes/whoever is a different person. Toughpigs (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that Holydiver82 had an altogether different agenda. Also there is no crossover between that account's activity and the articles that the sockmaster has been editing (where there is frequent crossover from one sock account to another). My mistake... Axad12 (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

(ec)Axad12,the more I looked into this, especially noting when unrelated IP editors deleted content from registered editors' User talk page by mistake, I came upon at least 4 or 5 other IP accounts that I won't name here because this is just becoming unmanageable. I know, from SPIs I've filed, that at a certain point, checkusers say it doesn't even matter who came first or identifying all of the possible socks, it's just dealing with new ones that pop up. Still it would be helpful to hear from a checkuser or admin who helps out at SPI about this situation or from an admin who has dealt with range-blocks, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If this isn't invading anyone's privacy, let's just call this editor Birmingham since we'll never back track far enough to find their original account. If it is, well, just remove this comment, please. It's just the one thing that is consistent about them, not IP ranges or usernames. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Revdel, please

Please revdel this edit. The user reverted it but I'd like for it to be removed from the page history as well. --bonadea contributions talk 22:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that user needs an immediate block AND a referral to WP Trust & Safety. 😳😳😳 Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted the threat, indeffed the user, and reported it to WP:Emergency on bonadea's behalf.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Bbb23:. I've had my share of threats and harassment before, but this one was worse than most. --bonadea contributions talk 07:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Continued adding of bold after multiple warnings

TRC891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been continuing to re-add bold to Big Brother Naija season 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after multiple warnings not to do so per MOS:NOBOLD. Warnings are on their talk page. I suspect they are not reading them.

removed by me. Diffs adding it back:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_Naija_season_9&diff=prev&oldid=1239815868
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_Naija_season_9&diff=next&oldid=1239906690
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_Naija_season_9&diff=1240076022&oldid=1240060377

a cleanup tag to the article made no difference.

Sciencefish (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• ANI? REALLY??? EEng 20:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the user has 0 edits to the talk page space since joining (or outside Big Brother Naija articles in general), they either seem to lack an understanding of what a talk page is or don't understand that is compulsory to communicate on it. Perhaps a block from the article space may attract the user's attention to come here/their talk page. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  They're using a mobile device to edit, so this is probably another case of Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs getting in the way. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• You (both the OP and Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk · contribs)) forgot to mention that TRC891 (talk · contribs) started a discussion about this at Talk:Big Brother Naija season 9 a few weeks ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies, I missed that. This edit [164] from the talk page does sound concerning at a glance. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That is just one of the numerous MOS violations on that table... Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is just a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU by an inexperienced editor who is unsurprisingly unaware of an obscure MoS guideline. Hardly an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem". C F A 💬 02:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, so if it's Hardly an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem"., how do I move forward on issues like this. I thought this was the place to do it. Sciencefish (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEAT at Talk:Shroud of Turin

At Talk:Shroud of Turin: too many newbies, too many IPs. I call it WP:MEAT. If I were to notify all of them, I would issue one or two dozens notifications. I will post a notification at the talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll watch the page for a while and may take action if disruption is excessive. Bear in mind that not every comment needs a response, and they certainly don't need a fast response. Presumably there is a section on talk that covers the issue. Once every 24 hours, someone can post a link to that discussion as a response to any repetitive comments. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Racist PA by Albanian atdhetar

Blatant racist behaviour in edit summary by Albanian atdhetar "at least I'm not black lol" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1243958628 2.48.63.46 (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

While the edit summaries left by User:Albanian atdhetar definitely are unacceptable, I think the IP is also doing themselves dirty here by calling the other user out as a "sock of NormalguyfromUK" without any evidence. I checked some of the accounts which the IPs claim to be User:NormalguyfromUK socks, and in fact they are not blocked from editing and are still editing to this day (User:Randomuser2412, User:PrekCali). Seriously, if there is a strong sign of sockpuppetry going on, file a WP:SPI or write down evidence on an admin noticeboard about it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There already is one with extensive evidence. 2.48.63.46 (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me then. But still, good practice is to revert the user's edits after they have been blocked, not before, in case they aren't actually a sock (which in that case the damage done to such innocent user could be extensive). — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm an inexperienced user posting on ANI, but I have encountered this user before and I believe they additionally have a pattern of tendentious editing on Albania-related articles, i.e. changing battle results to "Albanian victory" etc diff. I didn't do anything at the time because I didn't know what WP:TENDENTIOUS was. Crystalespeon (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

SPI shows no relationship. I have indeffed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yaugthao1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yaugthao1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Yaugthao1 has been consistently adding spam information to several articles, the most recent being at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tornadoes_of_2024&oldid=1244048468. 8 out of their 9 edits have been reverted because of this, and I don't know where to bring it besides here. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I revdeled the over-length edit summaries. Looks ripe for a NOTHERE block, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F and bad-faith editing

• 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2023 Nashville school shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kathy Hochul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP has requested edits to the 2023 Nashville school shooting article using questionable sources, and has misgendered the shooter.[165][166] User's pattern of conduct is to deem any engagement with them as harassment and shut down any communication.[167][168] As a result, I'm at a dead-end with this user and request additional assistance in reviewing their conduct and determining what sanctions, if any, are in order. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If needed I can provide a long list of uncivil behavior in their short time here. A bit odd that they have started two RfCs on their first day editing and are aware of BITE. They also asked two admins to not post to their TP on their first day. I backed off as I think the editor may have a problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"...as I think the editor may have a problem. This can be categorized as Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, no?

You are the other editor I mentioned above as me having needed to ask you 4 times to not post on my TP. It seems you would be very much an involved editor then and you posting here immediately after @C.Fred could potentially be policing, no?

Since you also seem to imply I am an old timer or perhaps am being disruptive just for being an IP editor, I want to clarify that I have never had an account on WP or any of its projects. There are many reasons to be, and remain, an IP editor. It seems to me that this might be a case of discrimination against IP editors.

Thank you for remaining civil.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

me having needed to ask you 4 times to not post on my TP. I posted a standard Welcome template on your TP. You made a false claim that you had previously asked me not to post to your TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

IPs change addresses all the time (which will hopefully be solved by temporary accounts). As a (former?) recent changes patroller, it is very natural for new IPs to suddenly show up with experience. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not with the behavior displayed if they managed to stay unblocked. And neither RfC was acceptable. But glad to hear a solution may be forthcoming. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is natural for people to act ferocious online. What is natural is not always the best. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly lied about other editors. Stated they had requested me not to post to their TP after I made my first post, which was a standard Welcome template. Demanded two admins not post to their TP. Demanded we not respond to their edits. The majority of edits have been attacks. This is not natural. Certainly not in a collaborative project. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that I will be accused of BITE and ASPERSIONS and all sorts of other abbreviations but I beginning to suspect we are being trolled. No new editor this knowledgeable about policy page abbreviations can be this oversensitive and have such delicate feelings, that they would call your Welcome message "harassment". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you posting this here. This can bring more clarity to the obvious ill will you have shown.

@C.Fred has been an uninvolved editor in my two recent TP posts. I have never used curse words, pejorative language nor pushed any deprecated or blocked sources. In one of these editing request (Katby Hochul) I have only used RS of the highest quality (AP, Reuters, WSJ, CNN, ABC, CBS, and others) yet @C.Fred mistakenly claims "questionable sources".

How did @C.Fred came here? He noticed on another editor/admin'a TP, that had a strong disagreement with me, that I asked for Wikipedia:USERTALKSTOP. @C.Fred then posted against me, ignoring Wikipedia:Bite and ignoring Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Of note, I had to ask this editor four (4) times to please stop interacting with me or postint on my TP. @C.Fred then proceeded to check my recent edits and posted on another TP, for an article he hasnt edited, to try and find fault in any post of mine and counter my opinion.

Moreover, when @C.Fred pointed out I had misgendered somebody by mistake, I edited my post and noted it.

This seems like a big nothingburger from somebody who is very nearly casting aspersions on every interaction with me.

I would encourage anybody interested on learning more on the above to check the TPs of both cited articles and read the posts there.

If I have violated any WP rule, please have an uninvolved administrator confirm so and tell me how so I can learn. But I don't see how my TP suggestions have been detrimental to WP in any way.

Thanks for reading.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I see two editors being very objective and polite. You are taking offense at slights that only are visible to you. Wikipedia can be a very blunt and abrasive environment that requires editors to be able to argue and still get along and be civil with editors whom they might have strong disagreements with. You are welcome to edit here but if these communications upset you on your very first day with this IP address, I'm not sure you have the stamina to last long as an editor. We advocate civility sure but, to be honest, not everyone is polite all of the time. You have to be able to deal with that atmosphere to edit here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, but with "you" including Fred as well. As a user summoned to the aforementioned RfC Ip opened, Fred's comment seemed a bit problematic. This is the first thing he has seen of this user, whom he directly accuses of acting in bad faith. I can't fault him for suspecting ill will due to the shooter's publicity, but choosing to voice these concerns publicly without, say, neutrally voicing them and seeing how Ip reacts is a pretty great misstep that deserves an informal apology. (And, again, the same applies to Ip as well.)

I would also encourage Ip to refrain from posting walls of text that seem to lawyer upon extensive lists of project-space pages. Such is a very combative tone that is the same behavior exhibited in WP:BITE and does nothing to resolve situations. All they do is weird editors out and dilute your main point. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu, I find nothing wrong with the "misgendering" comment by C.Fred. When C.Fred made that comment, the IP had already been flooding that talk page (with at least a dozen edits), and I'm sure C.Fred saw that. AGF does not apply to editors who have already demonstrated bad faith. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment and providing helpful context. WP is a very, very hard place for any non-experienced editor to navigate. For this I try to learn but there are many hoops and WPisms that prevent many from even participating.

I do not use curse words nor pejorative adjectives. I am not posting banned nor depecrated sources. But it seems that NYSun and similar sources (they're not even featured on the perennial sources lists) is a tad too much and a very, very experienced editor jumped to shoot my very polite proposal down just because. It all devolved from there and you are the first editor to actually offer help (in another TP). For that I am thankful.

I wish now that somebody would explain, in the proper TP of course, why NYSun and Townhall, to cite a few, are never to be used even if there has not been any debate/consensus on them?

I wish now that somebody would explain why @Objective3000 claims that I have problems here and that is not aspersions or deserving of an apology?

I could go on, of course. To you @Aaron Liu, apologies if this constitutes too long of a text. I'm just trying to reply to all the points.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm heading off soon so I won't read and respond to all of that. On Objective, you cast unsubstantiated claims that he has been editing your comments (improperly). Unless you provide some evidence for that, it remains an aspersion, and Objective is right to defend himself. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that it takes a certain amount of grit and experience to edit in difficult topic areas; and when doing so editors should try their best to remain civil. Wikipedia has a significant number of articles that are non-controversial and could use expansion or improvement and I would encourage new editors to create an account and start editing those to gain experience. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I blocked their /64 for a month for disruptive editing before I had seen this report. A couple months ago Drmies put them in timeout for a week, so we'll see if a month is any more effective. If anyone sees this range act up again after the block expires feel free to reach out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, it gets worser and worser--I just noticed this. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Sounds of Silence. Always liked that song. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The devicer - personal attacks

The devicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If wikipedia has a nepotistic bias towards some users and rewards them for being stubborn without showing any legitimate reason at least be honest about it. [169]

Now historyofiran user is waging an edit war because of his god complex and perhaps the shared bias with the people who cried for deletion of al tabari's estimates. [170]

You are not reading my responses "feelings of majority of the users" are irrevelant when there is a source on the hand. Ridiculous guy [171]

if you dont like it bring an alternative medieval source like al tabari cant just erase it out of childish temper and whisfull thinking... ... You are the perfect example of the reason why wikipedia is a joke among academical societies. Now report me you have power only in a web site yet you even abuse that. What a pathetic behaviour. [172]

Not to mention WP:NOTHERE like behaviour, can't even be bothered to read two simple policies [173], instead keeps edit warring [174]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

More personal attacks; "You are a coward who cant even state his obvious bias and a clown with a god complex" HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks are irrevelant to the real argument which is " you had no legitimate source to dismiss al tabari's estimates so it is unjustified to delete them " you are still being a coward by hiding behind my personal attacks which were provocated by your own abuse of power. And I know there is no real justice here so at least stating the reality about you. Clown The devicer (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont care about being banned I only care about you are dismissing the real historical sources without a source of your own. Now cry to the others and get me banned but this attitude of yours is the reason wikipedia is seen as a source not better than an old woman's gossip in a village. If you didnt brought a warning about the edit war which objectively got started by you I wouldnt really understand how much of a pathetic person you are. The devicer (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Power abuse and deleting the estimates of the actual historical sources is far worse of a crime than calling the person who commits those crimes out in a harsh way. But you are a clown with no self respect so only thing you care is banning me which I dont really care. Thank me for calling you as what you really are LoL The devicer (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The devicer, no one has to try and get you blocked, you are seeing to that outcome by your own comments and you keep digging the hole deeper. Can you participate in a civil discussion without personally attacking other editors? Because if you can't control yourself, I don't see a future for you here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And then continued to make personal attacks here in this thread in rapid succession, and openly admit they were personal attacks - you are still being a coward ... Clown ... a pathetic person you are ... you are a clown with no self respect. Yikes, someone needs a time out, in the meantime, I will give them a warning about NPA, because that kind of attitude and those attacks are unacceptable. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And now The devicer has violated WP:3RR [175] [176] [177] [178] --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been reverted a total of 7 times now by multiple editors who clearly instructed them to change their behaviour and they just keep repeating the same thing over and over in their edit summaries ([179], [180], [181]) and even when confronted on their talk page ([182]). They're not getting it at all. R Prazeres (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

historyofiran is the one who wages the edit war and also editing out the only medieval legitimate source's estimates cant be legitimize by a lobby of editors. You need alternative sources for adding another estimate near it without dismissing the actual medieval source ( al tabari) these people are not academically honest at all The devicer (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you the one edit warring tho.

Skim over that little article I put on your talk page (it could be helpful, you never know). Also have a look at WP:IDNHT. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Once the content has been reverted, several times in this case, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus to restore the disputed content. You are not doing that, you are edit-warring to your preferred version. You have made personal attacks, you are edit warring, I am now proposing you be blocked indefinitely until such time you acknowledge and address the multiple concerns raised about your disruptive editing behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears Doug Weller has already blocked. And I reverted the article back to the last stable version. Probably wouldn't hurt to keep any eye on the article though. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Admins may want to consider blocking them from talk pages too, given these post-block comments: [183], [184], [185]. R Prazeres (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Drmies has revoked talk page access. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit war at Battle of Popasna

There is an edit war at Battle of Popasna starting with this removal at 14:01, 2 September 2024 by an IP. This was reinstated here by Discospinster. Since then, it has been removed and reinstated by the two editors a further four times up to 21:23, 3 September 2024‎ (see history here). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN/3 seems the proper venue for this. Northern Moonlight 05:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Not quit meeting 3RR as far as I can tell. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

User:125AB at Natalya Naryshkina

• 125AB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Natalya Naryshkina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

125AB has edited (here, here, here, here and here) Natalya Naryshkina to remove claims that she (the mother of Peter the Great) had Tatar roots, despite the fact that this information is cited to reliable sources. A discussion has ensued at Talk:Natalya Naryshkina#Tatar roots? to discuss the matter. The user has repeatedly ignored admonitions not to restore their preferred content while the dispute is in process. The user has claimed that one source does not mention Naryshkina's Tatar roots, when it clearly does. (See the excerpt from the Massie source at the talk page.) The user has also introduced a number of "sources" for their claim including a list of genetic studies regarding the Romanov family. None of these sources exist: all were found to be false sources. 125AB argues that neutrality demands that we remove claims of Tatar roots from this article, but I would argue that neutrality demands instead that we report what reliable sources have reported. I direct administrators' attention to the entire discussion at Talk:Natalya Naryshkina#Tatar roots? to evaluate the situation, for I believe this editor is not editing in good faith. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

User talk:RayGiftedKeys legal threat

User talk:RayGiftedKeys -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Link to section Northern Moonlight 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by 331dot. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Truth account personal attack

TruthTeller144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See Special:Diff/1243915977. 'Nuff said.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And I thought he was complimenting me. Been in CT too long. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And I wanted to be the one reporting this. Truth69420 (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité, doutez de ceux qui la trouvent" -- André Gide O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing personal Truth69420, but we seem to have problems with editors who have "Truth' in their username. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

True! Truth69420 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Do any of the UAA-reporting bots look for 'truth' in the name like they do with other strings often used by disruptive users like 'yolo'? QwertyForest (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Some poor newbie just wants to edit about Yolo County, California, and they get dragged to WP:UAA by a bot. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I live in Yolo County (Davis). Should I change my name to YoloTruth69420 or is that a bit too much? Truth69420 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, now I've been reminded of my greatest failure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Two negatives make a positive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it an even–odd thing, or are there certain magic numbers? Hmm, User:DMacksTruthBotYoloAdminPENIS isn't registered.... DMacks (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You had me at all caps. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be a question for AmandaNP but I would doubt it, from what I can see flagged up by DQB, as I type this. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 19:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem in looking for ‘truth’ is that ‘yolo’ signals potential vandalism, which should show up in the first few edits, while ‘truth’ indicates someone fighting the infidels, and may do it in the correct way: making sure their side is not unfairly represented, or the incorrect way: abandoning NPOV or even, as in this case, charging in with torches and pitchforks. And the pitchforks may take a while to show up in their edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Suspected WP:LOUTSOCK at AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Helpfulpsych (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12.40.131.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.185.169.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.195.128.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 184.188.36.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I nominated the article Try Stress Management for deletion after it was repeatedly nominated for WP:G11 by several editors, and declined by the same IP address (12.40.131.195). In the deletion discussion, all keep !votes apart from that of the page creator Helpfulpsych were from very new IPs, with two of the four (174.195.128.138 and 184.188.36.11) having made no edits at all outside of the AfD, and another one (66.185.169.54) having only made two edits before. Given this behavior, as well as two of the IPs !voting at only 5 minutes of interval (diff 1 and diff 2), and another attempting to change multiple delete votes into keep under the excuse of "fixing typos and grammar" (diff), I am suspecting that these IPs might be cases of WP:LOUTSOCK to manipulate the AfD result. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Does appear to be LOUTSOCKING; I've protected the page accordingly. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Helpfulpsych per technical findings. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question regarding potential automation

Hello! I have noticed many edits within quick succession by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.30.82.169 over the past day (apparently this has been occurring for several days). It appears to be strange mass editing activity, potentially like an automated, unauthorized bot (I think bots still need to be authorized?). A decent number of the edits are also being reverted. Anyway, I asked at AIV (as well as if something like this should be fully rolled back), and was directed to pose my question here, instead. I am unsure as to whether or not there is authorization for this mass editing and/or bot activity within some train editing group, or whether things like this are just ignored in general. Anyway, cheers. Top5a (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with the edits other than being made in quick succession, Top5a? Nobody (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just reverted their latest edit as unsourced. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The ones that brought this to my attention were a bunch that were altering things such as mass altering the size of images from, for example, 275px width to 250px width, things of that nature, and done across dozens of pages within a minute or two. I didn't think that that sort of behavior was normal or allowed on enwiki (mass minor cosmetic edits without consensus, for example). Top5a (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of people and bots make mass minor edits without first seeking consensus for each individual edit. If they are constructive minor edits it is not a problem. If they are unconstructive or gaming to achieve extended-confirmed status or whatever, it is a problem. The timing of the edits appears slow enough to me to be manually editing rather than an unauthorized bot.

As for image sizes: specification in pixels is almost always the wrong thing to do. It should be relative to the reader's preferred default image size using |upright=. See MOS:UPRIGHT. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

>Lots of people and bots make mass minor edits without first seeking consensus for each individual edit

Bandwagon fallacy, is it not?

I am an infrequent editor, but this used to be enforced (I checked to see whether or not this policy has since been revised): Wikipedia:Bots#Bot policy You should update that page, then, to reflect this apparent change in bot policy.

Furthermore, as far as mass cosmetic edits are concerned, this page should also be updated, it appears: Wikipedia:Mass_editing#Cosmetic_changes

Regardless, cheers, and thank you for the response. Top5a (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address at Rings of Power

• User:2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA
• User:2A02:908:190:AF80:B8E7:D520:8BCA:5333

This user has been given substantial grace beyond the typical procedure for disruptive talk page behaviors starting with this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power&oldid=1243955046) edit yesterday at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Repeated violations of WP:NOTFORUM that were at first removed, then left and hidden. Refuses to engage with policy or contribute towards making the article better, and is instead just looking to make false accusations of users (including myself) editing on behalf of Amazon's alleged woke agenda. I will leave the specifics of what to do to the administrators' discretion. TNstingray (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

IP is nothing but a drama mongerer. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hello, these two users User:2001:999:400:EA71:21C1:8C71:9204:9572 and User:91.152.225.81 keep vandalising iraqi and kurdish topics without an account, they keep editing sources and showing off as a (baathi) like racist arabs who try to vandalise topics within that federal country, what I mean by that is they keep insisting on removing topics related to (kurdistan region) and changing it to (kurdish populated area in northern iraq) which this shows that they dont have any neutrality and try spreading racism and anti kurdish sentiment while the iraq government itself recognizes the kurds. I really appreciate if an administrator helped out because its not their first or second time, Thanks. ZagrosianSigma (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You failed to properly give notice to the users. It has been done now. However, in my hastiness, I created a talk page of an IP address without noticing the lack of a user page. It has fortunately been deleted, but I've updated your comment to include the User portion of your links. Conyo14 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I really didn’t understand what you really wrote but I really need someone to help me out they keep vandalizing topics related to Kurds and editing it just as they wish to ZagrosianSigma (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Trimetwes fan1003

Trimetwes fan1003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of personal attacks and additions of uncited information, and what seems to be a particular grudge against me for my insistence on verifiability. Several of their actions in the last few days lead me to believe a block is needed:

• Describing me as the "bane of my existence" for insisting on sources
• reverting my removal of unsourced claims
• What appears to be reverting me as a LOUTSOCK (given the geographic proximity to their declared location) here and here. The former was a repeat of the logged-in repeat; the latter was with the edit summary "BOO YOU!"

While none of these are particularly egregious on their own, they are merely the latest example of a years-long pattern in which this editor refuses to work collaboratively or provide reliable sources. All previous attempts to communicate with them about their behavior have been removed from their user talk without a productive conversation, including this occasion where they misleadingly removed part of a warning I left. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that boo you edit. And i only said that other thing due to the fact that you constantly revert all my edits just because they don't all have what you consider reliable sources. Also, i'm not the only one who feels this way about you as other editors have also expressed frustration with you consistent reverting of info, including updates to train fleets where you revert statements about fleets being retired or entering service because you don't think a youtube video is a good source, like the venture car service start, where all evidence stated that the San Joaquin cars had entered service but you refused to allow any edits stating that because you thought you needed a professional news coverage article to confirm what was already known for weeks. Also, you have also had a history of being rude to others, such as calling train videos foamer videos, which to a railfan like me is extremely derogatory and offensive. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

you constantly revert all my edits just because they don't all have what you consider reliable sources If you are adding content without reliable sources, your edits should be reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not the main problem tho. Sometimes i and others still get reverted even when we use sources because the user is so uptight about which sources are and aren't reliable. I think that user Pi should be a little more lenient on edits. Instead of reverting automatically them, he should instead improve them with more info and sources. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between reliable and unreliable sources. Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean that it's reliable. If you can't provide reliable sources for content that you add, others shouldn't have to clean up after you. And if a reliable source can't be found, you shouldn't be adding the information (even if you "know" it's factual). Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But sometimes when he reverts edits, he also ends up reverting other good edits. Like User: Amtrak Guy's edits on the Amtrak Rolling Stock article, where he made several edits, including 1 that was just adding an image of a vehicle fleet that didn't have an image yet and Pi came in and reverted all his edits including the image adition edit. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Did i mention that he threatened to have Amtrak Guy blocked on his talk page for simply adding a retired fleet table to the Coaster article. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

One more thing. If you really must have me blocked, please restrict it to 1 month at most as anymore is simply too long and restrictive. I will try to do better about edit reverting and other issues that caused this conversation to exits in the 1st place. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Trimetwes fan1003, I don't see anyone proposing to block you. Read the original post that started this discussion thread. I think all that the OP wanted was for you to stop those behaviors which could be seen as personal attacks. Can you find ways to handle your frustration better? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of reverting automatically them, he should instead improve them with more info and sources. No. WP:V states the person who adds the material has the burden to provide a citation. The reverts are well justified. Northern Moonlight 22:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor edit warring across several articles

Editor Special:Contributions/49.148.104.232 seems to be edit warring since arriving this morning, across several articles. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing, vandalism and uncivil behavior in Typhoon Yagi (2024)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

122.104.179.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been continuously and aggressively POV-pushing their way in Typhoon Yagi (2024) and resorting to vandalism and uncivil edit summaries as part of WP:IDNHT despite multiple warnings and general consensus against them. Borgenland (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Please add a notice of this discussion on the IP's talk page as required.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding. Borgenland (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive ice hockey IP is now seemingly evading their block

This IP was recently blocked three months (with a declined appeal) by @Jake Wartenberg for disruptive behavior on various ice hockey pages, including edit-warring and ownership of Montreal Canadiens-related articles. Most recently, and notably, they'd repeatedly disregarded an RM regarding the capitalization of NHL entry draft in order to force through their own preference. That's all already dealt with, however, so if you want the full background check out their repeatedly-blanked talk page as well as this whole thread.

The pressing issue, and why I've brought it to ANI, is that they now appear to be evading their block from another range - the following 2605:B100 IPs have recently attempted to make the exact same changes at many of the same pages as the initial IP and each other, with another 2605:B100 IP (inactive since the 22nd) actually having participated in an edit war on Jayden Struble while the initial IP was still active, also accusing @Sbaio of edit-warring.

• 2605:B100:B29:6589:B474:9649:546A:13B3
• 2605:B100:B25:10CC:998D:5455:F46B:592
• 2605:B100:B45:34F9:74D5:6795:71E8:E54F
• 2605:B100:B45:34F9:A1D4:26D6:E0F2:C74C
• 2605:B100:B25:10CC:AD35:10DE:233E:E612
• 2605:B100:B45:6054:7110:2514:11C5:752A

I'm not too well-educated in technical terms w/ blocks/bans, but would this be time for a range-block and/or a longer block on the original IP? Or should I take this to SPI? The Kip ^(contribs) 09:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've placed a rangeblock covering these IP addresses. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack by Sammy D III

• Sammy D III

This diff:

I believe that the huge amount of discussion over such a minor detail is a waste of the efforts by many editors who could easily be more useful elsewhere. That a single editor thinks that they are so important that they can squander resources like this for their own personal opinion on such a tiny thing borders on bad faith (and "borders" is a weasel-word). A person who I once considered the second smartest person I had met here is now so narrowly focused... Shame they can't step back a touch.

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a personal attack?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

An allegation of bad faith editing made on an article TP (borders on bad faith (and "borders" is a weasel-word)) is a personal attack (WP:NPA#WHATIS), not to mention the general tone of ad hominem, neither of which productively address the question of the RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds pretty diplomatic to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Who exactly are they "attacking"? And, just as important, what action are you seeking? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Who they are attacking shouldn't matter. An RM discussion is not the place to make such an allegation. As to a remedy, there is precedent for a TBAN for making such allegations - no matter how sugar coated. However, the purpose of a sanction is to prevent disruption. An admonition and striking the comment would probably serve sufficiently. It might also serve to caution others to argue the question and not personalities (ie comment on content, not on the contributor) - which ultimately leads to wider disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This is just an observation, not an opinion on what should happen. But in my experience on ANI, unless the edit is egregious (see examples on this noticeboard), an editor is usually not sanctioned for one edit, especially an editor who has been editing for 11 years. They might receive a warning but that's about it. I think admins who patrol ANI like to see a pattern of misconduct before they are willing to impose a sanction. Of course, I could be wrong but that's what I've seen in my years here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Liz, there is a pattern of such conduct by various editors in RM discussions involving capitalisation. There is a CTOP for WP:AT and MOS discussions but unfortunately, this does not extend to RM discussions where, in my observation, poor editor conduct is most observed. We can have robust discussions without needing to resort to such behaviour. Perhaps the CTOP should extend to RMs. I don't disagree with a warning in this instance but I do think that admins should take some action and show some interest in preventing incivility and PAs in an area where this is common. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of this situation but it sounds like it is a bigger problem than this one comment by this editor. It sounds like there have been ongoing problems in these discussions and I'm not sure whether ANI is the best place to find a solution for these incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Let's save some time. I have no problem with this being a personal attack. (I do take extreme offense at "ad hominem"). I wish I hadn't said "borders on bad...weasel-word)", I wish I had just said "rude". Otherwise, I'm comfortable. Any action you take, other than deleting the comment (which I can't do), will just be punishment. I'm going to hit it for the night, later. Sammy D III (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Per the article ad hominem: Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Cinderella157, if you're going to cast obvious aspersions at me too, then you're required to notify me per ANI rules.

Now I'm pretty thick-skinned on such things, but if you're going to summon the Civility Police then I also see this comment Blame Andy Dingley for fighting a simple maintenance process per guidelines.[186] as very much a personal attack. This is emphatically not a 'simple maintenance process'. It's a change, contra sources, and that is not a maintenance task. Nor is it required by any guidelines to do so. The RM in particular was raised by Dicklyon to repeat an undiscussed bulk move they did previously after they twice refused to discuss it, it was rolled back through RM/TR (and reverting back undiscussed moves is a simple maintenance process, per policy) and now they're trying to push it through again. An RM to ignore RS in favour of MOS (because the RS are getting WP's style guide wrong) and to go with 'ghits beat RS' instead will gain enough votes to push it through because it attracts the same voting editors each time, but it's still against our policies and good practice for an encyclopedia based on WP:SECONDARY sourcing.

I'm a newbie at RM, Dicklyon is an expert. Which they took pains to point out when refusing to discuss this move for the second time. And yet they also manage to ride roughshod over the RM/TR listing policy in a way that conveniently gets them actioned first, without time for any objections (This sheer coincidence must have been a great surprise to all parties). And when I raised this with them afterwards: Talk:M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle#Recent move for the first time ever they didn't threaten me with ANI or to have me blocked for being 'disruptive'. "Oops", as they put it.

Andy, "Refusing to discuss the move for the second time" is a strangely backward accusation, considering these two sections User talk:Dicklyon#M40 Gun Motor Carriage and Talk:M40 Gun Motor Carriage#Undiscussed page move that you started on July 24, that I tried to discuss in, but you didn't follow up. And considering all my discussion in the subsequent sections of that article talk page, including coaching you on your options if you still objected to the moves after seeing the evidence I laid out there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• When patronising other editors , please don't do so by embedding your reply in the middle of their post. See WP:TALK. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not 'disruptive' to follow our core policies re secondary sourcing. Even when that grates with the MOS. And WP:BLUDGEON is also a problem, when that is expressed through pearl-clutching and running to ANI crying 'Oh, the Incivility!' whenever someone disagrees with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Obvious aspersions at you too? If I was reporting you, I would have named and notified you. I will say that the tone (civility) of the discussion at the RM has degenerated since the personal attack by Sammy D III and as a direct consequence of that post. I would also say that it is not reasonably acceptable by WP standards. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not interested in digging into the background of all this, but the single example posted by OP does not seem to me to be a personal attack. Personal attacks =/= someone saying something you dislike. And even if I could be convinced it were a PA, it is so mild and unactionable as to make this filing a waste of time. Grandpallama (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't really get the point of Sammy D III's attack on my character, or why he added that he used to think I was smart. The worse problem is Andy Dingley's remarks, above and elsewhere. Besides declining to follow up at the first couple of conversations he started about these titles, he persists in claiming that I'm working against sources, in spite of the fact that my whole case is based on sources, and the support garnered from others is based on my presenting a good source-based case. That's why I opined to Sammy that the waste of a lot of editors' time had Andy to blame. Andy, I regret saying that. I apologize. Any such personalization detracts from the question, and I shouldn't have gone there. I should have kept the focus on just what you wrote. Anyway, nothing good comes of editors complaining about each other's minor nastinesses at ANI, so let's close this and get back to the actual RM question. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou for the apology. Well, by 'apology' I suppose that's what you think it is. But actually you just came to ANI, blamed me for everything you could think of, and then finished up with 'Oh, but I regret posting all that' despite the fact you've just turned up at ANI specifically to repost it. You stretch AGF impossibly thin by your actions throughout this.

And now, in the midst of yet another of your endless and contested efforts to erase all capitalisation you wonder what the best little bit of editing is that you might do next? Obviously [187] to move yet another similar article from Rover Light Armoured Car ! Undiscussed or unannounced, of course.

This makes it simply impossible to credit AGF any further for you. You don't give a damn about the views of any other editor. You care as little for that as you do for WP:SECONDARY. You have already decided what the answer is, you're going to act on it regardless, and if anyone questions you, you'll refer them to the unassailable policy on the subject (that you wrote). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to relitigate seventeen move consensus over the course of five years. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

So tell Cinderella that, they're the one posting here.

Also by 'consensus' for a list you mean, 'just the one's that went the way they hoped, not the others'. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

English? editor obsessive editing in Aztlán's Etymology section

Dan Harkless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting an explanation about "Aztlán" word origin by bare reasons like "thank you but I still can't understand it", "is unintelligible for me", just the explanation is an hispanicization of a Nahuatl word and other words from Spanish that are fonetically similar but Dan Harkless are adding mistaken tags to the paragraph. I also request evaluate restrictions about similar topics. Thanks for the actions. Difuarti (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Dan Harkless added the tags[188] because the changes you made to the Etymology section[189] are somewhat confusing. Harkless isn't trying to revert the change, only highlighting that as written it's difficult to understand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Difuarti: As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to resolve the dispute on either the article's talk page or Dan Harkless's user talk page. You are supposed to do that before coming to ANI. I have left a comment at Talk:Aztlán. We can continue the discussion there. --Un assiolo (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, problem persist and this user above united to Dan Harkless side just for write same kind of bare reasons like "The sentence clearly contains a number of grammatical errors that make it difficult to interpret, so Dan Harkless has a legitimate complaint." or "Is that correct? Note that there remains a contradiction: the first part says Astatlan is not a Nahuatl word" demonstrating null problem understanding due their example in his last sentence is this: "Although the morphological form Astatlan is not possible in Nahuatl, it is possible that the Nahuatl word was borrowed in a case of Hispanicization due to it being very similar to the Spanish words hasta, "until" or "up to", and tan, "so" or "as". The Nahuatl word Astatlan may have been converted to the the Hispanicized word Aztlán during the process of writing Crónica Mexicáyotl, which was monitored by Spanish colonial authorities." (none part saying "isn't a Nahuatl word"). Thanks for the actions. --Difuarti (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone hat this, please. This is not a matter for ANI. All discussion should be at the article's talk page. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kuči (tribe)

2405:6E00:2651:D3ED:515B:BF08:CB62:7B01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding large volumes of copyrighted material and disrupting the talk page. —Alalch E. 13:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Revision deleted, IP blocked and talk page semi. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. —Alalch E. 16:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Need administrator help with a messed-up walk-out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I was Elemimele until I got caught up in the big fiasco over Tim Hunt. It was all a mess: I got over-emotional about the animosity of the argument and stormed out in a huff, retiring and using the enforced wikibreak to sever all relations on the way out, and I also almost immediately received an e-mail saying I'd been banned, so the feeling was obviously mutual at the time. I rather miss a part of my previous Wikipedia career: doing harmless translations from the German Wikipedia, and trying to fill in gaps in minor articles on old organ builders. I'm therefore asking (1) whether it would be possible to come back, provided I undertake not to edit in the GENSEX area (I was accused of misogyny), on BLP's, or in controversial noticeboards (i.e I'll avoid AfD, ANI etc.; i.e. I undertake to stick to nothing more contentious than asking technical questions at the Tea House when I don't know how to do something)? And (2) if I'm allowed back, could someone delete my script page or edit the lock-out so it's physically possible? With many thanks, [REDACTED - Oshwah] (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC) (formerly Elemimele; I still know my password).

Hi Elemimele, I don't see anything that you are banned, or blocked, currently. I'm not sure who emailed you to tell you you were banned, but your account as I see it is not blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Elemimele, I too see no evidence that you are blocked or banned. You may need the help of an interface administrator to lift your self enforced wikibreak. Welcome back. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

See request at Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard#Remove a returned editor's voluntary lock-out script —Alalch E. 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the "ban" is probably referring to an article ban or topic ban of Tim Hunt. I closed an ANI about this a couple months ago for another editor. I can dig around a little bit more when I'm not on mobile. Anyway, I have deleted the wikibreak enforcer script and you should be able to log in now. Welcome back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. —Alalch E. 17:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I misremembered. The two Tim Hunt editors who were topic banned that I'm thinking of were not this editor. I was thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick. Maybe @Elemimele can elaborate a bit on what they meant when they get back online. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much all! I'm back! It was an e-mail from someone I'd never heard of, and I deleted it in a huff, so it may be a mystery that will never be solved. I wasn't particularly careful back then and emotions were high all on all sides. I will, in any case, stick to nice friendly editing of old organ builders and innocuous German translations for the immediate future, because it's a whole lot less stressful - it's the area of Wikipedia that gave me most satisfaction. I appreciate the script-removal, thanks! Elemimele (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the email was an online troll / WP:LTA trying to twist the knife. But regardless, on to happier things. Welcome back! I hope everything goes super smoothly for you from here on out :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed! And if you see anything like that again, let me or another admin know. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AGF, AI generated replies and User:Twofortnights

Twofortnights (talk · contribs · count)

Two days ago, I started a discussion about the first sentence of visa requirements articles on User talk:Twofortnights, who was the editor that introduced most of these changes. The actual content dispute in question is simple: MOS:REDUNDANCY and I find the use of “administrative” and “states” questionable and not backed up by RS.

I invited them to discuss the change and give them an amicable heads up that I wanted to make the change. Instead of just asking me to continue the discussion first, User:Twofortnights then immediately informed me that they intend to report and revert and threatened me with WP:DE and WP:VD in a 7 paragraphs warning, even though that I have not even made a single edit to the articles at this point. They accused me of not wanting to discuss on the very same page I started a discussion. They then accused me of WP:TAGBOMBING for adding a single tag.

I don’t believe I deserved this level of hostility from them. Given that the user’s userpage and their talk page literally start with an entire page of their grievances editing visa articles, it seems they generally have a problem with WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Northern Moonlight 03:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I acknowledge that I should have been more level-headed in the remaining of the original discussion. Northern Moonlight 03:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

They haven't edited since 5 hours ago so I think they should be given time to respond. But, boy, I thought I had too much content on my User talk page before I archived it this week but they have me beat. 385 discussion threads plus a looong monologue at the top of the page. Time to archive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

In the talk page discussion, the user's post [190] that you noted reads like something written by ChatGPT does indeed score "100% AI generated" at GPTzero.

More interestingly, the section of the user's response [191] to you (commencing with Your comment suggesting that my response "reads like something written by ChatGPT" is a form of casting aspersions) also scores 100% on GPTzero.

ChatGPT, with its characteristic lack of self awareness, goes on to say Instead of making baseless claims, I would encourage you to focus on addressing the content and policy-based arguments presented, as this will lead to a more productive discussion.

Wow, you couldn't make it up... Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m honestly not really sure how to feel about having spent the time to trying to communicate only to get an AI generated response in return. This feels pretty disrepectful. Northern Moonlight 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For a user to employ ChatGPT to deny that they are using ChatGPT strikes me as a very special form of bad faith editing. To then use it to lecture another user at great length on points of policy seems like a very serious abuse (and an act of extreme hypocrisy). Axad12 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, though, basing these claims of LLM use on what GOTZero says is probably shaky at best - these detectors are notoriously unreliable Single Porpoise Account (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked the user to start an RfC or a discussion on the relevant article's talk page. I've cited numerous Wikipedia policies to make it clear that my comments are based on actual guidelines, not just personal opinion. The user has also referenced several Wikipedia policies, which is commendable.

Regarding the sudden focus on my writing style, I find it curious that you claim my edit was not only AI-generated but 100% AI-written. I’d like to remind you that my replies included quotes from Wikipedia policies, as well as paraphrasing the user’s own words. While I use Grammarly, which is embedded in my browser, please let me know how is using proofreading tools an offense? If anything, it should be done by everyone. Moreover, your claim that the text is 100% AI-generated is simply implausible. Unless you are suggesting Wikipedia policies and essays were also proofread by AI? Because even if I was a bot, your supposed tests couldn't possibly return the "100%" result as the edits contained content copy-pasted from elsewhere. But just to assure you once again, I am not a bot. Generally this whole thing feels like a WP:WITCHHUNT. First, going through my 10 year old edits - that felt not just absurd but also dystopian. I actually thought the user was trolling when he came up with a bunch of diffs from ten years ago. I tried to explain the implicit consensus to no avail. But now he is also accusing me of being an AI, which I think is painfully obvious I am not. It feels like I landed in The Trial and I have to answer rubbish accusations and waste my time on nonsense.

As for the comments on the length of my talk page and my communication style, I don’t know what to say—thank you, I suppose. I'll keep that in mind. But also keep in mind that De gustibus non est disputandum and Eye of the Beholder.

In any case, this discussion is misplaced. It’s not about me or my writing style. The issue at hand is that the user has been invited multiple times to initiate an RfC or discussion on the relevant talk page, rather than going through my edits from 10 years ago. I’ve also clearly asked the user to stop continuing the conversation on my talk page. What more do you need from me? What else can I do? Is there a reason why we're discussing me rather than the actual topic? Why is this user so focused on my talk page? I don’t own these articles, and while I will continue to express my strong opinions, the appropriate place for such discussions is not my talk page. My talk page is certainly not the right forum to make decisions, especially since other editors are unaware that this matter is being discussed.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The posts that I referred to in my previous response were clearly AI generated, as was at least one other post by you in that same talk page discussion. The percentage of 100% is the likelihood that the text was AI generated (which could include text taken from elsewhere), it is not the percentage of the text which was AI generated.

It would be more productive if you were just to admit it, say you won't do it again and move on, rather than presenting this as some kind of dystopian witchhunt, which obviously it is not. Axad12 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already clarified the tool I use for proofreading my posts. I hope this ends the urge to have me repeat the same thing until you make me feel badgered. Now that we have addressed the gross violation of me proofreading my edits—an action that is a far-cry from being bot-generated content—can we please return to the core topic?

Per the guidelines for dispute resolution, we should Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. (WP:FOC). However, I continue to see an incredible amount of focus on my persona, including irrelevant details such as the tidiness of my talk page, while my actual concerns regarding the content and the absence of a requested RfC have been overlooked.

I would like to reiterate: Is there a reason why an RfC on the ledes of visa-related articles has not been initiated? Is there a reason this discussion continues to center on me rather than the content at hand? These are genuine questions, not rhetorical ones.

Because if there is no reason to avoid an RfC, I ask once again that we move forward with this process and cease with the personal focus. I intend to contribute to the RfC with my strong opinion, as is my right, and I believe that is the appropriate forum for resolving content issues.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you unaware that ANI threads are about user behavior and not content dispute? This is literally from the page you cited. Northern Moonlight 13:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@User:Twofortnights:

I have repeatedly asked the user to start a RfC or a discussion on the relevant article’s talk page.

You threatened me with WP:DE and WP:VD before the word RfC even appeared in the discussion. You accused me of WP:TAGBOMBING (and a block!) for adding a single tag with a five paragraph long warning. The reason we have an ANI discussion here is your tendency to assume bad faith.

You seem to be under the impression based on the age of the edits I cited that I went through all your edits manually just to get you. I simply checked where this phrasing in these visa articles originated by using WP:WikiBlame, because I couldn’t find a prior RfC or discussion that I can refer to. I didn’t even call your edits bad either—you are not even WP:AGF in this thread.

As for the comments on the length of my talk page and my communication style, I don’t know what to say—thank you, I suppose. I'll keep that in mind. But also keep in mind that De gustibus non est disputandum and Eye of the Beholder.

Casting aspersions before an edit even happens is not an acceptable communication style.

In any case, this discussion is misplaced. It’s not about me or my writing style.

WP:ANI is about user behavior, not content dispute.

I’ve also clearly asked the user to stop continuing the conversation on my talk page

I have not continued the conversation on your talk page. What are you complaining about?

Northern Moonlight 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Twofortnights, for the record I'm not at all satisfied by your explanation on the obviously AI generated posts. If you feel badgered then perhaps it would have been better if you hadn't done it, rather than complaining about the people who spotted it. Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the "AI/not AI/how much AI" dispute, I agree with Twofortnights on the merits of the issue. Having a very short sentence at the beginning of Visa-related pages about what Visa is is not redundant, as it provides context as to what the page is about. Side note, for many non-English language native editors and readers, the first obvious meaning for Visa is Visa Inc. (I myself discovered the alternative meaning of Visa quite late in my life). I strongly suggest starting an RFC on the issue, and frankly, I don't understand why Northern Moonlight preferred to exacerbate the dispute adding questionable citation tags for things like "Visa requirements are administrative entry restrictions" and to turn to ANI instead of seeking consensus through talk page discussions or a RfC as they were suggested to do. They don't have to convince Twofortnights who could well be in the minority here, but the whole community. Cavarrone 13:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t start an ANI thread to resolve a content dispute. If User:Twofortnights had worded it like you did, or just asked me to start a RfC, I’d be more than happy to oblige (I still am, by the way). The problem here is that they threatened to “report and revert”, threw out serious accusations like WP:DE and WP:VD—before I even make a single edit, and again of a block for adding a citation tag. Using AI is just the cherry on top. Northern Moonlight 14:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you, I said how I would feel about you undoing my edits from 10 years ago which would effectively leave the articles without ledes. In case you had some other ideas you should have spelled them out, I can't read your mind. It's my right to believe that undoing edits from 10 years ago to fall under disruptive editing. I could be wrong, but I said I would report it. That means admins would determine if it is disruptive. Are you seriously complaining here because I said I would report something that I think is wrong? It's my right to do so, just like you just reported me here so I don't get your point. And you suddenly started talking about 3RR violations while I never said I would engage in that. I would revert once and seek resolution from admins, that was my whole point. And I don't know why do you bring up the fact that I warned you before you made any edits in the first place. Should I warn you after you make them? I don't get it really.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:THREATEN: “Don’t do that or you will be blocked.” Your rev: can lead to blocks or bans. It doesn’t matter if you used ChatGPT by the way—you are still responsible for what you post. Northern Moonlight 15:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's my right to believe that undoing edits from 10 years ago to fall under disruptive editing. I could be wron

I'll be blunt and say yes, you're wrong. Just removing your edits from long ago is not inherently disruptive. Immediately going to threats to report someone for that is abrasive and over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It kind of clarifies your reaction here. If you believe that I have no right to warn you that I will seek remedy, and if you think I have no right to believe your edits are disruptive, then I understand where you are coming from. However I maintain my position that I have the right to use available recourse if I consider your edits or proposed edits to be disruptive. The due process will then decide if I'm right. But I did not threaten you. A "threat" generally involves an illegal or harmful act to coerce someone (communication of intent to inflict harm or loss on another person), while legal action is a lawful process. Informing someone about the possibility of legal action isn't a threat because it's simply a notice of exercising legal rights. Since legal action is a legitimate recourse, it doesn't fall under the category of a threat as understood in an unlawful context. The equivalent of legal action is utilizing Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. I have no intention to inflict harm on you or to cause you any loss. My only intention is to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia articles.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Read up WP:THREATEN, which is cited above. Northern Moonlight 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I send you any unhinged messages like those provided on the WP:THREATEN? No I did not. I am referring to the fact that my messages have merely detailed the potential consequences as specified by certain policies, which is entirely within my rights and proactive in the sense I did not wait for you to make a mistake, I warned you in advance. As the WP:HA clearly states, threatening another user includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm. It unambiguously states that "Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats.". I feel as though I am continuously facing accusations from you, such as me supposedly trying to assert ownership of the articles or these more novel aspersions that I am an AI generated bot. Additionally, the use of various Wikipedia policies to portray me negatively resembles WP:WL. Most importantly, we are still discussing me rather than addressing the substantive issue at hand. My earlier non-rhetorical questions about the reluctance to discuss the actual matter at the RfC remain unanswered.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I send you any unhinged messages like those provided on the WP:THREATEN?

The rev is cited above. The top of the thread also cites a rev that is the same message as the first example of WP:THREATEN.

I am an AI generated bot

No one said you are a bot. But don’t expect people to believe this isn’t generated by LLM either.

we are still discussing me

This is the third time I’m explaining this, but WP:ANI is about user behavior. It doesn’t seem you have read the messages people left you, because you keep asking questions that are already answered. Northern Moonlight 02:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As you can see above, other users have also questioned why you preferred to exacerbate the dispute with some of your edits and to turn to ANI instead of seeking consensus through talk page discussions or a RfC as you were suggested to do. Since you insist on asked and answered issues (WP:DEADHORSE in general, but also I don't think there is a policy or essay on badgering another user with outlandish accusations expecting them to then answer those as if they were legit issues so I will link to The Trial instead) but avoid answering the questions I asked I can then only repeat, not sure what else there is for me to do - Is there a reason why an RfC on the ledes of visa-related articles has not been initiated?--Twofortnights (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

other users have also questioned

This was answered literally in the first response yesterday.

Is there a reason why an RfC on the ledes of visa-related articles has not been initiated?

There is no deadline on Wikipedia (just do it yourself if you want to). Keep in mind that an RfC would not make this discussion about your behaviors go away. Northern Moonlight 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

While it is true that there is no deadline on Wikipedia, you should be aware that it could be perceived as nonconstructive and failing to engage in consensus building if you keep discussing other editors and refusing to discuss the matter which you initially started.

I feel my question hasn't been addressed. As you are the one proposing new edits and raising issues, it would be appropriate for you to initiate the RfC. The logical move is for the person proposing changes to seek broader input through formal channels. Have a look at WP:PROPOSE.

Moreover you still haven't explained what is it exactly that you want to do with those articles. As I said we can't read your mind, let alone initiate an RfC in your name. It's hard to discern what is it that you are trying to do, and you get defensive over any interpretation of your vague plans.

Anyway, given that you've raised multiple concerns without starting an RfC, I'm curious about your reasons for not doing so. Initiating an RfC would provide a structured way to gather community input on the proposed changes and help resolve any ongoing disagreements. It would also ensure that all perspectives are considered in a transparent manner.

If there are specific concerns or obstacles preventing you from doing so, it would be helpful to discuss them openly. Moving forward with an RfC seems like the most constructive way to address the points you've been raising and to reach a consensus on the proposed edits.

If you want to be convincing about the WP:GOODFAITH of your edits then I urge you to engage on this matter constructively.--Twofortnights (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

DatBot malfunctioning

I uploaded a new revision of File:Lucent Technologies logo.svg, but it seems that DatBot rescaled the *original* revision instead of my revision. What went wrong here? PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Informing the owner about the malfunction. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean that you are informing the owner or that I should do that? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BOTS, any malfunction with the bot you encounter, must inform the owner. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

User:DatBot says "Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's for emergency where a shutdown of the bot is required. Is there other similar issues across all svg? or just restricted to a couple of files? In any case, this is likely a bug which the bot operator and/or maintainers would like to know personally. – robertsky (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, this is the first time I noticed an issue with the bot. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

cc @DatGuy. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As robertsky correctly stated, the section you quoted is for an emergency measure to request a block for a completely malfunctioning bot. Individual tasks have a run page linked in each edit summary and the user page which can disable the respective task, and is the suggested way to go about it. While a spotcheck of other SVGs with multiple revisions didn't raise any issues, I have turned the task off for a day or two to try and diagnose the issue in Lucent Technologies.svg. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 06:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, your version upscale the file beyond the max 100,000 pixels for nfcc images. – robertsky (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I know, I just upload whatever format and let the bot downscale to something that is appropriate. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64

2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, behaviour continued after a 72h block on August 31st. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Consider WP:AIV for unregistered users who come fresh off a block for the same issue. Izno (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: - I've been previously asked not to report unsourced content issues to AIV, as anything that isn't obvious vandalism or spam is out of AIV's scope. Waxworker (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense from an IP

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

Keeps posting vague gibberish on random talk pages, sometimes to those of inactive editors, spamming replies to multiple sections, all about some weird obsession with "364x3". Has been happening on and off for about 18 months, but has become very frequent over the past few days/weeks. Already warned, but I doubt someone doing this would either care or understand. A long block would probably help. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"2024 has a good chance of being declared illegal soon" OK. Blocked for a year. We'll await the declaration of an "illegal year." Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

User:MakarPlays

Sock of Makar2288822 (talk · contribs) who was warned to not make disruptive Kiev to Kyiv edits on Battle of Kiev (1941) and Battle of Kiev (1943) (among other changes such as Dnieper to Dnipro) but they have decided to return to making disruptive edits despite consensus at WP:KYIV prohibiting such changes. Mellk (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? Nearly all of their edits (on both accounts) are purely disruptive and there is no indication that they will make any other edits aside from those. The only edit that was not borderline vandalism was an unsourced change to figures in 2023. Mellk (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Need a interaction ban

They need to figure out what to do or should be prohibited from following eachother ...............edit wars all over Editor Interaction Analyser Moxy🍁 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like @CommonKnowledgeCreator has been removing content for navboxes, claiming a consensus to do so, and @Randy Kryn was restoring the content on the understanding that there is no such consensus. CKC, what consensus are you referring to for removing so much material from these infoboxes? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Investigating a bit further, it appears that the "consensus" CKC is referring to is this discussion showing that some editors prefer to split presidential navboxes up. That discussion, however, has its dissenting voices, and it hasn't been formally closed. I'll note there's also an ongoing TfD discussion for these navboxes. Given that none of these discussions have resolved, there's clearly no consensus yet as to whether splitting the navboxes is something that the community supports.

As for conduct issues, I am concerned that CKC is wielding unresolved disputes to claim a consensus. CKC also appears to be bludgeoning in both the discussion and TfD cited above, responding to many posts with walls of text.

I'm also concerned by the continued reverts with the same rationales across multiple different navboxes. Both CKC and Randy should have hashed this out when Randy first raised concerns about the changes, instead of pressing forward and making a series of changes and reverts to various different templates.

Both editors might need a topic ban from navboxes if this continues. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also the fact that editors are expressly proscribed from using WikiProjects as platforms for making idiosyncratic rules among themselves and then applying them to numerous namespaces (be they articles or templates), per WP:Advice page. If they think there is a principle that should be applied to a class of articles and/or templates, they should be making a WP:PROPOSAL for a policy or change to policy, either in a central discussion space like WP:VP, or on a relevant WP:PAG talk page, and definitely not settling on such a rule exclusively through a WikiProject space. In fact, several of the ArbCom cases that created this rule famously involved disruption of infoboxes resulting from coordinated efforts at WikiProjects, so (taking your summary for granted) CKC at least is really playing with fire here if they try to enforce this rule without following the proper process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert Moxy. I don't think there are edit wars all over, I've been careful not to. The main reverts that occurred were returning long-term links to presidential navboxes after they had been removed without discussion. Lots of removals of links by CKC, the latest on reverting all of the White House and other residence links on presidential navboxes which I had placed, and apologized for not placing years ago (I did not revert any of the removals except for John Adams, explained next, and that was just once). Residences of presidents and First Ladies have always been listed and linked on their navboxes, and the White House's Executive Residence should be no different. There is a large disagreement if living in the White House occurred during the president's important historical years or were just tangential, which I find a puzzling stance. But no, even if CKC and I have had our go-arounds and extended back-and-forths which I've found quite frustrating as to imparting some basic information wnich is ignored, that shouldn't result in banning either of us from interacting. I don't think I've engaged in an edit war over this period, just a back and forth snowball fight with, hopefully, a good faith editor, who, in my opinion, shows good promise as a navbox editor (but is not as yet due to misunderstanding the difference between policy, guidelines, and essays, and what long-term inclusion of items means).

I usually have hope that things can be worked out through logical discussion. To be a bit clearer on one aspect, I think part of the problem is the lack of other editors participating in discussion, such as the one going on at the White House talk page, which would at least add to the mix and clarify the directions of the discussions but seems to be an ongoing problem in many areas of Wikipedia. CKC is at least improving these navboxes at some points, and that's important enough for me to come to his defense. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. I just now noticed on my watchlist that CKC once again removed all of the long-term presidential entries from many U.S. presidents navboxes (example). Can someone have a look at those and return them, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

To start, WP:EDITWAR states that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", while WP:NOTBUREAU states that policies "document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." In my interactions with User:Randy Kryn about the navigation templates that have the biography articles about the Presidents of the United States as their subjects, he has regularly engaged in behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:GAMING. However, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. When I first began expanding the biography templates, the templates only included an arbitrary selection of topics—which WP:NAVBOX recommends against per WP:UNDUE. Following a discussion with other editors at the Presidential Succession Act talk page in February of this year, I created separate templates with Presidencies of the United States as the subjects split from the biography templates. I opened the discussion at the WikiProject:United States Presidents talk page after a second discussion between User:Randy Kryn and myself at my talk page in July of this year about the separate templates did not lead to a resolution—which I believe I am permitted to do per WP:CANVASS and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.

As far as I can tell, in neither of the discussions with User:Randy Kryn at my talk page did he clearly identify where content policy recommended against my editing and did not present arguments based in common sense warranting the reversions per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Apologies if I've violated an ArbCom ruling that I'm unaware of, but WP:ADVICEPAGE cited above does permit large WikiProjects to collect advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to their specific subject area, and the discussion that I opened was not to develop idiosyncratic rules related to these templates, but instead over whether they should be split following the already-existing WP:NAVBOX policy. Multiple editors there did express a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them, and other editors created other presidency templates following the general format of the ones I created. Additionally, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY requires that decisions in discussions not be made by voting or popularity, and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS requires that resolutions be made "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", and the disputing editors likewise did not generally identify the letter or principles of policies or make common sense arguments following the policies for opposing the splits.

The discussion at Talk:White House, that likewise is over the letter and principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy—which requires that articles included in navigation templates not be loosely-related to the other articles included and implicitly suggests that the article inclusion criteria for navigation templates is supposed to be more restrictive than that for categories and lists. As for my comments, they would not need to be lengthy if User:Randy Kryn and others did not make broad and false characterizations of my edits and make arguments where the letter of existing policies need to be cited—the former of which I also believe to be behavior that violates WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. The TfD deletion discussions were opened and conducted following User:Randy Kryn's reversions of the biography templates back to revisions that I believe did not follow the letter or principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy, and thus were conducted under a false premise due to his behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:GAMING. Again, I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.

I have tried resolving this dispute with him in many forums, but he continually insists returning the templates to revisions that I do not believe follow the best practices recommended by WP:NAVBOX and the WP:NAV explanatory essay. He has also frequently treated me with condescension, demanded discussion following reverts to the templates without citing a policy to which he then does not respond—which has the effect of preserving a specific revision of the template—and consistently falsely characterized my editing, comments, and other behavior, and himself made edits and then characterized them in ways that I believe to be dishonest—all of which I believe violates WP:GAMING and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Like I said, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. His previous comment is a refreshing change from my other interactions with him, and I likewise do not believe that there needs to be an interaction ban. I think there does need to be resolution where he either identifies a content policy that precludes the biography and presidency template splits other than a generalized request to discuss it or just concedes that the splits should occur. Otherwise, whatever behavior got flagged is going to continue. I would add that I am not tracking his contributions with any Wikipedia feature. I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy. I also hope that on Wikipedia the truth is an overriding defense to accusations—but I won't hold my breath given how I've been treated by other editors in these types of forums in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification: WP:NAVBOX is an editing guideline, not a policy. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy. The best way to handle this would have been to pause and seek broader consensus, such as through an RfC, before continuing to make the contested changes. I think you are both acting in good faith here, but things need to slow down. There's no rush and consensus takes time to build. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• CommonKnowledgeCreator, outside of how this navbox guideline is parsed, Randy Kryn was very complimentary towards you in his statemnt here, it was hardly accusations. It would have been nice if you had shown him the same respect. You close your comments complaining about how you have been treated in the past but good faith goes both ways. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  He has been so here, and today on my talk page. I would not say that he has always been in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

So, CKC, I think you do a very decent job above of martialing your arguments to explain your perspective on the issues here and account for why you took the courses of action that you did. But I'd like to suggest to you something that is reflected in those arguments that I seriously think is worth your contemplation. A substantial portion (indeed, I'd argue the majority) of your explanations for how you approached this situation are based in exceptions to the standard rules, be they based in carve-out language inside a broader policy (as with the language you cite from WP:EDITWAR for example) or rules which act as special caveats to process (as with WP:NOTBUREAU). Essentially you are arguing that your approach has been valid under an extended IAR rationale.

Now, in principle there is nothing wrong with leaning on such standards here and there, but you should consider that each of these principles are meant to be approached with restraint, even when used in isolation. They exist as backstops to the standard agreed models on editorial conduct and process that serve to keep our rules and interactions flexible, but they are also meant to be used sparing and cautiously. When you find yourself stringing more than a half dozen of the exceptions to rules together to justify why your edit warring is not an issue, in response to community concerns, it is typically going to be a good moment to pause and consider the very strong possibility that your editorial actions are racing ahead of consensus.

Mind you, I don't have any doubt that you are acting in good faith. And to be fair, you would not be anywhere near the first person to come to ANI accusing Randy of civil POV pushing (I'm sorry Randy, I'm not trying to pile on, but this is an honest observation of a trend I have seen in discussions here concerning you over recent years). But regardless, CKC, edit warring is not the solution. If I can make a suggestion: If you find yourself running in circles in situations like this, despite multiple attempts to engage that haven't lead to useful and robust consensus, the village pump is an ideal solution. It's a valid space to dissect complex policy issues which integrate multiple PAGs and considerations, and it will, in the vast majority of cases, give you enough engagement from a significant number of community members to arrive at a working solution within a matter of a few weeks at most. That's what I would have done in this case after your initial discussions led to forking perspectives and no agreement between yourself and Randy. Food for thought anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Let me start by saying that I appreciate your comment, gave it thought, and believe it was tendered in good faith. However, I disagree with and believe I should dispute your assertion that I am following a WP:IAR rationale because I believe you have conflated the words exception, exemption, and caveat. At least as I understand the definitions of these related but distinct words from Merriam-Webster, an exception is an individual case where a rule is applicable but not applied, while an exemption is a standardized immunity from a rule that applies in every case, and a caveat is an explanation to prevent misinterpretation or a consequential detail to be considered.

As such, the language that I cited from WP:EDITWAR is an exemption rather than an exception as it is part of the rule, and while the language that I cited from WP:NOTBUREAU may be a caveat, it is not clear that it is a special one (i.e. distinguished by some unusual quality) because most policies provide explanations and consequential details to prevent misinterpretations, and thus, is not an exception to other policies either. The language of WP:5P5 and WP:IAR is about exceptions to rules, not exemptions within rules or caveats for rules. As the language I cited from WP:EDITWAR and WP:NAVBOX are parts of those policies and guidelines, the language reflects an already-existing community consensus about those topics per WP:NOTBUREAU.

In other words, I am not stringing together exceptions to ignore policies or race ahead of community consensus, but instead am following WP:EDITWAR and the already-existing community consensus in WP:NAVBOX, and I believe that your assertions that I am not is false. As for your recommendation about the Village Pump, I've used it before to propose a more structured means of resolving content policy disputes and encountered the same kind of reflexive opposition that I typically encounter on talk pages. Given my experience, I don't know that it is a worthwhile use of time if I find myself in the same kind of situation again unless norms change to discourage reflexive opposition and arbitrary reverts, because otherwise even proposing a change to an article, template, policy, guideline, procedure, or organ within Wikipedia or new ones altogether will never progress. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but that's just the nature of the process here. You can't expect to win every argument, and you simply are just not permitted to wage an ongoing edit war with another party across numerous articles/namespaces until you feel the rest of the community has caught up with what you feel to be your advanced position with regard to the rest of us. That's not how this works. When WP:EDITWAR refers to exceptions for the purpose of enforcing key policies, it is talking about issues like unambiguous vandalism, severe and dangerous BLP issues, blatant personal attacks, and other serious circumstances requiring presumptive abrogation of the usual consensus building process. Those are very different animals from "I think this guy is really, really wrong about this navbox inclusion criteria." On that point alone, you are very much bending the intended purpose of policy well past it's breaking point.

And I really don't think your other arguments fair any better, though I'm simply not going get into a recursive series of increasingly minute semantic arguments in an effort to convince you. My friend, I suggested you were out on a rhetorical limb with this argument of yours that you are not subject to EW standards, because of a very wordy and convoluted stacking of policy language, and your response was to give one of the most pedantic and attenuated exercises in Wikilawyering (and I don't use that term often or lightly) that I have ever seen--complete with literal "Miriam's dictionary defines X as..."-style arguments.

And I'm going to ask you to believe me when I tell you with absolute candor that I only made my previous post in this discussion for the sole purpose of giving you an alternative path to the sanction that has been proposed, or a worse one: both very real possibilities if you continue down an IDHT path regarding the edit warring. As that was and is my only purpose, I'm not going to waste your time or mine dissecting every word of the dozen policies you have thrown up in your defense. Suffice it to say, I am not convinced by your arguments for why you were/are obviated from following normal rules regarding edit warring in these circumstances.

More to the point, I don't think the community is going to be won over by them. And I'm very confident that if you continue to pursue them rather than just saying "Ok, I see; I need to try something else that involves further discussion rather than edit warring", sooner or later (and probably sooner) you're going to be looking at a sanction. We all get frustrated with process sometimes, and despair of discussion outcomes that we can't fathom. But we still have to abide by the consensus and dispute resolution processes. That's the last of my thoughts here. I do wish you luck, whether you decide my advice is worth heeding or not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be more concise than the ever articulate and diplomatic Snow Rise. At a certain point, who is correct in their interpretation of WP:NAVBOX is less important than who is being disruptive on the project. Snow Rise is trying to counsel you to rethink your approach so you don't push to the limits of the community's patience and sanctions become a real possibility. Some editors are so insistence in their belief that they are right about some aspect of editing that they don't see the big picture, that the community is tired of the entire dispute and if the editors can't reconcile, the community will step in and end it in a way you may not like. I'd take her advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise and Liz: All I will say in response is the following:

1. I find the tone of User:Snow Rise's last comment to be glib rather than diplomatic per WP:UNCIVIL;
2. As other editors have told me in a tone I also found uncivil, essays are not policies or guidelines and have no official status under WP:P&G (see WP:ESSAY), while WP:WL WP:LAWYERING and WP:TEXTWALL are not even explanatory essays under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL and thus do not have wide acceptance within the community as informational pages–and probably because WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON requires that consensus be based in policy rather than popularity or exclusively on the common sense of editors, but also because if you choose to edit Wikipedia, you are supposed to be doing so on a volunteer and non-contractual basis per WP:COI and presumably do have the time to respond to lengthy comments (and especially if you participate in talk page discussions unlike the overwhelming majority of editors);
3. You could have more concisely pointed out that enforcing WP:NPOV pursuant to WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted from WP:EDITWAR if you took the time to review the policy and explicitly cite its language–which if I had been told initially, I would not have taken the time to write a lengthy response to any of the comments made because I would have known this before making this comment and do believe in following the letter and principles of policies;
4. Arbitrary reverts (i.e. reverting without providing an edit summary and especially without citing a content policy or guideline) probably do drive potential editors away per WP:REVEXP, and WP:ROWN, is presumably why WP:EDITCON and WP:UNRESPONSIVE strongly recommend including edit summaries, and why you shouldn't be dismissive of this concern I raised because it is probably why the Wikipedia community isn't larger; and
5. User:Randy Kryn has left a comment on my talk page for the purpose of reconciliation and future collaboration, which I intend to reciprocate with an affirmative response. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You really found my comments to be uncivil? Because I felt I was making a pretty calculated effort to approach you in a relatively soft and friendly tone while also being clear enough to turn you around on the issue before your tenacity lead to a formal conclusion that you were being WP:IDHT about the edit warring. And even now, reviewing my post, I'm not seeing where I said anything that should be reasonably construed as particularly glib. On the contrary, I'm not sure what else I could have said to come off as more sincere about the issues or the importance of dropping the stick.

As to "You could have more concisely pointed out that enforcing WP:NPOV pursuant to WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted from WP:EDITWAR if you took the time to review the policy and explicitly cite its language–which if I had been told initially, I would not have taken the time to write a lengthy response to any of the comments made because I would have known this before making this comment and do believe in following the letter and principles of policies", I'm not required to exhaustively identify every single policy that provides a reason for you to not to edit war in these circumstances, in order to be sure I hit the one which you would find most compelling. Especially insofar as that would require speculating on which sections of which policies you are and are not familiar with. You're not a completely brand new editor, and even if you were, that would still be a pretty massive shifting of the burden to make me responsible for the gaps in your knowledge.

If you don't have full familiarity with the relevant guidelines yet, I would just advise embracing the precautionary principle wherever EW may apply, even if you think you may have the benefit of an exception. As to the immediate dispute, it's good to hear that you and Randy are hashing the issues out now, which obviously is the best case scenario here. I wish you two luck arriving at a solution you can both be content with. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not required to exhaustively identify every single policy that provides a reason for you to not to edit war in these circumstances, in order to be sure I hit the one which you would find most compelling. Especially insofar as that would require speculating on which sections of which policies you are and are not familiar with. You're not a completely brand new editor, and even if you were, that would still be a pretty massive shifting of the burden to make me responsible for the gaps in your knowledge. If you don't have full familiarity with the relevant guidelines yet, I would just advise embracing the precautionary principle wherever EW may apply, even if you think you may have the benefit of an exception. See my previous comments about the various sections from WP:CON (WP:EDITCON, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON) and WP:NOT (WP:NOTBUREAU; WP:NOTDEMOCRACY): Achieving and determining consensus requires policies be cited as justifications in discussions, so no, editors are required to identify policies and their language and even if an editor has been here a long time since policy language and their its interpretation changes over time per WP:5P5.

WP:IDHT discusses points made by editors broadly and does not distinguish between citations of policies from arguments where common sense is invoked, but considering the language of the various sections I've cited from WP:CON and WP:NOT, it is unclear why citing policies that reflect an already-existing community consensus would fall within the scope of WP:IDHT, and because if you don't have time to explain or read the reasons of why an edit is permissible or not under a policy or guideline, then you are not following existing guidelines policy for achieving consensus. WP:EDITWAR states "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." What this language suggests is that enforcement of WP:NPOV per WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted under WP:EDITWAR. The simpler thing for you to have done would have been to simply cite this. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the solution is to eliminate navboxes from Wikipedia, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think whether or not navboxes should be eliminated from Wikipedia is off-topic to this discussion per WP:TPG. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright to mention idea here, if it helps stop possible problematic behavior. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for incidents, not for discussions over whether existing content policy, guidelines, manuals of style, or Wikipedia features should be modified or removed. It is off-topic per the rationale behind WP:TALK#TOPIC. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing from IP user User:72.80.249.241

User:72.80.249.241 has been copying birth dates from Wikipedia articles and adding them to lists of people over the last few days or so. In multiple cases, they are adding unsourced birthdates of living people into these articles, thus violating polices such as WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, as well as guidelines like WP:RS. (Example diffs [192], [193], [194], [195]). A few users, including User:Magnolia677 and User:Ponyo, have attempted to explain the obvious BLP problems the addition of many of these dates poses on their talk page, but the IP has not only refused to respond to any of them, but is continuing on with the same behavior. This needs to stop. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

With this edit at Atkinson, Maine, the birth dates were completely different from the linked article, which wouldn't have happened if the sources were checked. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

They've confused Edward Bunker with Edward Bunker (Mormon), I wonder if they are copying in dates from Google searches. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone taking a moment to consider how unsourced birthdates got into BLPs in the first place? How would that happen? Wouldn't that ordinarily be taken care of in the course of the BLPs' development? It seems plausible to me that an IP editor acting in good faith wanted to supply dates from biographical articles, developed in good faith, to the list articles. If they are making specific mistakes in that copying, they should be made aware of those, and if any of the dates are unsourced, they should be sourced and potentially corrected.

What I've seen so far is vague policy concerns placed on their talk page that wouldn't make any sense to the average new editor, and then when I take up for their good-faith productive work, I get excoriated and insulted. Instead of being out for blood on this, I suggest being more welcoming of an editor wanting to do productive edits, while pointing out their specific errors. If they are making a lot of errors, then not responding to those, then that's when it becomes a problem.

Note: This is a one-time contribution to this discussion. I imagine some will disagree with my position, and you have a right to do so, but I'm too upset about this matter to respond to the disagreements. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Copying unsourced content from one Wikipedia article to another (after being told not to) is disruptive; it undermines both the reliability of the project, and the hard work of conscientious editors. That's why we have a policy against it. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I basically agree with everything User:Magnolia677, but I do want to add -- User:StefenTower, it disappoints me to see an editor who has been here as long as you have be so nonchalant about repeated violations of WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. I don't doubt that the IP editor has good intentions, but while these edits may be good faith, they're disruptive, and I don't see anyone personally attacking or casting aspersions upon you or the editor, just editors explaining the BLP problems at play here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

StefenTower: I'm not going to ping you since you said you are too upset to respond but it's important for you to know if you're going to continue to edit content relating to living persons. Our sourcing of birthdates can be terrible even for fairly high profile people. For people with a lower profile you can forget about it. The assumption that stuff is going to be taken care of during BLP article development is highly flawed, in fact even when issues are raised at BLPN, if it's slightly complicated and doesn't get anyone's interest it can easily fall through the cracks. You just have to hang out a while at BLPN to know how bad things can be. Barring perhaps FAs and maybe GAs (and frankly even with them) you should never assume our articles are good and properly sourced. BLP is not some sort of magic policy that ensures every article is compliant. It needs editors to understand it, obey it, and enforce it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

And they continue to do it repeatedly as we speak. The've been completely unresponsive. I agree with a block to stop the activity until this issue is resolved. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked by Ad Orientem. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

User keeps adding copyright violations after being warned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Despite being told to discuss the issue before re-adding copyrighted content, Memevietnam98 has continued to manually revert copyright violations and continues to remove copyright templates to Safety Act (California law) (and also despite hidden edit comments). This behavior was also exhibited, and witnessed by AlphaBetaGamma. As of the current revision as of this ANI report, this is the copyvio report, and the site being copied is [196].

• Also, I'd like to preemptively apologize to Memevietnam98 for pinging you too many times and requesting page protection, but I was trying avoid edit warring with you to stop you re-adding copyrighted content. It's a shame it had to end up this way.

• I'm going to rollback one more time and adjust the copyvio range. The template was re-added because I failed to notify Nthep that the content wasn't entirely removed due to Memevietnam98s edit warring.⸺(Random)staplers 17:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • All users have been notified.⸺(Random)staplers 17:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This behavior merits a block. IMO, they should receive it now; they can explain themselves in an unblock request. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait, did I screw up and revert the wrong thing? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @AlphaBetaGamma Nah, you just failed to notice the manual reverts during the copyvio edit warring.⸺(Random)staplers 23:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @AlphaBetaGamma Oh I see. Strike ⸺(Random)staplers 23:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this editor is blocked now. And wow, looks like there's some copyright violations on Commons: [197] ⸺(Random)staplers 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the user's uploads have been deleted; they still appear in the user's upload log for the record. A few less clear cases remain, some of which might just need proper attribution. Memevietnam98's understanding of copyright or Wikipedia's policies about it appears to be insufficient for continuing to contribute for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and fix those.⸺(Random)staplers 02:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Memewarrior has now again reinserted the copyvio while ignoring this discussion. Cross-posting to WP:AN3RR with the hopes of receiving a faster response. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Abu Ali - POV-Pushing and WP:NOTHERE

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

Relevant context: The Trotskyist groups "Committee for a Workers' International" (CWI) dissolved in 2019 over a split in direction. Two new groups were formed as a result, with one choosing to "refound" itself under the old name (CWI 2019) and the other later moving to the name "International Socialist Alternative" (ISA). Both claim to be the continuation of CWI.

The user linked above demonstrates an editing pattern that suggests they are engaging in POV-pushing and general WP:NOTHERE behaviour when it comes to CWI 2019 and associated articles, overall suggesting they are an undeclared member of CWI 2019 or one of its constituent sections. It is also contextually important to note that the account was dormant for 12 years until 2020, and since then has almost exclusively edited articles related to the split in a non-neutral way.

The two main throughlines of inappropriate editing are:

• The user will make edits that favour CWI 2019 and their stances, such as repeatedly inserting claims that CWI and CWI 2019 are one and the same (while ISA's claims of being a continuation of the original CWI will not get the same treatment) or seemingly trying to use the CWI 2019 page as a means of promoting each section's website [198][199][200][201][202]

• When it comes to ISA the user will instead only introduce negative content, sourced without reliable sources but instead inappropriate self-published websites (which in one instance looks to be from the CWI 2019 itself) or citing non-linked internal documents they claim support the edits.[203][204][205][206]

In relation to this, they have also engaged in mass reversion to include large amounts of unsuitable, poor-quality information from a BLP article that was effectively written in the form of a biography arguing that individual's ideology.[207]

Overall, it's hard to see such behaviour as anything but POV-pushing and likely are only editing for off-wiki reasons and are not here to improve Wikipedia's goals. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The edits you listed do appear concerning. Have there been discussions with this editor regarding their potential POV violations? I've seen some topic-specific discussions regarding this editor's edits but nothing extensive as to their overall participation in these related topics. 23impartial (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@23impartial, when I posted my suspicions of them having a COI a couple of days ago with a warning template on their talk page their response has been:

"You should try reading WP:PA WP:AFG. And when you disagree with some content, try talking about it on the talk page, rather than edit warring."[208]

Basically instead of answering, they've just insisted that any questioning of their affiliation to CWI (which I think it quite apparent from their edits) is an example of personal attacks and a failure to assume good faith and it was immediately after that they undertook the mass restoring of inappropriate content linked above. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a straightforward case of a NOTHERE POV pusher trying to impose their faction's version of events onto Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As a stopgap solution, I have blocked them from Committee for a Workers' International (1974) and its Talk. The latter is unusual, but they've made their point and need to let others be heard. This does not preclude a larger block if needed, and Abu ali, this is not an invitation to continue raising your query on Talk pages. Please allow consensus to develop. Star Mississippi 14:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi could I also suggest it include International Socialist Alternative as well, as that’s also been a prime target of their POV-pushing activities. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

They don't appear to have edited that since July, so I'm not going to at this stage @Rambling Rambler. But Abu ali, please do not take advantage of that non block. Star Mississippi 15:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the second time in less than a month that this article has had these issues. [209] Has something recently happened to explain the sudden burst of COI activity on this topic? Grandpallama (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Difficult to say, the two groups involved seem to be very obscure.

My understanding was that the state of the various articles was more or less stable until COI user Jamesation appeared in late July and began editing in a very disruptive way. That user accused the various non-conflicted users who reverted him of being members of the rival faction and ultimately got himself blocked.

That activity prompted an AfD, which determined that two of the articles should be merged. That decision seems to have provoked further partisan editing from the user under consideration here.

So it looks more like this is fallout from someone upsetting the applecart on-wiki, rather than a reaction to events off-wiki. Axad12 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 @Grandpallama that's the case for some of what happened at CWI but it's wider than that. Basically myself and another editor have been attempting to clean up a lot of articles related to Trotskyist internationals on Wikipedia over the last few months, and during this what's become apparent is that many of these articles are almost entirely the work of maybe one or two accounts with obvious COI ties to the groups in question who are using the existence of Wikipedia articles about their groups as a sign of legitimacy.

As a result of this Wikipedia is filled with articles for the most minor, never been elected to any serious office Trotskyist groups that have word lengths to rival articles on mainstream parties where 95% of them will be sourced from either the group's own website or allegations made on the websites of other competing groups (who will most of the time be a group they split from) while the Reliable Sources necessary to justify the article's existence simply don't exist.

So when we attempt cleanup it basically causes these issues because the COI accounts will immediately start edit wars and just obstinately resist any effort to apply core policies. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think all of what you've just said is fairly common for groups that exist some distance outside of the mainstream. So, I suppose the obvious question is whether the groups you're talking about actually have any legitimate claim to notability?

Given the propensity of these kind of groups to split off into ever smaller and more irrelevant splinters for minor doctrinal reasons, we surely shouldn't be covering every "People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front" type spat. Axad12 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 that's basically what we've been doing. It's cut out the policy-breaking crap, see if there's any actual reliable reporting that would constitute enough to even have a stub article, and if so fine but otherwise (as is the case nearly every time now) it's a redirect/merge/delete depending on whether the International the section belongs/belonged to still exists.

Funnily enough CWI hasn't even been the worst of it. When we tried to clean up IMT/RCI a few weeks/months back it drew out a good half a dozen Sockpuppet/COI/SPA users who attempted all sorts of shenanigans to force an article into mainspace about the new British section Revolutionary Communist Party, such as hijacking existing articles and spamming poorly-developed drafts.

Fact is, if these groups actually had notability it'd be easy to prove and then we can have an article on it. Instead they're just what I derisively call "ten men and a shed" groups, as demonstrated by their social media usually showing "protests" where a handful of people turn up or are still listed as "active sections" on their International website when they haven't posted on their websites or social media in the last five years. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and promotional editing by suspected SPA

Hi, I'm requesting assistance regarding potential sockpuppetry and persistent promotional editing by a suspected single-purpose account (SPA) targeting articles related to Russian politics.

The user in question is Grakov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 2 of 3 his or her contributions are limited to removing sourced criticism from politic related articles Anti-Corruption Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Egor Kuroptev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), consistently reverting Egor Kuroptev to promotional version. [210]

Given their editing pattern and lack of constructive engagement, I suspect this might be a sockpuppet account operating with a conflict of interest. I would appreciate it if an administrator could investigate this user's contributions and take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unxed (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this appears to mostly be a content dispute. In their last edit summary, the editor mentioned This revert is fully under WP:BRD, I pointed to a specific problem with your contribution, "Discuss" section under WP:BRD is your duty, so they seem open to constructive engagement. Also, you did not warn the user on their talk page as you should have done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Unxed, Grakov has only made 4 edits in their time as an editor. It seems very quick to open an ANI complaint which is for chronic, intractible problems, not two edits that you disagree with. By the way, whose sockpuppet do you think they are? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Free Russia Foundation and/or ACF Intenational, or personnaly Egor Kuroptev. Unxed (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on what evidence? Ravenswing 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, you are absolutely right, starting with the talk page is a good idea, I have done that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Egor_Kuroptev#Reverting_criticism Unxed (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time of seeing a "pattern" out of two contributions. I'm also having a hard time seeing a "lack of constructive engagement" when you yourself have completely failed to engage with the editor, either on the respective talk pages of those two articles OR on their own talk page ... including, by the bye, the announcement of this thread to Grakov's talk page, something that big honking scarlet box with the bold face letters -- prominently situated at the top of this page -- enjoins you to do. (Be at ease, Chaotic Enby took care of that for you.)

That, and Grakov's right: it is your duty to be the first to open the discussion on the Kuroptev talk page. Especially with this frankly frivolous accusation of Grakov being a sockpuppet based (apparently) solely on you not liking their edits, you would be far better off beginning that engagement and seeking a consensus on the appropriate talk pages than in filing ANI threads. Ravenswing 07:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Noriandreas

Noriandreas (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for adding unsourced content to BLPs (one earlier block for disruptive editing), along with multiple warnings for the same - yet they persist. I suggest a lengthier block? GiantSnowman 09:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. WP:NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Still - as in, literally 3 minutes ago adding unsourced content to BLPs... GiantSnowman 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user. What really bothers me is the user has been editing for over four and a half years, made over 41K edits, and has never talked in that entire time. They haven't responded to warnings. They haven't responded to previous blocks. They just keep plugging along, no doubt making many constructive edits at the same time as not bothering to source a great many others. We don't have to be warm and fuzzy all the time (god knows I'm not), but we have to be able to collaborate, especially when repeatedly challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well put - and thank you. GiantSnowman 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 176.84.121.244

176.84.121.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning, hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Ban-evading IP editor

User:125.160.98.36 has been previously blocked at User:180.246.109.176 and User:125.160.98.36 for disruptive editing to pages including American studies, ethnic democracy, and Herrenvolk democracy. Now comes back and edit-wars over the same pages remaking the same edits. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:125.160.98.36 has been blocked and hasn't edited since August 23rd. Did you mean a different IP address? Because I don't see edit-warring from this account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Looking at the history of the linked pages mentioned by the OP, the latest IP being at it is 125.160.107.180. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears I got the IPs mixed up and I did mean User:125.160.107.180. My mistake; too many numbers to keep track of I guess. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Defamatory edits from Birmingham IP range

The UK IP range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:E82C:5B00:0:0:0:0/64 has been inserting defamatory stuff into the Enrique Iglesias biography. Can we put a rangeblock in place? Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The rangeblock has been set. Done here. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Hisotrian carl

Hisotrian carl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite being warned by another editor to stop, the editor has continually added/changed information that goes directly against what the source in the article states. On September 3, the user changed the percent in the Somali Republic ‎article from 50 to 20 which is not what the source said on p.27. On the same day, they changed "Much of the north's population boycotted the referendum, and just 100,000 northerners voted at all. Of these, over 60% of those were against the union under the new Act." to "Most of the north's population boycotted the referendum, and just 7,000 northerners voted at all. Of these, over 80% of those were against the union under the new Act." which again is not what the source in the article says on p.84.

Then two days later they changed the number of faculty from 43 to 41 on the St. John's University School of Law article (not supported by source). They changed "The most prominent Somali groups in the campaigns were the Geri, Marrehān, and Harti – all Dārod clans. Shihāb ad-Dīn is very vague as to their distribution and grazing areas, but describes the Harti as at the time in possession of the ancient eastern port of Mait. Of the Isāq only the Habar Magādle clan seem to have been involved and their distribution is not recorded." to "The most prominent Somali groups in the campaigns were the arap , gerhejis, habarje'lo – all iśaaq clans. Shihāb ad-Dīn is very vague as to their distribution and grazing areas, but describes the habar magaado as at the time in possession of the ancient eastern port of Mait. Of the darood only the harti clan seem to have been involved and their distribution is not recorded." on the Adal Sultanate page (not what the source says on p.223).

Then two days later after being asked to stop, they readded the same change on the Adal Sultanate page and readded the same change on the Somali Republic page. The user has never added any source supporting their alternative version of events, has not responded to their talk page, and doesn't give good enough edit summaries for their changes beyond "more information added" or "error fixed". Wowzers122 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Their edit to Adal Sultanate[211] is simple falsification, the quote can be verified through the WikiLibrary and doesn't match their changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hisotrian? EEng 20:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to mean anything; it's just a name. Any similarity to an English word is obviously purely accidental and not designed to give added weight to edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking maybe the dissimilarity to an English word might have been accidental. EEng 22:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

user:TarnishedPath

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A month ago, I came across TarnishedPath (TP) when they were very active at ANI under a post that I made. TP made several proposals to have me sanctioned... and during those ANI processes - an article, Bent's Camp Resort, was being discussed. The subject of my post at ANI had sent the Bent's Camp article to AfD.

TP went to the AfD for Bent's Camp and voted to delete; when the AfD finished "no consensus" TP redirected it without discussion and the redirect was reverted. Then TP tagged the article with a notability tag, and orphaned the article, so now it had two tags. I de-orphaned the article and then reverted the tag inviting TP to talk about why on the talk page. I also advised TP that they cannot just keep sniping the article and they need consensus - I suggested a second AfD. TP reverted the tag removal and restored the notability tag.

Anyway it does not seem that I can solve this with TP based on previous interactions. In summary, TP wanted the Bent's Camp article deleted, when it did not get deleted, TP orphaned it, redirected it, tagged it, and now edit warred the article to their preferred version. Lightburst (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

First, the conduct here occurred several months ago. Second, the "orphaning" occurred one minute after the redirect, so it doesn't appear that the intent was to orphan the article after it had been restored. Third, I don't see anything wrong with adding a notability tag after an AfD discussion is closed as no consensus. The tag says the article may not be notable, which is by definition what a no consensus close implies. I agree that redirecting an article after a no consensus close at AfD is not acceptable.

All of that said, unless TP has done anything recently, this isn't a chronic, intractable behavior problem for AN/I to deal with. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The tagging back-and-forth appears to have happened yesterday, although that's something that, in my opinion, can very well be (and was being!) discussed on the talk page, and I don't see why it had to be escalated here. Nothing intractable, although I am more concerned about Lightburst's comment of It is looking like sour grapes when you griped about the article offline, which was understood by TP as an attempt to out him. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I presume this is in regards to TP's account on Wikipedia editor harassment site Wikipediocracy that directly names them as the account owner? I'm not sure how that counts as outing. Their account there was discussed in the last ANI thread as well. Silverseren^C 01:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Voorts I think you missed some links from today and yesterday and an hour ago. The redirect happened after the AfD concluded and that was a month ago... i was away for a month but I thought it was relevant to include to show how TP is persistently targeting this article. The article has ten sources but TP is welcome to get consensus. Otherwise the tag feels punitive especially based on who is tagging. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked through the page history a bit more, and I now see that the tag warring happened yesterday (making that a bit more explicit in your statement here would have been helpful). Once TP restored the tag after you initially removed it, you should have brought it to talk instead of removing it yet again. TP then should have brought it to talk instead of restoring it for a second time. I agree that AfD should just bring this to AfD again, but I don't think the tag is unreasonable since TP might not have wanted to bring the AfD for various reasons, and the tag lets other editors know that there's still no consensus about the article's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think AFD after only a month is not entirely appropriate. I'd want to allow more time if I were to consider AFD, to allow for sources that show that the subject passes WP:NORG to emerge. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I thought "offline" might have referred to real life (which would've been more concerning) rather than simply another website, but your answer probably makes the most sense. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Not offline I meant off-wiki. So no help until this train goes all the way off the tracks. I was trying be proactive. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, why did you delete the tag with the justification that article is about a place when the lead clearly states "Bent's Camp Resort is a resort in Northern Wisconsin in Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin. The resort has 12 cabins and it is located on the south shore of Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)"? WP:NORG is clearly the notablity guideline that should be used to determine if the subject of the article is notable. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There are two comments on the talk page related to this issue, one by you and the other one by TP. It doesn't appear to me that you have made an honest effort to resolve the issue there, and you certainly didn't AGF when you "invited TP to discuss it", and opened the discussion casting aspersions about TP having sour grapes by griping about it off-wiki, which seems to be a recurring theme with you. Stay focused on the content issue, and stop making insinuations about an editor's motive in the very first sentence when you start a discussion with them. And if this "train goes all the way off the tracks", just remember you are the one who started this unnecessary ANI thread. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. I think that between you and Voorts, you have identified all the relevant and useful observations to be taken here: 1) the redirect after a no consensus result was inappropriate, but that issue is now somewhat stale, and further determinations will doubtlessly be the subject of an eminent (but not immediate) new AfD. 2) I don't think a notability tag is unreasonable in the circumstances of a no consensus AfD result. 3) To the extent that there was a reasonable dispute as to the tag, the edit warring by both parties was inappropriate, but also small potatoes in the grand scheme. 4) Escalation here feels premature. I do to some small extent understand LB's position that, given the context and history involved here, they did not feel confident that they could expect to resolve the issue without community guidance of the process. But community input could have been solicited without resorting the typically inflammatory step of an ANI filing.

Adding my own observation, I personally think that referencing the Wikiwhingers discussion does, in my opinion, flirt with outing at the very least. Nevermind that the accounts use the same name or have been linked in a previous discussion here. Making an association between an editor's on-project and off-project identities/activities is nevertheless not appropriate.

As for the rest, I see no reason why LB cannot just RfC the tag issue, if they really feel that strongly about it. Frankly, that neither party can let this go feels like the definition of poor perspective, and I wouldn't exactly disagree with anyone who felt that community time will be wasted on the discussion. But if neither side is prepared to give way, this is clearly the next step in the dispute resolution process, and should have been one of several stops before ANI. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @TarnishedPath: Are you willing to acknowledge that redirecting an article 11 minutes after the AfD closed as no consensus is absolutely inappropriate? I think that would be a good place to start. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh, you're correct that I shouldn't have redirected. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a website we try not to talk about where this drama began. ATG sent out a message about this article on WPO Another masterpiece by Lightburst... and then TP and others came to WP to try and delete the article. TP is just the one editor who refused to accept the AfD result. My purpose in coming here to ANI was to have eyes on controversy and avoid getting into an edit war. I would be happy with any result that is endorsed by on-wiki community consensus. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I came to the AFD as a consequence of the ill-advised ANI you started on ATG. I imagine a lot of people who participated in it did. You should not be so quick to make assumptions because you end up speaking mistruths. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath You should also acknowledge, if you haven't (can't read everything), that putting the notability tag after an AfD resulting in the article being kept was an incorrect action; please see the Template:Notability documentation. That tag is to alert other editors of a potentially non-notable article based on your first impression as someone who's encountered the article for the first time so as to let someone else decide whether to start a deletion process. It isn't for an article that was already discussed and for which you firmly believe is not notable. In that case you need to renominate, and if you would like to follow WP:RENOM and wait a certain period, set a reminder. —Alalch E. 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the template is only for first impression use. The documentation says: "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have a separate article about). When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable, then you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead."

A no consensus outcome at AfD, in my view, indicates that an article is reasonably likely to be non-notable. Keeping the template lets other editors patrol the maintenance category and determine if they want to renom the article at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope you can see that it feels like an inorganic process when folks get together off-wiki and decide to delete an article. And then when the article is not deleted it gets redirected, orphaned and tagged. I only start articles when I see enough RS to show notability. A tag is TP's singular opinion and it comes from a place that I question... In my opinion the tag comes from off-wiki deletion-scheming and the sour grapes of not getting the article deleted by the on-wiki community. I know that I am ABF with this statement but I do nt think i am wrong Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

So you thought it was a good idea to reignite this drama, after only two talk page posts? You didn't even try to resolve the dispute in a collegial and productive manner. Instead, after one reply from TP, you came straight to ANI, which you seem to think was a good idea. It wasn't. There is a dispute resolution noticeboard, you could have asked for a 3O, you could have started a RfC. You could have continued the discussion on the talk page. Instead, you now admit you were acting in bad faith by bringing this matter to ANI, which says more about your motives than anyone else's. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not there was off wiki coordination (proof of which has not yet been provided), the no consensus close was proper in light of the strength of arguments on both sides. While I likely would have !voted keep per Cunard's source assessment, I don't think the delete !votes were unreasonable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I am sorry that you feel that way. I cannot ignore motives and evidence to AGF. This is just a small camp in Wisconsin and discussing it should not get us all fired up. If we removed the off-wiki banter this article would just exist - occasionally folks would read it and maybe add to it. I was not trying to reignite controversy and I certainly hope that the controversy ends with an article about a 100+ year old camp that is allowed to exist. And @Voorts: thanks for the sober and realistic assessment. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

TP admitted up above he shouldn't have redirected the article, it is no longer orphaned, the tags have been removed, there is no edit-warring going on at the article, neither you or anyone else has proposed any sanctions for anybody, and there is nothing you can do about the off-wiki banter, except to apparently obsess about it. So there is no reason to keep this thread open, and it should be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right. I guess it does look like I am obsessing about it. I present it for context so folks can understand how we got here. I only mention it when off-wiki organization comes on-wiki and messes with our processes. I have no objection with closure. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What you present as context is incorrect. You need to strike each and everyone one of your ABF and mistruths. TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

LB your opinion is wrong. You are are wrong. I did not arrive at the AFD as consequence of any "off-wiki deletion-scheming". I came across the AFD as consequence of the report you started against ATG in this very forum. You should strike your mistruths and your ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 03:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

eyes needed

See Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal. What appears to have been started as a good-faith merge proposal concerning the Bent's Camp article is now rapidly degenerating into accusations of incivility and ad hominems, the existence of which seems debatable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

ATG that seems like an overreaction. This little article about a 100+ year old Wisconsin camp has not gotten a fair shake IMO. Generally we are able to weed out non-notable articles organically... and without an off-wiki call. TP and myself should likely leave this to others and not try to steer traffic. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to 'steer traffic'. I am instead suggesting that outside eyes on what ought to be a civil discussion on a possible merge would probably be a good thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen:, I believe you are topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, which would make your participation in that merge discussion a violation of that TBan. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney It is not a deletion discussion and 7&6 worked on adding RS to the article. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"Broadly construed" ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree. It's because "deletion" has a pretty strict meaning on Wikipedia. A topic ban narrowly construed would, by implication, be a ban from that process specifically, and solely the process. But the fact that it is deliberately broader—i.e. more comprehensive—suggests that a less strict definition should be applied. And as GoDG argues, a border interpretation of deletion is anything that removes a page from the reader's eye, as merging, redirecting and incubating do (although it's only the process that 13 is TB from; a restriction on editing the articles themselves would hopefully be too broad an interpretation). SerialNumber54129 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly hope that no editor is blocked as a result of this report and I do not think 7&6 violated the spirit of the t-ban. As a result of this report I did not want TP blocked, I just wanted TP to respect our consensus mechanisms and not act unilaterally. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like a topic ban violation to me; the discussion is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort and the AfD is mentioned several times with 7&6 responding directly when it is brought up [212]. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst could you please self-revert this? If an uninvolved admin disagrees that it's a TBan violation, I'd be happy to revert the strikes myself. So far that has not happened. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree that this pretty clearly a TBAN violation, but note that there isn't actually a community mandate to strike through the comments of anyone violating any editorial restriction. Historically this has mostly only been used to mark the activities of block-evading socks (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)--and even that is supported only by an essay. If LB agrees to self-revert, that's all well and good, but otherwise it's definitely not worth reverting and arguing over: that just creates more acrimony.

Besides, given that Thirteen's contributions there seem like they reasonably could have been made as a consequence of ambiguity in the ban rather than an attempt to evade the ban, I'm not sure how I feel about the striking myself. There are other ways to note for any potential closer that Thirteen was not meant to be contributing there; methods that don't risk suggesting that they were a block evading sock, as a casual reader of the discussion who is unfamiliar with Thirteen and expecting the strikes to mean what they usually mean might misinterpret them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that this was a tban violation, the committee adds that "broadly construed" for a reason. However I don't think it was deliberate or malicious and striking the comments out with a clear explanation of why it was done seems sufficient. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• I created an arbitration clarification request here. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits in politics-related articles

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

This editor's repeatedly added the word "communist" to Joseph Stalin's first sentence without consensus or valid explanation (see this, this and this). I warned them not to edit war again, but they've obviously ignored it. Also, this isn't the only disruptive edit they've made in politics-related articles (see this, this, this, this and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @REDACTED403, @Grandpallama, @Chewings72, @Marcus Markup and @Torimem, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This editor makes repetitive changes to dates and titles without providing any explanation for the validity of the changes or providing any reliable sources to support the changes. Chewings72 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For those curious scrolling by (I do not have the means for a detailed investigation at the moment), Mouch's version is: Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili; 18 December [O.S. 6 December] 1878 – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician and communist revolutionary who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1922 to 1952 and Chairman of the Council of Ministers from 1941 until his death. Note that in the second sentence it already said he held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party, so it seems totally pointless to also say it a second time in the first sentence, even if the guy was awful ("Known communist Joseph 'I F*@%$ing Love Communism' Stalin was a communist Soviet politician and communist revolutionary who led the communist Soviet Union from 1924 until his damn commie death in 1953.") jp×g🗯️ 06:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And is continuing to do so, today, at Sergei Sedov. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Still continuing to make these edits today. glman (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree that it's redundant. See e.g. Benito Mussolini, who we note was a fascist dictator but had previously been a socialist politician.

It's possible that Stalin could have been the General Secretary of the Communist Party but some other kind of revolutionary in his youth, so it's IMO important to note that he was in fact a communist revolutionary. Loki (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thedarkknightli: You are Canvassing which is against policy. 107.77.203.225 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we get a block here please?

• Edit warring on adding "communist": [213]
• Edit warring on "man of steel": [214] [215] [216]
• Edit warring on both of the above: [217] [218]

Thank you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

More edit warring on a different article, same user, same text "man of steel".

• Floriano Peixoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [219] [220] [221] [222]

GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User continues to edit war:

• both "communist" and "man of steel" at Joseph Stalin: [223]

That makes seven times he has inserted one or the other (or both) of these two terms in this article in the last couple weeks. He has been adequately warned on his talk page. In addition to the warnings there was an attempt to communicate with him here [224] to which he did not respond. Can we please get a block now? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

User appears to be using a sock now as well, same pages edited and same content modified. Special:Contributions/45.232.136.244 glman (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And again, this makes eight times he has inserted one or the other (or both) of these two terms in this article. Here is the full list.

• [225]
• [226]
• [227]
• [228]
• [229]
• [230]
• [231]
• [232]

GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Identical edits are now being made by 138.117.236.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I would presume is the same contributor. I will rollback their edits at Sergei Sedov, momentarily. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And again as 45.239.238.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can that article additionably be protected for the time being? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Mouchkjhh so they are unable to edits articles indefinitely. I left a message at their talk that the block will be removed as soon as they say further disruption will not occur. Let me know if IPs continue to be a problem but please try to engage with them first. That is, put a polite message on the IP talk page with a link to WP:EW and a link to an article talk page with an invitation to discuss the issue there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64 and MOS:RETAIN again

After the recent expiry of a block (see this ANI discussion), the ENGVAR-vio editing has continued. Tollens (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

They've been at this since early July on the same /64 range, either they can't hear the warning they are receiving or they are ignoring them (they've been warned on 6 different occasions). They were blocked for a week at the end of August for the same issue, a longer block is probably needed now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Bumped up. Izno (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Lander

IP added serious accusations that I have reverted.EchetusXe 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The diff in question. Might be RD2’able.

The IP still needs to be given a notice of the discussion, by the way. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If the biography was of a living person or someone who died recently, I would revision delete. But Lander, a footballer active over 120 years ago, died 68 years ago. This is either garden variety vandalism or something related to a back story which is not easily verifiable on today's internet. I have no idea which. Revision deletion should be reserved for clearcut cases, and I do not feel comfortable using the tool here, but would not object if another administrator disagrees. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I revision deleted before seeing your response, Jim. This was primarily because it was an unsourced allegation of a serious crime. Living or dead, I think this is improper. If this charge had been sourced, I wouldn't have done this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

OR on Ba 'Alawi sada

Kabul madras (talk · contribs) keeps on adding OR to the article, and continued doing so despite being warned; broke the 3RR Abo Yemen✉ 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Some interesting reading in the section at User talk:Kabul madras#September 2024 which indicates you were both blocked and unblocked bu JBW CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the block log, OP was unblocked 4 minutes later with the message Blocked in error, due to misreading the editing history, so OP's block history is irrelevant to this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You missed my point which was that they had both been unblocked because JBW had second thoughts. Look at Kabul madras block log they were also blocked and unblocked (Wrong account blocked by mistake). This then looks like a case of "other parent", especially when combined with the section that begins "@Abo Yemen and Kabul madras: First of all, my apologies for the block of Kabul madras". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"My bad on participating in the edit war, but how is he allowed to add his original research on the article?? None of the sources that he cited says anything about how many people in Indonesia dispute or even reject outright the validity of Ba 'Alawi sada linkage with Islamic prophet Muhammad. In fact what do indonesians have to do with an Arab family?

He also used sources such as youtube polls, Indonesian youtube videos, used this script of "Sunan al-Tirmidi" (which doesn't verify what he claimed in the article), some familytreedna.com spreadsheets, and whatever the fuck this is supposed to prove."

The above is a post by @Abo Yemen on my talk page.

There are several issues between Abo Yemen and me.

1. The article states "The claim of the Ba Alawi clan's lineage connection to Prophet Muhammad SAW remains controversial due to the lack of contemporary sources that record Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad al Muhajir". I have provided a relevant reference link for this section and, as far as I know, it is not original research and does not violate Wikipedia's rules for use as a reference. The content of the quote does have a conflicting view with other parts of the article, but I included it to make the information in the article neutral and unbiased. Therefore, I included a controversial paraphrase to explain that there are differences of opinion regarding their claim as descendants of Prophet Muhammad. I included this section at the beginning of the article because it explains the claim at the beginning. Abo Yemen objects to this.

2. The use of the words "some" and "many". I have included a reference to a survey of over 12,000 voters to explain that the number of those who do not believe this is indeed large and not small. In fact, this is a hot topic in Indonesia now.

3. The use of FamilyTreeDNA as a primary source in the article. According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources may be used cautiously with certain conditions, which I have met diligently. Therefore, I also included secondary and tertiary sources that explain the primary source in the following sentence.

4. The use of YouTube links as sources. As seen on the Sada Aba Alawi talk page, I initially raised this issue but received no response from Abo Yemen. Therefore, when forced to use other sources, I used YouTube sources too cautiously. And it should be noted that not all YouTube links were included by me, but also by other editors such as user @Buhadram (Tirmidhi, etc.).

5. In essence, what I want to convey in the article is that the claim of Sada Ba Alawi as patrilineal descendants of Prophet Muhammad is still controversial. Some believe it and some reject it. I want to include both sides in the article so that the article is neutral and unbiased.

Thank you. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

your points just proves that you have done OR. Especially the youtube polls "survey of over 12,000 voters". Also the FamilyTreeDNA does not say anything from what is written in the article, you just added a link to a dna database in the style of a citation.

That entire section needs to be well sourced using reliable unbiased sources or it will be removed completely as that article should be treated like a BLP. Abo Yemen✉ 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the OR from FamilyTreeDNA. It doesn't say anything to reject the validity of Ba'alawi. I could not find result from the Youtube showing the voting statistics either. I am worried the edits are biased. (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Buhadramof course FamilyTreeDNA does not conclude as such, which is why I used a secondary reference from "https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/" to explain the primary source. I have already used this reference in the section "This finding suggests that the Ba Alawi lineage does not descend directly from Prophet Muhammad, but rather has a genetically distinct line of ancestry." When I was about to add this reference to another section, edit warring had already occurred and I refrained from further editing. Kabul madras (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

sorry , wrong user , @Buhadram of course FamilyTreeDNA does not conclude as such, which is why I used a secondary reference from "https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/" to explain the primary source. I have already used this reference in the section "This finding suggests that the Ba Alawi lineage does not descend directly from Prophet Muhammad, but rather has a genetically distinct line of ancestry." When I was about to add this reference to another section, edit warring had already occurred and I refrained from further editing. Kabul madras (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• I have not looked into the issue of original "research", which is what this discussion is supposed to be about, so I have no comment to make about that. However, in view of what has been said about my blocks, I will attempt to make absolutely clear what they have been about. Since this is not on topic for this section, please just skip it if you aren't interested in it. (1) My block of Kabul madras was a straightforward mistake: having been checking editing histories of both editors, and shifting back and forth between the two, I clicked the block link on the wrong page. Certainly Kabul madras had been edit-warring, but they had been warned, and had not continued the edit-war since the warning, and I didn't think it was necessary to block. (2) Abo Yemen, on the other hand, had actually posted an edit-warring warning about an edit-war in which he was himself involved. That means that he knew that it was an edit-war, that he was involved, and that it could lead to a block. In my opinion that alone would have been enough to justify a block. I also thought that he had continued the edit-war war after posting that warning, so I blocked him. However, I then realised that I had misread the editing history, and in fact his last edit to the article had been before he posted the warning. I think that even allowing for that, it would have been reasonable to have maintained the block, but I decided to give him another chance, so I removed the block. Well, he has been given another chance, and has used it to continue the same edit war again. I have therefore blocked him again. JBW (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Buhadram , you are surely aware that everything mentioned is currently under dispute as explained above, yet you persist in making extensive edits to the related article. Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to refrain from further editing while waiting for guidance from other administrators? Kabul madras (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kabul madras, we both should refrain from major edit-war, with I exception of minor fixes such as typos or spelling/grammar corrections, I believe. My most recent updates mostly were minors, such as typo correction and adding Wiki links to some mentioned words. Although, I noticed you recently reverted previous edit made by @Abo Yemen. Any way, I've tagged the section with POV. Buhadram (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

and I am the one who gets blocked off editing for 3 days smh 🙄🙄 Abo Yemen✉ 16:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Before editing, I asked for permission from the @JBW as admin and was granted it. Following their advice, I started adding references. If this is incorrect, I will remove it immediately. Kabul madras (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

JBW granted you the permission to edit the article, which wasn't something that you were prohibited to do in the first place Abo Yemen✉ 17:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Buhadram Okay, I just reviewed again the log list. Sorry, I was wrong. It turns out the biggest change was made by Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Those big changes that you're talking about is me translating the article from arabic to english... Abo Yemen✉ 17:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To @Abo Yemen and @Buhadram, as we can observe on the discussion page of the Sadah Ba Alawi article, the differences between us are indeed significant. You wish to maintain the status quo, while I am inclined to introduce an alternative approach to the article. Consequently, the likelihood of reaching an agreement between us is very slim. In fact, both approaches have their own references that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the article. Therefore, I invite the administrators to mediate this issue, and I will abide by the administrators' decision on this matter. Hopefully, this will happen soon so that the issue can be resolved quickly. Kabul madras (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to split the “disputes and rebuttals” section to a new article. Buhadram (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah and then we'll nominate it for deletion per WP:G10, I like this idea Abo Yemen✉ 03:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@JBWIt's been a week and no admin has addressed this issue in depth. What is Wikipedia's policy in such situations? Kabul madras (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kabul madras: Apart from the edit-warring I don't see any role for an administrator here. This is essentially a content dispute, and administrators have no more authority in content disputes than anyone else. You may like to consider whether to try one or other of Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. JBW (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor with personal vendetta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor Nxcrypto reverted an IPS edits in multiple articles. I checked out those edits they were pretty valid. When I sided with the ip and reverted nxcryptos edits they accused me of all sorts of stuff and started reverting the edits,and removed the vandalism warning i sent them from their talk page. Then they got the whole page protected and possibly used a sockpuppet to revert the page to their edit. This is an abuse of power and seriously childish behaviour on their part. So my request to you is to reduce that pages protection. Donteatgarlic (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You're required to notify users of discussions here; I've done this for you now. — Czello ^(music) 10:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit closer, I would urge you to read WP:BOOMERANG.

I see no evidence that Ratnahastin is a sockpuppet of Nxcrypto. Please discuss the changes on the talk page and refrain from edit warring. — Czello ^(music) 11:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Well their edits were similar. And my complaint isn't mainly about this matter. It's about nxcrypto strange behaviour. They are refusing to fix their page and changed the ips previous edits in unrelated pages. Even though the edits are valid Donteatgarlic (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat in the mix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JMIX -314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Special:Diff/1244551464 Kind of looks like a legal threat against Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, Liz did some stuff that I think I obviated.... Even ignoring the legal threat, this user clearly isn't here for anything but self-promotion. Izno (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably should have blocked but I like to inform an editor why they will probably be getting blocked. This was a clear legal threat though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are so many legal threats empty? This editor obviously does not know anything at all about the law, but presumes to lecture us on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I hate to let you down but many people bloviating on the internet are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. Such people may actually believe that typing in ALL CAPS makes their argument more persuasive and compelling. These people see actors playing lawyers on TV and conclude that they can pretend to be a legal expert too. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the content they tried to write was self-promotional, ungrammatical, vapid, and devoid of encyclopedic value. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Gods, yes, what Cullen328 said. Just on copyright issues alone -- an area of law pretty fiendishly complicated and disputed, and upon which crack lawyers earn enough to finance their Lamborghinis -- I've heard so many laymen shoot off their ignorant bazoos that it stopped being funny long ago. Ravenswing 12:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2601:642:C303:F370:ECF6:AD4:FA35:1E25 and User:2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402 edits to Vasculitis

2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I wasn't sure where to put this but recently two IP users (who I believe to be the same person based off their edit history) have been replacing sources on the page Vasculitis. This is an issue because they a) have no reason to be doing so and b) the source they changed it to does not verify all of the information present.

To be specific the information I included was "Crusting rhinorrhea, sinusitis, chronic otitis media, nasal obstruction, shortness of breath, and chronic cough" under symptoms of Granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The first source I used (link) verifies "crusting rhinorrhea, sinusitis, chronic otitis media" and the second source I used (link) verifies "nasal obstruction, shortness of breath, and chronic cough". The source they provided (link) does not support crusting rhinorrhea or chronic otitis media, it mentions bloody rhinorrhea and otitis media but not crusting rhinorrhea specifically or the chronic part of otitis media (both of which are significant to the disorder). I have tried leaving talk page messages but have either gotten no reply or just been told it did verify the information, which it doesn't. It feels silly going to ANI over this but I've almost hit the 3 revert max and it does not seem like the editor in question is open to admitting this mistake.

Users: User:2601:642:C303:F370:ECF6:AD4:FA35:1E25 and User:2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402

My attempts to address this issue: User_talk:2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402#Your_edit_to_vasculitis and User_talk:2601:642:C303:F370:ECF6:AD4:FA35:1E25#Your_edits_to_vasculitis

Diffs: Before user made edits Special:Diff/1243559169, first time user changed source Special:Diff/1244551281, my first revert Special:Diff/1244574655, Second time user changed source Special:Diff/1244631689, Second time I reverted Special:Diff/1244688530, Third time changing the source Special:Diff/1244737417.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IntentionallyDense (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. I have access to both full articles and have them as PDFs on my desktop so I can verify the information, as can anyone with the full articles. I'm willing to share them. I stated this on my talk page and in the diffs after user IntentionallyDense reverted. This doesn't seem very collaborative "changing a citation without checking that the new source verifies all of the info. please stop changing sources without making sure that the new source covers all of the info" and seems fairly "bity" toward another editor off the bat along with the other revert. See diff: [233]. He asserts that the source I provided does not support crusting rhinorrhea or chronic otitis media and instead says bloody rhinorrhea. I'm confident we have numerous examples of other articles that don't use verbatim language that way as an absolute standard. If Intentional insists on a citation that specifically says those exact words verbatim, then that seems like splitting hairs to me. Many other sources do not use that verbatim language when describing this condition. Even our own GPA page states: "Typical signs and symptoms of nose or sinus involvement include crusting around the nose, stuffiness, nosebleeds, runny nose, and saddle-nose deformity due to a hole in the septum of the nose.[7][14]" Note that it does not specify "crusting rhinorrhea" precisely in those words. If that's truly the point of contention, then this should at the very least be consistent. Many reliable resources do not strictly adhere to the verbatim language that user IntensionallyDense is pushing for here, but still convey the idea that nasal crusting, rhinorrhea and recurrent otitis media are prominent features of the disease. See: [234],[235], [236], and[237] (see Table 1) for just a few examples. They don't universally say "chronic otitis media". Perhaps we should revise the sentence itself to say recurrent or chronic otitis media to be a bit more general and adhere to what sources actually say.

Here is what the 2023 review says: "The most common features of sino-nasal disease activity are nasal crusting, clear or bloody rhinorrhea, recurrent sinusitis with poor response to anti- biotics, otitis media, and nasal septal perforation with cartilage and nasal bone damage causing saddle nose deformity [10–12]." The article mentions nasal crusting twice and confirms rhinorrhea is a feature of GPA. That really should suffice. As for otitis media, again, if you are insisting on a source that uses the exact words "chronic otitis media", then okay, you could have said that much more tactfully instead of wholesale reverts. The citation states the following: "Mastoiditis and recurrent otitis media in adults should raise concern about GPA since they are the first manifestations in 25% of GPA cases [14]." Other reliable sources also say recurrent. Again, this is splitting hairs. I agree it was silly to bring this to ANI. This [238] still seems like a bit of a WP:OWNERSHIP tendency when someone objects to someone changing "one of my citations". It's fine if you're upset about the lack of an edit summary. But next time, consider asking for elaboration first. God forbid I try to update a citation that's 10 years old. That's a pretty standard timeframe for an update. Figure 2 of the cited 2018 article displays common features of GPA including crusting: 69%, sinusitis: 58%, nasal obstruction: 53%, rhinorrhea: 52%, rhinitis: 38%, shortness of breath: 59%, chronic cough: 58%, and also mentions otitis media: "Patients frequently seek initial medical help for upper respiratory tract problems including sinusitis, epistaxis, nasal obstruction, and otitis media." Between the two of them, they seem to verify the statements unless we're getting extraordinarily nitpicky and veering into pedantic territory. 2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an ordinary content dispute that is best discussed on the article talk page. If edit-warring becomes an issue, there's a noticeboard for reporting that, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the input. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

IDNHT by IP

188.25.104.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has continued to insert copyvio content on Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 despite multiple warnings and calls to discuss on talk page. Borgenland (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: User has made 8RR and counting. Borgenland (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Currently sitting at ten reverts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

11RR. Borgenland (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to tell you though that they also have a report on AN-Edit Warrring. Borgenland (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)