Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132

Personal attack

A user named BangaloreNorth is attacking me personally by saying I have lost shame and self respect. They are also falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, when the investigation has not even concluded. They have violated WP:NPA. Please take action against them. Here is the link of the discussion where they attacked me: Wiki discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinephile4ever (talk • contribs) 13:44 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I didn't see any personal attacks in that conversation from the user you mentioned. This noticeboard is for intractable issues, and you may want to consider withdrawing this before others click that link and review your behavior in the conversation. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You may want to consider seeing the personal attacks in that conversation. Cinephile4ever 17:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice support Cinephile4ever 17:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BangaloreNorth filed a checkuser request on Cinephile4ever:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MovieBuffIndia

That one talk page section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Technical Fact Finding, is over 2500 words long - a great gray text wall of vexation and dispute.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It was after these two edits ([1], [2]) that @Cinephile4ever stated they were attacked so one can assume that either they feel attacked by @BangaloreNorth stating they will be blocked in a few days because of the SPI investigation or because @BangaloreNorth accused them of twisting other editors words. --ARoseWolf 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit of their own words they updated one of the above diffs with "Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" and then proceeded to call the OP by the name of the suspected master/sock they are accusing them of being. I do think this constitutes an attack on the editor but I understand @BangaloreNorth's frustrations with the OP who may have been WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Either issue could be left up to interpretation. --ARoseWolf 19:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing and acknowledging that user's personal attack on me. Cinephile4ever 00:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How did this user personally attack you? By pointing out an investigation? Or saying that you arent worth their time and energy? I think the real issue here seems to be that you weren't able to resolve the issue the way that you wanted, and instead of just putting your ego aside and going about your day elsewhere, you decided to go on a power trip to try and get him "punished" in some way. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You might want to consider using your eyes. "Why are you twisting the words of other people to suit your agenda? Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" is a personal attack by any definition we employ. Ravenswing 22:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cinephile4ever 01:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Cinephile4ever, you need to inform BangaloreNorth about filing a report here. This is mandatory. Lourdes 10:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I informed them in their talk page before reporting here. But they have undid that. Please check their edit history of their talk page. Cinephile4ever 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is belaboring the issue. Please show the diff where you clearly informed the editor that there is an ANI discussion going on. Lourdes 03:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161554162 Cinephile4ever 04:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Will any administrator take action against the user who personally attacked me? Cinephile4ever 04:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll close this issue here. Your notice is not a notice. You should have perhaps mentioned clearly that there is a report on ANI, and preferably linked this report. You may please do that now, and wait for the reported editor's response here, before administrators review this. Thanks, Lourdes 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  That user has been notified now. Cinephile4ever 12:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by 23.134.91.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edit This ip user calls me "war-mongerer named Beshogur". Beshogur (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

2 Reverts each at Khagan, so no 3RR. On the contribs side, The IP’s first edit is to try to correct an editor who’s been here 16 years, including some knowledge of policy, so I’m immediately suspicious. _{(but hey, I’m suspicious on a lot of things.)}

I’d be curious to see how the IP reacts, if it got into another ‘revert’ situation, see if they make a habit of bad faith, as their other edit summaries seem fine.

Alsoooo, mandatory ANI Notice to the IP? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, doesn't matter who, you have to give the notice. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

IP notified. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 19:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thought I replied that I gave them a {{uw-npa1}}, but I guess not. Also gave them an ANI notice. got beat to it! CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Yae4

• Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yae4 is currently involved in a conflict with me and a few other editors over Libreboot. Instead of accepting their opinions do not hold consensus, they are now increasingly resorting to disrupting the normal editing process by:

• Repeatedly tagging an opponent as a WP:SPA: Special:Diff/1160298043, Special:Diff/1160302499, Special:Diff/1160303915, Special:Diff/1160387206
• Opening a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against everyone who disagreed with them on Talk:Libreboot: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libreleah
• Collapsing active talk page discussions where consensus is heading against them: Special:Diff/1160565668
• Reopening a recent AfD in connection with the content dispute: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libreboot (2nd nomination)
• Making a plainly unfounded accusation of edit warring following a WP:BOLD edit they didn't like: Special:Diff/1160724278, Special:Diff/1160724386

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should start declaring Libreboot a contentious topic by now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, to start with an easy decision: Your "3RR" (edit warring) accusation in [3] is absurd; the cited part of the policy against edit warring is meant to prevent exactly your type of argumentation. Making multiple edits, no matter how much text they delete, consecutively, is one single revert that could have been done in one single edit without changing the result. Maddy from Celeste has never edited the article before, so they can at maximum be at "1 revert" objectively and without this being subject to discussion. As a first step, I'd like you to acknowledge that your accusation was incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, look at this page too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open-source_firmware

This is more evidence of Yae4's non-neutral editing. He repeatedly insisted that libreboot.at be present on the Open-source firmware page, and other editors disagreed, saying that there should just be 1 link to the main libreboot article. This, also despite the fact that there was no grounds under wikipedia sourcing rules for doing so (the article is not specifically about Libreboot, instead it is an aggregate of links to other Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject of the article in question).

PhotographyEdits recently changed it back to only linking the Libreboot article, but the difference now is that Yae4 is under investigation and thus under more scrutiny. Yae4 responded by subjecting that article to AfD, without proper justification (EDIT: initially wrote "with", meant to write "without"). Accordingly, almost every editor on that page has voted Keep in the AfD.

Correlation does not equal causation, but other people in *this* ANI page have noted the same pattern, whereby Yae4 responds on a personalised and even vindictive basis when he doesn't get what he wants. (while using specious arguments and tactics seemingly to drive away "competing" editors).

I was advised by ToBeFree not to submit to this ANI unless I have something useful to contribute to the discussion. Indeed, I believe the above contribution may shed some light on the matter. Libreleah (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, that same Open-source firmware page was created by PhotographEdits, who Yae4 has frequently warred with on the Libreboot article. Again, correlation not causation, but look at the pattern. Yae4 seemingly has "enemies" and uses such crude methods against them. The speed at which Yae4 operates, and the general tactics used, seem to suggest an intent to intimidate other editors, though in a way that would not be so obvious to admins without sufficient context given, as has been provided by the contributors to this ANI. Libreleah (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Username Yae4 engaging in persistent disruptive editing of the Libreboot article –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I had that in mind when I wrote "contentious topic", but I didn't link it because the wall of text there mostly distracts from the concise, clear list provided by Maddy from Celeste above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, after that, this looks like forum shopping.

I was preparing some suggestions for Talk:Amateur radio. That literally has been disrupted by this.

Words above like "conflict" and "opponent" succinctly illustrate the complainer's attitude and behavior.

@ToBeFree: WP:3RR is to discourage a lot of quick or frequent back/forth changes, and encourage editors to resolve differences and reach "consensus" before making major or controversial changes to an article. Over about two weeks, from 24 May 2023 (6,530 bytes) to 8 June 2023 (14,339 bytes), I spent a lot of time methodically expanding summaries of citations, most of which had been cited in the article previously, but deleted, as PhotographyEdits maintained the article as a stub billboard WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. In one quick swoop, the complainer, appearing as a proxy for Libreleah, undid most (~50%) of those numerous expansions and rewrote the article to a preferred, biased version. That sure feels like a bunch of undoing another editor's many changes quickly. If you want to say technically that was only one revert, OK fine. My revert of all those changes was only one too (I was concerned about that), but the warning was sincere. If you'd also observed how many times the complainer has quickly undone other trivial things like collapses of ridiculously long walls of Talk text, and accurate SPA tags, you should understand why a warning seemed appropriate. It was a warning and revert, not ANEW. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why the sudden rush to this article, after a few previous RfCs and failed attempts to stimulate methodical discussions? This is a pattern in some barely or not-really-notable articles. A small business owner, in this case Libreleah, fears their income will be reduced, or their reputation diminished, or something, and gets associates to rush to "their" article. What happens next is the WP:MEAT puppets who have gathered to support Libreleah and Libreleah's biased WP:SPAMPAGE, will each say they support the complainer's changes, or take turns reverting.

My edits at Libreboot: Nemo_bis said

"recent edits by Yae4] are prima facie an improvement in terms of sourcing. Given there are some ongoing developments, it makes sense to have sections focused on the past tense, as we don't necessarily have good sources for the events of the past few months. When more and better sources appear, we'll hopefully be able to describe Libreboot's connection to GNU/FSF, mention any relevant forks etc. We don't need to decide that now..."

That gives me a little too much credit, because I retrieved and summarized deleted sources from previous article history.

SPI of "everyone who disagreed": False. User DFlhb, who said "Wait, Maddy, you're not an admin yet?", was not on the list, but probably should be for WP:MEAT. User:Cruzdoze, another SPA that participated in an RFC at Talk:Libreboot and disagreed with me was not on the list. It does look a lot like User Libreleah, however. SPA Edidds (mild disagreement at AfD) is not on the list.

SPI and WP:MEAT: If there is a better place to take WP:MEAT issues than SPI, let me know. On 24 May 2023, I did a talk page RfC; there was minimal involvement (included SPA Cruzdoze). On 26 May 2023, PhotographyEdits did a talk page RfC; There were a couple new commenters. On 28 May 2023, I started a Talk page "AfD or Merge" discussion. Minimal involvement other than (significantly) Nemo_bis, and a self-declared connected user Arzg, and an IP that writes similar to User Libreleah. Libreleah user page self-describes as a "passionate nut". 92.40.218.255 said "I think Leah's nuts...", sound similar? 9 June, the article gets attacked by a couple SPA or Socks, and IPs get blocked... 15 June Libreleah account re-activates. The complainer becomes involved by reverting a SPA tag: "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". Same day User Rlink2 becomes involved. Next day User DFlhb becomes involved (after discouraging a related RfC at RSN on 13 June). Random coincidence? Doubtful.

SPA tags were accurate, and the complainer reverted all or nearly all, falsely claiming Pointy or other excuses. The WP:SPA tag informs readers like admins of the facts of the account's activity up to that time - few or no edits outside the topic. User Libreleah account's first edit in 5 years, or ~8th edit since account creation, was a 22 000 byte treatise criticizing me and my expansion and changes of Libreboot. At my last look, User Libreleah had 33 edits at Talk:Libreboot, more than anywhere else, three times as many as the 11 edits at the #2 article.[4]

Apologies for length. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, I'm currently not worried about "the complainer's attitude and behavior"; please don't use it as a tu-quoque-style argument.

You spent over 200 words on something that boils down to "okay, technically, fine". Not technically, though: People are encouraged to be bold; they don't need an edit warring warning and far-fetched references to the three-revert rule when being bold. It is also inappropriate to personalize the dispute with accusations of meatpuppetry-like behavior ("proxy for Libreleah", "WP:MEAT puppets") at minimum when referring to Maddy from Celeste's type of edits. You're casting aspersions in a discussion about your behavior.

Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I will try to "explicitly refute the central point" of who began disruption, at Talk:Libreboot: The complainer here, and user Libreleah are primarily responsible for disruption and aggression at Talk:Libreboot.

Complainer first edit at Talk:Libreboot: reverted a valid SPA tag with comment "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". User Libreleah had few edits outside Talk:Libreboot at that time.

Complainer 2nd and 3rd edits were aggressive and inaccurate regarding my efforts at the article and its talk, saying "Alright, @Yae4 and Libreleah: cut this bullshit." and "And Yae4, disrupting this discussion isn't going to help. Both of you need to stop casting aspersions at each other. Attacking each other like this is not going to help you. Wikipedia articles are built using consensus, not by whoever can throw the most shit at the others." With this introduction, who wants to read the rest of the "advice"?

Complainer Next edit at AN: "I'll translate: There are two versions of the libreboot software project, and three editors are at each other's throats fighting over which one gets to be the legitimate one. I've told them to stop it and given some advice on the content dispute..." Mis-characterization, vague, insulting, demanding; see next.

There were seven, recent, open or unanswered discussions at the time Libreleah posted a 22 000 byte, out of place, disruptive "Persistent vandalism, or otherwise disruptive, non-neutral editing with clear conflict of interest for those involved": "AfD or Merge?", (scroll down from there) "LWN.net", "Libreboot.AT, again", "Name of the project", "Discussion of FossForce.com as a source", "ItsFoss, TuxMachines, and FSF and GNU as sources", and "Official Links". While there was disagreement, it was nothing like what followed. IMO, a non-disruptive editor would give opinions on open, un-resolved discussions, not be demanding and try to take over and control (disorganized, rambling) discussions, starting with their own aspersions casting (see above).

@ToBeFree:

I thought I saw a warning along the lines of: when someone brings a complaint like this, they should expect their own behavior to be scrutinized.

> Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from?

Account Libreleah is the first connected user listed at Talk:Libreboot (pre-dating my involvement). The "declared" link goes to where user Libreleah said "Hi. I'm Leah Rowe of the libreboot project. Wikipedia article "libreboot""... "I need you to unlock the libreboot article, and/or allow me (user account libreleah) to edit the libreboot article, so that I can change the author name back to Leah Rowe." More recently, at Talk:Libreboot user Rlink2 asked for proof "that you are Leah Rowe", and user Libreleah responded "Yes, I certainly can prove it..." followed by a claim of proof. Based on bits and pieces in cited, previously cited, or potential sources, Rowe operated a series of non-notable small companies, websites and brands selling computer hardware with Rowe's versions of Libreboot included, and argues aggressively to maintain a link from the article to Rowe's version of Libreboot, which links to Rowe's company for sales. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so Libreleah seems to have a financial conflict of interest. I don't think that has been properly disclosed yet; the connection from non-financial to financial seems to be unacknowledged at least on their user page so far. This can be remedied. And while this is no direct payment for editing, WP:COITALK does pretty much apply: "No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them."

It's also clear that describing others' actions as "bullshit" is inappropriate.

Both said, my primary concern in this discussion here is still your behavior, Yae4, and your accusations towards others distract from a few issues you haven't properly addressed yet. For example, you have described DFlhb and Maddy from Celeste in ways that imply or even directly accuse them of meatpuppetry. These two are experienced users with thousands of contributions. Describing them as meatpuppets just because they agree with each other on an issue is inappropriate; you accuse them of misbehavior without proper evidence of misbehavior. Your proven-wrong accusation of edit warring (or a 3RR violation even) towards Maddy from Celeste brought us here in the first place.

Yae4, I think the issue can be summarized as "unnecessary personalization of content disputes", and it has been demonstrated in this discussion here by your own messages already. I agree that you should be blocked to prevent this from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As outlined with dates above, and seen in Talk:Libreboot history, near simultaneous arrival of a group of supporters of user Libreleah, shortly after the 22 000 treatise, is unlikely to be random coincidence. User DFlhb explicitly discouraged RfC at WP:RSN, and this subsequent exchange at DFlhb user Talk looks like recruiting or canvassing for support by PhotographyEdits. Looks like it worked. I can only show the pattern; I can't make you see it. With all due respect, it's obvious what's happening here. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

When told to stop making baseless aspersions, it's a good idea to stop, not double down. DFlhb (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My initial post on Talk:Libreboot represents my first reaction at the whole situation there. With hindsight, I do agree a more civil choice of words couldn't have hurt. As for Libreleah, I considered bringing her editing up here, but it seems to be explained by her being not yet being familiar with how we raise concerns over content here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree

so Libreleah seems to have a financial conflict of interest. She isn't paid to edit Wikipedia. She owns an open source project, which would mean WP:COI applies and not the paid version. Rlink2 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Rlink2, a financial conflict of interest does not necessarily imply compensation for editing itself. You have a financial conflict of interest, for example, if you completely voluntarily and anonymously, without any hope of ever getting rewarded for this, clean up your employer's Wikipedia article from what you perceive as libel. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, hi: I said I wouldn't engage here, but I only came to say this one thing: yes, I declared my conflict of interest for libreboot.org and thought that was enough; it did not occur to me to also mention financial interests. I assure you this is not an intentional "deception" on my part, and I've now written about it in full on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Libreleah

That said, I'm not the only person who has complained about Yae4's behaviour. Many other people editing the Libreboot article, and indeed other articles in the past, have complained in the exact same ways.

One thing people need to know about me is that I do actually try to be neutral about my own work. Most businesses have a sort of monopoly-like pride about their business, but my business model literally is giving away source code and knowledge for free to the public; I've actually helped my commercial competitors many times, for example, helping them fix bugs, because besides getting paid I also care about the quality of the software I release. When I first started Libreboot I didn't even have a viable company at the time; people noticed what I was doing and it just sort of accidentally happened from there.

I digress. None of this is relevant to Wikipedia policy. I apologise for the lack of foresight on my part. I hope the changes I've made to my user page are enough and if you have any feedback on it, I'll happily take it. Libreleah (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

People sometimes think I'm naive because of that, but it's never steered me wrong. Some of my commercial competitors are even listed as contributors to Libreboot, on the Libreboot website. I support freedom, that's why I do free software. If I didn't have Libreboot I'd just do something else. Libreleah (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, there is one more fact that I feel is important to mention: the editors on the Libreboot article (and the talk page) are all intimately familiar with who I am, and about my company; both are, or have been, written about prominently on the Libreboot article.

This is also evident in what they've written about, both on the article and the talk page, indicating that they knew my connection. So I don't think the discussion may have been skewed or perverted in any way. The updated entry on my own user page just removes any such possibility in the future.

Once again, I apologise for this oversight on my part. That's why I never mentioned it so explicitly before, because I knew that everyone there knows who I am. (I *did* mention my connection specifically to libreboot.org, in the talk page, from the very moment I first posted there recently) Libreleah (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Libreleah is working in good faith here. One of the issue heres that Yae4 will take words and policies out of context to support his viewpoint. Rlink2 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Libreleah, thank you very much. The additional disclosure now made in [5] looks very well done to me; it clearly describes that there is a financial conflict of interest, and even explains where it comes from. This resolves my concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry again. Although I did register my account in 2016, I only used it briefly back then. I'm still learning the ropes. If you spot anything else that I need to sort out, please don't hesitate to let know. Thanks! Libreleah (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad this could get resolved the right way. Sometimes we need to take a step back and realize what a waste of time arguments like this can be. Life is short and precious, and people spend way too much time putting energy into what are essentially power trips on here. Sometimes we just need to put our egos aside and let go. If someone takes the time to add genuine information to a page, removing it is disrespectful. Talk about errors or inaccuracies, but this hill wasnt worth climbing. Hopefully we can just use this as a learning lesson for the future. XD3vlLx (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone who thought that making software free would make everyone nice and friendly and cuddly will be seriously disillusioned by this discussion. Can't you people (and that is directed at everyone involved) just thrash things out on the talk page like we do for articles where there is real disagreement, such as those on Middle Eastern politics? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't about disagreeing but about "disruptive editing" by User:Yae4. Having undergone a similar experience with said user/editor on the Elive page. Clearly this editor's modus operandi is one-sided edits, repeated deletions/undos and threats of blocking when meeting any resistance. Accompanying disdainful and condescending comments clearly aren't very helpful if it were about setting errors straight. On the contrary, this kind of behavior will scare almost every aspiring editor/submitter away from Wikipedia which I presume isn't what WP is about in the first place. Triantares (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to myself as I noticed I wasn't as explicit as others posters here about the unsavory behaviour @Yae4 has.

  In short the Elive page has been edited, undone and revised so often by said editor that there are only 2 sentences left of the original text. Every positive review has been consistently removed or in one case, cherry picked to show only, out of context notes of criticism or replaced by quotes from critical reviews that are either extremely outdated or almost impossible to find in any other way than the direct link provided there. Any edits of mine to try and restore some sort of balance there were immediately undone and accompanied by threats. Just going through the history there is cringe-worthy in itself.

  In relation to "condescending and disdainful" I preferred asking @Yae4 on his talk page to stop these actions (opposed to starting an ANI) and quoted some of his previous remarks in that sense. The bland denial as answer to the plea (and the quotes) says it all. Triantares (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support block for neon-bright WP:CIR and incivility, which is persistent and worsening.

• These aspersions and sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents aren't new. Warned by El_C in Jan 2020 (then did it again) and by Mr. Stradivarius in Sept 2020. It continued: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff.
• Also not the first frivolous SPI against opponents: 2020 (result: "Unrelated"), 2022 ("Ostensibly unrelated").
• Edit wars at Libreboot to add an FSF press release, diff diff diff. Blocked for edit warring to add primary-sourced WP:OR about GrapheneOS licensing, diff diff diff diff, blocked, then resumes days after the block expires, diff diff. Edit wars to misuse a secondary source: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff (later consensus to remove). Edit wars to add primary-sourced info about Libreboot.at: diff diff diff diff diff. Edit wars to add coatrack, diff diff diff diff (against 3rd opinion, diff).
• WP:CIR, aptly-described back in April 2020 (which led to a climate change TBAN, but only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles).
  • After Yae4's failed edit war to add 'negative' WP:OR to GrapheneOS, they decided to add comically POINTy in-text attribution (diff diff), remove various secondary sources because they parrot Twitter (diff diff diff diff diff), misuse sources (section), add negative BLP info sourced to junk sources (diff), and act phenomenally pointy about citing the official site (diff).
  • For products Yae4 likes, we see the opposite: user-generated content is reliable, and a forum has editorial oversight (section), dozens of primary sources are not actually primary (diff diff), an FSF press release email is due (RSN discussion), reddit, "alternativeto.net" and user forums are fine and dandy (diff diff), and unlike at GrapheneOS or Libreboot, the official site is fine (diff diff).
  • This diff is representative of the overall quality of Yae4's edits. Yae4 misunderstands sourcing, as others noticed time and again. Doesn't understand COI (as Mr. Stradivarus said), or MEAT (which they accuse me of for being nice to Maddy), or 3RR, or NPA. The bludgeoning walls of text you're seeing above should surprise no one, since El_C already noted it in August 2022 (WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT [...] I found them to have been exhausting to deal with). Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

DFlhb (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I only checked the last statement. It is questionable at best.

> Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

This is un-justified hypothesis. User Arzg was irritated because "the edit warring and namecalling and someone pinged me on my talk page?! are testing my patience." (not me) and was irritated by 92.40.218.255's preceding insults and diatribe (similar to user Libreleah, IMO). Also said, "I have a COI, having been involved with the project briefly in 2017". Maproom could equally well have been satisfied with the discussion and not particularly interested. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: Yes, it is a struggle to follow Wiki-rules. They are convoluted, or "nuanced". The presentation of diffs above is misleading and biased, but that won't matter, because you can get away with anything, if no one looks too deep, and they usually don't.

> only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles

No. My first edits in August 2019, at /e/_(operating_system) - another contentious "FOSS article" because of similar issues as here - led me to write on my user page

Tries to be neutral, but dislikes advertising and popularity contests driving Wikipedia. Will support deleting advertising, and adding criticism. The truth shall make you free.

> sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents [your word, not mine] aren't new.

Partly true, but you conspicuously did not list the first one in 2019 when two sockpuppets were blocked. It's at the top of my Hall of Fame list; how could you miss it? Yes, meat and sock puppetry, and biased editing, and flocking together to a friend's or hero's article, is common in barely or not-really-notable articles, like this one, and that causes disruption. I accept responsibility for getting involved. I've primarily focused on article content, asked for outside help with RfCs, and only secondarily, asked for help dealing with the group with common cause(s) at the article, who targeted me here. "Patience is a virtue" you said. Between the lines, unstated, we'll get that editor. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Almost a year ago (June 2022), I blocked Yae4 for 3RR on a different open source software article, GrapheneOS. I remember it having been especially challenging to deal with them at the time and not for the first time (AN3 archive). I just looked up their complaint against me in that AN3 report, which seems centred on my warning to them against noticeboard and user talk tag misuse two years earlier (User talk:Yae4#Harassment template on JzG's talk page). As I said back then (Jan 2020): these are more than just procedural mistakes — they are mistakes that are rooted in an overly-aggressive approach to dispute resolution. It's disappointing to see that not much has changed, with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON remaining a problem. El_C 21:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to see bad feelings persist. Since you mentioned GrapheneOS, would you have an opinion on whether Louis Rossmann's video [6] that prompted Daniel Micay to "step down" should be excepted from WP:RSPYT and allowed under WP:YouTube to be summarized? -- Yae4 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not have "bad feelings," I have an articulated critique. Nor do I have an opinion on the content (though I do like Rossmann). But I do have an opinion about you deflecting from what is actually being discussed—your repeated misconduct as raised by multiple persons. And that opinion, I'm sorry to say, is not great. El_C 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to be here, partly because of still mis-understanding 3RR; the previous block was a simple, careless mistake of mine, and I accept responsibility. Climate change is a whole other story; I learned that lesson and have avoided the topic after being un-banned. People who flocked together to support their friend's or hero's version of an article, and here, is a different thing, but thanks for your articulated critique. Not to deflect again, but I'd appreciate an answer to this question on 3RR. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(sent in [7]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapse text of my COI report against Yae4, which is now on COIN instead

I have more evidence against Yae4, that I believe should be considered. To set the scene, I'll again clarify the nature of the dispute that took place on Libreboot: there was a dispute over sourcing, and Yae4 seemingly wanted to remove all mention of the established domain name libreboot.org in favour of libreboot.at; it is established that the .at domain name is owned by FSF (Free Software Foundation), and was announced by the FSF in March 2023 over a dispute with the original project over ideological issues. As of late, editors at Libreboot have agreed via RfC to only talk about libreboot.org, since that's what all the strongest sources for it talk about and they pre-date libreboot.at's existence (as per wayback machine). I've accused Yae4 of being biased in favour of libreboot.at, but I now believe he may in fact have a Conflict of Interest; I believe Yae4 is actually working on behalf of the FSF, without having disclosed such fact. My evidence is thus: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4/Hundred_Rabbits&oldid=1161284056 - draft article by Yae4. Hundred Rabbits isn't well-known, but put into context: Hundred Rabbits was the keynote speaker at FSF's "LibrePlanet" conference of 2022. This on its own doesn't mean anything, but consider Yae4's aggressive editing in favour of libreboot.at on Libreboot, edits that have now been largely removed per editor consensus Now, more items: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - on its own, a trivial change, just adding info to the FSF page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1158799817 - more FSF edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159762149 - again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - ditto https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSF_Free_Software_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1158988792 - pertaining to FSF Free Software Awards which are held at LibrePlanet conference. LibrePlanet is a relatively obscure conference. It only has a couple hundred people who view it and doesn't really reach much news online, very much an internal FSF thing that members get involved in. FSF relies a lot upon intern/volunteer labour, and, well: Yae4 has been editing the Libreboot article since about 26 May 2023, almost a month now, and has warred with multiple people (his actions qualify as edit warring, he was constantly reverting people's changes often without giving any reason). Even if Yae4 isn't in league with the FSF, these diffs show a pattern of preference towards the FSF, and thus it could be argued that Yae4 had bias (non-neutral point of view) while editing the Libreboot article. Yae4 has also made numerous edits on articles like GNU Taler and GNU LibreJS, all positive edits. Libreleah (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC) (GNU is closely associated with the FSF, who provides hosting infrastructure and funding for it) Libreleah (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Here is the talk that Hundred Rabbits gave at LibrePlanet 2022, hosted by the FSF: https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/software-doldrums/ Libreleah (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) one part i forgot to mention earlier, look at this diff from Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALibreboot&diff=1161276868&oldid=1161273531 - regardless of the merit behind the argument (merit rejected by other editors on that talk page, per consensus agreement: pay attention: Yae4 refers to "distroboot". distroboot.org was only online for about *2 hours*, and not widely publicized, I mainly only mentioned it on Libreboot IRC (private chat room); i used another name instead (osboot) that same day, and it stuck for a while this, combined with the recent crusade by Yae4 against Libreboot, suggests that Yae4 is definitely someone inclined to watch closely what the Libreboot project gets up to, far closer than most people would inspect it; it could suggest that Yae had a vendetta on behalf of the FSF. I think Yae4 works for the FSF. Libreleah (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) yet more evidence that Yae4 is working for the FSF and/or libreboot.at directly, diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157433496 <-- yae4 makes reference to links that are *not public* - how would Yae4 know about these, unless he was intimately involved with the project? I sense that Yae4 likely had an undisclosed conflict of interest the entire time while working on the Libreboot article Libreleah (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above text that I wrote, text that is now adapted for WP:COIN report against Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspected_COI_by_User%3AYae4_on_Article%3ALibreboot Libreleah (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Last comment by Yae4 (hopefully) Mostly @DFlhb: It's not about "products Yae4 likes" or not. I don't like, dislike or use Invidious software, but I am constructively participating in its AfD, where I also appropriately tagged another SPA without any knee-jerk objections, or summary rejection of my suggestion on WP:IAR. I usually enjoy finding sources and expanding articles that were barely or not-really-wiki-notable when I first saw them; lists are at my user page. I am proud of legitimately helping save several articles from deletion. I respect and follow constructive, impartial suggestions like AtD or sourcing or whatever. I respect consensus process, when legitimate. I do not respect, and will object and ask for help against illegitimate consensus (of friends or hero's), as at Talk:Libreboot. I don't care or take it personally that DFlhb took CalyxOS to AfD then withdrew it. I'm not going to collect a misleading dossier with other mistakes DFlhb may have made. I would ask ToBeFree if consideration was given to whether all that by DFlhb is also "unnecessary personalization of content disputes" or too much attention to another editor's activities? I don't know where the wiki-line is between building a case and stalking, but it feels like DFlhb has some kind of grudge against me. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm primarily surprised by the amount of words used to sugar-coat "DFlhb seems to be stalking me". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Throw enough shit at the wall, see what sticks? DFlhb (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapsing my response to more aspersions by Yae4 DFlhb (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll address the older one first. You repeatedly accused me, Maddy, Rlink and PE of meatpuppeting and being canvassed to Libreboot around June 16. My Wikipedia email was disabled during that period and two admins had to PM me on WPO instead (no one here did). I first saw Libreboot in the WP:COMPUTING article alerts on May 31, after your AfD. I saw it again on June 13, after your RSN RfC notification on the COMPUTING talk page, as I said at the time. By June 16, the article had been on my watchlist for two weeks, but I had avoided it because I saw you were involved. CalyxOS: In April, you started two RfCs at RSN. In one, I disagreed on procedure. In another, you argued a source used at CalyxOS and GrapheneOS was unreliable, and I agreed. I followed your link to CalyxOS, thought the other sources were also insufficient, did WP:BEFORE, and nommed it. Out of nowhere, you accused me of a COI towards GrapheneOS because I had disagreed with you back in December, in a GrapheneOS RfC in which everyone else had also disagreed with you, including smart peeps like Kvng and Rhododendrites. At that point, I didn't know there was any beef. To my knowledge, we'd only interacted twice before April: once in that December RfC, which I saw in the WP:COMPUTING article alerts. And later in January, we disagreed about reliability in an RfC about 9to5Google at WP:RSN, where you said 9to5Google was misused at GrapheneOS. I agreed on one citation; also corrected one misattribution; you took issue with that last edit summary, and I clarified I had no issues with you. Before the AfD, normal disagreements, nothing personal. After your aspersion, I could tell you didn't like me, and I stayed out of your way. At the AfD, I thanked you (twice) for finding sources, earnestly invited you to check out the Wikipedia Library since you'd said you couldn't access a book, and then withdrew the CalyxOS AfD early. At F-Droid, you reverted a tag I'd added (didn't know you edited there; I got there from CalyxOS), and I politely dipped out and let your revert stand. Despite seeing Libreboot on May 31, I stayed away. Our only interaction between your April 13 aspersion, and June 16 at Libreboot, were two unfailingly polite comments at RSN on June 14, diff diff, where I deliberately avoided a back-and-forth. None of this is about a "grudge". Notice how I did nothing when it was against me, and only intervened when you kept doing it to others? I'm quite easy-going. DFlhb (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the Library suggestion. It didn't work for me. I don't remember why. Probably my error. I understand some people like getting thanked, so I hit the Thank button now and then. I do not care about being thanked. I care about article content. Thank you for when when we've interacted productively.

A central point, again: 14 June: PhotographyEdits says "Thanks for your comment on WP:RSN. I was getting a bit annoyed by everthing." DFlhb says "Patience is always a virtue. I'm also not familiar with that particular dispute." and then becomes involved. Looks like recruiting to Libreboot.

> I didn't know there was any beef.

> I could tell you didn't like me, and I stayed out of your way.

> Despite seeing Libreboot on May 31, I stayed away.

A 2nd central point: ^This is "unnecessary personalization of content disputes".^

I do not like, dislike or feel anything about DFlhb. We've agreed. We've disagreed. You've misled in your presentations above, but I understand you're making a case, and are not being neutral or objective. I'm sorry you felt personally offended when I said your earlier positions looked biased to me; nothing personal was intended then. Nothing personal is intended now. It looks like you and a few other Libreleah supporters converged on Talk:Libreboot, to support cutting the article in half to a billboard again, while ignoring WP:RS, "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP issues" in the process. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, may I try to reassure you re "Libreleah supporters", meatpuppets, socks and whatever? WP:RSN is one of our highest-profile boards, and by opening an RFC there (which unlike merely raising a query there, caused a bot to alert opted-in editors) and by notifying about 14 article talk pages and 2 projects about that, you inevitably attracted attention not only to that discussion but also to the article you identified as at issue. It is common, even desirable, that in such situations editors will look at the article disputes and consider whether they can help resolve any of them, possibly engaging there on other aspects rather than at RSN on your particular question. They may turn out to agree with you or someone else in some ways; this does not mean that they arrive as supporters or puppets, or that anyone but yourself is responsible for drawing them to it at that time. WP:AN is even higher-profile and editors reading it will often look at the article(s) concerned and even do more to resolve matters there than they could at WP:AN. The timing of their arrival doesn't indicate that they are doing so in bad faith; please don't worry about that and indeed, please don't keep making such accusations. NebY (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I get it, but it's not just timing. What would you think when 3 newly involved, relatively experienced editors all support, in essence: ignore reliability of sources, defend a financially connected editor who has few or no edits outside this topic, let them be heavily involved in discussing what the article should say, and include (biased) BLP info citing one of the most questionable sources. Then, let's go see if we can crucify that one editor who won't go along with all this? -- Yae4 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with those characterisations, which I would fear to be the product of seeing editors as a malicious gang and thus of circular reasoning, I would not deduce a conspiracy from them. The guidance in WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DROPTHESTICK can save us from ourselves (and if we have enemies, from them too). NebY (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@NebY: Good advice. I remind myself of AGF and not-a-battlefield fairly often. I should remember DropTheStick more. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Curious that repeated personal attacks over mere disagreements are "nothing personal", yet leaving you alone to avoid these personal attacks is "unnecessary personalization". DFlhb (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Break

One more thing I don't know if DFlhb used: 12-13 June: At Helpdesk I sought uninvolved advice on resolving differences. It's long, but about article issues, not editor(s). Feedback included "your discussion is already in the correct place, the Talk Page" and "I tend to go for the Project route unless there is some real drama and lack of WP:AGF evident in the discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case here." I went about posting neutral RfC notices... Crux: Libreleah started some real drama. This caused the disruption. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I simply raised objection to the disruptive nature of your editing, whereby you demonstrate a clear pattern of disregard for other editors; I regard you as a bully. Such has been corroborated by numerous other people here, and elsewhere, over many years. Detailed analysis of your history reveals a clear tendency on your part to harass and intimidate other Wikipedians, to reduce any challenge to yourself; this too has been articulated by other editors on Wikipedia.

No, what you call "drama" is simply accountability. You are being held accountable for your misdeeds. If I didn't challenge you, someone else would have done so at a later date. It's simply that you stepped on too many people's toes, over the years, and it's finally catching up with you. Sooner or later, the chickens always come home to roost.

I think you deserve to be banned from Wikipedia, but I'll leave that up to the admins. Libreleah (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not up to admins to ban, in the sense that WP:BAN ≠ WP:BLOCK. A topic ban (WP:TBAN) is a restriction from a specific topic area, but the user remains unblocked. Since this topic area is not formally a contentious one (WP:CTOP), a single admin does not have the authority to impose a TBAN singlehandedly. It requires a separate proposal, like in a subsection of this thread, usually open for a minimum of 24 hours until a WP:CLOSE by an admin on whether there is WP:CONSENSUS or lack thereof among participants. And it likewise can only be rescinded by an WP:UNBAN appeal to the community. A community ban (WP:CBAN) is decided and appealed similarly (though open for 72 hours instead of 24), but by contrast, it is a site ban, that includes an indefinite block from the entire website. This is contra a regular indef block that any admin may apply, but also any admin might in turn undo following an WP:UNBLOCK request. There is also an article ban (WP:ABAN), but it is used seldom since the advent of the partial block (WP:PBLOCK), since the latter allows up to ten pages to be technically restricted (unlike ABAN and TBAN which are adhered to on faith), and which any admin may impose as a regular block (block-lite, even). But, either way, I don't think either ABAN or PBLOCK would be that useful here, so as an aside.

So that is as far as the range of sanctions that might be pertinent here. But the problem is two fold: first, the material seems rather technical, certainly for me. And secondly, it is always easier to sanction more egregious misconduct that happens once or thrice than that which merely skirts the line, but does so repeatedly, for years. As well, those problematic users of the incremental variety usually trend towards the long-winded, which is an immense barrier for review (the inability to condense, to be concise), though, you haven't been particularly concise, either, to be fair, Libreleah. Of course, the extra length may also be a product of the incremental featuring many more components than the singular. I am also aware of the irony seeing as this very post isn't that brief.

That isn't to say that Yae4's WP:TENDENTIOUS editing isn't also terse at times either, though. But by an immense barrier for review, I mean that many (most?) reviewers on this noticeboard, myself very often among them, when encountering a lengthy, WP:TEXTWALL thread that isn't clear and succinct, are likely to just <skip>. Which isn't unique to Wikipedia necessarily, but to be clear, there is no requirement for a thread on this board to come to some conclusion; there isn't even a requirement for nominal engagement. So threads here often fizzle out for a variety of reasons (some of which I alluded to, some I didn't, some are even random). Anyway, regardless, hope I was able to educate you on the reality of the situation. Because who knows how this thread will be concluded, if at all, so it's perhaps best to temper expectations with these procedures and processes in mind. El_C 04:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it's hard to go through. The bulk of the case is in Maddy's opening post and my first reply, which shows a history of incessant aspersions and failing to understand policies to the point of CIR. DFlhb (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb, by all means then, feel free to propose any sanction or sanctions you deem suitable. El_C 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Holy wowzers, what a gigantic section. My personal experience with user is at a couple of recent AfDs, for libreboot and open-source firmware. In both of these discussions there appears to be some great personal investment by Yae4, who is making many long comments that do not seem to make sense (referencing a consensus at WP:RSN was claiked to be WP:WAX for example). I don't have any opinion on whether or not this person should be blocked or banned. However, unjustified or vexatious AfD filings are a serious issue that wastes time, destroys content and stresses everybody out. I would like for them to not do this any more. jp×g 18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yae is being disruptive, bit its troubling that Libreleah, who is the very definition of a COI editor is being given so much leeway here. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Libreleah has declared their conflict of interest and has never edited the article directly. If anybody has suggested that they violated our COI guideline, I've missed it in the enormous walls of text above. Do you have any evidence of Libreleah doing anything troubling? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like Yae4 has seemingly quit Wikipedia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4&diff=prev&oldid=1161304913 . No telling if its a temporary or permanent retirement. Rlink2 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Complete with conspiracy theory nonsense claims, to boot. Can't say I'm disappointed they're leaving. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @El C @Rlink2 @DFlhb Still, the claim they are leaving should not impact our potential decision to block them. We don't know if this is temporily, they might come back after a month. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yae4 has exhibited the same abusive behaviour and been warned many times, over many years, as revealed by diffs shown here by several people. Each time, Yae4 fails to take responsibility, and just repeats the same behaviour when the heat dies down. We've seen Yae4's intimidation tactics, taking over articles. Now that the heat is on, he suddenly "quits".

  No, I believe this is a ploy by Yae4. It's a stunt, designed to inspire sympathy so that the admins take no action, or take lighter actions if any. Indeed, Yae4 was quite active right until the very last moment, so I think Yae4 will be back. The stunt itself is evidence of a failure to take responsibility; has Yae4 apologised, and is he likely to?

  I stand by my assertion that Yae4 should be blocked. Wikipedia will be a better place without him. Libreleah (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Non lex rex deadnaming Rachel Levine

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 has created multiple edits using Rachel Levine's deadname (I won't provide diffs for this for the sake of privacy). See also [8]. BangJan1999 21:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Indef'd — not entertaining this. WP:DENY and move on. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:34, 27 June 2023 (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:Leke23's inability to accurately report sources, POV edit-warring and general WP:IDHT

Despite racking up two Contentious Topics notices, multiple warnings for POV editing, and a warning for edit-warring, Leke23 (talk · contribs) has again reinstated (for something like the dozenth time) their POV edit to List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, where they assert that Simon Ekpa is a "prime minister of a government-in-exile" on the same level as the Prime Minister of Hungary. Yet none of the sources the user has put forward even remotely back up their claims that Ekpa is some kind of official elected politician; they merely describe him as a "self-styled" leader of a movement that considers itself an exiled government.

This user's Wiki career to date has consisted pretty much exclusively of this edit-warring, coupled with miscellanous POV-pushing while attacking others for supposedly failing to remain neutral. There's also the small matter that they are very likely a sockpuppet of a blocked user.

I submit that Leke23's SPA behaviour is very much a net negative for Wikipedia, and therefore suggest they be blocked indefinitely. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Support as I would also like to note that their first edit on Simon Ekpa and that they have not edited anything other thing except for Simon Ekpa. PS: They’re probably going to talk about neutrality here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment First, disclosure: I started a section on that talk page trying to seek a compromise. I actually think there might be a good-faith confusion issue here ... because I was a good-faith little confused! Now, as to Leke23, while I think his edit warring should be addressed, I am a little hesitant to throw the WP:SPA at him and indef. To be clear: I'm not disputing that all of his edits so far have related to Ekpa. But he's also, aside from a few talk page edits in February/April, only been editing for a month. I don't feel particularly strongly on this, but I want to at least suggest that an appropriate remedy would be a short term block to address the edit warring issue and an indef topic or page restriction limiting or prohibiting Leke's edits related to Ekpa (and, assuming Leke can abide by such a restriction and demonstrates interest as to other areas, an appeal would be appropriate). Frankly, we could use more editors interested in Nigerian history, and I think the resolution I propose would, while certainly not guaranteeing success, make it more likely that we ultimately end up with a good editor.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• In case anyone agrees that the edit-warring should be addressed: they're now at 4 reverts on List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements in less than 48 hours. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I reverted and left a message on the talk page detailing WP:3RR and suggesting that the 4 edits in 48 hours will likely be found in violation of it. (I actually missed a date yesterday and originally thought that the user was in violation of 3RR at the time this notice was posted—sorry if I indicated that!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Editor had already received an initial EW warning and a final EW warning; reported to AN3. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 @SuperMarioMan this is probably a return of the Ebuka19 (talk · contribs) / Seok jimmy (talk · contribs) / Odinaka1 (talk · contribs) / Anyinchukwu (talk · contribs) sock farm who were dedicated to writing spammy promotion about Simon Ekpa. I suspect 1st Contributor (talk · contribs) is also a sock/meatpuppet, based on their creation of a draft on the "exiled government" [9], their upload of Simon Ekpa's "official portrait" and the addition of it to the article [10] and their copyediting of content on Simon Ekpa added by User:Leke23 [11] [12]. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Welp I definitely take back my "let's give some rope" suggestion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Fwiw, that pic has been online since 2017:[13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  l have no idea who those people are. This is 1st Contributor, a different contributor. 1st Contributor (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Some of their contributions:[14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps admins should consider WP:BLUELOCK for the Simon Ekpa article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I requested it at WP:RFPP, and it got declined by Daniel Case. I still think it is appropriate, though. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam's incessant refactoring of other's comments

Per their own request.

The timeline goes

• [15] + [16], where they delete part of Jayen466's RSN questions because those are apparently 'based on obvious misunderstandings' and per 'WP:NOTBURO'.
• [17] I revert and leave a warning [18]
• While I leave that warning, they re-delete Jayden's comments [19]
• [20] I restore the comments, pointing to my warning
• A discussion occurs (see also [21]), which seemingly goes nowhere.
• They then defiantly re-delete Jayden466's comments, asking to be taken to ANI. (and here we are)
• Jayden466 restores their own comments

There's also some civility issues to be addressed, with uncivil comments directed at both me ("Are you jobless? Like, go write an article." which they later struck) and Jayden466 ("entertain me with a new round of wikilawyering").

I'm not sure a block is needed, but this is highly WP:DE and WP:POINTY behaviour, and there needs to be some admin-backed warning and / or editing restrictions placed on TrangaBellam. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I will add to this story strangely being at the receiving end from TrangaBellam, and as I have not received a reply or acknowledgement from TrangaBellam to my post on their talk page. In summary, they addressed me first as an "idiot"[22] (which I perceive is blockable) and then after about 8-9 hours changed the word to address my actions as "idiocy"[23]. Their talk page and also the talk pages of articles and forums where they interact, are replete with editors requesting TrangaBellam to pipe down their aggression. They seem to be a good editor, so it would be good to have their acknowledgement that they will try and reverse this tendentious trend. Thanks, Lourdes 05:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, idiot was a typo; I apologize unconditionally. I changed it to "idiocy" when I spotted it, unprodded.

  I reply to my t/p messages, often very late. Unless there is an aspect of urgency. See my t/p history. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I am not impressed with TrangaBellam's behavior over the last two weeks. In addition to the above, here are some things I've observed recently.
  • Personal attacks against Lourdes at the edit filter noticeboard: [24]. You are indeed horribly wrong, as is (regrettably) often the case — 1, 2, etc., with links to two incidents that surely sting for Lourdes to read and that have nothing to do with edit filters. Refused to strike.
  • Personal attacks against Lourdes at the edit filter noticeboard: [25]. Okay - I could not care less about your support. Later struck after I asked them to do so on my user talk page.
  • Canvassing 5 editors to an RSN discussion, with user talk page messages stating please do !vote. [26][27][28][29][30]. Discussion of the canvassing issue at RSN, which showed no remorse and eventually led to the RSN discussion being closed early and restarted.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• You understand that those five editors — every one of them — had taken part in this this relevant discussion? Now, did I miss any editor who partook in that discussion? Did I ask them to !vote in any particular way? If the answer to either is in affirmative, please go ahead and sanction me for violating CANVASS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• If I'd seen this while it was going on, I'd have blocked. A couple days later, I'd say this ANI complaint is the equivalent of a final warning for edit warring to remove others' comments, incivility, personal attacks, and pretty much everything else going on here. But it looks like we've got a case of ANI flu here, so I doubt there's going to be any further disruption in the next 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, not really. My editing pattern has been sporadic for months; Xtools is a click away. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Editor appears to have 2 entries in the AE log from this year. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023. One of them is a warning for combative discussion style –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, this is well-found. The AE warnings show how this has been a recurrent and continuing problem with the editor. Here, in their responses, they have skirted the issue of personal attack ("idiocy" as being okay substitute for "idiots" to address my orientation), and refactoring. I do find justification for their argument on canvassing. But their reasoning for replying late (they kept editing but did not find time to respond to a personal attack notice) is flimsy. And I find no confirmation that from them that their personal attacks and arbitrary refactoring and similar aggressive posture will not continue. I find other names on the editor's current talk page such as Bookku and ScottishFinnishRadish who are facing/have faced such behaviour. But Abecedare, who has more experience with this editor, may have a better view. Lourdes 03:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes

Nature of the unfortunate microagression I faced

For me this time at the Talk:Sengol. In the previous comment on the talk page they themselves had asked for some constructive feedback. First on reading short description and about description of the article I realized there is scope mismatch. Second also definition of the common noun word Sengol meaning is simple sceptre where as definition in the article is appropriating a common noun for a specific object. So I initiated discussion to resolve scope mismatch and to have better definition which still needs inputs from more users. In my section at the top I mentioned clearly ".. This is overall feedback and not feedback for any individual editor edits .." And what I received was unexpected microagression, I protested on the user talk page,( discussion archiving bot link, the link to archived discussion), only receiving (insulting) feed back suggesting to take strawpoll whether suggestions given by me above is 'just bizarre' or 'stupid' This was very rich from some one, who expects constructive feedback for their own contributions!

Anyways, on side note, the definition at the article Sengol is provably inaccurate, scope mismatch continues to be concern. Understanding the definition and scope issue and providing inputs @ Talk:Sengol#Article title naming and scope mismatch may prove to be of constructive help. Bookku (talk)

@Lourdes: I am hoping that TrangaBellam is listening to the feedback here and realizing that their combative approach and lashing out in disputes is unpleasant for everyone involved, sets up an escalatory cycle with others (understandably) being less inclined to be collaborative, and is unproductive as more time is eventually spent discussing process and behavior than the underlying content/source/policy issue. On the positive front: TB is, afaict, knowledgeable of the subject matter in the areas they edit and dedicated to the project. So if they can dial down the aggression, they can be be more productive and cause less agita. Hope they'll take that path. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Behavioral issues aside, probably there are content issues as well. Yesterday I stumbled into a recently created article and I removed the striking, absolutist remark that a (very) controversial book received critical acclaim in Italy. Out of curiosity I digged a bit, and I noted the claim was added here by TrangaBellam. Apparently TrangaBellam turned the sentence "The book has been generally panned by the critics as a completely insufficient and fallacious analysis" into "received critical acclaim in Italy" and appended a source that does not support the claim (as noted in my edit summary it only says: "In its original Italian version, Anatomy of the Red Brigades won a major prize in 2010, presumably demonstrating that its argument suited the mentalité of Berlusconian Italy"). Also, they marked such a massive and problematic change of content with a misleading edit summary of "Ce" (copyedit). I haven't dug further, but this edit alone makes me question their good faith and their suitability to edit an encyclopedia. --Cavarrone 10:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Meh - half the editors, active over Orsini's t/p thinks that I am too biased against the subject, while you allege the opposite. However, nice catch about the edit-summary; though I will emphasize that the "completely insufficient and fallacious analysis" was unsourced, meriting a BLP del. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Tobias Hof, while reviewing the English Translation in quite unfavorable terms:

Orsini's original Italian version was mostly well received and was awarded the prestigious Acqui prize in 2010.

There are other reviewers who make the same point. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Putting an unsourced negative claim is problematic, replacing it with a brazenly positive claim (mis)using a random source that does not support the text is not less problematic (at best it is a WP:CIR issue). About Hof's questionable claim, it is apparently the first and the only relevant result by searching the string "well received" "red brigades" "Orsini" on Google. Not that looking now for sources that might, in retrospect, partially support an improper edit is too relevant to my criticism or would justify/make such an edit acceptable. About talk page discussions, as I have written above I haven't dug beyond that edit, so I don't know about the background and your other contributions to the page, and I only hope it is an isolated incident. Cavarrone 16:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Point taken; I acknowledge to have been in the wrong when I edit-warred to refactor Jayen's comments. I felt it to be a good case of WP:IAR but evidently, it is not. Additionally, this was a one-off blip — though that doesn't lessen its ramifications — and I do not believe that anybody else has accused me, ever, of refactoring their comments. Moving forward, I plan on being more pleasant and non-combative; I do plan on replying to Lourdes' message at my t/p within the next 48 hours. Fwiw, I do not think that ScottishFinnishRadish has any history with me; I assume that he has been a well-meaning t/p stalker for a while? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate the response TrangaBellam. Do please stick to these commitments. Thanks, Lourdes 03:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hoaxes by User:Tunnizar

User:Tunnizar has been pushing something called Rabbids Invasion 10 Years Anniversary or Development of Rabbids Invasion 10 Years Anniversary despite there being no sources at all (unreliable or not) about this. The sources they added to the article were from 2011/2013, but were given a 2023 date here to make them look more believable. Apart from nominating these two for speedy, I also reverted them on 4 other articles[31][32][33][34] where they added the same claims. They readded their claim to a 5th article[35], and then went on to add a different fake claim to another article[36]. Despite the reverts and escalating warnings, they have now added a new fake claimhere and readded their hoax here, sourcing a supposed 2023 series to a 2011 source[37]. They are adding the same nonsense to the French Wikipedia as well. Please block them. Fram (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

They're now blocked from here- considering how active they are on other Wikis, I would suggest a global block/lock as well. They've already been warned (and blocked before) on Malaysia Wikipedia. Magitroopa (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you (@Ingenuity: as well). Fram (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Self report: /redacted/

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 know we aren't allowed to make personal attacks, and I sort of did say that because [User:So47009] only edits pages about child porn, child porn advocates, and video games about having sex with kids, and that they may be too into pedophilia to edit neutrally in the areakids. I'm self reporting, here is the diff [38] Very Average Editor (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• You need to let the reported editor know that you are raising such a notice. That is mandatory. I have done that for now. What you have written here does not amount to any infraction. This is an encyclopedia. Editors have their own fortes. Not our place to be the moral police engendering our own value choices. If you have any diffs that go against any policy/guideline, please showcase. Otherwise, this report is going nowhere. Thanks, Lourdes 05:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Very Average Editor: Slinging around what are essentially personal attacks, telling an editor that they are a danger to children, is very poor conduct. I don't see any issue with them choosing to exclusively edit where they have. Please either provide diffs showing where they have broken Wikipedia's policies/guidlines, or close this thread before it gets ugly. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Filer is CU blocked by Blablubbs. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

While it’s unfortunate that the filer was socking, their points regarding the motives of the other user may be valid. In June of 2018 (can’t provide diffs from mobile) So47009 was advocating for the normalization of child pornography on the topic’s talk page. It’s astonishing to me that So47009 wasn’t banned immediately for that type of advocacy. Their comments on that talk page are gag inducing. 173.19.9.177 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Diffs? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Found these: [39], [40], [41]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the entirety of that thread the other editors seem to have been concerned about So47009's misrepresentation of the sources to support inclusion what they wanted in the article. DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yuck... If they are promoting the position, they are doing so through quotes from "scholars". I'm not sure we can say that So47009 is endorsing the statements per se.

A side thought: I thought this user might be Tyciol, but their grammar and English makes me think no. That said, I'm wondering if this is a sock nonetheless. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a perennial problem: the child sexual abuse apologist's playbook always looks about the same, and the consistency of accounts that argue for this perspective as being SPAs and/or socks, as well as the fact that they often seem to operate in WP:MEAT packs organized from off-project makes distinguishing one LTA or other bad actor from another exceedingly difficult.

Anyway, as to the present account, I would say those comments certainly tred the line of WP:CHILDPROTECT violation at the least. But given the edits in question were made to the talk page rather than the article, and are more than five years stale, I understand why no one is rushing to block. I did do a brief survey of their edits to related articles, and found that there is a propensity to minimize descriptions of pathologies in this area, but no single edit that I saw was indefensible as a copy edit for the purposes of brevity, so again, grey area. I will say that for WP:BEANS reasons I won't disclose here, I share your perspective that this looks like a sock of someone--or at least certainly not their first Wikimedia account. I wouldn't lose sleep over a precautionary block, certainly, but I can understand the perspective that there hasn't been a single brightline violation here. Still, I know which direction my risk/benefit bellwether is pointing.. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting also that this user's most recent editing involves the expansion of an article pertaining to Allyn Walker, who has become a recurrent locus of disruption for the pro-pedophile crowd, and whose BLP was created by a pair of accounts blocked less than a month ago for activity relating to Tom O'Carroll, another site of repeated WP:CHILDPROTECT violations. None of those users evidences the Chinese sourcing or language issues apparent with So47009, but otherwise there is a strong overlap in messaging and selling a combination of fringe statements and dubious sourcing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the pedophilia-related articles, their main interest appears to be eroge, Japanese "erotic" video games. They largely wrote Kana: Little Sister ("an erotic visual novel...relationships between characters become sexual; this include the sexual relationship between Takamichi and his younger sister Kana Toudou"). Most of their edits are to that article plus Yorite Konoha wa Kurenai ni and Dohna Dohna. The imagery is, to me, ...creepy but I don't have the slightest clue about this topic area. Someone who has a clue should take a look. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, both of the AFC draft (Dohna Dohna and Yorite Konoha wa Kurenai ni ) were created by another editor. I just focus more on eroge in the Chinese Wikipedia, and find out the ENWP community do not know much about those sources, get stuck in the AFC process. So I help them to write the drafts.(diff)

For Kana: Little Sister, someone on Chinese Wikipedia find out there are some bishōjo game that many lang ver of Wikipedia have it, but not the Chinese Wikipedia. So I wrote for it on Chinese due to the rich source,(diff from Chinese wikipedia, "Kana: little sister is something that I want to write before, let see is there any time to write an article in Chinese New year (although I only finished the light novel), but I may write the 177 or Shin'en no Labyrinthos in that time") and translated it to the ENWP since the original one's quality.

Also, I'm the main contributor of the Chinese ver of the A Long, Dark Shadow, and someone translated some content into english. So I pay more attention to it. It is worth noting that the current three book reviews on peer-reviewed journal have a positive attitude to it, even it may aroused controversy in the public.(someone should noted that I read the review before)

On that time, Ng was someone just like my fav sexologist due to his open, tolerant, and professional attitude toward sexuality.（He is the first person to open a sex therapy clinic in Hong Kong and maybe one of the outspoken person on sexuality in that place on 1990s, and provide many views, such as incest should be legal as long as there are a consent） So I may more care about what he said is worth enough to put into article due to his influence, but I don't care about him now due to he have less activity in the public and sometimes lack of evidence on his claims. So47009 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

For someone who belive the source I use 5 years ago is dubious, let me explain:

It is the offical Publication of World Association of Chinese Sexoloists, its members include:

Emil Ng Man Lun(吳敏倫), the chairman of World Association for Sexual Health's asia section

Cho Fu(張楓),Vice President of China Sexology Association

Li Yinhe(李銀河), Chinese sociologist

Pan Suiming(潘綏銘), professor at the Renmin University of China

and so on.

ref

http://www.wacshome.net/ So47009 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What people find dubious is your use of sources to push a pro-pedophilia point of view on Wikipedia. It’s the exact same approach those in favor of keeping the now deleted Minor Attracted Person article used unsuccessfully. Per WP:CHILDPROTECT you should have been blocked from the site five years ago based on your abhorrent comments that were “supported” by your use of sourcing. 173.19.9.177 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I basicly don't express my own views, what I done is based on the source that I considered RS to discuss about the topic.

You can't said someone find a source express anti-homo views which means they are anti-homo, especially it was written by expert who specialize in topic. So47009 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that English is not your first language, so the mistake is forgivable, but using "homo" in that way is a slur and it would be better for everybody if you didn't use it again. Thanks. — Trey Maturin™ 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank for correction. So47009 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Editors who try to add language into our articles normalizing pedophilia always seem to have the same Modus operandi. They refer to their sources and claim to be creating a more neutral article. In reality, they are attempting to normalize something atrocious and reprehensible. Also, your straw man argument isn’t appropriate here, and is quite offensive. 173.19.9.177 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So, Can you tell me the diff? I find a 2015 review include following statment:"In the new DSM-5, pedophilia is de-pathologized by differentiating between the sexual preference for prepubescent children (i.e., pedophilia) and the disorder in case of additional factors."

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00344/full

Basicly it is the RS that may make it normalization. I don't see any reason for any editor avoid to discuss it. So47009 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, that’s enough. You are clearly advocating for language supportive of adult-child relationships. This is a direct violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT which is a policy here. I will not engage with you again. For any admins watching, this guy’s most recent comment is five minutes old, not five years. 173.19.9.177 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I just cite a RS and I don't said this is my point or not. Why you so care about it? So47009 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is created and maintained by it's community, but it's also privately owned and is free to dictate what is or isn't allowed on the website. The policy page WP:CHILDPROTECT covers this, and generally states that anything that could be interpreted as advocating for any kind of adult*-child sexuality is not to be accepted. The source is not the problem, but rather the topic itself is the problem.* Whether you hold the beliefs you are editing about or not, or whether your sources are reliable or not, does not matter. Both the Wikimedia foundation and our wikipedia community have decided that this perspective is not to be tolerated on the website. We do this as an abundance of care to make sure that nobody uses the website to lure, deceive, groom, or abuse children. It is a very sensitive topic in the western world.

I would like to ask you to refrain from editing topics about the intersection of children and sexuality, especially making* edits that would give legitimacy to the concept of, or to advocate for or defend those who pursue adult*-child sexuality. I hope you understand. If there is anything you don't understand, please ask about it and I will try to reword it or answer. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) *Edited GabberFlasted (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There's some additional context and nuance here that I think is worth adding to GabberFlasted's correct statement of policy above. I'm going to dig deep to WP:AGF with regard to So47009, despite the fact that I think there are a lot of reasons not to: when last pushed back against on attempting to introduce the most problematic edits, they dropped the matter for five years, so it's at least possible they are attempting to operate in good faith here. It's also possible (and frankly, from the evidence, more likely) that they are part of the massive network of sock puppets/meat collaborators who have been trying to push the same content in a select number of articles for some years now. However, even beyond giving fair notice to this user, there may be something in what I am about to relate which will allow others to recognize LTAs in this field. Because of my background and contributions in areas relating to biopsychology, my heavy participation in RfCs generally, and just a bit of dumb luck, I've been put in the position of having to see and report more WP:CHILDPROTECT activities than your average editor; not a giant amount, but enough in recent years in particular that I'm starting to see patterns that the community should be aware of. To wit:

First off, be on guard at the first mention of Allyn Walker and attempts to introduce "minor-attracted person" and other similarly euphemistic language to supplant widely-used and/or clinical descriptors. Walker wrote a book in which they (Walker seems to use gender neutral pronouns) tried to underline the distinction between those who possess latent deviant psychosexual urges with regard to children and have suppressed them, and those who are actual sex offenders. The book's notability arises more from it's reputation (accurate or not) for attempting to whitewash concerns about pedophilia, rather than any academic influence; I doubt it will ever be considered to pass MEDRS scrutiny on the topics it discusses, and to my knowledge is presently only discussed in the article about the book itself. Incidentally, Walker's BLP article was deleted last month in connection to CHILDPROTECT violations, with some content pushed over to the retained article on the book; So47009 seems to have shown immediately after that (almost to the day) to work on content of the book article, it's worth noting.

Now, needless to say, there is some nuance to parse here in regards to the content we can and cannot allow here: if a person recognizes that they have a neurophysiology that predisposes them towards abuse of children, and they proactively seek out treatment to avoid that outcome, it's hard to argue that is a bad thing or that doesn't take a certain degree of self-awareness and even personal risk. The problem is that Walker's attempt to couch the discussion in terms of the dignity of the afflicted (the very thing that makes the book controversial) also makes their work incredibly amenable to being incorporated into the belief systems of unapologetic pedophiles who come here to push the narrative that 1) pedophilia is just another variety of sexual orientation, 2) that the current classification of their drives as a pathology is mere bigotry, and 3) that there is an "ethical" way to initiate sexual practices with children.

I'll give Walker the benefit of the doubt that they would push back against all three of those statements, but for our purposes here, it suffices for me to point out that I have literally never--not once--seen someone push to include reference to Walker's work where I couldn't go back and find somewhere in their edit history where they had also tried to push fringe sources suggesting that there is a supposedly healthy way to have sex with a child. Whether this is an unfair misrepresentation of Walker's work or something they set themselves up for in how they constructed the book, it's simply become a part of a framework of rationalizations for child sexual abuse, and attempts to normalize the practice. There are many other more overtly "prideful" sources that SPAs have attempted to push into various articles, but Walker (and others who have sought to destigmatize pedophilia that is not acted upon) are increasingly the go-to entry point on this project for those trying to find a workable beachhead on which to form a tower of fringe research to challenge the scientific consensus about the substantial and horrific harms of this form of abuse and the social consensus about the proper weight of condemnation for those who commit such offenses or attempt to legitimize such activities. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You should noted that three book reviews list in the article ref are praising the book, wrote that it is helpful for sexual crime prevention.

Please don't judge anything before doing any research.

And letter signed by more than 60 professors with one of the book reviewer Matthew Ball, belived that the public backlash is a result of misunderstanding Walker's research. So47009 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe I was quite equanimious with regard to Walker's book. Whatever the cherry-picked positive reviews on the article happen to say, the book is quite controversial not just among the broader audience (some of whom may or may not have misconstrued Walker's arguments), but also among the the more established academics in relevant fields who reviewed it, as far as I can tell. But that's neither here nor there: I didn't personally judge Walker's book, other than to point out that it is controversial, and I even went as far as to say that Walker's thesis (that increased support for pedophilia-afflicted individuals who proactively seek treatment could be a valuable thing) is a reasonable line of argument. Perhaps you missed all of that because of the language barrier here. I'll say again: my main reason in wanting to raise awareness around Walker and the euphemistic "minor-attracted person" label was to point out the context here that pretty much without exception, whenever we see someone pushing hard for utilizing that euphemistic language, they pretty much always also have a history of trying to push sources that go much farther than Walker, to the point of stating that there are "safe" and "acceptable" ways to engage in sex with a child. (i.e. unambiguous violations of WP:CHILDPROTECT). And I stand by that observation--it's a pattern and one, for the record, that you are a part of. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You can find is there any review related to the book. As of March 2023, I just find three review of the book. Not to mention that those three review is not cited by me in ENWP, but by other editors. So47009 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

In short, So47009, regardless of whether or not this is your only account, or if you are pushing these angles elsewhere, you need to listen to what GabberFlasted has told you above. There is a reason that, of all the entire universe of subjects we discuss in this encyclopedia, and all of the wealth of perspectives on those many topics, the one perspective we do not allow to be pushed on a given subject as an a priori matter is the very same argument you've attempted to advance in the past. When one considers that almost every article you have edited on this project (and in fact, possibly all of them) pertains to some variety of underage romantic relationship or sexual activity, combined with your past statements on certain talk pages, as well as additional factors, it is hard to imagine that you are not at least partially sympathetic to the fringe views discussed above. But whether you are someone who mostly dropped the stick on this matter years ago, or someone dividing your support for these notions across multiple accounts, you should know that the policy of keeping such notions out of our articles is probably the single least flexible principle we have in the entire body of rules governing this project. The perspective that there is a healthy, moral, and acceptable way to have sex with a child is never something we are going to let in, no matter how many sources you gather in support of that notion. So you should save yourself the trouble of trying to add it anywhere, and the rest of this community at large the trouble of having to unambiguously reject it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't express any view on it. Also, about the term "MAP"

Skye Stephens, associate professor of psychology at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Canada, said "is also used by some who have sexual attraction to children and youth under the age of consent, and that it appears in some of the academic literature on this topic. As with other areas of research, there remains debate over the best or most appropriate terminology, "

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/11/18/old-dominion-puts-scholar-pedophilia-leave

It is ture that it is not what his intro, somoeone had use it in the peer-reviewed literature before Walker.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2018.1474406 So47009 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on some reason, you should noted that some researcher treated it as sexual orientation don't mean they belived that it is nomral. They are basicly just describe its characteristics.

You can see this argument in Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention, Second Edition So47009 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am aware the "minor attracted person" term predates Walker's work. Personally, I have only ever seen it used in sources that push somewhat fringe notions about pedophilia--although some of those were arguably trying to make more a social/policy argument than an empirical/clinical distinction. It's not really relevant here though: I didn't broach the subject to argue that the term should never be used in an article (though it should certainly be used with heavy caution, attribution and contextualization in the few cases where we do make reference to it). Rather, my point in mentioning it here is to point out to my fellow community members who act in oversite areas that this is a current major red flag: pretty much without exception, everytime I have seen someone try to emphasize Allyn (and other authors with similar outlooks) and the "minor-attracted person" lebale, it involves users who have also suggested (or pushed non-RS fringe sources suggesting) something along the lines of "Well, not all sex with children is bad--you just have to be sure they child really, really wants it!" (Good god, it's not the first time I've had to relate that such a retch-inducing perspective is being pushed on this project, but it still, every time I have to actually type it out, makes me feel like I need a shower, it's just so foul). The co-occurrence/interplay between that belief and the terminology in question is something I want people working in behavioural/administrative spaces to be aware of.

Regarding the suggestion that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" as opposed to a pathology, that is clearly a fringe view that flies against all academic (and broader) consensus on the topic, but it's also a content issue that I trust will be accordingly knocked down on relevant articles and need not be discussed at length here.

Now as to your assertion that you don't personally espouse a position on these issues, I really do try to stretch myself to AGF, but bluntly, in light of your comments here and elsewhere, I don't think I really believe you. But I'm not pushing to have you blocked on this interpretation of your comments alone; I can live with the apparent lack of consensus to block your account at this time. However, I am doubling down on GabberFlasted's suggestion that you give this subject area a wide berth, given your past statements and fringe source pushing on the topic (which you could have been blocked for on WP:CHILDPROTECT grounds at the time), as well as your limited command of the policies in this area. I think you're skating by without action here on the thinnest of technicalities, and I don't doubt that any return to trying to recontextualize child sexual abuse (or the drive to commit same) will put your edits back under the spotlight, and probably with a lot more community will to act next time. We don't tend to extend the usual amount of WP:ROPE to those editing abusively in this particular area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You should noted that the book is wrote by Michael Seto, who is the important person on this field with high citation rate.

He said pedo can be both sexual orientation and pathology. This is not confict. So47009 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I think that is unambiguously a fringe view, but it's also a content issue. On this page we don't debate content issues. We only discuss behavioural issues here. If you were to argue for inclusion of that notion (that pedophilia is a sexual orientation) on the talk page of just about any relevant article, I would be prepared for strong opposition. But it wouldn't be a behavioural issue to raise the debate, because misclassifying the condition is not the same thing as saying that sexual abuse is harmless, and so does not fall afoul of WP:CHILDPROTECT in the same way some of your other past assertions have. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't say anything about sexual abuse is harmless, I cite the scholar argument and said "he wrote that thing. He argue that……"

without my personal view.

You can't said that this is my argument. So47009 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which is one of a number of reasons why I think it would be unfair to block you for those old edits. However, at this point, you have been told that even POV pushing through the use of sources is considered disruptive in this case, because of the unique but very serious considerations of WP:CHILDPROTECT. I can understand your confusion trying to understand this detail of policy in a second language. Afterall, literally no other content issue on this project works that way: any other topic, the WP:WEIGHT of the sources is where you begin with discussing the acceptability of content on en.wp. This just happens to be the exception, and my concern going forward is that you have taken on board that new insight, and internalized the policy that has been shared with your repeatedly here. We are not prepared to entertain placing, anywhere on the encyclopedia, the implication that maybe child sexual abuse can be done "right" or "safely" or "ethically" or "healthily" or "benignly" or anything remotely like any of those descriptors. It's what we call "a non-starter" and even belaboring the discussion on a philosophical level after being told of this standard can quickly rise to the level of a violation of that policy; not only is the safety of our content in question, but also of our community.

So it's something you have to just accept, or else you can be essentially certain of being blocked for it in the future. And I would go further to support GabberFlasted's recommendation that you avoid editing on at least the empirical side of this topic in general, given those past comments--at least until you are more competent in terms of local policy. Comparably speaking, the eroge articles are probably a safer area to dabble in, all factors considered: policy, English capability, and past statements in this area. That's my best advice. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will not edit any article related to this topic. So47009 (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that: it is appreciated. I do think that is the safest way forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And I admit that child sexual abuse is harmful to all children. So47009 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know! As an empiricist and student of the brain, I agree that it is important as a general rule to keep our minds open even to discussion around ideas that may be abhorrent to us. It's just that with this one topic, we have made a decision as a community to err on the side of caution, because of just how much potential harm is involved. Your understanding is appreciated. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about whether misclassifying or not, whether it is sexual orientation or not. I just said there are some researcher classifying it at that way.

You should know that I can quote anything in article or talk page that other people expressed in RS without judgement, even though it may opposite or don't related to my viewpoint. So47009 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that's precisely the thing, this is the one subject (in all of the entire universe of possible subjects) where that rule does not apply. If you push this particular idea, long after being told that it won't go into any article, you will be found to be in violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT and WP:DISRUPTIVE and be summarily blocked. Trust me on this. I'm not trying to misrepresent the standard to you: I'm giving you the most honest advice you could get in this situation: no matter how many sources you bring to bear on this issue, it's not going to help. It doesn't look like you are going to get blocked for the old comments, so don't worry about that. What needs to be clear though is that future proposals, along the same lines (language saying sex with children is not harmful to the child) will almost certainly be met with an instant block, no matter how many sources you present while doing so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This reference to Michael Seto is troubling. I took a look at his article, and a significant, troubling, portion of the article was included by a now blocked user, James Cantor, who used an offline source to support those statements. Can someone with time please check this out? I’m worried we have a problem with this article, including edits by the subject himself. 173.19.9.177 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So47009, can you explain why you have both these interests in English Wikipedia: adding academic sources (which you say you don't personally agree with) suggesting normalisation of sex children AND editing a video game article where there is a theme of incestuous sex with a child? One is an academic topic the other is "entertainment". The only common theme is a view normalising sex with children. DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, I am the wikipedian who focus on eroge in chinese wikipedia. So I sometimes watch is there any draft about eroge that stuck in the AFC process, and help the editor to finished it. You should know that the online source of eroge is rare and more of the source issued as a magazine, so I always help them to find the source.

For Kana, I just read the light novel adaptation which is without erotic scenes, make me feel depressing at that time. But I first know about Kana when I watch the book Introduction to Cultural Studies Adult Games, it "said that Kana: Little Sister along with the games developed by Key were considered as masterpieces of "nakige" in the late 1990s" Nakige which mean crying game, focus on tragic nature of the story. So47009 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to push back on @GabberFlasted's comment saying WP:CHILDPROTECT says that "advocating for any kind of child sexuality is not to be accepted". This is incorrect. CHILDPROTECT bars the advocacy of adult-child sexual relationships. We have plenty of articles about children's sexuality (e.g., child sexuality, adolescent sexuality, statutory rape, incest, lolicon, sex education, age of consent, and even jailbait) and we must allow the constructive discussion of the topics with sources to improve the encyclopedia. And that includes controversial and odious things like so-called MAPs and NAMBLA. What we cannot allow is POV pushing promoting pro-pedophilia views while working on these topics. The question here is: has So47009 engaged in such POV pushing? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think they at least walked right up to that line in their initial talk page comments, if not right over it. Only the fact that they were a relatively new editor on this project at that time (or claim to have been anyway), plus the extreme staleness of those comments, mitigate enough that a block would feel more punitive than preventative at this juncture. That said, their current pushback against taking on board the current efforts to clarify the standard, and push them to back away from further statements in this area, is concerning. The language barrier might be exacerbating that intransigence, but WP:CIR is a policy for precisely this reason, soo... I'll also repeat, while still keeping the details close to my vest for WP:BEANS reasons, that there is enough going on in this case to overcome my AGF threshold on the question of whether this is So47009's only account. Basically, I can see the argument for not blocking here, but by the same token, I wouldn't walk away feeling an unfair or improper action had been taken if an admin did block on the precautionary principle alone. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't buy what they're saying. They haven't given a good reason why out of their 516 total edits they have an interest in both adding academic sourcing that supposedly discusses normalization of adult-child sex to pedophilia-related articles and making 127 edits to a video game where the plot line includes incestuous sex with a child. "I just read the light novel adaptation which is without erotic scenes" feels pathetically disingenuous. EvergreenFir asks if they are POV-pushing. The 2018 diffs certainly look like they were misusing a source to push a POV but that was 5 years ago. Normally that wouldn't "count" now. (I don't know enough about the topic area to know whether more recent edits such as this are POV-pushing.) But in view of their video game interest I don't think it's worth taking the risk having them here. DeCausa (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you for the ping. I appreciate the pushback, looking back my comment feels a little silly. At the time I was focusing on trying to AGF and keep the wording simple for the sake of the accused editor and push them in the right (away from the wrong) direction. Because of that I made some pretty troutworthy generalizations and just plum didn't think about such listed articles. This is generally a topic I'm liable to get heated/tunnelvisioned about so I apologize for the misleading post. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

After this edit I will be blocking So47009. (I’m making this edit first so I can place the diff in the block log, rather than a terse explanation). Simply put, I don’t think we can take the risk not blocking here. Pulling out 2018 diffs on a routinely active editor would be one thing, but on an editor with 500 edits total they are still a significant part of their record. I admit this block is out of an excess of caution, but in this one very specific area, that is called for. Courcelles (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged in an earlier closure of this thread, I just to note that my block of the OP shouldn't be taken as a comment on the merits of this specific thread, one way or another. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2023 (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:Iwao24

@Iwao24 has been acting in bad faith on the Korean influence on Japanese culture page. They have removed tens of thousands of bytes of sources content without consensus, and reverted repeatedly without discussion and very poor explanations.[42][43] I then left them a warning in their talk page.[44] They then left the weirdest racist-sounding message on the arcticle's talk page,[45] which I reverted.[46]

They said, "Google have to explain the reason why this article is being protected. For what reason this article is being protected?"

"Only those poor Japanese who cannot accept the fact that they were taught by Koreans before, is distorting the history. This nasty characteristic of Japanese is not new as a matter of fact. You keep doing distorting the history from your funatic nasty nationalism and you will only get bad reputation for that."

"When I deleted it, I was told to "discuss" and the article was revived

Who am I supposed to argue with on this empty board?

This is the claim of the person who wrote this article.

Wikipedia, editors

are we monkeys".

At this point, I just can't take more of their crap. They are obviously are inserting their own stupid bias into the article and claiming a conspiracy that doesn't exist. They have obviously every read WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, or WP:EDITWAR.

I left them a warning for their talk page comment, but I am concerning this behavior may continue. I am calling upon Iwao24 to explain themselves, and for others on here to see the evidence and give their thoughts. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah they were initially reasonable on the talk page but quickly deteriorated. I'm surprised this is at ANI though with how he's only made like 9 edits. I figure a short term block might be good. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds WP:NOTHERE to me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

One thing I want to note is he has seemingly made a lot of ip comments and edits. This is not abnormal on Japanese wikipedia as I understand it and shouldn't be held against him. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If we wanna give them any more AGF, how about we give ‘em a template:welcome-foreign and see what happens? ja for Japanese, ko for Korean. Depends what we think this user’s home language is. If they keep being a pest after, then that’s the noose of the WP:ROPE. Thoughts? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 08:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. They continued to be a bit of a nuisance after I put the edit warring template on their talk page, but they didn't listen until I gave them yet another warning. My concern was that this behavior would not be confined to just this one incident, and might happen again in the future if the rules are not properly explained to them. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

i remember you.

I explained to you in detail why Japanese swords, magatama, the emperor, and politics are not of Korean origin.

You suddenly changed the subject and said, "Yakiniku is made in Korea," right?

Yakiniku is a Korean dish. Similarly, Japanese swords are also Japanese. Iwao24 (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you get how cultural influence works. Japanese swords, magatama, emporer, and politics are not Korean -- they have been, at times, influenced by Korea. What is so hard to understand here? Professor Penguino (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that I was reported as a nuisance user, so I will write a counterargument. The person who wrote that article discriminates Japanese against monkeys. The article that pointed it out was also deleted.

I am not a revisionist historian. I have no intention of denying the sins that the Japanese empire did to Korea. We must apologize again and again for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans living in Japan.

But Japanese swords, politics, magatama, the emperor, laws, and ancient tombs are not from Korea. Iwao24 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, most aren't. But some of them are. You can't just go around deleting reliably sourced material. Also, what do you mean by "discriminates Japanese against monkeys"? That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that there's some racist element in the article? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you seemed to imply before that there was some anti-Japanese conspiracy. "Only those poor Japanese who cannot accept the fact that they were taught by Koreans before, is distorting the history. This nasty characteristic of Japanese is not new as a matter of fact. You keep doing distorting the history from your funatic nasty nationalism and you will only get bad reputation for that." I am not Korean. I am unbiased on this topic. You also refer to "the author" of the article, yet don't seem to understand that dozens of different editors have worked on the article. There is no single author. I think you need to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:NPOV. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

These are the words left by the former editor, not mine.

The person called Japanese people M, a discriminatory term. Iwao24 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what your point is. Yes, calling Japanese people monkeys is racist. Can you provide a link that shows the person typing such a statement? Professor Penguino (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the people who wrote that article discriminated against the Japanese by calling them "monkeys."

Can I paste that statement here?

I use a language translation program. Sorry for the poor English Iwao24 (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Just remember to put it in quotes. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/782520269 Iwao24 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I pasted the URL. There is a sentence in this

"This is the answer.

Japanese monkeys gave some money to Google, and make them protect this article that has distorted history produced by Japanese monkeys.

Poor Japanese..." Iwao24 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes that comment is racist, but it was a comment from 2017 by an IP who's only edits to articles was to Taekwondo. Assuming it's still relevant, you it's likely you could revert whatever the IP did to Taekwondo. But otherwise, what relevance is it to our article Korean influence on Japanese culture's current content or your disputes with various accounts in the here and now? Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The editor of the article contains an obvious racist. At least he was involved, right?

And if the article is correct, why is it different from the specialized page?

For example, the Japanese sword page on Wikipedia does not say that "Japanese swords came from Korea."

Could it be because the page where the racist was involved is skewed?

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not a historical revisionist. I think that the crimes committed by the Japanese Empire, such as the comfort women system, should be atoned for. But Japanese swords are not Korean Iwao24 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Japanese swords are not Korean, yes. But a few swords do have their roots in Korea. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Could it be because the page where the racist was involved is skewed?" But how was the racist involved? They didn't make a single edit to the main article. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look at their edit history, they haven't edited the article once, and just left that talk page message. That's right -- they never touched the main article. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we conclude that there is only one user account? A person who "calls Japanese monkeys" has appeared, and there are articles that are clearly wrong.

For example, the article states, ``Swordsmiths were kidnapped by Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, and their skills improved the technique of Japanese swords.''

Japanese swords have existed since before the 16th century, right? It is also used for trade, and Ouyang Shu, a politician in the Song Dynasty of China, wrote a poem called "Japanese Sword Song" and praised Japanese swords highly.

Other errors and inconsistencies are noted on the discussion page of the article.

Penguin, I can't speak English. The only way to fix the article was to delete it. I apologize for bothering you

Could you please correct the article? Iwao24 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying Korean swordsmiths improved Japanese swords which already existed is sourced info. And no, the user you mentioned has not edited that article ONCE, only its talk page, which is a completely separate thing. You are complaining about an issue that doesn't exist and deleting sourced info. The article never says the word "mokeys" once, never states that the Japanese royal family started in Korea, or anything of that sort. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The article states that Japanese swords, magatama, law, emperors, and burial mounds are of Korean origin. Why don't you ask if you came from Korea on each specialized bulletin board? Iwao24 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So you think I came from a specialized bulletin board? I don't. Also, the article doesn't state that all of Japanese culture came from Korea. It talks about how Korea has influenced Japan... because it has. The same thing goes for the other way around. If you're still upset, then cite the specific parts you have an issue with. My main problem was that you deleted an entire reference section and damaged a few templates. Whether that was a mistake or not, it damaged the article. I'd be willing to close this discussion nd we can discuss this further on the article's talk page. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Japanese sword

Japanese swords were not brought in by immigrants. The curved sword is inspired by the Ainu people of Tohoku.

law

Japanese politics and law are modeled after the laws of the Sui and Tang dynasties in China, and have been modified to suit the climate of Japan.

Katakana

Katakana is directly derived from Kanji

magatama

In Asia, jade, which is the source of magatama, is found only in the westernmost part of China (Tibet) and Japan. According to the latest inspection, the Korean magatama is also derived from the ruins around Itoigawa in Japan. The Japanese have been making magatama since primitive people in 5000 BC

ancient tomb

More than 5,000 have been excavated from Japan. If burial mounds are of Korean origin, why are only a few dozen burial mounds unearthed from South Korea?

emperor

Although the mother of the 50th emperor is of Baekje descent, the imperial family itself did not originate in Korea. The king of Korea also had a Japanese spouse, but the first king of Korea will not be Japanese.

Finally, as a Japanese person, I do not intend to deny crimes against Koreans. We must apologize repeatedly for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans in Japan. However, Japanese culture and history are not Korean.

Please delete the article or at least correct it. Iwao24 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me. I'd like to reach a consensus on the article soon, but is there any theory, including Mr. Penguin, that my claim is wrong? If not, I would like you to write it in the article,

Even if there is, since Wikipedia is neutral, shouldn't we write both "However, there are such opinions"? Iwao24 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support page ban I don't see any chance of this user editing the article constructively, because he doesn't read English well enough to understand what's written in the article. What he is criticizing either doesn't exist in the article at all, or else is a misreading of the article. He's complaining on the talk page that the article says "tumuli (kofun) were of Korean origin", but it doesn't say that, it says the opposite. He's complaining that the article says "Hideyoshi stole a Korean sword, and Japanese swords prospered because of this technique", but the article doesn't mention that in any way. He's complaining that the article says "the imperial family started in Korea", but the article doesn't say that. He's complaining that "it would be wrong to say that without Korea the Japanese would have turned into monkeys", but the article doesn't say that. I could go on and on, but my point is that this user shouldn't be editing an article that he can't actually read.Homemade Pencils (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  sorry. It may have been my misunderstanding. My only excuse is that "Nihonzaru" is a term often used to insult Japanese people. That's what I've been told in real life and online.

  ``Japanese swords were imported from Korea ``Katakana was invented by Koreans ``The first emperor was Korean ``Kofun was made in Korea ``Magatama is a Korean culture

  If the article doesn't say this, then I'm wrong. sorry. However, if there is, could you please correct it or write both dissenting opinions?

  The source is attached to the discussion

  sorry for the inconvenience Iwao24 (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. Just be more careful next time. Glad we could work out this little misunderstanding. Have a nice day. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose page ban. They continue to claim that there are things in the article, which, simply put, just aren't there. They say that the article asserts that Japanese swords are Korean -- it does not. I think this is more of a misunderstanding of what is written in the article, as the main article was never edited once by the person Iwao24 thinks wrote the entire thing. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do not speak English. Because I am using a translator, I may have misinterpreted something. I apologize for that. It is also wrong to be written as a monkey and become emotional. I would like to ask you one more thing.

  Doesn't the article say something like this? If it's not written, it's completely my quick jump. sorry. However, if it is written, I would like to add another opinion

  ``Japanese swords originated in Korea.'' ``Kofun came from Korea.'' ``Magatama came from Korea.'' ``The imperial family originated in Korea.'' Iwao24 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if I overreacted. This seems to be an honest misunderstanding. I have done a thorough search of the article for the passages you have cited, but I have been unable to find those quotes. If they were in the article, they have long been removed. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Simply put, if you're using Google Translate or another automatic translation system, you should not be editing English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Google Translate can produce respectable first efforts between European languages, but with Oriental languages it can be bizarre. My favourite, of a sentence from jawiki, was "My wife, Mr Yamamoto, ix an imposter". (I gave up.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

User Yusaya_Takei redirecting mainspaces to User Talk pages, and creating multiple test pages

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.

---

Plaese see Special:Contributions/Yusaya Takei. I am unsure how to rollback the re-directs. He is also vandalising various articles despite repeated rollbacks, and creating multiple new test pages. Qcne (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed by Ingenuity. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There were a bunch of other socks as well (see here). There's a lot of cross-wiki abuse going on, so I've requested global locks on all of them. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 June 2023 (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.

Jesteron27 continued addition of unsourced content on pageant articles

• Jesteron27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you look at this user's talkpage you will see a litany of warnings about unsourced content from me and other authors. This one I posted in April was a level 3 warning. Now they are still adding stuff like a purported Miss America person here. There have also been other unreferenced changes, not noted on their talkpage, like this claimed national contest winner, and issues addressed by other editors, like this.

This has to be addressed by an administrator, I'm afraid. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hear me out.

The explanations behind those edits:

1. For the case of the Mister Supranational 2023, these kinds of pageants are not (or are rarely) published by news papers or articles. Instead, I would have to rely to the posts and announcements done by their national organizations on Instagram, which I did. But Wikipedia doesn't take Instagram lightly, so where else could I look? Poorly-sourced, yes. But are there any available resources for them? No. The latter doesn't mean that the edit is straight for the bin, as the national organization itself confirms it. Why deny the announcements the national organizations made on their official Instagram accounts, when it is an official statement?

2. Grace Keller, as I've researched on Miss America pageants over the past few years, have indeed participated in the 2022 edition. See Miss America 2022 and find her name there. Additionally, here's a link of her win to confirm: [[47]]. It wasn't purpoted in any way, I just did my research, which was also indicated in her Instagram bio.

3. I was watching it live, that's why there are no sources available yet for Miss Grand Colombia 2023 that time. It was a real-time update, and a real-time update such as that has rare-to-none available sources.

4. The last one was a mistake I've done. She wasn't appointed, like I initially thought.

Also, I would like to call out Bri for removing subnational flags on Miss Teen USA, which has been in every Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pages for a very long time, which I found perflexing since it has been there ever since. They had done this twice. And even to Miss Earth, they applied MOS:OVERLINKING to the countries in the "Contestants" section, which is very unnecessary since, like I've said, had been there and then even before me and them joined Wikipedia. Why change the rules now? Why not way back then? Reverting it to the way it was before would be an appropriate course of action for them.

Also, most of them are from you about MOS:OVERLINKING which was tackled before, and MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE, which was also tackled before. That's why it is repeated, because you kept doing it, and I had to revert it to the way it was, not what you think is appropriate. It's not my say whether this is what it should be, looking from the background and historical standpoint, it had been there even way before you and I joined. For the rest that's in my talk page, they just informed me about certain issues, and I conformed; and the others are just drafts I've created/contributed, or just one poorly-sourced image for Celeste Cortesi. That's it. Jesteron27 (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Just a reminder to admins that beauty pageants are under General Sanctions: see WP:GS/PAGEANT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, totally useless here, as the on,y authorized remedy is semiprotection? That’s utterly useless, these are not CTOP-analogue sanctions at all… Courcelles (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week, given the BLP CTOP warning, and warned them the next block for this will be indefinite. Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Drop all pageant coverage <BEEP> Drop all pageant coverage <BEEP> Drop all pageant coverage <BEEP> This is a recording. EEng 07:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  While that’s unlikely to happen, I would welcome changing the GS in this area to be the standard CTOPS set of tools. I mean, it likely could be shoehorned into BLP, but being able to topic ban from pageants, broadly construed would be useful. Courcelles (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  If a proposal being able to topic ban from pageants, broadly construed were made, I'd endorse it in a microsecond. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Editor adding fringe theories/original research linking aircraft incidents

• 50.204.200.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please review anon editor's reverted contributions like this latest one. They have several talkpage warnings from several editors in good standing [48][49][50][51] about this attempt to synthesize a connection between 9/11 and an aircraft incident this year, as well as other uncollegial interactions, and are not getting the message. Instead, they remove information cited to major national newspapers [52] calling it "fringe". ☆ Bri (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize they were still at that. I've blocked them from that page indefinitely, they quite clearly are unable to contribute to it encyclopaedically. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If they're being disruptive in other articles or areas, let me know and we'll look at making a different sitewide block. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Serial suspect changes

Special:Contributions/2600:8805:9017:EE00:4832:B8ED:F222:472/48 is back. Background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Suspect changes. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Warned: I was gonna go with a few weeks range block (since last block was for one week, on June 17), but since they replied today, I've given them a final warning, instead. Maybe I'm overly optimistic (probably); we'll see, I guess. I also rollbacked their mass additions. El_C 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Urgeback

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

Definitely WP:NOTHERE. They have a history of edit warring. Now they're edit-warring on Anna Paquin. I warned them, only to receive incivilities (see this and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me. I actually changed AND used a citation to prove it. The person didn’t personally agree with it and thought they had the authority to “warn” me. I haven’t been “warring.” The person didn’t agree and thought they’d “threaten” me out of editing because they didn’t like it. So when I did the same to them, they came here claiming unfairness because they didn’t get their way. Secondly they also accused me of changing it before a “consensus” has been reached. On there talk page no such consensus has ever occurred. Lastly you can check my page and this accusation of “edit warring” is another lie. Also how is him writing one thing on my wall civilly but someone doing the same thing an incivility? And if you look on his talk page you’ll see he actually has a warning about edit warring himself.Urgeback (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You are both edit warring, and should both discuss this on the article talk page. "Definitely WP:NOTHERE" is silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am more than happy to discuss it. What I don’t appreciate is my references being deleted and being “warned” not to edit Urgeback (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This content dispute belongs somewhere... NOTHERE though. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of your accusations, I would like to suggest you endeavor to collaborate greater than you have so far. rv and rv to stable version are not substitutes for proper edit summaries describing the edits you made, or the reason for a revert, with the exception of rolling back very obviously problematic edits, usually vandalism. While bugger off isn't the nicest thing to say, neither is handing down an unexplained disruption uw template. Have you opened a talk page section regarding this? Or tried to discuss this with Urgeback? Also remember to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) GabberFlasted (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is the sum of Urgeback's latest 6 edits. The first sentence now makes no sense, "A Canadian-New Zealand actress" and their other change was to introduce a bare URL to a pretty unreliable source. If Urgeback can't do better than that, then it is quite right to revert their edits. Which I have just done. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is content and not for here, but they do have a point. Canadian-born and Canadian are not necessarily the same thing, and she is Canadian. Canterbury Tail talk 18:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. But if she has dual nationality, it should be "Canadian actress with New Zealand dual nationality". And in fact I've just changed it to that. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I admit that I've edit-warred many times. Sorry. I'll try I'm trying to do better. Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

but if we look at the ones that have her as “Canadian” born New Zealand actress they are pretty bare themselves. Merely news articles, giving perception not based on truth or sources. I don’t see why they were allowed to stand. Canadian/New Zealander is an article referring to people of Canadian decent/birth that are/live in New Zealand.

my only objection that the article referred to her as being Canadian/born but New Zealand actress while she still has Canadian citizenship. Since she was born in Canada, raised since 4 in New Zealand, now no longer lives there but retains her citizenship for both countries, how does this make her New Zealand but not Canadian? Because she simply lived there longer.

I’m happy to what it’s reverted to now, although I still think Canadian-New Zealander actress would be better. Urgeback (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Intellectual property and trademark violation request

There’s someone - User:Drjoshcohen - who’s claiming we’ve/we’re breaching their intellectual property and trademarks and is asking [us as a whole] to stop it. I’d request some attention over there. Thanks! — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 06:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address a concern regarding the editing of a specific work on Wikipedia. While I understand that Wikipedia has the right to edit and maintain the content according to its guidelines, I believe it is important to acknowledge the rights of the author and trademark owner to have input on their intellectual property.

To provide some context, I recently edited a book on Wikipedia. Although I am not the original author of the book, I have made substantial contributions to its content. As the trademark owner, my intention is to preserve the integrity of the clinical license associated with the work. It is crucial to emphasize that the subject matter pertains to psychotherapy and falls within the field of healthcare. Therefore, it is my utmost priority to adhere to the ethical principles outlined by the American Psychological Association.

While I understand the need for Wikipedia to ensure accuracy and adherence to its guidelines, I kindly request that I, as the trademark owner and contributor to the work, be allowed to provide input and make edits within reason. I fully acknowledge the importance of an unbiased approach, and I assure you that any edits I propose will be made in good faith, with the sole intention of maintaining accuracy, relevance, and adherence to ethical principles.

I believe that a collaborative effort between Wikipedia and intellectual property owners can result in an accurate representation of the subject matter, ensuring that the information presented is both informative and reliable. By allowing me the opportunity to contribute my expertise and perspective, we can create a more comprehensive and well-rounded resource for readers.

I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my request. If there are any specific guidelines or procedures I should follow to provide my input, please let me know, and I will be more than happy to comply.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, Drjoshcohen (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

For a start, please calm down with the walls of text, we don't need it. And stop using ChatGPT for any edits on Wikipedia. You are allowed to edit articles that you have a conflict of interest in. What we request is that you adhere to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Please be aware that nobody owns articles, so you don't have an entitlement to edit the article or enforce your version of the article just because you are related to it. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that DrJosh has been told about our basic rules on LLMs, and has been directed to read through our draft policy Wikipedia:Large language models (discussion). I have also tried in that same discussion to explain why I had to tag their userpage for deletion under U5... three times. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is about the article Film/video-based therapy, which was created by user:Joshua Lee Cohen, the Dr Josh Cohen who features in the article, and presumably the same user as Drjoshcohen. Meters (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I understand your concern and the importance of seeking advice from multiple editors on-wiki. However, I would like to clarify that I am an AI language model developed by OpenAI and do not have any direct affiliation with Dr. Joshua L Cohen or his intellectual property.

Regarding trademarks and ownership, I cannot provide legal advice. However, it is generally understood that contributors to Wikipedia retain their own copyrights to the materials they create, while granting a license to distribute and modify those materials under certain conditions, as specified by Wikipedia's licensing terms.

If Dr. Joshua L Cohen has concerns about his intellectual property or wishes to assert his rights regarding his trademark, it would be advisable for him to consult legal counsel or seek guidance from the appropriate channels. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can provide further information on intellectual property rights and the processes involved.

I hope this clarifies the situation. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Best regards,

ChatGPT Drjoshcohen (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drjoshcohen: I just told you not to use ChatGPT in your messages. Do not continue to do so. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

...the mind boggles. What kind of person would consider it appropriate to dump ChatGPT product into this kind of conversation, let alone completely unedited? That's a special kind of CIR here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef for ... well, any reason you can really think of. NOTHERE is the obvious one. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, WP:PROMO, WP:LEGALTHREATS, I don't know what doesn't fit here. 11:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Was going to say it in the first comment... but waiting until they file an unblock request generated by ChatGPT... JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, they did it! 138.75.209.122 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Well, perhaps he's getting some experimental data out of it. Perhaps an off-WP article on his WP-adventures is forthcoming. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest the admin that replies to the unblock request also writes their response using AI. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I cleaned the page up because it became a mess of malformed templates. I also gave them directions on how to request the unblock and NOT use AI to create this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped using AI, but have instead opened four (!) simultaneous unblock requests. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

TPA revoked by @Courcelles. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have nominated the article for deletion.Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• There seem to be more and more discussions lately where I cannot comment because if I said what I think it would be uncivil or a personal attack, and there's no point in commenting if I don't say what I think. I don't know if this is a function of my tolerance level or if we get more thickos editing Wikipedia now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  It reminds me of a Time editorial about 25 years ago suggesting that the ills of society were based on the explosion of cable channels. We have a culture now where it's the norm to lie your head off and break every rule, law or standard so long as it is in support of your agenda/politics. It's no wonder that mindset is hitting Wikipedia in tidal waves. Ravenswing 00:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LLM is a thing in progress, for a reason, Phil. In an ideal Wikipedia, we wouldn’t need it, but here we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like we might be getting some meat-puppetry at the AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  To add onto what XOR'easter is saying, Frankchindamo (talk · contribs) copy-pasted an identical message to their Delete argument, my Delete argument, and the AfD's talk page which basically accuse everyone on the Delete side as impugning Dr. Cohen's character. The argument seems to be more ChatGPT trash and is at best a Chewbacca defence as it only mentions the article in passing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Blessings upon you; I'd just looked back at that guy's contribution history, and it is almost exclusively self-promotional. Ravenswing 00:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• As well as User:Joshua Lee Cohen, it is probable that User:Filmandvideobasedtherapy is this person as well. The article Cinema therapy needs to be scoured to remove some of their edits dating from c.2014-2015. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Also User:Filmcatharsis42. DMacks (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

User:FromCzech

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 and another non-logged in user have an ongoing dispute with @FromCzech regarding data (population of Bucharest) in List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits and List of European cities by population within city limits. He has been making Wikipedia inconsistent to my chagrin and that of another user from a few months ago (List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits), who therefore constitute a consensus vs him. He is forcing through figures inconsistent with the figures in the rest of Wikipedia and the latest Romanian census collected in 2022. I believe it would be sufficient to p-block this user for 1 week for him to cool down and adjust to the requirement of consistency on Wikipedia, though this is just my view. I await feedback. Galehautt (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

So, the only problem is the content, right? Nothing that, saaay, couldn’t be hashed out on the article’s Talk Page, or via WP:DR?

If it’s not, mind throwing a few diffs, or a Wikilink to the article, here, so people can check this whole thing out, quicker? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:38, 29 June 2023 (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:Nareshkv77

Nareshkv77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

WP:COI editor, only here promoting Rajinikanth Vellalacheruvu via garbage [53] [54] [55] WP:NOTHERE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

How fast can you say Self-admitted socks in play? I doubt this one will hit any of the WP:LEGITSOCK exceptions anytime soon. Recommend that someone with a mop has a look. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the socks. Courcelles (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Conduct issues at several Tolkien-related talk pages

Several Tolkien-related talk pages (at least Talk:Christianity in Middle-earth, Talk:Paganism in Middle-earth, and Talk:The Silmarillion; maybe others as well) have in the last few days devolved into unproductive discussion with conduct issues including WP:Personal attacks. I submit that this needs the attention of an administrator (or several) to at minimum give someone a stern talking-to.

Editors involved in discussion in the relevant talk page sections (not necessarily engaging in any improper conduct) in alphabetical order:

• 173.67.130.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)
• Cush (talk · contribs)
• GimliDotNet (talk · contribs)
• Michael Martinez (talk · contribs)

I have left messages at each of their talk pages. I'll let them explain the matter themselves. TompaDompa (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

To be fair Michael Martinez (talk · contribs) has not in anyway acted in a contentious manner. He's been the very paragon of patience. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've only been monitoring the Silmarillion article/Talk page. While things got a little testy, I wouldn't say an admin's intervention is required at this point. I think things have kind of settled down, in fact. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. My tone has raised due to suggestions that I am incompetent and a liar from more than one user, of which I am neither. I have also raised the issue of possible anti-Catholic bias, which again has been received with personal attacks and threats to ban me. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You deleted a cited passage, and then claimed the reason for deletion was the passage wasn’t cited.

You have accused the whole of Wikipedia of having an anti-catholic bias because and article discusses influences on Tolkien that are not specifically catholic, articles that are well sourced and have indeed reached WP:GA GimliDotNet (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I said that there are several Tolkien-related articles which appear to promote an anti-Catholic bias, I never once said that "the whole of Wikipedia" has an anti-Catholic bias. I believe that the articles have an anti-Catholic bias because they appear to overstate his non-Catholic influences using only a handful of sources, with a heavy reliance on one particular source, while at the same time understating Tolkien's Catholicness in his writing and in some cases the inclusion of information which is factually incorrect. Tolkien is one of the most misinterpreted writers in history. I have variously seen and heard people describe Tolkien as a marxist, a conservative, an anarchist, a protestant, ect. I have also seen people insisting that Tolkien had influences which he did not have; the Wagner ring thing probably being the most notable of these cases. On top of that, overstating the influence that Norse mythology had on Tolkien's legendarium is a tactic commonly used by white supremacists to try and claim Tolkien as their own. I have spotted many more issues with the Tolkien content on Wikipedia, but due to resistance and personal attacks, I have been reluctant to change these myself or to bring it up on the talk page for fear that it will blow up as this has. I am also worried that most of these problematic Tolkien articles are heavily edited by one user who appears to be building a narrative around overstating Tolkien's Norse influence and downplaying or understating his Catholic influence. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the editors you are in a dispute with are white supremacists? Aspersions about a tactic commonly used by white supremacists are otherwise at best unhelpful and at worst a serious personal attack, and I would suggest you provide evidence or retract that comment.

If you want to suggest changes on the talkpages of the articles, as you have been told multiple times you need to provide independent and reliable sources. Quoting Tolkien's own words and simply saying that your conclusions are "clear and obvious" is not going to get you anywhere. On Talk:Christianity in Middle-earth, I see that Chiswick Chap has suggested that if you think Christopher Tolkien's view that "the Great Hope" in the Athrabeth is a Christ-figure ought to be in the article you add it; this would be a much more productive use of your time than going on about anti-Catholic biases. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Not really going to make any further comment because I don't want to get involved, but 173.67 never said that any editor they are in dispute with are white supremacists. I think they are just frustrated with how the editing process has gone for them so far and are worrying about the downstream effects it could have. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd endorse the comments above of GimliDotNet and Caeciliusinhorto. The IP's mention of anti-Catholic bias and white supremacists above is unhelpful, but their suggestion of adding a mention of the Athrabeth was constructive: as mentioned above, I did suggest how it could be added, though this hasn't been taken up. As Michael Martinez states, things seem to have quietened down now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said that anyone was a white supremacist, I simply pointed out that overstating Tolkien's Norse influences is a common tactic used by white supremacists. Also, I attempted to have a civil conversation on the talk page before adding content which would have inevitably lead to an edit war, though my suggestions for change were not only shot down, but my competence was questioned and I was accused of being a liar. I simply want to have a conversation about what I view as anti-Catholic bias in several of the Tolkien articles.

That's literally all I want at this point. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The conversation is open to you on those articles' talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I brought it up on those articles' talk pages before. My issue is that my suggestions are being shot down. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If they're justified by the evidence, they'll be accepted; if not, they won't. Your claim that Athrabeth uses the word "Christ" is false, for instance; but the claim that Christopher Tolkien felt that it implied that is true, and would be welcome in the article. The articles are full of evidence, supported by reliable sources; that doesn't make arguing with them impossible, but it does demand attention to detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

When did I claim that the Athrabeth uses the word "Christ"? I was told by yourself that Christopher Tolkien's commentary is a primary source and thus not allowed on Wikipdia. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This page (ANI) isn't the right place for technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article's talk page isn't the right place either apparently. I don't really know what to do at this point. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the right place for polite, technical discussion of the article's content. Multiple editors have replied to your various points on multiple article talk pages, explaining numerous times why your arguments were incorrect. You cannot fairly complain if people demonstrate that a technical point is other than you supposed, given the evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My arguments are not incorrect just because you personally disagree with them. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed not, nothing is proven wrong because 100 editors disagree: but it's wrong if demonstrated to be so on the reliably-cited facts, which is the case here. For the record, I've explained on your talk page exactly what is wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not the case here though. What I said is not only not wrong, I gave a secondary source which supports it.

This is my last comment to you as you demonstrated almost nothing but condescension towards me. I am not going to be talked down to. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I rebutted all three of your arguments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said that you said anyone was a white supremacist. You did, however, accuse various editors of overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien, and you also said that overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien is a common tactic used by white supremacists. It's hard to imagine why you made those two claims unless you wanted to draw some connection between the editors who you are disagreeing with and white supremacists.

No matter what your intention with that comment, I can think of no possible way in which it could be helpful or productive, and several ways in which it will make it harder for you to have a civil conversation on the talk page.

As for your competence and honesty: yeah, I don't think GimliDotNet saying that's an outright lie was exactly helpful. That said, they are correct that the claim they were replying to (I removed it because it is uncited and a factual incorrect statement [56]) is difficult to reconcile with the plain fact that the content they complained that you removed in this edit does in fact contain two citations. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever perceived connections you believe I am making are completely in your lap. The point of my comment is that overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien is a common tactic of white supremacists (many of which are notorious anti-Catholic) and that I have observed many instances of Tolkien related articles overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien. This is why I initiated the talk page discussion.

I did not lie and it is extremely counterproductive to accuse other users of being liars and incompetent. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to intervene in this matter so that it is not further dragged out. Right now it is impossible for me to make any edits to any Tolkien-related articles and those who keep shooting down my suggestions keep throwing personal attacks at me. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:IPHUMAN might be valid here. Just throwing it out there. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar yet again

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.

---

Could somebody be so kind as to drop the hammer on Belteshazzar's latest sockpuppet IP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar? Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2023 (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:Олег Гарбуз 2008 and potential misuse of user talk pages

This editor does not contribute. They are indefinitely blocked from Ukrainian Wikipedia with talk page access revoked so they use the user talk pages here of administrators of Ukrainian Wikipedia to ask them (in Ukrainian) to do something on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Here is the talk page of one administrator on Ukrainian Wikipedia, where there are a bunch of discussions they have started asking them to block someone. Their most recent one is also telling the admin to block someone on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Is this allowed? Mellk (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. They can't use English Wiki to circumvent another Wiki, not what we're here for. I'm indeffing. 15:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canterbury Tail (talk • contribs)

Given we aren’t their first wiki, is it worth putting in a GLocks call to Meta? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 21:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling vandalism/edit-war/bias

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 didn't want to fill this page with a load of text, but everything related to the incident can be found of the talk page page of the article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Professional_wrestling#This_whole_article_has_become_ridiculous RedWater14 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14, administrators don't judge content disputes. Try the options at dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling? Ridiculous? No, really?! --JBL (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14: You did not notify Kurzon, the editor you are ostensibly reporting, to this discussion, as it says you must do at the top of this page. I have done that for you.

I have to go into work and then I have a date tonight. If I'm sober enough tonight or have enough time in the morning tomorrow, I can look over their editing as an uninvolved editor with enough knowledge of professional wrestling to hopefully grasp an idea of what's going on. I see @Czello and LM2000: are also potential parties here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This was a neat glimpse into your life. Let us know if you get lucky tonight — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm lucky every day, though! :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thank you though. I believe the editor is clearly abusing several Wikipedia guidelines and no one has called him out on it for months. Good luck hahaha. RedWater14 (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

RedWater14 is out of line to call my work vandalism. His entire argument is that I draw too much attention to the fakeness of wrestling, as if that denigrates it. Maybe I committed some minor excesses in the course of my work, but he can comment on those in the Talk Page without wholesale reverts.Kurzon (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As both editors are well beyond 3RR at this point I recommend Kurzon doesn't revert the latest edit and instead RedWater14 self-reverts. I think that's the only thing that'd stop blocks being applied. — Czello ^(music) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I see my suggestion didn't do much good — Czello ^(music) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I won't be making anymore edits until Wiki admins reach a consensus. I hope they can see for themselves how, for a lack of a better word, foolish Kurzon's edits are. RedWater14 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Too late, both partially blocked for two weeks. Kurzon is experienced enough to should have known better, but even a red warning didn't stop them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(for the record, I'm here from a WP:RFPP request, permanent link.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting little tidbit; smells like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to go to both RFPP and here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think malice was involved, and starting a conduct discussion at ANI after noticing that RFPP might not be the best noticeboard for this isn't bad either. It's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14: Don't you know how Wikipedia works? WE are supposed to reach a consensus, not the admins. Kurzon (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) As you were told in the very first reply to your posting here, admins have no more rights than anyone else, including you, to reach a consensus about what reliable sources say about the subject. Follow the link to dispute resolution you were given there, and, everyone, just stop editing this article until everyone, admin or not, reaches a consensus on its talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This was also explained to them by 331dot in the linked discussion three days ago. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in since I was tagged. The two week blocks for both parties seems just. Kurzon's battleground behavior has been going on for months at this point and RedWater14's involvement turned up the heat way higher than it should have. General sanctions (WP:PW/GS) were imposed on this subject years ago to stop silly conflicts like this but that has not really changed anything. LM2000 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2023‎ (UTC)

About battleground behavior, I guess you're referring to [57] or similar edits. A diff or two wouldn't hurt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that both Kurzon and RedWater14 are at fault here. It would be good to get outside parties to assess the state of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been watching this play out for a few months now, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I think Kurzon has done a very thorough rewrite of the article and has cited a lot of sources. On the other hand, there does seem to be somewhat of an WP:AXE to grind on Kurzon's part in delegitimising wrestling (one example of something I spotted a few days ago). I'm going to try to spend the next couple of weeks reading through the article and checking that the sources support what's represented in the article. I may rewrite a few sections to be a bit more neutral. — Czello ^(music) 07:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's been my whole point essentially. It's an axe to grind, there's bias and it's very opinionated. He claims to be "knowledgeable" on wrestling but uses no wrestling terminology. He uses "faked", etc, instead of "worked" "shoot" "over" etc, as should be used in the article. He even went on the WWE 2K series page, which is a factually sports series of games and he changed the genre to "spectacle" and some other ridiculous phrasing. He's gone out of his way on other articles to diminish the medium. He himself even said he doesn't consider themselves wrestlers, using the example of Hulk Hogan, who's one of the biggest wrestling stars in history, just because he has whatever problem he has with him.

One of the sections of the article he puts quotes around "professional" as in calling it professional is somehow inaccurate, when he doesn't realize the term professional by definition means someone who was paid. Amatuer wrestlers were not paid for their matches, while professional wrestlers were. That's where the names come from. He himself acknowledged that, yet he goes and calls "professional" a misnomer, as it's somewhat inaccurate to call it "professional." And then he goes on another rant calling them stuntmen, etc, not athletes, which again, IS VERY OPINIONATED and has no sources or hell, even common sense, to back that up. Even the biggest detractors of professional wrestling will call them athletes, and respect their work ethic.

Anyway, I hope a solution can be found to it soon, but there's so many abuses to Wikipedia's guidelines here, it's not even funny. Honestly, the pro wrestling article has always sucked and has needed improvement for a long time. All this guy did was just make it worse and more illegitimate. RedWater14 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with a lot of this - I've fixed the scare quotes he added. — Czello ^(music) 16:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know who's right and who's wrong here overall, but if Kurzon is helping push our coverage of "pro" wrestling away from the ridiculous in-universe treatment our articles largely give it now, I'm behind him or her. EEng 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not really the case, as in-universe treatment is more of a blight on BLP and event articles. — Czello ^(music) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it can be complicated as pro wrestling blurs the lines of reality and fiction a lot, so using wrestling terms in the article is the best way to go about it. You could literally make an entire dictionary of pro wrestling specific terms. Hell, there's an entire article on it: Glossary of professional wrestling terms.

  Using terms like "faked" is inaccurate, and in my opinion, insulting. Not to even mention the fact that the word "theater" means some sort of staging or performance is included. In the same line, he insists on adding "mock" to the combat, which is a contradiction in the same phrase and by calling it "theater", you already know there is a performance aspect to it. It's like me saying on the John Wick movie article "This is a movie where there is mock combat." Of course it's staged/choreographed/performed, whatever. You don't need to add that in as it sounds ridiculous. That's just one part of it that's ridiculous. I've already mentioned several above. RedWater14 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Faked" is 150% accurate. Articles routinely say stuff like ...

  Cena then sought the WWE Championship, held by Brock Lesnar. He entered a number one contender's tournament for the title, gaining upset wins over Eddie Guerrero,[44] The Undertaker[45] and Chris Benoit.[46] At Backlash on April 27, Cena failed to win the title from Lesnar.[47] On May 18 at Judgment Day, Cena and The F.B.I. (Chuck Palumbo and Johnny Stamboli) defeated Benoit, Rhyno and Spanky.[48] At Vengeance on July 27, Cena lost to The Undertaker.

  ... as if these are actual contests between actual competitors, instead of faked, fixed-outcome performances. Articles on novels and movies narrate works' events in-universe, but that's in clearly labeled "plot" sections. "Pro" wrestling articles, including BLPs, freely mix the stories of faked "contests" in with birth, education (if any, of course), marriages, death, and other real-life events. EEng 23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  How about "Character biography" sections? (Superhero articles have "Fictional character biography" sections, but we needn't insist.) NebY (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah but any article describing the plot of a movie, game, etc, does the same thing. It doesn't say "But it in the script, he beat..." etc. Anyone who knows anything about pro wrestling will automatically know it's part of the storyline. RedWater14 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  First of all, I'm not at all certain that more than 50% of fans of this idiocy do know it's fake; there are a lot of truly stupid people in this world -- witness those who think Trump lost the presidency because of Jewish lasers controlled by Nest thermostats. And there's no other topic area in which we make flatly false statements in wikivoice with the expectation that our readers will know that we're actually spouting bullshit. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I know you're not a fan, EEng, so take it from people who are: yes, we all know it's fake. That said WP:INUNIVERSE is a perennial problem and some of us on the Wikiproject are working to fix this. — Czello ^(music) 07:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I could believe that y'all editing here know that; but for the general fan base: . If you could try harder on the INUNIVERSE front we'd all appreciate it. EEng 07:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the general fanbase knows that too. (I'm always continually amazed when non-wrestling fans think they know more about the industry than actual wrestling fans, amazing.) Thank you for your suggestion EEng, it's very helpful and I'll get right on that. — Czello ^(music) 08:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  the general fanbase knows that too – You keep saying that, and I keep saying . But even taking that as true, I think there's another problem. Even fans who know (in some corner their brains) that it's all faked still enjoy the kemosabe, and don't like to see it pierced. Thus they want this in-universe garbage preserved in our articles. EEng 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  ... do you fancy that your repeated snark is doing anything by way of lowering the temperature here? Ravenswing 11:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, we'll go with that for the sake of argument (my wife's pro wrestling-loving elementary school students would vehemently disagree). But truly, is there any other area of Wikipedia where no distinction is visibly made between a real-life person and their stage persona? Articles on historical religious figures, for instance, are riddled with language like "X reported that" and "According to Y," rather than phrasing miracles or legends as objective fact. Those articles describing the plot do not do so in the main body of an article, but are plainly labeled "Plot."

  The bottom line is that we're a factual encyclopedia here. I'm unsure why we need to preserve kayfabe. Ravenswing 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. With the help of fans editing here, WP has become an extension of the pro-wrestling industry's fanzsites and other promotional apparatus. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  See, I'm unsure why you're resisting so hard here. I get it: I've been a wrestling watcher since the days of Sammartino, Stasiak and Morales; living in Springfield, a frequent tour stop for the WWF, I'd write match reports for Online Onslaught. I get kayfabe, and you can't write me off as a clueless outsider. I'm also sympathetic to some of your complaints; I agree that calling other kinds of wrestling "authentic" is a bit bizarre, and I've always been partial to Dwayne Johnson's line that while he agrees that pro wrestling is scripted, it ain't "fake."

  What I do not get is why the likes of you and Czello are digging in your heels over this. However much you might think all moviegoers and novel readers get that they're dealing with fictional works, those articles still have "Plot" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. However much you might think that all comic book readers get that superheroes aren't real, those articles still have "Fictional character biography" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. You cannot possibly imagine that you'd have more resistance towards pushing through some clear section heads and phrasings taking scripted wrestling plot out of factual voice than there must have been (and still is) in religious topics over Wikipedia's ongoing refusal to certify the miracles of Muhammed, or Jesus, or the Buddha (etc etc etc) as inerrant fact. What exactly is the holdup here, if it isn't "We don't want to come out and openly concede that it's all scripted, because there are a lot of fanboys reading the articles who'd be pissed?" Ravenswing 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't speak for RedWater but I have no issue with reducing the amount of plot sections / WP:INUNIVERSE fluff that exist across the wrestling sphere of Wikipedia. I have no issue with the description of wrestling as fake. That doesn't mean there weren't NPOV issues with some of Kurzon's edits (though, to be clear, I believe the good of his work on the article in question considerably outweighs the bad). I'm not in favour of undoing their edits, I'm in favour of improving them. — Czello ^(music) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not reduce, ELIMINATE. NOW. IMMEDIATELY. ON SIGHT. WHAT'S THE WAIT? EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  For some with less capslock, two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  FTR, I NEVER USE CAPSLOCK. I DEPRESS <SHIFT> FOR EACH LETTER INDIVIDUALLY. EEng 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're welcome to help us out in this endeavour, as I can see you feel very passionately about it. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  You might regret suggesting that. EEng 05:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not even joking about this EEng. The biggest issue we face is that the number of editors who recognise the problem and are willing to put the time in to fix it. We're vastly outnumbered by drive-by IPs (or even other editors) who want to turn Wikipedia into FANDOM. There are years, even decades of content to sift through which is being added to daily, across thousands of articles. The issue by far is manpower.

  All sarcasm aside, you do recognise the issue that exists, and as you clearly have no love of this corner of Wikipedia (you've expressed it plenty in previous discussions, too) you would be able to take a more objective approach to culling content. What I'm saying is, put your money where your mouth is: I can even suggest some starting places. — Czello ^(music) 07:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two barriers to my getting involved. First is that the problem goes way beyond in-universe description; the real issue is that wrestling "news" sources and fanzines are not independent (being industry promotional materials), and need to be blacklisted. That will not only reduce the amount of crap in these articles, but lead to many of them being deleted as nonnotable. Plus the entire topic area is so stupid it makes me want to vomit. EEng 18:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Also, I implore you to fix Kurzon's calling of other wrestling forms as "authentic" as those aren't the dictionary terms, and is more opinion/bias based. Even so, I think that whole section is ridiculous, irrelevant, and much of what is stated is stated several terms throughout the rest of the article. There is no need for a delineation there. RedWater14 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to suggest we close this discussion as 1) it was the wrong venue for this topic in the first place 2) both users have been p-blocked from the article and 3) further discussion is going no where. — Czello ^(music) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Suggestion rejected. EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have to ask what good you feel can come from re-opening this discussion? — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure. But what I am sure of is that you should not have been the person to decide it's suddenly over. EEng 09:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seems needlessly bureaucratic if no one can say why it should remain open (WP:IAR and all that), but fine - we'll wait for someone else to inevitably close it again shortly. — Czello ^(music) 09:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is not a matter of being "needlessly bureaucratic." It's a matter of it being quite improper for an involved editor to unilaterally decide to close a discussion down. How is it you don't know that? Ravenswing 17:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The "mock" in "mock combat" means to fake something without intention to deceive. It does not mean mockery. When I was in high school, they made us sit mock exams to prepare us for the real things, and we took the mocks very seriously. RedWater14 should consult a dictionary once in a while.

Also, it's absolutely necessary to emphasize the fakery of wrestling in the history section so that we can understand why it became what it is. If pro wrestling is theatre, then it is a very unconventional kind of theatre. Pro wrestlers at first (early 20th century) were deliberately deceiving the audience, particularly the carnival wrestlers who were duping visitors into challenging a champion they couldn't beat (the equivalent of pool hustlers). Eventually the public realized it was fake, but some if not most fans quietly accepted it. And just as quietly, the wrestlers acknowledged this by making their performances more outlandish and adopting personas.

Pro wrestling is not to my taste, but that doesn't mean I can't keep my personal bias out of the article. That would be like saying people who hate Nazis are not fit to edit the Nazi Party article. Note that nowhere in the article do I denigrate pro wrestling or its fans. If I ignore kayfabe, that's because of my commitment to the truth. If anything, we need more non-fans editing this article to filter away the fancruft. I edit this article not to trash wrestling but because I'm a history nerd and I love learning about how the world works. Kurzon (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question:' Who decides what is a contentious topic? Is it totally based on ArbCom decisions? And don't I recall that there's a community-based equivalent to CTOP, created back when they were called "Discretionary sanctions"? What I'm getting to is that it seems to me that pro-wrestling (and beauty pageants) should be under some kind of general sanction, and if ArbCom hasn't declared them as such, the community ought to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• And here they both are, under Community-authorised general sanctions, which, as far as I know, have never been changed or de-authorized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• To simplify, there are two ways a sanctions regime could be mandated on the English Wikipedia: either by a successful community !vote on a proposal submitted to AN/ANI; or as decided by by ArbCom. The ArbCom ones are better streamlined, so are easier to navigate, both from an editorial and an enforcement prespective. Which is why sometimes ArbCom subsumes community-authorized sanctions regimes, either at the request of editors and admins, or at their own discretion. Resulting in either a new ArbCom sanctions regime being created, like for example with WP:GS/IRANPOL → WP:ARBIRP; or straight into an existing one, like with WP:GS/IPAK → WP:ARBPAK. That's really the crux of it. HTH. El_C 12:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I just found out that WP:GS/Wrestling exists. Seemed to have only been used a few times in 2018, and then, forgotten? El_C 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Does anyone really consider that professional wrestling is an authentic sport? Or that Olympic wrestling is not? If so then they have no business editing Wikipedia. Accepting the obvious facts is not opinionated, but simply accepting that the sky is blue. We should describe things as they are, not as fanboys claim them to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2023 (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:The haul

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'm not entirely sure what The haul's agenda is, but they're moving drafts around, blanking pages (incl. an SPI archive), etc. Much of it seems to revolve around someone named Ankit Kumar Pandey, in whom this user has kind of admitted having a COI, although the disclosure appears to have vanished. Could we please have some eyes on what's happening here? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Socking. That’s what’s going on there. Blocked that account and G20norms. Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Should have read the SPI more carefully, I guess. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2023 (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:罗放 and WP:GS/RUSUKR

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 have warned this editor twice already[58][59] about WP:GS/RUSUKR because they are not extended-confirmed and have given them the CT alert but they are still continuing to make edits about the topic, for example[60], and are move-warring on Krasnoperekopsk precisely over something to do with Russia-Ukraine war.[61] Mellk (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of your mentions has nothing to do with the current conflict.

Example:

This incident is using one video from the conflict to explain a general concept, but you are simply trying to use WP:GS/RUSUKR to prevent normal discussion on a Concept not directly related to the current war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_occupation&oldid=prev&diff=1161739858.

Also, the page name of Yani Kapu is not an issue related to the war. This is just a Ukrainian town, renaming of it happened back in 2016. Fang Luo (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You are move-warring over the title of a settlement in Crimea and also edit warring over the status as described in the article, this very much falls under Russo-Ukrainian War (this includes since 2014, not 2022). The GS is not only for Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also, you did not respond once on your talk page. Mellk (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

1. You tried to revert changes on page military occupation, simply because a supporting material is from the current conflict. This is absolutely not what WP:GS/RUSUKR mean. That's just like saying all new editors editing weapons or military equipment pages should be blocked simply because they mentioned the weapon's usage in the current conflict, which is obviously ridiculous.
2. Ukrainian Geography is another general topic. Moving a page after the town has been renamed has nothing to do with the current war.

• Your attempt to censor these without specific valid reason could be considered as an attempt of 1st amendment infringement.

Fang Luo (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

罗放, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to actions taken by government agencies and does not apply to Wikipedia, which is a project of the private nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. Please read Wikipedia: Free speech. You are not permitted to edit anything about the war between Russia and Ukraine, until your account is extended confirmed. The restrictions are broadly construed. You must stop or you will be blocked. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify wether mentioning incidents in this war in a totally unrelated topic (example: using a footage from this war in the page military occupation, or mention of a weapon's usage in that specific weapon's page and things alike) constitute a violation of this policy? These are too far from the topic of the mentioned sanctions even considering WP:BROADLY, and the reverted edit on the page military occupation really imposed a bad optic on WP:NOTCENSORED. Fang Luo (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do. You're mentioning the conflict or editing something connected to the conflict even if the article itself isn't about it. It is generally considered broadly construed. The article you're editing doesn't matter for this, just the content of the edit you're actually making. So stop making any edits that in any way even obliquely refer to the area covered by the sanctions. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

罗放, the restrictions apply to all pages with content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed. Adding video of the reoccupation of Kherson to Military occupation is an obvious violation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit to Stab-in-the-back myth would also be an example, I believe, since it deals with the recent coup/mutiny attempt by the Wagner Group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit is regarding an incident talking about a Russian coup attempt against Russian leadership, that has nothing to do with Ukraine. Also, that edit is not even talking about the Wagner mutiny itself, it's talking about Putin's use of the similar wording of "Stab-in-the-back". That's way too far from the scope of "RUSUKR"Fang Luo (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

For Heavens' sake, Fang Luo, the edit literally mentions "the ongoing war". At this point, you've been warned. If you make another edit about the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed, before you reach extendedconfirmed status, I will block you from editing. You're welcome to think that that is unfair, censorship, etc.; it doesn't matter. The policy is what is regardless of how you feel about it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm now extended-confirmed but I'll still say this is ridiculous. I've specifically avoided mentioning the Russo-ukrainian war there. Not to mention the wording "ongoing war" can be explained as Syrian civil war, which both Putin regime and Wagner are actively participating. Trying to ban such unrelated edit, an intentionally imprecise reference with obvious attempt to avoid relevance to russo-ukrainian war?? Is that what the consensus intended for? Absolutely no etiquette nor assumption good faith can be seen here. Fang Luo (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, instead of acknowledging the restriction, you instead made a bunch of edits adding categories until you reached 500 edits. That looks like WP:GAMING. Mellk (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You are simply WP:Policy shopping here. And I'll say your behavior really looks like WP:Wikilawyering. Fang Luo (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And one of the first of those edits before they became ECP was this one which I'm pretty sure I'd think is violating it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And I'll say this is just a typical bad-faith interpretation of a specific edit without any controversy. Fang Luo (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So do you really think classifying a vehicle into the category of six wheeled vehicles violates WP:GS/RUSUKR? This is obviously nitpicking, and it deviates far from the original intention of this General sanctions. As can be seen from the talk page of this GS, even the page of the slogan "Slava Ukraini" is not considered in need of protection, and here you consider it is unacceptable to classify a certain piece of military equipment as a six-wheeled vehicle? That's really hilarious. And if you insist, you can go to the talk page and Give reasons why you think that classification is inappropriate or even slightly controversial. Otherwise, such criticism just looks like WP:Wikilawyering and obviously an example of WP:PA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 罗放 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been told plenty of times already. It says: all pages with content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed. The issue here is WP:CIR. Mellk (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

They now reverted my edit enforcing the GS calling it "vandalism". They have already been warned about CT and have not displayed any sort of understanding whatsoever of why their edits were in violation. Mellk (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Just stop Gaming the system. If you think that content is otherwise inappropriate or controversial, state your reasons there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 罗放 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s… rich. Accusing others of gaming the system, after your blatant overnight display of doing the same? I’m now convinced you are trolling, and so, have indefinitely blocked your account. Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Just a brief after-the-fact note that I noticed today, looking at the history of an article I wrote and maintain, that one of the ECR-violating edits was to that article. Had I noticed that before making the above comment, I would not have threatened a block; I welcome further review if necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• I've revoked TPA. Simply no confidence atm that such acute and repetitive WP:IDHT–WP:CIR problems (at best; WP:DENY at worse) will find any meaningful improvement with subsequent unblock requests. El_C 06:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  At the risk of gravedancing, the one time I ran into this editor at an RfD (which in hindsight was also a violation of GS/RUSUKR that no one caught at the time), following this related discussion, give me more of a CIR impression than anything else. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:41, 29 June 2023 (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:GameGod

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

Has done canvassing on AfD's about paintball, such as the AfD's for Bob Long Intimidator or PGP (paintball marker). Invited Reddit users from r/paintball to Wikipedia to mass vote Keep, as shown here. Also harassed @Ajf773: and others via the Reddit thread. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

GameGod doesn't seem to recognise how serious the actions they have taken are. Going to a social media site and attempting to canvass votes is very poor conduct, and they have completely ignored that. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

GameGod also seems to have zero understanding of the word bias or how Wikipedia notability guidelines work. According to them, Wikipedians are biased because we want to delete these articles (based on WP:GNG), but they are totally fine to post on Reddit and demand people vote with them? The fact that comment starts with The reason why canvassing for topic experts is necessary means they know they're canvassing, they know it's not allowed, and they are still going to do it anyway. I did request semi-protection of these AFDs to mitigate the canvassing issue, but this was declined by Scottywong (not saying they're wrong to decline it, but it would have prevented some of the bullshit accusations by canvassed editors that are continuing on those AFDs). Gamegod is looking like not here to benefit the encyclopedia, just to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And probably all the canvassed, harassing IPs and new editors should be warned/blocked too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Funny how the vast majority of posts by him aren't even paintball-related. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Folks, I saw an article on something historically important and that I thought was notable was proposed for deletion, and when I looked at the discussion, I saw a bunch of yes votes with no dissention, so I had a kneejerk reaction here and posted on Reddit because the situation seemed ridiculous. Unfortunately, I did not know about the canvassing policy (and neutrality bit) nor that we only had 7 days, so when someone in that Reddit thread pointed out these same editors had deleted other paintball articles without contributing actual constructive edits, it looked like some sort of coordinated ill behaviour.

In the deletion pages, the editors involved informed us about the notability guidelines and the result of the canvassing was mainly that we got research done and people interested in contributing to those articles. Sure, we had a few anonymous commenters chime in and disagree, but that's par for the course and they don't count as votes anyways. As I just wrote on [my Talk page](User talk:GameGod), there was a much less combative approach that you all could have taken which would have defused this situation early on and lead us down a more constructive path. For the record, I didn't know there was a canvassing rule at the time I posted on Reddit, I only used the term in a reply after I was accused of breaking the rule, so that quote is not evidence that I knew what I was doing was wrong.

People on Reddit or on deletion pages disagreeing with what you write on the internet is not harassment, sorry. You're a Wikipedia editor, I know you have thicker skin than that. If you're experiencing targeted harassment outside of people disagreeing with you, then that's completely unacceptable and I apologize for any part I had in setting that in motion (and I'm happy to delete the Reddit post if you think it will help).

Perhaps a way forward is for you all to chime in and let me know how you would have preferred this be handled from my perspective, or what an to get external contributions to Wikipedia is. Thanks. GameGod (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

and I'm happy to delete the Reddit post if you think it will help Yes, the reddit threads should be deleted ASAP, if for no other reason than to prevent further disruption to the AfDs. — Czello ^(music) 13:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Consider it done. The post on Reddit is now deleted. If there's anything else I can do to help resolve this, please let me know. GameGod (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I seriously doubt your capability to assume good faith. On your talk page, after NinjaRobotPirate nominated Rocket Streaming Audio Server, which you had created, for deletion, you accused them of WP:HOUNDING. Assuming good faith is a core behavioural guideline here, and you have completely failed to do so. They are allowed to look through your edit history, and just because you are the centre of a discussion at AN/I is not an excuse to tell them to not delete your article. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How I would've handled it from your perspective? There's a fundamental principle at work, which is that in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, sometimes you'll be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only thing to do is to lose gracefully and move on. Seeing a bunch of yes votes with no dissension doesn't mean "How can I pull a fast one to get my way?" It means (presuming that proper sourcing sufficient to save an article cannot be found) that you're on the wrong side of consensus, and it's time to lose gracefully and move on. Odds are, after all, more in favor of everyone else being right and you being wrong than in favor of everyone else being wrong and you alone being right.

I also want to address your "coordinated ill behavior" line. This is a riff we see pretty frequently on Wikipedia, and it's almost always bullshit. Do you genuinely believe that there is an organized cadre of people on Wikipedia who hate and fear paintball, and strive to eradicate mentions of it from the encyclopedia? What is in fact the general case is the following sequence: (1) some editor sees a suspect article, and (2) nominates it for deletion, and then (3) looks over the creator's contribution history and sees several -- or in some cases, hundreds more -- other sloppily created articles, and (4) nominates them for deletion. This can be an ongoing problem, and there've been editors who've created thousands such articles. One such editor was community banned from new article creation eight years ago, and we're still cleaning up his messes. Ravenswing 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide where to spend my time. Is paintball more or less important than professional wrestling? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you concentrate on beauty pageants. Narky Blert (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear eating contests are making a comeback! GabberFlasted (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was just told that some crazy Russians were staging a coup! Maybe you could spend time on that. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear that weather-related articles are eager to welcome new participants. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Tomlara219 - publicly making legal threats on Alpha Kappa Rho

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, who based on their history appears to be affiliated with the fraternity, has persistently reverted and removed information (all published in credible news sources) that report negatively on their fraternity Alpha Kappa Rho (including well documented cases of hazing, murders, abuse and interventions by the police and local government.) The user has already violated the WP:3RR in undoing the edits/reverts made by myself and two other editors in a short period of time.

Recently, this has escalated to posting legal threats against me both on edit summaries and on the article itself, a clear and blatant violation of WP:THREAT.

• This is the last revision of the article I edited, where it should be evident that I have also been trying to improve the overall quality of the article to balance the lengthy controversies section. All edits, positive and negative, were reverted unilaterally.

• In this edit, the user actually writes on the article itself that I've been "reported" to Wikipedia and warning that their organization will threaten me with legal action if I don't cease my editing. Earlier legal threats have also been included in the edit summaries through the specific use of the word "libelous." For context on why this is serious, "cyber libel" is considered a criminalized offense in the Philippines and therefore a serious accusation.

• Latest revision of the article as of writing. User continues to unilaterally undo edits by other editors from WP:FRAT, and does not seem to be open to discussing about it in the article's talk page. I've reclused myself for now to avoid violating 3RR myself until this matter is resolved.

As for full disclosure, I am not a member or affiliated with any fraternity or Greek-letter organization. The edits that I've done on Alpha Kappa Rho was no different from the edits I've done on other notable fraternities in the country such as Tau Gamma Phi, Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines), Upsilon Sigma Phi, and Lex Talionis Fraternitas. PritongKandule-✉️📝 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Tomlara219 for violating the policy against making legal threats. The editor can be unblocked if they unambiguously withdraw the legal threats, and promise to edit in compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• The behavioral issues aside, if you want to read an absolutely eye-popping article, take a look at [62]. EEng 08:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Going off topic, I've never understood the point of hazing, or the allure fraternities have to North Americans. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  The organizations in question are in the Philippines. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. But the Filipinos are only copying the Americans. We gave up such nonsense in Europe a long time ago, except among future prime ministers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And Chancellors of the Exchequer. The one associated with the Cambridge spy ring may no longer exist. Narky Blert (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• And the American are only copying the Europeans. I would also note that while it may be true in the UK that fraternal organizations are in decline in Southern and Eastern Europe it is an entirely different story (also note that if we're being technical they are also in rather rapid decline in the US). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good grief. If the user was branded while chanting "I will protect the name of Alpha Kappa Rho" then WP:3RR isn't going to put them off.DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's a bit cult-like, honestly. The hazing is a way to ensure loyalty to the fraternity, anyone unwilling to put up with the abuse is "not a good candidate." Ensuring that the members are people who are willing to endure the abuse, and dish it out to the next set of pledges. Coupled with the fact that many fraternities are essentially a form of networking a business career (because someone's daddy was a former member), some people will throw themselves into the meat grinder for the opportunity to apply to high-paying jobs with the fraternity brother as a "reference."

  In that same vein, some families expect their children to join the same fraternity they participated in, so the children tolerate the abuse in order to please their parents.

  Finally, some fraternities have pull with the university due to successful graduates throwing money at the college, in exchange for the dean looking the other way if the frat violates campus rules. Which can be appealing to a new student who wants to be popular & influential by joining the frat.

  But I digress: the block of User:Tomlara219 is definitely appropriate. Their unblock request does not appear adequate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Lest we be accused of gay erasure, we mustn't fail to mention that a lot of these guys are cryptohomosexuals who just plain get off on being paddled and penetrated and branded and stuff like that. At least that's what I heard. EEng 02:00, 27 June 2023 (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:Galehautt

I have a dispute with User:Galehautt regarding one data (population of Bucharest) in List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits and List of European cities by population within city limits. Quick history (similar for both pages):

• 16 and 29 May: the user changed the figure without changing the citation and reference date. I changed it back according to the cited source;
• 16 June: the user changed it with reference, I reverted it due to data obsolescence and comparability;
• 19 June: the user changed it with a false and relatively aggressive edit summary, so I started this discussion on the Talk page. The user stopped responding after one post, so after eight days of waiting I reverted the content;
• 27 June: the use reverted it again showing he is not interested in discussion; in addition, he commited disruptive editing (inserted duplicate content: first the lead on the first page concerned; currently the map on the second page).

Next procedure (try to revert it one more time and then possibly write here) discussed with User:Mellk, who gave him warnings about behavior on other pages. Even if I was wrong about the content, this user clearly has no interest in discussion here and wants to assert himself by force. His current behavior on Polish–Soviet War also probably shows signs of edit warring. FromCzech (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've p-blocked for one week. Indeed, they can't leave the discussion yet return to edit warring. I said that much to them @User talk:Galehautt#Partial block. El_C 06:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I should add that they have also been edit warring on Joseph Stalin and probably violated 3RR. On the talk page, they have been repeatedly told that there is no consensus for their changes (over something endlessly discussed for years), but they have still not shown any understanding of core policies. For example, they wrote: I see no discussion, so I assumed everyone agrees. There has to be a time limit,[63] then I should ping all of the administration then. And have a vote. I wonder how Jimbo sees it,[64] then without realizing that User:jpgordon is an admin, they write: There is no proof that there is an existing consensus. It's just you and the other guy. You're both just mere users, too, not admins. You're nobodies. Before 2022, this page could've attracted mostly the attention of commies. We do not like authoritarians here on Wikipedia. I for example am a friend of one Anne Applebaum and I know what the consensus is.[65] Mellk (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Also for Polish–Soviet War, I count several reverts in the past few days and I already warned them about making personal attacks, but they did it again on Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Mellk (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only one edit warring is you. I edited the page and added an adequate citation, and you engaged in arbitrary arguments to revert sensible changes. The only one who should be p-blocked is you. The data is not obsolete, it was collected in 2022, many other cities on the list have data going back to 2021, and hard-core census data is always the most reliable vs momentary approximations/forecasts. Not to mention, I wasn't even driven by any personal motivation but simply bringing the list to the figure listed on the city's wiki page. There is simply nothing to discuss and FromCzech should stop obstructing. Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein! Galehautt (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest you withdraw this comment now, or your partial block will turn into a sitewide one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments? I explained why I think Im right. I have not received sufficient counter-arguments. FromCzech is just a user, not an admin. He has no arguments and engages in arbitrary reverts that constitute edit warring. As I wrote in my appeal for unblocking on my talk page (which is almost word for word the same message I posted here but with one additional point), the inconsistency between the approximate figure placed by FromCzech on the List and the census figure present on the city's wiki page has already been brought up months ago by another user. That already makes it a 2v1 consensus to my favor. Reflect on this and take on the user FromCzech, not me. You're an admin, you may have your views, but Wikipedia is merit-based, not opinion-based, and so you will not silence me. And as far as this topic goes, inconsistencies should be purged, Wikipedia should strive to be consistent. Galehautt (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Being right does not justify edit warring. You continue to discuss content here. You should be discussing content, while holding your editing in check until a consensus is reached, on the article talk page. Tiderolls 18:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Being right settles the discussion. That's how it works with normal people, at least. FromCzech clearly strays from normal, hence my request for my temporary partial block to be lifted and placed on him instead. I think this right here is the right place for me to state so, therefore I am awaiting feedback. Galehautt (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Galehautt, you thinking that you are right is all well and good, but Wikipedia operates on the consensus decision making model. Therefore, it is your obligation to convince other interested editors that you are right. You seem to think that administrators adjudicate content disputes. That is incorrect. Every editor is equal when it comes to content disputes, whether or not an editor is an administrator. The only thing that matters is whether or not an editor's opinion is grounded in policies and guidelines. Additionally, this noticeboard does not decide content disputes. Instead, we deal with behavioral issues. Your emphasis on consistency is a bit overdone. Yes, we try for consistency within reason, but in most cases, it is not a policy requirement and in any event, achieving complete consistency is not possible in an encyclopedia with 6,676,496 ever-changing articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've converted Galehautt's block to sitewide: User talk:Galehautt#Block converted to site wide. Doubling-down on WP:BATTLEGROUND was the wrong call. El_C 01:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviors from Nishidani

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.

---

During a dispute about how Wikipedia should write about the existence of Palestine, @Nishidani has been uncivil and has been promoting his personal views, as if Wikipedia was a forum (original POV analyses) or a soapbox (pro-Palestine advocacy). Here are some examples.

• en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANishidani&diff=prev&oldid=1162511161
  • Nishidani harshly criticizes the incumbent Israeli government, calling them "religio-facist landgrabbers" and accusing them of frequently "beating the living daylights out of, or shooting, people who have the misfortune not to be 'Jewish'" in the West Bank. He calls all those who don't recognize the entire State of Palestine, which compromise the virtually the entire Israeli centre-right "racist illiterates." He also uses curse words twice, which is very condemnable.
• en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANishidani&diff=prev&oldid=1162516888
  • Nishidani compares the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank to the Holocaust and to the Trail of Tears. He even claims "Zionist extremism" is an "implicit encouragement of antisemitism, to Jews, and that in the future, it will probably lead to a new diaspora by those repelled by the 'sognificant minority's' espousal of appalling violence and institutional racism." The last part of the last quote goes against the Working Definition of Antisemitism and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism which clearly declare it to be antisemitic to hold Jews in general responsible for a controversial action undertaken by the Government of Israel.
• en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_of_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1162554140
  • Nishidani offers original analysis on why European countries refuse to recognize the State of Palestine. This itself violates WP:FORUM He claims that European countries and the US don't recognise the State of Palestine because Israel exercises veto power over them. It doesn't and this is borderline modern-day international Jewish conspiracy.

These three aggressive, uncivil, POV pushing, forum/soapbox style, borderline antisemitic edits are harmful to the project. Please take action as soon as possible. RomanHannibal (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

ARBPIA4 on ANI. Lovely. I’ll save everyone some time, RomanHannibal is  Confirmed to the blocked FortUser and the locked WarriorPlate, and I’ve blocked them accordingly. Courcelles (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2023 (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.

John Anthony Castro

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 wish to bring to the attention of the Wikipedia Community some unusual activities involving the Wikipedia administrator, Chetsford. My concerns center around potential Conflict of Interest (COI) issues related to this administrator's behavior on the following pages: John Anthony Castro and TaxProf Blog (now deleted following an Articles for Deletion (AfD) process initiated by myself):

Key Points:

1) On March 22, 2023, Chetsford transitioned the page from 2021 Texas's 6th congressional district special election to John Anthony Castro, as can be seen in the page history.

2) In April, I found several issues on the page, including potential policy violations and heavy reliance on primary sources. This page, overseen by an experienced administrator, was laden with negative content about the subject. Upon discovery, I alerted the BLP Noticeboard and the Talk page of Castro. Another editor, Morbidthoughts, took action and removed numerous sources. From the onset, Chetsford's responses to my concerns seemed confrontational, as illustrated in this Talk Page section:

MartinPict - I noticed that, in your short WP career, 90% (by byte-size) of the edits to article Talk pages you've made have been to this one Talk page, involving an exceptionally detailed request for removal of content. Please don't take this the wrong way but this editing pattern is so wildly atypical for 400 edit count users who began substantively using WP in the last month that it puts me in the awkward position in which I'm required to ask: can you indicate the usernames of other accounts you operate, or have operated in the past, if applicable? (If there are valid reasons you'd rather not tell me, that's completely fine, but I'd be derelict if I didn't inquire at this point.) Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Or here:

"And since you've already checked the history of my edits, I hope you wouldn't mind if I do the same thing - after all Wikipedia is a very transparent database of records." Knock yourself out. Chetsford (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(This can be interpreted in different ways)

3) On April 15, Morbidthoughts questioned the use of TaxProf Blog as a source on the RSN NoticeBoard. The consensus was to remove it entirely due to its "self-published" status, as seen here.

4) It seems that Chetsford created a page for the non-notable TaxProf Blog, which was then used for contentious claims about Castro. When I nominated this page for deletion, both Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFab actively obstructed the nomination and interfered with the voting process. It appears that their intense efforts to maintain the page were not in good faith, as seen here.

5) On June 22, 2023, a message was posted on John Castro's page alleging that Chetsford had used unauthorized and unreliable sources to place negative information about Castro. The issue led to extensive editor discussion and the removal of the contentious source. See here for reference.

6) I believe that Chetsford retaliated against my actions by opening a sockpuppet investigation against me, as I was actively engaged on the pages they had created. This occurred just two days after the TaxProf Blog deletion and my post on Castro's Talk Page, seen here:

Hi, Ikvas. Thank you for this information and for declaring your conflict of interest on your user's profile. This is a very serious accusation and you shared a lot of information to process. I will make sure to verify your claim via an appropriate NoticeBoard as it deserves some attention. As to the removal of the PDF document, I'll leave it to other editors. MartinPict (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

7) Interestingly, Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan have frequently collaborated on matters related to John Castro directly or indirectly, seen in these instances, where they sometimes made active edits on the John Castro page mere hours apart:

A) [66] (An alleged back up on the use of the source)

B) [67] Vigorous defense of a non-notable website and similar statements

C) Defending Chetsford edits here on the Talk Page: [68]

D) And finally, active edits on John Castro page on June 7 - just 4 hours after edits done by Chetsford: [69]

23:40, 2023 June 7‎ 2601:8c:b80:7ec0:206e:456:4bf9:dc07 talk‎ 17,232 bytes +72‎ No edit summary
23:32, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,160 bytes −125‎ work on WP:OVERCITE issue
21:08, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,285 bytes −1‎ Move from lede to body; info not in body shouldn't be in lede
21:08, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,286 bytes −5‎ update infobox per body of article; remove lede cite
21:05, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,291 bytes −41‎ →‎Electoral results: ce
21:03, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,332 bytes −274‎ move cite from infobox per MOS and add content to early life from the cite
20:55, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,606 bytes −166‎ Overcite/bad source

This pattern of activity raises significant COI concerns regarding Chetsford (possibly related to political views?), as well as the close and extensive collaboration between Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan on matters pertaining to John Anthony Castro and TaxProf Blog.

I urge the overseers of this NoticeBoard to carry out a thorough investigation into this matter. Additionally, I propose that both Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan be prohibited from making edits to John Anthony Castro's page or recreating the TaxProf Blog page, considering the potential political bias and indications of non-constructive behavior. Given Chetsford's administrative authority on Wikipedia, this recommendation seems particularly essential to ensure fair and unbiased content management.

MartinPict (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

'Political views' do not constitute a conflict of interest, everybody has them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns. Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I already responded to these allegations here for any admins that want to read it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This pattern of activity raises significant COI concerns regarding Chetsford: How exactly? You are requesting that Chetsford and TPF be banned from the Castro page because of political bias, so am I correct in assuming you hold that having any political bias is a COI and should disallow one from editing political pages?

Also, I'm disappointed at your attempt to use "Knock yourself out" as evidence that Chetsford is being confrontational. I can excuse not understanding the idiom at first, but Chetsford was patient with your accusation of personal attacks and gave you the definition without any sass. For you to ignore this and accuse it of being confrontational is assuming bad faith. Not to mention the sentences that comment was responding to are more confrontational than an idiomatic "Do as you please." GabberFlasted (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This post is impressively awkward to parse and has a surprising amount in common with some other wall-of-text writers who coincidentally appear on the pages mentioned and is interestingly atypical of an editor of 7 months' standing. I sense that this thread is not going to end well but weirdly don't know why. — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like comment on two points. First, regarding point 5, consensus was to remove the source because it was a primary source, but also that the document was in fact publicly available and there was no wrongdoing. Second, regarding point 2, I am a new(ish) user myself and my editing pattern has been called "unusual" more than once (and it no doubt is). And so I feel confident when I say that the way Chetsford addressed that issue with you is exactly the way it should be addressed. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: The OP has been indeffed at SPI. Chetsford (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. — Trey Maturin™ 17:26, 29 June 2023 (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.

Possible sock/block evasion user of User:Hurricane Allen

GoAnimator Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello. I've been monitoring this user for a while due the user's suspicious behavior. The user's first started talking to TaIls Wx (The user who reported previous socks of the blocked user) and asking many random questions. Moreover, this edit on an article talk page shows that the user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User: Svsaikumar189

The user Svsaikumar189 has been persistently adding unsourced material after six warnings. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 15:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

See User talk:Svsaikumar189 and Special:Contributions/Svsaikumar189 for the problem edits. There is also Svsaikumar274 (talk · contribs) who has a similar edit history and topic area, and is a WP:DUCK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have a habit of insisting that a film is produced in only one language, e.g. that the upcoming Project K is only in Telugu [70]. It is common for Indian films to be simultaneously shot in multiple languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And now they have attempted to blank this thread [71] Meters (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And then you add Subb198. Blocked this entire drawer. Courcelles (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by IP

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 IP 97.117.94.244 has made personal attacks on the edit summaries of his edits on the page Brian and Ed Krassenstein and making multiple disruptive edits on the page. (1, 2, 3). Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. I await the inevitable reply that I'm part of the left wing conspiracy to silence James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Good block. Someone probably spends too much time on Conservapedia... JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You called it, but it wasn't even as intelligent as that.-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone's mad. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 10:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Leftist tools? Like a hammer and sickle? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 14:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You silly people [72]. EEng 07:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I love how we're just laughing at the IP's statements. Looks like someone got their block extended to 6 months! Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 12:01, 28 June 2023 (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.

Bizarre vandal

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

Firstly, take a look at this, the "Wasn't banned" section. Are they a sock? See this and this and then revdel them and indeff this user. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Death threat. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What's bizarre? It's the truth. --Dorglorg (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

They are clearly WP:NOTHERE, as there editts to the Nahel M article show - indef and revdel the edits in question and the edit summaries, which are equally unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Rants. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You "Wikipedians" claim to just set up an independent encyclopedia website (so very innocent) then you post blatant lies with media sources which are also lying. I don't care what your rules are when all they do is spread MISINFORMATION to everyone who clicks on your articles! Proudly, --Dorglorg (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Whose definition of an encyclopedia? Mine is to tell the truth, which your article does not with all its bias.--Dorglorg (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Your bias is the destruction of France and ALL of Europe, and the extinction of white people. You choose sources which tell us to not believe our lying eyes, as MILLIONS of videos of fire and gunshots in France are posted all over the Internet. FUCK WIKIPEDIA AND THEIR CENSORSHIP AND LIES!--Dorglorg (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• User indeffed and revisions deleted, leaving this open in case anyone wants to check if this is a sock (or a compromised account) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Bulk WP:IAR preemptive semi page protection on date-related pages may be needed to deal with LTA sockpuppets

Recently, Lithuaniaball2, an LTA, has been vandalizing an article about a given date on said date, e.g. vandalizing June 30 on June 30. June 24, June 25, June 26, June 28, June 29 and June 30 have been affected so far (June 27 was not vandalized). I think that given the pattern we may need to do an WP:IAR preemptive protection on date-related pages since this pattern has been continuing for some while, similar to the bulk protection done by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) in 2016 to articles in Category:Interstate Highway System to prevent abuse by Link Smurf. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User talk:89.106.109.155

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.

---

89.106.109.155 is harassing me in a talk page by mentioning me. Might need to revoke TPA. LDM2003 (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2023 (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:Vikster 15 and Kiev/Kyiv

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 have told this user about the consensus on the usage of Kiev/Kyiv in articles on their talk page and warned them that continuing to replace "Kiev" in historical topics might result in a block. This is a new account that simply makes changes from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". But they are still making mass-changes to articles on historical topics. See for example this edit to Georges Baklanoff which is unambiguously historical. Also, their user page is simply Kyiv ― not Kiev! Mellk (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

P-blocked from articles until they agree to stop making these changes. Courcelles (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2023 (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 by User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s

User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s keeps editing articles, with those edits not adhering to WP:NPOV and appears to be trying to push a certain narrative and "righting great wrongs". Also, their edits do not adhere to Wikipedia's MOS, with them including Sikh honorifics appended to names of individuals.

Since April of this year, the user keeps editing the Panj Takht article to promote a particular view point (that a certain Sikh organization, Budha Dal, is the "fifth Takht" of Sikhism, a minority viewpoint that is held by members of the organization). They include no citations in their edits. Their edits have been reverted by other users with messages left on their talk-page explaining why, with these messages escalating to warnings since the user continues their activities unheeded and does not respond to their talk-page messages. Can some action be taken against this user since warnings are being ignored and they continue trying to push their changes to articles?

Examples of their problematic editing history:

Panj Takht article – [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]

Jathedar article (removing certain names from list due to succession dispute within an organization, edit warring with other editors, especially IPs, about who is the rightful successor, introducing extremely lengthy Sikh honorifical terms to the names of past and current leaders) – [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton - WP:IDHT/POV-Pushing

So alongside the works I do on WP, I create a lot of pages for Muslim and Foreign Resistance Fighters in France during WW2, I create them or improve them in French, and then I translate them in English. In this line of work, I did Abdelkader Mesli, Bel Hadj El Maafi, Yahi Saïd and Mehedine Ben Mohamed Azouz. I had no issue whatsoever on any of these pages, but only on Djaafar Khemdoudi, which (like the others) I created in French and then translated in English.

When there was no issue about their nationality or ethnicity, I had no problem listing them as simply Algerians, such as Yahi Saïd for example (that was created in French before all of that arose), just to dismiss any POV-Pushing from my part. I took contact with the family of Djaafar Khemdoudi to know if they had sources about him, and they told me about him and the fact that as long as they knew him, he never considered himself as an Algerian. Thus, I added in the English and French WP that he was a Frenchman from Algerian origins, since Algerians under colonial French rule were considered Indigenes, but not a Foreign nation, and when the country had it's independance, Djaafar Khemdoudi was in France and didn't request the passport or anything linked to Algeria. I was at that time trying to have the family to send to WP the documents and sources they had about him, which were certificates, letters and most importantly, his photography, which was the most important to me, because it's better to have a profile picture on Wikipedia.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Additionnaly, they sent me sources speaking about him, notably one from the Arolsen Archives^[6][7] and one from a chapter made by Kamel Mouellef about him, since he wrote extensively about Resistance Fighters that were forgotten due to being strangers, such as the FTP-MOI or from the French colonies (mainly Algeria and Vietnam).^[8] I also consulted them about an article from a site that I believed was a newspaper, but which appeared to be a blog (and blogs aren't allowed on Wikipedia). They told me that it had many errors, and some truths.

Then, I came back to the page and I saw that M. Bitton had started to work on the page as well, as I was still on talks with the family to have them approve the fact to give the rights to a free licence. He used the blog to say that he was Algerian and not French.

I promptly removed that by saying that I was in contact with the family and they had told me that he wasn't Algerian and never considered himself like that and that I waited for more sources to come to show that, but I couldn't if they weren't ok to give them to Wikimedia Commons for use. He reverted and went on the offensive, saying that it was defended in the blog-source and that it was sufficient to enforce it. I trusted him and didn't check the blog-source, that I added in the first place, thinking that indeed, it was usable, but told him that the family had told me that there were a lot of issues on that particular blog (not only on the citizenship but also on the medals that Djaafar Khemdoudi had, or stuff like that). I also tried to explain to him, since I was just finishing reading the book of Marc André^[9] about Djaafar Khemdoudi and Bel Hadj El Maafi, that former french resistants such as those two could have very difficult links to Algeria and the independence movement of Algeria. As you can see on the page of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was his superior in the French Resistance, that he was against the independence of Algeria, and was attacked by a terror attack from independence fighters because he was collaborating with the French authorities against the independence of Algeria, and such, saying that he was Algerian was strange. I also said that I wouldn't work more on the page since all of that went bad. BTW, he didn't participate at all in the redaction of the article, all he did was use the blog to say that he was Algerian, the 99% of the article were made by me and took weeks of research and reading.

He didn't say anything, and some days later, as the family had given me the link to the Arolsen article, which stated that on their demand, he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution, I decided to add the sentence : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family which was sourced from the Arolsen article and was thus something of satisfactory. I also added in the conclusion of the article that his Algerian background created issues among the French Resistants, which didn't recognize him as a real resistant. I thought it was settled since M. Bitton didn't intervene for a little month on the page, and the nuanced approach was able to find a consensus (I also added the pictures and developped the articles on other points) + I made in French/English the page of Georges Durand, which was another resistance fighter in link with Djaafar Khemdoudi, to whom he sent people to save, it seems.

But then, earlier today, he came from nowhere and removed all the changes, which accounted for something like +10 sources and 6000 characters and then started defending again his POV in the talk page, to which I responded by saying that the source from Arolsen indeed said what I had put, he refused it, then agreed seemingly to it, but started speaking with profanity language, accusing me personally and engage in an Edit war. You can find all of that in the talk page here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Djaafar_Khemdoudi That's when I saw that the source he was using was from a blog, and when he was confronted with it, he didn't like it. Then I went to see his contributions and the articles he created and saw that he was somewhat of a WP:SPA. He created two pages, one on a mosque and one on the Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria. Since he didn't manage to give any reliable source, engaged in disruptive behavior, personal attacks and edit wars, I ask for a warning against him, to restore the article prior to the removal of content and to forbid him to engage in this article in the future.AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that he was flagged and already the subject of several notices here for the same kind of issues with Algeria and Algerian nationalism too. AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• What does that make you? A French nationalist POV pusher (pushing their mumbo jumbo based on WP:OR on fr.wp and here too?? Anyway, at some point you will need to understand that you are not a reliable source. Once this simple fact hits home, everything will fall into place. As for your nice suggestions, there is no point in holding back when adding insults to injury: you might as well add tarring and feathering to the list to make it complete. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all, I made pages and modifications on a lot of subjects, not just France, for example working extensively on pages speaking against French nationalism, such as pages on far right in France, or Islamophobia in France or French nationalist terrorism directed against foreigners, where I was attacked by POV-Pushers also that tried to change the facts. Accusing me of being the source won't help you neither ; since I added +10, that weren't me, as you could perfectly see and understand (at least I hope so).

  Returning the accusation and not responding to anything won't help your case. Also, responding somewhat to your disruptive behavior by trying a defence in the talk page of Djaafar Khemdoudi when you see yourself being reported isn't a nice method either, you should have done so since days, or even since the beginning. It's nice to see you answer more than 10 words now that you know you are flagged. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution typical French nationalist POV pushing. Here's how Arolsen describes him.

  he came from nowhere this is hilarious.

  This is you removing my comment from the talk page and then disappearing after being warned not to repeat it (no point in pretending that you didn't do in on purpose, because I don't and will never ever believe you). M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't write that, you are lying, I wrote : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family and used the article that the woman in charge of his file made, not a vulgarization attempt on Twitter (which isn't usable either, such as blogs, btw). She said : It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian – after all, he fought in the French resistance.

  You said on the talk page that this wasn't what the article from Arolsen said, but it is, indeed. The sentence I wrote is exactly rendering what the source says.^[1]

  Yes, you came from nowhere, and never worked to anything on the page, except POV-Pushing about his citizenship and reverting anything what didn't suit you. You fail to adress all the other points of my report, btw.

  Now, about your accusations that I'm a French nationalist of any sort for transcribing litteraly the source of Arolsen's official communications (and not their twitter posts, sorry about that), I already defended myself of that in both the talk page and here, showing you that for the page of Yahi Saïd for example, that I created prior to your edit war, and even prior to Djaafar Khemdoudi in English (so prior to your intervention of any sort), he was mentioned as being an Algerian Resistance Fighter. You don't believe me if that suits you, but the facts are the facts. Also, as you can understand, maybe, writing extensively about Muslim Resistance Fighters or Colonial Resistance Fighters, as I did, isn't being a French nationalist. Also, defending the usage of Islamophobia in terrorist attacks against French Muslims or non-French Muslims on the talk page of "Far Right terrorist attacks" in the French Wikipedia (which btw I did at 50%), isn't a sign of French nationalism bias. Also, the fact to add "Islamophobia" (with sources) to political french movements that declare themselves as being leftist, while attacking immigrants, especially Algerians, isn't being pro-French nationalism neither. I was even attacked by French nationalists media outlets about this and the French Wikipedia, even if some POV-Pushers and other WP:SPA tried to have me cancel as an "islamogauchiste", decided that I was right.^[2][3]

  Here, the report is about you, nevertheless, and the fact that despite being reported multiple times for issues relating to the Algerian/Morrocan disputes or Algeria, or being a WP:SPA mainly contributing about Northern Africa, and mostly Algeria, you continue this kind of disruptive behavior, edit waring and POV-Pushing, don't try to revert the accusation, as I already said, it's not the first time you are being flagged for similar behaviour. Let the admins do their job. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian (regardless of what the average nationalist thinks, wink, wink).

  The rest of your mumbo jumbo will be ignored as I wasted too much time with you. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our important policies and not the ones that you could use against those you disagree with. I'm done here (others are welcome to ping me should they wish).

  Here, the report is about you Wrong! It's about you too. Welcome to ANI! M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• There's some oddities and complicated issues going on here, but I think they can be reduced if we start at the top.
  • @AgisdeSparte: what the family said in contact to you is probably irrelevant per WP:RS (see also: WP:ABOUTSELF). We follow what's published in reliable sources. Your interviews with the family are WP:OR. We will occasionally have debates here on whether OR as to source accuracy is a legitimate basis for the exclusion (rather than the inclusion) of content—my position has always been "no", though I know some well-established editors disagree. (Separately, I worry that you see yourself as a representative of the family in this situation, and that's a dangerous spot to be in. For example, you relied on one source that said: "It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian". But, while I don't approve of M.Bitton's language, I do think that's probably not the most relevant fact. How his children want him to be remembered doesn't really count for much.
  • @M.Bitton: I think you were a bit aggressive in reverting each other. In general, a mass revert should probably be a last resort. It tends to escalate conflicts if you say, "I disagree with this portion of the edit, so I'm reverting the whole thing." That said, I think agree that AgisdeSparte's argument for removing the cited statements that they did was problematic.
  • I've only skimmed the talk page / sources, but am I correct in understanding that Khemdoudi was born in modern day Algeria at a time when Algeria was a French colony; he opposed Algerian independence; and some reliable sources describe him as Algerian while some do not? I'm not sure how clearly MOS:NATIONALITY or WP:MODERNPLACENAME address that situation; hopefully another editor can clear this up. While nationality at birth sometimes seems to control (Anatoly Dyatlov is described Soviet, not Russian), it seems to me that in situations involving colonies, we often disregard colonial status—Mahatma Gandhi is described as Indian; George Washington is described as American. But of course, both of those figures supported independence, while Khemdoudi opposed independence. So I checked out List of Loyalists (American Revolution), and I noticed, least based on the first four, that we usually don't include "American" in their bios (see John Agnew, Andrew Allen, and William Allen). I think that should at least suggest that we shouldn't describe Khemdoudi as Algerian and that we should, as AgisdeSparte suggests, call him Algerian-born.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: opposing the independence that happened decades after what made him notable, even if it was a fact, still wouldn't make him French. The Harkis literally fought other Algerians, yet they are described as Algerians and not Algerian-born (because that's what they were to themselves, to the French and to everyone else). M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe to solve this issue we can say, as I did for Bel Hadj El Maafi that he was French-Algerian or Algerian-French, which one suits you best. AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources describe him as Algerian. Why the double standard? Were the Harkis French-Algerians or Algerian-French? Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Harkis is off-topic, they lived in French Algeria, not in the Metropolis for all of their life ; also, what we could do is replace my message "He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family" with the beginning being "An Algerian at birth, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

This was a message that shows his Algerian background clearly AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Or even "An Algerian, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

Which is even more telling AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the Harkis and how Algerians were viewed by the French before, during and after the world wars is very much on topic. Basically, they were never considered as French (even if they died multiple times for France).

I repeat: Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian.

Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense) ... that actually doesn't necessarily follow, especially in a case where the nationality is disputed or complex, as this one is. Gandhi's kids probably don't want Gandhi identified as British even though he may have technically been a British national according to British rules at the time of his birth. Also: I think it would be best if both of you stopped commenting here for a bit unless asked a question by another user. This section is already fairly long (and largely duplicative of what's already in the fairly long talk page section), and so far I'm the only outside party who's commented ... and this is only my second post.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If he was French, why would his kids wish for him to be classified as French? The Algerians were not French nationals (even the Harkis who fought other Algerians were not considered as such and were treated like human garbage when they landed in France). M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"The Algerians were not French nationals" So, as I understand the British system, "subjects" in British colonies were considered British nationals, but not British citizens. Per the sources I could find, at the turn of the century, Algerians were considered French subjects, though they were not given French citizenship until 1947. That said, this is all really beside the point (and it'd be SYNTH to cross reference like this). The question here isn't really "Do some sources describe him as French and some as Algerian?" The question is whether it's appropriate to describe him as Algerian unequivocally. That question can't be answered by mere reference to the fact that some sources describe him as Algerian; it has to be answered by considering sources on the whole and whether his nationality is a point of controversy. If it is, then there's probably nothing lost by merely noting that he was born in Algeria.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he was Algerian is important because that's the main reason he and others like him were "forgotten" in the first place. The source in the lead of the article and the ones cited in the discussion explain this in details (had it not been for the work that was carried out by the great-grandson of an Algerian tirailleur, they would still be unknown to the public... because they weren't French). Also, while we have two RS that describe as Algerian, we have none whatsoever that describe him as French. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is he most known for being forgotten? It's not mentioned till the last section! But fair enough. I'm going to try to add back some of AgisdeSparte's non-controversial edits, and as for this discussion let's let others comment.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

He is known for being one of the Algerian heroes who have been "forgotten" despite what they did (the same goes for other Maghrebi heroes). M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue about the fact that he was Algerian, as I stated in every position since the first discussion, including every proposition and including the sentence that I putted from Arolsen, and which was designed to grant a nuanced approach on the page. It was also something I added in the last sentence, when I spoke about the ARM opposing him to have a plaque because he was from Algerian background, which I stated. However, the fact is that he is indeed considered French and not Algerian by the Arolsen archives after a request from his family, which I sourced, and which was, as M. Bitton even recognized (after denying that this source said that) a nuance of the fact that he was French, to show his palimpseste and difficult memory, as was stated in the book by Marc André quoted above which defended him and his memory on Montluc Prison.

Being "known for being forgotten" is a contradictory statement, btw, if I did this page (alongside others which didn't pose this kind of issues), it was to help to the memory and recognition of these kind of forgotten resistance fighters, who nobody cares about, because they were from foreign background, such as Maghrebis, but also Armenians, for example Sarkis Bedikian that I did too. However, as was stated by Marc André in his book on Montluc, the memory of a lot of Algerian fighters, such as Djaafar Khemdoudi, or Bel Hadj El Maafi, was that, being against the independence of Algeria, and being attacked by Algerians wanting independence, they found themselves being separated from their Algerian compatriots as well as from their French compatriots, which saw them with suspicion during the Algerian War, though there isn't any source about that kind of suspicion against Djaafar Khemdoudi (contrary to Bel Hadj El Maafi). Thus they were in somewhat a no man's land in terms of memory and allegiances. I also worked on the page of another collaborator of the French colonial power, Kaddour Benghabrit, which was Algerian/Moroccan/French and who found himself in a similar position, even going as far as his own family, since his son, that defended the independence of Algeria, was repudiated by him and removed from the office he had at the Great Mosque of Paris. Thus, doing, by Algerian nationalism or irredentism, of those figures and their allegiances monolithic ones is a mistake, since they found themselves in very difficult waters, and at least had several allegiances, if they didn't repudiate altogether their origins, thus not identifying themselves with the colonized nations but with the colonizers instead (who didn't consider them as such in some cases).

What I was requesting was the removal of M. Bitton from this page, since he didn't participate at all in it, except by creating problems and trying to change the introduction, all the work of research and synthesis was done by myself and all the Wikipedia page as well. By engaging in disruptive actions, repeted bad faith, refusal to compromise (even presented with sources), refusing to agree with consensual or nuanced positions (such as the sentence I putted from Arolsen), which indeed showed that he was considered French AT THE REQUEST OF HIS FAMILY, and thus wasn't French in an absolute sense, by doing personal attacks also, he evidently broke several of the founding principles of Wikipedia and deserves at least a warning.

To show you the kind of bad faith (even if +5 reports on him in the ANI didn't suffice, always on the subject of Algeria, btw), he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop with your nonsense and read what the I and the other editor wrote! I have some very bad news for you: creating an article doesn't make it yours (learn to live with this fact or find yourself another hobby).

As for the request, here's mine: the admins ought to examine your nationalist POV pushing, the ownership issue and your edit warring over your WP:OR (see my comments and that of Jerome Frank Disciple).

he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring That's a lie. Unlike you, when I call someone a liar, I back it up with diffs: you were warned for edit warring at 15:46 and you filed a report at 18:22.

There is also the issue of the undisclosed WP:COI (given the admitted contact between the OP and the family). M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Want to shorten this up a bit? 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:AgisdeSparte - What I can see is that you don't like the editing of User:M.Bitton, and that you post at length, and that your lengthy posts do not explain what your complaint is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I may be able to help somewhat, Robert McClenon, as an editor completely uninvolved in this dispute who knows about some other parts of the topic area.

• • Until the Algerian War of Independence, Algeria was neither a colony nor a territory nor a protectorate, but a département of France, in other words, constitutionally *France* even though it is on the other side of the Mediterranean from what is called "metropolitan" France, containing the other départements.
  • Although France does not have birthright citizenship, if Djaafar Khemdoudi was born within the borders of the French department of Algérie, before its independence, I do not know what else we would call him. Certainly, Albert Camus, born in Oran, is considered French, but of course his family at some point were French settlers. (pieds-noirs) Thinking back, I cannot quite affirm that there was not some second-class citizenship for indigenous Algerians, but I believe that in that country, systemic racism produced something more like a class/caste system and I am fairly certain that there were separate justice systems. But if he had a passport it would have been French.
  • the discussion of the British patriality concept ("national" vs "citizen") is correct afaik but completely irrelevant, and only demonstrates that the British manifested their vitriolic ethnocentrism quite differently than the French did. There is a complete and total lack of any resemblance between French Napoleonic law and the British common law system. We're talking black holes versus flamingoes, Camembert versus blade servers.
  • I recently encountered AgisdeSparte at a completely different article on a completely different topic that I would prefer not to discuss here, as it would bring more heat than light to this section, which is cluttered enough. I found him very easy to talk to, academic in his work, and very civil with another editor whose edits would require me to provide diffs if I discussed them. I really wish he had talked to me about this article before coming here, as his post above really does show that he is accustomed to the sourcing practices at French Wikipedia, (from which I frequently translate). This does not mean that AdeS cannot work within our sourcing guidelines. I have seen him do so, recently. However the discussion we had at that article, beyond its specific content issues at the time, had to do with me asking for help with some long-standing issues I have had with Arabic-language sources, rather than me offering him help with en-wikipedia sourcing policies, which he did not seem at the time to need, at all.

TL;DR: I am currently on a short wikibreak from World War 2 drama and do not want to be drawn into the particulars here, but perhaps I've given some context to what the issue is: This is definitely way too much drama over whether a French Resistance fighter was in fact French. I don't see how he could *not* be French however.

• @AgisdeSparte:, the wishes of his family carry no weight here. What you need is a solid reliable source for his place of birth and preferably his citizenship, since someone has now called that into question. I am unfamiliar with the source you are talking about, but an obituary in a French daily newspaper would be fine, for example. I can help you parse the guidelines as to your source's use in the article if you wish. Under en-wikipedia guidelines, you should not have contacted the family, however.
• @M.Bitton:, I have no opinion on the notability of this fighter, but in the topic area of the French Resistance in general, if significant assertions about a Resistance fighter can be adequately sourced (in any language, not just English) then we have been treating them as notable. Even if you suspect that they are famous for being forgotten.
• Robert McClendon, despite the red flags here for RGW, older conventional wisdom on the identity of French resistance fighters truly does have some historiographical issues. I urge you not to dismiss this question out of hand despite its rocky start. Affiliation with countries that didn't exist during World War II, either yet or any more, is a lurking problem in the topic area that may need to be globally addressed and that I have seen elsewhere in the past week My hands are very full right now, so while I will clarify any of my above remarks that seem unclear, I would ask to be excused from further participation in this dispute. Hopefully I have now pulled the thread out of the weeds a bit though?
• MB and AdeS, Jerome Frank Disciple is correct in saying that the thing to do at this point is await comment from others. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Elinruby - Evidently, in saying that User:AgisdeSparte used too many words and said nothing, I used too few words, because you sort of answered a question that I didn't ask. You were trying to explain to me what the content dispute is. I wasn't asking what the content dispute was. This is WP:ANI, which is a conduct forum, and AgisdeSparte went on at length complaining about the edits of User:M.Bitton without really explaining what either the content issue is or what the conduct issue is. The point I was trying to make is that AgisdeSparte was wasting pixels and wasting the time of the community and saying nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

True. I was just concerned when I saw the comments of a contributor whose help I need dismissed as "gobbledegook" and "nonsense". They are not. I would not have explained all that to anyone but you, who does deal with content disputes at DRN, where this may wind up if Jerome Frank Disciple's talk page mediation attempt is unsuccessful. Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I will fully be able to understand the nuances of the colony/department distinction. I was basing the "colony" remark on the Arolsen Archives page (which is cited in the article) and says, "Djaafar Khemdoudi was born on November 12, 1917, in Aumale (today Sour El-Ghozlane) in Algeria, which was a French colony at the time." (Admittedly it could be using colony colloquially). I'm moving the content discussion back to the page's talk page and will try to get a resolution there.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• This is why we shouldn't put people's ethnicities or nationalities in the lead sentence of their biographies. The article could start out "...was a resistance fighter during World War II", the birthplace could remain as is in the infobox, and every reader would come away from the article just as well informed about this individual, without all these indentation levels. Folly Mox (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

yep Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  The sourced content was made using a open sourced blog, that I myself thought was reliable, but which wasn't, after reviewing it and contradicts the book from Marc André.

  As I stated before, it would be best to put the two nationalities, which I proposed several times with conciliatory measures every time and consensual propositions, or to put neither of them. (Thus leaving a significant part of the memory issue void of sense)

  You can find the same points that I adressed here, in the talk page and that were repeated by Robert McClendon^[1] :During the French colonial rule, Algerians were considered indigenous French subjects – but with none of the rights that came with that name. They were in fact neither Algerian nor French for 130 years. (here though we speak about someone linked with anti-Algerian independence leaders, thus opposed to the independence of Algeria from France)

  For the COI, here it was about you, and it was not undisclosed, as I stated publicly that I was waiting for the sources in order to be added, and then I added them, using only Arolsen. However, you can see from every source by French Resistants, and even Bel Hadj El Maafi, that he was considered a French compatriot in every case where it was adressed.^[2][3] This was also confirmed in private correspondence by his son, even if I didn't put it in the WP article, since it was not a reliable source, I'll give you here a screen of his text with a translation, and thus match every source from the Resistance that I putted.^[4]

  Translation : For the record and only for you to know that some Jewish leaders in Lyon were not very keen to see a cell bearing the name of a person of Algerian origin…..and I would add that my father arrived in France in 1937 (i.e. at 20) has always been French without any hesitation. Then was very different from now and so was the nature of immigration.

  Then, you must understand that my proposals of saying that he was French andAlgerian are conciliatory measures, and that sources back only the fact that he identified himself as French. The Arolsen quote I putted was also a try to find a compromise. You didn't want that, for no good reason, and such, you enforced your view, but that won't change the facts. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It was not undisclosed, as I stated before that I was in link with the family in the talk page and in the report here (even if I took contact with them after starting to create the page, since I wanted to have sources + the picture). I already answered that the source was from a blog, that I myself put in, which was a mistake, and should be removed, I said it to you, and you insulted me in the talk page. The report was about your disruptive behavior, your POV-Pushing and your edit warring about anything that concerned Algeria, accusations that were already made against you multiple times in ANI reports over the years. The issue of the content is relevant, since it's a POV-Pushing regardless of reliable sources (such as Arolsen and official documents from the Resistance) that considered him French, which you removed as not being reliable multiple times. Thus, it's necessary to explain the issue to the readers, so they can see more clearly the problem with any of your actions.

Now, about the content you removed, it is also sourced here^{[1] (page 172)} : Many scholars, and many French people themselves, consider understandings of nationhood in France to be “assimilationist,” in contrast to more ethnically centered concepts of national belonging prevalent in other countries. As such, France is supposed to be relatively open to the political and social integration of immigrants and other outsiders, no matter what their ethnic or cultural origins, who choose to embrace French law, traditions, and culture. In this sense, France’s “ethnic system” is, technically, not based upon ethnicity at all.

Then, speaking about someone who lived in mainland France far 80% of his life, who adopted the customs and the laws of mainland France, who didn't have the Algerian nationality, who was in link with people opposed to the Algerian independence until they got shot by the FLN for that, who was designed as a "French compatriot" by every source speaking about him and who didn't live in Algeria from 1937 to his death in 2011, when he died, saying that he was Algerian only is POV-Pushing. What I made on the French WP page was that he was French with Algerian origins, and that didn't bother anyone, and didn't create any issues. You coming on the page, destroying +6000o of text and refusing to listen to any source, to any argument is the real issue, and is linked obviously with this report. Even the conciliatory measures I made were done to find a middle-ground, but even then, you refused them, without adding any new source, or nothing. You quoted the book from Kamel Mouellef to support your point, but then I showed you that nowhere in that book he was designed as being Algerian, and you still refused to listen. This shows clearly the issue of behaviour and why I asked you from being warned, since it's not the first time that you are flagged for that, that you are a WP:SPA about Algeria, and that you engage in agressive behaviour everytime that you are reported or challenged on that. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't read my message and now engage in c/c. Wait for others to answer, as was already stated above. Also, I suggest that you read the first 10 words of my previous message, since they answer that already. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If that doesn't show the kind of behaviour we are facing here with M. Bitton, I don't know what will. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Your long walls of text that end up saying very little of substance come across as rants, and I garuntee that whatever you hope to achieve by coming to ANI will not happen because of that. Explain in CONCISE language (without any extraneous crap about the content dispute) what M.Bitton is doing wrong and what you want to happen. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

no interest whatsoever in what the OP has to say to me or about me, so once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but two editors have now said you two should probably avoid commenting here for a bit and let other editors chip in.

Also, in general, I think each of you are making accusations and taking steps that aren't proportionate to the conduct of the other. In short, I think you're both failing to assume good faith. This should have been settled by a dispute-resolution process like WP:3O. I'm going to try to go to the talk page of the page in question and see if we can't come to a compromise in terms of article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Their initial report is a testimony of their bad assumption, so I see no reason whatsoever not to return the favour. I left a comment for others (as I'm supposed to and to avoid filing a report about them), so they should stop swamping it with their nonsense. Also, this is not about the content, it's about their undisclosed WP:COI and the fact that they resorted to changing sourced content with their WP:OR to peddle the POV of the family that they are in contact with. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

While I would never endorse directly contacting family, I don't know that doing so presents a conflict-of-interest issue. Honestly, the mixture of a content dispute with a conduct dispute resulted in this entire thread being really overlong. Given that we've reached a compromise as to the content dispute, I would suggest all parties withdraw their complaints here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but now that I have been dragged to ANI for nothing and given the aspersions that they kept throwing around, I will insist on keeping it open until the admins had their say. The undisclosed COI issue, coupled with them insisting on peddling the family's POV (even at the expense of other wp policies), is a serious matter as far as I'm concerned. If they were new, I would overlook this, but the above wiki jargon that they want to use against me is a testimony to their knowledge of how wp works (one doesn't know WP:IDHT, POV pushing, SPA, etc. without knowing WP:COI), so there really no excuse for them not disclosing the COI (what they now claim about it is unprovable and irrelevant as we have no way of knowing what went on between the two, who contacted whom and for what purpose; but the fact that they haven't disclosed it just that, a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. As a disclaimer, I myself have clashed before on M. Bitton's views of nationality, but I really don't think that what AgisdeSparte is asking for here is that unreasonable. Why not call someone in such a situation French-Algerian? It's surely true they could be called any of Algerian, French, or French-Algerian, and all of them are technically true from the right angle. Just use the most expansive version. I think the example of British loyalists in colonial America is a good one - especially if they move out of the newly independent USA, it seems reasonable to call them British or British-Americans or something. SnowFire (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  1) You're making it look at though that's what they asked for, it's not. What they did is replace sourced content with He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family, which is nothing more than a misrepresentation of a source to push a POV (the Arolsen Archives says no such thing. In fact, it describes him as Algerian). 2) We have a set of policies that have been agreed upon by the community, so we either expect everyone to respect them or we change them if they are no longer fit for purpose. What we don't do, is apply their strict version to newcomers and let the experienced editors break them at will. 3) There is also the issue of the external relationship between the OP and the family whose POV they have been peddling. M.Bitton (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• The source misrepresentation hasn't stopped. AgisdeSparte has just added this sentence to the article (described as a fact in their edit summary): first of all, that's not a reliable source (some random image that could have been Photoshopped for all we know). Second, it says no such thing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. You already made some similar claims about the picture of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was quoted by Marc André, an historian, as being a true source, and then you moved to tag it as unreliable even if it was shown that it was reliable. Stop being hypercritical, primary sources can be used if they are used to report straightforward facts.^[1]

  2. It says no such thing ? "le pillage complet de son commerce"

  3. You continued your biased modifications on that page, for example you tried to remove the category before seing that you were wrong, self reverting, and tagging every primary source as unreliable, even those who were interpreted and reported by historians as being reliable.

  4. About the Arolsen source, as was stated before numerous times, without you understanding, it seems, it was to find a conciliatory mesure. Yourself admitted in the talk page that he was French but claimed that he became so after the war (without any RS), and so it shouldn't be used on his biography. Also, what you call a reliable source is a quote from an open-source blog that I myself added when I created the page, before seing that it was wrong.

  
  

  As always on this page, you only engage in disruptive behaviour, without even adding one line to the content of the page, that's why I asked that you be removed from it, at least, and to receive a warn. AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I want to state for the record that I answer only because he is accusing me, even if we were both told to let other contributors speak alone and do their appreciation. So far, when another Wikipedian took the floor to speak, be it @Jerome Frank Disciple, @Robert McClenon or @SnowFire, all supporting a consensus that more or less was agreing, because this discussion is ridiculous (and I proposed this kind of settlement numerous times - even before reporting him), he responded by attacking me and trying to conceal the forming consensus that went against his WP:SPA views behind virulent attacks.

  
  

  That's why I asked for his removal from the page, because I think it's clear we can't count on M. Bitton to engage in constructive behaviour about it. AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Deliberately ignoring the above garbage, as I have no time for people who misrepresent the sources to push a POV (see previous comment) and lie to boot (diffs already provided).

Here's the so-called "source" to which they attributed During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents.

1. The image that AgisdeSparte uploaded to commons is obviously not a reliable source (they or the family that they claim are in contact with could have Photoshopped it).
2. There is nothing in that image (I repeat, it's not RS) that would support what AgisdeSparte added to the article (this is another clear-cut source misrepresentation).
3. The only editor who should refrain from editing the article is AgisdeSparte, for they admitted being in contact with the family whose POV they have been peddling (at the expense of our policies). While we have no idea whether what they are claiming is true, and if true, who contacted whom, for what purpose and who ended influencing whom; we know for a fact that the external relationship has been admitted to and as such, our WP:COI should apply. M.Bitton (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of this source is indeed an issue. The linked citation, which still stands as-is in the article, does not say le pillage complet de son commerce nor does it say anything remotely resembling it or its topic. It would also be a primary source and not usable in this way even if it did, but that's less grievous (but still relevant). AgisdeSparte, do you have an explanation for why you have added During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents with a citation comprising a link to this document? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a mishap with Commons, that I named similarly with only numbers. However if you look this one, which is still in the article at the same height as the text added, line 3 above the end, it does say that. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For the question of knowing if he was French or not, it should be noted that I found new sources in the archives and newspapers of the time, that I added in the French WP (without any issue so far). I was discussing with @Elinruby in my talk page to see if this could be usable.

1. He graduated from the Ecole Indigène in 1931.^[1], ^[2] The Ecole Indigène was a type of schools in French Algeria and New Caledonia used by the colonial power to promote cultural assimilation and where the most wealthiest Indigènes who supported France were allowed.^[3][4],^[5]

2. The Khemdoudis were a family from Sour el Ghozlane (named Aumale during French colonization), where they owned at least some land and 1 building.^[6]

3. One of them, called Louakal ben Laggoun Khemdoudi was a soldier in the French colonial troops, not any troops, but the Spahis, which were the troops where the most loyal (and wealthiest, since they had to pay their own horse) Indigènes where to be found.^[7]

4. A Djaffar Khendoudi, presented as a former student of the "Cours complémentaire of Aumale" (As you can see in universitary publications about the Ecole indigène, the Ecole indigène was that) (Nobody of this name exists in French or French Algerian archives or in people who gratuated from Aumale, obv, and it's pretty usual for colonial powers to wrongly spell the names/The French archives direct to this publication when you look for Djaafar Khemdoudi) published a text in 1936 in a newspaper, supporting the senator of Algeria of that time, called Jacques Duroux, who had asked for Indigènes to receive seats in the Parliament.^[8] He said : From a Muslim in Aumale, I respectfully thank Senator Duroux for the project of representing Algerian natives in Parliament. This moral gesture brings great honor to him and the French Muslim population will be immensely grateful to him. The young will keep an unforgettable memory of it, and the elderly will be filled with radiant joy that they will cherish until their last breath.^[9] AgisdeSparte (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that File:Certificat d'appartenance à la résistance de Djaafar Khemdoudi - 2.jpg is also inadmissible as a standalone source due to its WP:PRIMARY character? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, AgisdeSparte, I know I cautioned you against using primary sources on the article talk page, but I didn't at the time realize (or remember) that you had obtained and uploaded the primary sources. The problem is that primary sources—which, as a general rule, should be avoided when possible—are only usable when they have been "reputably published" by a reliable source. WP:PRIMARY. In short, that requirement exists because we have to be able to trust that the primary source is legitimate. How can Wikipedia users, who generally lack specialized knowledge, know if a document uploaded by a user is legitimate? In short: they can't. I know you're probably thinking "well of course what I uploaded is legitimate", but the rule is prophylactic: it's a broader than necessary so that it can safeguard the encyclopedia from illegitimate primary sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

AgisdeSparte has yet to explain why they let a misrepresented source (an inadmissible one at that) stand in the article after being made aware of the fact. Dismissing the raised concerns, casting aspersions and adding walls of text seems to be their modus operandi.

Worse, they attributed He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives to this source (which says no such thing). In fact, the Arolsen Archives describe him as Algerian. What's their excuse for misrepresenting the Arolsen source? M.Bitton (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@AgisdeSparte: I have been defending you because of the inordinate and unexplained vitriol displayed here and elsewhere by M.Bitton, and also because I have seen you do good work elsewhere. As far as I can tell this is a squabble between arrogant academics but since you brought it here the burden is on you to make your case. He should not be dismissing your well-founded concerns as nonsense, but I have to say, you are validating what he in turn says about you. Whether the man was French is not a question for this board. I personally feel that M.Bitton should at least be warned for his evident failure to assume good faith, and you need to be trouted for failure to read the reliable sources policy even when this was recommended to you in no uncertain terms. My advice to you is that you clearly acknowledge that you now understand that primary source documents should not be used in articles. My advice to M.Bitton is that he apologize for the accusation that you would falsify them. I now wash my hands of this dispute. Ugh. Elinruby (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say after reading this textbook bad faith assumption, other than you owe me an apology. The only diff (from 2020) that you could come up with to support your accusations, tells me that you've been holding a grudge ever since, because I reverted your WP:OR (which would also explain why you're willing to overlook all the "inordinate and unexplained vitriol" displayed first by AgisdeSparte). M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is an attempt to explain the incomprehensible to someone who is also himself wrong. As for some hypothetical grudge against you... You keep telling yourself that. I don't even know what you are talking about, and don't plan to investigate, because it's irrelevant. Please process that people can edit an article with no particular agenda, and have observations about behaviour with which it would be pointless to engage. Have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing to investigate, the textbook bad faith assumption is self-explanatory. Have a nice day! M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hehe sure. I explicitly suggested that you might be correct about something, but the man casting aspersions lashes out accusing the wikignome of OR ;) it won't work this time. Elinruby (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's very nice of you (after accusing me of all kind of nonsense). Anyway, all I want to know now: are you going to apologize for your baseless accusations? M.Bitton (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my suggestion that everyone here walk away, for a few reasons: First, the main dispute that started this discussion has been resolved on the article talk page. Second, while there are remaining issues (most notably AgisdeSparte's use of primary sources that have not been reputably published), those issues were, at least initially, secondary, and they have not previously been discussed outside of the shadow of the main dispute—resolution outside of ANI should be attempted. Third, it seems extremely unlikely to me that this thread will actually yield any action, partially because it was, at least initially, so focused on that initial content dispute. That's partially because—genuine read—both of the involved parties have been, at various times, less-than civil, and, frankly, this conversation has been bludgeoned. If a problem continues, then I would endorse a new section here. But I don't think many editors are going to be willing to wade through this giant wall of text (not to mention the fairly giant wall of text on the article's talk page, which provides important context). I understand that both editors feel aggrieved or still want action taken, but, at some point, I would really encourage everyone to weigh the amount of time they are devoting to this thread and the likelihood that action is taken. At this point, the only proposal that I would support is a proposal to archive this thread.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

eh, if AgnisdeSparte's response to the primary sources issues is inadequate I would support sanctions. If this were a CTOPs topic I would have already issued a topic-ban upon seeing the initial misuse of sources and the failure to retract and correct their use of sources. That having been said, at this point there is no good reason for M. Bitton and Elinruby to keep sniping at each other, and will not result in a sanction unless one of the them decides to shoot themselves in the foot with an indefensible personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Note: despite multiple pings and being active on the site, AgisdeSparte has yet to even acknowledge the raised concerns, let alone reply to the admin's question. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution history for the past month, I'm noticing what appears to be a similar, troubling misuse of sources at Talk:Ukrainian syndrome. In a similar vein, this week they created 2023 Battle of Moscow, about the anticipated Wagner march on Moscow. Now, they tagged it for speedy deletion following the abrupt conclusion of the Wagner mutiny (and in the interest of full disclosure, I carried out the speedy deletion on WP:G7 grounds), but the creation of the article in the first place suggests a disconnect with how Wikipedia uses sources. As such, I'm undecided on what sanction would be appropriate to suggest: if AgisdeSparte continues to fail to communicate a proper understanding of WP:PRIMARY, this starts to look like grounds for a block, as the misuse of sources is not limited to a single topic, but rather seems to be a repeated pattern across controversial topics. I'm tempted to suggest closing this with a strong warning that further misuse of primary sources will result in a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The issues on the page of the Battle of Moscow is different, since there were secondary sources (including by Reuters) that Wagnerites had reached the outskirts of Moscow and were fighting regular russian forces there. However, when they reached an agreement between themselves, I was the FIRST to ask for the speedy deletion of the page, since it wasn't relevant anymore. For the Ukrainian syndrome, before creating the page in French and then translating it in English, I looked at the creation of the page of the Gulf War Syndrome, and it was somewhat similar, because as I stated, sources are still being brought as we speak, moreover since the start of 2023. However, I didn't intervene there in the discussion page, because I was mostly letting the other users speak about it, after having stated my points in the talk page. However, we are speaking of 7% of the pages I created in the English WP that are subject to discussions (one being myself who asked for the deletion) and 0,8% of my total creation of pages on any WP project that are subject to this kind of talks. (1,2% if we include Djaafar Khemdoudi)

Asking for a block at this point is somewhat irrelevant, I feel like.

I want to say also that 99,8 of my edits are live in the English WP and 98,3% of my edits are live in the French WP. AgisdeSparte (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is once more not the acknowledgement regarding primary source use at Djaafar Khemdoudi that you have been repeatedly asked for. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit (made within minutes of their last comment here), AgisdeSparte asserts in Wikipedia's voice that several poets wrote about Hussein bin Ali and names two of them. Ignoring what they said about the two notable poets that they cited, the two sources that they give to support their assertion are just two poems (written in Arabic) with relevant information about the poets. They make no mention of when the poems were written or what their subject is. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz

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:Raymarcbadz continues to recreate Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics, after being warned multiple times to not do so. The latest discussion being here [84]. I think there maybe some competence issues here among other pieces of editing I have had to discuss with this editor. Just bringing this here to the wider community because clearly they are not understanding they shouldn't be repeatedly creating this article (among others). I propose a creation ban on Olympic related articles, because this editor also has issues with citing sources in articles that have nothing to do with the article, here is my chain with them discussing this [85]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz seems to be repeatedly harping on "why Eritrea???" and not a similarly created Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics. While an editor of his longevity and edit count -- not to mention his long history of editing disputes over Olympic articles -- should not remotely be ignorant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I've taken the liberty of nominating the latter for deletion, and hope that eases his mind. Ravenswing 23:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing a creation ban. How will you enforce this rule? I've published over a thousand articles about the Olympic athletes throughout a decade-long experience and you will impose me such rule of a creation ban. Isn't this a violation to the right of freedom? I also left a section on WT:OLY about this matter. Raymarcbadz (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of something an editor with your longevity should know about ... first off, you know -- or you ought to know -- that with this being a private website, all editing on Wikipedia is a privilege. You have exactly three "rights:" your right to copy Wikipedia content to an independent encyclopedia, your right to a copyright of your own work (which is automatically licensed to Wikipedia as a condition of editing), and your right to leave Wikipedia. There is no "right to freedom" here.

As to how a topic ban works, you should review WP:TBAN. Should such a ban be imposed, either by admins or the community, there are various avenues of appeal. With that, were you to violate such a ban, you would be subject to more severe sanctions, up to indefinite blocks. Seventeen years in, if you aren't aware that Wikipedia has rules of the road which you are as liable to follow as any other editor, it's time and past time for you to better inform yourself. Ravenswing 01:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What if I already created an article and cited a reliable source mentioning the Olympic athlete on several parts of the content? Are you planning to file a deletion or rule violation? Do you want to assign somebody else to create an article? Raymarcbadz (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Were you to receive a tban from Olympic articles, then it would be up to others to maintain, edit, defend, source or delete (or not) as they saw fit such articles that you created, much the same as if you'd left Wikipedia altogether. Ravenswing 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Never received a WP:TBAN from the administrators. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The WP:CIR problem is slowly coming into clearer focus. EEng 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Seventeen years and 90,000 edits in, it's not merely the startling ignorance of several key policies and guidelines (judging from his comments in that AfD, it seems that for someone whose activity is in creating articles on Olympians, he's unaware that simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass, two years ago) that's an issue. Ravenswing 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass" – Why do these users intend to develop a strict policy on the article creation for the Olympians through the presumptive notability pass. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz WP:NSPORTS was updated as a result of WP:NSPORTS2022. It might be worthwhile checking if there are any relevant updates that effect your work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: They did not recreate the article, they created a redirect to Eritrea at the Olympics. Based on the pages listed at Category:Nations at the 2024 Summer Olympics, it's a possible search term, so I don't see an issue with this redirect creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  The log shows they recreated the same article directly after it was draftified by AfD. It was deleted again, and then they created the redirect. I don't think a topic ban is required here, but Raymarcbadz needs to accept consensus and use the proper channels (WP:DRV/etc) if they disagree. An editor that has been here as long as Raymarcbadz, and has done such good work in that time, should be aware of such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @ActivelyDisinterested. I hadn't noticed that history and initially interpreted this report to be about the redirect creations. I've struck part of my above comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Struck part of my comment as the issue appears be continuing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you're wishful of knowing more, take a look at Raymarcbadz's comments in this AfD discussion generally, and these in particular: [86] [87]. I'm not sold myself on whether his actions are worthy of a topic ban. I am increasingly concerned as to whether he has the competence to edit Wikipedia at all, and his habit of acting as if his edit/article creation count immunizes him from scrutiny does not ease such worries: [88] [89] [90] Ravenswing 02:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've struck my above comment opposing a topic ban. I initially opposed because I thought this report based on the creation of the redirects, not the attempts to re-create the articles, which I am now fully aware of. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support either topic ban or article space p-block. The latter might be more helpful in lieu of progressive blocks since Raymarcbadz appears interested in quibbbling why the articles are not acceptable per current guidelines. Star Mississippi 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) because I have declined an unblock, I don't think I should weigh in here. Star Mississippi 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. User:Star Mississippi do you mind elaborating on what a P-block is? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  sorry @Sportsfan 1234. That's a Wikipedia:Partial block which allows editors to be blocked from a page (such as ANI) or a section of the site. What I suggested was main/article space leaving them free to edit elsewhere. Star Mississippi 17:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  (When in doubt about the meaning of a Wikipedia term named "P-block", enter "WP:P-block" into the search bar. It often works; it does in this case). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sportsfan 1234, Because you favored to support TOPIC BAN, does this mean that you will contact the administrators to remove me from the list of contributors in WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban; Raymarcbadz's apparent inability to grasp OR accept that notability guidelines apply to his own work is something I'm somewhat startled had never come up before. Ravenswing 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you support topic ban? If this happens effectively, do you expect me not to edit any articles related to Olympics indefinitely? Are you attempting to threaten me as someone who wholeheartedly contributes to the WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  YOU GUYS STRESSED ME OUT OF THIS NONSENSICAL ISSUE. YOU ENDLESSLY REVERT MY EDITS WITHOUT MERCY AND RESPECT. You support TOPIC BAN and worse, you're threatening my status as a contributor to the WP:OLY. Sportsfan 1234 seriously DESTROYED MY REPUTATION AS A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR AND AN AVID OLYMPIC FAN; and LOVES TO PISS ME OFF WHENEVER I EDIT AN OLYMPIC-RELATED ARTICLE. You're all wasting your time CREATING UNENDING ISSUES AND DRAMA about my contribution to the Olympics. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY EDITS ON THE ARTICLES THAT I CREATED BEFORE, GO AHEAD AND ASSESS THEM FOR GNG AND NOLYMPICS guidelines. I'm TIRED of THIS INCIDENT ALREADY. THANK YOU! Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  You have been here for seventeen years. You should know by now not to shout at people. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I know. But I’m already fed up with this nonsensical issue and the incident perpetrated by the person involved. This makes me feel stressful and agitated. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  The intent to support topic ban towards me is unjustifiable and prejudicial. I’ve worked so hard on the articles, then they will impose such rule that prevents me from editing any Olympic-related article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think its pretty clear a topic ban is needed at this point, especially after this latest outburst, accusing editors of 'destroying their reputation'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. Why are you so defensive about this matter? Are you trying to convince others to support and win your case? Clearly, you don't want me to edit any Olympic-related article ANYMORE. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Is this topic ban indefinite? By any chances, you would refrain me from filing an appeal. Am I right? Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently, you deserve me to be permanently removed from the member list on WP:OLY because of this issue. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no prejudice involved. You refuse to stop your disruptive editing, which means the topic ban is the next step. You're currently skirting the edges of a larger block so please keep that in mind as you're participating here. Star Mississippi 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Per above issues. JoelleJay (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Since London 2012, I have had the moral obligation to help clean the mess and improve the content of Olympic-related articles. I have created and published over a thousand articles with appropriate content and proper citation sourcing, I have committed millions of edits for the past decade, and I have overcome innumerable barriers to endure edit wars and endless reverting battles. You have mentioned in our previous discussions that policies gradually changed especially on the article guidelines. Effectively, monkeys and trolls spent their time at the guideline, policy, and article talk pages playing with their own mess through reverting powers, criticizing my edits with harsh summaries, and filing blocks without any further reason, instead of adding, expanding, or contributing to the content. Some of them disagree with my edits and stick to their own grit to maintain the desired table and description format, thereby putting me in a heated discussion. Lately, I have created two articles: an NOC article and an athlete competing at the previous Olympics. You ordered a deletion discussion and convince others to support your case. Now, you impose and suggest a topic ban on me. Why? You accuse me of re-creating the articles, of disruptive editing, and worse, of my emotional outbursts in the discussion. I have the right to voice my sentiments because I deserve to contribute to the WP:OLY and edit the content appropriate to the Olympic coverage. I do not understand why you need me to suffer from these consequences. Because you favored supporting WP:TBAN, will I ever get the opportunity to edit any Olympic-related articles, realizing that the Paris 2024 qualification stages are currently running? Who will clean up all the "messes" in the articles? How will I update all the NOC and qualification articles? What will happen next? Will I ever contribute to the WP:OLY after this case?

To those who support WP:TBAN, I wish you the best of luck. Just like what Lugnuts said from his arbitrary case last year, the mess is now your "mess" and the burden falls with you to fix it. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the screeds Raymarcbadz posted in this thread, for which they've already been warned, a topic ban will not be sufficient. I have therefore indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good block. They just kept digging a deeper and deeper hole. Ravenswing 23:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. Their comments on this thread was probably going to lead to that anyway. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have declined their unblock pending consensus here even before I saw the Lugnuts comment above that led to the block. Continuing the battleground behavior about protesting the topic ban while trying to be unblocked was not a path that was going to be conducive to consensus or productive editing. If anyone feels merit to copying input here while this discussion is ongoing, I have no issue with that, but don't see a need to unblock them at this time when they have more than said their peace regarding the proposal. With respect to my prior !vote, I still remain undecided whether a topic ban will fix the issue or a broader block is needed, but striking it now as I've acted on the unblock. Star Mississippi 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  • I tried to help them on their talk, but the IDHT is strong. Headed offline and offline most of tomorrow, so pardon any delay in responding on my end. Consider me in favor of whatever consensus develops.

  Star Mississippi 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason not to keep the indef block in place. Raymarcbadz has clearly demonstrated on their talk page either a lack of understanding of the reason they got blocked or just pure WP:ICHY. Either way, for an editor of such tenure, neither is acceptable. They would likely continue the exact same conduct that got them blocked if they return to editing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Like Star Mississippi, I took one last swing at it on their talk page. It's spitting into the wind, I judge, but can't help but try. With that said, I agree with you: I've seen nothing suggesting he has any intention of following any guidelines or policies he doesn't feel like doing, I've seen nothing suggesting he is capable or willing to work collaboratively with other editors, and I've seen nothing suggesting he would be an asset to the encyclopedia going forward. Block or no, I remain convinced that a community imposed tban is appropriate and necessary. Ravenswing 06:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Just an observation but it takes more than 2 or 3 editors' weighing in to impose a topic ban. Like in some other areas of the project, I see that we have lower participation at ANI than in the old days. But I would expect it would take an actual proposal made and at least half a dozen editors' supporting it to impose a topic ban on an editor of Raymarcbadz's tenure (meaning, not a brand new editor). I think an unblock in the near future is unlikely so that is the major concern but if you believe a topic ban is necessary, then it must receive more community support than the idea so far has generated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Topic and community ban proposal

• Alright, then, if people like Liz need to see a formal proposal, here is one: I propose not only a topic ban for Raymarcbadz from all Olympic and Olympic-related articles, broadly construed, but a community ban as well, given not only the somewhat appalling battleground behavior displayed above and on his talk page, his persistent inability/unwillingness to understand most everything people are saying to him in addition to pertinent notability guidelines, and to top it off, he's now socking to evade his block: Special:Contributions/The_Olympic_Archives. Ravenswing 09:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I support your proposal. I am genuinely shocked that an editor of such tenure would resort to socking to evade their block. If they had any chance of returning to editing on Wikipedia, they've lost it now. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think a topic ban is going to work, because of the tendentious IDHT/I'm not listening because it's not what I want to hear. There's no way an editor of their tenure just learned about sock puppetry, they think the rules don't apply to them because of their tenure, and they similarly would try to evade a topic ban. That said, I'd support one so that this doesn't get closed without action as there's no way allowing him to edit Olympians if unblocked is going to be productive as they appear to think they're the only one capable of editing in these areas. Star Mississippi 11:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Change to support block, editor essentially said they can't confirm if they'll honor a topic ban. Star Mississippi 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: Can you please clarify whether you are supporting a community ban? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 yes, unfortunately. I don't currently see a path back to productive editing right now since their opinion is so far off from community's on sports/olympians. However, if editors such as @Liz don't think there's enough for even a topic ban at this stage, I don't want to hold that up, although I don't think it will work. So I guess support anything up to and including a community ban. Star Mississippi 15:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't read Liz's mind, but I think she was only pointing out that a topic ban needs additional support before it can be imposed, not that she opposes a topic ban or thinks a topic ban is unreasonable in the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Mm; the fact of the matter -- and being active on ANI, Liz has seen this as often as the rest of us -- even community bans have been imposed on the strength of an unopposed consensus of as little as three editors. (I don't myself think that right, but it has happened.) Ravenswing 21:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean for my comment to cause confusion. I used to be a regular on AN/ANI (it caused problems at my RFA because I had 1,000 edits to this page!) but I don't visit here much any more. But every time I've seen a topic ban imposed succesfully, there has been a formal proposal section (even if it's just one sentence) and then the community weighs in. I don't think I've seen a topic ban passed that had less than 5 or 6 editors supporting it and there is usually a lot more editors weighing in.

I have no opinion on what should happen with this editor although I think Star Mississippi has an accurate view of the situation. I think this is a sad situation as the editor has such a long tenure of productive contributing. But we have had plenty of high level contributors trip up because they don't think the rules apply to them. Some of them are still blocked because they refuse to acknowledge that they have to abide by the same rules as newbies do. Just tragic. Maybe time will cause Raymarcbadz to have a change of heart (it's happened before) and a topic ban can be postponed until he files a successful unblock request in a few months or years down the road. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban and a community ban. Should the title of this heading be changed to topic/support ban proposal? @User:Ravenswing. As for the topic ban, anything under the Olympic or Multi-sport event banners. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support both a topic ban and a community ban. The topic ban is needed even if a community ban is imposed because community bans can be lifted, and we should not have to discuss whether a topic ban is needed in the future. Additionally, the need for a community ban is strengthened by the user's socking and apparent indifference to policy. There is a strong sense of entitlement by the user, i.e., that he has the right to edit Wikipedia, even the duty to do so, and that any restrictions on that "right" are wrong. Editing is a privilege that can be revoked when abused. The abuse here is very strong.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  User has now posted off Wikipedia with more drivel and attacks against the admin [91]. 142.126.98.189 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Doubling down indicating why they don't understand the reason behind the block and the conduct won't change. Star Mississippi 01:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that link. Any admin fielding any future appeal from Raymarcbadz should take a look at that, to recognize just how insincere he was in his prior block appeals. Ravenswing 11:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't access it, the site is unsecure for me. What does it say? JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  JoelleJay, very early on you voted in support of the topic ban. If you also support the Cban, you might want to make that clear. In fact, you are the only person who voted in support of the topic ban who didn't repeat their vote in this section. For the sake of the closing administrator, you might want to vote "again".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, sure. Support both. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's on the black list so I can't include it here, but you can grab it through the Internet Archive where I saved it. In my assessment, absolutely nothing to indicate he can edit productively in this area. Star Mississippi 22:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Quite. They seem to be in their own little walled "Nasty Wikipedia Haterz Klub" echo chamber; no need to waste effort responding to them. Ravenswing 04:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• (sigh) I'd been holding off and consider opposing this, but it's clear that they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the issues. So Support, editing is privilege and that needs to be understood. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• If this user is already indef blocked, what is the purpose of then community banning and then on top of that topic banning him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  A block can be undone at any time by the blocking admin (or by another admin with varying levels of agreement by the blocking admin). A community ban can only be undone by the community, so there’s no chance of a unilateral unblock. And a topic ban on top is a backstop: if the community decides to unban, we would also need to discuss where and how the unbanned editor can edit when unbanned and unblocked. It’s a belt-and-braces thing. — Trey Maturin™ 00:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support both for CIR and socking. SWinxy (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• This tban/cban proposal's been open a week, and has so far unanimous support. Might we get a formal close? Ravenswing 05:57, 2 July 2023 (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: Serassin

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.

---

Unfortunately User: Serassin appears to be editing with a disruptive behavior regarding UFC pages. He was notified here by a fellow user about keeping MMA fight cards in a vertical format, instead of a horizontal one. The edit was reverted back then and apparently it did not repeat itself. However, he once again came with the unnecessary edit at UFC on ESPN: Strickland vs. Magomedov. He was once again notified on his talk page and there was an specific edit summary about it on the article. Guess what? He came back today and reverted it again, ignoring the previous message altogether. Maybe a stronger voice will help him focus on avoiding these completely unnecessary situations. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

...and then tries to delete this thread

Nswix (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Well then, they have had their chance to respond. Blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2023 (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.

Violations of MOS:STYLERET against consensus and bot-like editing from Dale8238

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:Dale8238 was first advised of MOS:STYLERET, which prohibits purely stylistic changes without a substantial reason, back at the beginning of April, after making a high volume of edits changing "died at the age of" to "died aged" (sometimes introducing grammatical errors at the same time). There is clearly not a consensus for this specific change, and the editor was pointed to the numerous other editors who reverted their changes - I'm not going to list them all here, but when I initially warned them in April there were 10+ editors at the time and that number has certainly grown since then. They were warned a second time April 21 for the same issue, and they have continued to ignore the warnings given (see literally any of their 50 most recent contributions at the time of writing). It is very clearly stated in MOS:STYLERET that this behaviour is completely unacceptable. I'll ping User:HTGS and User:Jkaharper, as they appeared to request being alerted of possible related ANI discussions. Tollens (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This looked familiar to me, and, sure enough, CU  Confirmed to LunaVick79, who did the same crap. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow - it's as if this noticeboard is actually SPI today. Tollens (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually put, as the reason for one of the check, in the CU log “ANI is apparently SPI today”: so, yeah… Then again, ANI is a better venue for these where there’s a problem, it often takes another eyes to go from “this is disruptive editing” and make the connections to “this nonsense looks familiar”. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with blocking a sock, and I guess I don’t have a problem with asking a user to slow down with bot-like edits, but for the record, I just read the editor’s rationale (brevity and non-pomposity) and I completely agree with it. I get rid of that kind of unthinking oververbosity (“that’s how they say it on the news so it must be right”) every time I see it. I didn’t know there was a “consensus”; I see it written several different ways. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Just to clarify, I don't mean to imply that there is a consensus to use "at the age of" instead of "aged" - only that there is a consensus that making high-volume edits purely to change a style you personally don't like isn't acceptable unless there is an existing consensus to make that change (which in this case there is not). Tollens (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2023 (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 revocation request: Gladstonemofan

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.

---

Gladstonemofan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently blocked as a sock of Gladstonefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been making comments on their talk page, including this "unblock request" (which isn't even formatted as one), that seem to indicate a legitmate unblock request is not in the cards and talk page access needs to go (Gladstonefan already lost TPA… and given the edits made by these accounts, especially Gladstonemofan, I'm pretty sure this is a returning customer anyway)... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Great minds think alike: looks like this was taken care of right as I was requesting. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 3 July 2023 (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: 2A02:C7C:643F:1C00:F184:B30B:FC3D:9880

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.

---

This IP is blocked from editing Brighton, but they've vandalized a redirect page. The redirect is Dungeons and Dragons, redirecting it to Never Gonna Give You Up. I already restored it to a good revision, where it was redirecting properly to Dungeons & Dragons.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 22:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited in four days. Stale. Nothing actionable. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2023 (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.

Lalalaland555

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:Lalalaland555 is causing havoc and vandalism on the Apollodorus of Damascus page with his or her disruptive edits. Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a credible source clearly labels, and describes Apollodorus of Damascus as a Greek engineer, and yet this user and others like him/her are unable to accept that. Actually, the page has been the constant target of vandalism. Lalalaland555 is a POV pusher that's been openly hostile towards other users with a differing view. This is evident from his comments during his edits where this user refers to others as "hateful nationalists," and refers to honest edits as 'vandalism,' when this user himself/herself is the one that's causing vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&diff=1162998228&oldid=1162996640

It is also worth pointing out that this person also made a reddit page slamming other Wikipedia editors on this topic. [92]https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLatakia/comments/14m636w/alert_guys_can_you_correct_this_wikipedia_mistake/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1

This individual's hostility and bullying behavior is also evident from the message he or she left me on my talk page User talk:Gramaic#Apollodorus of damascus is syrian.

Also, here is the reference from Encyclopedia Britannica concerning Apollodorus of Damascus, [93]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Apollodorus-of-Damascus, which clearly references him as an engineer that was Greek.

Apollodorus of Damascus needs protection from this user, and others disruptive editors like him/her.

Thank you, Gramaic | Talk 10:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute but the threats are not acceptable. Blocked indef. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2023 (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: 202.169.225.138

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.

---

They keep on adding inappropriate images to the infobox in Killing of Nahel Merzouk. FunnyMath (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The image in question (NSFW) probably needs to be deleted too. — Czello ^(music) 09:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The image, unsurprisingly, comes from Commons' porn stash. Good luck getting that deleted. I have added it to the image blacklist though. IP blocked for 2 weeks. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've also semiprotected the page independently of this report (by way of RfPP). El_C 12:41, 2 July 2023 (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: 84.123.180.19

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.

---

This IP keeps going against consensus regarding not adding youth honors to the Spain national football team article. The IP has been informed on their talk page about the issue, but there was zero response. The IP also does not briefly explain why they keep reverting. They have already been been warned and later on banned by an admin for 72 hours. However, once the ban expired, the IP just continued its old ways of reverting without communication. I honestly don't know what needs to be done. The IP will most likely just keep reverting it without communication endlessly. I reverted the IP 3 times, but forgot about the 3 revert rule, so I completely stopped. I haven't reverted the IP since, as I don't want to break any rules.

Recent revert of the IP [94] Others: [95] [96][97] [98] [99]

The IP got reverted by an admin twice: [100] [101] Speun (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, thanks for the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow such a fast response! Thank you so much TBF! Am I.... free to revert the changes of the IP?? as I said, I did it three times in the past, but I am unsure if I am violating the 3 edit rule if I do it again now? Speun (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted. GiantSnowman 19:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you GS! Speun (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's wording in the policy against edit warring that can be reasonably interpreted as exempting any reverts of blocked users's contributions. I'd say the point of that exemption is to deal with block evasion, but that's not what it says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2023 (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.

Block evasion by Aradicus77

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.

---

• Aradicus77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 92.14.107.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 92.9.57.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.242.107.151 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.105.67.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.6.217.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 92.12.198.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User:Aradicus77 was blocked for puffing up the legacy of the band Red Krayola. Before the block, Aradicus77 was warned to stop using IPs and the username to edit the same articles, which Aradicus77 acknowledged on his talk page, saying he is sometimes logged out unawares.[102] The IPs were from the region of the UK surrounding Manchester.

A few days ago, Special:Contributions/92.14.107.24 was reverted for copyright violations, warned by DanCherek, and the edits revdeled by Diannaa. The IP is from the Greater Manchester area, and focuses on various articles pertaining to Red Krayola. Two weeks ago, local IP Special:Contributions/92.9.57.106 was editing related articles. Can we block the recently active IPs? Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me, and what’s this edit summary all about? Bit ‘yikes’, if you ask me. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week for the racist edit summary and the likely block evasion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2023 (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.

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:AD94:1B01:D01:7CA8:A9EF:458B 3vvww661 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

3vvww661, that looks like a user moving a section up in the most cumbersome way possible. Plain actual obvious vandalism (intentional damage) can be reported at WP:AIV, although this report would have been declined there. If you're concerned about a user's actions, please use their talk page to explain your concern. The message templates listed at WP:UWARN can help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I did not clearly identify what the user was doing, that's my mistake. 3vvww661 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2023 (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.

Suspicious editing patterns at Omnisend?

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.

---

Omnisend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what's happening with Omnisend, but it seems to attract a LOT of new editors. It almost seems like it's a weird sockfarm thing - or a school project gone wrong. Any admins willing to keep an eye on it? (Also, I'm not sure who to send ANI notices to - should it be every account, or just the page creator, or does someone else need a notice?) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The article has maintenance tags so new editors are being encouraged to edit it (via Wikipedia:Growth Team features#Newcomer tasks). DanCherek (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that explains it then. I guess I got paranoid due to, uh, past events. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The effect of {{Underlinked}} on a longstanding recondite article can be similarly disturbing, and disheartening for the quickly-reverted newcomers. NebY (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2023 (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:Cmoebowl

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.

---

This user is threatening to leave Wikipedia over something I say is right but they keep saying is wrong, i.e. the correct channel number for WSJV (see User talk:Mvcg66b3r/Archives/2023/July#WSJV_28_South_Bend). Also pinging @Sammi Brie:. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This user is threatening to leave Wikipedia over something I say is right but they keep saying is wrong and what is the issue? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Did this really need to come to ANI? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, Sammi Brie. This a routine content dispute, Mvcg66b3r, and this noticeboard deals with serious behavioral problems, and does not adjudicate content disputes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2023 (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.

Hostility and trolling from a /64

2A00:23EE:2120:27FF::/64 has been engaged in various talk page disputes. In these disputes they've been hostile to other editors, dismissive of the Wikipedia project as a whole, and engaged in arguments which are clearly intended to rile or confuse others instead of being constructive.

The first edit from this range ([103]) is a talk page rant about a sentence on the page Debbie McGee; they posted this even before making their changes to the page itself ([104]). Almost all of the remainder of their editing is to talk pages, but there is one exception which includes another strangely intense rant in the edit summary ([105]).

Their remaining edits have been on talk pages related to the Titan submersible implosion. Their early edits in this area appear innocent enough (note that almost all of these articles were under semiprotection at the time of the edits, so it makes sense that an IP editor would be exclusively making talk page edits), if a bit brash.

[106] is one of their first overtly hostile comments. They were [107] warned for this, which lead to a bizarre conversation where they indirectly acknowledged editing with the IP 195.147.82.34. This IP has not edited since 2020, but edits from it also display overt hostility towards other editors over things like grammar mistakes (e.g. [108]).

Pretty much all of their edits contain criticisms of Wikipedia and editors, but they also have written a lot of what I can only really describe as "troll" comments. Here are some examples:

• [109] — Answering an editor's question about including information with Depends on how long you've been a WP:Editor. If you've been here a long time then it's fine to add this.
• [110] — I think it's mandatory to list everyone who was known to not be on the sub
• [111], [112] — Suggesting that searching for sources or information and mentioning it on a talk page is somehow original research
• [113] — Linking the text "WP:OR" to thoughtcrime
• [114] — Unfortunately, because this is an article about the assumed implosion, images of the assumed implosion debris wouldn't meet the WP:NFCC and should not be added. You'd need to create an article about the Titan's debris and include any such images there :(, clearly a sarcastic reading of NFCC
• [115] — Hopefully Jimmy Wales' highly-paid boffins at [[WMF Junior Heavyweight Championship|WMF]] - the folks who actually write the articles. This reply to me was the first thing that clued me in something fishy was up here; note the weird wikilinking (nowiki added here to make it more clear in this quote).

They're clearly hostile and sarcastic when people disagree with them. I'm not sure if it's an obviously intractable issue, but looking at it altogether I'm concerned. Based on their contributions (and self-admission) they have quite a bit of experience with Wikipedia policies. This may be block evasion by an LTA. My best guess if so would be WP:LTA/BKFIP based on the hostility, their editing appearing to have been efforts to improve the wiki, and the range belonging to a British telecom, but I'm not sure if the rest of the behavior lines up. I'm not personally familiar enough with LTAs and would appreciate someone with more experience taking a look.

Thanks! (Also, I'm notifying their most recent address and the one with previous warnings on it of this discussion, LMK if I should be notifying every IP that's edited inside the range). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the last diff is likely a consequence of this conversation on the OceanGate talk page with Licks-rocks and myself. This editor has certainly been disruptive in a number of ways across a number of talk pages over the last week or so (I could produce even more diffs if they're wanted), though they've also occasionally been helpful. I was hoping they'd grow more helpful and less disruptive as they became more familiar with how things work here - I did see some sign of that. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

for what it's (also?) worth , I warned them here about their overly hostile behaviour (on the assumption that they were at least relatively new here). Based on their responses and evidence provided here, they do seem to have been here a while. So much for the "as long as you don't make it a pattern" clause of my reassurance,I guess. I haven't found them impossible to converse with, and a lot of the edit requests they attempted were sound. (they don't seem to know how the Edit request template works, so the completion of these requests isn't noted on the talk page, which seems to be causing some aditional frustration.)--Licks-rocks (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my concern is that they are beginning conversations from a place of hostility towards other editors—the changes they want made are reasonable (even if some of them are also things another reasonable editor could disagree with), but actually conversing about content requires ducking around their persistant attempts to bait people into arguing with them over unrelated stuff. I highly doubt that conversation is the first time they encountered the Wikipedia use of WMF; that comment struck me as a precision laser designed to rile up editors. Similarly, they don't strike me as someone unfamiliar with the details of WP:OR or WP:NFCC; these feel like intentional pointy misinterpretations. It is also true that a bunch of their comments are thinly veiled complaints about other conversations they're having with other editors, which is not constructive and decently hard to follow (esp. since their IP is changing every 12 hours or so).

Overall it seems to me like they're more interested in turning talk pages into their personal battleground than collaborating on content, and I'm struggling to see any good faith interpretation of their conduct issues. I personally think a block is an appropriate way to prevent further disruption even if they're not an LTA (which I'm still thinking they might be). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have exactly zero experience with LTA's so I can't help you any further than I've already done. but based upon what you claim, their seemingly bimodal understanding of wikipolicy (Claims to have been here since 2018 and demonstrably has knowledge of or at least grudges against some obscure corners of policy like WP:NFCC, yet claims not to know who writes the articles), and the comparable behaviour, I think your guess is at least very plausible. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like BKFIP. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the IP range is bigger than this. Special:Contributions/2A00:23EE:2658:8721::/64 has similarly hostile[116][117] and troll-y[118][119] behavior. Note that their contributions (which are also almost exclusively at the Talk Page for Titan) ended just before 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF::/64's contributions began. I brought their behavior up to them here. But maybe this is moot since the range has apparently changed? Apologies if these are actually different people. Closhund (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The entire range 2A00:23EE::/25 is allocated to British Telecom for residential use at ASN 2856 so it's likely this is the same editor. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's likely the range they're editing on is broader than the /64 I listed (in fact, I highly suspect they know how to reset the prefix their ISP assigns them). I suspect the /64 @Closhund listed above is the same editor.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem productive to block an entire /25 announced by that AS; legitimate BT customers would likely be hit by such a wide block. Even just looking at the two /64s, they make up a /37 as a common CIDR that has clearly unrelated edits within it, both constructive and otherwise (Special:Contributions/2a00:23ee:2000::/37). The regularity with which this single editor is changing IPs does make me suspect block evasion, though. I defer to admins on how to handle that. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Manik69 unsourced changes to Maratha articles / POV pushing

I'm reporting the user:

• Manik69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

for repeatedly making unsourced major changes to articles about wars involving Maratha, such as the following:

• Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Siege of Ramsej (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Battle of Bhopal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

plus more.

It appears that they are making these changes to push a POV, that Maratha won / never lost in these battles.

The first time I came across their abrupt change, I reverted it and dropped a warning template for introduction of possible factual errors, on their user talk page.

As I went on to look over other articles, User:Sneezless also came and noticed these unsourced disruptive changes, reverted them and warned them in the meantime.

The user is now up to a final warning for introducing possible factual errors on their talk page, and this report is being made after they continued to make the same problematic changes past the final warning. (Diff of final warning, diff of problematic change after it.)

The user does seem to be noticing the warnings and messages on their talk page, evidenced by this one response they made, they just don't seem to be actually listening to them... — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The user is still making unsourced major changes on other, similar articles, such as these two diffs, which add combatants to a campaign. Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

POV-editor diff; "Hinduism" did not exist at that time. Account is 15 hours old, and already 41 edits, with an extended userpage; bad omens. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Amigao ownership of articles

I have been editing TikTok and its United States restrictions, mostly checking with sources and adding more information. For example, diff 1.1 diff 1.2 diff 1.3 diff 1.4 diff 1.5

However, Amigao has rolled back everything, repeatedly, under vague and changing edit summaries. diff 2.1 diff 2.2 diff 2.3 diff 2.4

Other editors' changes have also been rolled back by the same editor. For example, diff 3.1 diff 3.2 diff 3.3 diff 3.4

They followed me from another article, where the same editor also attempted to prevent changes using similarly vague or spurious edit summaries.diff 4 I called them out on their misleading argument for rolling back everything.(link 1) They did not engage with me on the Talk page.

I'm here because this is not the first time and their behaviour does not seem to be content-related. CurryCity (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The second time around, their reason became "Rv editorializing" (diff 2.2 and 2.4). The only source of information I can find is the manual of style, which explains "editorializing" as certain choices of words. It does not explain why Amigao has repeatedly removed information such as:

List of sourced content SWinxy (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In January 2020, the United States Army and Navy banned TikTok on government devices after the Defense Department pegged it as a security risk. Before the policy change, army recruiters had been using the platform to attract young people. Unofficial promotional videos continue to be posted on TikTok under personal accounts, drawing the ire of government officials, but they have also helped increase the number of enlistees; several accounts have millions of views and followers. The Wall Street Journal reported that Silicon Valley leaders and investors met up with Washington lawmakers to seek an "alliance" against China before TikTok CEO's Congressional hearing. The attempts have also raised the question of whether protectionism of its own corporations, rather than privacy concerns, is the primary motivation of the US Government. The types of data collected by TikTok are also collected by other social media platforms and available through brokers, often without oversight. An analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies writes that it would make more sense to focus on the protection of data directly rather than on any particular platform. A March 2021 study by the Citizen Lab found that TikTok did not collect data beyond the industry norms, what its policy stated, or without additional user permission. TikTok has been working to silo privileged user data within the United States under oversight from the US government or a third party such as Oracle. Named Project Texas, the details are being negotiated with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and focus on unauthorised access, state influence, and software security. A new subsidiary, TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc. (USDS), was created to manage user data, software code, back-end systems, and content moderation. It would report not to ByteDance or TikTok but to CFIUS, including matters on hiring. Oracle would review and spot check the data transiting USDS, to be specified by CFIUS pending final negotiations. It would also digitally sign software code, approve updates, and oversee content moderation and recommendation. Physical locations would be established so that Oracle and the US government could conduct their own reviews. ByteDance said its early guidelines were global and aimed at reducing divisiveness when its platforms were still growing. They have been replaced by versions customised by local teams for users in different regions. Following increased scrutiny, TikTok is granting some outside experts access to the platform's anonymized data sets and protocols, including filters, keywords, criteria for heating, and source code. In December 2022, ByteDance confirmed after internal investigation that the data of several journalists had been accessed by its employees from China and the United States on an "audit" team. The audit's intention was to uncover sources of leaks who might have met with journalists from BuzzFeed, Forbes, and the Financial Times. The data accessed included IP addresses, which can be used to approximate a user's location. Four employees have been terminated, including the audit team's lead Chris Lepitak and his superior, executive Song Ye. ByteDance and TikTok condemned the individuals' misuse of authority. References

Some of these "news" are over two years old! Yet they are nowhere to be found in the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Amigao's professed justifications are inconsistent with their action, whose real consequence has left the articles in an increasingly outdated state of information. CurryCity (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary claims of "editorializing" don't seem correct. But has there been any discussion of the TikTok-related content disputes? I don't see any relevant discussion at Talk:TikTok or Talk:Restrictions on TikTok in the United States. Usually that would be the step to take when edits are reverted, per WP:BRD. As for the concerns raised at Talk:China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it looks like they have been resolved (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I'll leave it to others to evaluate whether there's a pattern of behavior that needs administrative action here. But on the content disputes, CurryCity, I would suggest starting discussions at Talk:TikTok and Talk:Restrictions on TikTok in the United States. I'll put those pages on my watchlist temporarily; sometimes having more eyes makes it easier to achieve consensus in content disputes. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the first time Amigao removes a lot of information contentiously. It is not really about content, because they removed about a dozen DIFFERENT edits from DIFFERENT editors across THREE articles roughly SIMULTANEOUSLY, using the SAME dubious argument. I attempted to Talk to them but they did not respond (link 1 above). They stopped reverting on that one article only, so I can try again with the other two, but it seems Amigao has been allowed to get away with making or blocking changes at the expense of other editors and pausing only to avoid further repercussion.(link 2.1)(link 2.2)(link 2.3) CurryCity (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that those are not "vague or spurious edit summaries" in fact the example you like to support that sentence is the opposite of either... "Reverted blanking of sourced content; feel free to take it to the talk page)" is explicit, accurate, and relevant. Are you sure its not you who is in the wrong here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

They did not engage in Talk where I again pointed out their accusation was spurious. It was the opposite of how you have described. Had you not been defending Amigao all the time, they might have changed this kind of behaviour. CurryCity (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User talk:95.43.242.218

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.

---

95.43.242.218 is harassing me in a talk page by mentioning me again after I reverted his edits at TV-6 (Russia) for sockpuppetry editing. Might need to revoke TPA. LDM2003 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2023 (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.

Disruption by H3sam91

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.

---

H3sam91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Posts disruptive political diatribe to article Talk page [120]
• Reverts removal of political diatribe. Adds sarcastic section attacking editors for supporting "corporate interests"[121]
• Second revert of removal of political diatribe [122]
• Refuses to recognize (or genuinely misunderstands) WP:DE [123]

WP:SPA appears to be WP:NOTHERE, especially considering previous block history. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NOTHERE. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2023 (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.

Merged threads centering on the Mughal–Maratha Wars

Merged by Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC).

Disruption of @Aryan330

Aryan330 has made 4 reverts in less than 28 hours on Mughal-Maratha Wars.

He has WP:CIR issues since he is not even able to type in proper English and he is clearly not willing to understand what is being told to him.

He is making personal attacks by accusing others of "vandalism"[124][125][ and "continuously targeting specific community"[126] without any evidence.

He is now harassing another editor by spamming talk pages of completely uninvolved editors.[127][128]

This is happening even after he already had enough warnings.[129][130][131] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel Has no evidence for "Mughal-Maratha wars" & even that he and @Capitals00 are continuously doing unconstructive edits on that page & I just undid that edits!

that's it.i just want to say that every coin has two sides as these senior users continuously doing Ragging against us is completely unfair.it you are taking action against me then you should take action against @Aman.kumar.goel& @capitals00.that what justice is. Aryan330 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I have partial blocked Aryan330 from Mughal-Maratha Wars per a posting at WP:AN3. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruption Of @Capitals00

@Capitals00 has blanked the same result content of Mughal–Maratha Wars 6 times! As I just undid his blanking and asked him for evidence for blanking of result and sources also, instead of replying us he doing it continuously without being proved on talk page. The user @Aman.kumar.goel is also doing same thing, these users are seniors than us and suppressing our voice without providing sources! The page of Mughal–Maratha Wars has stayed peacefully from creation of this page but from June 13,2023, these senior users are continuously doing Ragging against us and that what I complained to Wikipedia administrators & because I complained instead of giving justification @Aman.kumar.goel complaining about me on this page regards false claim that I am harrassing Wikipedia administrators as this is completely fake as they replyed me about my concern as one administrator replyed me very politely! & I have a question if these senior users are harrassing us then what should the new users like us do?We have option to talk to senior users than them that what I done! I have found that @Capitals00 is targeting a specific community "Hinduism" as he removed most content releted in favour of Hinduism. "Mughal-Maratha wars" is also releted to Hinduism as that battle won by the people's which belongs to "Hindu Community" that's would be the reason for his blanking without providing sources. Same think done by @Aman.kumar.goel at the page of Aurangzeb in which he removed content which is telling that Aurangzeb destroyed Hindu temples which is present in almost every source releted to Aurangzeb. So Kindly take action against these 2 users for their ragging! That's it. Aryan330 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You have to notify people you send to ANI. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

• 1. Apply full page protection to the article to stop the edit-warring(which has been ongoing hot-and-cold since 13 June 2023)
• 2. Let Admin(s) determine the WP:CIR issues and whether they should block Aryan330.
• 3. Have an Admin monitor said discussion on the talk page to ensure WP:CIV and keep the WP:ASPERSIONS(like the ones found here) to a minimum. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kansas Bear sorry to say sir but as you mentioned about blocking me,then if I will be blocked then users @Capitals00 & @Aman.kumar.goel should also be blocked.

  I repeat "they should also be blocked" as they also participated in this war & in fact this edit war itself was started by @Capitals00

  Both of them blanked pages without providing sources which I just undid.

  That's it Aryan330 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at the history of the article an editor made a bold addition and was reverted, you then edit warred against three different editors to restore the content. You shouldn't have done that. I suggest reading WP:BRD and discussing the issue on the talk page, as you have the responsibility to get agreement for the inclusion of the content (see WP:ONUS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruption of @Fowler&fowler

@Fowler&fowler had made unconstructive edits continuously on the page of Mughal-Maratha Wars. He added very wrong information and used very disrespectful In edit summary and talk page about Shivaji and Sambhaji,he called Sambhaji a "jagirdar" but according to Wikipedia Sambhaji at the time of 1681 was formally crowned as king and ruled the Kingdom for 9 years! Jagirdar is the one who only had some villages in his control but Sambhaji had control of 4 percent Indian subcontinent and he was a "king" according to Wikipedia! Even after this he called Sambhaji a jagirdar which is disrespectful for him and constantly made more than 15 unconstructive edits on article page of Mughal-Maratha Wars in less than 12 hours! he added tons of content which had only one source and that itself doesn't contain that information completely which he mentioned on article. The way he editing the content releted to Maratha Empire it's very clear that he doing personal attack! Kindly interfare. Aryan330 (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify editors on their talk page when you start a discussion about them on an admin noticeboard, as it says in the bright red notice near the top of this page. I've done this for you. Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you Aryan330 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have notified Aryan330 of the CTOP rules applicable in this topic area. Frankly, I don't think they (ie, Aryan330) have sufficient understanding yet of wikipedia's content and conduct policies to be editing this article/topic since their involvement and edit-warring has IMO only heightened the tension at the article. See also the related ANI report a few sections above. PS: I'm WP:INVOLVED since I've commented on the talkpage about the article infobos, and the article title/scope. Abecedare (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC) (Fixed link, post thread merger. Thx Tamzin. Abecedare (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC))

  @Abecedare Thanks for notifying me but I think you have misunderstanding as I just undid the edits of Users who didn't provided sources!

  They blanked whole paragraph without providing references that's why I undid it.

  Sorry to say but the term Edit warring would apply to @Capitals00,@Aman.kumar.goel & @Fowler&fowler because they blanked the edits and I just undid it.

  The tension heightened because of them.

  Yes I don't have understanding about Wikipedia policies and how to tag or how should talk in administrators notice board because I am new on Wikipedia that's why senior Wikipedia users should understand me but instead that they(above mentioned users) done ragging on that page.I have enough information about that article and sources and about it I am damn sure that I had done nothing wrong as I just undid it everytime and asked them evidence of it!

  That's it Aryan330 (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's no need to know every policy and guideline backwards, but two things you should know are that sources are needed to add disputable content, not to remove it, and that if an edit is reverted it should not be reinstated without consensus on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger thanks for your guidance.

  As two things you mentioned I followed that because I didn't removed any content as users I mentioned had removed it.

  Secondly When I reverted it, without being proved on talk page they removed that content again and again!

  You can check it.

  Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler Not sure what to say. I expanded the lead in response to a post by @Kautilya3:. I thought I had done a reasonable job. My sentences were carefully paraphrased summaries in four books, one a now-classic biography of the protagonist by James W. Laine and published by Oxford University Press in 2003; another from the introduction to an Oxford History of Empire written by Peter Fibiger Bang; yet another the standard textbook on modern Indian history by historians Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf published by Cambridge University Press, and the last a widely-used textbook on late medieval India by Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot, also published by Cambridge. I replied to my interlocutor, Aryan330, on the article's talk page, but they now seem to be suggesting that Laine's book is not appropriate as it was banned by the Indian government but they didn't mention that the ban was lifted by India's supreme court in 2010. I have to say I am mystified by this ANI. I didn't know anything about Aryan330, and never met them on WP, at least not to my recollection, until I received the ANI notice this morning. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

User:M.A.LasTroniN910 and copyrighted plot descriptions

User:M.A.LasTroniN910 keeps adding copyrighted plot descriptions to List of Saiyuki volumes, Saiyuki (manga), and other articles despite multiple warnings on their talk page. Charcoal feather (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning, other admins are free to block if they choose to without consulting me. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

hello, I realized my mistake and won't do it again. I am now fully aware of copyright law. Thank you M.A.LasTroniN910 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to images, Wikipedia is kinda persistent about images. The Saiyuki article currently has several nonfree images. The only ones that can be used easily are the ones that are actually free. However, it's too difficult to find this type of images.Tintor2 (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

List of wars involving Morocco / 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.

---

Dear wikipedia team

This is the article in question:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Morocco

Dear wikipedia Team

I have named several sources under talks that prove that almohad is Moroccan. this was not recognized by a user and he called it bullshit. i just want almohad to be included in the list, i changed it and he changed it back again.

here are my sources again

Book: The Oxford Handbook of the Jewish Diaspora. Page 223. ,,out of Muslim Spain turned into a full- scale rout with the arrival of the Almohads from Morocco in the 1146/47......" https://books.google.de/books?id=sOFDEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&dq=almohad+caliphate+morocco+oxford&hl=de&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ov2=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjMGCjtT_AhUKi_0HHWwQA_kQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=almohad%20caliphate%20morocco%20oxford&f=false ________________________________________________ Book: Dictionary of African Biography Oxford Page 24 ,,Abd al Mu'min builder of the Almohad Empire and great Moroccan military leader and able administrator, led the Almohad movement for tawhid, absolute monotheistic unity, after the death of the Mahdi Ibn Tumart, the Almohad founder, in c. 1130." https://books.google.de/books?id=39JMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=almohad+caliphate+morocco+oxford&hl=de&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ov2=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNt5i2kdT_AhUTywIHHUMRA28Q6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=almohad%20caliphate%20morocco%20oxford&f=false ________________________________________________

Book: Between Caravan and Sultan: The Bayruk of Southern Morocco. Harvard University. Page: 127 ,,The descent to Sufism set in motion by the Almohads intersected with the emergence of Morocco as the core of a separate ... Morocco,” in In the Shadow of the Sultan: Culture, Power and Politics in Morocco (Cambridge, M.A: Harvard ..." https://books.google.de/books?id=zbQyAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&dq=harvard+almohad+from+Morocco&hl=de&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEx7_nyOj_AhV1nf0HHaCiAXgQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=harvard%20almohad%20from%20Morocco&f=false

there are numerous sources. I only mentioned 3 for now.

Source: Wikipedia Germany ,,Die Almohaden (von arabisch الموحدون al-muwahhidun, DMG al-muwaḥḥidūn ‚Vereiniger, Bekenner der Einheit Gottes‘; Tifinagh-Schrift ⵉⵎⵡⵃⵃⴷⵏ) waren eine muslimische marokkanische Berber-Dynastie, die zwischen 1147 und 1269 über weite Teile des Maghreb und von al-Andalus herrschte." https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohaden ________________________________________________ Source: Wikipedia Poland ,,Almohadzi (arab. الموحدون al-Muwaḥḥidūn, dosłownie „monoteiści” lub „unitarianie”) – dynastia marokańska, pochodzenia berberyjskiego, panująca w Maghrebie i Andaluzji w XII i XIII wieku." https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohadzi _______________________________________________

Source: Wikipedia France ,,Le mouvement almohade est fondé dans le Haut Atlas marocain[10] au début du xiie siècle par Muhammad Ibn Toumert, un réformateur de l’Anti-Atlas d'origine berbère de la tribu des Hargha[21]"

________________________________________________ Source: Wikipedia Russia ,,Халифат Альмохадов (араб. الموحدون‎ al-Muwahhidūn, al-muwahhidun, буквально «монотеисты»; исп. Almohads) — марокканское государство в Северной Африке и мусульманской Испании (1121—1269), управляемое династией Альмохадов. Государство Альмохадов возникло в результате борьбы с Альморавидами. Наибольшее расширение национальной территории при Абд аль-Мумине (1161 г.). Распался в результате...." https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%82 ________________________________________________ Source: Wikipedia Spanish ,,Los almohades surgieron en el actual Marruecos en el siglo xii. Muhámmad ibn Túmart fundó un movimiento religioso con el apoyo de un grupo de tribus bereberes del Alto Atlas de Marruecos" https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_almohade

that we have differences of opinion, it would be better if another 3 institution independently checked whether this is correct.

Best regards

Thomas Thomas162354 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably a DR matter, but I see a familiar face from another ANI thread, on The Talk Page, so this might be an ANI fit after all.

I’ve let Bitton know this is here. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 16:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response.

_

I didn't quite get it. Can you tell me what conditions must exist in order to make a change?

_

I opened a talk, named my sources and changed it like this. if you go down the editor list you will see that some users just changed the page like that without doing a talk or anything like that.

The almohad was probably present on this list some time ago.

_

however, it was removed without a talk or the like. That's why I'm a little irritated that when I open a talk, name good sources, sometimes wikipedia itself, I get a reaction like this.

_

I was warned too. The users in the talk didn't want to get you involved in a discussion either, I gave the people time to answer.

_

Only when I changed something did they respond to me, or only one user (I don't want to badmouth anyone).

_

Now the question is whether a third party could act as a "judge" to judge the matter objectively.

_

Best regards Thomas Thomas162354 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is a content issue about the usual anachronism that tend to come up every now and then. Everything that needed to be said has been said on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Thomas162354, please read WP:CIRCULAR. Other Wikipedia articles, whether in English or in other languages, are not reliable sources. You may be able to find reliable sources in the references included in those articles. Please be aware that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. The main place to discuss content is article talk pages. There are also various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Note: Thomas162354 was blocked as a sock. M.Bitton (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm thankful I won't have to look at the formatting they used in this ANI report again. 😵‍💫 —DIYeditor (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2023 (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 editing by Yae4 on elive article and others

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 believe User:Yae4 should be blocked, at least topic-blocked from any technology and opensource-related related articles. This report mainly concerns the Elive article.

There was another lengthy report against Yae4, archived *today* with no action taken yet, relating to Yae4's attempted trashing of the Libreboot article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#Disruptive_editing_by_Yae4

Yae4 was previously topic banned from climate change articles, for the same sort of behaviour. On his own user page, he openly mocked the initial block decision, after being unblocked, suggesting he still didn't learn his lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4&oldid=1161304913#Climate_topic_ban_lifted_after_2.5_years

Yae4 fails to take responsibility, even when prompted by admins to do so, instead he doubles down. He was warned by admin User:El_C and User:ToBeFree in today's now-archived report, never apologising for anything nor accepting accountability.

Essentially, what Yae4 does is pick an article and the first thing he does is identify how strong the sourcing is. If there are weaknesses in sourcing, he will start a discussion about how to strengthen them, but this has an ulterior motive on his part. What he does, slowly and carefully, is start trashing articles by putting undue weight on negative comments about it in each source, often taking quotes out of context. When other editors step in to revert his edits, he uses all manner of tactics to intimidate them, driving them away and creating the illusion of a consensus in his favour.

Yae4's edits appear to be done in a careful, methodical way as to not look like abuse. He routinely pushes his own point of views, giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority sources which support his position, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Examples of this are in the now-archived ANI thread, linked above.

Yae4 regularly uses AfD, on dubious grounds, to de-motivate other editors; he did this twice within less than two weeks, on the Libreboot article. Yae4 will routinely attempt to discredit editors he disagrees with, casting aspersions upon them like he did with me, for example opening a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Libreleah - other examples are contained within today's now-archived ANI thread, linked above.

Now, onto Elive which is the topic of today's report:

Evidence of abuse by Yae4 on the Elive article

Firstly, here is the version of Elive before Yae4 started editing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&oldid=1157087853 - quite well sourced and written in a tone representative of the majority of reliable sources. Now look at these https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158893491 - the same text that mentions requirement to pay for Elive, is re-worded to sound negative. In violation of Wikipedia regulations that require writing with a neutral point of view. There is no citation given for requirement to pay being "controversial", and indeed, paying for opensource software is a perfectly normal practise that has been used many times in the past (RedHat, anyone?) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158894491 - Yae4 then changes it to say that the paywall has been "criticized", instead of being controversial, with the added sentence talking about a "lack of security updates" - again, no citation given. Not very major edits, but Yae4's style is precisely to go slow at first, and then go full speed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158967804 - removing information he doesn't like, that contradicts his point of view https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158968183 - removing positive information about the topic. later, Yae4 will start disproportionately adding more negative info https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1159501426 - quoting a review as source, but highlighting only the negative information (and out of context) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157310758 - same theme as above https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157311402 - ditto (unduly weighted negative info) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157314325 - ditto (unduly weighted negative info) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157315834 - hypocrisy, given lack of citation on other info added by Yae4, but i digress https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158269773 - skewing otherwise neutral writing, regarding voluntary donations to Elive before download, new text implies that donation is required (contrary to above, Elive later made payment voluntary to get the software) Sure enough, Yae4 also pushed a 3rd AfD on the Elive article. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive_(3rd_nomination)

It's so bad, in the Elive article, that admin User:TheresNoTime added WP:UNDUE tag to the Elive article, in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=1162861115&oldid=1162374273

When the heat was fully on, in today's now-archived report, Yae4 responded with the old Wikipedia:Retiring trick, presumably to evade accountability: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4&diff=prev&oldid=1161304913 - the idea is Yae4 will get away with it by just keeping quiet, then he can come back later and do the same thing, because admins are less likely to take action against a currently inactive user.

About a week later, Yae4 did come back, responding to a COIN report I placed against him, here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspected_COI_by_User:Yae4_on_Article:Libreboot - in it, he claims that I myself am "attacking like a cornered animal" (itself an aspersion), which strongly suggests such combative attitude on Yae4's part, lending credibility to my claims, which I'll summarise thus:

Yae4 is a bully, and a disruptive presence on Wikipedia, and should be banned entirely, but failing that, at the very least topic-banned from any technology-related articles, for reasons stated above and in the original ANI thread.

All of this is to suggest that Yae4 has been abusive and disruptive, and will continue to be that way in the future. I'm asking this time for admins to hold Yae4 to account. Libreleah (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm noting here that I helped Libreleah with parts of the above report, and as such will not be taking any administrative action against Yae4 — I do however see a long-term pattern of this subtle disruptive editing as described above, and would support TBANing them from technology/open source-related articles — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw yet another noticeboard thread about a dispute between Libreleah and Yae4 was a two-way IBAN, I have to admit... When I notified them about the previous one, I did so for purely formal reasons and with a request not to join the discussion too much ([132]). I think I have not done that before, sending an ANI notification with a request to stay away... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Libreleah, I don't want to blame a victim of harassment for reporting it. I do have to ask though: As you have never edited the page about Elive, why of all people is it you opening this report? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why? Because it's the right thing to do, and someone has to do it. Yae4's actions are immoral, and seemingly without remorse. Libreboot wasn't the only article that Yae4 attacked, and there have been countless other, more minor/subtle examples (and also some major examples) of Yae4's behaviour not mentioned in this report or the other.

I saw that Yae4 was harassing other editors on Wikipedia, acting like a bully and I feel it's right that someone stands up to him. Either way, I don't really have anything to gain/lose from this, but I do think action should be taken against Yae4. Libreleah (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

ironically, i have now actually edited the article. i'm attempting to clean it up after the mess yae4 made, also looking at the talk page to inform some of my edits Libreleah (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

As the one mainly on the receiving end of abusive actions and remarks by yae4, in regard to the Elive article, I would certainly support a full block as proposed here by @Libreleah.

Unconnected to any of the abusive actions there (simply checkout the Talk:Elive, Elive:history, my own User_talk:Triantares and even User_talk:Yae4 for clear examples of abuse) I think that editor behaviour like this hurts Wikipedia. Despite some edits having a certain worthiness, the manner in which they're enforced without any proper discussion or even substance, will hurt Wikipedia.

Getting hammered with all kinds of unsubstantiated 'WP:Whatever' labels would make any normal person feel inferior and certainly unwelcome. Triantares (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is too long for me to follow without prior familiarity, and I'd encourage Libreleah to pare it down to the bare facts. (As a rule of thumb, AN/I posts longer than 4 paragraphs rarely succeed.) That said, with SPI clerk hat on, @Yae4, dragging four experienced users (Maddy from Celeste, Rlink2, PhotographyEdits, and DFlhb) to SPI for no reason other than that they mostly agreed in a single talkpage discussion, without any further evidence beyong some vague hand-waving in the direction of timeline and overlap, is patently absurd, to the extent of being a personal attack. If you file another SPI like that, you can expect sanctions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• FWIW: I don't think this should be viewed as a "new" discussion, it's really just a continuation of [133] (also linked in the first post). That discussion ended not because no conclusive action was possible, but because Yae4 experienced a case of ANI flu. However, it's clear that they have not truly retired, because they reappeared to comment at the COIN thread. My personal view is that Yae4 is very combative and uncollegial and this doesn't seem to depend on the subject area very much, and that blocking them for that reason would be reasonable. --JBL (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Hold up, the diffs presented for this report is off to me. First, you say that Special:PermaLink/1157087853 is quite well sourced and written in a tone representative of the majority of reliable sources, which it really wasn't. Second, you present the diffs as if in chronological order, but they aren't. ANI is about conduct, not content, and I believe this to be a disagreement on content. Yae4's two "negative" diffs in Special:Diff/1157310758 and Special:Diff/1157311402 are accurate reflections on the source reviews (the first leaned negative and the second mixed). The AfD was before any of the diffs brought up here happened, so it's not like Yae4 went ahead and messed up the article and then nominated a bad version for deletion nefariously. Special:Diff/1158894491 is perfectly fine because of WP:LEADCITE—it's already cited further down. Everything else you seem to take issue with is regards a payment to get the distro. In general, you're making the claim that Yael is purposefully adding negative things to the article in violation of NPOV, but I can't see that in the diffs provided. The story the diffs tell is not "evidence of abuse". SWinxy (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Having just gone through all the diffs, I agree, a lot of what's in the green box doesn't appear to be "evidence of abuse" and looks more like general clean-up to me. (that said, this doesn't actually appear to be part of the actual ban rationales presented below either, so this is kind of a tangential issue --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Adjust formatting and convert to a community ban proposal. El_C 12:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are objections to me or anyone else enforcing the retirement with an indefinite sitewide block for persistently casting aspersions in 72 hours, these should please be voiced in response to this message during the 72 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• No objections here. They are a massive time sink and have not modified their behaviour in any way after being called out on it. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• In the previous discussion, I supported a block for aspersions and CIR (mostly CIR, actually). Still do. DFlhb (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yae4 hasn't said they've retired. On 21 June they copied two drafts to user space, allowing for a return to them if the drafts are routinely or specifically deleted from draft-space, and linked to them from their user page as "Things I may or not be working on".[134][135][136] That day, they also added a section "Thanks for all the fish" to their user page with negative comments about editing here but without saying they've stopped.[137] Instead, on 28 June they said "Interrupting my summer vacation to respond".[138] So much provision for a return suggests a block would indeed be preventative. NebY (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. If they wish to return the first thing they should have to do is to file an unblock request. It is a pity it has come to this, because of all of Wikipedia's systemic biases the bias in favour of technology (and, in particular, open source technology) is one of the worst, and Yae4 has been opposing that. But in the wrong way. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I support an infinite sitewide block on Yae4. Please do it. His behaviour over many years is highly disruptive, often abusive. He doesn't collaborate with others, instead pushing his own point of view and driving other editors away, and regularly trashes articles. He is a net negative to Wikipedia, a liability, and so, a permanent sitewide block is the only way to prevent such abuse by him. Libreleah (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• No objections here. I thought we were done here when Yae4 posted what looked like a retirement notice. Since that isn't what happened, go ahead. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite sitewide block of Yae4 per previous analysis in this and other threads. Their behavior has been like this for years without any sign of improvement. This should be done to respect other users their free time and to protect the encyclopedia itself. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough. The constant WP:BATTLEGROUND , WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:GAMING the system seem unlikely to end. El_C 12:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support ban. Yae4 went to SPI to accuse four longstanding uninvolved editors for disagreeing with them[139] and doubled down on that at ANI.[140] Now I see that they've wielded the mildly phrased advice I gave them[141] as a weapon at COIN,[142] while themselves ("Libreleah, with a financial interest in the article, feels threatened and is lashing out like a cornered animal") ignoring it. That's currently their last post; their vacation from battle needs to continue until they can make a convincing request for unbanning. NebY (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Swing that banhammer, TBF: Yae attempted to weaponise SPI, which is already backlogged (80 ‘Open’ cases, of which 31 call for CU). Bogus SPIs add work to an area that’s already stretched, and drop your net worth to the wiki. Wet your mops, folks, there’s some cleaning to do. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support This user has a long history of being sanctioned for disruptive behavior and not learning anything from said sanctions. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Done (block log, talk page notification). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  (Note: While I did exactly as proposed, someone can still formally close this as community-in-favor-of-a-ban if desired. The term "community ban" appeared at 12:17, 2 July 2023 and if we want to be 101% formally correct, such a closure should ideally happen after 12:17, 5 July 2023.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  If no one else does, I'll close it when I get up in the morning. I assume you should post the talk page notification? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CBAN requires that the closer be an admin. One could argue that that's needlessly bureaucratic when the user is already indeffed, but there's no shortage of admins around, so probably best to do it by the book. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:45, 5 July 2023 (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 editor whitewashing Mahbod Moghadam

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.

---

2603:8001:6900:26:313B:BCB7:F151:37AC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is edit warring to remove perceived "negative details" (which are well sourced) from Mahbod Moghadam while adding unsourced material, puffery, and unencyclopedic minutae. I have warned them about COI here, as I suspect this may be Moghadam (the edit summary "Added important info about moghadam's difficult time as a fetus" is a bizarre thing to say).

They've also begun accusing me of having a COI due to a "huge fight online", which I suspect is a reference to some email harassment from the subject years ago, but I have no COI and don't recall any "online fight". See Talk:Mahbod Moghadam#Gorillawarfare takes out all positive details and adds negative details. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a friend of his and I am doing this because you are trying as hard as you can to expound on negative details about his life in his wiki. He showed me the arguments you two had on email and twitter. Please stop editing the page of your enemy, it is unethical and goes against conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks 2603:8001:6900:26:313B:BCB7:F151:37AC (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"On Twitter" > Unless this happened in DMs, receipts are required. GW appear to have self-disclosed her Twitter account; so, I presume there's no privacy vio. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

By all means. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Crickets.... TrangaBellam (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is a NOTHERE case; use the block-hammer, raise protection, and be done with the mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• And now: Talk:Molly White (writer)#Add a section about her bullying others with living biography pages on wikipedia GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked the /64. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Mahbod Moghadam and associated talk page semi protected, invoking GS. Courcelles (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2023 (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.

Sable232 user is maliciously abusing "undo" function

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'd be brief. I've corrected two errors in Cadillac CT6 article. I've provided sources for the fact this car is clearly a F-Segment limousine, not E-Segment (what is absurd not present in any media coverage put randomly by somebody a few months ago).

Furthermore, I've provided a source for this car's successor in Northern America. User:Sable232] is reverting and deleting these pieces of information arbitrarily, without ANY ARGUMENT, contra-source or anything - simply using "undo" function like it's vandalism [143]. Not a single word of explanation!

When I've tried to highlight this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, he deleted my contribution to his discussion page. Same thing here [144] - I've provided arguments in edit field, he reverted my edit without a single explanation. I don't talk about other edits, I might overreact, I'm sorry. But in these particular two examples: Cadillac CT6 and HiPhi Z - I hope there's no doubt this guys behaviour is abusive, against the Wikipedia rules and unacceptable?

This is ridiculous, how can registered users act like this? Please prevent this and help me with somebody who abuses his powers. 89.64.114.90 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you need to notify them on their talk page. I've done that for you already. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, you were blocked originally for making personal attacks towards others (46.205.195.73), and later on another IP address for block evasion (83.21.206.150). Per the block evasion policy, 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. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 July 2023 (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.

Further details, for the record: The person behind this assortment of IPs seems to have taken exception to my having reverted their misinformation vandalism and category disruption, and then started making personal attacks against myself and another editor, which sparked the first of the most recent blocks. Apparently they are now stalking my edits as evidenced by their restoring an LTA's edits that I'd removed. This is probably the same person that was brought to AN/I several months ago for category disruption and personal attacks. --Sable232 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also encountered this user before, there should be an LTA or SPI investigation opened for them. Their disruption also included spats over categories which delved into personal attacks against an editor's age, I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia. See this discussion, where I provide some diffs of policy violations. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Nomalungelo Mbulelo-Brown persistent use of fake references

Editor User:Nomalungelo Mbulelo-Brown has been persistently creating biographies of living persons and articles about television programs, with fake references, apparently to avoid getting the articles sent to draft.

Their latest creation is The Estate (South African telenovela), an unreferenced repost of The Estate (South Africa TV Sopie), which was moved to draft on 9 June and subsequently declined for lack of sources. In the edit history of the earlier article, creator can be seen first adding made-up URLs like "www.sabc3+co.za" and "www.phill+mphela.twitter.com". [145]. Gradually, they realised that dead links like that are easily detected, so they've moved on to adding fake titles, fake source names and fake access dates (from years ago) to working links: [146] (note the fake title, and how the reference is about an unrelated topic).

They also frequently use misleading edit summaries: [147].

I and other editors have left plenty of warnings at their talk page, but they've given little by way of response. If it were simply a matter of broken references by a new editor, then I'd happily help as I did at Harriet Khoza:[148], [149]. But at this point it seems pretty clear that the editor simply can't be bothered to source, and just wants the article up ASAP: [150]. 2A00:23EE:1510:6CAE:E8AF:BFF:FEB5:67D4 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I've indef blocked. They've shown no sign or understanding or engagement with the problem and continued after receiving notice of this discussion. Fences&Windows 09:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Their user page is is pretty clearly in need of a speedy delete as well. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E4CC:14F4:65FF:CD6B (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ask, and you shall receive. {{Db-spamuser}} seems to fit, from my sweep of WP:CSD. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E4CC:14F4:65FF:CD6B (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've moved The Estate (South African telenovela) to draft since it is unsourced but possibly notable, but there's another similar one by the same user that will need an admin (or at least someone with page mover perms) to deal with. The Republic (South African TV series) is unsourced (it had an apparently faked ref from 2010 purporting to be from 2021) but there was already a one-line stub at Draft:The Republic (South African TV series) now redirected to the article. The article should be moved to draft, overwriting the redirect. Meters (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User Technogod

User:Technogod: Undid an edit they put on Twitter without a reliable source[151]. They then redid it while demanding on my talk page that I shouldn't remove "crucial" information while admitting they didn't use a reliable source [152], I explained why the removal was made (and would be remade) and left a level 2 reliable sources warning on their talk page [153], and noticed that they already had prior warnings for this issue. Noticing this I checked other contributions they have made and removed other unreliably or non-sourced statements or added sources to back this up, which they are now mass undoing to reinsert [154][155].

This is obviously not going to be resolved without admin intervention so posting now for resolution. Apache287 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you placed a level 2 warning template on their talk page after they had reached out to you on your talk page. That's a bit bitey. Especially when the last warning placed was in September 2021. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I decided to add the template after reading the comment they left on my page as I only then noted they had two existing warnings about not using reliable sources despite having less than 30 edits on the account, so I thought it best to have that in place in case this behaviour was observed in the future by other users so there could be established noting of said pattern if it got to Admin noticeboard. Apache287 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it should be done. Warnings that are nearly two years old are stale. You should only ramp up the level of warning if there is repeated, unresolved behaviours that are in danger of damaging the encyclopaedia. To place a warning after you're engaged in discussion is not demonstrating good faith. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

But that's the thing, there was demonstrated, repeated behaviours. If you look at my contribution log you can see from the summaries that I dealt with a further two instances of making non-reliably or completely unsourced changes to articles (namely the ones on Reddit and TF2 they have now reverted), before putting the warning on there. Apache287 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And you should go and read WP:BITE. Not knowing the basic rules is something to be expected from an inexperienced user. Did you really think, "thirty edits and they're making mistakes, better escalate the warnings!" Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Not knowing basic rules they have been warned about twice prior and continued to not follow?

" Did you really think, "thirty edits and they're making mistakes, better escalate the warnings!""

It was thinking of "they've been warned twice about not making reliably sourced contributions, I have now just today found and removed three instances of this on three separate articles, and they have very few edits total. This could be a pattern so a more recent warning that can be referenced if behaviour continues is warranted." Apache287 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You placed that warning when they had made eight edits to article space in 2023. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See, now you're just pointing out that despite having had multiple warnings about sourcing contributions properly from other editors nearly half of their contributions this year alone have still failed to meet that most basic of requirements.

There has to be a line where it goes from not knowing policy from inexperience to just actively not bothering to learn said policy. Apache287 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I realize I made a mistake with citations and fixed it by adding a credible source. You removed a sentence on the page about the rate limits on Twitter, making it completely false as the limits were different and the page wasn't reflecting that. I just suggested that maybe you should just change the citation instead of removing the entire sentence and making that section somewhat misleading as the rates that were stated were changed, and the article didn't reflect that. I realized my error and owned up to it by fixing it and you got all defensive and began reverting a bunch of my edits across the entirety of Wikipedia, many of which have been around for many months because you deem them "dodgy citations". The Reddit citation was from Reddark, a website dedicated to tracking the Reddit blackout and statistics by calculating the total number of subscribers in the Reddit protest, and the Team Fortress 2 edits were all expanded on and accepted, as well as cited PCGamesN's article surrounding the game. Your edit just made the wording more vague and removed details on what accounts were limited by Steam. The changelog was needed as it explicitly described the entire situation in great detail, giving an explanation as to why the limits are in place, and what limitations are placed on what accounts. Technogod (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither of the references you restored in this edit are reliable. The only reliable use of Reddit as a source would be if it was Reddit the company talking about itself, which this is not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait, sorry, that's my mistake there. I thought I cited Reddark there I'll go ahead and take that off. Still, the Team Fortress 2 article seemed pretty harsh, since it makes the article a more vague when talking about the Steam account limits. Technogod (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It removed an unsourced sentence that wasn't backed up by the PCGamesN article about "Mann Co crate purchasers not being affected" and removed the links to Teamfortress.com because they linked to a chronological list of patches that was detailing patches from 2022 rather than the specific 2020 patch the article was discussing, and instead replaced it with an article from a reliable publication that discussed the pertinent changes in detail.

All corrections you've now undone to reinsert unsourced claims and broken links. Apache287 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Still, my original sentence explained what "certain new accounts" (users who have never purchased anything from the Mann Co store, or are limited steam accounts) were affected, and what they were limited in. I don't get why you keep removing that specific part. Technogod (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Because you need to provide a reliable source for those claims, otherwise it's Original Research (Trust Me Bro, Source: Me) and not allowed. This is the entire thing you seem to refuse to understand. YOU have to provide sources when you insert material, it's not up to others to clear up after you. Apache287 (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

However the opposite is true of the incident on the twitter article, I can't see why Elon Musk wouldn't be reliable for details relating to Twitter the company. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I deemed it not reliable due to the standard practice of not using self-reported sources (such as tweets) as seen in WP:RSSELF. Also because of the very changes to Twitter the recent discussion pertained to you can't access tweets anymore unless you had a Twitter account, so it doesn't function as a source for anyone who doesn't have a Twitter account and therefore impossible to verify if said tweet actually says what was claimed and I assumed therefore on my part that if the information was true a perennial reliable source would contain said information. Apache287 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention, while in the case of some experts we can use self-published sources, Elon Musk is now rather notorious for saying stuff that both is and isn't true (such as facing a lawsuit over announcing on Twitter that Tesla was being bought at $420 a share [156]) so isn't a trustworthy source by themselves. Apache287 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Apache287 is one of the many Wikipedia names I recognise.

Why do I recognise it?

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly sure he's one of those people who goes around removing referenced information, rather than correcting that information, therefore annoying a lot of people.

A couple of other names I recognise include:

• Someone who is clearly from Yorkshire, as they pop up occasionally checking minor mistakes I might have made, usually on Yorkshire related articles, or adding extra information.
• Someone who is clearly American, who a year or two ago, caused a lot of annoyance for Brits like me, by Americanising a lot categories on a specific topic. However a compromise was reached for most, although the Americanised ones still largely exist outside of UK specific categories.

Technogod There's nothing wrong with using Twitter as a source, when it comes from the people/owners themselves, about themselves/their company.

There's a Twitter source I can think of being used right now, which is for a singer. I can't remember if I added it, or someone else added it, but either way it's acceptable. Most people for years thought he was from a different city, because that's what Wikipedia said, although people from my city knew different. There wasn't any official information on his birthplace anywhere as far as I can remember, in terms of simple facts, or in interviews, so when he Tweeted that he was born and raised in my city until he was a teenager, which is when he moved to a different city, me or someone else corrected his birth place, using his Tweet as proof.

People like Apache287 are one of the main reasons why I predominantly edit IMDB, as a Top 100 Contributor, as information is rarely removed, unless you can prove it to be false, ie by posting the entire on-screen credits.

Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc can also be used on IMDB to prove information like birth details, as shown in their own guidelines, however 99% of their admins don't seem to realise that fact, even when you add the specific guideline to your contribution. Danstarr69 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Apache287 is one of the many Wikipedia names I recognise. Why do I recognise it? I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly sure he's one of those people who goes around removing referenced information, rather than correcting that information, therefore annoying a lot of people."

And yet we've had zero interaction before today...

https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Apache287&users=Danstarr69

So how you'd "recognise" me is kind of strange... Apache287 (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You want WP:ABOUTSELF, Musk the CTO of twitter talking about the technical details of twitter is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I go back to the addition I made though (which would fall under point 4 there, no reason to doubt) which is can we actually consider Elon Musk, who at this point has a history of trolling via his Twitter account and announcing business decisions that then don't happen, as a reliable source? If it was say Microsoft's CEO putting out a press release under his name it'd no doubt be fine but Musk is a whole different kettle of fish so these days I'd argue erring on the side of caution and waiting for third party reliable verification. Apache287 (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

What I would've done here rather than deleting is simply attributing the statement. something like: "according to elon musk, the rate limit was increased from ... to ... on [date]." That would've probably taken the sharp bits out of the situation, and it would've satisfied all relevant policies too. Technogod even (correctly!) asked you to consider this option on the talk page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Usually that's what I do, but here the initial removal was a claim where currently the only basis was a Tweet by Musk, and some additional colour commentary around a sourced link to a BBC News article that didn't contain what was said. Given it was a fast changing event I thought best to just simplify to what was currently reliably confirmed and that given the levels of activity then it'd be able to be reliably sourced within the day (which is what then happened). Apache287 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Karthikchutke's self promotion

User:Karthikchutke has created a (deleted) page about themself, in which they cited no sources and promoted themselves. They are a SPA who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I believe they are likely to spam such an article. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 19:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Key of G Minor: Thanks for reporting this. However, WP:AIV might receive prompter attention for a spammer. I am reviewing this editor now. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, better to welcome/warn/educate first, which has been done. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

What to do with noncommunicative IP(s)

There is an IP-hopping user or multiple IPs who keep removing the Greek name from Mount Erciyes and don't discuss the removal, despite two others (me and another editor) disagreeing. Is there a way to handle this situation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you've started a talk page section that no one has responded to. Have you tried reaching out on the talk page of the IP addresses in question? (probably won't work for a variety of reasons, but worth a try.) I suppose at this point it's time for semi-protection. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected it for a week. Hopefully it'll get the person's attention. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:IGrisha

User is regularly reinstating material (with the same "reasoning") unsuitable for inclusion in the lede section of Sunderland A.F.C. Has ignored multiple requests for discussion on the article's talk page. I retracted my report of their recent 3RR violation at said article in the hopes of a constructive resolution, but here we are. Seasider53 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

GRanemos1

GRanemos1 (talk · contribs) has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs; I blocked them for this in 2022, and their talk page is littered with warnings. However, they continue to add unsourced info to BLPs. This requires community review and action. GiantSnowman 10:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Skimming through the lengthy User talk: GRanemos1 was a time consuming and depressing exercise that showed that this editor has serious problems understanding notability and copyright policy in addition to not accepting the need to provide references to reliable sources, especially on BLPs. I see repeated warnings going back roughly three years, and the two week 2022 block clearly did not solve the problems. GiantSnowman, I doubt that blocking for a month would have greater effect. An indefinite block would require the editor to acknowledge their past errors and convincingly commit to complying with policies and guidelines in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and would support an indef. GiantSnowman 08:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the editor has not responded here, despite editing, they are indefinitely blocked for now. Lourdes 04:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated promotion/spam

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.

---

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

Repeated addition of spam link to his blog despite multiple warnings:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6
7. diff 7

Single-use account primarily spamming links. WP:NOTHERE. --WikiLinuz {talk} 23:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 User blocked --qedk (t 愛 c) 00:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Blacklist the domain or they'll just come back with another account; they've already used three that I could find. They've also spammed totally unrelated articles such as Clarke Center.

Spam-tracking data:

• lovenspire.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.lovenspire.com
• Ethniccollection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Templeitems (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Diwaligift (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2023 (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.

82.51.12.168 and excessive external links

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

82.51.12.168 has been an excessive number of external links to song article even though they have been warned multiple times to stop. An example is here, where they added a grand total of 12 external links to various YouTube videos—all from the artists's official channel—but nearly half of which are unavailable from my location. As a result, it is possible that they are violating the seventh guideline of WP:ELNO. Even so, no actual context is added, despite what the IP claimed in their edit summary. Exactly how is including both the club version and club edit of the Jason Nevins remix adding more details about the song? They've added nothing but clutter and are restoring any reversions of their deleted content. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an IP from Italy that appears to be trying to add external links to every youtube video of a song to the song's article. See the edit history of Ma Chérie for example (they previously had a different IP, same edit). Sometimes they add a single EL or just add the music video link to the infobox, but more often they're filling the EL section with cruft. Doesn't respond on talk. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation request

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.

---

Memetypos4 (talk · contribs)

Trolling comment added to talk page after indef block for being a Vandalism Only Account. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 00:59, 8 July 2023 (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: Richie wright1980

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:Richie wright1980 has been repeatedly uncivil toward me during a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#City_region_articles. I believe this may be partly due to them feeling a sense of ownership toward the article Liverpool City Region. For context, I made two BOLD edits to that article on 20 June and shortly after opened the related project page discussion, which Richie joined a few days later.

Some examples of their behaviour include:

• Repeatedly accussing me of imposing a political ideology on 'Liverpool City Region', and characterising the project page discussion as me 'attempting to force [my] own controversial and inflexible political notion of what a city region is'.
• Accussing me of being uncollaborative of 'wasting everybody's time'.
• Twice changing the title of the subsection to expand the topic, then accussing me of not properly addressing the newly-expanded topic.
• Telling me I am 'opening a can of worms' by discussing city regions as a whole, despite the original discussion being about Liverpool specifically.
• Minimising their personal remarks by stating: 'Criticsm of your attempt to force your own political opinion on to fellow contributor articles is not an attack on your character - it is a warning that you are in potential violation of Wikipedia policy.'
• Responded negatively when I suggested we both step away from the discussion to give other editors space to contribute, despite easlier suggesting I 'go with the flow with these articles' and drop the discussion.
• Accused me of violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, despite that policy only applying to articles.

This is all contained in the discussion I have linked to, but I'm happy to provide diffs if needed.

I'm prepared for my own conduct to be scrutinised as part of this process, and would therefore like to draw your attention to my BOLD edits of Liverpool City Region. I understand such edits can be annoying, however they were reverted by Richie and I have not edited the article since. I was also concerned that one of my replies to Richie on the project page discussion could be considered confrontational, so edited it shortly afterward to be less so.

Thank you for your time, A.D.Hope (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

None of those behaviors are actionable. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why? A.D.Hope (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid this is purely an attempt for the user A.D.Hope to attempt to force a radical reorganisation on pages that will affect a large number of contributors and indeed internet users who will research the subject of city regions. He is danger of doing this without consensus or thorough thought as to how it will affect a large number of articles now and in the future. I regret that this user does not take kindly to criticism but this is not in ny way, shape or form, an attempt to be uncivil. If anything, the user has taken issue with the fact his arguments have been rebuffed and his BOLD statements reverted. He is in clear violation of neutrality rules. Please see the discussion that we have been having. I do not wish this user to contact me any further if this is the way he behaves.Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope I don't see anything that is disruptive enough to warrant a block or that explicitly violates the rules. @Richie wright1980 doesn't seem to be terribly friendly, but none of this rises to the level of admin intervention in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I didn't come here to demand a block, but Richie wright1980's uncivil behaviour has seriously damaged the discussion and I'm not sure how to proceed. They refuse to recognise that there's a problem or to mutually leave the discussion to let things calm down, and I'd be wary of opening a new discussion in the future for fear of it leading to the same behaviour again. Do you have any advice? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can be very friendly. Do you not get the feeling AD Hope is adamant to get the answers he wants? He is adamant to edit one article in particular when there is clearly a wider debate to be had about all similar articles. That is why he took issue with the name change in the section. His actions are transparent. He is politically motivated to alter the output on the Liverpool city region and it is completely obvious as his arguments are not consistent. Valid points were made by myself which have made his actions all the more transparent. Responsible wikipedia editors do not take political sides and do not seek to influence the debate. AD Hope's intention is to take the view that city regions are a political creation and he has taken it upon himself to draw the line where he wants as to how great the city region's powers need to be for inclusion in an article. There is no consensus or precedent for city region articles and there is no 'how to' as far as I am aware. He is not taking an objective view on the subject and refuses to take anything on board that I have raised. Here he is days later raising questionable debates with administrators expecting to get a different answer. Do you have any advice? Debates are supposed to be closed after a period of time if there is no consensus. Surely that time has now passed. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful if you could try to avoid making personalized comments (i.e., talking about A.D.Hope instead of about the content) -- it inflames the interaction for no reason. --JBL (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course I will take on board your comment and trust you will read everything concerned in a fair and impartial manner. It was not me that brought the discussion here but the contributor I have referred to using my username as the header. I do believe that warrants scrutiny of the political motivation behind the contributor in question. I am happy to discuss the content but that does involve the political motivation. The two are linked.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have skimmed the discussion at the talk-page of Liverpool City Region carefully enough to draw 3 conclusions: they are that (1) I understand very little about British sub-national geographical/political divisions; (2) the topic of how to organize our articles on British sub-national geographic/political regions is not important or interesting to me, though I understand how it might be more interesting to someone for whom (1) does not apply; and (3) it was neither necessary nor helpful for you to make accusations relating to political motivation there. The question of what to do once you're at ANI is different, but I don't think the discussion would have ended up here if you had avoided personalizing things unnecessarily. (This is my last word on the matter, feel free to take it or leave it.) --JBL (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, Greater Manchester is a county but it is also a city region governed by a Combined Authority and the city region has exactly the same boundaries. Therefore, it must be treated as a city region and must be treated the same way as the Liverpool city region. To take a different view between the two articles is to take a political stance which is contrary to the responsible wikipedia's duty to be politically neutral and to not influcence the real world debate. Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that responsible wiki contributors always adopt a politically neutral stance and do not seek to influence the real world debate. The concept of city regions has been discussed since the 1950s by urbanists, economists and urban planners. As I understand it, city regions seek to transcend the arbitrary boundaries assigned to administrative bodies such as councils, prefectures, localities or any other authority for that matter. They change shape over time and quite often their administrative boundaries are redrawn to reflect perceived geographic reality. In the case of the United Kingdom, they are still evolving and the devolution process is not being implemented nationwide in any consistent or uniform way. This is the most important issue that I feel needs to be remembered when a responsible wiki user seeks to make edits to city region articles. I feel that is the wrong approach to make edits with an overly rigid idea that city region articles should always reflect the powers conferred by the authorities at that specific time. That restricts the potential content of an article and the ability for contributors to be fairly flexible in the subject matter in response to the changing understanding of the said regions. If you make edits to one city region with a fixed rigid political view then you must make edits to all of them with the same fixed rigid view and that is potentially very problematic. The user who brought this discussion here has taken issue with the fact that I have called in to question political bias. To simplify, two types of articles exist: one is for the city region and one is for the authority that concerns that area and I feel that it follows the pattern of other types of political and geographic areas. The user who started this discussion seems intent to conflate these two distinct topics and I fear that adopting such an approach raises a long list of problems for Wikipedia as an open and politically neutral platform. In short, I think it is a very bad idea to confuse the two and I intend to uphold the fundamental values of impartiality and balance. Forgive me if I come across as unfriendly but when these fundamental principles are under attack we should be wide awake to them. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

So, in short, the best way to avoid bias is for people to edit these articles the way you want them to do? Ravenswing 21:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

No, they follow the rules. Thank you for the input. Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The user who started this discussion seems intent to conflate these two distinct topics and I fear that adopting such an approach raises a long list of problems for Wikipedia as an open and politically neutral platform.

I'm afraid you'll need to unpack how such a change would be politically biased, for that of us not in the UK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and will nevertheless also be needing to have this unpacked for me. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) And for those of us in the UK too. "City Region" is not part of normal discourse here, and I have no idea who this claimed "bias" is supposed to be in favour of. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've avoided commenting, but may be able to help here. The crux of the discussion is whether a geographical area and the body which governs it should have separate articles or not. I can do my best to explain what city regions and combined authorities are, but it may confuse matters as this is a conduct dispute rather than a content one; my issue is how Richie has expressed his view, not that he holds it. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but Richie seems to have opined that city regions are somehow different from the area covered by a combined authority. Is that the case? It seems very difficult to get a clear answer, and Richie writes a lot about claimed political bias but nothing that gives simple answers to simple questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to inadvertently speak for Richie, but I believe they hold that view and they are right in that Liverpool City Region existed before the combined authority in a more informal fashion, as this January 2012 version of the article shows. Incidentally, as far as I can tell Richie made their first edits to the article in May 2012, considerably expanding it. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

To simplify the debate, it seems standard for UK geography articles to have one article for the geographical area and a separate one for the political authority that governs it. There is no 'city region' how to as far as I can tell so I would argue that they are treated the same as geographical areas. The reason I brought the neutral point of view in to it is to alert contributors to be wary of treating city regions as purely political creations. Within the articles is evidence that they are also treated as geographical areas. Therefore, I would argue that there should be separate articles to cover the geographical city regions and separate articles for the political authorities that govern them. There has been some talk of them merging but I would argue against that given it leads to inconsistency. I would suggest that political neutrality does concern this debate since it guides editors to not be biased. An example of political bias would be to treat Greater Manchester or West Yorkshire as a county as oppose to a city region when in actual fact they are legally both. Therefore, it seems to be common sense to treat city regions the same as all other geographical areas as it will avoid all sorts of problems.Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for giving a reasonable explanation of your position. If you'd maintained this tone throughout I don't think we'd have ended up here at ANI. Having said that, while I appreciate your clarity it's worth remembering that this discussion is about your conduct rather than a continuation of the original debate at UK Geography. Have you been able to reflect on that at all?

One thing I do want to point out specifically is that using the term 'political bias' to mean 'bias toward political geographical areas' has caused a lot of confusion, as it more commonly means 'bias toward a political viewpoint'. In the UK Geography discussion you actually used the phrase 'projecting your own political ideology', and I'm hope you can see how that's easily understood as an accusation of imposing a political viewpoint on an article. I'd really consider changing your wording in the future to somethig more precise, what do you think? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you also for your measured response. Over 3 weeks have passed now since you first raised a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography discussion and I first contributed to that discussion on 24 June. I am prepared to accept that in that time I could have handled my input better. However, here at ANI, the administrators do not seem concerned enough that I have broken any conduct rules or that admin intervention is warranted. I think it is safe to say that interpretation of my conduct is, therefore, subjective rather than an outright breach of the rules. Whether my tone has come across as 'unfriendly' on certain points, I cannot control how people choose to feel or whether they feel personally involved. With that in mind, are you able to move on from the subject of my conduct?

At the UK_geography discussion above, you will notice very specifically that I alluded to you projecting your own political ideology on to the pages after reading several of your comments:

• That ceremonial counties are treated as the 'main' page for English areas.
• That combined authorities aren't counties and should be subordinate to the county articles.
• That Combined Authority articles should only contain information directly relevant to the combined authority, such as its governance and remit.
• That city region articles have morphed into county-like articles and you wish to reverse that.
• You are concerned that the Liverpool City Region article was being treated as if it were a county and the Combined Authority was its county council.
• The 'settlement' infobox, rather than 'legislature' infobox was inappropriate in the article.
• The list of MPs, the transport, economy section etc...is inappropriate to a city region article and should be being merged into the ceremonial county articles.

I have taken on board your last comment and would like to clarify that I still feel that this is 'bias towards political geographical areas'. To avoid confusion, at the WikiProject UK geography pages, there are no explicit guidelines on how to write for city regions.

Whilst you have been correct to point out that combined authorities are simply collaborations between local authorities (and occasionally other bodies), I think it was a large leap to suggest that there be a substantial rearrangement to merge them with any pre-existing city region articles, or that they be treated as subordinate to the county articles. As I understand it, this is an ideological viewpoint that is not expressed in any Wikipedia UK geography guidelines. Making substantial edits on that basis would lead to sweeping changes to a large number of articles and have profound consequences now and in the future.

You will notice that I have been very consistent in my approach. If it is true that city region articles have started to 'appear' as county like articles then I would suggest that is the result of how English devolution has evolved. Whether the Liverpool city region is more akin to a county than merely a statutory collaboration and whether it should be treated as subordinate to somewhere like Greater Manchester or West Yorkshire is a debate for the real world. That is not the fault of any article. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Therefore, as responsible editors, we should not engage in these disputes.

I notice that you have indicated previously that you started the discussion with a preference to make substantial changes to the articles but you were open to changing your mind.

I would like to propose that this debate is put to rest until such times as Wikipedia develops an official policy on how to write for city regions. In the mean time, I hope I have been of some help to those contributors here who have asked for more clarity on UK geography. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not impressed that, after all this, the best you can muster is 'I could have handled my input better.' You've also put 'unfriendly' in inverted commas, called the interpretation of your conduct 'subjective', and shifted the blame by stating that you can't control how other people take your comments, all of which give the impression that you still don't think you've done anything wrong.

You made the atmosphere of that discussion so intolerable that I felt the need to bring it to ANI, so regardless of whether you've received an administrator sanction or not I expect a sincere apology which acknowledges that your conduct was unacceptable. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect, you are making this more about trying to make someone contrite rather than taking on board the reasons for my input, the nature of them and criticism of your edits which I have taken the time to go in to great detail about above. You could have dealt with this in the discussion rather than involve administrators. The fact you have chosen to make this personal is a choice that you have made and a choice that no one has control over. Unless there are reasons for administrator intervention and unless they address me directly, I think I have been more than fair. That is my last and final word on this.Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a conduct dispute, not a content one. We are not continuing the original discussion, but focussing on your conduct during it and whether it was approppriate.

It was not my choice to make this personal, but yours when you made comments such as "You are wasting everyone's time". I could not deal with this during the original discussion as you rebuffed my attempt to calm things down. When I pinged other editors to encourage wider participation you launched into a diatribe against me, and when I suggested we both step away to allow things to calm down you refused. There was no realistic prospect of the tone of the discussion improving, so I brought it here, where you have been unable to recognise the issue. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir User:JayBeeEll User:XAM2175 User:Phil Bridger User:HandThatFeeds

I have taken on board your comments in this discussion and have attempted to address all your concerns. As I understand it, some of you wished to have more clear answers as to why I have questioned political bias within the discussion. I have attempted to address that further in my most recent comments here in simple answers as one administrator asked me to do so. As I understand it, no administrator has taken the view that I have broken the rules. Furthermore, an administrator has asked me to avoid making personalized comments here (i.e., talking about A.D.Hope instead of about the content) as it inflames the interaction for no reason. Therefore, I am compelled to refer to the content of the original discussion of UK geography at the request of administrators. I have also been requested to unpack the details of my claims of political bias and I have done this with a detailed explanation above in good faith. I understand that you are all volunteers and are not obligated any more than any other user to take any specific action beyond expected good conduct and responsiveness. You are also not required or expected to place yourself in an uncomfortable situation. However, the continual cycle of A.D.Hope's comments here to make this dispute about conduct and not the content of the original discussion we had over at discussion is not helpful. I have responded to all your requests so far to clarify my position. I would sincerely appreciate if you could suggest a way forward to avoid any continual disruption to our usual contributions to Wikipedia.Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

However, the continual cycle of A.D.Hope's comments here to make this dispute about conduct and not the content of the original discussion we had over at discussion is not helpful.

That is... wrong. This board is entirely about conduct. We don't weigh in on content disputes. The only reason I asked you to clarify your NPOV commentary is in the hopes it would give us a better understanding of why the user conduct was in conflict. The above paragraph, attempting to deflect away from user conduct towards content, is not going to help you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not ask you to weigh in on a content dispute. I have asked you to suggest a way forward. As I understand it, conduct works both ways and my conduct and edit history is not the only one in question. I am entitled to seek administrator intervention as much as any other user - especially when encountering a difficult or intractable discussion. If you re-read over my comments I am politically neutral.Richie wright1980 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not ask you to weigh in on a content dispute.

And yet you literally complained A.D.Hope's comments here to make this dispute about conduct and not the content..., so that seems to be incorrect.

If you re-read over my comments I am politically neutral.

You believe yourself to be politically neutral, but it seems this entire dispute is because you assumed there's a bias when treating city regions as purely political creations. This seems to be a unique perspective of your own, which is driving the conduct issues.

That said, if you're willing to drop that dispute and move on to other editing, we can probably chalk this up as a learning moment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's probably in everyone's interest to move on since there is nothing to see. That said, if contributors wish to raise the debate about city regions again I will be ready and willing to participate. I've only ever come across this single debate in nearly 20 years so I don't think it's a pressing issue. I won't bring it up myself, however, my contributions to the subject will be submitted along with that of my peers in a future event. May I remind everyone that the dispute on this page was not raised by me. I would consider it standard practice for the rules around neutral point of view to come up often since it is a core part of the encyclopedia and it is impossible to bring up that subject without stating an opinion. I've had it brought to my attention in the past on different topics, however, I didn't run to the administrators about it alleging misconduct. I addressed the topic in the relevant discussion. I hope everyone has learned from the experience, I know I have.Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You have not learned from this experience, instead you're brushing it off. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, that was brusque. It's frustrating that RW believes their conduct was appropriate when my experience of that conduct was different, but I could have expressed that in a less curt fashion (or not at all, and left it to the admins). A.D.Hope (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact you still keep harping on about NPOV tells me you don't actually understand what NPOV means. The discussion about city regions has nothing to do with politics, yet you still seem to be fixated on that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you like to continue this content discussion on the appropriate page? You have asked for content not to be discussed here. Therefore, I am not going to discuss this any further here since that was your request.Richie wright1980 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not discussing content. I am discussing your behavior. Namely, your idiosyncratic understanding of NPOV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought this discussion had finished? Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever gave you that idea? I just wish everyone was as nice and unassuming and self-deprecating and willing to assume good faith as A.D.Hope has been in this discussion. You have certainly not reciprocated. If I was an admin I would have blocked you long ago, and for your behaviour, not the content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I actually cannot believe what I am reading and I am now considering raising my own incident report - this is turning in to some kind of witch hunt. The user AD Hope has made several comments in this discussion..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Liverpool_City_Region_and_Leeds_City_Region

His comments are as follows:

• That ceremonial counties are treated as the 'main' page for English areas.
• That combined authorities aren't counties and should be subordinate to the county articles.
• That Combined Authority articles should only contain information directly relevant to the combined authority, such as its governance and remit.
• That city region articles have morphed into county-like articles and he wishes to reverse that.
• He is concerned that the Liverpool City Region article was being treated as if it were a county and the Combined Authority was its county council.
• The 'settlement' infobox, rather than 'legislature' infobox was inappropriate in the article.
• The list of MPs, the transport, economy section etc...is inappropriate to a city region article and should be being merged into the ceremonial county articles.

All I have done is raise doubt as to his political neutrality in rasing these ideas and to add caution that he does not make edits in haste. There is absolutely no 'how to' on city regions. These are purely his ideas. Now if everyone is intent on scrutinising my political neutrality then please do the same with the above. Not to mention, this same user then decided to raise an ANI incident on me for challenging his neutrality - two substantial BOLD edits of his were reverted by me.

Before everyone assumes AD Hope is some kind of innocent party in this and I am some kind of trouble causer - how about considering that this user was so upset that his political neutrality was questioned he took it upon himself to go on a power trip, raise an incident report to somehow have me 'punished'. Has it occured to anyone here that there are two sides to a story? And what is so wrong about questioning the neutrality of someone's edits? Is Wikipedia a propaganda machine? What gives this user the right to go about expressing his political opinions and me not express mine?

As I understand it, this is a volunteer project based on trust and good faith. I would like to be reasured that this is the case. Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Richie wright1980, Wikpedia's neutral-point-of-view policy – WP:NPOV – requires that encyclopaedic content [represent] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It also offers some further points, such as Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. You appear to be alleging that A. D. Hope's desired structure for the article is based on a "controversial and inflexible" political position and that it is thus in breach of this policy, but so far nobody here has been able to discern how you've arrived at this conclusion. The fact that you maintain your allegation is a conduct issue, because it is established precedent here that accusing an editor of misconduct without evidence, or – at the very least – reasonable belief, is a tantamount to a personal attack against that editor (WP:ASPERSIONS).

Accordingly, would you be so kind as to explain to us why, exactly, you consider the aforementioned comments to be politically non-neutral? XAM2175 ^(T) 21:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons extensively already. If people dispute it then please explain extensively how this editor's neutrality is not in question. If you are able to do that then I can safely withdraw. I do not wish to repeat this over and over again when enough of my time and energy has already explained. This has dragged on for over a week here. AD Hope has also accused me of shutting down a discussion. Please inspect his aspersions against me...He has accused me of shutting down this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Liverpool_City_Region_and_Leeds_City_Region

It is not my fault that nobody has commented there....he has also accused me of making 'controversial' changes to the discussion heading. I changed it to 'City region articles' since the issues he raises concern all city region articles. He has taken issue with that and sent me a private notice to refrain from making any more changes without consensus.Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have explained my reasonable belief in great length and in great depth so therefore, this cannot be a conduct issue. Nobody has explained how AD Hope's neutrality is not in question. Not even him. Rather than being some sort of serious allegation worthy of ANI intervention he has not even taken the time to discuss why he feels his proposed and/or reverted edits are reasonable and neutral. Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I will try to put this in a nutshell, however, I don't want people to jump on this as if this is all I have said or attempt to 'green out' parts of my quotes to use that against me. My reasons have been extensively explained already which can be studied if people have the time, but this is the crux: in the UK there is something of an overlap and a blur between counties and city regions with some political and economic functions traditional to a county now transferred to city region authortities - some of which span one or more counties. However, the UK government has not rolled out these changes in any consistent or uniform way and it has caused anomalies. What AD Hope has proposed to do is confuse the city region articles with their respective authorities, however, that leads to disparities in how city regions are presented on Wikipedia due to the disparities in how they have rolled out in real life. His thinking, therefore, would lead to a confusion between how these areas are treated in encyclopedic sense. For example is Greater Manchester a county or a city region? What is West Yorkshire? I have proposed that city regions be treated as politico-geographic areas with separate articles to that of their authorities and that allows editors to be flexile to explain any real world debates or confusion and to not engage in them by radically reorganising the pages in the way he proposed. I considered that to be a reasonable proposition since it follows the pattern of all other geographic areas. So far, no-one has addressed this but rather this has turned in to AD Hope raising an ANI conduct issue without actually addressing these points at all. I believe it is also policy that to abuse the ANI process is against the rules. He has previously suggested that the subject discussion COOL. However, as much as I am willing to do that I wouldn't mind if people took the time to closely address the concerns of bias. After his suggestion that we COOL, I invited more editors to the discussion yet nobody has replied...see...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Liverpool_City_Region_and_Leeds_City_Region

It was at this point that AD Hope has accused me of killing the discussion - casting aspersions - and that is when he raised the ANI discussion since he was unable or willing to address the concerns. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is not worthy of being on an ANI discussion. No administrator has found anything in my behaviour worthy of concern so it should not be continued. What the user AD Hope has done is to cause drama because his neutrality was called in to question. Rather than address that in the apporpriate discussion - please note he has not done that once - he is watching and waiting to see how I am 'punished' in the ANI discussion. Note above, how one administrator suggested that it should just be a learning experience - AD Hope then re-commented to me:

"You have not learned from this experience, instead you're brushing it off. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Note, he then decided to apologise:

"Apologies, that was brusque. It's frustrating that RW believes their conduct was appropriate when my experience of that conduct was different, but I could have expressed that in a less curt fashion (or not at all, and left it to the admins). A.D.Hope (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)"

He is quite clearly watching and waiting to see how this pans and to see how 'I'm punished' because how dare someone question his neutrality and how dare someone reverse his edits. He would rather run to the mods then acyually address anything that I have said. Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Richie wright1980, you have written irrelevant stuff here at great length but I can't find anything in what you have written that answers the simple question asked. Why, exactly, do you consider the comments by A.D.Hope to be politically non-neutral? Just tell us in one sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Phil Bridger I am confused as to your input here. You have stated above that you are not an administrator. May I ask what your input here is for? Richie wright1980 (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Paradoxical as it may seem, the Administrators Noticeboard isn't just for administrators. Now stop dodging the question. EEng 08:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In fairness to Richie, I do think that they clarified their position quite well in the exchange we had following this comment a few days ago. Essentially, Richie believes I have a 'bias towards political geographical areas'. As I understand it this means a bias toward man-made geographical boundaries over 'natural' ones, for example defining a city by its local government boundaries and not taking into account and sprawl beyond them.

If I can give an opinion, I do think this discussion has become sidetracked by delving into the positions Richie and I held in the original debate, rather than looking at the behaviour during that debate. I can also understand Richie's frustrations at being asked variations on the same question repeatedly. From what I gather Richie is basically concerned with improving Liverpool-related articles, and has been doing so quietly for some time. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that input and your measured tone. However, in my view, there is no such thing as 'natural' areas - certainly not in a county sense which are also areas defined by man made boundaries. This is precisely the point. To take a view that one defined area, ie counties, are 'subordinate' to another is to take a stance. There is no such view in Wikipedia guidance. As much as you might be completely upright in your usual contributions to Wikipedia - I mantained the view that you were proposing to make edts based on an idiosycratic point of view. I realise that this has been difficult for you, however, there were other ways to deal with any dispute if you felt that things were too much for you. The guidance above suggests:

"Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:

Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility.

Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page.

Or try dispute resolution.

Other options are given on the help navigation page.

Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.

Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses."

Or alternatively, you could have addressed the points I raised and attempted to explain why you were not expressing any bias in your edits or left the discussion we were having to go quiet until someone decided to comment. I realise that has not taken place but you cannot go around casting aspersions that I have somehow caused that discussion to go quiet.

Instead of the above, you have essentially dialled '999' (911 for the Americans) and headed straight to ANI which I am fairly sure could be dealing with more serious or chronic cases worthy of urgent attention.

Unfortunately, this has now dragged out in front of administrators, some of whom are not familiar with UK geography. And it seems other contributors who are not even administrators coming along to take a pop. I am not even sure who these people are, how it concerns them or why they have decided to join this discussion.

Now of course since I have explained in depth how I reached my position - I could go on if you want me to - I don't think this is a conduct issue since I had reasonable belief that you have taken a biased view and proposed to make edits upon that basis. Some you did make which I reverted.

If you are willing to drop this allegation that my conduct is in question, perhaps there is another way to discuss your proposed edits outside of the neutral point of view. I still think that your proposed edits are misguided since they would involve an overhaul of all city region articles. Something that is both time consuming and will lead to anomalies.

Perhaps if you feel so strongly that you are not in any way partisan to particular political or geographic areas then you could be so kind as to elaborate. I noticed how you took issue with the change of our original discussion from 'Liverpool city region' to 'city region' articles and I found that quite curious. Such an objection did not instill trust that your proposals had anything to do with discussing city region article changes as a whole - but rather to single out one article and region in particular. I can of course be persuaded that this was not the case.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The overriding issue for me isn't that we disagree — that's fine, and what discussion is for — but your conduct in the original discussion. If you read it back I hope you can see that you were being quite aggressive in expressing your opinions, and not responsive to my efforts to calm things down so we could discuss things more productively. I'm not saying your behaviour is anything worthy of a ban, but it wasn't pleasant to be at the receiving end of it.

The reason I came here is that I couldn't see what else to do to try and resolve things. Posting to your talk page seemed unlikely to lead to different behaviour, the other dispute resolution methods are mostly concerned with content, and I couldn't see an individual admin wanting to wade in. Having said that, I've been disappointed in the ANI process. It's drawn things out and caused further conflict, when I was hoping for mediation.

One thing I don't really understand is why you think I would make sweeping changes to the article based soley on my own point of view when I also opened the discussion to get a wider perspective. I did make two bold edits beforehand, but you reverted them (which is an element of the WP:BRD cycle) and I haven't touched the article since. When it comes to changing the heading, while I didn't object to broadening the discussion I did think it was unfair that you changed it unilaterally and then expected me to address topics which weren't part of the original scope of the discussion. It felt like you were moving the goalposts to catch me out.

To be clear, I do think that you're normally a perfectly good and responsible editor, but in this case it was your approach which turned a simple disagreement into a larger dispute. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Seen as we are both disappointed at this process, perhaps we both withdraw, move on and go about our usual business. The door was always open for you to make productive improvements. It is an open platform under voluntary peer review, that is about all. I apologise if you felt otherwise. However, other than let's both learn and move on, I can't be any more humbled on this. Have a great day. Richie wright1980 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think that's about the best I'll get, isn't it? Truth be told I'm not especially satisfied, and I'm sure you feel the same, but it is time to move on. The frustrating thing is that I'm sure there's a way for us to see eye-to-eye on this, we just can't seem to find it! I can't believe how little help ANI was, honestly.

It's my intent to steer clear of city regions for a bit, but if you see me elsewhere don't feel afraid to say hello. A disagreement here doesn't prevent us working together elswhere. You take care, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If there was a like button I would like it. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2023 (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.

EEng

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.

---

For how many years now has EEng's "humor" been tolerated (and encouraged by some) at the noticeboards now? They posted a trolling comment[157] in the above comment, adding nothing of value to the discussion about a user who was already indef blocked (well deserved block). User:Nigel Ish posted a comment about in on their talk page[158], which was rather rudely dismissed[159]. I then reverted the comment here[160], and was thanked for this by User:Robby.is.on. This was reverted by EEng[161], and my comment on his talk page got the same dismissive remark as the one from Nigel Ish[162].

Their comments at noticeboards have been hit-and-miss for years, without any signs of improvement or of taking any earlier criticism on board. We are supposed to act against trolling, unprovoked incivility, and similar edits, but when it is an established editor with a lot of fans apparently, we should allow it to continue, even though it doesn't add anything useful and only gives the impression of a double standard. Both in 2021 and 2022 they already received blocks for comments at WP:ANI.

See for example also User talk:EEng#My friend from just four days ago, where User:Lourdes removed some comments from ANI to protect EEng. Fram (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And User talk:EEng#Edit summaries about this edit summary from 14 June (in the Template namespace this time). Fram (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose topic banning EEng from all noticeboards (apart from sections that are about him or his edits of course). Fram (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not the greatest fan of EEng, but I would highly suggest that the discussion which drove the response be removed in all due haste for the language and hate. EEng was drawing attention to the ridiculousness that came before by being ridiculous themselves. Honestly, I think we should just create a sarcasm template just for EEng. Inomyabcs (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  drawing attention to the ridiculousness – Precisely, as already explained to Fram in my edit summary [163] which I'll repeat here for everyone's convenience :

  highlighting that comment suggesting that Wikipedia editors aim for the "destruction of France and all of Europe" is preposterous. The severely literal-minded may have trouble seeing that, but not everything posted need be completely lacking in subtly and nuance

  EEng 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  The other editor was already indef blocked for being ridiculous. What need was there to "draw attention" to it by posting a purely trolling comment themselves? Fram (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  As it happens I hadn't noticed that, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference. When someone accuses us of trying to destroy France and Europe, and asks everyone who disagrees with them whether they're Jewish, one way to remove the sting is point out the absurdity. As suggested in my edit summary quoted above, maybe you don't get that but others do.

  So I wasn't trolling, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd fucking stop using that label for stuff you personally don't comprehend. EEng 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You tried to point out the absurdity by acting as if no one on Enwiki cares about the situation in France and the death of a young man by police violence there? If it wasn't trolling, then it was extremely callous, insensitive, and uncalled for, and your insistence that it should remain on the page despite the objections of different people and the total lack of any need for such a comment in general and at that time in particular makes me still believe that you are only interested in keeping your "humor" on the page, i.e. trolling, and not in helping this discussion forward in any reasonable way. Fram (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say anything about "the situation" in France, or anyone's death. I reflected back the kook comment that WP is trying to destroy France by saying, Sure, yeah, like we'd waste our time on that. EEng 16:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, I saw EEng's comment and I read is as the way it appears to have been meant - like why would anyone here be remotely interested in the "destruction of France and all of Europe"? (As for the idea of a sarcasm template just for EEng, <funny> I thought "EEng" already was a sarcasm template :-) </funny> Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: I enjoy the humor, find that it makes the normally toxic ANI slightly less so, and see no disruption caused by it. When there's the potential for what EEng says to be misinterpreted, such as when pointed out by EEng's friends, Eeng seems perfectly willing to course correct. That's my USD 0.02. Reasonable minds may differ. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Except that when it is pointed out, like here, they just double down. If they only want to listen to their friends and don't listen to what others have to say, then they should only talk to their friends and not to everyone at once. Fram (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Subject to correction by EducatedRedneck, I'd venture that a more precise formulation of what he or she meant would be "when pointed out by EEng's friends to EEng in a friendly way. And that's precisely correct.

  See, Fram, humor is a means of communication of often-subtle ideas -- witness (as quick examples) Mark Twain and George Carlin. And just like anything else here at WP, collaboration makes it better. So when someone says, "Hmmm, EEng, not sure that came across right", then I'm (usually) happy to consider a modified, inproved approach. But quite bluntly, you don't seem to have the cultural sophistication to understand that -- you seem to think humor is just a pastime to give people a transient bit of pleasure but lacking substantive communication value, and this is why you're finding yourself so embattled in this thread. The fact that you're not a native English speaker doesn't help either, I'm guessing. I don't know whether the foregoing will help you understand much better, but in any event, next time you don't get the point of what I'm saying, ask me (nicely) at Wikipedia_talk:AN (with a ping), or on my talk page. EEng 07:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  And yet you rather rudely dismissed Nigel ish´s first comment about this on your talk page, so it seems as if your claims above aren´t actually truthful. But I guess that as an unsophisticated foreigner I am just incapable of getting the finer nuances of your post, just like I lack the sophistication or intelligence to understand the deep wit of "Like anyone cares about France anyway," that pinnacle of humour. Has it ever occurred to you that people may like many kinds of humour and still much of what you post completely unfunny? It sure doesn´t look that way. Fram (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Let's not dissemble please. The same stuff from a random IP would be deleted with a summary of "inappropriate"; from a low-profile user, commented on along the lines of "please don't do that". EEng is accorded leeway because he has lots of friends and we all like to read some snark every so often. And I think that is fine because we are a community with certain relationships and not a bunch of robots who blindly smack down every tall poppy. What rankles are the occasions where he is being a dick about this privilege; to whit, edit-warring to keep such posts up on public noticeboards when someone has removed them. Tacit tolerance requires tacit delicacy in return. I'm sorry, this stuff is kind of difficult to express without a flavour of sermonizing, but I hope you get what I am driving at. Stomping around strutting your privilege is a good way to get people annoyed enough to make a stink about it, and get the little fun flourishes to be suppressed. How about just sticking to an unofficial 0RR for these posts, and we are probably good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I typically enjoy the comments EEng makes but you make some very strong points - EEng needs to demonstrate tacit delicacy, and sometimes they fail to do that. I would support some action on the basis of that; perhaps 0RR for noticeboards. BilledMammal (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support some kind of sanction. We have an RFC relevant to this. ([164])

WP:HUMOUR notes:

Humor used inappropriately, without indicators, can and often does result in blocks or other corrective actions against editors.

I know HUMOUR isn’t policy, but HUMOUR is built off of consensus on this one. I suggest that EE gets familiar with a template or three that can make humorous intent more obvious.

Personally, I Oppose this, but unless we can WP:IAR the RFC then, Erm… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would we need to IAR an RfC about April Fools' Day? That's hardly relevant to this thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I have several problems with this: 1. All noticeboards? Fram has not claimed evidence of disruption at any noticeboard besides this one, so the proposed sanction is quite draconian. I don't care how well-known EEng's antics purportedly are; such claims must be supported with evidence when sanctions are on the line. 2. I concur with those who tend to appreciate, rather than object to, EEng's occasional interjections of personality at this miserable wasteland. 3. Surely Fram realizes that his proposed sanction is very unlikely to pass, but it is likely to generate a length, protracted conversation that will produce little to no meaningful outcome. Personally, I'm much more disturbed by the recent ANI trend of kibitzing comments from newbies who don't know what they don't know and won't listen to anyone who tries to tell them. An IDHT wall of thread-derailment is much more bothersome than a drive-by snide remark here and there. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Considering that they had been blocked for ANI comments in 2021 and in 2022, but seem to show no signs of improvement, no, I didn't realize that this was very uinlikely to pass, even though I am aware (and have seen with other problematic editors in the past) that having a lot of friends may help to prolong the issue and get them some respite until enough people are finally fed up with the issue. I had and have no idea if we reached that stage with EEng yet, but we have had some progress recently in getting troublesome situations (with other editors than EEng) which had existed for years solved with some topic bans (from e.g. deletion discussions or ITN). I have to wonder why people consider a completely pointless remark which only gives the impression of being intended to provoke an already indef blocked editor by pretending to be extremely callous about the situation in France (just imagine someone saying the same about the US immediately after the death of George Floyd) an "interjection of personality" or else why we would encourage such a "personality" to stick around this board... Fram (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

    I have to wonder why people consider a completely pointless remark... I don't consider it a pointless remark. If someone wants to throw out an unsubstantiated and vitriolic remark, regardless of if they are subsequently banned or not... then they should expect someone to respond. I was frustrated and outraged by that remark, yet you did not remove it, only EEngs. So, I kind of understand why EEng put their comment back. Inomyabcs (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, EEng said he didn't know the editor had been blocked, the wording seems to be satirical as EEng claims and not malicious (something in common with Donald Trump talking about top-secret papers he was waving around). An image is worth 1,000 verbs, and the two images presented do make a good point. And last but least, removing EEngs comments, which are often very useful and helpful to the discussions, from this or any noticeboards for expressing his opinions in either humorous or serious ways, is akin to throwing out the baby with the batwater. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I try not to respond to all comments, but, er, what "two images presented do make a good point" are you talking about? Fram (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Hello Fram. The images returned to the page which is referenced as one of the comments/examples that EEng should be banished for. They seem an adequate way of expressing what he was communicating. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but in that case it is the edit summary, "Go jump in the lake, humorless busybody". As said above, EEng seems to deal very badly with people who don't appreciate his humor unless they are his friends. Fram (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

        No, I think I deal with them quite appropriately, by pointing out that (a) the test of whether a comment remains is not that the number of people who don't comprehend it is required to be zero, so that (b) they'd do well to think, think twice, and then think yet again before policing other's posts. See Heckler's veto. EEng 16:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

        • Kind of rough language, sure, but context and previous wording must be considered in such exchanges. And if taken literally then the editor is being given the instruction to jump in a lake, which is bound to be ignored. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
          • The "context" was a revert of an edit made three months before, and if I say "go fuck yourself" to someone, then the literal instruction is likely to be ignored as well, but I fail to see how that is in any way an excuse for making the comment in the first place. Fram (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
            • But was the editor offended? More likely an editor who knows EEng and may have read it as a playful comment, which is why context matters. The next edit in the series which once again removed the image seems to indicate that the editor took it in stride. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
              • They were warned for this edit summary, like I already said in the OP above. Their reaction to getting a personalised PA warning was "Is it also a personal attack if I request that you please stick to obsessing about named railroad cars and train livery and other dumb stuff, and let grownups handle their own interactions without your clueless and unwelcome nannying?". No idea why you believe in excusing or encouraging this kind of behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

                Tell you what, Fram, why don't you ping the editor to which that was directed, asking them for their thoughts on your characterization above? Go on -- I dare you. And while we're at it: could you please stop bulleting each and every one of your comments? Your contributions are not more important than other editors', and do not deserve to be more prominently presented -- quite the opposite, some might say. EEng 22:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

                Hi, editor to which that was directed here! I'm pleased to be able to confirm that Fram's characterisation is correct. It was a blatant and unambiguous personal attack that lead me to seriously question my contributions to the project, and the only reason that I didn't make a formal complaint about it is that I doubted I'd receive a fair hearing from your fan squad – something that this thread is very clearly demonstrating.

                Oh, and as to I think I deal with them quite appropriately above – no, that's an example of you gratuitously abusing an editor for daring to police your posts. Wikipedia's entire model relies on editors being empowered to police the contents of all namespaces within the policies and guidelines enacted by the community, and WP:NPA is a policy directly founded on Wikipedia's fourth pillar. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

                I apologized to you for overreacting, and based on our subsequent interactions I thought you'd accepted that apology [165]. I guess I was wrong. EEng 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

                I was appreciative of your contrition, and accepted that DePiep's continuing inability to drop the stick would have been tiring. I gave up there, though, because your response read to me as mocking my sentence structure, and seeing how you've continued to attack and belittle other editors I don't believe you're yet prepared to acknowledge that it's your pattern of behaviour that's patently uncollegial. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

      • (ec)...Which seems to be part of a pattern of needless incivility in edit summaries, e.g. (from yesterday) "Use your brain, will you?"[166] and " more dumbness"[167]. Fram (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Again, context. Those comments occurred during an edit run that EEng was doing to repair the page to encyclopedic language, and the wording (not really addressed to a particular editor, just a free-flowing comment about how-not-to-write) could be read as a form of "tough love" which, if in the context of the series of edits, teaches how to use language in a manner consistent with logic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
          • So it is not directed at the editor who added this, and will teach them how to do better in the future. Can't argue with that kind of logic, so I guess I'll just stop trying to discuss this with you. Fram (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

            Those comments, which are a separate issue, are certainly problematic and should not be excused or repeated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• What Elmidae said (above). I'd query Randy Krin's "throwing out the baby" analogy. What baby? I remember thinking when i saw EEng's engagement in the Wrestling thread above that that was unusual - i.e. not being a click on the archiver or the stuff this thread is about. DeCausa (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Sure. Rephrase this another way: if we restrict EEng from noticeboards, what are we losing? Can people point to cogent, useful contributions to discussions without useless hit-or-miss humor or adding to threads that have already run their course? My experience is the lion's share of their contributions in this space are fundamentally not for the purposes of dispute resolution or building an encyclopedia. If you want to snark about other people's edits, there's a myriad of social media platforms available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - EEng is like our own personal Greek Chorus. And what would the tragedy of Wikipedia be without a chorus? Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Alternative viewpoint here, we should weigh the "cost" of the humour that EEng is imposing in discussions. Comments like Go jump in the lake, humorless busybody, Use your brain, will you?, etc. are 100% unconducive to productive discussions, even if the other person is someone who, again I'm quoting here, is a busybody or someone who they consider dumb. I think EEng needs to draw a line between humour and toxic humour, and we should separate the consideration of personal attacks and their actually "humorous" comments. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban from AN and ANI. Incivility and soapboxing are damaging to the project. Encouraging or even tolerating this sort of behavior is also damaging to the project. This is far from the first offense, so clearly something needs to be done. A ban from these two pages would provide a narrower sanction than a full noticeboard ban, while still hopefully being effective in reducing incivility. This of course would not apply to discussions about EEng, but ideally it would otherwise be broadly construed, so no going to a user talk page to comment on AN/ANI discussions. If further incivility or soapboxing occurs after this, I would support much heavier sanctions. While we're on the topic, I'd also support a blanking of their user page, which is probably the most egregious violation of WP:SOAPBOX that I've ever seen on Wikipedia (including a section that implies anyone who caught COVID-19 is just stupid and that it's their own fault). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  implies anyone who caught COVID-19 is just stupid and that it's their own fault – No, not "anyone". Rather, what it implies is that when a significant number of White House officials -- who inhabit one of the most isolated, insulated, protected environments on earth -- managed all to become infected at once, then yeah, it may be because of their idiotic denialism:

  Consider: 7 million of the 330 million people in the US have contracted Covid at some point. 7/330 = 2%, so really, the chance of contracting the virus is pretty small. The odds are against you. You have to really work at it. But through determined stupidity Trump and his coterie of morons have managed to beat the odds and get themselves infected. Way to go, team! Finally, you're making America great again!

  Anything else I can set your mind at ease about? EEng 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't say anything about that in the text, you just say getting infected. Also, it doesn't matter; it's soapboxing, which in itself should result in sanctions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Um, no, I don't just say getting infected. I said what I quoted above. EEng 23:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - EEng's comments are almost always a breath of fresh air in a venue where everyone (myself included) tends to take everything much too seriously. He performs an important function in puncturing balloons and pointing out some of the absurdities which abound. Sure, sometimes he can miss the mark (not this time), or be a bit annoying, but for the most part he's pretty darn right-on. Put it this way: if he were to be TB'd from AN and ANI, I would miss his contributions, and this place would be poorer for his absence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose current wording, but would support making EENG write all their comments in the form of haiku. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  His ANI posts / From here to eternity / Must now be Haikus. EEng 23:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose Some levity keeps us from becoming grouches. (per Beyond My Ken) Kleuske (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support : The comment in question, which EENG edit-warred to keep here, dismissing concerns raised on his talk page, sought humour from an incident when a teenager was shot dead by French police. Is this really where we want to be as a community? Would everybody find it so hilarious if people made jokes about the killing of George Floyd? ANI is not a place for people's entertainment and these so called jokes inflame the situation and make people, many of which will already be upset or angry, more angryNigel Ish (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  No. Full stop. EEng was replying to this statement: Your bias is the destruction of France and ALL of Europe, and the extinction of white people. That statement was worthy of ridicule and EEng ridiculed it. Could he have ignored it? Sure. Should he have reverted to reinstate his comment? Probably not. But is it reasonable to liken EEng's actions to joking about the killing of George Floyd? No, that analogy is patently ridiculous and stretches all bounds of credulity. If you are truly concerned about inflaming the situation, please dial back the unfounded rhetoric. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• If you're opposing because you think ANI should be more fun and less serious, you are hanging out in the wrong place. Commenting at ANI is not a sport. It's not entertainment. It isn't supposed to be fun. This place is supposed to be serious. It's where people's future participation on this site is at stake, where emotions run hot, where people are having their worst moments on this site and are on edge. Humor is always risky anywhere in a community as diverse/international/multilingual as ours, and there's just no reason for it in the place where sensitivities are at their most heightened. The only benefit is for the noticeboard regulars who are into wikidrama. I don't have a problem with anyone being a regular here, to be clear (and I'm not going to pretend that I'm not a regular myself), but it's not supposed to be a joy.
  Participate at ANI if you feel like you can help deescalate, if you feel like you can empathize, or if you feel like you can resolve problems. Do not participate if it's a sport or if all you're doing is trying to make a joke and spice things up.
  This is the umpteenth time this has come up, and the umpteenth time a poll about someone who entertains the regulars is put to the regulars just for the regulars to say "no I'm entertained thx".
  BTW I tried to click a couple links at the top but forgot that EEng's user talk page is not functional -- it crashed my mobile browser and all of the tabs I had open (not the first time). To be clear, I like EEng and think they've done good work in several areas, but yes I find the ANI jokes detrimental and would support some kind of very narrow restriction at this point (not that I think that's at all likely). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You usually talk sense, but not here. Such things as "people's future participation on this site is at stake" are not deathly serious - it only means that one person can't edit one website. If people are worried about that then they are here for the wrong reasons, most likely to push a POV. If I was blocked I would be a tiny bit sad at first, because Wikipedia wouldn't get the benefit of my comments, but my happiness at being able to do something else with the time I spend here would probably outweigh the sadness pretty quickly. The same should go for anyone else who is blocked. And Wikipedia would carry on fine without me. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond your personal experience not being generalizable to absolutely everybody else, this noticeboard is definitely not just where we punish people for being here for the wrong reasons. There are a wide range of behaviors discussed, complaints with merit, complaints without merit, overwhelming and insulting accusations (some of which may be on the mark, and some not), criticism of people who do not know how to defend themselves, complains by the people who are here to push a POV, accusations that take extraordinary amounts of time and effort to disprove (or prove), and a vast swath of disagreements where there isn't an obvious wrong/right. This is where mistakes are highlighted in front of a crowd and subject to rapid pile-ons. It is befuddling to see anyone who has spent time on noticeboards dismissing all of the feelings involved so easily with a "well, I'd take it in stride because who cares, right?" I frequently feel for the people who find themselves mired in the disputes that wind up here (and feel thankful that any disputes I find myself in rarely do). I feel very strongly that anyone who isn't here to deescalate, empathize, and resolve should not be participating here (not by threat of sanction, but just from a realization that they're not helping anything). I mean, if I realized I was routinely unhelpful in those three areas, I would be a tiny bit sad at first, because Wikipedia wouldn't get the benefit of my comments, but my happiness at being able to do something else with the time I spend here would probably outweigh the sadness pretty quickly. But then not everyone is as enlightened as us. :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing wrong with a small quantity of levity even at noticeboards. It's good for Wikipedia to remind itself, once in a while, that it doesn't hold the balance of the world in its hands.Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Humorless busybodies are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Folly Mox (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose we need someone to make jokes about penises at ANI, and nobody else but eeng is willing to provide 107.127.0.28 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, no, we don't need jokes at ANI. It makes this place look like a wild-west where giggling admins just love grave-dancing over the IP's they've managed to block. It brings Wikipedia into disrepute. But if you ban EEng, by my count there are another six or seven regular contributors who do good work who will have to be banned too, based on just the current crop of ANI posts above. I'm not going to post diffs because it's unhelpful finger-pointing. Trouts all round to anyone who's resorted to smart-ass comments at the end of an ANI thread, and let's move on... (Serious point though: humour is subjective. It's a great thing, but it is also a dangerous tool, especially in written form, and especially when you're in a multi-cultural environment, and in a place where feelings run high. If you must use humour in WP noticeboards, it must be accompanied by extreme sensitivity and a willingness to back down at the first sign of having caused offence). Elemimele (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken said it best. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• EEng, it to me seems like doubling down is what keeps getting you into blocks. I'm partial to humor here and elsewhere, so I can't put my heart into supporting a TBan. I partially agree with what Rhodendrites has written above. SWinxy (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because we do take ourselves way too seriously. ANI of all places shouldn't be entertaining, but we also should not treat it like the International Criminal Court either. I like EENG's fresh takes, and was deeply persuaded by Elmidae's assessment. Pass a trout around and as a community let us develop a culture around taking ourselves less seriously, but with respect and civility. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm a wiki-friend of EEng, but I've told him multiple times that he should not be doing this at ANI. It's obvious by now that the proposal is not going to get consensus, so I'll repeat once more, EEng, cut it out. Humor in the cesspit is too easily misconstrued, and that can get in the way of deescalating a conflict, and uninvolved editors don't really need a court jester to help them see who the dummy is. I'll also offer this thought, which probably won't go anywhere either: Given that one part of this is that, when someone else reverts EEng's humor, EEng commonly reverts it back, maybe he should be put under 0RR for the ANI page (excluding archiving). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with 0RR is that it gives types like Fram the heckler's veto. Here would be a better rule: if someone finds a post questionable, they should open a thread at WP-Talk:ANI, which is exactly where meta-discussion of the discussion belongs. That would be a good venue for someone in Fram's predicament to ask about whatever it is they're not understanding, without cluttering up the thread in chief or wasting lots of other editors' time, as is happening here.

  I think this is a good time to quote two comments from the past:

  • In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". [168]
  • The most notorious occasion this problem arises is probably with the self-appointed civility cops. Someone can make a talkpage comment which twenty different people see and conclude is non-problematic, but it only takes one admin to misinterpret it and the editor in question gets blocked. EEng is probably the most obvious example of this ... [169]

  EEng 22:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  My thinking is that it won't be a heckler's veto so long as someone else, not you, reverts it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support 0RR -- EEng, you're the heckler. --JBL (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're free to try to pin that label on me, but since I'm not the one removing others' posts you can't say I'm vetoing anyone. EEng 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per BMK and Cullen. I find his posts humourful and a breath of fresh air. Of course ANI is meant to be taken seriously but we're all aware of how much a dismal depressive swamp ANI is. Like I said imho a breath of fresh air. –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Is any editor allowed to make humour statements/comments at AN & ANI? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. EEng is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  I presume others may, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Lake Burley Griffin is nice this time of year. [170] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reluctant though I am to oppose Fram, and cognizant as I am that we have given those who are having problems on Wikipedia few other places to bring their complaints, and should therefore keep a tight rein on any impulse to eyeroll or to deplore "drama", and though EEng has biases / bêtes noires with which I disagree, this is a community of nerds working on an encyclopedia, not social media. EEng's comments often highlight folly and myopia and thus articulate community attitudes that many posters on this board need to take note of. They may sting, or be a surprise, but they're less painful than a block, and they're useful to demonstrate to others that yes, some stuff that's tolerated elsewhere on the internet isn't here. However, that's providing he's being witty. Outright calling people stupid as here is just a personal attack, and is particularly meanspirited coming from EEng, who's well known for his intellect and education. EEng, stay out of threads where that type of bald insult is the only thing you think to add. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, but I want you to look me in the eye and answer one question: when you saw the guy who was using ChatCBT to write articles and ANI posts, and kept doing it after being repeatedly told to stop, you thought to yourself, "This guy's a [redacted]" -- right? So anyway, to be clear, you think I should stay away from bald treads? EEng 01:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I simply clicked through to read the unblock request. My role is usually that of the straight man. (Like there.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Straight man? Wow, that's a rare species nowadays, but I hear that scientists are pursuing a crash program to see whether you guys can be bred in captivity. So far limited success. EEng 06:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Box box, EEng, box box, pit confirm please. We'll fit you a new set of hards. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 03:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

500 edits for Off-Road Tires, 10k edits for Racing slicks, bud, payable by cheque. 3,700 for ultra lightweight rims. _{(All . Sorry, this tire talk kinda hit juuust right.)} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't mind EEng trying to light up the cesspit that is ANI. Then again, my humor is pretty similar to EEng's, so I might be biased. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thinking about it a little further: it's beyond silly that EEng could be kicked off of this cesspit just because of one joke that sucked more than the others. I mean, my humor sucks, does it make me unworthy of ANI? No, because I'm on this dramaboard more often than not for legitimate concerns. Now, to be fair, unlike me, EEng is mostly here for lame jokes, but if I read about some drama and EEng posts a dumb joke, then I'm more likely to have a positive experience on the noticeboard despite the constant drama. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Lighting up the cesspit

I'm sorry, I can't resist. (I think you meant "lighten up".) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Boooooo. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction - based on what's here, I'm not going to support banning someone over a joke about France that isn't particularly offensive; maybe EEng just needs to wave his white flag and be more careful with his jokes. ;) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or 0RR or whatever it seems clear no sanction is going to result but I'm posting this anyway with the probably forlorn hope it will at least help convince EEng of the need to change. While noting I've never been a fan of EEng's humour albeit not one that has really expressed this before now AFAIK, I will add that frankly I don't really care much if Fram or me or probably anyone in this thread finds them annoying. By concerns are two fold. One is that IMO whatever people may have claimed above how EEng helps to lighten up ANI etc, IMO a fair percentage of the time they've actually made it worse and increased tension and unhappiness among a fair few people involved, and sometimes very likely even made it less likely that something productive will come from the ANI thread. But more than that, I am deeply concerned that in some cases, it seems clear from the responses that new editors unfamiliar with ANI are confused by EEng's responses. These editors may or may not have made mistakes but I don't see how it helps anyone if they're left even more confused by EEng's responses. ANI is bad enough as it is for the unfamiliar, why make it worse for them? Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  No doubt you could find a few examples where something I said made things worse -- though of course you could probably do the same for just about any regular participant at ANI. However, I would then dig up examples where someone came to my talk page and said something like Even though I ended up blocked, you made me laugh during the ANI discussion and that softened the blow. EEng 08:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @EEng: Do you remember how many of these are actually new users though? As I said, I don't really care that much if me, or Fram, or probably anyone in this thread is happy or unhappy with your comments. My main concern is of relatively new editors. I had a look at User talk:EEng/Archive 13 and User talk:EEng/Archive 14 but Archive 13 is too long and a search for obvious terms didn't find anything. (I don't think we need to go further back than Archive 13, since 2019 seems far back enough.) It's also possible you're remembering wrong and these were people who pinged you rather than posting on your talk page since depending on the length of the block and type, they might not be able to post on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, the search terms I looked at were 'block', 'laugh', and 'soft'. none of these found any relevant examples in either 13 or 14 although that's fairly meaningless since there are a lot of ways it could be phrased which doesn't involve any of these terms and I'm not going to look through the entirety of archive 13. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, threads don't get archived in chronological order, so you'd have to search further back, and add terms like sting and out and of and it -- variations such as that. Or it might be best to just AGF and believe me. Here's an experiment you might try: watch all my ANI posts; for each one, identify the universe of editors you think may be discouraged from editing thereby; check their contributions to see whether they quit editing soon after my post. Then we'd have some real data. EEng 03:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• As a (relatively) new editor, it's kinda shocking to see comments that I'm struggling to read as anything but "uncivil comments are accepted from particular editors because they are well established" and "well, I like it when EEng's mean to others, so tough luck". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think we can come up with a better solution here. I don't think we are at the point that sanctions are needed. On the other hand, I am not convinced that EEng should walk away scot-free from this. EEng should promise not to make jokes where they don't otherwise contribute to the conversation and not to edit-war to keep the jokes. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't you realise this guy was educated at Yale. ANI needs all the jokes it can get. Keep it up EEng or, as you're known in the UK, "Arthur Atkinson". 86.187.167.162 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per David Fuchs and Rhododendrites. Humour has a place on Wikipedia, but here it doesn't advance the administration of the project and is too-frequently inflammatory. The personal attacks dished out by EEng to anybody who questions his contributions are clearly against policy and wouldn't be tolerated in a content dispute. Lepricavark's line I'm much more disturbed by the recent ANI trend of kibitzing comments from newbies who don't know what they don't know and won't listen to anyone who tries to tell them is an argument to better regulate that form of unhelpful conduct, not excuse other forms of it. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and I'm not sure what this comment from a few sections up the page is meant to achieve other than to just be edgy for the sake of it. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support the double standard seems typical among the regulars in that EEng is given great latitude to snarl, troll or giggle inappropriately. If it were another editor acting in this manner they would likely face consequences but it appears from the discussion above that some editors give EEng some kind of legacy-pass. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

How many editors would get a pass for an edit like this? Multiple administrators let it go see talk page. It would be called intentional vandalism if anyone else did this. But the regulars and admins sort of yuck it up with Eeng. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

C'mon. I self-reverted instantly (as planned), with the edit summary "Just kidding!" [171]. EEng 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

template:uw-selfrevert, template:uw-joke1 exist for reasons... —DIYeditor (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Neither of those templates are for vandalizing articles that are in main space. Especially since the article received 239,000 views on the day EEng did this. And that image was inserted in the article one day after Herschel_Walker (a conservative) lost his Georgia Senate contest. Can I do this to a Joe Biden article? Or is it just ok to do it to conservatives? Look, this thread is only going to affirm EEng as the untouchable flippant jester. As you saw in my above post, multiple administrators are ready to let EEng slide. Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Either all of it is okay, or none of it is. I appreciate humor, but I also recognize that there is a time and place for it. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  That being said, I support any sanctions that would be fair. Per the edit Lightburst brought up, I don't see how or why EEng was in the clear. Had someone with far less capital and popularity made such an edit, they would be quickly blocked without much of a chance to explain themselves beforehand. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have an opinion on the EENG humour discussion above (though I'll admit that the Haiku comment made me laugh), but I oppose the idea such commments being removed from this page. We tend to ask editors to strike out comments, and only remove something that is particularly egregious. - jc37 15:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal ("topic banning EEng from all noticeboards"), should it be enacted, would prevent EEng from adding more comments. It says nothing about removing comments that have already been made. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I read comments above about EENG needing to revert someone removing EENG's comments from this page, and citing such reversions as a reason to sanction EENG, which (without having seen diffs) seems inappropriate in this case. And (again without having seen diffs), depending on egregious-ness, probably shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. - jc37 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. The right response to a post whose value or meaning you don't understand is to add an inquiring post of your own, not to remove that which you don't understand. What is repeatedly characterized here as some kind of special "free pass" I get isn't that at all, but simply the recognition by experienced editors that my posts often contain more than meets the eye at first. EEng 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A bit of humor keeps the air from getting too stuffy and the admins from taking themselves too seriously. I personally don't see much issue with it.--Licks-rocks (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Lean oppose. I've raised similar concerns with Eeng myself more than once, though all occasions were some years back. As I tried to explain to him at the time, this is a work environment, albeit it a volunteer one, and you have to judge the appropriateness/advisability of comments accordingly. That said, the bulk of Eeng's jokes fall into the categories of either completely innocuous or else just puckish and unlikely to give offense to anyone in particular. I do think that the comment in this case was more than a little trolly, and Fram and Nigel's observations were perfectly valid: Eeng should have taken the comments on board (or at a minimum acknowledged they are consistent with community expectations and best practice), and absolutely should not have edit warred to reinstate the removed comment: I think the joke/troll unambiguously falls under the umbrella of WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.

That said, I don't think it's reasonable to regard this as a particularly offensive remark, and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a WP:PA or a WP:CIV violation. Let's put aside that the comment was clearly a joke tailored to deflate the histrionic recriminations of an user whose comments had been out of line (and clearly did qualify as PAs/NOTHERE commentary), and as such it was obvious that Eeng was exaggerating for effect. Even if that were not the case, and Eeng had been 100% sincere...it still would not be "xenophobic" or anything remotely like it: disliking or demeaning a people is bigotry: dismissing a country or polity is not. People can have whatever opinion they like about the importance of (or even the qualities of) a country without expressing hatred, bias, or disparagment of any group of people. Observe: Norway, until the day I die, I will never forget the first time I saw the perfect crystaline beauty of your fjords...but I would literally pay the Eternal Sunshine guys to scramble my brain if it meant I could forget your food. Australia, please stop trying to bring back the mullet: the rest of us aren't having it. Russia...actually Russia, you're cool...please don't poison me with radioactive nerve agent. You see: rizzing (or even half-zeriously excoriating) a country is not the same thing as demeaning a person or group of people--even when you are attacking a specific quality, or alluding to an unflattering reputation, it is typically not considered offensive in civil society, except by frighteningly dogmatic nationalists without a sense of humor. And here, Eeng's comment didn't even attack a particular quality of a country: he just sarcastically dismissed it's importance, because it was the most pointed way to undercut the bombastic, borderline-vitriolic hyperbole he was observing.

But even if not offensive in the first instance, and even if only a willfully obtuse person could not see that Eeng was needling for effect rather than expressing a true opinion, Nigel was still correct to point out that the comment was trolling and was counter-productive. And this actually brings us to the real problem with Eeng's approach here: inflexibility and IDHT. Whenever others try to point out that a joke was not appropriate and potentially disruptive, he never (and I mean not once in the eight or so years that I would estimate I've been familiar with) can grant that this might be so, give a little ground, or give even the slightest acknowledgment that he might consider that there are constraints on his humour here. When it comes to humour and potentially probelamtic language, he is a kind of freedom of expression absolutist, and no amount of reference to WP:NOTFREESPEECH has ever got him to budge from that opinion, that I've seen. He also doesn't seem to have a good barometer for judging when his jokes might easily be interpreted in a spirit other than what he intended, even given the context of written language and its constraints on nuance and...you know, this being the internet? I was once left deeply concerned by Eeng's use of some slurs relating to homosexual men, until he brought me in on the fact that he is gay himself. But my recollection is that there was no easy way to tell from the framing of the jokes themselves that he was: you just had to know him and be aware of that--and not everyone there was.

It's often like that with Eeng: because of the sheer volume of his jokes, there's a significant frequency of those which have a real chance to go over people's heads without those persons being particularly oblivious. And he typically doesn't want to own responsibility when miscommunications and frustrations result. Now this is not particularly one of those cases, which is actually weighing heavily in my decision to lean towards no sanction here. But Eeng's really got to start WP:HEARING his fellow community members, including his friends and those who in other circumstances find his comments introduce exactly the note of levity necesarry to improve the tone of certain discussions. Because he has been given a lot of warnings about the snark. Eeng, my droog, the primary distinction is whether your comment is clearly meant to get under someone's skin: please try to at least stay on the right side of that line at the very least. You said something so funny a few weeks back, I burst into incomprehensible giggles when telling someone about it later. I'd like to preserve room for your special reparte, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like I can't stay on this side of the sanction !vote forever if you can't try to meet those with concerns half way. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I always found EEng's little picture insertions amusing. Wikipedia tends to be a very serious place and injecting some humor is fine with me. I can see how they would potentially be confusing at times as Nil Einne indicated so that could be a reason to support this. Before I'd consider such a ban I'd want to see a long list of clear violations of some policy, which has not been provided here. I do think the same leeway should be granted to a mirror image of EEng with a different gist of jokes, and we should avoid BITING new users who may see such arguable bending of WP:SOAP or WP:FORUM as an invitation to do so themselves, providing they are HERE. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• The main complaint seems to boil down to EEng being cleverer that the complainers. Guess what: this is a fucking encyclopedia. Those writing it are supposed to be clever. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So you consider the editors who complained about EEng are not clever and that they shouldn't be contributing here - please clarify this statement as it appears to be a personal attack against anyone who disagrees with you.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Uh no. While the tone may be less than positive, let's not try to stretch someone's comments to more than they are. - jc37 18:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I too really struggle to read the above as anything else than a direct insult on everyone not agreeing with Phil. Ljleppan (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  What I said is neither a personal attack nor an insult. Interpreting it in this way is to support the anti-intellectual culture by which people are slapped down for being "too clever by half". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that editors have gotten upset here over things that weren't worth getting that upset about, which is, unfortunately, a characteristic of ANI. As for the main topic of this ANI thread, one can argue that ANI toxicity is a good reason to insert some humor from time to time, and one can argue just as reasonably that such humor can make the problem worse. I'm tempted to put this image here, but I won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  People aren't objecting to EEng's behaviour because they think he is too clever - its because he continues to carry out the same behaviour over and over again despite being told over and over again that it crosses the line. That behaviour is unrelated to the level of intelligence or any other definition of cleverness..Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. User:David Fuchs asked what value the community would lose if this proposal succeeds. A bunch of people have responded to all say the same thing, that we'd lose snark and humor at a noticeboard that otherwise tends to get dark and nasty. That is to say, a bunch of people have weighed in to not bother answering David's question at all. Are we noticing that David asked for substance in a discussion where every single oppose comment has contained zero substance? Will it matter that he asked for someone, anyone to "point to cogent, useful contributions to discussions" and nobody has?

That said, I also support closing as no consensus to block. I don't understand why people keep trying this because EEng is bulletproof. Instead of trying to get him sanctioned, editors in a contentious discussion with him need to stay aware that he's completely free to violate WP:CIVIL. (Considering the kind of person he is on here, I'm always disappointed that he consistently, happily takes advantage of the leeway he has. If someone else broke the rules and got away with it as much as EEng does, EEng would hate that person.) If User:Fram and the other editors citing CIVIL acknowledged that, they wouldn't waste their time trying to make this happen. CityOfSilver 20:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, perhaps some of the oppose !voters feel that you are turning the burden of proof for a CBAN completely on it's head there: that banning a community member (regardless of their perceived popularity) from basically every single process page on the project is an extraordinary action for the community to take, and ought to be based on a commiserate demonstrtation of unambigous and massive disruption that just hasn't even begun to be remotely met here. Then also you are ignoring that a fair number of the oppose !votes actually include caveats and cautions that might reasonably be said to be getting towards a final warning for Eeng, at least with regard to ANI. So maybe we can avoid talking monolithically about "the other side" and take a more tempered, productive approach to the situation?

And look, I get that it is frustrating to see the same people skirt the same issues and refuse to accept community feedback here, ad nauseum, and that lately the vexation with that longstanding state of affairs has been boiling over here. In some respects and cases, it is long overdue and even arguably healthy for the community. But come on, is Eeng really one of those cases? He's like our court jester at worst: and (if you'll forgive an overwrought comparison) much as with the classical trope of the fool, he makes those who perceive themselves to be exercising legitimate authority want to throttle him, but if you look below the surface of the japes, he's actually making some pretty cogent (if coded) observations a lot of the time. I say this as someone who's often been first in line to criticize his excesses and probably will be again. Does he need to learn some more restraint? Unquestionably. Does he need to be removed from every noticeboard on the project? Hardly. Perhaps you should be directing some of your frustration at the proposal, which is too out of proportion with the circumstances to allow those of us in the middle ground here to support it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Like anyone cares about Frams anyway." 86.187.170.53 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose IDONTLIKEIT and being a humorless busybody are not reasons to topic-ban someone. However, EEng, could you please do something about your userpage? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am 100% in support of that proposal: if there is anything we overdue to address with regard to Eeng, it's that talk page. It's unambigously an WP:accessability violation, bringing older computers and mobile devices to a crawl, and probably being completely inaccesible to some users, while being difficult to engage with for all of us. Considering that certain notices and communications are expected or required to be made there as a matter of policy, this is not really acceptable, and we shouldn't have to create binding policy language setting a limit on un-archived content just to address one community member who I think does realize the issue but is tickled (as in other areas) by other people being frustrated with it. Eeng, bluntly you are too popular and too loquitious to keep more than four years of content live on that page: please do something about it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

EEng's talk page is big enough to crash the browser on my iPhone. Admittedly it's ancient enough to have a headphone jack, but no other huge pages rise to the level of crashing the browser. 2600:100F:B1A6:FA45:741C:C345:F718:A4BC (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hrm. Hang on -- are we imposing similar restrictions on articles? That they need to be truncated to suit lowest-common-denominator computers and phones? Ravenswing 07:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There is very certainly a contingent of editors who get tetchy about articles above 10,000 words, to the point it's currently ~impossible for such an article to pass FAC. These articles are markedly less problematic than EEngtalk from a logistical perspective, given they tend to have far fewer sections and images, with the images being the real thing that extends loading times. I'm not a fan of the no-long-articles perspective, but despite watchlisting EEngtalk I can never actually check it because my latest-updated browser on a two-year-old laptop on a decent speed internet connection chokes up trying to open it. No comment on the thread as a whole, and this shouldn't be read as a clear statement that EEngtalk must be archived either -- moreso a note that significant groups of editors do in fact hold that position for articles far less problematic for loading times than the talk page is. Vaticidalprophet 08:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if our articles were crashing a bunch of people's phones then they should be reduced. Weird that would be controversial. I don't have an old phone and EEng's talk page crashes my browser, too. If we have articles that are more than a megabyte of text plus 200 images plus 700 templates, I dare say it's too big. We even have a guideline about this. Thankfully, none of our articles is remotely as large. There's one with more text/wikimarkup (list of Glagolitic manuscripts), but it's all text so actually much, much smaller. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

just a big job and likely to take a little bit of time

Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier. If there is consensus that his user space needs to be reduced in size, because of access issues, then that shouldn't be controversial. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, it seems Eeng has been quietly addressing the request; it's just a big job and likely to take a little bit of time, I don't doubt. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

But it's a recurring issue, as he well knows. He knows editors have issues accessing his user pages, and he just doesn't care. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This thread has an unusual number of participants able to read minds. EEng 03:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Did someone really propose to ban someone for injecting a sense of fun into wikipedia? Facepalm. Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia! WCM_email 18:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Whether or not there is even a problem comes down to a matter of taste, and even granting that there is, the proposed remedy is way out of proportion. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It should be clear to Eeng that his humour goes down badly with a non-trivial number of editors, and therefore generates much drama. It's time for Eeng to be much more restrained.
  However, some of the charges against Eeng are way overblown, and the proposed sanctions are wildly disproportionate to the actual conduct. This needs admonishment and I hope Eeng understands that if similar behaviour brings Eeng back to ANI, some of us will be more likely to support some restraints just to reduce the drama levels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose ANI won't be the same without EEng. 92.40.200.203 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment we should not be allowing volunteers to engage in actions contrary to guidelines and policies based on the popularity of the individual. We clearly allow our volunteers to be exonerated or punished based on the opinions of other volunteers/buddies. If an obvious troll appears they are swiftly blocked; but if the obvious troll is a longtime editor we endorse the trolling. I see I hope Eeng understands... or some version of it from other volunteers above. After 15 years of editing we can assume that EEng understands. As a volunteer I expect fairness and I think it is a fundamental expectation in every organization. Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, Lightburst. Look, I get the the frustration. I'm not unoften on the other side of this debate: for years I was deeply concerned about the slide on enforcement of WP:CIV and WP:DISRUPT, and I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised by the recent turn of the community back towards holding a firmer line on such. But much as I was disappointed with the number of !votes here suggesting no one could find Eeng's banter improper without being a humourless scold (and continue to find that to be a low quality argument that does not reflect well on those making it), I'm now getting equally tired of seeing the "This is an Eeng fan club party, that's all." comments from the 'other side'. I don't think it's one bit more helpful. Considering the fact that the ratios are more than 4:1 in opposition to the proposal, I think that's pretty clear indication of how the present sampling of the community feels about what constitutes a brightline violation of relevant policy. Or take myself as a more concrete example. I'm not a wikifriend of Eeng's; we are friendly enough in our interactions, as any two community members should be where they can, but that's actually in spite of the fact I have criticized him on this very subject two or three times in the past.

The problem is, this was a hopeless proposal from the start: the suggested sanction is ridiculously over the top, relative to the event which prompted it. Which, fair enough, it's about the history as well, sure, of course. Even so, Eeng responding to a WP:NOTHERE WP:SPA who was ALL CAPSING a screed about how we were all conspirators in bringing France and white Europeans to "extinction", and that response taking the form of essentially "France? Who cares about France?", because he (Eeng) knew it was the thing that would most piss that particular bigot off...THAT being the straw that broke the camel's back was just never, never a good spot to start this discussion from. Of course a lot of people were going to consider that basically 'suboptimal, but understandable'. You have to not just pick your battles on this project, you have to have some sense of when your position is going to be most or least persuasive. The propsal was also quite arguably out-of-proportion with the entire history of Eeng's (admitedly sometimes disruptive) jokes here. A ban from essentially all community spaces? I mean, come on, propose an indef or don't: we don't typically choose to keep someone a member of the community but effectively silence them from communication in all community affairs.

So, I'm sorry, I do understand the impulse to draw a line in the sand here, but implying that only people lining up to defend Eeng could be opposed to the proposed action is just clearly inaccurate as to what is going on here--every bit as much as the "these are just anhedonic buearacratics" argument on the other side. I really wish people on either side of the divide here would scale back the rhetoric just a little--it is just entrenching everyone further. Meanwhile, there's enough will to see Eeng change his approach that if the people supporting the proposed sanction and those who oppose it (but still see a need for change) were rowing together, they would probably have the combined numbers that Eeng would have a harder time in ignoring, as a practical matter if not also a rational one. Failing that, if someone just wants to push harder for a sanction next time, I'd offer these two purely practical pieces of advise: pick your ground for the discussion better next time, and give the community a proposal that's roughly within the universe of something that would get uniform support. Because, bluntly, this isn't that discussion in either respect. And again, that's coming from someone who has criticized Eeng for this exact behaviour in the past and could easily see themselves agreeing to a more reasonable proposal in more reasonable circumstances in the future, if he doesn't take this warning to heart. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

rowing together:

• rowing (rō-iŋ). The propelling of a boat by means of oars.
• rowing (rau̇-iŋ). To dispute or quarrel.

EEng 01:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

EEng has 389 editors watching his talk page, you have 82 I have 72. I guess we can say they have many more Wiki friends.. that seems helpful for picking a friendly jury. As someone who has been brought before this group I can tell you it is not a fair process. There is perhaps no other organization in the world which encourages its employees or volunteers to skewer each other. So @Snow Rise: as long as the system of justice depends on how many friends or enemies turn up, we will have this messy unfair process. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic question: how does one discover how many people are watching a page? — Czello ^(music) 14:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: Click on "Page information" (which should be at the left in Vector 2010 or at the right in Vector 2022) and you'll see the number of users watching a page (any page, for that matter) next to "Number of page watchers", unless the number is below 30. Nythar (💬-🍀) 14:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for way too long to not know this, thanks. — Czello ^(music) 14:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If you enable Preferences -> Gadgets -> Appearance -> XTools, you'll see useful information under the article title: # of revisions since (date created), how many editors have edited the page, how many watching it, how many pageviews in past 30 days, and who created the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks — Czello ^(music) 18:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

EEng has 389 editors watching his talk page, you have 82 I have 72. I guess we can say they have many more Wiki friends..

That's just a nonsensical argument. I watch many Talk pages for reasons unrelated to "friendship" with the individual, and other people watch mine without being my friends.

This proposal has nothing to do with a "jury", and has everything to do with how ludicrously over-the-top Fram's proposal was. I'm not all that enamored with EEng, but the proposal was just terrible and the backlash completely understandable. SnowRise was right, this is entirely due to the proposal being unreasonable from the get-go, not some WP:CABAL running to defend EEng's honor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also a pretty substantial number of editors who run gadgets or scripts that auto-watchlist discussions, or even all pages edited. And just generally, as you say, there any number of reasons someone would watchlist a user page, be they manual or automated. I probably have one or two hundred non-IP user talk pages watchlisted for various reasons, if I had to guess, and maybe a couple dozen of those I have actually looked at in the last five years. You also don't have to go far to find plenty of counter examples of what the numbers supposedly prove: I just looked at the watchlists of the previous two people for whom I could remember !voting in support of a succesful community sanction: both of them had substantially more watchers than EEng, so where was the boon of the fan club that the watchlist supposedly guaruntees, shielding them from community sanction? Lastly, even for those who do actively watchlist a given user's talk page with intent to religiously follow what is going on there, I'm not so certain that "friends" would necesarily be the largest or most motivated group.

More fundamentally, nobody is by any means arguing (that I have seen, anyway) that popularity does not play a role in a person's fortunes if they manage to come under community scrutiny for their conduct--certainly I am the last person who would say this is not the case. But that's a systemic issue, which makes it impossible and foolhardy to take a position against. But that doesn't mean one gets to handwave away the outcome of any given discussion as being a supposed fanclub !vote, whenever they disagree with said outcome--not when there is substantial obvious reasons why the proposal would fail to gain consensus. Here there are a number of people who have said something along the lines of "Yeah, I've told EEng myself the jokes are often problematic, even getting tedious. That said, there's no way I can support the proposed sanction, least of all in these circumstances." There's also the fact that the overall !vote here is rather a landslide; while I cannot speak for everyone's experience, whenever I have seen boosters come out to support a longterm problematic editor against all community criticism, the best they can usually hope for is to muddy the waters enough to get a no consensus result. You don't get such a high proportion of people opposing a sanction (when there are this many people involved in the discussion) simply because the fan club is in town. You get it when the proposal just doesn't fit the circumstances.

In any event, I think that does it for me in this discussion. Since a close without action seems likely at this juncture, I am going to cross my fingers and hope EEng takes the advice on board, because now that's all I can do. There was room here for more reasonably scaled action: a formal final warning at the very least, I would say. Something that would have better served both the community's interests and potentially EEng's as well. But the way the discussion was unwittingly set up to fail by a rush to action and a poorly considered proposal, followed by the predictable resulting division of many respondents into one of two hardline camps, has isntead lead to the least helpful possible outcome: no consensus to restrain EEng's approach, and him possibly going away with the wrong overall message. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist envy... now we're really scraping the bottom of the argumentation barrel. Anyway, Fram's got 562 watchers to my puny 389, so by that measure I should have been doomed from the start. EEng 01:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO this discussion is an example of what is wrong with the project. Feel free to continue to troll. Nobody will ever sanction you. Congrats on helping build the encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm...

• this discussion is an example of what is wrong with the project – At least we agree on that. (BTW, you left the H out of IMHO.)
• Feel free to continue to troll – Pointing out that invalid reasoning is invalid isn't trolling.
• Congrats on helping build the encyclopedia – You've got a long way to go before you can even dream of comparing yourself to me in that department.

EEng 08:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that your argument was faulty is an example of what is wrong with the project? C'mon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Lourdes 04:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban from uninvolved AN/ANI discussions. If people are routinely engaging in personal attacks to defend your mode of engagement, you're in the wrong. I've told EEng this before. If his manner of joking routinely deescalated situations that would be a different matter. They don't, and I don't think they're meant to. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose As I sit here eating some Freedom Toast, sipping on some Freedom Coffee, and looking forward to an evening of blowing things up in the name of Freedom, I can't stand to think of seeing @EEng: reprimanded for bringing some much needed levity to what are often overly serious affairs here on AN/I. In all seriousness, I just don't think what's been presented rises to something worthy of any sort of sanction. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong neutral - EEng's comments are sometimes a welcome dose of levity. Other times, they are akin to driving past a smoldering Dumpster and throwing a can of fuel in it. EEng may not see the difference (and, admittedly, the line between the two isn't necessarily clear), or may not care, as the latter has been largely tolerated for years. However, a complete topic ban from community noticeboards is a severe restriction indeed and a difficult one to get on board with - if an editor is going to be silenced in community discussions, that isn't very far from a CBAN when you think about it.

  That said, of late, the community's patience seems to be slowly wearing thin with unproductive commentary that has long been deemed acceptable from long-time editors, and I would hope that EEng takes note of both that and the concerns brought up in this thread, and deploys humor more judiciously in the future. You may think you're pouring water on the fire, only to find that the fire is burning magnesium. --Sable232 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well said. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Especially for any chemists in the audience. EEng 01:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @EEng: Not funny. That was one of the horrors of the 1955 Le Mans disaster. People died. Narky Blert (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh mate for crying out loud, where on EARTH did you extrapolate that EEng was referring to the Le Mans disaster? Shall we ban all jokes in case there is an allusion to any sort of disaster? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 06:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Like anyone cares about Le Mans anyway. OK, but seriously... Narky B. is parodying the determination to find offense that we've seen elsewhere in this thread. At least I hope he is.

  However, I take issue with Sable232's use of the throwing a can of fuel in it image. I mean, in 1942 a fireman attempting to extinguish a brazier (which had "flared out of control") at St Andrews Stadium mistook a bucket of petrol for water [172]. The stands burned down and all the club's records were destroyed. Horrible, and a very insensitive choice of words on Sable's part manifesting a complete disregard for the feelings of Birmingham football fans. We should collapse his post and add a trigger warning. EEng 07:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC) As for the brazier, I don't understand how a woman's dainty garments can flare out of control in the first place.

  As a person who pays football zero heed and has never been to the United Kingdom, I fully support this. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify 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. Eeeng Alternative proposal Instead of jumping on Eeng, we should sanction France for their almighty screwing up of their 1796 French expedition to Ireland. Their monumental fustercluck delayed the ousting of our colonial occupiers for 120 years, leaving Ireland repressed by over 100 Coercion Acts, devastated by an almighty "famine" and the belatedly independent Ireland as an asset-striped, underdeveloped mass grave which had to act unaided to win a war against the world's most mighty empire's refusal to accept an election result. We could start with something modest and minimal, like banning the consumption of wine in France for a year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Eh bien, c'est le camembert qui dit au le roquefort qu'il pue, quant a la boisson, non, Irlandais? SnowRise let's rap 02:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Le jour de gloire est arrivé: Aux armes, citoyens! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Racism is still racism when you follow it by "just joking".Nigel Ish (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) @Nigel Ish: Too much humour: probably. Crass humour: possibly. Disruptive humour: possibly. But "who cares about [Europeancountry]" is not racist. Have I missed some overt racism? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC) To be fair, I'm not entirely sure whether Nigel is still referring to Eeng. But if he is...it's worth remembering that Eeng's joke came in response to an SPA shouting at the noticeboard in general that Wikipedia was betraying France, Europe, and the white race...so, I think we need to keep things in perspective. I don't see anything in what Eeng said that implies any kind of ethnic or racial disparagement. His joke was clearly aimed at the SPA's nationalism, not at the French people. Again, Nigel was entitled to suggest he knock it off, but on the grounds that the comment was trolling (and trolling even white power advocates is not exactly helpful), not because Eeng's conduct constituted racism, or anything that would typically be taken for racism. Honestly, I did and still do support Nigel's effort to raise the issue with Eeng in this instance, but I also think the continued implication that Eeng was being bigoted (if that is in fact what Nigel is intending to say--I am not sure) is not helping, doesn't really reflect the context here, and is probably a source of frustration for Eeng, who (if I had to guess) said what he said specifically because of the "Wikipedia is betraying white people" diatribe. SnowRise let's rap 18:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I can accept that His joke was clearly aimed at the SPA's nationalism, not at the French people, but this discussion is illustrating very obviously that that intent cannot be assumed to be as clear as EEng and some others might think it to be. Personally, I don't think it was at all funny, and I especially don't think that it achieved the stated goal of highlighting that... suggesting that Wikipedia editors aim for the "destruction of France and all of Europe" is preposterous. All that we've got from it is another example of Poe's law in action, and the bigger picture is that for all of the smug claims like The severely literal-minded may have trouble seeing that, but not everything posted need be completely lacking in subtly and nuance, there is a point at which a person who is frequently being misunderstood and misinterpreted needs to stop looking for fault in the audience and start pondering whether the problem lies with what they're saying and how they're saying it. XAM2175 (T) 18:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC) The comment was raised against BrownHaired Girl. I appreciate that the comment will go bad for me but I cannot honestly let such blatent hatespeak pretending to be humour go unchallenged and hope to sleep at night.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I really do not see how it is in any way plausible to describe Eeng's who cares about France comment as blatent hatespeak, or indeed as hatespeak of any form. 'Who cares about X?' ≠ 'I hate X' BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Support as a British person, and put the white flags away already, ya cheese eating surrender monkeys! (All I hasten to add. Also, if anyone thinks they recognise that line, it was Jeremy Clarkson in the TopGear days.) MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 07:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC) "Like anyone cares about ex-admins anyway." 86.187.236.92 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2023 (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.

• Oppose - I think humor has always been more valuable to the project than these dramas will ever be. I don’t buy into the framing that EEng is some unreasonable a-hole who only doubles down on offensive behavior. To me he’s always seemed like a reasonable, level-headed, self-aware person who more often than not is making good points. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and can I sell anyone a nothing burger, supersized for free? 🤦 SN54129 10:03, 5 July 2023 (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:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean

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.

---

Please could uninvolved admins cast an eye on the work of Timfoley50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Timfoley50 is a WP:Single-purpose account, an Irish campaigner to promote recognition of the life of the Irish Antarctic explorer Tom Crean (explorer). His campaigning goals are set out on his userpage[173] and in his comment[174] that he is promoting the man.[175]

Tim has also written a biography of Tom Crean (ISBN 978-1999918934). It was initially self-published, but Tim now says that In May 2023 my biography was released under the portfolio of an established publisher, tho I if there was any note about which publisher, I have missed it.

Since 22 July 2018, Timfoley50 has been asking for assertions in his book to be incorporated in the article Tom Crean (explorer), which is a WP:Featured article. Discussion of Timfoley50's repeated requests now make up half of the 18 years of unarchived discussions on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer) (permalink), including an RFC (See Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)/Archive 1#RFC SEP-29-2018). In fact, since 22 July 2018, Timfoley50's repeated requests have been the only issue discussed on that talk page, and several experienced editors (notably @Guliolopez, Factotem, and Spintendo) appear to have put a lot of time and energy into assessing them. AIUI, the result has been that a few small changes have been made to the article.

Timfoley50 believes that more changes are needed. He has forumshopped his requests elsewhere (see e.g. WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1113#Tom_Crean_(explorer)_article). This all came to my attention today, when Timfoley50 posted[176] on my talk to ask me to make edits on his behalf. I replied[177] at length to say no and to explain why I wouldn't get involved, and also to explain with what I intended to be friendly firmness to say in my conclusion if you are not already in not being here to build an encyclopedia territory, then you approaching it at speed. I do understand your enthusiasm, but you are way way way overdoing it. I also started a discussion at Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)#A_request_from_Tim_Foley (permalink).

Neither discussion has gone at all well. My comments were perceived as hostile. Maybe I didn't get the tone right, but I wonder if there was any way that anyone could say to Timfoley50 anything along the lines of "enough already" without antagonising him.

RV Tom Crean, named after the explorer

After 5 years, any editors interested in maintaining the article Tom Crean (explorer) will be well aware of Timfoley50's book, and any further banging of the drum seems futile. It is always theoretically possible that groupthink has taken hold on an article, and that new info is being unreasonably rejected, but that seems to me to be unlikely here. An FA has lots of eyes on it, and the editors involved are in my experience critical thinkers with track records of reassessing their own judgements. And from my rapid scan, their assessments seemed in this case to be at least prima facie sound.

Anyway, regardless of whether my tone was sub-optimal (or even wildly wrong), I cannot see any way in which anyone or anything is helped by a continuation of this five-year standoff. Tim Foley's book was published five years ago. Ireland's fine new research ship has been named the RV Tom Crean, as Tim Foley wanted. The article's talk page is disproportionately full of mentions of his book. Tim Foley's proposed edits have been assessed at length. After five years, isn't it time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

PS I should note that Timfoley50 has not edited the article Tom Crean (explorer) since 2014. To his credit, he has respected WP:COI, and been upfront about the COI.[178] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The formerly self-published book has been republished by the Irish Academic Press, by all accounts a reputable operation which has been in business for 49 years. Perhaps the best way forward is for interested editors to accept the book as a reliable source and to stop sniping at each other. Timfoley50 needs to learn how formal WP:Edit requests work, and make their requests in digestible chunks. And also stop bludgeoning conversations. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And stop WP:FORUMSHOPping. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a longtime Teahouse host with 10,032 edits there, I do not consider a sincere request for help there two years ago to be "forum shopping", BrownHairedGirl. It is a place for less experienced editors to get assistance and advice when they need it. There is no evidence of bad faith here, just unfamiliarity with our social norms. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my two cents here looking over the interactions I've had with this user I remember feeling disappointed that we weren't able to accomplish more with the RFC, they're being just a few people who joined the discussion and it didn't seem to really go anywhere beyond a possible agreement to allow his book in the external link section. Attitude wise there was a little frustration on his part, nothing major and understandable considering the subject matter was close to his heart. He's by all appearances a gifted historian and I remember thinking if he were to reorient his interests to other articles if he were to bring just a fraction of the passion he's shown and apply it to others he would go far but like brown-haired girl said it seems as if he had gotten stuck in neutral with this one article that he couldn't move on from. but like Cullen just posted maybe having a reputable publisher is now finally the key he's needed all along The question would then be how much to include from his book into the article, which means we go back to the talk page. Spintendo  02:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds about right. The book has some coverage:[179] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record Spitendo I happen to agree with your assessment and I do find it hard to move on given that the article is not a true and fair reflection of Tom Crean's life and is one that contains content and links that clearly do not belong in there.

I wish this had been resolved far earlier so that I was able to add contributions and create articles of those Irish men and women whose stories were lost to the ether or were less heralded than they deserved to be. That’s my passion and Tom Crean falls into that category as are others such as a draft I’ve had sitting in my sandbox for some time about a guy called John Mara (another article for which I do need assistance from experienced editors). I have other stories I’d like to add on a similar theme about those whose tales flew under the radar but deserve greater visibility.

As for BrownHairedGirl jumping to the conclusion that my book is a Hagiography, and reinforcing the same assessment after accusing me of wishing to 'promote the book’, she chose ‘antagonism’ as the way to deal with a person she clearly considers to be nothing more than a self-serving writer seeking any means to drive sales.

On another note, I did not, as she puts it, 'ask her to make edits on my behalf’

I contacted her after she had made a change to the article which I was notified about and I stated that: I'd be most grateful for the help of 'an editor’

I merely defended my motives after her harshly toned response and at one point, in the heat of discussion, I said I was 'promoting the man’ - that was wrong of me. I’m wishing to preserve his story for others and although I don’t hide my admiration for Crean, my material was carefully sourced over a lengthy period of time. If my admiration for a person and passion to tell their story, is translated as being hagiographical and unworthy of referencing in a Wikipedia article, then that’s bad news for a huge number of authors.

Her latest jibe that I’m on a self-promotional mission, is to state that my account is WP:Single-purpose - it’s yet another falsehood designed to convince others to agree with her misguided beliefs. Timfoley50 (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, Timfoley50's reply is full of false assertions, including

1. Tim writes to state that my account is WP:Single-purpose - it’s yet another falsehood.
   Fact: see Timfoley50's contribs
   Timfoley50 has made edits to only one article, and to the talk page of only one article. The existence of a sandbox does not exclude Tim from the definition of a WP:Single-purpose account.
2. Tim writes that I was jumping to the conclusion that my book is a Hagiography, and reinforcing the same assessment after accusing me of wishing to 'promote the book’.
   Fact Tim himself wrote [180] in reply to me that he is promoting the man. Tim's own userpage sets out his mission as promoting Tom Crean.

So even when Tim Foley's conduct is under scrutiny at ANI, he has chosen to attack me by making demonstrably false assertions.

His willingness to invert truth on two simple and verifiable points of fact does not help in any way his claim to be considered as a scholar of integrity and a WP:reliable source whose work should override the other sources in a featured article.

Note that @Cullen328 is partly mistaken to say that Tim Foley's book has been republished by the Irish Academic Press. In fact, it has been republished by Merrion Press, which IAP describes as follows at https://www.irishacademicpress.ie/about/: "2012 also saw the establishment of a general books imprint, Merrion Press, created to develop our publishing to include more popular and accessible titles distinct from the typical academic projection of the IAP format".

In other words, Tim Foley's own publishers consider his book to be "popular and accessible" rather than scholarly. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Really only contributing here because prompted. My only material concerns/inputs relate to:

• this "challenge" from Timfoley50. That somehow an editor must WP:DOX themselves in some circumstances. And that the retention of privacy is somehow a "bad thing". Suggesting (at best) a misunderstanding of project norms. Or (at worst) reinforcing the WP:NOTHERE concerns that BrownHairedGirl raises.
• in all Timfoley50's recent userTalk/articleTalk/ANI contributions, despite several requests to do so, the only "errors" that have been expanded-upon is the count of Crean's siblings. From ten to eleven. A change that was already made several years ago. Alongside other actions taken following a follow-on interaction in 2021. That the editor seems more interested in discussing his work (and its validity/primacy/etc) than expanding upon (and dealing with) any actual/remaining errors of fact (or source variances or whatever they are) is an engagement approach that I do not understand. Not least when, to my mind, several changes/fixes/updates (to reflect the editor's work outside of Wikipedia) were accommodated years ago.

Frankly, if there are remaining errors of fact in the article, I don't understand why the editor doesn't just explain what they are. Instead of talking about everything but...... Guliolopez (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you recall Guliolopez, I tried that back in 2018 and it was a futile exercise that led me down a path where I had to submit my research to the Royal Irish Academy in order for some of the changes to be implemented - Wikepedia editors ruled that my self-published work was not considered a primary source.

Now we appear to be in a similar position given that @BrownHairedGirl is questioning the credibility of the publisher.

Since 2018 I've discovered further information that adds to the story. Why would I continue on a process that appears doomed to fail again? Timfoley50 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That is ridiculous misrepresentation. I am NOT questioning the credibility of the publisher.

I am noting that the publisher does not appear to rate the work as as scholarly.

This is important on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia prefers scholarly works.

Timfoley50 writes since 2018 I've discovered further information that adds to the story. Great, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish that: see WP:No original research.

This one of the many problems with single-purpose accounts like @Timfoley50: they tend to be unaware of even Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS and WP:NOR. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

No, what’s sad is that you are denying readers the ability to discover more information about Tom Crean’s life and career because of a baseless personal agenda.

Perhaps if you spent less time questioning my integrity and questioning the credibility of the publishers of my biography, and instead used that time to help improve the article, Wikipedia readers would be the beneficiaries.

I said it before and will repeat it here, it’s all too easy to hide behind a username to have a pop at someone because you have contemptuous opinion of them and their motives. Why not step out from behind that alias and repeat your accusations especially now that you’ve also drawn the credibility of the publishers into this discussion?

I don’t profess, nor do I have any ambitions to be considered a ‘scholar’ (my former teachers would be the first to tell you I’m not), but to question my integrity is where you cross the line and it’s a line easily crossed when you are nothing more than a username with the power to make decisions that can either enrich or devalue a readers experience on Wikipedia.

I am a long time student of Tom Crean’s story and I have a commitment to ensuring that it is told as accurately and fully as possible. Inappropriate links or inaccurate content about Tom Crean, are not enriching it for sure.

If new evidence comes to light that adds to his storyboard, I would welcome it wholeheartedly providing it originates from verifiable sources. Timfoley50 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

My baseless personal agenda is very simply that:

1. Your job is done.
   You have written a book. Now you should leave other people to assess how much (if any) of it to use in the Wikipedia article.
2. Enough already.
   For five years you have been an absolutely massive timesink for editors involved in the article Tom Crean (explorer). They deserve a break.

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment on the SPA claim. I just restored the draft Draft:John Mara (Seafarer and Author) authored by Timfoley50 in 2021. Jay 💬 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jay, for restoring that. It would be great if that draft was developed into an article.

But please note that this leaves 47 of Timfoley50's 93 edits being about Tom Crean, a pattern which seems to me to fit the definition in WP:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA).

It's important to note that WP:SPA does not say that an SPA is always inherently bad. However, it does warn that being an SPA raises concerns over neutrality and promotion.

I am also concerned that being an SPA has a high correlation with lack of awareness of en.wp policies and guidelines. That knowledge gap is a significant problem here, leading Timfoley50 to feel personally attacked by reference to community norms of which Tim was unaware. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Timfoley50, I happen to be an editor and administrator who discloses my real name, age and place of residence. That is my own personal choice. But the fact of the matter is that every editor has the absolute right to anonymity without explanation and it is simply not acceptable for you to pressure other editors to disclose personally identifying information. So, stop doing that. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect, Cullen328, when a discussion descends into questioning a person's integrity and motives along with the credibility of a respected publishing house who are not present to defend their reputation, I feel it's fair to ask the identity of an accuser. I totally respect the need for anonymity of an editor but that has to be aligned with a duty of acceptable behaviour or does anonymity give editors a licence to say what they please regardless?

Forgive my ignorance of the policies and guidelines that editors employ here on Wikipedia, I have already spologised for not being up to scratch with the protocol and jargon used but everybody deserves to be treated with respect, not contempt, when they post a request for assistance.

Believe me, I'd much prefer to deal with the matter of addressing the article and I'm most eager to do just that rather than having to spend my time defending myself against accusations levelled at me by an unidentifiable person. . Timfoley50 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Just no. This is not a court of law, it is not fair to ask the identity of an "accuser" here, and you have not one slightest shred of standing or the right to do so. You have no legitimate reason to know BrownHairedGirl's real name, or that of any other editor, and in fact Wikipedia has some very stern policies in that regard. An administrator has already told you that your demand is unreasonable and out of place, and that you are to cease it immediately. That you continue to argue the point just fuels BrownHairedGirl's concern that your lack of experience has left you without an understanding of the policies and guidelines that govern conduct on Wikipedia.

Beyond that, you might want to think hard of your baseless accusation concerning "personal agendas." Strange though this may seem to you, it is entirely possible for someone to believe that you ought to be in compliance with those policies and guidelines without a "personal agenda." Ravenswing 21:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that bringing my concerns to the attention of administrators on a complaint page, was nothing more than a round-up of agreeable buddies eager to back up the assertions of a fellow editor.

By the way, Brown Haired Girl, you pointed me to a satirical essay about the truth earlier quite way I don't know given that you haven't got a take on it when it comes to me.

Here Is the truth, if the article remains as it is, you and others here are denying readers from enjoying a fair, full and factual article of Tom Crean’s life and career.

That’s nothing new in the timeline of Tom Crean whose story was effectively left in the shadows for over a century.

Before I’m subjected to a ban which I feel is now imminent, below are my suggested alterations and additions to the Tom Crean article. I will happily provide and correlate each to the relevant page in the biography if requested.

I’m happy to send the source evidence I submitted to RIA to any editor/s who wish to work upon the article.

On that note, references in the article that are currently attributed to RIA and assigned the note no.2, were, before the release of the published edition, the only means of my incorporating the changes into the article and can now, I take it, be attributed to the page numbers in which they appear in the book - providing of course that you deem Merrion Press as a credible source - do please let me know if not.

The section “Early Life and Career’ is one that warrants a number of alterations given the events and assignments that now cover his career prior to his first expedition to Antarctica in 1901.

In the ’Terra Nova’ section I believe reference to the the reply Crean gave to Evans when both he and Lashly were ordered to continue to Hut Point without him, is worthy of inclusion in this section as it is one of the few instances that offers a good insight into his character.

Crean’s penultimate assignment before joining Shackleton on Endurance, was aboard HMS Enchantress and during his time aboard the vessel, (the Admiralty Yacht), Winston Churchill was present in his role of First Lord of the Admiralty. This I believe is worthy of inclusion.

The Later Life section is another that I believe should incorporate events such as his duties as Boatswain aboard HMS Inflexible, a ship that was among the flotilla that took surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in 1918. His term of service aboard HMS Fox as part of the North Russia Expedition Force in 1919 is significant and worthy of inclusion. There is also an element of mystery surrounding Crean’s presence in Sierra Leone aboard HMS King Alfred in 1917 and as there is no definitive proof as to why he served on the vessel, the ship doesn’t appear on his service record, I’m not certain as to whether it requires inclusion as we can only speculate as to the reason.

In the legacy section I don’t consider the naming of beers or brewing companies in his honour as an appropriate inclusion and would welcome hearing the reasons why they appear there.

The recognition given to Crean in the naming of the RV Tom Crean came about as a result of an 11 year campaign to honour Tom Crean and although it was a campaign I created back in 2010, there needs be no reference to my own involvement but for the many thousands who supported it and who signed the petition, the campaign should be linked to this reference.

I feel that one omission from the references is more important than any other as it was the first dedicated account of Tom Crean’s expeditions in Antarctica. Published in 1952, Denis Barry’s article titled 'Polar Crean', was actually written under a pseudonym (the real identity of the author is in the book), He, like others after him, assumed that the birth date on Crean’s Naval record, (20 July 1877), was accurate but like many other naval records of boys from the period, it wasn’t and Crean’s birth certificate and baptism record confirm he was born in February 1877.

There are a number other events that appear in my book and they may or may not be considered worthy of inclusion by editors but this is my own take on the alterations/additions and corrections that should form the article.

RavenswingRavenswing, Like anyone else with an ounce of self-respect, I will always defend myself, and others, against unfounded attacks on their character or reputation whether it comes from an anonymous or identifiable source. Now, do what you will.

If a ban isn't forthcoming then perhaps a friendly editor here could assist me with the entry for John Mara whose story is a fascinating read Timfoley50 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you make a TLDR, no way am I going to pore through that. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

At the time of this ANI report having been made, not counting what was said afterward, Timfoley50 was accused that he has been operating a single-purpose account; that he has been promoting his book, which is a non-scholarly work, and wants his book to be given "primacy" over all other sources; that he has been promoting the subject; that he has taken a disproportionate amount of time and energy away from other editors to effectively introduce only minor changes to the article (which is already a featured article), and has been pushy; and that he has been forum shopping. While I don't think that any of these accusations hold in full when seen individually, each is justified in some part (some more, some less), which in totality is already sufficient to lead me to the conclusion that it's better that Timfoley50 ceases his thus far exhibited way of engaging with the project.—Alalch E. 22:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, for crying out loud. A historian writes a book on a subject he likes, asks that some content be appended to the relevant article while fully complying with COI guidelines, and is rudely summoned to the blocking swamp, where he is set upon with utmost condescension and patronising behaviour for not knowing about policies no thinking person would expect that they know. Why is this here in the first place? How in the world could someone with almost three million edits think this is within the neighbourhood (galaxy? universe???) of administrative intervention? "A round-up of agreeable buddies" indeed; Timfoley50's managed to sum you lot up in five edits. A sack of hot air, this section; someone find the bucket of water. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29, Timfoley50 doesn't claim to be a historian, and disclaims scholarly talent.

  He was summoned to ANI after five years of drama, which had just kicked off again. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise 18 talk page edits over five years (thanks for the patronising helpful italicisation) was considered "drama" that needed administrator intervention. Please point me in the direction of the relevant guideline. You want to say "enough already", I say that if more editors were willing to confront a shiny bronze star, it would be a blessing for the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, guess what, while we're doling out the snark. I agree that a sporadic, narrowly focused editor will not be aware of a number of our policies and guidelines. So stipulated. So guess what that editor should be doing if called on them? Some variation of "Oh, sorry. I didn't know. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Thanks for bringing me up to speed." Is that what has happened, or is happening here? No, it is not. We are instead getting kicking and screaming, walls of text, and repeated accusations of personal agendas and evil cabals out to get him. And your response is to double down on that? Well done. You've surely struck a blow for internet justice. Have a cookie. Ravenswing 04:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as I’m not yet banned, I just wanted to interject after reading the latest, pompous, prejudicial and patronising contribution of my arresting officer @BrownHairedGirl.

I’m wondering just at what stage I gave you power by proxy to state that I’m not a historian and that I claimed to have no scholarly talent? If you take some time out of that WP judgement chair and leave your gavel behind, you’ll discover that what I actually said was that I do not consider myself to be a scholar, adding ((my former teachers would be the first to tell you I’m not).

Big difference to having ’no scholarly talent’ which kind of portrays me as some uneducated imposter who’s had the nerve to barge through the golden gates of WP Manor without a clue as to the jargon it takes to participate or to be taken seriously in discussions of the wise WP Judiciary

I do indeed have scholarly talent, (if you ask my former teachers that question today they’d tell you I have).

I also have pretty good social skills and I’m happy to provide you with a few tips in that area. First one is get off your high horse and learn to interact with us heathens, some of us are quite witty and intelligent you know,

I may not have a bachelors degree in History but I consider myself a, (or is at an,) historian and an authority on certain people’s lives one of them being Tom Crean which is where you and your summons stopped me in my efforts to improve and add to what had been written about him.

My dad was a fantastic caretaker and my mother a wonderful cleaner. They had no certificates to show for it but they were both experts in their field. How would you label them because clearly labels matter here? By your standards, they clearly wouldn’t be deemed worthy of interacting with the great and the good here on Wikipedia but why discount them when they’d both be invaluable contributors to WP articles on caretaking and cleaning?

Forgive my ignorance, but I kind of thought that Wikipedia was an inclusive platform. not one that excludes contributions from us unlabelled types.

On the subject of labels, how are we doing with regards to the publishers of my biography @BrownHaired Girl, do you still consider them unworthy to be included in the references? Timfoley50 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m wondering just at what stage I gave you power by proxy to state that I’m not a historian and that I claimed to have no scholarly talent

My source for that is Tom Foley, writing yesterday:[181] I don’t profess, nor do I have any ambitions to be considered a ‘scholar’ (my former teachers would be the first to tell you I’m not)

It seems that Tom Foley does not regard Tom Foley as a reliable source for info about Tom Foley. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Message to BHG - I'm called 'Tim' Foley not Tom. Hopefully you're able to correct that in an edit. Another correction is that Tim Foley does, absolutely consider Tim Foley to be a reliable source for info about Tom Crean but I confess to knowing nothing about the Tom Foley you mention. Timfoley50 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Enough is enough. They may have at one point been here to contribute productively, but that is clearly no longer the case at this time. Star Mississippi 16:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  At a glance, this seems like a massive overreaction? I mean the initial complaint is, too: the "forumshopping" complaint is beyond ridiculous, and otherwise dripping with ABF and snark over what seem like fairly minor issues at best. It looks to me like about 10 people have commented here and while no one seems to think Timfoley50 is the best editor on WP, none of them proposed a block. --JBL (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've experienced some degree of frustration and annoyance with this entire thing, and not solely at Timfoley50. There's a lot of snark, pushiness, and wall of text all around. I don't precisely see a WP:NOTHERE situation myself, I see personality conflict and needless bickering. WP:CIVIL, WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:STICK issues aside, Timfoley50 definitely might be better served by branching out into other subjects. That they need to be indefed before a formal warning or without a discussion on some sanction, I don't see, unless I am missing something key here. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Part of me thinks that this case is an excellent example of how not to treat an inexperienced editor. The ANI filing was equal parts flawed and premature; if Tim Foley truly caused so much drama over the past 5 years, how is it that the matter didn't end up at ANI until now, almost immediately after the OP became involved? Even before ANI, was it really helpful to bring up NOTHERE in response to a seemingly well-intentioned user talk request? Probably not, and that seems to have set the tone for what followed. On the other hand, part of me feels that Tim Foley did himself no favors by being, IMHO, too hastily offended. Both the OP and Tim seem to be talking past one another and looking for reasons why the other person is wrong. Unsurprisingly, this ended with the newbie getting indeffed. Not a good outcome IMO. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: regardless of the merits or otherwise of how I handled this, or any other details of this particular case, please look at the issue of principle.

  Do you think it's a good idea for any author to push away for years to have their work incorporated into a Wikipedia article? Is that something which you would want to encourage? Or to discourage?

  Everything else flows from that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think the words for years can be taken to imply that this campaign was more protracted than it really was. This was something that popped up every once in a great while, not a weekly or even monthly issue. To me, this thread felt like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, and I wonder if a gentler approach might have produced a more amicable outcome. That said, even if I would not have used some of the words you used at your talk page, I do agree that Tim Foley needed to adjust his approach at the very least. Since his contributions are largely confined to this one area, his departure is not a big loss, and he undeniably brought much of this on himself. Something about this doesn't quite sit right with me, but it's hard to help someone who won't help himself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't like every day for 5 years, and I hope I did not imply that it was. But it's still an awful lot of drama, and I intervened only when my refusal to help and my warnings about overdoing it prompted Tim to kick off.

  Look, I would thoroughly welcome a talk page post from an author saying "here is my new book on this topic, hope it helps". But beyond that, the utility declines: editors should weigh the full set of known sources, and if one those sources is part of the conversation, that unbalances the assessment process.

  My initial reaction to Tim's request for my help was that this was a cautious newbie unsure of how to proceed. I like the topic, so I was predisposed to help.

  But when I started to do my due diligence, I was astonished at what I found, and kinda horrified. My response reflected that, but I took a lot of aresthat the tern things iIfelt I needed to say were accompanied by as much positivity as I could manage.

  However, Tim has been wholly unwilling to take any criticism or warning as anything other than malevolent defamation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  You know what, that's a fair assessment of the situation and the more I think about it the more I feel that your actions were reasonable. I hope that there is still a path forward that would allow Tim to contribute productively here, but that depends a lot on his willingness to adjust his approach to editing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, @Lepricavark. We don't often agree, and I hope that we find more common ground in future.

  Wikipedia is a really weird place; it's like trying to do scholarly work at a free music festival with unlimited free beer. A wild mashup of scholarly rigour and exuberant sloppiness (with plenty of utter idiocy), an impossibly huge set of rules with capricious and perverse enforcement, lynch mob justice, a huge array of bad actors, an endless fights over wildly conflicting cultural norms of dialogue. And in the midst of it plenty of decent level-headed people trying to scholarly work, and succeeding at a tiny rate which is nonetheless just about enough to persuade some ppl to keep going.

  Not everyone has both aptitude and appetite for this madhouse. I just hope that Tim either figures out how to work within the storm, or disengages. So far he has been stuck in a tangle which is no good for anyone. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  And then you have the people like me who come here to do gnoming work in their spare time cuz they don't know how to relax. You and I have had our differences – sharp ones, to be sure – but we can find common ground as we shake our heads in bafflement at this ongoing social experiment that has claimed so much of our lives. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  As further information, he has canvassed Wikimedia Community Ireland (most recently in these tweets 1, 2) and me in my personal capacity as an editor, but I have declined. These were through direct messages and over email. He has exhausted all routes open to him through COI, but at the same time edits of this nature can't be forced if there isn't a willing editor to engage with it. This is what has led to the forum shopping BHG is referencing. Smirkybec (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely fucking disgraceful. Bunch of self-righteous, bitey, condescending sealions, the lot of you. Appalling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  While you, of course, are not at all self-righteous, condescending or given to personal attacks and sealioning. Ravenswing 02:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  A few hour after posting here AirshipJungleman29 posted a harsh personal attack on me.[182] Pure ABF and character assassination. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's sure looking like AirshipJungleman29 could stand a trip to the woodshed himself, if he can't keep from lashing out like a wounded hyena. His talk page states that he's open to trout slaps. We should take him at his word. Ravenswing 11:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not to new, good faith editors who respect WP:COI for a decade. I save my sealioning for experienced editors who have already "poisoned the dialogue" and who can handle what they're so dish out (or so I assumed). As I pointed out to BHG, please feel free to create another section below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I guess I missed the part of WP:AGF which allows ABF smears to hurled at experienced editors, and the part of WP:Civility which says that posting evidence of demonstrably false assertions by an editor justifies sweary smears against the editor who produced that evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Odd that you had to define "experienced" editors; it's almost like you believe in ABF for non-experienced editors. Which "evidence" in particular were you referring to in the latter part of your statement, BrownHairedGirl? I've asked you for one piece on Timfoley50's talk twice now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29, please stop playing silly games. You were the one who chose to say that you save [your] sealioning for experienced editors, so don't ask me to define your term. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I see; my apologies for misinterpreting your statement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(@Star Mississippi:) --JBL (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Missed the earlier, not sure why. Thanks for the ping @JayBeeEll.

As I said on their open unblock, if another admin disagrees with my block and/or thinks Foley can edit productively, they're welcome to unblock which I'll make clear there again. I personally am reading some next level Not Here (pre block, post block can be excused as some frustration). My interaction with him appears to be that they perceive themself as a subject matter expert, and their material is what should take priority which is going to be a challenge with an article such as this one. They don't want to hear that, or that their book (about which I have no opinion) might not be a reliable source as required for it to take priority over conflicting sources, whcih seem to be an issue about Crean's history.

PS: Thanks again @DIYeditor for the clerking there. I was a mess of replies today. Star Mississippi 21:12, 3 July 2023 (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.

Can some extra eyes be directed toward Talk:Palmer Report? Legal threats, etc

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 subject of Palmer Report has been displeased for a while now about the description of the site as "fake news" (see the talk page history for that very long history, if you like). They've apparently recently succeeded in having Newsweek issue a retraction in an article that described the site similarly, which they seem to think Newsweek cribbed from Wikipedia, which has revived their annoyance at the site, expressed in a July 1 article, July 3 article, July 3 tweet, etc.

This is drawing a lot of new editors, and the page protection was recently bumped to ECP, but the talk page is a bit of a mess. In particular, a number of editors are making sort of sideways legal threats: not threats that they will sue, but threats that Palmer will sue. Regardless, this seems intended to produce the type of intimidation that WP:NLT aims to avoid (see "I'm not making a legal threat. I'm warning you there is pending litigation from another party" from Emptyvoices, "If I was the editor, I would be concerned... I am very careful in what I write but if you want to risk defamation, that is your choice... I wouldn't take the risk but that is just me." from 2601:648:8800:6610:A8AB:D9DB:4440:3716, etc.)

This was a major timesink last time it happened and I'm hoping to mostly stay out of it, but it would be nice if some uninvolved folks with perhaps a little more energy than I have would keep an eye. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

While it can be murky when another editor is simply mentioning that something could be defamatory to a third party, IMO the 2601 comment clearly crossed the NLT line so I've removed it. [183] A somewhat unusual consideration, if this keeps happening we could add mention that we're aware Palmer has said they're considering legal action and it's of no relevance to discussion on article content and any further mention of it will be considered to be a legal threat and dealt with accordingly. Nil Einne (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. It may not look like it, but I keep an eye on the article and block people occasionally. I can hand out some discretionary sanctions alerts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I was only telling you the truth what PR was considering. I'm sorry you take issue with it. But then, I feel it is entirely inappropriate for you to insult us and call us names like meat puppets. I've been donating without subscribing for several months now. And for you to insult and use slurs when people protest and say the sources don't support PR being called 'fake news' is rather appalling. I already did include a source in my first post. Emptyvoices (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Emptyvoices: Consider us well aware of the possibility of legal action by Palmer, his organization, etc. It's been mentioned repeatedly at the talk page so I think it's pretty hard for anyone commenting there to miss it by now. As for my meatpuppet comment, it was not meant as an insult (and it is not a "slur"), and I've already linked to an explanation of the term on Wikipedia for you at Talk:Palmer Report#Newsweek. I apologize for insulting you; again, it was not my intention. Regarding your donations, that's lovely, but a person's choice to donate, or threat to stop donating, will not influence article content.

A while back, I wrote a page called Wikipedia:Increase your chances, which is intended to help new editors understand what is necessary to support their arguments for a change to be made to an article. Perhaps you will find it useful. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You know that writing a definition for an insult so you can continue using it doesn't make it any less insulting or any less wrong. As I said, should some of us write definitions for insults so we can use them?

I would think resorting to this kind of behavior of making an excuse to use the insult of meat puppets beneath Wikipedia and moderators but you proved me wrong. What a disgusting an abhorrent thing to do. (Personal attack removed) Dismissing editors by calling them 'meat puppets' is truly disgusting. And writing an excuse to use the insult only makes it worse, Molly. Emptyvoices (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I wrote Wikipedia:Increase your chances. I didn't write WP:MEATPUPPET. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly think Emptyvoices is just trolling at this point. The message above is ridiculous, as is their attempt to equate usage of the term "MeatPuppet" to the use of actual slurs [184]. IMO a block under some combination of WP:NOTHERE, WP:NLT or just WP:DE would not be unreasonable. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

They've also claimed to be a WMF donor as if that should carry any weight in a content dispute. Really, we've all donated quantities of time that are likely worth far more than whatever small amount of money they may have given the WMF. The 'I'm a donor so you should listen to me' attitude is unbelievably insulting to the people who actually build this place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

A legal threat is a legal threat even if it begins with the words "This is not a legal threat..." IMO, Emptyvoices should be indeffed before they can waste any more of our time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also add that, as far as I can tell, there has been no substantive attempt from them to participate in the content dispute in a way that focuses around sourcing and the actual content. That, along with their conduct on the talk page, is further indicative to me that they are WP:NOTHERE. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve blocked Emptyvoices for DE/NOTHERE and semied the talk page to cut down on the meatpuppetry. Courcelles (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Heads up, they're now harassing me via EmailUser. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfareThey no longer have access to that feature. Courcelles (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I find it rather troubling that an opinion site that represents itself as an opinion site could be described as "fake news". I am concerned that the hardening of positions in favor of this description reflects a reaction to efforts on the part of the publisher to argue against that classification, rather than a sober reflection of what would make the article most accurate. BD2412 T 02:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• All that matters is how the article subject is described by reliable sources. If they describe the site as "fake news", then we should as well. And it seems like they do. Very, very, very much so. Silverseren^C 02:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinions based on either fallacious reasoning or false underlying facts can certainly render something "fake news" (though I confess I do not care for that descriptor). I am only vaguely aware of the site, but the article seems reasonably well-sourced to me; perhaps you could lay out a case at the talk page? Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I have no issue with "fake news" being omitted entirely, relegated to the article body, whatever if consensus based on the reliable sources has changed. I've edited the page before it had the descriptor and after, and was fine with both versions based on the sourcing at the respective times. The problem is that we periodically get these waves of very new editors who show up on the talk page and try to bludgeon changes through without any real discussion of available RS or weight, but simply because they are big fans of the site. The discussions have typically been characterized by personal attacks, claims that we are "suppressing free speech", and now recently these legal threats.

This latest time, the only new sources that have been provided are Newsweek (WP:NEWSWEEK, but as of the latest revision it's mentioned in Palmer Report#Evaluation by journalists), Media Bias Fact Check (WP:MBFC), and two Snopes articles from 2017. It could be that there's a whole slew of new sourcing — either from media reports or academia — describing Palmer Report differently, but it sure hasn't been presented at the talk page (and a cursory glance through Google does not look promising).

If it's helpful, I believe the most recent substantial discussion that actually delved into sourcing was at Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 4#Oh boy, here we go again. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My concern is precisely that the ham-fisted efforts to remove the descriptor have led to a countervailing tendency to overstate that view. BD2412 T 03:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps — it may be almost a WP:CITEBOMBING sort of scenario where a ton of material about the site's accuracy (or lack thereof) has been stuck into the rather large Palmer Report#Accuracy and ideology section because there has been so much discussion of it, resulting in a somewhat undue focus on that aspect (as TFD mentions below). I'm not sure if the inclusion of the term itself is overstating things, though, if that's what you mean.

That said, this might be a better discussion for the talk page now that the ANI portion has been handled (though I would certainly like to take advantage of the visibility to invite any other uninvolved onlookers reading this to go add fresh perspectives to the talk page). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As others have said, claiming something is an opinion doesn't mean it isn't "fake" or untrue. I don't know about Palmer Report but if they're saying that something like "in my opinion, 5000 votes in Wisconsin have been disqualified" or "in my opinion, Trump paid $10 million to Chaffetz" or "in my opinion, Robert Mueller is planning to arrest Donald Trump Jr. for treason" all of these are not really opinions no matter that they my have put an opinion thing on it, and could easily be considered untrue or misleading claims. So if a site makes a lot of these claims, it may be entirely reasonable to claim the site is full of fake news. Note here an important distinction, if someone says "in my opinion, there are at least 5000 votes in Wisconsin which need to be disqualified" or "in my opinion Robert Mueller should arrest Donald Trump Jr. for treason", these may be considered dumb opinions, but they can reasonably be called opinions and so I can understand opposition to say such a site is fake news. However it doesn't sound like this is all that Palmer report does. I'd note also even in these cases, as noted by others there's a fair chance "fake news" could still come in to it. Since if you have such opinions, people aren't generally going to care unless you explain why you feel that is the case, and if you claim it's because Trump Jr did X or Y happened in Wisconsin, but these claims aren't true, then yeah that may be a problem. If we bring this back to part of the reason for the thread, if someone keeps saying "in my opinion, the Palmer Report is going to sue for millions easily" or "in my opinion, this entire article is completely defamatory and editors like Nil Einne are going to find themselves liable for millions" that's not okay even if the editor is randomly sticking a "in my opinion" on it to try and somehow claim it isn't a NLT. (This isn't what editors did, I'm simply pointing out why claiming something is an "opinion" doesn't automatically remove responsibility for everything you say.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would add that if we consider the infamous Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network, AFAIK many of the worst claims came from Fox News talk shows. And also AFAIK, most or all of these talk shows explicitly brand themselves as opinion shows. However many of the problematic comments didn't even try to present themselves as opinions, and even if they had, it's my understanding this might not have been enough if it was clearly a factual based claim no matter the claim it was simply an opinion. The US of course has very strong first amendment protections for actual opinions. While the case was settled, most commentary seem to agree that the circumstances suggest that Fox News was at major risk and that is one of the reasons they settled, rather than this simply being one of those cases where settling might have been a sort of go-away/don't want the cost of a trial + risk of jury. Demonstrating why simply claiming something is an "opinion" doesn't mean you can present unfactual claims and expect it's fine. Note as said, I don't know much about the Palmer Report, AFAIK I've never read it and barely read any discussion of it beyond what's in our article. I'm simply pointing out that it's a site branding themselves an opinion site doesn't somehow immunise them against claims of being "fake news" or presenting misleading and untrue statements or claims. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You might consider tweaking the article in a neutral tone. There's no reason to use the term fake a dozen times and left eight times. If it backs establishment politicians it's not left-wing as commonly understood. Otherwise, libel is an issue that has to be dealt with by contacting the Foundation. Editors are not lawyers and cannot determine the merits of the claim. Editors who bring up the issue on talk pages should be warned and blocked if they fail to heed warnings. TFD (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (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

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.

---

Here. Made them aware of policy, refuses to retract the threat. – ².O.^Boxing 13:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've also blocked NP's IP range for one month: Special:contributions/2603:6000:9646:4564:0:0:0:0/64.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2023 (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.

Attempted native advertising in soda article

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.

---

• Nitro Pepsi
• Joshza6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was inserting stuff at Nitro Pepsi referenced to press releases [185] and I warned them about it [186]. Since the warning, editor is again adding advert-style stuff like "Nitro Pepsi will have you reconsider what you know about cola" [187], images taken from the corporate website [188], and press release sources [189][190] It looks like native advertising to me, and I don't have the time to keep dealing with it today. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User was reverted by a third party since the ANI filing and has continued [191]. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2023 (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: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.

---

In a BLP dispute with complaints about ownership that required page protection,[192] this meltdown just completely fails WP:CIVIL.[193][194][195] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a meltdown: A justified response to you edit warring against consensus. You jumped into a contentious BLP by inflaming an edit war when there was a discussion about the existing consensus - one you haven't bothered taking part in and one you either haven't read, or if you did, decided to ignore the consensus. Great work. - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2023 (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.

This Guy won't Leave Me Alone and All of their Accounts are the Same

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.

---

Original Account: User:WorldwideBallcaps

UGH THIS PERSON WILL NOT LEAVE ME ALONE! The Person I am talking about is User:WorldwideBallcaps! Instead of creating a new account, he's Being Using Different IP Addresses and has been undoing Many Edits and he is also a Sock Puppet. Also, All of the IPs are from the Same Area, they are from California and Washington. Can we Please do something about it? Please Block All or Most of this Person's Accounts. This Person is also a Tattle Tale, get on their Bad Side and they will Report it to the Higher Ups. This Guy is also the Bully here, not me and How can I tell that this Person is WorldWideBallCaps, this person also edits the same sports pages as they did, PS they are The Crazy Cat Lady from Simpsons.

List of IPs:

• User:172.92.235.185
• User:172.92.204.120
• User:50.212.217.73
• User:12.145.98.24
• User:104.6.232.97
• User:12.125.16.134
• User:206.181.83.18
• User:67.183.248.210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:5B21:E41C:C1EC:5F4C:AEF0 (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

DON'T LISTEN TO HIM! I don't even know him, and he's the one who's really crazy. He's the real bully. Besides, I don't even know the user mentioned here. RickInBaltimore, please do something. Anything. 198.134.98.50 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone rang? This is clearly the return of StealthForce, who's 1 year range block ended a few days ago. Guess what? It's back now for 2 years. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a few days after the year mark? I mean, you kind of do have to give them some credit for the commitment, anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You know, WP:LTA is full of people like this. It's sad. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Like most other people, most LTAs have personal calendars and keep track of when editing restrictions are set to expire. I wish that there was an effective "find another hobby" service, but the appeal of a top ten website is too strong. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2023 (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 removal of AfD notice, likely undisclosed paid editing.

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.

---

Kid Luxuré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Freeman020203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Freeman020203 has twice [196][197] removed an AfD notice from the Kid Luxuré article, the second time after being warned. [198] The edit summary for the second revert ("This Wikipedia article's Content, Formatting and Additional sources were approved by published ghostwriters and individuals of multiple Wikipedia writer's agencies. This article is anonymously being watched by 117 article writers") appears to constitute an admission of undisclosed paid editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

AfD notice removed yet again. [199] Block clearly needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And again. [200] Don't admins watch this page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet again [201]]. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 2 weeks to give the AfD time to run its course, and didn't limit it to a p-block because this comment suggested they would just move on to create an issue at another article. Any admin can adjust the block as needed, I just wanted to put it in place to stop the immediate disruption. - Aoidh (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And I've bumped it up to indefinite per their response to the block. - Aoidh (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And they were operating a sockpuppet to create different spam… Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2023 (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.

Attempted back-door deletion of an article

• Northern Epirus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alltan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alltan (talk · contribs) has of late been removing massive amounts of sourced info from the Northern Epirus article in what appears to be an attempt to gut the article completely. First, the reason given was that the sources do not mention "Northern Epirus" [202]. Despite the fact that this requirement is artificially stringent (as pointed out by other users at the talkpage [203]), I added source that contained similar material that do explicitly mention "Northern Epirus" [204]. He removes them with the excuse that they "fall under WP:TERTIARY" [205], even though the source I have added is detailed and of high quality. Here [206], multiple international sources that explicitly mention Northern Epirus are added, but again he removes everything while falsely claiming that "it's just a Greek newspaper" (it's not). So even though his requirement that sources must explicitly use the term "Northern Epirus" is met, new excuses are used to remove the material. At other times, different excuses are used [207] [208] [209] (or some times none at all [210]), but the end result is always the same: the massive, and seemingly endless removal of sourced material from the the article in what appears to be an attempt to reduce it to a stub or a redirect. I suspect this because of the reasons for removal of long-standing sourced material do not add up: With excuses like the ones Alltan is using, any material could be removed from any article. He has also done this in the past [211], in fact, it's pretty much all he's ever done at the article. Several users at the talkpage have objected to these removals [212], so far Alltan has not replied, but the removals continue. Khirurg (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Update: The removals continue [213], with literal gaslighting on top of that (he claims he did not remove any text while doing just that). At this point, there nothing more I can do but refer this to the community. He has also racked up 3 reverts in a few hours as it stands. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Fully protected for two days as it looks like @FierakuiVërtet: also had a concern with the content. Please use the talk page to come to a consensus rather than edit warring with one another. Star Mississippi 22:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  He hasn't discussed any of the removals of long-standing material, while literally gaslighting me in the edit summaries and gaming 3RR. How exactly am I supposed to reach a talkpage consensus with someone like that? Isn't a sanction or at least a warning due? Khirurg (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You were discussing with Alltan on the talk page of the article just an hour or so ago. If you are talking about the Minahan source specifically, you should open a new thread on the tp and discuss there. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(What is "literal gaslighting" supposed to be, literally changing the state of gas lights? The word "literal" doesn't make sense there.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Literally. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Quoting from that, I hereby state that this usage is contrary to its original meaning, that it is nonsensical for a word to mean two opposite things, [and] that the use of the word literally as an intensifier should be substituted by other words ("‘absolutely", "definitely", "unquestionably"). Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be dull, but in the wake of the EEng humour debacle, may I suggest that when someone comes here complaining about another editor's behaviour, we resist the urge to ridicule them about their use of language? Elemimele (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack

A user named BangaloreNorth is attacking me personally by saying I have lost shame and self respect. They are also falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, when the investigation has not even concluded. They have violated WP:NPA. Please take action against them. Here is the link of the discussion where they attacked me: Wiki discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinephile4ever (talk • contribs) 13:44 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I didn't see any personal attacks in that conversation from the user you mentioned. This noticeboard is for intractable issues, and you may want to consider withdrawing this before others click that link and review your behavior in the conversation. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You may want to consider seeing the personal attacks in that conversation. Cinephile4ever 17:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice support Cinephile4ever 17:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BangaloreNorth filed a checkuser request on Cinephile4ever:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MovieBuffIndia

That one talk page section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Technical Fact Finding, is over 2500 words long - a great gray text wall of vexation and dispute.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It was after these two edits ([214], [215]) that @Cinephile4ever stated they were attacked so one can assume that either they feel attacked by @BangaloreNorth stating they will be blocked in a few days because of the SPI investigation or because @BangaloreNorth accused them of twisting other editors words. --ARoseWolf 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit of their own words they updated one of the above diffs with "Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" and then proceeded to call the OP by the name of the suspected master/sock they are accusing them of being. I do think this constitutes an attack on the editor but I understand @BangaloreNorth's frustrations with the OP who may have been WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Either issue could be left up to interpretation. --ARoseWolf 19:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing and acknowledging that user's personal attack on me. Cinephile4ever 00:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How did this user personally attack you? By pointing out an investigation? Or saying that you arent worth their time and energy? I think the real issue here seems to be that you weren't able to resolve the issue the way that you wanted, and instead of just putting your ego aside and going about your day elsewhere, you decided to go on a power trip to try and get him "punished" in some way. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You might want to consider using your eyes. "Why are you twisting the words of other people to suit your agenda? Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" is a personal attack by any definition we employ. Ravenswing 22:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cinephile4ever 01:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Cinephile4ever, you need to inform BangaloreNorth about filing a report here. This is mandatory. Lourdes 10:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I informed them in their talk page before reporting here. But they have undid that. Please check their edit history of their talk page. Cinephile4ever 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is belaboring the issue. Please show the diff where you clearly informed the editor that there is an ANI discussion going on. Lourdes 03:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161554162 Cinephile4ever 04:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Will any administrator take action against the user who personally attacked me? Cinephile4ever 04:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll close this issue here. Your notice is not a notice. You should have perhaps mentioned clearly that there is a report on ANI, and preferably linked this report. You may please do that now, and wait for the reported editor's response here, before administrators review this. Thanks, Lourdes 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  That user has been notified now. Cinephile4ever 12:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  That user hasn't replied yet, even after many days, despite being notified. So I request any administrator to review this as soon as possible. Cinephile4ever 10:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cinephile4ever to restore a thread from an archive please cut and paste the text of just that thread from the archive. Do not revert the archive bot, as you did in Special:diff/1162832795, because this causes multiple threads to be restored and created duplicates in the archive pages. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  BNorth has been around as recently as yesterday. Sneaking suspicion they’re not planning to entertain this, if they haven’t already.

  
  

  Also, (1), (2), (3). Liiiittle bit of WP:ADMINSHOP going on here, no? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, pending acknowledgement of personal attack. Lourdes 06:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by an IP with another personal attack. Let me know of any further idiocy and I will remove offenders. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

184.83.181.147/ 2001:48F8:C:13C7:0:0:0:6142

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.

---

184.83.181.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Might also be 2001:48F8:C:13C7:0:0:0:6142. User keeps reverting changes on Alan Arkin with aggressive edit summaries like "What did I freaking say I have an account and I can edit whatever I want!!!!!". Edit history has several previous reversions and talk page is filled with warnings for previous edits. The user is vandalizing the page I and other editors (both those with accounts and IP editors like myself) have been editing and fixing up for In the News. I am also an IP editor and not sure if I can warn another IP? But wanted to bring this to someone's attention so posting here. Thank you. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8D80:D3C:4CB:CA7D (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi protected for three days. PCP was an alternative, but given it's so short term, hopefully this will dissuade any edit warring while a consensus can form on the talk page. Anarchyte (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

PCP was an alternative? That's extreme, wouldn't pot work and mellow people out? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2023 (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.

@Matticusmadness: PCP meant WP:PCPP. Anarchyte (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I did eat the wrong end of a ‘50/50 chance’ stick there! Fixed. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

2001:44C8:4081:9A5E:B9A2:12BF:2503:B366

Can we get a full block on 2001:44C8:4081:9A5E:B9A2:12BF:2503:B366 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? @Oshwah: did a partial-block of 2001:44c8:4000::/37, but something stronger for the entire range may be necessary based on the edits by this specific IP. They're seemingly spamming edit summaries containing text that is likely either copyrighted or promotional. Might warrant a WP:REVDEL of the edit summaries as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:4000:0:0:0:0:0/37 for a month. I might have missed a subtle detail, but it looked to me as if Oshwah had accidentally applied a partial block with no pages or namespaces specified. I tried seeing if a full month-long block had too much collateral damage but I quickly gave up given the ongoing nonsense. There are some of the usual recent IP edits with unsourced and unexplained changes to numbers. Any opinions on whether removing the edit summaries would be worthwhile? Would a partial block from Takeshi Kaneshiro be sufficient rather than the sitewide block? Please adjust as thought to be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I got a little unlazy and removed the 53 edit summaries which Google Translate suggested were some kind of commercial spam, or more likely someone playing with a bot and/or trolling. The summaries were very long and it appeared there were many more than I thought. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! =) And yeah, the spam summaries are what I was concerned about as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Premature merger

This article has been merged into Mohun Bagan AC based on a discussion started here on June 1, 2023. The discussion was closed by one of the editors who already voted in favor of the merger], even though it's not in a proper format. I think the merger is premature per the previous discussions on the admin's notice board 1, 2 and here. I think this needs further discussion, hence why the established users who participated in the previous RFC and the other discussions related to this subject for their comments are being pinged. @ArsenalFan700:, @ArnabSaha:, @GiantSnowman:, @Drat8sub: @Ludost Mlačani:, @Paine Ellsworth:, @SportingFlyer:, @ChrisTheDude:,@GiantSnowman:, @Marchjuly:, @Ohnoitsjamie:,@Wugapodes:, @Marchjuly:, @Nosebagbear:, @CaptainEek:, @Deepfriedokra:.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an administrator and I don't have any particular knowledge of or interest in the subject matter; so, I'm not sure why I was pinged. I do think, however, that it was inappropriate for someone participating in the merge discussion to close it; even though it was most likely done in good faith, it still seems inappropriate per WP:NACINV. FWIW, the discussion was open for almost a month and it appears a neutral-third party close probably would've ended up with the same result; it just looks bad, in my opinion, for one of the participants to have closed it. I guess the close could be challenged per WP:BADNAC, but I leave that to administrators to decide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out concern about closer being involved in discussion. -- 14:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)]

  Actually, per WP:MERGE, it's okay for merges. Closing of merger discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings by involved users are allowed. Not saying this particular close was good, just that it being closed by an involved editor is explicitly not an issue. Schazjmd (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  The user who merged the page is a new user. The page have long-standing issues of offline canvassing, and edit warring by SPA's, and it was discussed here in the past. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Marchjuly I have pinged you, because you have started this discussions on admin notice board a few years back. Based on that, Ohnoitsjamie have blocked one edit warring SPA, and Wugapodes have raised the protection level to ECP. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I understand ther reason for the ping. Unlike that case, however, this one actually appears to have been based on consensus. The discussion was open for about a month which seems like more than enough time for those opposed to the merge to say as much. If there was socking or meating going on then that might change things, but such claims probably need to be confirmed through an SPI first. You could try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but the closer being a "new user" doesn't automatically make it a bad close, particularly in the case of merges as pointed out above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In 2020, six-year-old ATK (football club) (competing in the Indian super league) owner Sanjiv Goenka announced that he bought an 80% stake of 131 years old Mohun Bagan A.C. which is competing in the I-League; a new entity will be formed by the merger of both clubs, and the new entity will compete in the Indian super league starting from the 2020-2021 season. He announced the name of the new entity as ATK Mohun Bagan. The new entity has retained the players and the head coach of ATK and adopted the same jersey and logo of Mohun Bagan After playing three seasons in India’s top tier football league and winning the titles in 2023, the owner of the club, Sanjiv Goenka, has announced that the club will be renamed as Mohun Bagan Super Giants in line with the team owners, Cricket team Lucknow Super Giants, which compete in the Indian Premier league. The team has officially been renamed as Mohun Bagan Super Giants on June 1, 2023. The same day Mohun Bagan AC fans started a discussion about the merger of the Mohun Bagan SG to Mohun Bagan AC. By providing a Facebook link (which is not available now). And it was closed by a new SPA and merged the three-year-old page with lots of edit history without providing any attribution. Both Mohun Bagan AC and Mohun Bagan Super Giants have separate Facebook 1, 2, Instagram 1, 2, and Twitter 1, 2 handles. The discussion and closer were not based on policies or conventions as they did in the past.— TheWikiholic (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bad outcome in my opinion, but it doesn't need to be at ANI. I'd re-open it and notify people on Wikiproject Football. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

SportingFlyer It will be great if you do so. By the way, I've sought the opinion here and I was told to raise the issue here. On the ground of offline canvassing in the past and previous discussions at the admin's noticeboard, I also thought this would be a better venue.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

To put it mildly @TheWikiholicis cherry-picking facts. ATK was de-registered back in 2020 itself. Still ATKMB had a separate page because there was ambiguity just due to its name. Now that ambiguity is also gone. MBSG clearly declares that it carries forward the legacy of MB only. In all official records (AIFF, AFC etc), MB, ATKMB, MBAC records are counted together, ATK records are kept separate. According to the official agreement papers, this deal is a joint venture between KGSPL (the owner of ATK) and Mohun Bagan, not a merger between ATK and Mohun Bagan. I can cite every fact I have mentioned here. MBAC retains separate social media handles because it has other departments also. Anyway, procedurally I believe I have made no mistake. So I request you not to revert the merger since there was no substantial opinion against it when the discussion was open. And it was open for long enough as per guidelines. Still, we can always start a new discussion in the MBAC talk page or the MBSG talk page. One person of Wikiproject Football (@Debankan Mullick) has already taken note of it, and I think he personally is OK with it. Mohunbagani (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Offline canvassing

These recent Tweets and conversations 1,2, 3,4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12 during and after the merger discussions further prove what 'GiantSnowman' commented on in the past ("The discussion was hijacked by fans with new accounts with an agenda, hence why that long-established convention was ignored") and the offline canvassing continues. The page was ECP for an indefinite period on October 29, 2020, by Wugapodes. And it was later fully protected by Number 57. But after the expiry date of full protection Samsara changed the protection level to semi-protection instead of ECP even though she said, “re-enabling lower protection from before". Even though the page was fully protected twice since then, The ECP by Wugapodes based on the offline canvassing and disruptive edit history of the page was never restored. If it had then it was not possible to merge the page for a new SPA. — TheWikiholic (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:, @CaptainEek:, @78.26: Can you please review this? You have made comments related to this in the past.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No it does not prove what you are trying to prove. The decision to merge was unanimous. Literally no registered editor protested against it. Most of the editors who participated in the discussion are old editors. If there really was canvassing happening, then you would have seen at least tens of new accounts, given how many fans Mohun Bagan has. Even the tweets you have share are very normal. I found only one tweet that asks for support, that too AFTER the person himself opined in favour of merger. If someone has any subversive agenda here, then that is not me. In the MBAC talk page, I am ready to have the entire discussion about a separate page for MBSG all over again with you, but it seems you are not ready. You are more eager to impose your opinion (not shared by most other people in the know) using discussions that happened 3 years ago and procedural subjectivities. On the other hand, even 1889 is included in the MBSG logo now. Mohunbagani (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

References

@TheWikiholic: is that the conversation you intended to link to? To me that conversation was more about admin impersonation off wiki (see warning on top of my user page) and not so much about offline editorial canvassing. Or I could be missing something. (yet again) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

78.26 I think it was already provided in that conversation like links including tweets and Facebook posts proving the offline canvassing. I don't know if you missed it. So here I'm posting links dating three years back1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.—TheWikiholic (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You are not missing anything. @TheWikiholic knows that his position on this issue (separate page for MBSG) does not have many takers. This is why he did not participate in the discussion when it was open. Now he is trying to delegitimise the process itself. New tactics: branding simple Twitter interactions (that had no bearing on the result of the discussion here) as canvassing and even impersonation. Mohunbagani (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: Please stop pinging me into this melodrama. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I commented like...three years ago. Literally no memory of any of this. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The page has long-standing issues related to offline canvassing including Admin impersonation. That's why I showed the previous discussions related to the topics. Btw is it possible for anyone here to review the closer of the merger, which has already been discussed above in light of the above tweets? In these tweets, it is clear that they are asking to vote confirming one has voted already. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Cherrell410 is abusing the GAR process

Cherrell410 has nominated two of my articles for a GAR within the past 10 days (This one and this one) for minor issues. No attempt has been made to raise the issues on the article talk pages prior to the nominations even though I am active on the same topics and addressed all comments on the first GAR very quickly. This unnecessarily puts a deadline on my window to make improvements to the articles and contradicts the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. My request for administrative help is the deletion of the second GAR and a warning to the user. Thanks.--NØ 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there may need to be more communication between the two of you. Cherrell410 is otherwise a constructive editor, and I don't think it's been made clear to them what GAR is for. For minor issues, Cherrell410 should just leave a comment on the talk page, pinging the person who brought the article to GA, rather than starting a GAR. For major issues, GAR is usually appropriate. If they continue to make poor GAR nominations, then other sanctions may be considered. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You've failed to try any methods of dispute resolution. Why haven't you tried leaving a talkpage message advising them that GAR is not for minor problems? This should be closed as premature. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is "premature" here? I created this discussion to ask an administrator to delete this page, which does not meet two of the points at WP:GAR and should have been closed as "withdrawn" instead of "kept" at the minimum. I haven't requested sanctions (yet).--NØ 03:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't require ANI, just a post at WT:GAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User making inflammatory comments and threats regarding an edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.18.189.77

User here was told to stop making unhelpful edits to the List of Shortland Street characters page. Proceeded to violate WP:Civil twice and threw in an attempt at intimidation. Following this, they made the same edit to the page once again. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them temporarily, for this next part please take it as advice, but the immediate response to a disruptive editor can be to WP:DISENGAGE. I appreciate the fact that you reported them here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The resumption of the edit war in the Witch from Mercury, this time bypassing the current discussion

Anonymous user who previously blocked for exceeding 3 bounces (for the same page and text) wages a edit war in the article for deleting a section bypassing the discussion with a result that has not yet been summed up on the discussion page (The discussion, in principle, took place, but died due to the absence of an administrator who wanted to sum up, so the user summed up himself and began to delete the text with his own hand, along with the part that did not raise questions). Indications that a discussion is not considered a consensus without a summed up by the administrator, or that the discussion is about deleting some text rather than all of it, are ignored by the user in favor of accusations of vandalism and the continuation of the edit war. As a user blocked for the same edit war earlier, He's aware of the rules of the project, plus, I have repeatedly warned them that, as a participant in the discussion, they cannot sum it up and arbitrarily delete the text. But the user simply does not listen to anyone. I've already been banned for an edit war the last time I undo similar monotonous user undoes, so this time when he restart this, I just wrote about things here when he undoes my edit the second time. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

if the consensus is clear, then "wait for an admin" seems to be a bit of needless bureaucracy. ValarianB (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that he also removes text that was not discussed for deletion and that was found to be directly related to the topic of the article (in the past, his attempts to remove not only the controversial text, but the entire paragraph were apparently rolled back by other users, but now his patience seems to be over or he considers "consensus" justification for any removal). In addition, the user is very much in a hurry with this, as you can see in the past, he has already tried to sum up himself, counting the number of answers, despite the fact that he himself was a participant in the dispute. That is why I and other users wanted the discussion to be summed up by some admin, this would give a formal result that we would all accept without question and could move on. And finally, initially he didn't even try to refer to the consensus, just repeating his favorite comment about "insignificance" or accusing me of vandalism as the main argument. The text itself is absolutely not important to me, I simply cannot tolerate another arbitrariness in circumvention of the rules and regime of Wikipedia.Solaire the knight (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Buu119 NOTHERE

Buu119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Buu119's sole edits to Wikipedia have been to create Crispín Sosa Tapia with nary a reliable source, and then propose a bunch of citations in its AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Crispín Sosa Tapia) that all turned up to be dead ends. I think that a block is warranted on en.wiki due to persistent hoax activity and lack of positive contributions, but consider myself involved having opened the AfD for CST here and on es.wiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Realityishere making continuous personal attacks, plus other POV disruptions

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

This editor's behaviour should make it clear that they willingly ignore both WP:CIVIL and WP:VERIFY and have no intention of changing:

Before I even saw their edits or interacted with them in any way, they posted a pre-emptive personal attack on my talk page here, which was reverted by another editor. (Their message presumably refers to the multiple sockpuppet accounts of a previously blocked editor who disrupted on the same topic, which at best just raises further questions about this user.) Their simultaneous edits at Karamanli dynasty were indeed problematic and I reverted them with the reasons stated here. They followed with this revert that included another personal attack and provided no source for their claim. I left another direct warning on their user talk page ([216]) and tried to establish a discussion on the article talk page to address the issue here, to which they predictably responded with another uncivil reply ([217]) and resumed edit-warring without addressing any of the issues raised ([218]).

They've also previously made many vandalizing or disruptive/unsourced edits that have been reverted and which seem to be POV-motivated (e.g. [219], [220], [221],[222], [223]). Some newer edits haven't been reverted yet but appear to be more of the same (e.g. [224], [225], [226]). They were given earlier warnings on their talk page about their behaviour, but their recent edits there suggest they plan on ignoring those instead of listening: [227], [228], [229]. R Prazeres (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is a typical situation where a new (?) user just has a criticaly low knowledge of the rules and traditions of the project, so they try to communicate here as in a generic internet forum. Perhaps trying to explain the nuances of the work here will help to downplay the conflict? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but literally every response from them (either in talk pages or in edit summaries) has been a personal attack and/or a dismissal, and not just towards me. They've been advised directly of the policies on their user talk page and have shown no willingness to engage at all. I don't see how the normal attempts to persuade them will yield different results. R Prazeres (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. A person literally does not know about the rules of the project, so they sincerely think that by attacking and insulting you as in a regular forum, they will be able to achieve something or legally express their emotions. But if this continues even after reading the rules (and they clearly realized that their behavior violates not only the norms of decency, but also the rules of the resource), then yes, any conversations are meaningless. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a new request for them to read policy on their user talk page ([230]), and I've asked them again to answer my basic question on Talk:Karamanli dynasty, as politely as possible. Let's see what they do. R Prazeres (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

*Blocked 48 hours, although I was tempted to indef. No objection to a longer one if someone feels it's needed. Star Mississippi 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

And nope, they just dismissed the messages and did more of the same on both their user talk page and the article ([231], [232]). Please block them, this is a clear pattern of behaviour. R Prazeres (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Martytanaki

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

I am attempting to add a notability tag to article Adom. As I have outlined on user's talk page, this article does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) of significant coverage from secondary sources, instead relying on non-NPOV press releases. User has ignored the carefully cited guidelines I have provided and instead has engaged in edit war behavior. Welcoming outside opinions. Rift (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Martytanaki from editing Adom (artist). The editor is free to make well-referenced, neutral edit requests at the article talk page. Rift, feel free to replace the notability tag and to remove the content referenced to press releases and other low quality sources, such as AllMusic. Please search for actually reliable sources, which may or may not exist since this person seems to have used three different names during their career. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated! Rift (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ishaq Dar: sockpuppetry

I’d like to reopen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Ishaq_Dar:_edit_warring_and_potential_sockpuppetry.

As I then wrote,

Extended content

Edit warring. I made a fairly substantial edit to Ishaq Dar (some copyediting, some removal of puffery). The edit summary linked to a comment I had made on the talk page explaining my thinking. The IP user 119.157.101.51 reverted them reverted without discussion. I subsequently invited discussion on the talk page (22:53, 11 June; all times UK time for ease of reference). Fiction2Facts then reverted again again on 12 June at 3:21, and at 6:08 replied on the talk page. I reverted their edit again and pointed out that their comment did not refer to any of the content of my edits or any policy, so it wasn’t a meaningful attempt to engage; and it appeared that Fiction2Facts was using 119.158.101.51 as a sockpuppet: in particular, both used the term ‘mala fide vandalism’. Fiction2Facts then replied on the talk page, again without any specific reference to the content of the edits, but promising a 'detailed response' later. They then reverted again at about midday on 12 June. I replied that a promise of a ‘detailed response’ wasn’t a response itself, and that they had still failed to meaningfully refer to the content of the edits in dispute and/or policy. I then reverted again. I also said I would take this to ANI. I did not have time to write this up for a few days. Today, IP user 202.165.236.224 (another sockpuppet, I believe—see below) reverted my edit in turn. There was no justification in the edit summary or on the talk page; I therefore reverted it. Potential sockpuppetry. The reverts in question were made by IP user @119.157.101.51, @Fiction2Facts, and IP user @202.165.236.224. The vast majority of Fiction2Facts’ edits are to Ishaq Dar. Fiction2Facts also has a history of reverting other edits on the page Ishaq Dar: e.g. [233], [234] which arguably amount to edit warring. All of 119.157.101.51’s edits are to Ishaq Dar and reverted my edits. Both use the term ‘mala fide vandalism’. All of 202.165.236.224’s Special:Contributions/202.165.236.224's edits were to Ishaq Dar. I therefore judge that all are the same user. None of the users in question has directly responded to my questions under Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery. Aside. It has proved impossible to elicit explanations for their edits, for which reason I have reverted each edit. Obviously if there had been a meaningful dispute about the content of the edits I shouldn’t have made these reverts. It would also be helpful to have more comment, so I shall request a third opinion at the same time.

Following warnings from @A. B. that were ignored, @Abecedare obliged and blocked @Fiction2Facts indefinitely from editing the article, as well as semi-protecting the page.

This worked for two weeks. Anyway, we now have a new IP edit: [235] by @202.165.236.222 as part of a series of recent edits also involving @202.165.236.224. I’m pretty sure this is just Fiction2Facts again: at [236] they add a new picture which was uploaded by Fiction2Facts, and all their edits are to Ishaq Dar. This seems fairly obvious sockpuppetry.

I raised a question of competence in the original report. In the edit summary of [237] we have the absurd notion that deletions require references. It’s almost like interacting with a chatbot; after repeatedly inviting discussion on the talk page, the revert asks me to use the talk page (despite none of these socks having done so). (N.B.: I did make subsequent edits that weren’t given detailed justification, which were the subject of the revert, but the justifications were largely in the same vein as those I did justify at Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery. And we still don’t have any actual reference to the content of my edits.) Anyway, I’m not really sure what to do about this other than continuing to report socks.

Docentation (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not much to do other than lay down a long term semi protection and see what happens over the next few months. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring by User:Geraldo Perez

Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has removed the mention of the Mexican background of Anthony Quinn ([238]) from the lede and short description, and repeatedly reverted other editors trying to add it back ([239] [240] [241]). They mention MOS:CONTEXTBIO in the discussion (Talk:Anthony_Quinn#Nationality_in_lead), but of course that is not a ban on adding a previous nationality, it just means it is up to editors to decide if that is relevant to the person. Bizarrely, in the talk page they seem to agree the Mexican background of Anthony Quinn is relevant, but they set an impossibly high bar to meet before it can be included. I am raising this issue here because I think there might be a pattern of behaviour by the user based on his edits to other articles in which I haven't been involved. For example, I noticed he has done a similar thing at Camila Cabello, repeteadly removing any mention of her Cuban background in the lede and reverting other editors trying to add it back ([242] [243]). Again, the user simply mentioned CONTEXTBIO in the talk page (Talk:Camila_Cabello#Nationality_context_in_lead), but instead of trying to reach a consensus, he simple engaged in edit-warring. I think the user should be admonished for that behaviour and not try to simply impose his views of what is relevant for the lede of a biographical article. Vpab15 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I mention MOS:CONTEXTBIO as that is the justification for my making edits to comply with the manual of style, which is all I have been doing. I justify my changes on the talk page and expect those who disagree to engage in discussion. An assertion that someones ancestry, ethnicity or birth location is something to be mentioned in the intro sentence and lead needs justification based on article content, not just a bare assertion. Per MOS:CONTEXTBIO "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability". Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vpab15, sorry, I don't see how this is an ANI (behavioral) issue; it appears to be a content dispute. The same disagreement on two BLPs isn't a "pattern of behaviour" ― "nationality" in the lead is a common area of disagreement on BLPs, and Geraldo Perez is consistently applying his interpretation of MOS:CONTEXTBIO to both the articles you mention. You should both continue the discussion at Talk:Anthony_Quinn#Nationality_in_lead, perhaps inviting editors at WP:BLPN to weigh in so it isn't just the two of you. Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, I thought BLP is for living people, which doesn't apply to Anthony Quinn. Does WP:BLPN also deal with dead people? Vpab15 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vpab15, only recently dead, so good point, that wouldn't be the best place to solicit other editors' input. Perhaps an RfC? Or a post at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography? Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that an IP was the first to try to introduce the edit in question, so Geraldo only restored the WP:STATUSQUO. As per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, the IP and anyone else wanting to add the information need to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article in question, and until a WP:CONSENSUS is reached, the article stays in the aforementioned status quo version. In other words, the article, in this case, stays in the version prior to that IP's edit. The OP tried to re-add the same edit without having the consensus to do so. I won't say too much here, as this should be discussed on the article talk page, but I will quickly say that if someone is born in, for example, Australia, but all of their notable work is in the United States, then they are an American actor/actress. Either Australian actor/actress or Australian-American actor/actress would be incorrect, as they have literally done no acting in Australia. The Australian part can be mentioned in the early or personal life section, but in the lead, it should just be that they are an American actor/actress. Same thing here, except replace Australian with Mexican. Amaury • 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not correct, the actor's Mexican background has been in the lede in one way or other since 2004 ([244]) until a few weeks ago, when the editor in question removed it. Restoring that to the status quo is what I am trying to do. Vpab15 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Europa: The Last Battle

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.

---

Captain Pingu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has now crossed firmly into WP:NONAZIS territory, insisting that Europa: The Last Battle is a legitimate documentary (spoiler alert, it isn't, it is anti-semitic, Nazi apologist, Holocaust -denying, Hitler glorifying propaganda). Their earlier history was concerning in itself, but this latest development leaves no doubt, they shouldn't be editing here. They have also engaged in socking, and so I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Pingu. Posting here to get some quicker attention. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In May, Captain Pingu made edits in a similar style to Kanye West 2024 presidential campaign (and last year to Alex Jones). I do think Captain Pingu believes he is "removing bias". I don't think Captain Pingu has ever actually read WP:NPOV, nor does he appear to understand that we summarize what the sources say; we don't censor the views of independent reliable sources to hide their "bias". Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I kinda though the same myself, but what really sealed the deal was: It also engages in historical accuracy to show that Zionists started World War I (and caused Germany's defeat, commonly referred to as the stab-in-the-back) and World War II as part of a plot to establish Israel. So, they are saying that the film was accurate to say that "Jews did WW2", "Jews did WW1" and "Jews betrayed Germany in WW1". (Of course, using the convenient alternative term "Zionist", which everyone knows is usually intended to be replaced with "Jews" when reading). Given that believing in the stab-in-the-back myth is a founding part of Nazi ideology, this falls under NONAZIS in more than just a general way. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Captain Pingu has been around enough and had enough interactions at User talk:Captain Pingu to know the community's rules and consensus. I believe that Captain Pingu thinks that others are wrong and they have to fix it, whatever the cost. I'm not sure there's much explaining left to do.

Captain Pingu's made 11 tech-related edits; 19 to N.O.V.A. Near Orbit Vanguard Alliance and the remaining 33 mostly to controversial topics like as Alex Jones, this movie and Kanye West.

What are the prospects this person will be a productive editor going forward?

On a separate topic, the article asserts this movie is 746 minutes long. Mind-boggling if true.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding prospects: Virtually zero. Regarding length: It probably is, it's a ten part film. After all, lunatics can produce lengthy ravings. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've expressed before that I'm very uncomfortable with NONAZIs generally, but this is the sort of case where IMO it's a good practice. It's one thing to have horrible views, it's another when you taint articles with such views. So INDEF. And yeah this is one of those cases when INDEF is probably permanently but at least likely to be a few years. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Captain Pingu is the same person as Special:Contributions/24.109.173.122 and Special:Contributions/Remy Gambit Labeau. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Came across this via SPI. Captain Pingu indeffed as NOTHERE. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2023 (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:Akash Mukherjee Edits and UPE/spam sockfarm

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

Akash Mukherjee Edits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · central auth · global contribs · filter log · block user · nuke contribs)

Pages

Brindavan Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Evadi Gola Vaadidhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Munir Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ankita Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Monica Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Krishna Singh Thakur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mahalakshmi Pavani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Baldev Batra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Prior checkuser results

Results on Commons

Description of issue

The user has been repeatedly warned on his talk page for conflict of interest editing and UPE, but denied that they were engaging in paid editing. However, Commons Checkuser results tell a bit of a different story, with the user being part of a fairly large socking ring, and this appears to be a clear case of paid editing/spam. I'm asking that the account be blocked as likely part of a cross-wiki UPE/spam operation based on both behavioral evidence and the Commons checkuser results. I'm filing here, rather than at SPI, because they don't appear to have violated EnWiki's policy on sockpuppetry based on a behavioral evidence or the Commons CU results (I don't have any socks that have made edits on EnWiki to tie this to, despite their socking elsewhere). Nevertheless, they do appear to be here for reasons other than to build an encyclopedia, so I do think a block is warranted.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

See also:

• simple:User talk:Akash Mukherjee Edits

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

More joy:

• commons:User talk:Akash Mukherjee Edits
• commons:User:Hariramaswami
• commons:User:Kamal Raha dsq
• commons:User:Amsterdam warner
• commons:User:Shabal-gang
• commons:User:Haram-naveen
• commons:User:Ramneek-dhaliwal
  • edited other wikipedias

Active AfDs underway here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldev Batra
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munir Khan (2nd nomination)
  • likely notable due to coverage of scandals

Page created on multiple Wikipedias:

• Aripirala Yogananda Sastry

Articles on Simple Wikipedia that may be headed here:

• simple:Aparajita Bhuyan
• simple:Anmolvir Singh Sidhu
• simple:Mahalakshmi Pavani (Indian Lawyer) (deleted)

This page turned into a real boomerang:

• Munir Khan - fluffy spam version
• Munir Khan - current version which now details scandals

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

More Simple articles:

• simple:Krishna Singh Thakur
• simple:Garima Agarwal
• simple:Ahmed Haque (may be notable)
• simple:Abhinav Gupta (deleted)
• simple:Bharat Katyayan (Entrepreneur (deleted)
• simple:Falak Naaz (Hair Stylist) (deleted)
• simple:Dr Seema Midha (deleted twice)
  • first version was created by simple:User:Topwikieditor

Topwikieditor created hi:Dr Prem Kumar Sharma about the astrologer. Our own Dr Prem Kumar Sharma article was deleted.

simple:User:Topwikieditor is blocked on Simple as a sock of simple:User:Wikibaji who has also edited here (User:Wikibaji).

Wikibaji has been very busy here on en.wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive

After stumbling across that extensive length of Wikibaji sock puppets, I'm going to stop digging through more contributions - this just seems to go on and on.

Recommendations:

• If possible, I suggest putting all these article titles into the edit filter.
  • I think these people often start an article on other wikis, especially Simple, first.
• An admin should block any user names from other projects that aren't already blocked here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:02, 9 July 2023 (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.