Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Meta Voyager's tendentious editing

Meta Voyager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a single-purpose editor in relation to International Churches of Christ, has in my view crossed a line into tendentious editing at Talk:International Churches of Christ. Their editing appears to be motivated by a desire to remove mentions of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church (which have been covered in the Guardian and LA Times amongst others) from the article, rather than by improving the encyclopedia. Their latest argument is that the coverage is no longer significant or reliable (despite the continued existence of the Guardian and LA Times sources). When challenged on this, Meta Voyager's response has been to suggest that me and another editor, TarnishedPath, have COIs due to the amount we've contributed to the article, offering as evidence: @Cordless Larry, an administrator, ... has authored 13.4% of the ICOC article within the last 11 months and @Tarnished Path, a veteran editor, ... has authored 9.3% within the last 4 months according to today's Wiki page statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was inevitable that we would end up here and I welcome a closer scrutiny of your behavior and mine on the ICOC Talk Page by experienced administrators. As a new editor, I questioned several months ago on your Talk Page your decision to post me on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard because I self-disclosed that I am a member of a church with connections to the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Since then, other editors have questioned this conclusion by asking, for example, whether Wikipedia limits the editorial rights of Boy Scouts because they might edit the Boy Scouts' article. I cited other of your postings that evidenced your belief that the ICOC is a cult, a controversial topic within the ICOC article. Your reply suggested that I could bring your conduct to the administrators' noticeboard. I declined in hopes of an opportunity to find common ground on future editing opportunities. The record will show that I have voluntarily confined my comments about the ICOC to the Talk Page even though I still disagree with your declaration of my COI status. One irony of your reasoning for saying that I crossed a line is that it is the same basis that you have used to attempt to limit my voice and others as fellow editors. The opening caption to the ICOC article states that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." and on the Talk Page you have highlighted personally the issue of my COI status. Are you above questioning on this topic? Another irony is that you have strongly supported the principle of reliable sourcing in challenging whether other sections of the ICOC article should remain. Now that I am making a reliable sourcing argument, you choose to escalate the matter to this noticeboard. I look forward to further review by others in determining whether I am engaged in "tendentious editing" or whether you have gotten too close to an article that now deserves the attention of an unbiased administrator. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the tendentious editing, but it seems to me your argument on the talk page in that section is fundamentally flawed. You claim on the talk page that the lawsuits are "dismissed", but the RfC you reference talks about ongoing lawsuits, not dismissed lawsuits, so if they are dismissed, why shouldn't they be included? It also seems to me you are missing the historical aspect of these allegations that span 25 years; one of those being accused is now a convicted pedophile. My suggestion is you WP:DROPTHESTICK, because I don't think you are going to find any support for your position. And here are the total stats for the article and talk page: Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an irony. I support reporting what reliable sources tell us about all aspects of the organisation. It's you who's arguing that we should disregard what reliable sources say about the lawsuits, because that reporting doesn't suit your agenda. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I found the accusation at Special:Diff/1241726178 that I have a conflict of interest, because I have apparently been responsible for 9.3% of edits to the article in the last three months, to be a bizzare WP:ABF. Did they not bother to look at my contribution history or my statistics? Their bizzare misintripriations of the RFC found at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_11#RfC:_Ongoing_court_cases_involving_low_profile_individuals in their comments in the Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Recent_RFC_raises_reliable_sourcing_question_in_the_lead_and_court_cases_section discussion speaks for itself. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of those reviewing this posting on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, please be aware that I have made no substantive edits, tendentious or otherwise, to the ICOC article due to being assigned by Cordless Larry the status of having a conflict of interest – a status that I disputed but have chosen to respect by limiting my comments to the ICOC article’s Talk Page. Meta Voyager (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant statistics for evaluating my comments about the magnitude of recent edits by Cordless Larry and Tarnished Path are found on the Page Statistics of the ICOC article under the heading: AUTHORSHIP - Authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces. These statistics identify the editors who are responsible for the authorship of the current version of the article. The Total stats chart provided by others below washes out the number of edits by Cordless Larry over an 11 month period, Tarnished Path over a 4 month period and Meta Voyager over an 8 month period by comparing their edits to the edits made by all editors during the nearly 20 year history of the ICOC article. The Authorship chart presented below accurately portrays the current impact of all editors on the ICOC article. To compare the Authorship statistics to the presentation in the Total stats chart: Cordless Larry-13.5%, Tarnished Path-9.3% and Meta Voyager-too small a percentage to report (below 0.1%). Meta Voyager (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Total stats

Article Found 1 edits by Meta Voyager on International Churches of Christ (0.02% of the total edits made to the page) Found 76 edits by Cordless Larry on International Churches of Christ (1.18% of the total edits made to the page) Found 9 edits by TarnishedPath on International Churches of Christ (0.14% of the total edits made to the page) Talk page Found 50 edits by Meta Voyager on Talk:International Churches of Christ (1.65% of the total edits made to the page) Found 125 edits by Cordless Larry on Talk:International Churches of Christ (4.12% of the total edits made to the page) Found 79 edits by TarnishedPath on Talk:International Churches of Christ (2.6% of the total edits made to the page)

Proposal: Topic ban

Revisiting the history of this, I was reminded of Meta Voyager's actions at Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 11#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals, where they also tried to call into question the reliability of these sources, arguing that "The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters" and trying to use the essay WP:LAWRS to justify exclusion of coverage of the lawsuits (being called out for Wikilawyering by TarnishedPath as a result). Since this behaviour of seeking out spurious reasons to exclude coverage critical of the subject seems persistent, I propose that Meta Voyager be topic banned from articles related to Christianity. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raladic (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• OPPOSE : All the parties involved in this content dispute seem to be highly conflicted. Actually Meta Voyager has shown considerable restraint in apparently not editing the article directly. Sectioneer (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  In what sense are Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath conflicted here? It looks to me as though they are just trying to prevent conflicted users from editing the article (either directly, or by creating a precedent for other conflicted users to do so via talkpage discussions). Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Cordless Larry’s conflicted status began when he made the choice on September 3, 2023 as a Wikipedia approved Administrator to make substantive edits to the ICOC article, particularly about federal lawsuits involving the ICOC. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1173681275 He continued to author content about the federal lawsuits through March 15, 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1213815275 despite having knowledge as far back as September 4, 2023 that these federal lawsuits had been dismissed.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1173761043 According to WP:INVOLVED, “[i]n general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.” Cordless Larry’s proposal here to impose on me a total topic ban from articles related to Christianity after posting my comments on the Administrators’ Noticeboard is the latest example of his use of Wikipedia’s administrative procedures to attempt to limit another editor’s ability to edit the ICOC article. In my opinion, his conflicted status as an Administrator and substantial editor  to the ICOC article is worthy of review by other Administrators. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Making a lot of edits to a page isn't a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest relates to an external relationship between editor and subject (e.g. like you have).

  Also, raising an issue at ANI isn't an abuse of administrative procedures - it is appropriate use of the relevant procedure. Axad12 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, I can imagine a situation in which making a lot of edits to a page would be considered something like a conflict of interest, even if it's definitely not a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. In our Wikipedia:UPPERCASE jargon, we'd call that "being WP:INVOLVED". That particular shortcut goes to the admin policy, but we use the concept widely, particularly in sentences like "any uninvolved editor" – a group that excludes people who have made a lot of edits to a page, and especially if their edits are primarily to add negative information, remove positive information, and oppose the efforts of people doing the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Any one can offer a proposal in a discussion. I am not an administrator and I can propose you be indefinitely blocked or even site banned. Fellow editors can then say whether they support or oppose any sanctions and give their rational. Making a proposal is not "administrative procedures". I am going to help you out. When you say conflicted status, experienced editors see that as you stating they have a COI which I do not see any evidence of. Perhaps it would be best for you to stop saying that and instead just say they are involved. Again, I don't see where they used admin tools so this would be incorrect but it is the closest to what you are trying to say. --ARoseWolf 11:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, from memory I don't think I've ever performed an admin action in relation to this article (and certainly not in the current dispute). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in what sense do TarnishedPath or I have a COI, Sectioneer? I hadn't even heard of the ICOC until I was alerted to the article by a question at the Teahouse. I'm pretty sure TarnishedPath doesn't have a COI either. Meta Voyager, by contrast, either "currently attend[s] a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ" (per this) or is "a lay member of the church" (per this).

  Tendentious editing can take place on talk pages as well as directly to articles, and specifically includes repeated disputing of the reliability of reliable sources (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not sure that an editor with less than 90 edits has the experience to comment here. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  It speaks for itself that most of @Meta Voyager's 77 edits are at the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) article or its talk and most of the of the remainder that aren't there are about the ICOC article. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath I was actually referring to Sectioneer, but your comment makes the same point about Meta Voyager. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's normal for new editors to focus on a couple of articles. @TarnishedPath, your first 100+ edits were mostly at a few articles about Australian politics. There's nothing wrong with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the respondents comments above in which they claim that merely having edited the article a number of times or adding in reliably sourced content constitutes a WP:COI. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: There's clearly something wrong when a user with so few edits, and such a poor grasp of basic policies, is wikilawyering on a subject like the removal of properly sourced mentions of lawsuits. The user's primary purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to make as many spurious arguments as possible in favour of the removal of adverse material on a subject where they have a COI. It seems to me that that is fundamentally opposed to the idea of being here to build an encyclopaedia. (Note also, this behaviour extends beyond the lawsuits issue and has also involved the long-running dispute over whether the ICOC is a cult or cult-like organisation.) Axad12 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'm not convinced this editor is capable of editing anywhere, and certainly not in the area of Christianity. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per others above. Reviewing their short contribs list they're clearly here with a specific purpose and that purpose isn't to build an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support A topic ban seems appropriate, if not an outright ban. The user seems to want to expunge perceived negative information surrounding the church and any sort of lawsuits; these appear to be well-documented in RS. Not liking them isn't a reason to have them removed, sourcing is sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless somebody has something else besides the above. (I've been hanging out at that article since I was invited by the bot to an RFC in April; I did not research prior to that) , I don't even see what the specific accusation is. It was indicated above that they haven't edited the article. And I've seen only reasonable arguments on the talk page. Regarding actions related to the RFC results, IMO the RFC did not have a finding on dropped/withdrawn lawsuits and so it's not correct to say that Meta Voyager advocating removal of those is a conflict with the results of the RFC. IMHO being a mere member of an affiliated church is a weak COI and so IMHO we should not imply that it is a zealot type situation from just that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was leaning towards the same perspective voiced by North8000 above yesterday, based on all of the above discussion and a cursory review of the relevant talk page discussions, but I wanted to dig into the articles and the issues a little more before lodging an !vote. Thanks to N8 for since providing the perspective of someone who had been watching the article from the medium distance, and having now followed up on the previous discussions, I have to say I also do not see on what specific behaviour such a ban could be based. Indeed, to the point that I feel like the fact that it was proposed seems a little problematic.
  To begin with, I'm extremely dubious of the conclusion that this editor even has a WP:COI in the meaning of our policies. Unless we're going to start banning the world's 1.4 billion Catholics from contributing to articles about their faith and topics touched upon by their religious associations? But this is not the first most ideal time and place to re-litigate that conclusion. The question therefor is whether, having been found by a community discussion to be under that designation, have they comported with all the guidelines thereby entailed? No one here has shared so much as a single diff to demonstrate they haven't. Nor does being an WP:SPA automatically qualify them as such.
  This user may very well have a bias: I won't waste time second-guessing whomever among the involved editors has decided it is so. But bias towards an editorial view not supported by the majority of established editors for an article--nor even some tenacity in pushing the minority view--are not automatically WP:disruptive. And I'm not seeing the requisite evidence of behaviour/PAG violations crossing the line into disruption that would justify a community ban. The biggest issue that I have seen so far was the need to correct them about the fact that some of the other participants in the discussion are not "conflicted" (in the meaning of the word on this project) just for their past involvement in the article. But unless I have missed some comment, it's too early to assume they will not heed that education. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Possible typo. From the sentence it looks like you meant "are not automatically disruptive"? North8000 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your supposition is correct, North8000; I've corrected my wording above, accordingly. My thanks for the catch and the notification. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose what has Meta Voyager done wrong exactly besides being new and not understanding our confusing policies? I haven't looked at the conduct dispute but many lawsuits are undue for inclusion for Wikipedia articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's more than not understanding policies. They're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia but to find a way to justify removal of content from this one article, with which they have a COI. As well as the actions outlined above, they've also previously unilaterally closed an RfC that they initiated, after I had told them that this was not permitted. These aren't the actions of a good-faith editor but someone who's trying to find whatever way they can to have material based on reliable, secondary sources excluded from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I encourage not jumping to conclusions about an editor's motives, especially when there have disagreements between you and them . In regards to the RfC closure, @Meta Voyager noted your objection and acted likewise. Although their own closing of the RfC may not have been the best course of action, it does not seem to have been made with ill-intent.

  “However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports...Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one.” WP:CIVILITY

  Other editors, myself included, have not noticed concerning behavior from @Meta Voyager, and you have. In this case, let's lean towards “the most positive one” until there is unanimous and overwhelming evidence of bad faith editing. XZealous (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, Meta Voyager noted my objection and went ahead and closed the RfC regardless. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  On 4-26-2024, I concluded that a consensus on the RFC was not likely and proposed someone I thought was an independent editor to write a close to the RFC. After Cordless Larry pointed out that the proposed editor was not independent because she had previously posted on the RFC, I posted in response the following "Objection noted. Since closing summaries are not required, I’ll proceed with ending the discussion." Although I genuinely thought a closing summary was not required under Wikipedia policies, when my close was challenged, I consented without objection and the RFC proceeded. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Larry, let me preface this by saying that, having reviewed the RfC and subsequent related discussions in their entirety, I believe the RfC itself reached precisely the right conclusion and balance as to what should and should not be included. I also feel that whether MV's read of the close is accurate or not is largely inconsequential, because their conclusion that there needs to be ongoing coverage of lawsuit in order for it to be included in an article cannot be squared with longstanding community consensus and policy. This is very much like the countless occasions I have seen in various talk page discussions suggesting that we cannot cover the purported criminal activity of notable persons, or the notable crimes of non-notable persons, until such time as there is a conviction--which is very much not what WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME say. As in those cases, MV adopts (alebeit with regard to civil matters) an outlook that positions this project as if it were an extension of a court of law, with similar priorities. This is a false equivalence, and I am glad you and others pushed back against it in the article in question.

  All of which is to say that MV is wrong about what policy directs us to do in these circumstances--and indeed, is wrong (I believe) about what policy should be on such matters. We do not need to map our coverage of controversial legal proceedings such that we obscure coverage in reliable sources of such matters until a court finds a party criminally or civilly liable for a purported act. Our test on this project for coverage of lawsuits is the same as for any other matter: WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS. Any other system that makes us beholden to mention only successful legal actions is untenable for far too many reasons to list here.

  As such, at some point Meta Voyager will have to accept this conclusion--and insistence in ignoring these conclusions will become WP:Disruption. However, we are not nearly there yet. We are talking about a very new editor who is going through growing pains, and, as noted above, being an WP:SPA does not automatically make an editor problematic. While I have seen sub-optimal elements in their approach in those discussions, I also see someone putting in a good faith effort to understand and comport with our rules. I personally think it is very dubious to identify them as having a COI just because of their religious affiliations, but they have overwhelmingly adhered to our COI guidelines regardless. I routinely see much worse conduct from new editors. If they continue to push lines suggesting they will always prioritize the interests of the church over the project's needs, and cannot reconcile themselves to our rules, we can revisit the issue. For now, I am not convinced they are WP:NOTHERE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

To put my previous abstract statement more briefly, IMO what Meta Voyager was proposing on cases did not conflict the the RFC result, and IMO statements that it did conflict are incorrect. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's my read as well. There may come a time when Meta Voyager can be deemed to be civil POV pushing, but right now their activities fall within legitimate discussion of perspectives that seem to be merely contrary to those held by certain other parties on the talk page. Some of the early discussion in this thread lead me to the conclusion that MV had already been deemed to have a COI, but having just checked the COIN discussion in question, it turns out there was no such consensus at all. So there is no editing restriction for this editor, making it all the more impressive how, despite being a relative newcomer they have, out of respect for apperances and expressed concerns alone, decided to abide by COI restrictions completely voluntarily. That does not present the image to me of a disruptive editor or unreasonable personality. On the contrary, it makes me inclined to believe their incidental comment on their talk page suggesting they are a legal professional, because they appear to have a robust respect for our rules and the precautionary principle generally. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

On an incidental but important sidenote, it's something of a relief to learn that the COIN discussion did not result in a consensus COI in this case; if COIN really had gotten in the business of declaring COIs over mere disclosures of faith and general association with a religious movement, then that is something that probably would need to go to the Village Pump for broad community discussion, because I cannot imagine the community deeming that an acceptable standard consistent with the policy. And just so we're clear, I'd live to remind everyone of what the policy (specifically WP:COINOTBIAS) actually says:

"Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict." (emphasis in the original).

To the best of my knowledge, the community has never validated the perspective that mere adherence to a religious creed or worship under a particular religious branch constituted a role or relationship establishing a COI, and I can't imagine it ever will. The OP and others here are vocally complaining that Meta Voyager crossed a line by implying that they had a COI merely because of their longterm engagement with the article. Which clearly is a fallacious argument. But so were their COI arguments against MV, and they clearly started this COI namecalling. Honestly, the more I look into this, the more concerned I am about the approach to talk page discussion and collaboration of the complainants here, rather than MV's. Neither side's approach is pitch perfect here, I'll say that much. But I really think the best way forward here is to close this discussion with an exhortation to both sides to engage with more patience.

And let me add that I get it: Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath don't want the article whitewashed. I both understand that perspective and appreciate their work to that end. But if you're going to make a stand on holding those kinds of lines on this project, you have to accept that sometimes it involves protracted periods of patience while those points are argued out. I'm seeing too little of that patience here, and too much leaning into trying to remove their rhetorical opposition from the equation altogether, with COIN and ANI filings that I would describe as made on incredibly thin justification. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict."

A belief in particular supernatural deities is a separate matter to membership of a particular church. The section you quote clearly states that COIs emerge as consequence of relationships. Membership of a particular church, as against being a Christian, is a relationship. Someone who has a membership with a particular church has a relationship with it and thus a COI exists. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd say that the membership distinction is all the more important when the organisation concerned is widely regarded by reliable sources as a cult, as others here have noted. Similarly, Hydrangeans's comparison with an American editor editing US history articles doesn't really work here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So Catholics are forbidden from editing articles concerning their diocese, Anglicans forbidden from editing articles regarding their ecclesiastic provinces, Shia Muslims forbidden from editing articles on the imamate they worship under, and so on? Come on you two, surely you see why this can never be a viable rule that's ever going to be endorsed by this community? Which is why no one supported your attempt to get a COI designation at COIN and why you are getting so much pushback here on the implication that you should have.

If nothing else, such a radical broadening of the COI policy to allow it to apply to anyone who associates with a given denomination would need to be vetted in a community discussion of the largest possible involvement. And I think I can tell you with some confidence that the community would vociferously reject such a proposal, given it's massive and hugely diverse (and largely negative) implications for the project. I would seriously recommend you both WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one; it's not going to happen and trying to push this line of complaint is not helping your overall arguments. It's not a good look that you come here complaining that MV suggested one of you was conflicted out on flimsy grounds, when you've been doing the same thing to them for a while, and are still pressing that argument despite the failed COIN proposal. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the failed COIN proposal". At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#International Churches of Christ, I wasn't calling for editing restrictions on Meta Voyager. I was rather calling uninvolved editors' attention to problematic editing by a number of editors with connections to the article subject. And I'm not calling for editing restrictions based on a COI alone now - I'd be happy for a COI editor to make good-faith suggestions on the talk page, but what's happening here is tendentious (repeated questioning of the same reliable sources and the closure of an RfC as an involved editor, despite being told not to do so). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well COIN is by definition where you discuss COI issues, so I'd say that's a distinction without a meaning; clearly you felt that MV and others had a COI and hoped to find support there for that perspective. And even in your post here, you are continuing to imply that MV has a COI, so your messaging is very mixed.. That said, I don't see the point in splitting these hairs any finer. If you didn't want a COI designation, that's just as well, as one was never going to be forthcoming, imo.

I'll just backstop this line of discussion by reiterating that pushing for an automatic COI designation for members of a given church can only shoot a proponent of such an argument in the foot. You are prevailing on the underlying content issues (as well you should be, as far as I can tell) and this discussion has accomplished nothing but to undermine your successes in that regard and waste a lot of community time. Clearly there is no consensus for the TBAN proposal, and not only do most respondents here not think action is warranted against MV at this time, but a number of us even feel they have shown considerable patience and restraint in the face of unwarranted ABF and attempts to restrict their involvement in the article. I really do recommend you take your win on the content matters and drop the rest of this. I do agree that MV also has their own stick to drop on said content issues, and I hope they have taken that message from this discussion. If they fail to, I promise you that I for one will be adopting a very different perspective on the next proposal for sanctions. But I can't be any more blunt than to say this: they aren't the only one who has something to WP:HEAR from this discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, Thank you for your helpful guidance throughout this process, I think we have all learned a lot. For my clarity, Is this what you are describing as a failure to HEAR what is being said on this board? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011 if you have an accusation to make file a report. TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for those tags to have been placed on the talk page to begin with, without an affirmative and unambigous community finding of COI. Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath took their case to COIN and received no consensus in support of their perspective there (unsurprisingly, since this community has never endorsed the position that mere religious affiliation imputes a COI, and almost certainly never will, as such a standard is untenable for countless reasons). The matter then came here, where no one has directly endorsed their unique read on COI, but to the contrary numerous of the uninvolved respondents have expressly rejected their interpretation.

So CL and TP have now heard back from the community in the two primary fora that handle such determinations, and it is clear that no consensus currently supports their outlook (and most here reject it). So it's well past time for them both to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. At this point, I encourage North8000 to follow through on their inclination to remove the tags, since they are the editor currently involved on that page who is closest to having a moderate position between the two camps, and thus least likely to set either side's teeth to gnashing. I would not recommend JamieBrown or Meta Voyager remove the tags themselves, for pro forma reasons.

If TP or CL thereafter re-insert the tags, I for one would then be willing to consider a boomerang sanction against such party here in this thread. This has to stop. CL and TP are well within their prerogative to go to the village pump and make a WP:PROPOSAL to expand the remit of COI to include religious affiliations, but as of now, their arguments that WP:COI already implicitly supports such a conclusion did not receive consensus support at COIN and have largely been expressly rejected here at ANI. If either cannot accept the community verdict in this case, and try to enforce a declaration of COI despite it, I believe they will have at that point crossed unambiguously into WP:disruptive territory, and a boomerang may become necessary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No proposal is needed, WP:COINOTBIAS already states "COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict". Your assertion that arguments per COI have been rejected here is frankly incorrect. I only read yourself and Hydrangeans have stated there is no COI (by my reading, please correct me if I'm missing anyone). Others have stated that they don't see what Meta Voyager has done wrong or that they only have a weak COI. For the record I took no case to COIN. I commented on the discussion at COIN while I was there reading something else and that's how I found my way to the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't see the plain repudiation of your position writ large across this discussion (and inherent in the two previous failed COIN proposals), then I fear there really is a problem here. Bluntly, opening a third COIN filing while this discussion is already open and discussing the COI issue, with a pretty clear consensus, is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and, for my view anyway, a bridge too far; I think you're outright WP:TEND on this issue at this point. I really do recommend you let this go. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Failed COIN proposals? I don't understand how anyone could characterise discussion which mostly went off topic and then petered out as failed. There is no consensus here about COI, which is unsurprising, as it has mostly not been the topic of discussion. There is consensus against a topic ban, however most people !voting oppose have not discussed COI and the thread wasn't started about COI but alleged tenditious editing.

I've started the new COIN discussion to get clarity on whether the connected editor notices should be removed, not to relitigate anything here. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You've completely inverted the appropriate process and burden of proof under policy. Any editor, regardless of their belief systems, is presumptively allowed to edit any article. A determination of COI (of the sort described in the policy) requires either a self-declaration or else an affirmative finding by the community. If the previous COIN discussions failed to get a consensus for such a determination, then they are, by definition, failed proposals. The tags never should have been listed on the talk page so long as that was the case--and bluntly, whoever put them up was already acting outside of behaviour permitted by policy. Beyond that procedural point, your fourth bite at the apple at COIN has no more realistic chance than did the first two COIN threads or the proposal here, and you are just chewing through more community time and patience at this point. This is an extremely bad look that you are taking on, for no feasible potential gain... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The editor that @CordlessLarry is trying to ban from “all Christianity” has been trying to make a simple point on the Talk Page. The 5 federal law cases reflected in the LEDE of the article have all been dismissed. The 4 state cases that are currently ongoing do not appear to have been covered by a RS.

That simple point has been obscured by both @TarnishedPath and @CorldlessLarry through, what appears to me anyway, both extensive Wikilawyering and what certainly feels like intimidation tactics. As a self-declared member of the church, I have personally been dragged before the COI Noticeboard twice by @CordlessLarry in an apparent attempt to silence dissenting voices. This latest attempt to ban an editor who has made exactly one page edit by what has the appearance of a WP:TAGTEAM, (who collectively have written almost 25% of the current article content), and just with a brief reading of the last few months of Talk Page discussions, certainly demonstrate some of the characteristics of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, should be evidence enough for wise administrative oversight.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a "dissenting voice" in respect to abortion. But I don't edit that article, since I don't want to get banned. Sometimes dissenters just have to accept the way things are, and self-censor their edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Meta Voyager has made a total of 6 articles to Article namespace (assuming none were deleted) as of writing; 4 of which are related to Christianity. None of the edits remotely violate policy nor even resemble POV pushing (permissible or not). This report is preemptive and premature. People with WP:COI are welcome to make {{Edit requests}}. And to be clear, reliable sources very convincingly lay out that International Churches of Christ is a cult. Wikipedia's role in challenging WP:FRINGE remains, but it's not a license to WP:BITE editors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Meta Voyager hasn't been editing the article, and the behavior isn't even alleged to be applicable to a topic as broad as articles related to Christianity but rather solely to an article about one relatively small denomination. The proposal as such is excessive and premature. Any preventative action to be taken would at the very least be better served by narrower tailoring.
  As far as the claim that mere religious affiliation amounts to an actionable WP:COI, I don't think that's very tenable. It's a common sense case, the same way that, say, being American isn't an actionable COI for the US history topic area. I'm reminded of another ANI thread I participated in where a lot of users concluded that it was disruptive when a reported user claimed that religiously affiliated Wikipedians or cited source authors had conflicts of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Meta Voyager has shown tremendous restraint in his editing and we have to remember Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, seems appropriate. Not an outright ban, that's perhaps too much at this point. If the behaviour continues elsewhere/in other subjects, then we can talk about permabans. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b I see you responded with support earlier in this thread. Did you mean to post this again? XZealous (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I did not, let me edit it. My error. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, there was no 1st, 2nd or 3rd bite that I had at anything. You really need to go back and review who started prevoius discussions before you make more patently incorrect statements. TarnishedPath^talk 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not really relevant which of you started which discussions. The point is, the community is clearly not prepared to accept your idiosyncratic reading of the COI policy such that "belongs to a religious denomination = automatic actionable COI for that religion". And your failure to hear that is just hoovering up more and more community time, effort, and patience, left and right. I really do sympathize with and appreciate the motivation that animated both you and Larry on this issue from the beginning. Truly, I do. And I really would like to spare you from an eventual boomerang here. But based on your approach to this discussion and the underlying dispute so far, I'm not sure you are going to be able to stop before it gets to that point. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that the majority of editors at COIN have stated there is no COI and I have no intent to push the COI question any further. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's great--thank you: I do think this is the best way forward for everyone. I'll add the article and talk page to my watchlist and try to reliably provide an extra voice if there is a further pattern of efforts by SPAs to whitewash out criticisms of the church. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in politics-related articles

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

This editor's repeatedly added the word "communist" to Joseph Stalin's first sentence without consensus or valid explanation (see this, this and this). I warned them not to edit war again, but they've obviously ignored it. Also, this isn't the only disruptive edit they've made in politics-related articles (see this, this, this, this and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @REDACTED403, @Grandpallama, @Chewings72, @Marcus Markup and @Torimem, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This editor makes repetitive changes to dates and titles without providing any explanation for the validity of the changes or providing any reliable sources to support the changes. Chewings72 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For those curious scrolling by (I do not have the means for a detailed investigation at the moment), Mouch's version is: Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili; 18 December [O.S. 6 December] 1878 – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician and communist revolutionary who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1922 to 1952 and Chairman of the Council of Ministers from 1941 until his death. Note that in the second sentence it already said he held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party, so it seems totally pointless to also say it a second time in the first sentence, even if the guy was awful ("Known communist Joseph 'I F*@%$ing Love Communism' Stalin was a communist Soviet politician and communist revolutionary who led the communist Soviet Union from 1924 until his damn commie death in 1953.") jp×g🗯️ 06:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And is continuing to do so, today, at Sergei Sedov. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Still continuing to make these edits today. glman (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree that it's redundant. See e.g. Benito Mussolini, who we note was a fascist dictator but had previously been a socialist politician.

It's possible that Stalin could have been the General Secretary of the Communist Party but some other kind of revolutionary in his youth, so it's IMO important to note that he was in fact a communist revolutionary. Loki (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we get a block here please?

• Edit warring on adding "communist": [1]
• Edit warring on "man of steel": [2] [3] [4]
• Edit warring on both of the above: [5] [6]

Thank you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

More edit warring on a different article, same user, same text "man of steel".

• Floriano Peixoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [7] [8] [9] [10]

GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User continues to edit war:

• both "communist" and "man of steel" at Joseph Stalin: [11]

That makes seven times he has inserted one or the other (or both) of these two terms in this article in the last couple weeks. He has been adequately warned on his talk page. In addition to the warnings there was an attempt to communicate with him here [12] to which he did not respond. Can we please get a block now? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

User appears to be using a sock now as well, same pages edited and same content modified. Special:Contributions/45.232.136.244 glman (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And again, this makes eight times he has inserted one or the other (or both) of these two terms in this article. Here is the full list.

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Identical edits are now being made by 138.117.236.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I would presume is the same contributor. I will rollback their edits at Sergei Sedov, momentarily. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And again as 45.239.238.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can that article additionably be protected for the time being? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Mouchkjhh so they are unable to edits articles indefinitely. I left a message at their talk that the block will be removed as soon as they say further disruption will not occur. Let me know if IPs continue to be a problem but please try to engage with them first. That is, put a polite message on the IP talk page with a link to WP:EW and a link to an article talk page with an invitation to discuss the issue there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 3

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

It had recently been brought to my attention that last month, Northern Moonlight pointed out a myriad of edits O recomeço made that had grammar and spelling errors on their talk page - [21]. Furthermore, since then, there have been further edits containing such errors ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]).

While O recomeço had acknowledged that their grammar is below the standards expected of English Wikipedia editors, it seems as if they are making little to no effort to improve upon it. Should we block? I feel like we had been wasting our energy with them, and at some point we have to say "enough is enough". The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with their edits since my messages in their talk page, but I do find it rather unfortunate that their understanding of what is expected is just not there despite their enthusiasm for contributing. It doesn't seem to be just a grammar/spelling problem, but a general difficulty in communicating the idea of their contributions across in English.

I'm not about to vote as an IP editor on if Wikipedia should block or not someone (though I do report people), but I'd just suggest - if you do find they need to be blocked to get the message across - that you also consider what length of time is actually needed to do so. – 2804:F1...DA:91C2 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

long, rambly comment coming...

while the issue is overall small in scope, i do think it's been going on for too long, and i'm starting to think that it stems less from their first language (which seems to be brazilian portuguese), but more so from a consistent failure to understand english (in a language riddled with english loanwords), improper humor (see this diff, aren't nazis just the wackiest punchline?), and almost active disregard for the manual of style. for an example, let's look at the text from this diff:

A pioneer of Vlogling in the pre-internet world. Some of his videos really seen to inspired the Youtube creactors.

translating this directly into brazilian portuguese with no regard for how that language works (however that works with a language does doesn't even exist), it would be

Um pioneiro de Vlogling no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos realmente viram a inspiraram os criacdores no Youtube.

which borders on gibberish regardless of language

however, translating this into actual, proper portuguese while not completely disregarding the manual of style and... 5rd grade portuguese, it would be

Um pioneiro de vlogging no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos inspiraram criadores no YouTube.

note the underlined words not being misspelled this time, that alone would be considered grounds to call it a skill issue in brazil (if it was a real place)

and then translating that into english (as literally as i can make it), it would be

A pioneer of vlogging in the pre-Internet world. Some of his videos inspired creators on YouTube.

it's still unclear and wouldn't slide in a b-class article (for starters, which videos inspired which creators, and how?), but it's a surprisingly easy sentence to translate. even in portuguese portuguese, those typos would be out of place (especially amoung, that one's just painful)

overall, i do think action is needed, since nearly every single instance i could find of someone suggesting a grammar correction tool or something has been met with silence (see their talk page). i don't know if this is grounds to accuse them of idht, but it's really starting to look like it. if possible, i'll vote for a mainspace block until they decide to attempt... really, any sort of improvement. but if they're gonna do anything first, please have it be learning how to spell "among" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

on that note, i'll point out their edits to ptwiki, which are... surprisingly tolerable, give or take some minor spelling mistakes they actually fix. do more of that, please cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Their mainspace contributions might not go a long way towards building the encyclopedia (most recently [28]) but a mainspace block wouldn't make much difference. Of their 338 edits, 292 have been to the various Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages: Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Popular culture, entertainment and the arts, Wikipedia:Unusual articles/History and so on.[29] NebY (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

fr*ck, i forgot unusual articles wasn't in mainspace. pretend i said "main and project spaces" i guess cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

on first thought, that would be a terrible idea. a block from mainspace and wp:unusual articles would be slightly less unnecessarily drastic cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The obvious lack of competence aside, I find it very frustrating to deal with them because they never listen to other experienced editors. People wrote paragraphs teaching them how to use grammar correction tools? Didn’t care. “Try sandboxes first?”. Didn’t touch it once. I had to add those Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages to my watchlist because over 50% (165/326) of their edits have grammar and/or spelling problems. Northern Moonlight 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

For those puzzled by the heading, OP has brought O recomeço to ANI over this concern twice before. [30][31] Grandpallama (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish it was a "one-and-done" case. Unfortunately, however, O recomeço continues to exhibit competency issues and ignore the advice of others. They have addressed their problems without fixing any of them. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said here. O recomeço, your English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. Please, only edit the versions of Wikipedia in which you have a firm grasp of the language.-- Mike 🗩 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I really didn't expect that my huge enthusiasm about various curiosities could actually cause so much confusion here on Wikipedia. But here we are, look guys, I'd like to make it super clear that all my edits on the English Wikipedia were made with the intention of adding more unusual items to the unusual articles page. However, now I see pretty clarity that this has been causing a lot of headaches for the "caretakers" of the page. I do know that what you do is for the best of this community, and perhaps it would be better for me to stay on the pages of the languages ​​I master, but I wanted to reaffirm that I don't have any "persive" goals in my activism. I humbly ask that you do not block me at the Unusual articles page, but With that being said, what exactly would be considere an unusual topic on this page? What I love about the unusual articles section is that most of the items on it are not easily found in other media outlets, or even on the internet. And since I have a huge facility with information and social networks I thought it would be a gold mine for my entertainment and that of others, but now I see that the way I did it is unpopular, to say the least. Thanks for your input. O recomeço (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

O recomeço, that's a content question that should be discussed on the talk page, not ANI. This is a noticeboard to resolve suspected incidents of misconduct, not to decide what content should be added to a page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@O recomeço: This thread is not about what content you can add to the page. It’s about your inability to 1) contribute in English and 2) listen to community feedback. We asked you to use a grammar correction tool multiple times (#1 #2 #3 #4) and you didn’t care to respond to any of them. Northern Moonlight 06:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

O recomeço: This has nothing to do with your contributions to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, many of which have been questionable no doubt (for example, how is an anime based on the Final Fantasy video game franchise "unusual"?). What it does have to do with is your inability to contribute to English Wikipedia without introducing spelling and grammar mistakes, and your ignoring the advice of others on how to improve. The fact that you missed the point of this whole discussion in your response speaks volumes about your competency issues. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so let's talk about the real mistakes I've been making. My problems regarding the grammar of the English language and my, in fact, ignorance of accepting my difficulty in accepting the grammar tools that you've been recommending. Regarding the first topic, I really have problems with writing English, I corrected this paragraph myself through a corrector recommended by [[The Grand Delusion]], and I know that for now I should focus on the Wiki in Portuguese and Spanish, languages ​​of which I speak very well. Regarding the spelling tools, I'm really going to use them from now on as a way of learning, and I decide that I'm going to edit the English Wikipedia only once in a while. I'm a newbie here on Wikipedia, and I can be a little harsh on my own mistakes, but I like to think like this: I can't change what I did wrong, but the future hasn't been written yet. With this post I would like to announce that I will edit the Unusual articles page with just one correction tool. O recomeço (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So O recomeço posted this to my talk page. Should we take their word for it, or should we indef them to make them stick to their word? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally of the mind that we should close the door on someone who says they're leaving, as I've seen far too many people use that as a way to avoid sanctions when they're clearly about to be trouted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

They keep saying they're here to edit the Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages, which aren't part of the encyclopedia. That's clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

i disagree with it being grounds for a nothere block. nothere doesn't seem to account for people who focus their edits on projectspace, but they're at the very least done in good faith. keep in mind that isn't to say that i think a block or some other form of restriction would be unwarranted, i just don't think nothere would be a plausible reason. maybe a combination of the aforementioned cir, apparent idht (which they finally seem to have addressed, but only time can tell if they'll actually do it), and improper humor issues, but not nothere

as far as my current stance goes, i'd say put a pin on the idht part and see if their next edits aren't riddled with tpyos of words they're constantly exposed to in two different languages (seriously, "amoung"?) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Need a interaction ban

They need to figure out what to do or should be prohibited from following eachother ...............edit wars all over Editor Interaction Analyser Moxy🍁 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like @CommonKnowledgeCreator has been removing content for navboxes, claiming a consensus to do so, and @Randy Kryn was restoring the content on the understanding that there is no such consensus. CKC, what consensus are you referring to for removing so much material from these infoboxes? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Investigating a bit further, it appears that the "consensus" CKC is referring to is this discussion showing that some editors prefer to split presidential navboxes up. That discussion, however, has its dissenting voices, and it hasn't been formally closed. I'll note there's also an ongoing TfD discussion for these navboxes. Given that none of these discussions have resolved, there's clearly no consensus yet as to whether splitting the navboxes is something that the community supports.

As for conduct issues, I am concerned that CKC is wielding unresolved disputes to claim a consensus. CKC also appears to be bludgeoning in both the discussion and TfD cited above, responding to many posts with walls of text.

I'm also concerned by the continued reverts with the same rationales across multiple different navboxes. Both CKC and Randy should have hashed this out when Randy first raised concerns about the changes, instead of pressing forward and making a series of changes and reverts to various different templates.

Both editors might need a topic ban from navboxes if this continues. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also the fact that editors are expressly proscribed from using WikiProjects as platforms for making idiosyncratic rules among themselves and then applying them to numerous namespaces (be they articles or templates), per WP:Advice page. If they think there is a principle that should be applied to a class of articles and/or templates, they should be making a WP:PROPOSAL for a policy or change to policy, either in a central discussion space like WP:VP, or on a relevant WP:PAG talk page, and definitely not settling on such a rule exclusively through a WikiProject space. In fact, several of the ArbCom cases that created this rule famously involved disruption of infoboxes resulting from coordinated efforts at WikiProjects, so (taking your summary for granted) CKC at least is really playing with fire here if they try to enforce this rule without following the proper process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert Moxy. I don't think there are edit wars all over, I've been careful not to. The main reverts that occurred were returning long-term links to presidential navboxes after they had been removed without discussion. Lots of removals of links by CKC, the latest on reverting all of the White House and other residence links on presidential navboxes which I had placed, and apologized for not placing years ago (I did not revert any of the removals except for John Adams, explained next, and that was just once). Residences of presidents and First Ladies have always been listed and linked on their navboxes, and the White House's Executive Residence should be no different. There is a large disagreement if living in the White House occurred during the president's important historical years or were just tangential, which I find a puzzling stance. But no, even if CKC and I have had our go-arounds and extended back-and-forths which I've found quite frustrating as to imparting some basic information wnich is ignored, that shouldn't result in banning either of us from interacting. I don't think I've engaged in an edit war over this period, just a back and forth snowball fight with, hopefully, a good faith editor, who, in my opinion, shows good promise as a navbox editor (but is not as yet due to misunderstanding the difference between policy, guidelines, and essays, and what long-term inclusion of items means).

I usually have hope that things can be worked out through logical discussion. To be a bit clearer on one aspect, I think part of the problem is the lack of other editors participating in discussion, such as the one going on at the White House talk page, which would at least add to the mix and clarify the directions of the discussions but seems to be an ongoing problem in many areas of Wikipedia. CKC is at least improving these navboxes at some points, and that's important enough for me to come to his defense. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. I just now noticed on my watchlist that CKC once again removed all of the long-term presidential entries from many U.S. presidents navboxes (example). Can someone have a look at those and return them, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

To start, WP:EDITWAR states that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", while WP:NOTBUREAU states that policies "document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." In my interactions with User:Randy Kryn about the navigation templates that have the biography articles about the Presidents of the United States as their subjects, he has regularly engaged in behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:GAMING. However, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. When I first began expanding the biography templates, the templates only included an arbitrary selection of topics—which WP:NAVBOX recommends against per WP:UNDUE. Following a discussion with other editors at the Presidential Succession Act talk page in February of this year, I created separate templates with Presidencies of the United States as the subjects split from the biography templates. I opened the discussion at the WikiProject:United States Presidents talk page after a second discussion between User:Randy Kryn and myself at my talk page in July of this year about the separate templates did not lead to a resolution—which I believe I am permitted to do per WP:CANVASS and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.

As far as I can tell, in neither of the discussions with User:Randy Kryn at my talk page did he clearly identify where content policy recommended against my editing and did not present arguments based in common sense warranting the reversions per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Apologies if I've violated an ArbCom ruling that I'm unaware of, but WP:ADVICEPAGE cited above does permit large WikiProjects to collect advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to their specific subject area, and the discussion that I opened was not to develop idiosyncratic rules related to these templates, but instead over whether they should be split following the already-existing WP:NAVBOX policy. Multiple editors there did express a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them, and other editors created other presidency templates following the general format of the ones I created. Additionally, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY requires that decisions in discussions not be made by voting or popularity, and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS requires that resolutions be made "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", and the disputing editors likewise did not generally identify the letter or principles of policies or make common sense arguments following the policies for opposing the splits.

The discussion at Talk:White House, that likewise is over the letter and principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy—which requires that articles included in navigation templates not be loosely-related to the other articles included and implicitly suggests that the article inclusion criteria for navigation templates is supposed to be more restrictive than that for categories and lists. As for my comments, they would not need to be lengthy if User:Randy Kryn and others did not make broad and false characterizations of my edits and make arguments where the letter of existing policies need to be cited—the former of which I also believe to be behavior that violates WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. The TfD deletion discussions were opened and conducted following User:Randy Kryn's reversions of the biography templates back to revisions that I believe did not follow the letter or principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy, and thus were conducted under a false premise due to his behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:GAMING. Again, I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.

I have tried resolving this dispute with him in many forums, but he continually insists returning the templates to revisions that I do not believe follow the best practices recommended by WP:NAVBOX and the WP:NAV explanatory essay. He has also frequently treated me with condescension, demanded discussion following reverts to the templates without citing a policy to which he then does not respond—which has the effect of preserving a specific revision of the template—and consistently falsely characterized my editing, comments, and other behavior, and himself made edits and then characterized them in ways that I believe to be dishonest—all of which I believe violates WP:GAMING and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Like I said, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. His previous comment is a refreshing change from my other interactions with him, and I likewise do not believe that there needs to be an interaction ban. I think there does need to be resolution where he either identifies a content policy that precludes the biography and presidency template splits other than a generalized request to discuss it or just concedes that the splits should occur. Otherwise, whatever behavior got flagged is going to continue. I would add that I am not tracking his contributions with any Wikipedia feature. I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy. I also hope that on Wikipedia the truth is an overriding defense to accusations—but I won't hold my breath given how I've been treated by other editors in these types of forums in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification: WP:NAVBOX is an editing guideline, not a policy. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy. The best way to handle this would have been to pause and seek broader consensus, such as through an RfC, before continuing to make the contested changes. I think you are both acting in good faith here, but things need to slow down. There's no rush and consensus takes time to build. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• CommonKnowledgeCreator, outside of how this navbox guideline is parsed, Randy Kryn was very complimentary towards you in his statemnt here, it was hardly accusations. It would have been nice if you had shown him the same respect. You close your comments complaining about how you have been treated in the past but good faith goes both ways. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  He has been so here, and today on my talk page. I would not say that he has always been in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

So, CKC, I think you do a very decent job above of martialing your arguments to explain your perspective on the issues here and account for why you took the courses of action that you did. But I'd like to suggest to you something that is reflected in those arguments that I seriously think is worth your contemplation. A substantial portion (indeed, I'd argue the majority) of your explanations for how you approached this situation are based in exceptions to the standard rules, be they based in carve-out language inside a broader policy (as with the language you cite from WP:EDITWAR for example) or rules which act as special caveats to process (as with WP:NOTBUREAU). Essentially you are arguing that your approach has been valid under an extended IAR rationale.

Now, in principle there is nothing wrong with leaning on such standards here and there, but you should consider that each of these principles are meant to be approached with restraint, even when used in isolation. They exist as backstops to the standard agreed models on editorial conduct and process that serve to keep our rules and interactions flexible, but they are also meant to be used sparing and cautiously. When you find yourself stringing more than a half dozen of the exceptions to rules together to justify why your edit warring is not an issue, in response to community concerns, it is typically going to be a good moment to pause and consider the very strong possibility that your editorial actions are racing ahead of consensus.

Mind you, I don't have any doubt that you are acting in good faith. And to be fair, you would not be anywhere near the first person to come to ANI accusing Randy of civil POV pushing (I'm sorry Randy, I'm not trying to pile on, but this is an honest observation of a trend I have seen in discussions here concerning you over recent years). But regardless, CKC, edit warring is not the solution. If I can make a suggestion: If you find yourself running in circles in situations like this, despite multiple attempts to engage that haven't lead to useful and robust consensus, the village pump is an ideal solution. It's a valid space to dissect complex policy issues which integrate multiple PAGs and considerations, and it will, in the vast majority of cases, give you enough engagement from a significant number of community members to arrive at a working solution within a matter of a few weeks at most. That's what I would have done in this case after your initial discussions led to forking perspectives and no agreement between yourself and Randy. Food for thought anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Let me start by saying that I appreciate your comment, gave it thought, and believe it was tendered in good faith. However, I disagree with and believe I should dispute your assertion that I am following a WP:IAR rationale because I believe you have conflated the words exception, exemption, and caveat. At least as I understand the definitions of these related but distinct words from Merriam-Webster, an exception is an individual case where a rule is applicable but not applied, while an exemption is a standardized immunity from a rule that applies in every case, and a caveat is an explanation to prevent misinterpretation or a consequential detail to be considered.

As such, the language that I cited from WP:EDITWAR is an exemption rather than an exception as it is part of the rule, and while the language that I cited from WP:NOTBUREAU may be a caveat, it is not clear that it is a special one (i.e. distinguished by some unusual quality) because most policies provide explanations and consequential details to prevent misinterpretations, and thus, is not an exception to other policies either. The language of WP:5P5 and WP:IAR is about exceptions to rules, not exemptions within rules or caveats for rules. As the language I cited from WP:EDITWAR and WP:NAVBOX are parts of those policies and guidelines, the language reflects an already-existing community consensus about those topics per WP:NOTBUREAU.

In other words, I am not stringing together exceptions to ignore policies or race ahead of community consensus, but instead am following WP:EDITWAR and the already-existing community consensus in WP:NAVBOX, and I believe that your assertions that I am not is false. As for your recommendation about the Village Pump, I've used it before to propose a more structured means of resolving content policy disputes and encountered the same kind of reflexive opposition that I typically encounter on talk pages. Given my experience, I don't know that it is a worthwhile use of time if I find myself in the same kind of situation again unless norms change to discourage reflexive opposition and arbitrary reverts, because otherwise even proposing a change to an article, template, policy, guideline, procedure, or organ within Wikipedia or new ones altogether will never progress. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but that's just the nature of the process here. You can't expect to win every argument, and you simply are just not permitted to wage an ongoing edit war with another party across numerous articles/namespaces until you feel the rest of the community has caught up with what you feel to be your advanced position with regard to the rest of us. That's not how this works. When WP:EDITWAR refers to exceptions for the purpose of enforcing key policies, it is talking about issues like unambiguous vandalism, severe and dangerous BLP issues, blatant personal attacks, and other serious circumstances requiring presumptive abrogation of the usual consensus building process. Those are very different animals from "I think this guy is really, really wrong about this navbox inclusion criteria." On that point alone, you are very much bending the intended purpose of policy well past it's breaking point.

And I really don't think your other arguments fair any better, though I'm simply not going get into a recursive series of increasingly minute semantic arguments in an effort to convince you. My friend, I suggested you were out on a rhetorical limb with this argument of yours that you are not subject to EW standards, because of a very wordy and convoluted stacking of policy language, and your response was to give one of the most pedantic and attenuated exercises in Wikilawyering (and I don't use that term often or lightly) that I have ever seen--complete with literal "Miriam's dictionary defines X as..."-style arguments.

And I'm going to ask you to believe me when I tell you with absolute candor that I only made my previous post in this discussion for the sole purpose of giving you an alternative path to the sanction that has been proposed, or a worse one: both very real possibilities if you continue down an IDHT path regarding the edit warring. As that was and is my only purpose, I'm not going to waste your time or mine dissecting every word of the dozen policies you have thrown up in your defense. Suffice it to say, I am not convinced by your arguments for why you were/are obviated from following normal rules regarding edit warring in these circumstances.

More to the point, I don't think the community is going to be won over by them. And I'm very confident that if you continue to pursue them rather than just saying "Ok, I see; I need to try something else that involves further discussion rather than edit warring", sooner or later (and probably sooner) you're going to be looking at a sanction. We all get frustrated with process sometimes, and despair of discussion outcomes that we can't fathom. But we still have to abide by the consensus and dispute resolution processes. That's the last of my thoughts here. I do wish you luck, whether you decide my advice is worth heeding or not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be more concise than the ever articulate and diplomatic Snow Rise. At a certain point, who is correct in their interpretation of WP:NAVBOX is less important than who is being disruptive on the project. Snow Rise is trying to counsel you to rethink your approach so you don't push to the limits of the community's patience and sanctions become a real possibility. Some editors are so insistence in their belief that they are right about some aspect of editing that they don't see the big picture, that the community is tired of the entire dispute and if the editors can't reconcile, the community will step in and end it in a way you may not like. I'd take her advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise and Liz: All I will say in response is the following:

1. I find the tone of User:Snow Rise's last comment to be glib rather than diplomatic per WP:UNCIVIL;
2. As other editors have told me in a tone I also found uncivil, essays are not policies or guidelines and have no official status under WP:P&G (see WP:ESSAY), while WP:WL and WP:TEXTWALL are not even explanatory essays under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL and thus do not have wide acceptance within the community as informational pages–and probably because WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON requires that consensus be based in policy rather than popularity or exclusively on the common sense of editors, but also because if you choose to edit Wikipedia, you are supposed to be doing so on a volunteer and non-contractual basis per WP:COI and presumably do have the time to respond to lengthy comments (and especially if you participate in talk page discussions unlike the overwhelming majority of editors);
3. You could have more concisely pointed out that enforcing WP:NPOV pursuant to WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted from WP:EDITWAR if you took the time to review the policy and explicitly cite its language–which if I had been told initially, I would not have taken the time to write a lengthy response to any of the comments made because I would have known this before making this comment and do believe in following the letter and principles of policies;
4. Arbitrary reverts (i.e. reverting without providing an edit summary and especially without citing a content policy or guideline) probably do drive potential editors away per WP:REVEXP, and WP:ROWN, is presumably why WP:EDITCON and WP:UNRESPONSIVE strongly recommend including edit summaries, and why you shouldn't be dismissive of this concern I raised because it is probably why the Wikipedia community isn't larger; and
5. User:Randy Kryn has left a comment on my talk page for the purpose of reconciliation and future collaboration, which I intend to reciprocate with an affirmative response. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You really found my comments to be uncivil? Because I felt I was making a pretty calculated effort to approach you in a relatively soft and friendly tone while also being clear enough to turn you around on the issue before your tenacity lead to a formal conclusion that you were being WP:IDHT about the edit warring. And even now, reviewing my post, I'm not seeing where I said anything that should be reasonably construed as particularly glib. On the contrary, I'm not sure what else I could have said to come off as more sincere about the issues or the importance of dropping the stick.

As to "You could have more concisely pointed out that enforcing WP:NPOV pursuant to WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted from WP:EDITWAR if you took the time to review the policy and explicitly cite its language–which if I had been told initially, I would not have taken the time to write a lengthy response to any of the comments made because I would have known this before making this comment and do believe in following the letter and principles of policies", I'm not required to exhaustively identify every single policy that provides a reason for you to not to edit war in these circumstances, in order to be sure I hit the one which you would find most compelling. Especially insofar as that would require speculating on which sections of which policies you are and are not familiar with. You're not a completely brand new editor, and even if you were, that would still be a pretty massive shifting of the burden to make me responsible for the gaps in your knowledge.

If you don't have full familiarity with the relevant guidelines yet, I would just advise embracing the precautionary principle wherever EW may apply, even if you think you may have the benefit of an exception. As to the immediate dispute, it's good to hear that you and Randy are hashing the issues out now, which obviously is the best case scenario here. I wish you two luck arriving at a solution you can both be content with. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not required to exhaustively identify every single policy that provides a reason for you to not to edit war in these circumstances, in order to be sure I hit the one which you would find most compelling. Especially insofar as that would require speculating on which sections of which policies you are and are not familiar with. You're not a completely brand new editor, and even if you were, that would still be a pretty massive shifting of the burden to make me responsible for the gaps in your knowledge. If you don't have full familiarity with the relevant guidelines yet, I would just advise embracing the precautionary principle wherever EW may apply, even if you think you may have the benefit of an exception. See my previous comments about the various sections from WP:CON (WP:EDITCON, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON) and WP:NOT (WP:NOTBUREAU; WP:NOTDEMOCRACY): Achieving and determining consensus requires policies be cited as justifications in discussions, so no, editors are required to identify policies and their language and even if an editor has been here a long time since policy language and their interpretation changes over time per WP:5P5.

WP:IDHT discusses points made by editors broadly and does not distinguish between citations of policies from arguments where common sense is invoked, but considering the language of the various sections I've cited from WP:CON and WP:NOT, it is unclear why citing policies that reflect an already-existing community consensus would fall within the scope of WP:IDHT, and if you don't have time to explain or read the reasons of why an edit is permissible or not under a policy, then you are not following existing guidelines for achieving consensus. WP:EDITWAR states "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." What this language suggests is that enforcement of WP:NPOV per WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted under WP:EDITWAR. The simpler thing for you to have done would have been to simply cite this. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

OR on Ba 'Alawi sada

Kabul madras (talk · contribs) keeps on adding OR to the article, and continued doing so despite being warned; broke the 3RR Abo Yemen✉ 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Some interesting reading in the section at User talk:Kabul madras#September 2024 which indicates you were both blocked and unblocked bu JBW CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the block log, OP was unblocked 4 minutes later with the message Blocked in error, due to misreading the editing history, so OP's block history is irrelevant to this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You missed my point which was that they had both been unblocked because JBW had second thoughts. Look at Kabul madras block log they were also blocked and unblocked (Wrong account blocked by mistake). This then looks like a case of "other parent", especially when combined with the section that begins "@Abo Yemen and Kabul madras: First of all, my apologies for the block of Kabul madras". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"My bad on participating in the edit war, but how is he allowed to add his original research on the article?? None of the sources that he cited says anything about how many people in Indonesia dispute or even reject outright the validity of Ba 'Alawi sada linkage with Islamic prophet Muhammad. In fact what do indonesians have to do with an Arab family?

He also used sources such as youtube polls, Indonesian youtube videos, used this script of "Sunan al-Tirmidi" (which doesn't verify what he claimed in the article), some familytreedna.com spreadsheets, and whatever the fuck this is supposed to prove."

The above is a post by @Abo Yemen on my talk page.

There are several issues between Abo Yemen and me.

1. The article states "The claim of the Ba Alawi clan's lineage connection to Prophet Muhammad SAW remains controversial due to the lack of contemporary sources that record Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad al Muhajir". I have provided a relevant reference link for this section and, as far as I know, it is not original research and does not violate Wikipedia's rules for use as a reference. The content of the quote does have a conflicting view with other parts of the article, but I included it to make the information in the article neutral and unbiased. Therefore, I included a controversial paraphrase to explain that there are differences of opinion regarding their claim as descendants of Prophet Muhammad. I included this section at the beginning of the article because it explains the claim at the beginning. Abo Yemen objects to this.

2. The use of the words "some" and "many". I have included a reference to a survey of over 12,000 voters to explain that the number of those who do not believe this is indeed large and not small. In fact, this is a hot topic in Indonesia now.

3. The use of FamilyTreeDNA as a primary source in the article. According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources may be used cautiously with certain conditions, which I have met diligently. Therefore, I also included secondary and tertiary sources that explain the primary source in the following sentence.

4. The use of YouTube links as sources. As seen on the Sada Aba Alawi talk page, I initially raised this issue but received no response from Abo Yemen. Therefore, when forced to use other sources, I used YouTube sources too cautiously. And it should be noted that not all YouTube links were included by me, but also by other editors such as user @Buhadram (Tirmidhi, etc.).

5. In essence, what I want to convey in the article is that the claim of Sada Ba Alawi as patrilineal descendants of Prophet Muhammad is still controversial. Some believe it and some reject it. I want to include both sides in the article so that the article is neutral and unbiased.

Thank you. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

your points just proves that you have done OR. Especially the youtube polls "survey of over 12,000 voters". Also the FamilyTreeDNA does not say anything from what is written in the article, you just added a link to a dna database in the style of a citation.

That entire section needs to be well sourced using reliable unbiased sources or it will be removed completely as that article should be treated like a BLP. Abo Yemen✉ 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the OR from FamilyTreeDNA. It doesn't say anything to reject the validity of Ba'alawi. I could not find result from the Youtube showing the voting statistics either. I am worried the edits are biased. (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Buhadramof course FamilyTreeDNA does not conclude as such, which is why I used a secondary reference from "https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/" to explain the primary source. I have already used this reference in the section "This finding suggests that the Ba Alawi lineage does not descend directly from Prophet Muhammad, but rather has a genetically distinct line of ancestry." When I was about to add this reference to another section, edit warring had already occurred and I refrained from further editing. Kabul madras (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

sorry , wrong user , @Buhadram of course FamilyTreeDNA does not conclude as such, which is why I used a secondary reference from "https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/" to explain the primary source. I have already used this reference in the section "This finding suggests that the Ba Alawi lineage does not descend directly from Prophet Muhammad, but rather has a genetically distinct line of ancestry." When I was about to add this reference to another section, edit warring had already occurred and I refrained from further editing. Kabul madras (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• I have not looked into the issue of original "research", which is what this discussion is supposed to be about, so I have no comment to make about that. However, in view of what has been said about my blocks, I will attempt to make absolutely clear what they have been about. Since this is not on topic for this section, please just skip it if you aren't interested in it. (1) My block of Kabul madras was a straightforward mistake: having been checking editing histories of both editors, and shifting back and forth between the two, I clicked the block link on the wrong page. Certainly Kabul madras had been edit-warring, but they had been warned, and had not continued the edit-war since the warning, and I didn't think it was necessary to block. (2) Abo Yemen, on the other hand, had actually posted an edit-warring warning about an edit-war in which he was himself involved. That means that he knew that it was an edit-war, that he was involved, and that it could lead to a block. In my opinion that alone would have been enough to justify a block. I also thought that he had continued the edit-war war after posting that warning, so I blocked him. However, I then realised that I had misread the editing history, and in fact his last edit to the article had been before he posted the warning. I think that even allowing for that, it would have been reasonable to have maintained the block, but I decided to give him another chance, so I removed the block. Well, he has been given another chance, and has used it to continue the same edit war again. I have therefore blocked him again. JBW (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Buhadram , you are surely aware that everything mentioned is currently under dispute as explained above, yet you persist in making extensive edits to the related article. Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to refrain from further editing while waiting for guidance from other administrators? Kabul madras (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kabul madras, we both should refrain from major edit-war, with I exception of minor fixes such as typos or spelling/grammar corrections, I believe. My most recent updates mostly were minors, such as typo correction and adding Wiki links to some mentioned words. Although, I noticed you recently reverted previous edit made by @Abo Yemen. Any way, I've tagged the section with POV. Buhadram (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

and I am the one who gets blocked off editing for 3 days smh 🙄🙄 Abo Yemen✉ 16:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Before editing, I asked for permission from the @JBW as admin and was granted it. Following their advice, I started adding references. If this is incorrect, I will remove it immediately. Kabul madras (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

JBW granted you the permission to edit the article, which wasn't something that you were prohibited to do in the first place Abo Yemen✉ 17:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Buhadram Okay, I just reviewed again the log list. Sorry, I was wrong. It turns out the biggest change was made by Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Those big changes that you're talking about is me translating the article from arabic to english... Abo Yemen✉ 17:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To @Abo Yemen and @Buhadram, as we can observe on the discussion page of the Sadah Ba Alawi article, the differences between us are indeed significant. You wish to maintain the status quo, while I am inclined to introduce an alternative approach to the article. Consequently, the likelihood of reaching an agreement between us is very slim. In fact, both approaches have their own references that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the article. Therefore, I invite the administrators to mediate this issue, and I will abide by the administrators' decision on this matter. Hopefully, this will happen soon so that the issue can be resolved quickly. Kabul madras (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks over content dispute

TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk · contribs) Hello. I'd like to flag for attention a content dispute over the status of several geographic locations in Queensland that has led to personal attacks against myself and another editor by this user. On the talk page for Ipswich, Queensland, myself and others have raised concerns about TFEU's behaviour. They have engaged in similar content disputes, accusing good faith editors of WP:OR and questioning WP:NPOV, including placing inappropriate maintenance tags on the articles and reverting edits that restore sourced, long term stable content. As there may be a language barrier, I brushed off TFEU's comments on their own talk page that are disparaging toward Australians. However, attempts to discuss this matter with the user and resolve the dispute indicate they intend to ignore consensus. They are now accusing myself and StellaAquila of multiple instances of "forgery" that they believe need to be looked at by an administrator. Of particular concern to me is the edit summary for [change] on 26 August, which accuses me of falsifying sources and undermining consensus. I feel this is now a personal attack and have asked TFEU to strike their WP:Aspersions, however they seem to have gone inactive and have not responded. Dfadden (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I had no intention of using any personal attacks. I would also like to point out that I wanted to inform you about the falsification of sources in this article - my intention was not to offend anyone, and if someone thinks otherwise, they are breaking the Wikipedia:Assume good will. I didn't say anything about the user as such, I only wrote that what that what he is doing is falsifying sources. Also, I would like to remind you that falsifying sources is a verb and describes an action regardless of the good will of the user and whether he do it on purpose or by mistake. I have noticed falsification of sources in this article. I explained it thoroughly in the discussion, it didn't help. Dfadden didn't even discuss it in the discussion, nor did he try to clarify the matter before reverting. User:StellaAquila add [32][33] and later, user:Dfadden restored[34] the content of the article that is not supported by sources. In other words: both users inserted the content of "regional city" and "serves as the city’s central business district" and sources for that content, even though the sources say nothing about it. That's not all - they removed the article's content (word of "suburb") which is supported by one of these sources (there is even a quote!!!). User:Dfadden came here to complain, and didn't even verify the sources inserted by user:StellaAquila. Dfadden, it is your responsibility to verify the sources before restore StellaAquila's version. Just because you weren't the first to insert false sources doesn't mean you're blameless. By blindly restoring false sources inserted by user:StellaAquila, you are just as guilty of forging sources as he is. It is very good that the matter was reported to ANI, because it is unacceptable for users to falsify sources in the article.

I have correctly inserted content ("suburb") supported by a source and have provided a citation from the source. I have also correctly inserted appropriate templates for content not supported by sources (template:failed verification span) [35], because that's what this template is for. User:Dfadden removed content supported by a verified source + quote and removed templates informing about a faulty source[36]. Dfadden, how do you intend to explain these destructive actions? TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You’ve said you had no intention of using any personal attacks, but the following quote looks quite offensive to me, even allowing for the fact that you aren’t editing in your first language:

Discuss in Talk:Ipswich, Queensland is not good idea, this talk page will recruit mainly Australians, which will allow them to push through even the stupidest idea. The discussion should have a broader, international character, where the Australian point of view (disconnected from reality) has only one voice [37].

At the very least you should apologise unconditionally for an exceptionally poor choice of words. That statement needlessly inflamed a content dispute into an ANI issue. Axad12 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It was about the topic in a broader sense - the point of view among Australian residents about the localities may be considered unacceptable in the international environment (such as Wikipedia), especially since in many cases this content is unsupported by sources (thus violating a fundamental principle of Wikipedia). I was agitating for a broader discussion in a neutral place on Wikipedia, where the "Australian" opinion will be treated as one among many others. Looking back at my statement almost 2 months after writing it, I can see that my choice of words was indeed inappropriate. I apologise for an exceptionally poor choice of words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The word i take most issue with is "forgery", which you again just used right here in this discussion, despite your claims you never said that about me: By blindly restoring false sources inserted by user:StellaAquila, you are just as guilty of forging sources as he is. You also made this accusation on the talk page: The StellaAquila / Dfadden's version is a forgery, because the user inserted two sources into the content, but these sources do not say anything about it[6][7]. The administrator should look into this matter because in this article it is already a recidivism..

Its one thing if you have an issue with WP:Synthesis of the sources added by StellaAquila (which is a discussion I'd be happy to engage in at the appropriate place). Its a very different thing to accuse people of forging sources - which implies we made up sources out of thin air to deceive or personally benefit. Forgery and recidivism are words associated with criminal activity. Was this just another "exceptionally poor" choice of words that you just doubled down on after your earlier disparaging comments? Dfadden (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For me, in a broader sense: introducing false sources into the article, especially since I wrote about it earlier in the discussion, is falsifying sources / forging sources. I can see that you are really offended by this - ok, I won't use these words anymore. I would also like to point out that we have completely different opinions on this subject - you react too bluntly (I don't know if I used the correct word) to my descriptions of your behavior and it is possible that I am using words that (contrary to my logic) may be considered inappropriate. As I wrote above, my intention was not to offend anyone. Unfortunately, I do not know how to write in English that someone introduced false sources to the article - without using words that may offend someone. For me, the situation is so absurdal that even pointing out that someone introduced false sources into the article may be considered a personal attack. Although my intention was not to offend anyone, I apologize for my words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I accept that you did not intend to accuse me of criminal conduct, however you repeatedly state that I am falsifying information when i have done no such thing! I have encouraged you to discuss controversial edits (which others have told you they have concerns about) before making changes to articles that have been stable for a long time. I reverted one of your edits after a conversation was started on the talk page. I asked you to discuss any changes first as it was controversial and they seemed to go against the majority in the discussion, which was still ongoing. I added a source that stated Ipswich is a regional city (albeit a primary one, i think in this case the city council is reliable). I did indeed restore the source added by StellaAquila. although I acknowledge its not the best source and a better one could be found, but this was just part of me reverting a controversial change you made. In response to this, you left permanent comments in an edit summary accusing me of falsifying information and of forgery on the talk page. Language barrier or not, that was rude, unnecessary and demonstrably untrue! I also note you have been involved in similar content disputes on a number of articles relating to cities in Queensland where you have displayed hostility towards anyone who has a different opinion to you and in Spain (such as here) where you were cautioned against edit warring. Dfadden (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are offended that I am writing untruths, that you are falsifying sources, and you are offending me, that you are writing untruths about me above. I have reverted few changes made by User:StellaAquila in Queensland's articles because some his edits were controversial. I don't remember any disputes with other users in Queensland's articles. You added a source that stated Ipswich, Queensland is a regional city? Where? Please give wikilink and quote from the source. The same applies to the second source, which is also false. Why are you writing once again, untrue, that the version with term of "regional city" is stable version? The term of "regional city" is a new change made by User:StellaAquila in 10 July 2024‎. In addition, why are you trying to hide the fact that you restored a version that contained two false sources even though I wrote about this problem earlier in the discussion? Besides, what kind of new tactic is this, you carefully analyze all my edits I have made on Wikipedia to find some small points against me. This is against Wikipedia rules and has signs of harassment. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are insufficiently fluent in English to be able to disagree without causing needless offence then I’d suggest you have three choices.

Either…

a) Take advantage of one of the various options available to get extra eyes on a dispute, e.g. WP:3O, WP:RfC, etc. (That sort of thing is usually a good idea anyway when 2 users just cannot agree, which happens to everyone from time to time).

b) Edit on English Wikipedia in such a way that you avoid arguments (inevitably some users find this easier than others).

Or, failing all else, c) Edit (or argue) only on a version of Wikipedia where you are fluent.

The above is intended as constructive advice, based simply on the fact that it requires a very high degree of fluency in a language to have a protracted argument in a civil fashion.

As ANI does not rule on content disputes I'd suggest that you take the content issue that underlies this thread to another location. Once there, de-escalate the situation by using more neutral language and wait for others to decide what should happen. Does that sound reasonable? Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Axad12. These are all very wise and reasonable courses of action. I would like to clarify that I did not raise this AN/I to resolve the content dispute (there is already a discussion running on Talk:Ipswich, Queensland), but rather to address TFEU's pattern of problematic behaviours. We did previously discuss an RfC, which I encouraged, however this was met with more rubbish about excluding Australian opinions - So that there is no situation of appropriation of the Australian-related articles of the English Wikipedia by Australians, so that the Australian point of view is not pushed in a discussion where 99% of the arguments will come from Australians, because the discussion will be local. Discussion should be neutral. In such a local discussion like Talk:Ipswich, Queensland, only the Australian point of view ones would be discussed. Given that the topic is very disputed and controversial and changes to Australian-related articles are often contrary to international standards, a Wikipedia:Third opinion is necessary.

Another example of problematic and uncivil behaviour can be found at user talk:StellaAquila#Australian articles, where (prior to the edits to Ipswich that TFEU claims I "falsified"), there were more accusations of WP:OR and threats against that user over a rather minor edit: However, your falsification of sources in relation to content is seriously damaging Wikipedia, and the consequences will be severe. Also, the removal of the word "Brisbane" from articles [1] will not be tolerated. Naming Brisbane as a region - your original research [2] also will not be tolerated. This is the last warning. I should also note that a third, uninvolved editor has echoed the concerns raised by myself and StellaAquila in the discussion at Talk:Ipswich, Queensland.

Finally, to respond to TFEU's question as to where I added a source that indicated Ipswich was a regional city, I refer to [[38]], where I added a reference from the Ipswich City Council (albeit a primary source) that states: The city is ideally positioned on the national road network; As Queensland's oldest provincial city, Ipswich has a rich history.; Ipswich also has a range of charming townships within the western rural areas of the city, each with its own legitimate claims of historical significance. This edit was reverted by TFEU [[39]] with the edit summary the discussion did not explain anything new. Besides, no matter what the consensus in the discussion would be, we are dealing here with falsification of sources by user Dfadden. User Dfadden inserts a sources to content that is not in the sources. The administrator should deal with the matter because it is a recidivism. It seems clear to me based on this that TFEU is not interested in working collaboratively to resolve anything and will continue to cast WP:Aspersions regardless of any consensus. Dfadden (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Dfadden, you are repeating yourself and nitpicking the same thing over and over again. Soon you will quote all my comments here. And why? My opinion on the Australian naming problem was quoted above in the discussion. As can be seen from the above-mentioned Ipswich and dozens of other articles, Australian users tend to call everything (villages, towns, cities, LGAs, agglomerations, urban areas etc) as "city". This is contrary to international standards in Wikipedia. That is why I agitated that there should be a broader discussion of an international nature, not a local discuss between... Australians residents with mainly the "Australian" point of view. Of course I can show the evidences: many discussion pages and Australian articles showing that I am writing the truth. Of course, this is a substantive issue and ANI is not the place for such discussions.
• Regarding your source - this is a source about City of Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland . Secondly: the source does not mention term of "regional city" and your edit refers to inserting this source into the term "regional city". The source does not mention "regional city", so the accusations of OR are completely justified. So your source is 100% false and misleading. I have growing concerns about your intentions because your above comment may mislead other users. To the administrators who are not know with the Australian naming issues: City of Ipswich is a city with a mayor, city council, administrative boundaries, an official website and even has international relations, e.g. sister cities. On the other hand, Ipswich, Queensland is just a population center, area covering the city center, without a mayor, city council, administrative boundaries and official website. Ipswich, Queensland is nothing formal, this is area who covers the city center of the City of Ipswich. The source cited by user:Dfadden refers to City of Ipswich [40], not Ipswich, Queensland (which is what this discussion is about).
• Dfadden, I would like to remind you that ANI works both ways. If there is a dispute between two users, it does not matter which one starts a thread on the ANI site first. Your comment above shows not only that your source is false because it does not refer to Ipswich, Queensland (source refers to City of Ipswich) and the source does not contain the term "regional city" (and you entered the source to this name). Your comment above, which may mislead anyone unfamiliar with the problems of Australian naming, and the fact that you, as an Australian, know perfectly well that the source is from City of Ipswich and not Ipswich, Queensland - this suggests that it is worth taking a second look at your intentions. So far I have been guided by Wikipedia:Assume good will, but it is worth to analyze the attempt to deliberately introduce false sources into the article. It is also worth remembering that there is also a motive - Dfadden, despite my proposed compromise in the form of a neutral term "population center", the user has not initiated any discussion towards compromise[41], trying to force the controversial and disputed term "city" for Ipswich, Queensland. I am not accusing anyone!!!!, I am only suggesting that it is worth taking a look at this situation. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on this user for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? This would still allow everyone to participate in an RfC to resolve the content dispute over Australian cities and provide an opportunity for consensus and de-escalation. Dfadden (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on user:Dfadden for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? User:Dfadden is not willing to compromise at all, he imposes only and exclusively one version that he supports. The user did not discuss two important topics in talk page[42], instead he came here to complain. The user entered false sources into the article and despite everything coming to light, he did not even decide to apologize. Now the user unwilling to compromise will want to restore his version, possibly with false sources since his version has no reliable sources. Therefore, I not only suggest a topic ban in this article for the User:Dfadden, also I suggest consider blocking the account for a certain period, e.g. 2 weeks or month, for his underhand actions towards me and other users (harassment me, lies about me, evading responsibility for own edit, probable attempt to deceive other users by inserting a source concerning City of Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland) and the article (introducing false sources into the article). I have nothing against having a substantive discussion with a user:Dfadden on an article's talk page, but the article should be protected (by topic ban for user:Dfadden in Ipswich, Queensland) from subsequent edits that push words without supporting sources, most likely violating the OR rule and against introducing false sources into the article. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Dfadden hasn't edited that article since 18th July. You reverted that edit and Dfadden hasn't edit warred but instead engaged in discussion. The idea that a block is required to "prevent further disruption" to the article is nonsensical.

  If your post above is an attempt at de-escalating the current situation and avoiding needless offence then perhaps you'd better seriously consider option (c) in my post of a few days ago. Axad12 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not exactly - you forgot something important. You forget that the fact that a user did not engage in an edit war earlier in this case does not exclude that when he gets rid of me he will introduce his version backwards (without edit-war). What guarantee do you have that if I am banned from editing this article, Dfadden will not restore his version with false sources? You should understand one thing: his version has no reliable sources, everyone involved in the discussion of this article (including Dfadden) knows that. There is a huge possibility (based on his actions in the article and in this discussion) that Dfadden, when he gets rid of me, will want to restore his version 1) with false sources 2) without any reliable sources, because there are none. Therefore, the article must be protected. There is no point in me avoiding discussions on the article's talk page, but I would prefer to contact a third party (Wikipedia:Third opinion) who will exercise control over violations of Wikipedia rules, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Dfadden needs to understand one thing, I have absolutely nothing against the consensus, IF it complies with Wikipedia's rules. His version in 100% violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and everything indicates that "regional city" also violates the Wikipedia:No original research rule. Apart from the issue of breaking the rules, we have a substantive thread to discuss. Instead of continuing the substantive discussion, the user preferred to scare me with reporting to ANI[43]. I would like to remind you that my current version of the article is compromise #1, which shows both options in reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (both "suburb" + source+ quote and his "regional city"+[failed verification]). I proposed the compromise #2 in the article discussion. So, compared to me - the Dfadden does not want to compromise, he only wants to enforce his version unsupported by sources, which shows his intentions. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd refer you again to the desirability of option (c). Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support p-blocking TravelerFromEuropeanUnion from the article, as they clearly cannot edit this topic without resorting to insults and demanding to get their way. The sealioning of bouncing between accusing another editor of deliberately introduce false sources into the article then immediately following up with I am not accusing anyone!!!!, I am only suggesting that it is worth taking a look at this situation. is just disingenuous. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support as per my comments above. Axad12 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am willing to voluntarily withdraw completely from editing this article and even from the discussion, but only on one condition. I would only write only one summary comment on the article's talk page, two points: 1. Wikipedia rules and 2. a substantive/merythorical issue but only and only IF a third person (Wikipedia:Third opinion) makes sure that:

  1) Wikipedia rules are unconditionally and mandatory followed. This means that a third party will not allow content to be inserted without sources and will be responsible for accurate verification of sources.

  2) the substantive thread will be analyzed using arguments (not the number of votes, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy). The third party will evaluate the arguments from everyone in the discussion and draw conclusions as consensus.

  This is a modification of Axad12's proposals, to which I will gladly agree. It can be as RfC, I see no obstacles. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Instead of continuing the substantive discussion, the user preferred to scare me with reporting to ANI May I remind you that you were the one who said you wanted an administrator to intervene as part of a thread i started to discuss this issue? The StellaAquila / Dfadden's version is a forgery, because the user inserted two sources into the content, but these sources do not say anything about it[6][7]. The administrator should look into this matter because in this article it is already a recidivism. I am also not the only editor in that discussion to raise concerns that you are not listening or do not understand what the community is trying to tell you, and have crossed a line into personal attacks in previous attempts to engage with you to resolve this issue.[[44]] Dfadden (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  The issue of adding false sources is an administrative issue. The administrator should look into this matter. I still have this opinion and it is sufficiently explained in my previous comments. The sources are false and cannot be used in the article. This does not change the fact that I proposed a compromise and you did not respond in the discussion about the compromise, but started to scare me with a motion to ANI. You are trying to distort the discussion here, introducing the same quotes over and over again, just to distract other users from your behavior. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @TravelerFromEuropeanUnion I've found that I agree with you on the content (and have posted to the talk page, so consider me involved), but agree with the others that there's an issue with your approach. WP:AGF is indeed a part of WP:5P4. In your condition above, what you ask is basically that the process follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This implies that currently they are not. Regardless of your intent, the effect is a personal attack, which is why this matter has come to this noticeboard. I suggest you'll get far better results in your time here if you assume there's a miscommunication, not malice, the next time there's a disagreement. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I agree with you. However, I would like to "pass the baton" to a third party (preferably you) who will ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's policies, in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you for engaging in the discussion here and at Talk:Ipswich, Queensland. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The devicer - personal attacks

The devicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If wikipedia has a nepotistic bias towards some users and rewards them for being stubborn without showing any legitimate reason at least be honest about it. [45]

Now historyofiran user is waging an edit war because of his god complex and perhaps the shared bias with the people who cried for deletion of al tabari's estimates. [46]

You are not reading my responses "feelings of majority of the users" are irrevelant when there is a source on the hand. Ridiculous guy [47]

if you dont like it bring an alternative medieval source like al tabari cant just erase it out of childish temper and whisfull thinking... ... You are the perfect example of the reason why wikipedia is a joke among academical societies. Now report me you have power only in a web site yet you even abuse that. What a pathetic behaviour. [48]

Not to mention WP:NOTHERE like behaviour, can't even be bothered to read two simple policies [49], instead keeps edit warring [50]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

More personal attacks; "You are a coward who cant even state his obvious bias and a clown with a god complex" HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks are irrevelant to the real argument which is " you had no legitimate source to dismiss al tabari's estimates so it is unjustified to delete them " you are still being a coward by hiding behind my personal attacks which were provocated by your own abuse of power. And I know there is no real justice here so at least stating the reality about you. Clown The devicer (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont care about being banned I only care about you are dismissing the real historical sources without a source of your own. Now cry to the others and get me banned but this attitude of yours is the reason wikipedia is seen as a source not better than an old woman's gossip in a village. If you didnt brought a warning about the edit war which objectively got started by you I wouldnt really understand how much of a pathetic person you are. The devicer (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Power abuse and deleting the estimates of the actual historical sources is far worse of a crime than calling the person who commits those crimes out in a harsh way. But you are a clown with no self respect so only thing you care is banning me which I dont really care. Thank me for calling you as what you really are LoL The devicer (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The devicer, no one has to try and get you blocked, you are seeing to that outcome by your own comments and you keep digging the hole deeper. Can you participate in a civil discussion without personally attacking other editors? Because if you can't control yourself, I don't see a future for you here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And then continued to make personal attacks here in this thread in rapid succession, and openly admit they were personal attacks - you are still being a coward ... Clown ... a pathetic person you are ... you are a clown with no self respect. Yikes, someone needs a time out, in the meantime, I will give them a warning about NPA, because that kind of attitude and those attacks are unacceptable. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And now The devicer has violated WP:3RR [51] [52] [53] [54] --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been reverted a total of 7 times now by multiple editors who clearly instructed them to change their behaviour and they just keep repeating the same thing over and over in their edit summaries ([55], [56], [57]) and even when confronted on their talk page ([58]). They're not getting it at all. R Prazeres (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

historyofiran is the one who wages the edit war and also editing out the only medieval legitimate source's estimates cant be legitimize by a lobby of editors. You need alternative sources for adding another estimate near it without dismissing the actual medieval source ( al tabari) these people are not academically honest at all The devicer (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you the one edit warring tho.

Skim over that little article I put on your talk page (it could be helpful, you never know). Also have a look at WP:IDNHT. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Once the content has been reverted, several times in this case, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus to restore the disputed content. You are not doing that, you are edit-warring to your preferred version. You have made personal attacks, you are edit warring, I am now proposing you be blocked indefinitely until such time you acknowledge and address the multiple concerns raised about your disruptive editing behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears Doug Weller has already blocked. And I reverted the article back to the last stable version. Probably wouldn't hurt to keep any eye on the article though. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Admins may want to consider blocking them from talk pages too, given these post-block comments: [59], [60], [61]. R Prazeres (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Drmies has revoked talk page access. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit war at Battle of Popasna

There is an edit war at Battle of Popasna starting with this removal at 14:01, 2 September 2024 by an IP. This was reinstated here by Discospinster. Since then, it has been removed and reinstated by the two editors a further four times up to 21:23, 3 September 2024‎ (see history here). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN/3 seems the proper venue for this. Northern Moonlight 05:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Not quit meeting 3RR as far as I can tell. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack by Sammy D III

• Sammy D III

This diff:

I believe that the huge amount of discussion over such a minor detail is a waste of the efforts by many editors who could easily be more useful elsewhere. That a single editor thinks that they are so important that they can squander resources like this for their own personal opinion on such a tiny thing borders on bad faith (and "borders" is a weasel-word). A person who I once considered the second smartest person I had met here is now so narrowly focused... Shame they can't step back a touch.

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a personal attack?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

An allegation of bad faith editing made on an article TP (borders on bad faith (and "borders" is a weasel-word)) is a personal attack (WP:NPA#WHATIS), not to mention the general tone of ad hominem, neither of which productively address the question of the RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds pretty diplomatic to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Who exactly are they "attacking"? And, just as important, what action are you seeking? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Who they are attacking shouldn't matter. An RM discussion is not the place to make such an allegation. As to a remedy, there is precedent for a TBAN for making such allegations - no matter how sugar coated. However, the purpose of a sanction is to prevent disruption. An admonition and striking the comment would probably serve sufficiently. It might also serve to caution others to argue the question and not personalities (ie comment on content, not on the contributor) - which ultimately leads to wider disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This is just an observation, not an opinion on what should happen. But in my experience on ANI, unless the edit is egregious (see examples on this noticeboard), an editor is usually not sanctioned for one edit, especially an editor who has been editing for 11 years. They might receive a warning but that's about it. I think admins who patrol ANI like to see a pattern of misconduct before they are willing to impose a sanction. Of course, I could be wrong but that's what I've seen in my years here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Liz, there is a pattern of such conduct by various editors in RM discussions involving capitalisation. There is a CTOP for WP:AT and MOS discussions but unfortunately, this does not extend to RM discussions where, in my observation, poor editor conduct is most observed. We can have robust discussions without needing to resort to such behaviour. Perhaps the CTOP should extend to RMs. I don't disagree with a warning in this instance but I do think that admins should take some action and show some interest in preventing incivility and PAs in an area where this is common. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of this situation but it sounds like it is a bigger problem than this one comment by this editor. It sounds like there have been ongoing problems in these discussions and I'm not sure whether ANI is the best place to find a solution for these incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Let's save some time. I have no problem with this being a personal attack. (I do take extreme offense at "ad hominem"). I wish I hadn't said "borders on bad...weasel-word)", I wish I had just said "rude". Otherwise, I'm comfortable. Any action you take, other than deleting the comment (which I can't do), will just be punishment. I'm going to hit it for the night, later. Sammy D III (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Per the article ad hominem: Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Cinderella157, if you're going to cast obvious aspersions at me too, then you're required to notify me per ANI rules.

Now I'm pretty thick-skinned on such things, but if you're going to summon the Civility Police then I also see this comment Blame Andy Dingley for fighting a simple maintenance process per guidelines.[62] as very much a personal attack. This is emphatically not a 'simple maintenance process'. It's a change, contra sources, and that is not a maintenance task. Nor is it required by any guidelines to do so. The RM in particular was raised by Dicklyon to repeat an undiscussed bulk move they did previously after they twice refused to discuss it, it was rolled back through RM/TR (and reverting back undiscussed moves is a simple maintenance process, per policy) and now they're trying to push it through again. An RM to ignore RS in favour of MOS (because the RS are getting WP's style guide wrong) and to go with 'ghits beat RS' instead will gain enough votes to push it through because it attracts the same voting editors each time, but it's still against our policies and good practice for an encyclopedia based on WP:SECONDARY sourcing.

I'm a newbie at RM, Dicklyon is an expert. Which they took pains to point out when refusing to discuss this move for the second time. And yet they also manage to ride roughshod over the RM/TR listing policy in a way that conveniently gets them actioned first, without time for any objections (This sheer coincidence must have been a great surprise to all parties). And when I raised this with them afterwards: Talk:M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle#Recent move for the first time ever they didn't threaten me with ANI or to have me blocked for being 'disruptive'. "Oops", as they put it.

Andy, "Refusing to discuss the move for the second time" is a strangely backward accusation, considering these two sections User talk:Dicklyon#M40 Gun Motor Carriage and Talk:M40 Gun Motor Carriage#Undiscussed page move that you started on July 24, that I tried to discuss in, but you didn't follow up. And considering all my discussion in the subsequent sections of that article talk page, including coaching you on your options if you still objected to the moves after seeing the evidence I laid out there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• When patronising other editors , please don't do so by embedding your reply in the middle of their post. See WP:TALK. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not 'disruptive' to follow our core policies re secondary sourcing. Even when that grates with the MOS. And WP:BLUDGEON is also a problem, when that is expressed through pearl-clutching and running to ANI crying 'Oh, the Incivility!' whenever someone disagrees with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Obvious aspersions at you too? If I was reporting you, I would have named and notified you. I will say that the tone (civility) of the discussion at the RM has degenerated since the personal attack by Sammy D III and as a direct consequence of that post. I would also say that it is not reasonably acceptable by WP standards. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not interested in digging into the background of all this, but the single example posted by OP does not seem to me to be a personal attack. Personal attacks =/= someone saying something you dislike. And even if I could be convinced it were a PA, it is so mild and unactionable as to make this filing a waste of time. Grandpallama (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't really get the point of Sammy D III's attack on my character, or why he added that he used to think I was smart. The worse problem is Andy Dingley's remarks, above and elsewhere. Besides declining to follow up at the first couple of conversations he started about these titles, he persists in claiming that I'm working against sources, in spite of the fact that my whole case is based on sources, and the support garnered from others is based on my presenting a good source-based case. That's why I opined to Sammy that the waste of a lot of editors' time had Andy to blame. Andy, I regret saying that. I apologize. Any such personalization detracts from the question, and I shouldn't have gone there. I should have kept the focus on just what you wrote. Anyway, nothing good comes of editors complaining about each other's minor nastinesses at ANI, so let's close this and get back to the actual RM question. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou for the apology. Well, by 'apology' I suppose that's what you think it is. But actually you just came to ANI, blamed me for everything you could think of, and then finished up with 'Oh, but I regret posting all that' despite the fact you've just turned up at ANI specifically to repost it. You stretch AGF impossibly thin by your actions throughout this.

And now, in the midst of yet another of your endless and contested efforts to erase all capitalisation you wonder what the best little bit of editing is that you might do next? Obviously [63] to move yet another similar article from Rover Light Armoured Car ! Undiscussed or unannounced, of course.

This makes it simply impossible to credit AGF any further for you. You don't give a damn about the views of any other editor. You care as little for that as you do for WP:SECONDARY. You have already decided what the answer is, you're going to act on it regardless, and if anyone questions you, you'll refer them to the unassailable policy on the subject (that you wrote). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to relitigate seventeen move consensus over the course of five years. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

So tell Cinderella that, they're the one posting here.

Also by 'consensus' for a list you mean, 'just the one's that went the way they hoped, not the others'. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F and bad-faith editing

• 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2023 Nashville school shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kathy Hochul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP has requested edits to the 2023 Nashville school shooting article using questionable sources, and has misgendered the shooter.[64][65] User's pattern of conduct is to deem any engagement with them as harassment and shut down any communication.[66][67] As a result, I'm at a dead-end with this user and request additional assistance in reviewing their conduct and determining what sanctions, if any, are in order. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If needed I can provide a long list of uncivil behavior in their short time here. A bit odd that they have started two RfCs on their first day editing and are aware of BITE. They also asked two admins to not post to their TP on their first day. I backed off as I think the editor may have a problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"...as I think the editor may have a problem. This can be categorized as Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, no?

You are the other editor I mentioned above as me having needed to ask you 4 times to not post on my TP. It seems you would be very much an involved editor then and you posting here immediately after @C.Fred could potentially be policing, no?

Since you also seem to imply I am an old timer or perhaps am being disruptive just for being an IP editor, I want to clarify that I have never had an account on WP or any of its projects. There are many reasons to be, and remain, an IP editor. It seems to me that this might be a case of discrimination against IP editors.

Thank you for remaining civil.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

me having needed to ask you 4 times to not post on my TP. I posted a standard Welcome template on your TP. You made a false claim that you had previously asked me not to post to your TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

IPs change addresses all the time (which will hopefully be solved by temporary accounts). As a (former?) recent changes patroller, it is very natural for new IPs to suddenly show up with experience. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not with the behavior displayed if they managed to stay unblocked. And neither RfC was acceptable. But glad to hear a solution may be forthcoming. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is natural for people to act ferocious online. What is natural is not always the best. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly lied about other editors. Stated they had requested me not to post to their TP after I made my first post, which was a standard Welcome template. Demanded two admins not post to their TP. Demanded we not respond to their edits. The majority of edits have been attacks. This is not natural. Certainly not in a collaborative project. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that I will be accused of BITE and ASPERSIONS and all sorts of other abbreviations but I beginning to suspect we are being trolled. No new editor this knowledgeable about policy page abbreviations can be this oversensitive and have such delicate feelings, that they would call your Welcome message "harassment". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you posting this here. This can bring more clarity to the obvious ill will you have shown.

@C.Fred has been an uninvolved editor in my two recent TP posts. I have never used curse words, pejorative language nor pushed any deprecated or blocked sources. In one of these editing request (Katby Hochul) I have only used RS of the highest quality (AP, Reuters, WSJ, CNN, ABC, CBS, and others) yet @C.Fred mistakenly claims "questionable sources".

How did @C.Fred came here? He noticed on another editor/admin'a TP, that had a strong disagreement with me, that I asked for Wikipedia:USERTALKSTOP. @C.Fred then posted against me, ignoring Wikipedia:Bite and ignoring Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Of note, I had to ask this editor four (4) times to please stop interacting with me or postint on my TP. @C.Fred then proceeded to check my recent edits and posted on another TP, for an article he hasnt edited, to try and find fault in any post of mine and counter my opinion.

Moreover, when @C.Fred pointed out I had misgendered somebody by mistake, I edited my post and noted it.

This seems like a big nothingburger from somebody who is very nearly casting aspersions on every interaction with me.

I would encourage anybody interested on learning more on the above to check the TPs of both cited articles and read the posts there.

If I have violated any WP rule, please have an uninvolved administrator confirm so and tell me how so I can learn. But I don't see how my TP suggestions have been detrimental to WP in any way.

Thanks for reading.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I see two editors being very objective and polite. You are taking offense at slights that only are visible to you. Wikipedia can be a very blunt and abrasive environment that requires editors to be able to argue and still get along and be civil with editors whom they might have strong disagreements with. You are welcome to edit here but if these communications upset you on your very first day with this IP address, I'm not sure you have the stamina to last long as an editor. We advocate civility sure but, to be honest, not everyone is polite all of the time. You have to be able to deal with that atmosphere to edit here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, but with "you" including Fred as well. As a user summoned to the aforementioned RfC Ip opened, Fred's comment seemed a bit problematic. This is the first thing he has seen of this user, whom he directly accuses of acting in bad faith. I can't fault him for suspecting ill will due to the shooter's publicity, but choosing to voice these concerns publicly without, say, neutrally voicing them and seeing how Ip reacts is a pretty great misstep that deserves an informal apology. (And, again, the same applies to Ip as well.)

I would also encourage Ip to refrain from posting walls of text that seem to lawyer upon extensive lists of project-space pages. Such is a very combative tone that is the same behavior exhibited in WP:BITE and does nothing to resolve situations. All they do is weird editors out and dilute your main point. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu, I find nothing wrong with the "misgendering" comment by C.Fred. When C.Fred made that comment, the IP had already been flooding that talk page (with at least a dozen edits), and I'm sure C.Fred saw that. AGF does not apply to editors who have already demonstrated bad faith. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment and providing helpful context. WP is a very, very hard place for any non-experienced editor to navigate. For this I try to learn but there are many hoops and WPisms that prevent many from even participating.

I do not use curse words nor pejorative adjectives. I am not posting banned nor depecrated sources. But it seems that NYSun and similar sources (they're not even featured on the perennial sources lists) is a tad too much and a very, very experienced editor jumped to shoot my very polite proposal down just because. It all devolved from there and you are the first editor to actually offer help (in another TP). For that I am thankful.

I wish now that somebody would explain, in the proper TP of course, why NYSun and Townhall, to cite a few, are never to be used even if there has not been any debate/consensus on them?

I wish now that somebody would explain why @Objective3000 claims that I have problems here and that is not aspersions or deserving of an apology?

I could go on, of course. To you @Aaron Liu, apologies if this constitutes too long of a text. I'm just trying to reply to all the points.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm heading off soon so I won't read and respond to all of that. On Objective, you cast unsubstantiated claims that he has been editing your comments (improperly). Unless you provide some evidence for that, it remains an aspersion, and Objective is right to defend himself. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that it takes a certain amount of grit and experience to edit in difficult topic areas; and when doing so editors should try their best to remain civil. Wikipedia has a significant number of articles that are non-controversial and could use expansion or improvement and I would encourage new editors to create an account and start editing those to gain experience. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I blocked their /64 for a month for disruptive editing before I had seen this report. A couple months ago Drmies put them in timeout for a week, so we'll see if a month is any more effective. If anyone sees this range act up again after the block expires feel free to reach out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, it gets worser and worser--I just noticed this. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Sounds of Silence. Always liked that song. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Truth account personal attack

TruthTeller144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See Special:Diff/1243915977. 'Nuff said.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And I thought he was complimenting me. Been in CT too long. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And I wanted to be the one reporting this. Truth69420 (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité, doutez de ceux qui la trouvent" -- André Gide O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing personal Truth69420, but we seem to have problems with editors who have "Truth' in their username. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

True! Truth69420 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Do any of the UAA-reporting bots look for 'truth' in the name like they do with other strings often used by disruptive users like 'yolo'? QwertyForest (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Some poor newbie just wants to edit about Yolo County, California, and they get dragged to WP:UAA by a bot. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I live in Yolo County (Davis). Should I change my name to YoloTruth69420 or is that a bit too much? Truth69420 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, now I've been reminded of my greatest failure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Two negatives make a positive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it an even–odd thing, or are there certain magic numbers? Hmm, User:DMacksTruthBotYoloAdminPENIS isn't registered.... DMacks (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You had me at all caps. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be a question for AmandaNP but I would doubt it, from what I can see flagged up by DQB, as I type this. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 19:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem in looking for ‘truth’ is that ‘yolo’ signals potential vandalism, which should show up in the first few edits, while ‘truth’ indicates someone fighting the infidels, and may do it in the correct way: making sure their side is not unfairly represented, or the incorrect way: abandoning NPOV or even, as in this case, charging in with torches and pitchforks. And the pitchforks may take a while to show up in their edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Racist PA by Albanian atdhetar

Blatant racist behaviour in edit summary by Albanian atdhetar "at least I'm not black lol" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1243958628 2.48.63.46 (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

While the edit summaries left by User:Albanian atdhetar definitely are unacceptable, I think the IP is also doing themselves dirty here by calling the other user out as a "sock of NormalguyfromUK" without any evidence. I checked some of the accounts which the IPs claim to be User:NormalguyfromUK socks, and in fact they are not blocked from editing and are still editing to this day (User:Randomuser2412, User:PrekCali). Seriously, if there is a strong sign of sockpuppetry going on, file a WP:SPI or write down evidence on an admin noticeboard about it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There already is one with extensive evidence. 2.48.63.46 (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me then. But still, good practice is to revert the user's edits after they have been blocked, not before, in case they aren't actually a sock (which in that case the damage done to such innocent user could be extensive). — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm an inexperienced user posting on ANI, but I have encountered this user before and I believe they additionally have a pattern of tendentious editing on Albania-related articles, i.e. changing battle results to "Albanian victory" etc diff. I didn't do anything at the time because I didn't know what WP:TENDENTIOUS was. Crystalespeon (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

SPI shows no relationship. I have indeffed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding potential automation

Hello! I have noticed many edits within quick succession by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.30.82.169 over the past day (apparently this has been occurring for several days). It appears to be strange mass editing activity, potentially like an automated, unauthorized bot (I think bots still need to be authorized?). A decent number of the edits are also being reverted. Anyway, I asked at AIV (as well as if something like this should be fully rolled back), and was directed to pose my question here, instead. I am unsure as to whether or not there is authorization for this mass editing and/or bot activity within some train editing group, or whether things like this are just ignored in general. Anyway, cheers. Top5a (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with the edits other than being made in quick succession, Top5a? Nobody (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just reverted their latest edit as unsourced. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The ones that brought this to my attention were a bunch that were altering things such as mass altering the size of images from, for example, 275px width to 250px width, things of that nature, and done across dozens of pages within a minute or two. I didn't think that that sort of behavior was normal or allowed on enwiki (mass minor cosmetic edits without consensus, for example). Top5a (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of people and bots make mass minor edits without first seeking consensus for each individual edit. If they are constructive minor edits it is not a problem. If they are unconstructive or gaming to achieve extended-confirmed status or whatever, it is a problem. The timing of the edits appears slow enough to me to be manually editing rather than an unauthorized bot.

As for image sizes: specification in pixels is almost always the wrong thing to do. It should be relative to the reader's preferred default image size using |upright=. See MOS:UPRIGHT. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

>Lots of people and bots make mass minor edits without first seeking consensus for each individual edit

Bandwagon fallacy, is it not?

I am an infrequent editor, but this used to be enforced (I checked to see whether or not this policy has since been revised): Wikipedia:Bots#Bot policy You should update that page, then, to reflect this apparent change in bot policy.

Furthermore, as far as mass cosmetic edits are concerned, this page should also be updated, it appears: Wikipedia:Mass_editing#Cosmetic_changes

Regardless, cheers, and thank you for the response. Top5a (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hello, these two users User:2001:999:400:EA71:21C1:8C71:9204:9572 and User:91.152.225.81 keep vandalising iraqi and kurdish topics without an account, they keep editing sources and showing off as a (baathi) like racist arabs who try to vandalise topics within that federal country, what I mean by that is they keep insisting on removing topics related to (kurdistan region) and changing it to (kurdish populated area in northern iraq) which this shows that they dont have any neutrality and try spreading racism and anti kurdish sentiment while the iraq government itself recognizes the kurds. I really appreciate if an administrator helped out because its not their first or second time, Thanks. ZagrosianSigma (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You failed to properly give notice to the users. It has been done now. However, in my hastiness, I created a talk page of an IP address without noticing the lack of a user page. It has fortunately been deleted, but I've updated your comment to include the User portion of your links. Conyo14 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I really didn’t understand what you really wrote but I really need someone to help me out they keep vandalizing topics related to Kurds and editing it just as they wish to ZagrosianSigma (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yaugthao1

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

---

Yaugthao1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Yaugthao1 has been consistently adding spam information to several articles, the most recent being at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tornadoes_of_2024&oldid=1244048468. 8 out of their 9 edits have been reverted because of this, and I don't know where to bring it besides here. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I revdeled the over-length edit summaries. Looks ripe for a NOTHERE block, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:AGF, AI generated replies and User:Twofortnights

Twofortnights (talk · contribs · count)

Two days ago, I started a discussion about the first sentence of visa requirements articles on User talk:Twofortnights, who was the editor that introduced most of these changes. The actual content dispute in question is simple: MOS:REDUNDANCY and I find the use of “administrative” and “states” questionable and not backed up by RS.

I invited them to discuss the change and give them an amicable heads up that I wanted to make the change. Instead of just asking me to continue the discussion first, User:Twofortnights then immediately informed me that they intend to report and revert and threatened me with WP:DE and WP:VD in a 7 paragraphs warning, even though that I have not even made a single edit to the articles at this point. They accused me of not wanting to discuss on the very same page I started a discussion. They then accused me of WP:TAGBOMBING for adding a single tag.

I don’t believe I deserved this level of hostility from them. Given that the user’s userpage and their talk page literally start with an entire page of their grievances editing visa articles, it seems they generally have a problem with WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Northern Moonlight 03:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I acknowledge that I should have been more level-headed in the remaining of the original discussion. Northern Moonlight 03:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

They haven't edited since 5 hours ago so I think they should be given time to respond. But, boy, I thought I had too much content on my User talk page before I archived it this week but they have me beat. 385 discussion threads plus a looong monologue at the top of the page. Time to archive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

In the talk page discussion, the user's post [68] that you noted reads like something written by ChatGPT does indeed score "100% AI generated" at GPTzero.

More interestingly, the section of the user's response [69] to you (commencing with Your comment suggesting that my response "reads like something written by ChatGPT" is a form of casting aspersions) also scores 100% on GPTzero.

ChatGPT, with its characteristic lack of self awareness, goes on to say Instead of making baseless claims, I would encourage you to focus on addressing the content and policy-based arguments presented, as this will lead to a more productive discussion.

Wow, you couldn't make it up... Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m honestly not really sure how to feel about having spent the time to trying to communicate only to get an AI generated response in return. This feels pretty disrepectful. Northern Moonlight 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For a user to employ ChatGPT to deny that they are using ChatGPT strikes me as a very special form of bad faith editing. To then use it to lecture another user at great length on points of policy seems like a very serious abuse (and an act of extreme hypocrisy). Axad12 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked the user to start an RfC or a discussion on the relevant article's talk page. I've cited numerous Wikipedia policies to make it clear that my comments are based on actual guidelines, not just personal opinion. The user has also referenced several Wikipedia policies, which is commendable.

Regarding the sudden focus on my writing style, I find it curious that you claim my edit was not only AI-generated but 100% AI-written. I’d like to remind you that my replies included quotes from Wikipedia policies, as well as paraphrasing the user’s own words. While I use Grammarly, which is embedded in my browser, please let me know how is using proofreading tools an offense? If anything, it should be done by everyone. Moreover, your claim that the text is 100% AI-generated is simply implausible. Unless you are suggesting Wikipedia policies and essays were also proofread by AI? Because even if I was a bot, your supposed tests couldn't possibly return the "100%" result as the edits contained content copy-pasted from elsewhere. But just to assure you once again, I am not a bot. Generally this whole thing feels like a WP:WITCHHUNT. First, going through my 10 year old edits - that felt not just absurd but also dystopian. I actually thought the user was trolling when he came up with a bunch of diffs from ten years ago. I tried to explain the implicit consensus to no avail. But now he is also accusing me of being an AI, which I think is painfully obvious I am not. It feels like I landed in The Trial and I have to answer rubbish accusations and waste my time on nonsense.

As for the comments on the length of my talk page and my communication style, I don’t know what to say—thank you, I suppose. I'll keep that in mind. But also keep in mind that De gustibus non est disputandum and Eye of the Beholder.

In any case, this discussion is misplaced. It’s not about me or my writing style. The issue at hand is that the user has been invited multiple times to initiate an RfC or discussion on the relevant talk page, rather than going through my edits from 10 years ago. I’ve also clearly asked the user to stop continuing the conversation on my talk page. What more do you need from me? What else can I do? Is there a reason why we're discussing me rather than the actual topic? Why is this user so focused on my talk page? I don’t own these articles, and while I will continue to express my strong opinions, the appropriate place for such discussions is not my talk page. My talk page is certainly not the right forum to make decisions, especially since other editors are unaware that this matter is being discussed.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The posts that I referred to in my previous response were clearly AI generated, as was at least one other post by you in that same talk page discussion. The percentage of 100% is the likelihood that the text was AI generated (which could include text taken from elsewhere), it is not the percentage of the text which was AI generated.

It would be more productive if you were just to admit it, say you won't do it again and move on, rather than presenting this as some kind of dystopian witchhunt, which obviously it is not. Axad12 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already clarified the tool I use for proofreading my posts. I hope this ends the urge to have me repeat the same thing until you make me feel badgered. Now that we have addressed the gross violation of me proofreading my edits—an action that is a far-cry from being bot-generated content—can we please return to the core topic?

Per the guidelines for dispute resolution, we should Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. (WP:FOC). However, I continue to see an incredible amount of focus on my persona, including irrelevant details such as the tidiness of my talk page, while my actual concerns regarding the content and the absence of a requested RfC have been overlooked.

I would like to reiterate: Is there a reason why an RfC on the ledes of visa-related articles has not been initiated? Is there a reason this discussion continues to center on me rather than the content at hand? These are genuine questions, not rhetorical ones.

Because if there is no reason to avoid an RfC, I ask once again that we move forward with this process and cease with the personal focus. I intend to contribute to the RfC with my strong opinion, as is my right, and I believe that is the appropriate forum for resolving content issues.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you unaware that ANI threads are about user behavior and not content dispute? This is literally from the page you cited. Northern Moonlight 13:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@User:Twofortnights:

I have repeatedly asked the user to start a RfC or a discussion on the relevant article’s talk page.

You threatened me with WP:DE and WP:VD before the the word RfC even appeared in the discussion. You accused me of WP:TAGBOMBING (and a block!) for adding a single tag with a five paragraph long warning. The reason we have an ANI discussion here is your tendency to assume bad faith.

You seem to be under the impression based on the age of the edits I cited that I went through all your edits manually just to get you. I simply checked where this phrasing in these visa articles originated by using WP:WikiBlame, because I couldn’t find a prior RfC or discussion that I can refer to. I didn’t even call your edits bad either—you are not even WP:AGF in this thread.

As for the comments on the length of my talk page and my communication style, I don’t know what to say—thank you, I suppose. I'll keep that in mind. But also keep in mind that De gustibus non est disputandum and Eye of the Beholder.

Casting aspersions before an edit even happens is not an acceptable communication style.

In any case, this discussion is misplaced. It’s not about me or my writing style.

WP:ANI is about user behavior, not content dispute.

I’ve also clearly asked the user to stop continuing the conversation on my talk page

I have not continued the conversation on your talk page. What are you complaining about?

Northern Moonlight 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Twofortnights, for the record I'm not at all satisfied by your explanation on the obviously AI generated posts. If you feel badgered then perhaps it would have been better if you hadn't done it, rather than complaining about the people who spotted it. Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the "AI/not AI/how much AI" dispute, I agree with Twofortnights on the merits of the issue. Having a very short sentence at the beginning of Visa-related pages about what Visa is is not redundant, as it provides context as to what the page is about. Side note, for many non-English language native editors and readers, the first obvious meaning for Visa is Visa Inc. (I myself discovered the alternative meaning of Visa quite late in my life). I strongly suggest starting an RFC on the issue, and frankly, I don't understand why Northern Moonlight preferred to exacerbate the dispute adding questionable citation tags for things like "Visa requirements are administrative entry restrictions" and to turn to ANI instead of seeking consensus through talk page discussions or a RfC as they were suggested to do. They don't have to convince Twofortnights who could well be in the minority here, but the whole community. Cavarrone 13:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t start an ANI thread to resolve a content dispute. If User:Twofortnights had worded it like you did, or just asked me to start a RfC, I’d be more than happy to oblige (I still am, by the way). The problem here is that they threatened to “report and revert”, threw out serious accusations like WP:DE and WP:VD—before I even make a single edit, and again of a block for adding a citation tag. Using AI is just the cherry on top. Northern Moonlight 14:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you, I said how I would feel about you undoing my edits from 10 years ago which would effectively leave the articles without ledes. In case you had some other ideas you should have spelled them out, I can't read your mind. It's my right to believe that undoing edits from 10 years ago to fall under disruptive editing. I could be wrong, but I said I would report it. That means admins would determine if it is disruptive. Are you seriously complaining here because I said I would report something that I think is wrong? It's my right to do so, just like you just reported me here so I don't get your point. And you suddenly started talking about 3RR violations while I never said I would engage in that. I would revert once and seek resolution from admins, that was my whole point. And I don't know why do you bring up the fact that I warned you before you made any edits in the first place. Should I warn you after you make them? I don't get it really.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:THREATEN: “Don’t do that or you will be blocked.” Your rev: can lead to blocks or bans. It doesn’t matter if you used ChatGPT by the way—you are still responsible for what you post. Northern Moonlight 15:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's my right to believe that undoing edits from 10 years ago to fall under disruptive editing. I could be wron

I'll be blunt and say yes, you're wrong. Just removing your edits from long ago is not inherently disruptive. Immediately going to threats to report someone for that is abrasive and over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It kind of clarifies your reaction here. If you believe that I have no right to warn you that I will seek remedy, and if you think I have no right to believe your edits are disruptive, then I understand where you are coming from. However I maintain my position that I have the right to use available recourse if I consider your edits or proposed edits to be disruptive. The due process will then decide if I'm right. But I did not threaten you. A "threat" generally involves an illegal or harmful act to coerce someone (communication of intent to inflict harm or loss on another person), while legal action is a lawful process. Informing someone about the possibility of legal action isn't a threat because it's simply a notice of exercising legal rights. Since legal action is a legitimate recourse, it doesn't fall under the category of a threat as understood in an unlawful context. The equivalent of legal action is utilizing Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. I have no intention to inflict harm on you or to cause you any loss. My only intention is to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia articles.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Read up WP:THREATEN, which is cited above. Northern Moonlight 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I send you any unhinged messages like those provided on the WP:THREATEN? No I did not. I am referring to the fact that my messages have merely detailed the potential consequences as specified by certain policies, which is entirely within my rights and proactive in the sense I did not wait for you to make a mistake, I warned you in advance. As the WP:HA clearly states, threatening another user includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm. It unambiguously states that "Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats.". I feel as though I am continuously facing accusations from you, such as me supposedly trying to assert ownership of the articles or these more novel aspersions that I am an AI generated bot. Additionally, the use of various Wikipedia policies to portray me negatively resembles WP:WL. Most importantly, we are still discussing me rather than addressing the substantive issue at hand. My earlier non-rhetorical questions about the reluctance to discuss the actual matter at the RfC remain unanswered.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I send you any unhinged messages like those provided on the WP:THREATEN?

The rev is cited above. The top of the thread also cites a rev that is the same message as the first example of WP:THREATEN.

I am an AI generated bot

No one said you are a bot. But don’t expect people to believe this isn’t generated by LLM either.

we are still discussing me

This is the third time I’m explaining this, but WP:ANI is about user behavior. It doesn’t seem you have read the messages people left you, because you keep asking questions that are already answered. Northern Moonlight 02:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As you can see above, other users have also questioned why you preferred to exacerbate the dispute with some of your edits and to turn to ANI instead of seeking consensus through talk page discussions or a RfC as you were suggested to do. Since you insist on asked and answered issues (WP:DEADHORSE in general, but also I don't think there is a policy or essay on badgering another user with outlandish accusations expecting them to then answer those as if they were legit issues so I will link to The Trial instead) but avoid answering the questions I asked I can then only repeat, not sure what else there is for me to do - Is there a reason why an RfC on the ledes of visa-related articles has not been initiated?--Twofortnights (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

other users have also questioned

This was answered literally in the first response yesterday.

Is there a reason why an RfC on the ledes of visa-related articles has not been initiated?

There is no deadline on Wikipedia (just do it yourself if you want to). Keep in mind that an RfC would not make this discussion about your behaviors go away. Northern Moonlight 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

While it is true that there is no deadline on Wikipedia, you should be aware that it could be perceived as nonconstructive and failing to engage in consensus building if you keep discussing other editors and refusing to discuss the matter which you initially started.

I feel my question hasn't been addressed. As you are the one proposing new edits and raising issues, it would be appropriate for you to initiate the RfC. The logical move is for the person proposing changes to seek broader input through formal channels. Have a look at WP:PROPOSE.

Moreover you still haven't explained what is it exactly that you want to do with those articles. As I said we can't read your mind, let alone initiate an RfC in your name. It's hard to discern what is it that you are trying to do, and you get defensive over any interpretation of your vague plans.

Anyway, given that you've raised multiple concerns without starting an RfC, I'm curious about your reasons for not doing so. Initiating an RfC would provide a structured way to gather community input on the proposed changes and help resolve any ongoing disagreements. It would also ensure that all perspectives are considered in a transparent manner.

If there are specific concerns or obstacles preventing you from doing so, it would be helpful to discuss them openly. Moving forward with an RfC seems like the most constructive way to address the points you've been raising and to reach a consensus on the proposed edits.

If you want to be convincing about the WP:GOODFAITH of your edits then I urge you to engage on this matter constructively.--Twofortnights (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

User:清风与明月 Continued Tendentious editing.

After attempting to communicate and attempting to collaborate in good-faith, my colleague continues to engage in WP:TEND contrary to policies on Wikipedia. Their activities continue to include what appears to be a systematic attempt to engage in WP:CENSORSHIP by removing or diminishing mention of sex-work as part of the function of a Geji, contrary to numerous reliable sources that state such. When we disagreed on Talk:Gējì, they requested that a third party be brought in to arbitrate the issue and have since doing so continued to edit the page without engaging in the WP:3PO process. Understanding that 3PO is voluntary and nobinding, I am mentioning this because in my last time raising their conduct I was informed I had not attempted any dispute resolution first. The user was also notified by an admin User_talk:清风与明月#Gējì to participate in the discussions rather than ignoring them and continuing to re-add contested content.

Difs:

• [70]User removes a source with no summary as to why, leaving a source which is predominately in Chinese despite Wikipedia favoring English language sources and a source which in the abstract refers to Liu Rushi as a prostitute, which the user is misusing to represent them as not engaging in sexwork.
• [71]User adds a source and misrepresents it as saying that Geji did not engage in prostitution. The source never explicitly says Geji did not engage in prostitution but does say that courtesans and prostitutes did provide sexual services.
• [72]In this edit, the user again misrepresents the source as in-line citation says none of what the user added and says instead musical performance and sexual performance were, in fact, usually the forte of an individual known as a "singing girl" (geji 歌妓, literally "song courtesan")
• [73]Here, the user tries to change the lead using a personal essay about a scholar's experiences to definitively state that Geji were not prostitutes even though the essay in question doesn't even say that.
• [74]User removes entire sections of text and sources with zero explanation as to why.
• [75] They provided an edit summary this time, but again continued to misrepresent the sources and editorialize as well as removing sourced content for no real reason.
• [76]User editoralized again, changing "eloped" to "abducted" and "Lovers" to "Friends" despite the fact that the source uses eloped and the source uses lovers.

As documented previously, the user has been warned about this behavior and has continued to engage in this conduct. Likewise, the user has been accused of wasting other editors time in submitting article drafts, and warned for edit warring. More recently, their talk page demonstrates articles they've created or proposed which are up for deletion or have been rejected. As I noted in my previous complaint which I dropped in an attempt to find common ground and work together here, there seems to be an issue of WP:CIR that is damaging to the enyclopedia. Brocade River Poems 03:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, BrocadeRiverPoems

I thought your name was familiar so I looked in the ANI archives and found this thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#User:清风与明月_multiple_issues, that you opened on the same subject. It's kind of hidden in your statement by just referring to it in a link as "here". Likewise, if you participated in previous dispute resolution processes, even if they were not successful, it helps to provide a direct link so that editors can see the background of the disagreement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Apologies for not making the incident clearer. As for other dispute resolution processes, Talk:G%C4%93j%C3%AC#Third_opinion an attempt to get a third party at their behest here which they have yet to engage with though they continued to edit the article, and numerous attempts at direct communication such as on their talk page User_talk:清风与明月#Collaboration_on_Geji and variously on Talk:Gējì which have resulted in no change. Brocade River Poems 04:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think I need to explain. First of all, I did not say that ancient Chinese Geji did not provide sex. I have always said that not all of them were prostitutes. And I also added two different views on the Geji wiki. I have said that "ancient Chinese geji sometimes had sex with men, but many of them were not prostitutes." At the same time, I also added "another view is that ancient Chinese geji were entertainers and prostitutes."The content I quoted also has references, and they are English books. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G%C4%93j%C3%AC

I don't want to emphasize it anymore. Please read my full content. I mean that the fact that there are singing girls who engage in prostitution does not mean that all people are prostitution. And sexual relations with men are not necessarily in the form of prostitution. It is this person who insists that singing girls in ancient China were prostitutes. He thinks that they are all prostitutes or sex workers. That's why I said we can't communicate. Because there are completely different perspectives on understanding, it is impossible to unify this entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not a venue about content. This venue is about your conduct as an editor and whether or not it is damaging to the enyclopedia. You have failed to properly cite sources, you have failed to evaluate the reliability of sources, and you continue to make contentious edits without participating in discussion and without proper edit summaries in which you routinely remove sourced information from the article. This is a chief example of what I mean by WP:CIR is a big issue here. You say I have said, you shouldn't be saying anything. All Wikipedia articles can do is represent what the Reliable Sources say. You, however, seem to have an agenda. Per WP:NOTTRUTH, Editors may not add information to articles simply because they believe it to be true, nor even if they know it to be true. and WP:NPOV which states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Your tireless efforts that either come unsourced or with unreliable sources has long since encroached the territory WP:POVPUSH. As for your statement He thinks that they are all prostitutes or sex workers. That's why I said we can't communicate., I would thank you to not randomly misgender me, and secondly, I have never pushed for the inclusion of the word 'prostitute' in the article. The statement which you continued to edit in contrary to what the source said stated simply that Geji sometimes engaged in sexual activity with their clients, because that is what the majority of the sources say. Brocade River Poems 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The names of singing and dancing venues in ancient China include yuefu(乐府), jiaofang(教坊), goulanwashe(勾栏瓦舍),[102]gelou(歌楼),[103] qinglou(青楼)[Label 2] and wuxie(舞榭).[104] Although the meanings of these singing and dancing venues have changed in different dynasties, but cannot equate all singing and dancing venues with brothels or places of prostitution.[Label 1]Starting from the Tang Dynasty, there was a custom among gejis that those who had a good relationship would become sworn sisters and were called "incense brothers(香火兄弟)" and "handkerchief sisters(手帕姐妹)".[Label 3]Not all gejis married nobles as concubines.Some gejis chose to marry musicians, and after marrying musicians, they usually retired from the profession and trained their children in artistic skills. Some gejis began teaching other women skills during their careers. Some gejis eventually became teachers who taught girls singing and dancing.Due to the low status of gejis, some were forced to lose their virginity, and some became men's mistresses involuntarily. This kind of sexual exploitation is not necessarily equivalent to prostitution.Some gejis also engaged in prostitution, such as Sha Cai in the Ming Dynasty, who was a geji and a prostitute at the same time and eventually contracted syphilis.[105][106]But this is a personal behavior and does not mean that all gejis are prostitution. In addition, some pimps run brothel businesses in the name of gejis. The girls sing during the day and engage in prostitution at night. They are usually understood as prostitutes.

This is the description I added to the geji entry. I haven't finished adding the specific references yet. I object to this friend's accusation that I whitewashed the geji profession and prostitution. I think my description is objective enough because not all geji are engaged in prostitution. On the contrary, this friend wants to identify all geji as prostitution, which is not objective enough. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I am updating this to include more problems.

• [77] The user hasn't properly cited the information they have added, moreover the source is being used to support the statement Some gejis also engaged in prostitution, such as Sha Cai in the Ming Dynasty, who was a geji and a prostitute at the same time and eventually contracted syphilis, the source doesn't actually explicitly say any of that outside of the fact that Sha Cai developed syphillis per the translation the user provided which says She was very famous for a while, and people described they as the second Zhao(二赵) and the second Qiao(二乔). Unfortunately, Sha Cai got syphilis and half of her face was rotten.. The user has misrepresented the contents of the source.
• [78] User has added a source which, again, does not support the claim they are using it to support. The source as provided by the user says She vowed that if she did not meet a talented man, she would not lose her virginity and A rogue man threatened her to have sex, but Xie Suqiu did not agree, so she decided to leave and finally returned to Luoyang. None of this supports the claim this is a personal behavior and does not mean that all gejis are prostitution.
• [79] Addition of more unsourced content that Geji were forced. While I have no doubt that sexual exploitation occurred, it is not evidence that Geji did not perform sexual services as part of their job, nor is the comment sourced. It is the exact kind of WP:OR and WP:POVPUSHING that I have raised these complaints about.

The sheer volume of edits they make to the page and the sheer number of errors they introduce greatly impedes any attempt to improve the article. Whenever positive changes are made, the editor goes back in and makes dozens of more edits which erode the quality of the article again. Again, I am suggesting some form of intervention per WP:CIR, the editor continues to demonstrate a competency issue in evaluating sources and accurately representing them, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE, sometimes an editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.

Per the following points:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.,
• Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research., and
• Fails to engage in consensus building.

Brocade River Poems 21:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Providing a further update. Upon examining the history of one of the articles edited by the other editor, I believe User_talk:103.137.63.207 to be the same as the editor in question. Notably, anonymous editing was blocked from the IP Address on June 10th for disruptive editing. On 05:17, 20 June 2023 User account 清风与明月 was created. At this dif [80], the IP Editor was reverted. Then this [81] IP editor User_talk:194.26.74.9 arrives and makes a similar change to the ones that had been reverted. Notably, 194.26.74.9 came up as an IP out of Hong Kong when I looked it up, and its entire range was blocked. Beyond that, the edit histories of all of these IP editors seems heavily in line with the user in question. Special:Contributions/194.26.74.9, Special:Contributions/103.137.63.207, Special:Contributions/清风与明月&target=清风与明月&dir=prev&, Special:Contributions/194.26.74.35, Special:Contributions/1.65.203.129,Special:Contributions/111.246.12.104, and probably others. The reason I bring this up is because it demonstrates that if these IPs did in fact belong to the user that the user has been making these tendetious edits since as early as June of 2023, and that upon being blocked for doing it, they simply continued to make the changes anonymously on a different IP Address. Brocade River Poems 02:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I too have concerns about this editor's changes to the article. There seems to be extreme WP: POV pushing, removing referenced content that does not agree with their viewpoint and adding obscure offline references to justify their additions. Although a third opinion has been asked for, they continue to edit the article to change it to their POV, even though this is opposed to by other editors. --John B123 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

DatBot malfunctioning

I uploaded a new revision of File:Lucent Technologies logo.svg, but it seems that DatBot rescaled the *original* revision instead of my revision. What went wrong here? PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Informing the owner about the malfunction. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean that you are informing the owner or that I should do that? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BOTS, any malfunction with the bot you encounter, must inform the owner. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

User:DatBot says "Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's for emergency where a shutdown of the bot is required. Is there other similar issues across all svg? or just restricted to a couple of files? In any case, this is likely a bug which the bot operator and/or maintainers would like to know personally. – robertsky (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, this is the first time I noticed an issue with the bot. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

cc @DatGuy. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As robertsky correctly stated, the section you quoted is for an emergency measure to request a block for a completely malfunctioning bot. Individual tasks have a run page linked in each edit summary and the user page which can disable the respective task, and is the suggested way to go about it. While a spotcheck of other SVGs with multiple revisions didn't raise any issues, I have turned the task off for a day or two to try and diagnose the issue in Lucent Technologies.svg. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 06:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, your version upscale the file beyond the max 100,000 pixels for nfcc images. – robertsky (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I know, I just upload whatever format and let the bot downscale to something that is appropriate. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

English? editor obsessive editing in Aztlán's Etymology section

Dan Harkless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting an explanation about "Aztlán" word origin by bare reasons like "thank you but I still can't understand it", "is unintelligible for me", just the explanation is an hispanicization of a Nahuatl word and other words from Spanish that are fonetically similar but Dan Harkless are adding mistaken tags to the paragraph. I also request evaluate restrictions about similar topics. Thanks for the actions. Difuarti (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Dan Harkless added the tags[82] because the changes you made to the Etymology section[83] are somewhat confusing. Harkless isn't trying to revert the change, only highlighting that as written it's difficult to understand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Difuarti: As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to resolve the dispute on either the article's talk page or Dan Harkless's user talk page. You are supposed to do that before coming to ANI. I have left a comment at Talk:Aztlán. We can continue the discussion there. --Un assiolo (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, problem persist and this user above united to Dan Harkless side just for write same kind of bare reasons like "The sentence clearly contains a number of grammatical errors that make it difficult to interpret, so Dan Harkless has a legitimate complaint." or "Is that correct? Note that there remains a contradiction: the first part says Astatlan is not a Nahuatl word" demonstrating null problem understanding due their example in his last sentence is this: "Although the morphological form Astatlan is not possible in Nahuatl, it is possible that the Nahuatl word was borrowed in a case of Hispanicization due to it being very similar to the Spanish words hasta, "until" or "up to", and tan, "so" or "as". The Nahuatl word Astatlan may have been converted to the the Hispanicized word Aztlán during the process of writing Crónica Mexicáyotl, which was monitored by Spanish colonial authorities." (none part saying "isn't a Nahuatl word"). Thanks for the actions. --Difuarti (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone hat this, please. This is not a matter for ANI. All discussion should be at the article's talk page. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Kellycrak88

This good-faith editor, User:Kellycrak88, is creating a lot of articles, but seems to run into every possible issue, some of them again and again, including things like copyright violations, factual errors, NPOV issues, and problematic interactions with others[84][85]. The latest discussion I had with them was yesterday at User talk:Asilvering#Need Guidance on Bias and Admin Issues in Baronage Guidelines Discussion, ending with them promising improvement[86] after I asked "Please slow down, create less but better articles, based on better sources, and at the very least make sure that the claims in the article are correct." Since then, in the past 24 hours, they created 5 articles, with the same issues continuing.

First they created Baron of Abergeldie. 8 sources, the first two are Wikipedia articles, the fourth[87] and sixth[88] are "page not found / 404" errors: searching for Abergeldie on that fourth site yields no results at all. With also a Wordpress blog thrown into the mix[89], the sourcing of this article really isn't acceptable. The next creation, Baron of Arbroath, has one line about the current baron, and three sections about earlier history of the town of Arbroath unrelated to the Barony. It has nothing about the actual history of the barony.

Next, they created Baron of Ardgowan, a title first granted in 1404 apparently. Well, no, the castle was given in that year, but a few centuries later the family became baronets (not barons), and remain so to this day[90]. I can't find any evidence for a Baron of Ardgowan before the present one was granted the title somehow.

Because of the continued issues with reliable sourcing (including the repeated use of "accessed" sources which don't even work) and with fact-checking, it would be probably best if they would be required to create new articles through the WP:AfC process, without being allowed to create an article in the mainspace or move one to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Baron of Abergeldie: I acknowledge that there were a couple of "page not found / 404" links, likely due to typos. These URLs have since been corrected and are now functional. The blog link (which was not immediately obvious to me that is was hosted on wordpress) has been replaced with credible sources, including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler, which quote the Baron Abergeldie or refer to the estate and castle. Additionally, I’ve included his title listed in Debrett's, alongside the other sources already cited, including his profile from Burke's Peerage.

Baron of Ardgowan: This title is verified in the Registry of Scottish Nobility and the Scottish Barony Register, which provide both the creation date and the current title holder. It is not uncommon for some baronets in Scotland who hold estates to also hold baronage titles (the King can confer multiple titles), as pre-2004 these were historically tied to land ownership (i.e. owning a castle). After 2004, such titles became personal, allowing them to be transferred to heirs or assignees. The Stewarts (of the scottish royal house) were somehow attached to the Hasburgs because Prof Stephen Kerr was gifted the Barony of Ardgowan as an award for helping the Habsburgs in their legal case against the Republic of Austria for stealing all their property and banishing them in 1919. So in this case, Prof. Stephen Kerr received the Barony of Ardgowan as an honour in 2004, and his title was recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms—the monarch's representative in Scotland.

Baron of Arbroath: Likewise the title and creation date is verified in Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, the Registry of Scottish Nobility, and the Scottish Barony Register.

I appreciate that you’ve highlighted these three articles. As with many newly created articles, there is always room for improvement. Historical information, especially regarding baronage titles, often exists in offline sources such as The Great Seal (Scotland's oldest national record) or crown charters, or books, making it more challenging to source fully online. Nevertheless, I believe the information provided thus far is credible and well-sourced enough to justify the creation of these pages, and hope others will help improve them further.

Addressing Fram’s behaviour: I’m glad you’ve brought these concerns to the attention of other administrators, as I would like to formally lodge a complaint against Fram for persistent harassment. Fram consistently targets my contributions, especially those related to baronage titles, with comments such as "meaningless titles", "spam", "non-notable title", "utterly non notable bought title of no value" and "completely unimportant." This behaviour reflects a personal bias, not only towards me but also towards the broader Baronage project and other editors involved. Fram's continued targeting feels like an attempt to stifle contributions on this topic, despite these titles being verifiable through credible sources.

I’ve created numerous pages on topics ranging from Irish history to Georgian architecture and biographies. Yet, it’s only my contributions related to baronage titles that face this level of scrutiny. This suggests a personal agenda against baronage titles, which Fram and some others view as "pretend titles."

Throughout this process, I’ve done my best to remain polite and open to feedback. I’ve learned from my mistakes and have received valuable guidance from experienced editors like @Asilvering whose mentorship has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies.

While I’ve had ongoing concerns about Fram’s behaviour, I would be open to returning to a more civil and constructive interaction if Fram is willing to do the same. If the community is considering restricting or blocking my account based on the ongoing harassment from Fram, I must express my frustration. It feels disheartening to be continuously berated for trying to contribute positively to the site. If this bullying behaviour continues unchecked, I may be forced to reconsider my participation on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But you've mentioned two of the problem sources here again. The Registry of Scots Nobility is a self-published website by an anonymous author that sells barony-related merchandise. It therefore does not meet our policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Similarly, the Scottish Barony Register is a private for-profit company that charges up to £800 to "register" these titles, even though there is absolutely no legal requirement or even legal basis for doing so. It is a business that is trying to preserve the financial value of these products by selling its services as an unofficial market regulator. Consequently, I don't consider that to be a reliable source either. I think you need to restrict yourself to high-quality independent secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time, as far as I’m aware, that someone has suggested these sources are unreliable, so it’s not "again." Let’s look at both:

The Scottish Barony Register (SBR) was established in 2004 following the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000, specifically to provide an official record for the transfer of baronies, which were removed from the Land Register of Scotland. The present custodian is Alastair Shepherd, WS, a Writer to the Signet—one of the most senior legal professionals in Scotland and a former Ross Herald at the Court of the Lord Lyon. He has extensive expertise in heraldry and Scottish baronies. The SBR’s services are only available to Scottish solicitors, and they generally do not answer enquiries from the public or individuals. Scottish solicitors rely on the SBR for validation and the transfer of titles, and the Lord Lyon relies on the SBR (as the only register) when recognising baronial titles in letters patent. This gives the SBR a significant role in verifying crown charters and related historical documentation to confirm the rightful owner of a barony, despite being a private register. Let’s consider the facts from their website: [91] the 2023 annual report shows 4 new registrations and 5 assignations of existing titles, typically through inheritance. Total revenue was £5,200 for the year. Would you really consider that a money-spinner, besides covering the custodian's time?

As for the Registry of Scots Nobility (RSN), their website states that their committee requires a "Certificate from the Scottish Barony Register" or "evidence from the Lord Lyon" to verify new title holders. They provide a certificate verifying each baron signed by the Earl of Loudoun a senior Scottish peer (provided at no cost, so not exactly a money-spinner either). However, it appears the RSN primarily functions as a social organisation rather than a self-published website, hosting events for the Scottish nobility, including peers, baronets, and barons. The badges and regalia associated with this group are largely for ceremonial events and are provided "at cost," as stated on their website. Additionally, the custodian of the SBR gave a speech at the RSN’s event in 2023: [92] It has the credibility, but I’m unsure what your specific requirements or guidelines are for deeming sources unreliable. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

To state that the Scottish Barony Register is a non-reliable source is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of the current legal situation of the Scottish Baronage. It is the sole source of reference for the Lord Lyon - one of the Great Officers of State in Scotland. See Lord Lyon's Menking note: "The Scottish Barony Register is the only register for the Lord Lyon to have reference to in these matters, albeit a non-statutory register. The present practice was established by previous Lord Lyons" and "I am content to follow this practice as long as the present Custodian is ‘a person of skill’"..

The current Custodian of the Scottish Barony Register is Alistair Shepherd, one of Scotland's leading property lawyers and former partner at Coulters.

I do not know the agenda of some of the editors and admins here, but portraying the SBR as an unreliable source is disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. The same individuals have employed underhanded tactics in their handling of this entire matter, including repeatedly labelling my 20-year-old account as a single-purpose account. Different opinions must be accepted on Wikipedia and should be subject to open and honest discussions—not subjected to 'grey tactics' in an attempt to "win". Charliez (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that it is factually incorrect to state that the Scottish Barony Register is a "for-profit company". The Memorandum of Association art. 6 states clearly that "no portion (of the income or property) shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the company". It seems a better understanding of this subject should be sought by all parties to this discussion. Charliez (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've already made clear my suspicion that your "20-year-old account", which only has 117 edits and mysteriously crops up at every opportunity to support Kellycrak88, is a [meat]puppet. Turning up at yet another page to promote the identical viewpoint, with similar idiom, phraseology and timing, does nothing to assuage that suspicion. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about yourself @DrKay as you're always popping up supporting @Fram. Now you are, of course, entitled to your view, @DrKay, but respectfully, this is an unfounded allegation if you're implying I’m using multiple accounts or any other puppet claims (wikipedia:meatpuppet). Many editors share my views, just as others like yourself can oppose them. In fact the baronage guidelines were not proposed by me—the edit and Talk thread were started by @Daniel Plumber, which I and many others supported in the conversation thread. Let's try to find common ground without puppet allegations and contribute constructively moving forward together. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Really? This is your response? Even when your off-wiki co-ordination with these editors was exposed[93]? DrKay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88: If you're claiming that Fram and DrKay are meatpuppets (based on no evidence) I'm unsure whether that's simply casting aspersions or if WP:CIR is an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I'm not throwing any derogatory words at anyone. I’m not looking for conflict. My aim is to contribute positively to Wikipedia and resolve any disputes constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tagged my account specifically as WP:SPA. I suggest you read up on the criteria for tagging accounts that way.[94] As to your puppet claims: I have supported Kellycrak88's viewpoints in maybe 2 or 3 discussions over the last few weeks. What motives you may have for claiming I support him at "every opportunity", I do not know, but it's disingenuous and I really think WP would be better served if you refrained from trying to "score points" in arguments that way. The thought that I set up an account 20 years ago in preparation for supporting Kellycrak88 today, is quite frankly laughable.

I have followed Kellycrak88's activities over the last few weeks because we clearly share some interests. He has been an extremely active editor in some very specific fields. Clearly, Fram seem to share the same interest - and, it would seem, so do you. I believe you will find that both Fram and yourself "mysteriously crop up" much more often than I in connection with Kellycrak88.

My comment on this thread, however, was specifically directed at your claim that SBR was an unreliable source. That is factually incorrect, and when you use such arguments to win a discussion, you are doing Wikipedia a disservice. The same applies when you attempt to discount my views by labelling me as a SPA or puppet. It's uncalled for and is damaging to the debates on Wikipedia.

Likewise, the claim that SBR is a for-profit entity is not true. WP would be better served if you were to withdraw those allegations even if it might prevent you from construing some "gotcha moment". If you have an issue with the quality of some of Kellycrak88's articles, WP was built specifically to handle this sort of concern. You needn't extend that discussion beyond those articles by attacking legitimate sources used on a number of different articles across WP. Charliez (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I will not withdraw any part of my comments. Nor do I accept that any of them are "factually incorrect". DrKay (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is unfortunate as both these are matter of public record:

-You can verify that SBR is a not-for profit entity by looking up their records in Companies House.[95]

-You can verify that the Lord Lyon has said that SBR is a reliable source (in fact the only reliable source for baronies).[96]

Phil Bridger has a good point, though, when he says that SBR's records are not public. Quite frankly not sure how they have been referenced in the articles in question, but I know that SBR issues certificates to validate claims. Charliez (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. All my comments remain valid. DrKay (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A couple of points. The statement referred to by DrKay is very concerning. Wikipedia business should be conducted in public and on this site, with exceptions that only involve administrators and other similar functionaries. And our article on the Scottish Barony Register says it "is accessible exclusively to Scottish solicitors", meaning that it has not been published in such a way that it can be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is running a WikiProject from a user sandbox even a thing? From what I see, WikiProjects should be in the project namespace and accessible to all, not hidden in a user sandbox with "official" participants having to email the founder to join the discussion channel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Also noting (page mover hat on) that I'm having to do a big amount of cleanup in Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles, with articles having been moved and changed in scope from the geographical area to the title without discussion (for instance, Torboll to Baron of Torboll (title extinct), or Scottish feudal barony of Kirkintilloch to Baron of Kirkintilloch (extinct title)), with the scope being changed under the name of "clean up" (diff 1, diff 2). And yes, that's a lot of WP:RMUM and a lot of superfluous disambiguators. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What cleanup? The reason for the geographic change is because since 2004 baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles no longer attached to the land. See the change in the law Scotland Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11 the official explanatory notes. This has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, for a start, titles shouldn't contain unnecessary disambiguators (see WP:TITLEDAB). Also, mass change at the level of tens of articles should be discussed on-wiki prior to being done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There were discussions with other editors I recall on various Talk pages, and @Daniel Plumber pitched the idea of a WP:BARONAGE project with inspiration from the WP:Project_Clans_of_Scotland (especially as over 30 clan chiefs were barons). The idea was to gradually build a record of all Scottish barons, most dating back to the medieval period. It seemed appealing to me, as it’s a topic I’m deeply interested in, believing it would bring immense value to Wikipedia users with similar interests. Since this was created as a mock project in his sandbox, I didn’t see any harm in agreeing to collaborate, considering it both interesting and rewarding. If Daniel in his sandbox proposing to use a real-time chat is against Wikipedia rules, then I sincerely apologise. My mentor did advise me that the community might be skeptical of any off-wiki communication (for transparency read the convo here) therefore I have ensured my conversations are on-wiki to avoid any issues. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can organize something as a "mock project" and still tag many mainspace pages as being part of it. Either it is official or it isn't. Also, were the conversations that decided on the mass page move on-wiki or off-wiki? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Plumber: can you please justify this in the context of Wikipedia's values of on-wiki collaboration and decision-making? You may wish to consider the principles listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones in this context. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of other issues surrounding the Baronage articles and project have been raised since, I'll mostly ignore these for now. Looking at the three recent articles I gave as examples above, they have all been edited by Kellycrak88 since to correct the issues. The results are that Baron of Abergeldie has now as its first source this Wordpress blog, and the corrected link to Spottinghistory.com[97] makes it clear that this is an unreliable source, as it is sourced to Wikipedia. The edit at Baron of Arbroath did nothing to solve the issue I raised, that it is 90% about other things already decribed at length at Arbroath and not directly related to the barony, one line about the current baron, and nothing about the history of the barony and the previous barons. And Baron of Ardgowan has been made worse, not better. The infobox now claims that the title was created in the 13th c., the text claims that it was created in the 15th century, the available evidence still suggests that these were baronets, not barons (no evidence of a baron before the current one has been unearthed). The arms in the infobox, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png, described in the text as "reflects the long-standing history of the Stewart family and their connection to the Scottish nobility", is the arms of the current baron, not a member of the Stewart family, and not related to their arms at all. The needed competency or care to create well-sourced, trustworthy articles about the actual subject seems to be missing. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram, it's frustrating for me as it seems you haven’t read my earlier response. I’ve already acknowledged and addressed your points. As I stated above, yes the articles have been edited and improved, and certainly haven’t been made worse. It feels irrelevant what I say if you ignore my responses and double down on your arguments, which has been a running theme in our previous interactions.

Baron of Abergeldie: The page now has over 15 sources (including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler) repeated here again as you seem to overlook this in favour of repeating your previous arguments. If Spottinghistory.com is indeed an unreliable source for a history on the castle (which I wasn’t aware of), I have no problem removing it—there are plenty of other credible sources available.

Baron of Arbroath: Historically this title was territorial, attached to the land of Arbroath, a town with significant historical importance, such as its connection to the Declaration of Arbroath (signed by 40 barons) and the Battle of Arbroath. As I mentioned, these pages will be improved with more offline info from sources like the Great Seal, among others, this is a speciality of a professional historian to be honest, but I believe they are sufficiently well-sourced to start with, including some 6 credible sources currently listed for the title on the page. Your argument that 90% of the article is about the town doesn’t negate the territorial connection of the barony to Arbroath itself.

Baron of Ardgowan You claim the page has gotten worse, but I’ve double-checked the sources, which indicate the creation date as the 13th century—not a specific year. This is common with older titles, especially with medieval titles, where the earliest crown charter often refers to an even earlier creation charter that is lost. Baronage titles frequently don’t have a single creation date due to their antiquity, so the article isn’t “worse” because of this. You are correct in the body content it said 15th and was overlooked I've just now edited it from 15th to 13th.

Furthermore, you seem to ignore the fact that the crown can confer multiple titles. Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles. This would explain why the family primarily used the higher-ranking title. If you're suggesting the sources are inadequate—such as the RSN, which I’ve explained requires Lord Lyon evidence or an SBR certificate, and inclusion is verified with a signed certificate by the Earl of Loudoun, a senior Scottish peer—then I’m willing to spend some time going through the Great Seal (and brushing up on my Latin) to find the references you require. I’ll dedicate time this weekend to settle the matter.

Regarding the coat of arms, the title was in the Stewart family for 700 years before being transferred to the professor. It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts.

As for the questions raised by Chaotic Enby and others, we should wait for Daniel Plumber to respond, as he is the founder of the project page. I’d also like to reiterate that I am making an effort to engage with you constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I can rest my case, seeing what you just did at Baron of Ardgowan[98]: the article is now claiming that Robert III of Scotland (1337-1406) conferred a title to John Stewart (1364–1412), in the 13th century... You then claim above: "Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles." Really??? Not according to Order of precedence in Scotland or any other article we have on the subject, it seems. And then "It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts." Please directly quote the source on this (you haven't given a page number and I can't access it anyway, I think), as this seems highly dubious when one compares the current arms, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png with what appear to be the Shaw-Stewart arms (no reliable source, but all sources I found agree that it is something like this or this, which has nothing in common with the current arms. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do rest your case! You seem determined to pick holes wherever possible.

Regarding the Order of precedence in Scotland link you sent. Baronets are ranked 12th in precedence, while Scottish barons are ranked 28th.

The Statutes of 1592 and the Baronetcy Warrants of King Charles I show the non-peerage Table of Precedence as: Baronets, Knights, Barons, Lairds, Esquire, and Gentlemen.

Baronial titles are typically used when a landed family does not hold a peerage title of higher rank, or if they have been created a knight of the realm or hold a baronetcy (a hereditary knighthood), which ranks higher than a knight or Scottish baron. This is why individuals who are knighted or hold a baronetcy are often referred to simply as "Sir John Smith" without any reference to the baronial title.

You are correct that the reigning monarch that granted the original title of baron needs reviewing. If the sentence about the arms is contentious, we can remove it and I will stand corrected. It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right about Baronet being a higher rank than Baron in Scotland, weird. However, then why isn't the page at Baronet of Ardgowan instead of at Baron of Ardgowan? The former has been used for 300+ years (I can find no evidence, apart from the disputed Scottish Register, of a 13th c. creation; the 1402 event was just a land grant, the baronetcy seems to have been created in 1667), the latter is now created for someone completely unrelated to the history or genealogy of the family. The article, like most of your creations, doesn't correctly or adequately cover any of this (again, see e.g. the Baron of Arbroath article, which repeats the history of Arbroath which we already have at that page (and better), but doesn't tell us anything about the history of the barony and the barons). "It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious." Which is completely irrelevant. The issue is that if you include this in an article as a claim about a specific coat of arms, it must be true for this coat of arms. No one is asking you for examples of other cases where that claim may be true, what would be the purpose? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

the baronetcy does have a page: Shaw-Stewart baronets - again you're repeating arguments, I've already responded to all these points above and I will dedicated my weekend to find the source crown charters from the Great Seal as you're repeating that the registers are disputed and unreliable (which is quite ridiculous btw) Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88, you were the one to do the mass page move. You shouldn't have to wait for the project founder to answer whether that was discussed on-wiki or off-wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to care much about the minutiae of Scottish order of precedence. I do, however, care about the fact that there seems to be an entire WikiProject, with tagged articles and everything, hidden in a user sandbox, with most of the coordination seemingly happening off-wiki, resulting in mass undiscussed page moves against title guidelines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As someone directly involved in these matters, I believe I have a say on this.

Regarding the WikiProject being housed in my userspace, here’s the relevant notice from Wikipedia on proposing new projects:

"In 2024, we are changing the proposal process to reduce the number of failed attempts at starting groups. While we restructure the pages, please do not propose any new groups. In the meantime, consider the two thousand existing projects or attempt to revive one of the many dormant WikiProjects. If your group cannot wait for the new process, please only create group pages in the userspace of one of your members.".

This is why the project exists in my userspace. It simulates a WikiProject, and once it is successfully proposed, the page will be moved to the mainspace.

I had a plan for a larger project focused on researching the baronage. While this could eventually lead to a formal WikiProject, it currently involves extensive research that cannot be published on Wikipedia. Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

We centered on a larger project, rather than individual articles. When specific Wikipedia articles needed revision, that was addressed on the project page, emerging organically during our discussions about the broader research. The off-wiki channel has been deleted like 2 weeks ago.

Regarding the "mass move page" initiative, I am not aware of any discussions taking place, either on-wiki or off-wiki. It appears that Kellycrak intends to make those pages resemble proper title pages. While I appreciate their good intentions, I believe this should be discussed first. Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

Please feel free to "civilly" ask me any questions, as I am willing to put this to an end, now and forever. All sides have clearly tired of this. I believe this comment sufficiently addresses Daniel's question above. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

Sorry, this was the part that was confusing me, I'm not sure to understand why it was on one side kept sandboxed, and on the other side was already tagging pages in mainspace.

Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

It was reverted as an undiscussed page move (WP:RMUM), as the ones that were moved back were extinct historical baronies that had ceased to exist way prior to 2004, and were thus not affected by the change. More generally, I believe that the notability for most of them comes from the place itself (WP:NGEO), even if it ceased to exist as a legal entity (we do have pages on historical subdivisions), rather than the title itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

fair point for extinct titles, extant is obviously different Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It was intended to function de facto like an official WikiProject. Pardon my ignorance, but honestly, I am currently unaware of any guidelines or rules that forbid this. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

what's the problem with moving the project over to the mainspace? as we're discussing with administrators here, they probably have the power to do that? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators have technical abilities, but not "powers" to do stuff beyond community consensus (except in straightforward cases). Here, the best bet would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and formally propose it. In fact, I would be very happy to see it become an official WikiProject, as I see that the group appears well-organized and it would be great to have it in a more visible place. Good luck with it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, we're all here to learn! Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide recommends them to be in the project namespace, which would be a great thing for your project, seeing that it is already tagging articles and everything, and appears to have a core of well-motivated editors. If it's formally proposed, I'm pretty sure it could be an official WikiProject pretty easily! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The order of precedence reference was in response to Fram, who incorrectly stated that barons rank higher than baronets. It's an easy mistake to make, but I wanted to clarify that it's actually the other way around. This is why the Baronets of Ardgowan, who also held a baronial title, didn’t use their baron title, and likely why it was eventually gifted to the professor. @Chaotic Enby I can’t answer questions about the project being in a user page or sandbox, or why mainspace pages are tagged to a sandbox, so we will need to wait for the project owner to clarify that. However, I can assure you that there were no off-wiki conversations, at least none involving me, about mass page moves. Daniel Plumber’s project page post appears to have been from a couple of weeks ago, while the handful of articles I moved was many months ago, with good intentions. It was not 100 articles without consultation or attempt to deliberately disrupt anything.

As I’ve mentioned above: "the reason for the geographic changes is because, since 2004, baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles, no longer attached to land, as per the Scotland Act 2000 (see the official explanatory notes here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11). This change has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland."

If there had been significant backlash from the community regarding this, it would have surfaced by now. On the contrary, other editors have positively encouraged my efforts to improve these pages, which contributed to the fruiting of the WP:BARONAGE project. Furthermore, I will also add that I am a relatively new editor and I am learning procedures and polices as I go, so a few months ago I was at a different level of Wikipedia procedure as an editor, and today, I certainly wouldn’t move multiple pages without wider consultation. That said, in retrospect, the move has ultimately improved Wikipedia by accurately reflecting this subject matter and widely welcomed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The "handful of articles" (more than 30, in fact) were not all "accurately reflecting this subject matter", as many of them were about titles that went extinct way before 2004 and were thus not affected by that law, on top of the moves adding unnecessary disambiguators (things like "(title extinct)" shouldn't be in page titles if there is no need to disambiguate with another identical title).
I am not sure to what extent they were "widely welcomed" (in fact, I haven't seen other editors comment on these page moves at all before today), but there isn't any expiration date for criticism of undiscussed mass page moves to "surface". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

as mentioned above I see your point regarding extinct feudal baronies, obviously different for extant - feudalism ended in 2004 in Scotland - when the dignity of these titles became protected in law as personal titles, non-territorial no longer attached to the land Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have some familiarity with the peerage and adjacent subjects and I have concerns. Inflated claims surrounding Scottish baronial titles, as they can be bought and sold, is not a new problem. Looking at Baron of Abergeldie, allegedly improved, the first paragraph cites Luxurious Magazine [99] for the claim that the title was created in 1482. Leaving aside whether that source is reliable and independent, it doesn't say that. It doesn't discuss the title at all. It does say that the estate was bestowed on the Gordon family in 1482. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Baron of Abergeldie has been in the same family for 21 generations. The first holder was a Gordon and the current holder a Gordon. Please kindly check all the reference links provided there's over a dozen. I've previously had these discussions at length these families are not selling their heirlooms the full dialogue is here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look through Baron of Abergeldie, being somewhat familiar with the concept of peerages.

• I've no idea what ref. #2 thinks it's citing, because it links only to a home page.
• I can find no mention of Abergeldie in regards to any namesake barony in ref. #3, only mentions of the Gordons of Abergeldie.
• Ref. #4 mentions "the Baron of Abergeldie, John Gordon"
• Ref. #5 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, John Gordon, 76"
• Ref. #6 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #7 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #9 Describes Abergeldie as a feudal barony. Looking at the list on the source, these appear to be purchased titles relating to land acquisition?
• Ref. #10 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, 76-year-old John Gordon".

I'm haven't read through this entire discussion, forgive my time constraints, but wish to make several points. Firstly Kellycrak88 is incorrect in saying baronetcies rank higher than baronies. They do not. This obviously differs as to whether one is discussing different peerages, or Scottish lordships which are not part of any peerage.

I usually find an easy way to discover whether a topic is real or notable is to search on Internet Archive. While this can be more troublesome for modern topics, it should not be difficult for a title allegedly created in 1482. Internet Archive provides one result for "Baron of Abergeldie" and one result for "Baron Abergeldie". The one available reliable source, this Burke's, says that John Howard Seton Gordon was recognised as feudal baron in 1965. It should not be difficult to find reliable, detailed, sourced about long-held baronies; that's why most of the articles have existed for over a decade.

I would like to see Kellycrak provide some reliable sources that discuss the barony of Abergeldie. Not the castle, not the Gordon family, nor the Setons, and not the lands. Please illustrate for us this barony, created in 1482 and handed down generation to generation, and its recording within the Scottish peerage. Because I can't tally what the article says and you claim, and what the sources say. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe I certainly can -- here you go with full lineage listed in Burke's Peerage 107th Edition:

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 (note links expired in 24 hours)

I never said it was a Scottish peerage title, it's a Scottish baronage title, which does rank below a baronet. Pre-2004 they were often referred to as feudal barons. Since 2004 the law changed and ended feudalism so that is not the correct term today. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Note my edit to my initial contribution; I realised after the fact that the concentration was not on peerages. My focus was on establishing sources, so I'm now more confused by the fact you clearly have access to at least one reliable source outlining at least the basics, but have chosen to instead fill out the article with blogs, old and unrelated newspaper reports, and tangential websites. Make use of sources like this and clarity will come along much sooner. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, for your diligence and thoughtful comments. I truly appreciate your feedback. I’ve had previous run-ins with Fram, who won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source, so I’ve often felt the need to bolster pages with as many credible sources as possible to prove notability. Similarly, as mentioned further up in this thread, DrKay and Fram also dispute the reliability of the Scottish Barony Register and the Registry of Scottish Nobility, despite evidence provided by myself and others that supports their credibility. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me where I gave the impression that I "won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source". I don't claim that the information in there isn't reliable (like all source, it may contain errors, but in general it will be correct probably). Not everything included there may warrant a page (or even a mention) here, it's a lot of genealogy and often little else, but a fact or topic not being suitable for Wikipedia even when mentioned in Burke's doesn't mean that I won't accept it as a valid source. Fram (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I buy or borrow a copy of the Scottish Barony Register? If not (as stated by our article on it) it cannot be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

References

User:125AB at Natalya Naryshkina

• 125AB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Natalya Naryshkina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

125AB has edited (here, here, here, here and here) Natalya Naryshkina to remove claims that she (the mother of Peter the Great) had Tatar roots, despite the fact that this information is cited to reliable sources. A discussion has ensued at Talk:Natalya Naryshkina#Tatar roots? to discuss the matter. The user has repeatedly ignored admonitions not to restore their preferred content while the dispute is in process. The user has claimed that one source does not mention Naryshkina's Tatar roots, when it clearly does. (See the excerpt from the Massie source at the talk page.) The user has also introduced a number of "sources" for their claim including a list of genetic studies regarding the Romanov family. None of these sources exist: all were found to be false sources. 125AB argues that neutrality demands that we remove claims of Tatar roots from this article, but I would argue that neutrality demands instead that we report what reliable sources have reported. I direct administrators' attention to the entire discussion at Talk:Natalya Naryshkina#Tatar roots? to evaluate the situation, for I believe this editor is not editing in good faith. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address at Rings of Power

• User:2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA
• User:2A02:908:190:AF80:B8E7:D520:8BCA:5333

This user has been given substantial grace beyond the typical procedure for disruptive talk page behaviors starting with this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power&oldid=1243955046) edit yesterday at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Repeated violations of WP:NOTFORUM that were at first removed, then left and hidden. Refuses to engage with policy or contribute towards making the article better, and is instead just looking to make false accusations of users (including myself) editing on behalf of Amazon's alleged woke agenda. I will leave the specifics of what to do to the administrators' discretion. TNstingray (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

IP is nothing but a drama mongerer. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

User talk:RayGiftedKeys legal threat

User talk:RayGiftedKeys -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Link to section Northern Moonlight 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by 331dot. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Suspected WP:LOUTSOCK at AfD

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

---

• Helpfulpsych (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12.40.131.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.185.169.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.195.128.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 184.188.36.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I nominated the article Try Stress Management for deletion after it was repeatedly nominated for WP:G11 by several editors, and declined by the same IP address (12.40.131.195). In the deletion discussion, all keep !votes apart from that of the page creator Helpfulpsych were from very new IPs, with two of the four (174.195.128.138 and 184.188.36.11) having made no edits at all outside of the AfD, and another one (66.185.169.54) having only made two edits before. Given this behavior, as well as two of the IPs !voting at only 5 minutes of interval (diff 1 and diff 2), and another attempting to change multiple delete votes into keep under the excuse of "fixing typos and grammar" (diff), I am suspecting that these IPs might be cases of WP:LOUTSOCK to manipulate the AfD result. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Does appear to be LOUTSOCKING; I've protected the page accordingly. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Helpfulpsych per technical findings. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Trimetwes fan1003

Trimetwes fan1003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of personal attacks and additions of uncited information, and what seems to be a particular grudge against me for my insistence on verifiability. Several of their actions in the last few days lead me to believe a block is needed:

• Describing me as the "bane of my existence" for insisting on sources
• reverting my removal of unsourced claims
• What appears to be reverting me as a LOUTSOCK (given the geographic proximity to their declared location) here and here. The former was a repeat of the logged-in repeat; the latter was with the edit summary "BOO YOU!"

While none of these are particularly egregious on their own, they are merely the latest example of a years-long pattern in which this editor refuses to work collaboratively or provide reliable sources. All previous attempts to communicate with them about their behavior have been removed from their user talk without a productive conversation, including this occasion where they misleadingly removed part of a warning I left. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that boo you edit. And i only said that other thing due to the fact that you constantly revert all my edits just because they don't all have what you consider reliable sources. Also, i'm not the only one who feels this way about you as other editors have also expressed frustration with you consistent reverting of info, including updates to train fleets where you revert statements about fleets being retired or entering service because you don't think a youtube video is a good source, like the venture car service start, where all evidence stated that the San Joaquin cars had entered service but you refused to allow any edits stating that because you thought you needed a professional news coverage article to confirm what was already known for weeks. Also, you have also had a history of being rude to others, such as calling train videos foamer videos, which to a railfan like me is extremely derogatory and offensive. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

you constantly revert all my edits just because they don't all have what you consider reliable sources If you are adding content without reliable sources, your edits should be reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not the main problem tho. Sometimes i and others still get reverted even when we use sources because the user is so uptight about which sources are and aren't reliable. I think that user Pi should be a little more lenient on edits. Instead of reverting automatically them, he should instead improve them with more info and sources. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between reliable and unreliable sources. Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean that it's reliable. If you can't provide reliable sources for content that you add, others shouldn't have to clean up after you. And if a reliable source can't be found, you shouldn't be adding the information (even if you "know" it's factual). Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But sometimes when he reverts edits, he also ends up reverting other good edits. Like User: Amtrak Guy's edits on the Amtrak Rolling Stock article, where he made several edits, including 1 that was just adding an image of a vehicle fleet that didn't have an image yet and Pi came in and reverted all his edits including the image adition edit. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Did i mention that he threatened to have Amtrak Guy blocked on his talk page for simply adding a retired fleet table to the Coaster article. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

One more thing. If you really must have me blocked, please restrict it to 1 month at most as anymore is simply too long and restrictive. I will try to do better about edit reverting and other issues that caused this conversation to exits in the 1st place. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Trimetwes fan1003, I don't see anyone proposing to block you. Read the original post that started this discussion thread. I think all that the OP wanted was for you to stop those behaviors which could be seen as personal attacks. Can you find ways to handle your frustration better? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of reverting automatically them, he should instead improve them with more info and sources. No. WP:V states the person who adds the material has the burden to provide a citation. The reverts are well justified. Northern Moonlight 22:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Zlogicalape's unsupported sockpuppetry allegations

I'm reporting @Zlogicalape for persistently violatingWP:ASPERSIONS by either claiming that I have sockpuppets or implying it. Although they were told previously more than once that making such claims is considered personal attacks if one doesn't provide evidence for recent misbehavior.

-User Zogiclape said this:

Here and here

Also made implications on Joseph Barbara's talk page:

"and I would appreciate it if this charade would stop as i'm not in the mood to launch an investigation into multiple accounts (though i believe you couldn't care less)"

"therefor this talk should end. (aside from the multiple accounts thing)."

-also this

-And on the side, the user misused sources by adding claims to Saint Barbara's article citing sources that don't state what they added.

I accessed the sources they used and I showed on the relevant talk page that the cited sources don't mention what User Zlogicalape added using them.

Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64

2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, behaviour continued after a 72h block on August 31st. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

user:TarnishedPath

A month ago, I came across TarnishedPath (TP) when they were very active at ANI under a post that I made. TP made several proposals to have me sanctioned... and during those ANI processes - an article, Bent's Camp Resort, was being discussed. The subject of my post at ANI had sent the Bent's Camp article to AfD.

TP went to the AfD for Bent's Camp and voted to delete; when the AfD finished "no consensus" TP redirected it without discussion and the redirect was reverted. Then TP tagged the article with a notability tag, and orphaned the article, so now it had two tags. I de-orphaned the article and then reverted the tag inviting TP to talk about why on the talk page. I also advised TP that they cannot just keep sniping the article and they need consensus - I suggested a second AfD. TP reverted the tag removal and restored the notability tag.

Anyway it does not seem that I can solve this with TP based on previous interactions. In summary, TP wanted the Bent's Camp article deleted, when it did not get deleted, TP orphaned it, redirected it, tagged it, and now edit warred the article to their preferred version. Lightburst (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

First, the conduct here occurred several months ago. Second, the "orphaning" occurred one minute after the redirect, so it doesn't appear that the intent was to orphan the article after it had been restored. Third, I don't see anything wrong with adding a notability tag after an AfD discussion is closed as no consensus. The tag says the article may not be notable, which is by definition what a no consensus close implies. I agree that redirecting an article after a no consensus close at AfD is not acceptable.

All of that said, unless TP has done anything recently, this isn't a chronic, intractable behavior problem for AN/I to deal with. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The tagging back-and-forth appears to have happened yesterday, although that's something that, in my opinion, can very well be (and was being!) discussed on the talk page, and I don't see why it had to be escalated here. Nothing intractable, although I am more concerned about Lightburst's comment of It is looking like sour grapes when you griped about the article offline, which was understood by TP as an attempt to out him. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I presume this is in regards to TP's account on Wikipedia editor harassment site Wikipediocracy that directly names them as the account owner? I'm not sure how that counts as outing. Their account there was discussed in the last ANI thread as well. Silverseren^C 01:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Voorts I think you missed some links from today and yesterday and an hour ago. The redirect happened after the AfD concluded and that was a month ago... i was away for a month but I thought it was relevant to include to show how TP is persistently targeting this article. The article has ten sources but TP is welcome to get consensus. Otherwise the tag feels punitive especially based on who is tagging. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked through the page history a bit more, and I now see that the tag warring happened yesterday (making that a bit more explicit in your statement here would have been helpful). Once TP restored the tag after you initially removed it, you should have brought it to talk instead of removing it yet again. TP then should have brought it to talk instead of restoring it for a second time. I agree that AfD should just bring this to AfD again, but I don't think the tag is unreasonable since TP might not have wanted to bring the AfD for various reasons, and the tag lets other editors know that there's still no consensus about the article's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think AFD after only a month is not entirely appropriate. I'd want to allow more time if I were to consider AFD, to allow for sources that show that the subject passes WP:NORG to emerge. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I thought "offline" might have referred to real life (which would've been more concerning) rather than simply another website, but your answer probably makes the most sense. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Not offline I meant off-wiki. So no help until this train goes all the way off the tracks. I was trying be proactive. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, why did you delete the tag with the justification that article is about a place when the lead clearly states "Bent's Camp Resort is a resort in Northern Wisconsin in Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin. The resort has 12 cabins and it is located on the south shore of Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)"? WP:NORG is clearly the notablity guideline that should be used to determine if the subject of the article is notable. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There are two comments on the talk page related to this issue, one by you and the other one by TP. It doesn't appear to me that you have made an honest effort to resolve the issue there, and you certainly didn't AGF when you "invited TP to discuss it", and opened the discussion casting aspersions about TP having sour grapes by griping about it off-wiki, which seems to be a recurring theme with you. Stay focused on the content issue, and stop making insinuations about an editor's motive in the very first sentence when you start a discussion with them. And if this "train goes all the way off the tracks", just remember you are the one who started this unnecessary ANI thread. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. I think that between you and Voorts, you have identified all the relevant and useful observations to be taken here: 1) the redirect after a no consensus result was inappropriate, but that issue is now somewhat stale, and further determinations will doubtlessly be the subject of an eminent (but not immediate) new AfD. 2) I don't think a notability tag is unreasonable in the circumstances of a no consensus AfD result. 3) To the extent that there was a reasonable dispute as to the tag, the edit warring by both parties was inappropriate, but also small potatoes in the grand scheme. 4) Escalation here feels premature. I do to some small extent understand LB's position that, given the context and history involved here, they did not feel confident that they could expect to resolve the issue without community guidance of the process. But community input could have been solicited without resorting the typically inflammatory step of an ANI filing.

Adding my own observation, I personally think that referencing the Wikiwhingers discussion does, in my opinion, flirt with outing at the very least. Nevermind that the accounts use the same name or have been linked in a previous discussion here. Making an association between an editor's on-project and off-project identities/activities is nevertheless not appropriate.

As for the rest, I see no reason why LB cannot just RfC the tag issue, if they really feel that strongly about it. Frankly, that neither party can let this go feels like the definition of poor perspective, and I wouldn't exactly disagree with anyone who felt that community time will be wasted on the discussion. But if neither side is prepared to give way, this is clearly the next step in the dispute resolution process, and should have been one of several stops before ANI. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @TarnishedPath: Are you willing to acknowledge that redirecting an article 11 minutes after the AfD closed as no consensus is absolutely inappropriate? I think that would be a good place to start. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh, you're correct that I shouldn't have redirected. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a website we try not to talk about where this drama began. ATG sent out a message about this article on WPO Another masterpiece by Lightburst... and then TP and others came to WP to try and delete the article. TP is just the one editor who refused to accept the AfD result. My purpose in coming here to ANI was to have eyes on controversy and avoid getting into an edit war. I would be happy with any result that is endorsed by on-wiki community consensus. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I came to the AFD as a consequence of the ill-advised ANI you started on ATG. I imagine a lot of people who participated in it did. You should not be so quick to make assumptions because you end up speaking mistruths. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath You should also acknowledge, if you haven't (can't read everything), that putting the notability tag after an AfD resulting in the article being kept was an incorrect action; please see the Template:Notability documentation. That tag is to alert other editors of a potentially non-notable article based on your first impression as someone who's encountered the article for the first time so as to let someone else decide whether to start a deletion process. It isn't for an article that was already discussed and for which you firmly believe is not notable. In that case you need to renominate, and if you would like to follow WP:RENOM and wait a certain period, set a reminder. —Alalch E. 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the template is only for first impression use. The documentation says: "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have a separate article about). When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable, then you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead."

A no consensus outcome at AfD, in my view, indicates that an article is reasonably likely to be non-notable. Keeping the template lets other editors patrol the maintenance category and determine if they want to renom the article at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope you can see that it feels like an inorganic process when folks get together off-wiki and decide to delete an article. And then when the article is not deleted it gets redirected, orphaned and tagged. I only start articles when I see enough RS to show notability. A tag is TP's singular opinion and it comes from a place that I question... In my opinion the tag comes from off-wiki deletion-scheming and the sour grapes of not getting the article deleted by the on-wiki community. I know that I am ABF with this statement but I do nt think i am wrong Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

So you thought it was a good idea to reignite this drama, after only two talk page posts? You didn't even try to resolve the dispute in a collegial and productive manner. Instead, after one reply from TP, you came straight to ANI, which you seem to think was a good idea. It wasn't. There is a dispute resolution noticeboard, you could have asked for a 3O, you could have started a RfC. You could have continued the discussion on the talk page. Instead, you now admit you were acting in bad faith by bringing this matter to ANI, which says more about your motives than anyone else's. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not there was off wiki coordination (proof of which has not yet been provided), the no consensus close was proper in light of the strength of arguments on both sides. While I likely would have !voted keep per Cunard's source assessment, I don't think the delete !votes were unreasonable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I am sorry that you feel that way. I cannot ignore motives and evidence to AGF. This is just a small camp in Wisconsin and discussing it should not get us all fired up. If we removed the off-wiki banter this article would just exist - occasionally folks would read it and maybe add to it. I was not trying to reignite controversy and I certainly hope that the controversy ends with an article about a 100+ year old camp that is allowed to exist. And @Voorts: thanks for the sober and realistic assessment. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

TP admitted up above he shouldn't have redirected the article, it is no longer orphaned, the tags have been removed, there is no edit-warring going on at the article, neither you or anyone else has proposed any sanctions for anybody, and there is nothing you can do about the off-wiki banter, except to apparently obsess about it. So there is no reason to keep this thread open, and it should be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right. I guess it does look like I am obsessing about it. I present it for context so folks can understand how we got here. I only mention it when off-wiki organization comes on-wiki and messes with our processes. I have no objection with closure. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What you present as context is incorrect. You need to strike each and everyone one of your ABF and mistruths. TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

LB your opinion is wrong. You are are wrong. I did not arrive at the AFD as consequence of any "off-wiki deletion-scheming". I came across the AFD as consequence of the report you started against ATG in this very forum. You should strike your mistruths and your ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 03:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

eyes needed

See Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal. What appears to have been started as a good-faith merge proposal concerning the Bent's Camp article is now rapidly degenerating into accusations of incivility and ad hominems, the existence of which seems debatable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

ATG that seems like an overreaction. This little article about a 100+ year old Wisconsin camp has not gotten a fair shake IMO. Generally we are able to weed out non-notable articles organically... and without an off-wiki call. TP and myself should likely leave this to others and not try to steer traffic. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to 'steer traffic'. I am instead suggesting that outside eyes on what ought to be a civil discussion on a possible merge would probably be a good thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen:, I believe you are topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, which would make your participation in that merge discussion a violation of that TBan. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney It is not a deletion discussion and 7&6 worked on adding RS to the article. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"Broadly construed" ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree. It's because "deletion" has a pretty strict meaning on Wikipedia. A topic ban narrowly construed would, by implication, be a ban from that process specifically, and solely the process. But the fact that it is deliberately broader—i.e. more comprehensive—suggests that a less strict definition should be applied. And as GoDG argues, a border interpretation of deletion is anything that removes a page from the reader's eye, as merging, redirecting and incubating do (although it's only the process that 13 is TB from; a restriction on editing the articles themselves would hopefully be too broad an interpretation). SerialNumber54129 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly hope that no editor is blocked as a result of this report and I do not think 7&6 violated the spirit of the t-ban. As a result of this report I did not want TP blocked, I just wanted TP to respect our consensus mechanisms and not act unilaterally. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like a topic ban violation to me; the discussion is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort and the AfD is mentioned several times with 7&6 responding directly when it is brought up [100]. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst could you please self-revert this? If an uninvolved admin disagrees that it's a TBan violation, I'd be happy to revert the strikes myself. So far that has not happened. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree that this pretty clearly a TBAN violation, but note that there isn't actually a community mandate to strike through the comments of anyone violating any editorial restriction. Historically this has mostly only been used to mark the activities of block-evading socks (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)--and even that is supported only by an essay. If LB agrees to self-revert, that's all well and good, but otherwise it's definitely not worth reverting and arguing over: that just creates more acrimony.

Besides, given that Thirteen's contributions there seem like they reasonably could have been made as a consequence of ambiguity in the ban rather than an attempt to evade the ban, I'm not sure how I feel about the striking myself. There are other ways to note for any potential closer that Thirteen was not meant to be contributing there; methods that don't risk suggesting that they were a block evading sock, as a casual reader of the discussion who is unfamiliar with Thirteen and expecting the strikes to mean what they usually mean might misinterpret them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing, vandalism and uncivil behavior in Typhoon Yagi (2024)

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

---

122.104.179.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been continuously and aggressively POV-pushing their way in Typhoon Yagi (2024) and resorting to vandalism and uncivil edit summaries as part of WP:IDNHT despite multiple warnings and general consensus against them. Borgenland (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Please add a notice of this discussion on the IP's talk page as required.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding. Borgenland (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive ice hockey IP is now seemingly evading their block

This IP was recently blocked three months (with a declined appeal) by @Jake Wartenberg for disruptive behavior on various ice hockey pages, including edit-warring and ownership of Montreal Canadiens-related articles. Most recently, and notably, they'd repeatedly disregarded an RM regarding the capitalization of NHL entry draft in order to force through their own preference. That's all already dealt with, however, so if you want the full background check out their repeatedly-blanked talk page as well as this whole thread.

The pressing issue, and why I've brought it to ANI, is that they now appear to be evading their block from another range - the following 2605:B100 IPs have recently attempted to make the exact same changes at many of the same pages as the initial IP and each other, with another 2605:B100 IP (inactive since the 22nd) actually having participated in an edit war on Jayden Struble while the initial IP was still active, also accusing @Sbaio of edit-warring.

• 2605:B100:B29:6589:B474:9649:546A:13B3
• 2605:B100:B25:10CC:998D:5455:F46B:592
• 2605:B100:B45:34F9:74D5:6795:71E8:E54F
• 2605:B100:B45:34F9:A1D4:26D6:E0F2:C74C
• 2605:B100:B25:10CC:AD35:10DE:233E:E612
• 2605:B100:B45:6054:7110:2514:11C5:752A

I'm not too well-educated in technical terms w/ blocks/bans, but would this be time for a range-block and/or a longer block on the original IP? Or should I take this to SPI? The Kip ^(contribs) 09:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've placed a rangeblock covering these IP addresses. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor edit warring across several articles

Editor Special:Contributions/49.148.104.232 seems to be edit warring since arriving this morning, across several articles. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kuči (tribe)

2405:6E00:2651:D3ED:515B:BF08:CB62:7B01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding large volumes of copyrighted material and disrupting the talk page. —Alalch E. 13:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Revision deleted, IP blocked and talk page semi. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. —Alalch E. 16:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Need administrator help with a messed-up walk-out

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

---

Hi. I was Elemimele until I got caught up in the big fiasco over Tim Hunt. It was all a mess: I got over-emotional about the animosity of the argument and stormed out in a huff, retiring and using the enforced wikibreak to sever all relations on the way out, and I also almost immediately received an e-mail saying I'd been banned, so the feeling was obviously mutual at the time. I rather miss a part of my previous Wikipedia career: doing harmless translations from the German Wikipedia, and trying to fill in gaps in minor articles on old organ builders. I'm therefore asking (1) whether it would be possible to come back, provided I undertake not to edit in the GENSEX area (I was accused of misogyny), on BLP's, or in controversial noticeboards (i.e I'll avoid AfD, ANI etc.; i.e. I undertake to stick to nothing more contentious than asking technical questions at the Tea House when I don't know how to do something)? And (2) if I'm allowed back, could someone delete my script page or edit the lock-out so it's physically possible? With many thanks, 149.155.220.85 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC) (formerly Elemimele; I still know my password).

Hi Elemimele, I don't see anything that you are banned, or blocked, currently. I'm not sure who emailed you to tell you you were banned, but your account as I see it is not blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Elemimele, I too see no evidence that you are blocked or banned. You may need the help of an interface administrator to lift your self enforced wikibreak. Welcome back. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

See request at Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard#Remove a returned editor's voluntary lock-out script —Alalch E. 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the "ban" is probably referring to an article ban or topic ban of Tim Hunt. I closed an ANI about this a couple months ago for another editor. I can dig around a little bit more when I'm not on mobile. Anyway, I have deleted the wikibreak enforcer script and you should be able to log in now. Welcome back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. —Alalch E. 17:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I misremembered. The two Tim Hunt editors who were topic banned that I'm thinking of were not this editor. I was thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick. Maybe @Elemimele can elaborate a bit on what they meant when they get back online. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much all! I'm back! It was an e-mail from someone I'd never heard of, and I deleted it in a huff, so it may be a mystery that will never be solved. I wasn't particularly careful back then and emotions were high all on all sides. I will, in any case, stick to nice friendly editing of old organ builders and innocuous German translations for the immediate future, because it's a whole lot less stressful - it's the area of Wikipedia that gave me most satisfaction. I appreciate the script-removal, thanks! Elemimele (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the email was an online troll / WP:LTA trying to twist the knife. But regardless, on to happier things. Welcome back! I hope everything goes super smoothly for you from here on out :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed! And if you see anything like that again, let me or another admin know. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User keeps adding copyright violations after being warned

• Despite being told to discuss the issue before re-adding copyrighted content, Memevietnam98 has continued to manually revert copyright violations and continues to remove copyright templates to Safety Act (California law) (and also despite hidden edit comments). This behavior was also exhibited, and witnessed by AlphaBetaGamma. As of the current revision as of this ANI report, this is the copyvio report, and the site being copied is [101].

• Also, I'd like to preemptively apologize to Memevietnam98 for pinging you too many times and requesting page protection, but I was trying avoid edit warring with you to stop you re-adding copyrighted content. It's a shame it had to end up this way.

• I'm going to rollback one more time and adjust the copyvio range. The template was re-added because I failed to notify Nthep that the content wasn't entirely removed due to Memevietnam98s edit warring.⸺(Random)staplers 17:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • All users have been notified.⸺(Random)staplers 17:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This behavior merits a block. IMO, they should receive it now; they can explain themselves in an unblock request. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait, did I screw up and revert the wrong thing? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @AlphaBetaGamma Nah, you just failed to notice the manual reverts during the copyvio edit warring.⸺(Random)staplers 23:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @AlphaBetaGamma Oh I see. Strike ⸺(Random)staplers 23:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Memewarrior has now again reinserted the copyvio while ignoring this discussion. Cross-posting to WP:AN3RR with the hopes of receiving a faster response. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeated coatracking with close paraphrasing

User:Wikiprediger and I have been going back and forth on Operation Countryman. I think he's WP:COATRACKing most of a Parliamentary speech (open license) about Freemasonry in the London Police into an article about a specific investigation, and he probably thinks I'm defending the Masons, for tolerably obvious reasons. Can someone check if I'm overreacting to the close paraphrasing and coatracking? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a second opinion on the content here, that would be a different venue. It's mostly the close paraphrasing after warning that I'm unclear about. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all rewritten and it is important information. User:SarekOfVulcan acted contra-productive (just reverting then improving) multiple times and so seems to be biased and without a neutral POV. Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is clearly close paraphrasing involved. Beyond that, the other issues (of which coatracking seems the most significant) need discussing on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the word coatracking please - google cannot translate it? Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I understand. But I think it does not lead away from the topic, but has a deeper complementary view. Wikiprediger (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The tentacles of this masonic lodge had strong connections with the Conservatives. Yes, very complementary. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's in the source - and there it was even more emphasized. Why do you hide that? Wikiprediger (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the lodge in question was founded after Operation Countryman ended, if I'm reading it correctly. Hence, COATRACK. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I do have concerns that wikiprediger is a spa (single purpose account) - and is a fan of borderline conspiracy theory. I DON’T think they have crossed the line into disruption, but I do think they may need some guidance from editors who have experience writing criticisms - with an eye to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I would offer to mentor, but I am involved in the topic area. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

... and I do have concerncs Blueboar does not understand the meaning of democracy. It is my business alone how many and which topics i write about.I am from another country and there have a long history of many topics i worked on.

• I do not need any guidance to speak my own opinion :-) Maybe you are biased and not neutral in relation to freemasonry. But that's typical, like criticism on the churches or similar... a little too obviscious to intervene or undo nearly every single of my discussion sor changes.
• but, just keep going. the more often, the more visible it becomes for everyone.

Wikiprediger (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Any change you make can be subject to review and change by other editors, and the prevailing view is determined by consensus. Your ability to speak your own opinion, on this private website, is constrained by the degree you follow Wikipedia's civility rules. The reason we are concerned with so-called single purpose accounts is that they have a strong tendency to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view.

Beyond that, SarekOfVulcan is a very well-respected administrator and editor of long standing, with more years on Wikipedia than you have mainspace edits. We are considerably less likely to find that he has violated Wikipedia norms than we're likely to find you. Ravenswing 23:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprediger, Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. It's also built on writing articles with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to voice your opinions with impunity. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Editor calling other editors who reject a source as racists and claiming religious discrimination

This one is pretty straightforward but here's a little background: Performance arts organization Shen Yun is widely recognized as a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong, a new religious movement centered on its founder, Li Hongzhi. Both Shen Yun and the Falung Gong are based in Dragon Springs, a large compound in New York state, USA. Both the Falun Gong and Shen Yun have been in the media a lot lately due to another one of their arms, the Epoch Times.

Anyway, @Zujine:, an editor who frequents Falun Gong-related articles declared in response to myself and various editors rejecting a poor source over at Talk:Shen_Yun#The_Hill_contributor_article that (diff):

The editors who consistently attack Shen Yun and Falun Gong on Wikipedia are biased in a dangerous way that is based on religious and racial discrimination.

In short, by covering this topic with WP:RS and rejecting non-WP:RS, Zujine is claiming that users like @Binksternet: and I are racists and religious bigots. This is a clear example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.

It's already difficult to improve our coverage of new religious movement and WP:FRINGE spaces without this kind of thing to contend with. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Falun Gong has been under discretionary sanctions/contentious topic designation for over a decade. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Zujine received the notice last year Special:Diff/1185299978 as did Bloodofox Special:Diff/1185300192. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that Zujine needs a topic ban here, if not something more. This isn't really acceptable, but waiting for others to chime in. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

So, I don't want to suggest this is nothing to be concerned about, and Zujine needs at least a warning, but I don't think one comment of this sort is substantial enough justification for a topic ban. Unless there is additional evidence of other tendentious behaviour connected to the subject? Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a violation of WP:ASPERSION (the context and specific wording provides too much suggestion that the Zujine is referring to their immediate editorial/rhetorical opponents rather than opining about bias in general).

But to be perfectly honest, I think people tend to get hot under the collar and/or wring their hands over these kinds of comments a little too readily these days. I mean, I get it: nobody's going to tolerate being arbitrarily called a bigot, but the fact of the matter is, basically about every other editor who sees that kind of reflexive, unsupported mud-slinging is going to recognize it for what it is, and Bink and bloodofox's reputations are not likely to be affected by such a slap-dash, reactionary accusation.

All of which is to say that my suggestion is a stern, express warning, a small packet of WP:ROPE, and an indication to Zujine that round 2 of this kind of thing is likely to result in an automatic sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Though I'm unconvinced that "I didn't call you a racist, I said that you were ethnically discriminating" [102] is perhaps not the best way of not doubling down... Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's true: I hadn't seen that follow up. Still, I think at a minimum we need to hear from them here (or afford them a decent chance to respond at least) before any sanction. Unless they just keep on this tact, in which case an attention-catching short-term block may be warranted. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

basically about every other editor who sees that kind of reflexive, unsupported mud-slinging is going to recognize it for what it is, and Bink and bloodofox's reputations are not likely to be affected by such a slap-dash, reactionary accusation. I don't disagree with that, but this isn't just about reputation; the people being targeted shouldn't have to put up with that kind of behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. We really shouldn't have to put up with this kind of abuse in these spaces. Admin tolerance toward this kind of thing has a chilling effect: otherwise good editors (quite wisely) won't touch these important topics with a ten foot pole because they know they can be expected to be insulted, harassed, and threatened over the site. It has happened to me many times because I dare edit in WP:FRINGE spaces. If we want good coverage of fringe topics, admins should not look the other way when this happens. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course: those are reasonable sentiments. Nor do I mean to suggest we should adopt a laissez-faire approach to such comments. On the contrary, I expect this user will have to expressly commit to avoiding such language in the future and to following the principle of "comment on the issue, not the editor" generally, if they wish to dodge a sanction. And I find that entirely appropriate. Rather the reason I advise a somewhat cool and aloof response to such comments is that I feel this approach does a slightly better job of robbing such histrionics of oxygen. If new editors attempting such a strategy see us collectively giving a response that suggests detached disdain (accompanied by stern warnings and sanctions as necessary, of course), it will (I think, in most cases) better underscore to them what a tired, ridiculous rhetorical ploy it is to make such aspersions, such that we won't even credit it with an emotional response, because it's such a low and pedestrian tactic.

If on the other hand, editors let the accusations raise their hackles super readily, then (however reasonable that response may be), certain personalities are going to perceive that as evidence that they have hit a nerve, and they will feel validated. I think its worth trying to short-circuit that kind of self-affirming thinking.

Of course, I realize this is easier said than done, when one is not themselves the target of such observations, however. So I would never chastise someone in your position reacting in a hotter fashion to such comments; a certain degree of ire is to be expected. Anyway, just my take: you do you, as the kids say these days. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear editors and administrators, I’ve been editing wikipedia for many years, and I really do try to avoid this type of situation. I let my frustrations with other editors get the best of me, and I apologize for casting aspersions. My intent was to point out that Falun Gong isn’t just the subject of an article in the encyclopedia, but a group of human beings deserving of respect.

It’s also important to note that I did not call anyone a “racist” or “bigot.” I specifically pointed out @bloodofox’s biases, which is a legitimate claim. I was not careful with my words though, and I regret how I framed my response. My goal is to encourage everyone to have more sensitivity in dealing with a subject that is an ethnic and religious minority that have suffered well-documented persecution in China for over two decades and transnational repression outside China. I recognize that I myself did not extend that sensitivity to @bloodofox, and that it was counterproductive. I should have worded that sentence more carefully so as to leave no room for interpretation. I apologize to any editor, including Bloodofox, who was offended by my comments. I will be more careful in the future.

At the same time, I’d like to provide some context about Bloodofox’s behaviour in this topic area, which I think highlight the biases I was commenting on. I think they explain why I became so frustrated with this editor. I believe that Bloodfox’s actions have consistently offended other editors on the basis of their actual or perceived beliefs and discouraged people with expertise and knowledge from contributing to this topic.

@Bloodofox was given a WP:AE warning in December 2023, which stated: “All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views.”

But in a discussion on the Falun Gong talk page in July 2024 [link], Bloodofox still suggested a very reasonable editor whom they disagreed with as “highly suspicious” [of being a Falun Gong adherent], and tried to disqualify the editor’s comments based on that.

After I reminded them of the WP:AE warning, Bloodofox went to former admin @Tamzin's userpage demanding them to retract the AE warning, basically saying Falun Gong is unworthy of the same treatment as other religions.[link] Tamzin responded: “it is hard to convey how disappointed I am that, half a year later, you not only refuse to accept the warning but have dwelled on it to such a degree that you have spontaneously demanded an apology. If I were still an admin, I'd be inclined to take this comment as prima facie evidence that you cannot edit civilly in the topic area, and impose a topic ban.”

I am listing examples of Bloodofox’s previous canvassing/campaigning and personal attacks to other editors in this topic area below. Just for your reference.

Canvassing/campaigning: Bloodofox posted notifications of discussion about the Falun Gong topic on FTN diff and RSN diff in a highly biased and non-neutral manner, to solicit partisan support and to campaign against the subject matter.

Attacking/taunting other editors:

"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative." diff

"Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right." diff

“You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.“ diff

“But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well.“  diff

“Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.” diff

“any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole.”diff

"I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This is typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong." diff

"What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page." diff

“If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.” diff

“you're barking up the wrong tree.” diff

“we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen Falun Gong operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.” diff

“the group is entirely centred around the words and whims of one ultra-conversative guy who now and then claims to levitate, Li Hongzhi, over at a big compound in Deer Park, New York" diff

“we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” “It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts” diff —Zujine|talk 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the kids these days are actually saying that's some Ohio rizz, no cap. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

173.197.99.96

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

An IP with a small number of edits is trying to force an event into multiple articles:

Addition to Criticism of Google‎ [103]

Same addition to Censorship by Google [104]

Same addition to YouTube copyright issues [105]

Addition again to Censorship by Google after I reverted [106]

Addition again to Censorship by Google after I reverted [107]

Addition of two dispute tags to Censorship by Google [108]

Addition again of two dispute tags to Censorship by Google after I reverted [109]

Started a TP section at [110] which does not appear to have anything to do with the article

It appears that the user is upset that YouTube blocked a video this week. The sources are questionable, sound bloggy, and speculate about the reasons behind the removal, one even saying there are many if’s ands and buts, and the text added states: YouTube removed a Linus Tech Tips video entitled "De-Google Your Life Episode 2" alleging that it violated YouTube's Community Guidelines, presumably for mentioning YouTube alternatives FreeTube and LibreTube and video downloading tools. We don’t “presume” here. One of the sources is titled: “YouTuber’s de-Google video removed, community gets revenge”. We don’t engage in “revenge” either. Adding two dispute tags to an article because your addition was challenged is also not normal. Also note that the Criticism of Google article is about major controversies, often involving governments, not the recent removal of a single YT video. At this point, not sure I'm handling this correctly, realize WP:BITE applies, and not sure how to further deal with the situation. As the articles are not very active, I came here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a tough one. On the one hand, the dispute is young and the issues with the IP's conduct not especially deep or probelmatic, but on the other hand, if the talk pages are slow and the issue spans multiple pages, we should try to get a dialogue organized with the IP to iron this out. I agree that the wording puts a thumb on the scales with the "presumably" language, but I think its likely a modified version of the content will eventually come in: haven't looked at the current sources and this isn't exactly my field, but I think the Linus Tech media group is actually a pretty massive player in the contemporary tech industry news? So Google pulling their content for what might be perceived as self-interested reasons (whether that is accurate or not) is likely to get coverage, I would think. So the issues may essentially work themselves out with the sourcing and then all we would have to do is provide some subtle nuance to the IPs prose to avoid weasel words and such. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Before any such text is added to an article criticizing a corporation, I'd like to see coverage from independent, less bloggy sources that don't stoop to snide remarks. But I don't want to keep reverting. BTW, personally I think Google deserves massive criticism. But I want good sourcing and see very large areas for inclusion. Not one YT video pulled a few days ago. During just the second quarter of 2024, about 8.4 million videos were removed from YouTube.[111] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just looked at the Goosed article, and I have to say that I do suspect it would survive an RS determination discussion. But it's so hard to tell anymore with new-media adjacent online industry press, with their largely inscrutable ownership and editorial controls. It might need to go to RSN. That said, I actually found the reporting pretty neutral in tone: they cover a lot of the obvious reasons why YouTube/Google might bounce the content for ToS violations, as opposed to just because the video presented industry and service competitors. It doesn't look terrible to me, but I also wouldn't go to bat over it. Hopefully more sources pop up relatively quickly and save us the trouble of trying to decide if one source constitutes enough WP:WEIGHT for this. I understand your skepticism that it does. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my point in coming here was more behavior, not content. I'd like to see the editor slow down instead of forcing the same content into three articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

How slow do you feel is most appropriate? Also, would you please elaborate on what you mean by "TP section at [112] which does not appear to have anything to do with the article" -- in particular, would you please say why the section doesn't seem to relate to the article? 173.197.99.96 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

At the very least there's way too much focus in that talk section on WP:OR than in demonstrating what reliable secondary sources say about the issue, if anything. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 10:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yusuke1000 is obviously NOTHERE

Yusuke1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obviously someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. See this edit and this filter log hit. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is premature. To use the phrases of AIV, "insufficient activity" and "insufficiently warned".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but if someone who tries to edit a nonbinary user's page to invalidate their pronouns (as happened), they should be blocked. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Deliberate misgendering should be a one strike situation. Changing another user's pronouns should be an insta-indef. King Lobclaw (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Either hacked account or rouge editor

Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account has been reverting edits for no good reason and giving random IP editors final warnings (usually multiple) over minor edits, and all the activity is from today so it might be a hacked account (or it’s just an editor gone rouge). 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Read here WP:LTA/HR. 49.157.46.143 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, makes sense. 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, you were all vandalising articles and are simply bitter that you got called out on it. Cease and desist at once! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, Mr sockpuppet, your gonna get banned quickly (and definitely locked as well) 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And how's that ban coming along huh? LMAO! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a vanilla cupcake recipe 72.81.136.3 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Best way is to just ignore the editor. It's clearly a sock puppet of Hamish Ross, who owns thousands of accounts and this was never solved since 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 03:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so by that case we can edit and make corrections as we please and we won't get an edit ban? 72.81.136.3 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by Shirt58. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we need a CU or is this WP:DUCK-y enough? Saturday afternoon bicycle ride beckons. Also, gadjama gramma berida bimbala glandri galassassa laulitalomini. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a duck. Ross makes it so obvious that his accounts are socks. I was surprised he wasn’t caught by then. Kurnahusa (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe throw in a mass rollback on all of their edits as well. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Be careful when reverting edits by HR socks, as they do revert some bad/destructive edits along many constructive ones. My advice is to apply mass-rollback to user talk space edits (on other people's user talk pages), but the article space edits should be reviewed on a one-by-one basis. This is what makes this LTA a pain to deal with IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's such a shame they've been able to make hundreds of reverts each time, sometimes going 5-6 hours, before getting blocked. Can't an edit filter be created to automatically block accounts that behave in a similar fashion? Frost 06:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Frost: I'm thinking the same thing. I wish there was a filter to block all accounts or IPs from that particular account. No one has ever fixed or solved it since it started in 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Decidedly good block. One almost wants to enshrine using the terms "LOL" and "LMAO" in ANI complaints as a sure signifier of an impending block. Ravenswing 11:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

User:MakarPlays

Sock of Makar2288822 (talk · contribs) who was warned to not make disruptive Kiev to Kyiv edits on Battle of Kiev (1941) and Battle of Kiev (1943) (among other changes such as Dnieper to Dnipro) but they have decided to return to making disruptive edits despite consensus at WP:KYIV prohibiting such changes. Mellk (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Noriandreas

Noriandreas (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for adding unsourced content to BLPs (one earlier block for disruptive editing), along with multiple warnings for the same - yet they persist. I suggest a lengthier block? GiantSnowman 09:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. WP:NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Still - as in, literally 3 minutes ago adding unsourced content to BLPs... GiantSnowman 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user. What really bothers me is the user has been editing for over four and a half years, made over 41K edits, and has never talked in that entire time. They haven't responded to warnings. They haven't responded to previous blocks. They just keep plugging along, no doubt making many constructive edits at the same time as not bothering to source a great many others. We don't have to be warm and fuzzy all the time (god knows I'm not), but we have to be able to collaborate, especially when repeatedly challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing from IP user User:72.80.249.241

User:72.80.249.241 has been copying birth dates from Wikipedia articles and adding them to lists of people over the last few days or so. In multiple cases, they are adding unsourced birthdates of living people into these articles, thus violating polices such as WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, as well as guidelines like WP:RS. (Example diffs [113], [114], [115], [116]). A few users, including User:Magnolia677 and User:Ponyo, have attempted to explain the obvious BLP problems the addition of many of these dates poses on their talk page, but the IP has not only refused to respond to any of them, but is continuing on with the same behavior. This needs to stop. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

With this edit at Atkinson, Maine, the birth dates were completely different from the linked article, which wouldn't have happened if the sources were checked. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

User Abu Ali - POV-Pushing and WP:NOTHERE

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

Relevant context: The Trotskyist groups "Committee for a Workers' International" (CWI) dissolved in 2019 over a split in direction. Two new groups were formed as a result, with one choosing to "refound" itself under the old name (CWI 2019) and the other later moving to the name "International Socialist Alternative" (ISA). Both claim to be the continuation of CWI.

The user linked above demonstrates an editing pattern that suggests they are engaging in POV-pushing and general WP:NOTHERE behaviour when it comes to CWI 2019 and associated articles, overall suggesting they are an undeclared member of CWI 2019 or one of its constituent sections. It is also contextually important to note that the account was dormant for 12 years until 2020, and since then has almost exclusively edited articles related to the split in a non-neutral way.

The two main throughlines of inappropriate editing are:

• The user will make edits that favour CWI 2019 and their stances, such as repeatedly inserting claims that CWI and CWI 2019 are one and the same (while ISA's claims of being a continuation of the original CWI will not get the same treatment) or seemingly trying to use the CWI 2019 page as a means of promoting each section's website [117][118][119][120][121]

• When it comes to ISA the user will instead only introduce negative content, sourced without reliable sources but instead inappropriate self-published websites (which in one instance looks to be from the CWI 2019 itself) or citing non-linked internal documents they claim support the edits.[122][123][124][125]

In relation to this, they have also engaged in mass reversion to include large amounts of unsuitable, poor-quality information from a BLP article that was effectively written in the form of a biography arguing that individual's ideology.[126]

Overall, it's hard to see such behaviour as anything but POV-pushing and likely are only editing for off-wiki reasons and are not here to improve Wikipedia's goals. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The edits you listed do appear concerning. Have there been discussions with this editor regarding their potential POV violations? I've seen some topic-specific discussions regarding this editor's edits but nothing extensive as to their overall participation in these related topics. 23impartial (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@23impartial, when I posted my suspicions of them having a COI a couple of days ago with a warning template on their talk page their response has been:

"You should try reading WP:PA WP:AFG. And when you disagree with some content, try talking about it on the talk page, rather than edit warring."[127]

Basically instead of answering, they've just insisted that any questioning of their affiliation to CWI (which I think it quite apparent from their edits) is an example of personal attacks and a failure to assume good faith and it was immediately after that they undertook the mass restoring of inappropriate content linked above. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a straightforward case of a NOTHERE POV pusher trying to impose their faction's version of events onto Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Hisotrian carl

Hisotrian carl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite being warned by another editor to stop, the editor has continually added/changed information that goes directly against what the source in the article states. On September 3, the user changed the percent in the Somali Republic ‎article from 50 to 20 which is not what the source said on p.27. On the same day, they changed "Much of the north's population boycotted the referendum, and just 100,000 northerners voted at all. Of these, over 60% of those were against the union under the new Act." to "Most of the north's population boycotted the referendum, and just 7,000 northerners voted at all. Of these, over 80% of those were against the union under the new Act." which again is not what the source in the article says on p.84. Then two days later they changed the number of faculty from 43 to 41 on the St. John's University School of Law article (not supported by source). They changed "The most prominent Somali groups in the campaigns were the Geri, Marrehān, and Harti – all Dārod clans. Shihāb ad-Dīn is very vague as to their distribution and grazing areas, but describes the Harti as at the time in possession of the ancient eastern port of Mait. Of the Isāq only the Habar Magādle clan seem to have been involved and their distribution is not recorded." to "The most prominent Somali groups in the campaigns were the arap , gerhejis, habarje'lo – all iśaaq clans. Shihāb ad-Dīn is very vague as to their distribution and grazing areas, but describes the habar magaado as at the time in possession of the ancient eastern port of Mait. Of the darood only the harti clan seem to have been involved and their distribution is not recorded." on the Adal Sultanate page (not what the source says on p.223). Then two days later after being asked to stop, they readded the same change on the Adal Sultanate page and readded the same change on the Somali Republic ‎page. The user has never added any source supporting their alternative version of events, has not responded to their talk page, and doesn't give good enough edit summaries for their changes beyond "more information added" or "error fixed". Wowzers122 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)