Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archives, search)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Click here to start a new discussion

Alpinegora[edit]

(non-admin closure) Alpinegora was blocked indefinitely by RickinBaltimore for major WP:NOTHERE issues. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HistoryofIran: this page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, which according to its manual should obey a Template:Do not archive until. I've added {{subst:DNAU|10}} to this thread, which should keep it here for 10 days. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, that's a thing. Err.. well, this is embarrassing. Thank you very much Apaugasma! --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment by uninvolved editor: I agree, definitely looks WP:NOTHERE to me, only here to push a POV. Together with that user talk page response, should be blocked indef. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, that Talk page comment screams NOTHERE. Indef is the right call. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. They are still unashamedly pov editing under the same dishonest edit summary "simple changes", which I just reverted [7] [8] [9] [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been up for almost a month. It goes without saying that I too think that Alpinegora should be indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to guess the reason why this hasn't been dealt with yet is because there are other methods at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that could have been tried here before ANI, have you exhausted all other DR options before ANI? — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but this isn't an dispute or disagreement, this is a user engaging in outright disruptive (and dishonest) edits and personal attacks. Nothing about them suggests that they are a net worth to Wikipedia (WP:NOTHERE), and thus I'm surprised to see how long this thread has been up. I did also add a warning to their talk page, which led to the personal attack. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright then. Hopefully that makes the message clear here that the remedy for Alpinegora is a block of long or indefinite length.
If this thread gets archived, and the user makes the same problematic edits again afterwards, then make a new ANI thread referencing to this one.
By the way, just today the user has made an unsourced addition with the same dishonest "Simple changes" edit summary, which also looks like POV-pushing to me as per the examples above: Special:Diff/1153367792. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to support HistoryofIran here, this is not an editing dispute, but a behavioral issue. Alpinegora is directly accusing HoI of being "paid by a dictator regime." That's a direct personal attack and should not be tolerated. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an uninvolved editor I too believe that they are WP:NOTHERE based on their edit history and comments. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 18:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also uninvolved, and I know an egregious personal attack when I see one. This report is valid and pushing a month old. The offending editor was properly notified of this discussion and has not seen fit to respond. Recommend an indef based on the evidence and clear editor consensus. Jusdafax (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request admin action[edit]

Can an admin please take action? We're nearing the one month anniversary of a clearly WP:NOTHERE user. And they're still at it with their disruptive and dishonest edits [11] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arkenstrone: baseless accusations[edit]

Context

User:Arkenstrone has been POV-pushing since the beginning of April at articles Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God. I recently removed their POV-pushing. The user opposed this removal, so I reverted their revert and tried to explain to the user that random blogs and reading clubs' websites and the likes were not reliable and why information had to be removed along with refs, but the user WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and stated they wanted to create a FALSEBALANCE between what they deem "pro-Valtorta" and "anti-Valtorta" points.

Then, Arkenstrone's versions on both articles were revdeleted for copyright violation, part of which was due to me asking Diannaa to check them after their revdeletion at 'Maria Valtorta'. The user asked Diannaa for the revdeleted content, when Dianaa refused Arkenstrone stated: I am seeking other admins to give me access to the original material because you are unwilling, even though I've explained to you the unique circumstances of many valuable non-infringing edits being lost as a side-effect of your revision deletion. The user then went to ask 3 other admins to get an e-mail of the deleted versions (links to threads): Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, and DatGuy. The user has stated that all three were chosen because they had imposed sanctions upon me in the past (I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour [...] I contacted the admins that previously blocked you because they might recognize a pattern of questionable behaviour in your conduct and be more sympathetic to my request), a reason the user has double-down on (on Deepfriedokra's talk page, admin Anachronist characterised Arkenstrone's behaviour as a blatant demonstration of WP:Admin shopping). By the way, the admin shopping worked with the last admin.

Accusations

The user has portrayed my behaviour as disruption or vandalism without any basis, thus violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links"). They have also consistently characterised my removal of their POV as "gutting" the articles. This is the the user's last remark to me that made me write this ANI, and I have updated the writing with DatGuy's recent acceptation of e-mailing the copyrighted material.

  • At User talk:Diannaa#The Poem of the Man-God: This editor's approach by removing large portions of the article because he doesn't like the sources, is extremely disruptive; the other editor removed large portions of the article because he doesn't agree that the sources presenting important information are good sources. This is disruptive; this user disruptively gutted large portions of the article.
  • At User talk:Bbb23#Assistance for Disruptive Edits: they state I have a long history of WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:VANDALIZE, and they ask that I be blocked for serial disruptive edits and vandalism: this is not true, I have never been blocked for vandalism and my removal is not disruptive nor vandalism.
  • At User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision?: I didn't give the normal editing process a chance to function, me asking Diannaa to check for copyvio is a sort of gaming of the editing process, and I have been attempting to confuse, conflate, and game the editing process.

Sidenote unrelated to me: Arkenstrone has also characterised Diannaa's refusal of handing their revdeleted versions as well beyond your purview and veering dangerously close to a form of soft-censorship and micro-management of the editing process based on your own personal views and opinions. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The admins involved in this discussion already came to a resolution. User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision? Arkenstrone (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a completely different issue, as DatGuy has told you at the very talk page you link. Veverve (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Arkenstrone had stuck to the subject of getting back their content, that would have been great. But they personalized the conflict with Veverve and specifically sought out admins who'd sanctioned Veverve in the past. Me included. I'll leave it to y'all to decide what to make of this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are missing some important facts. Allow me to correct the record.
  • Bbb23 was the first admin I contacted after Diannaa, asking him for 1) a copy of the deleted revision and 2) to assist, and possibly block Veverve since he was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). That's not how things are done. You bring it up on the talk page, and if a source is indeed low quality, then tag the sourced text with "citation needed" or similar, and give other editors a chance to provide better sources. That's good-faith.
  • Bbb23 didn't want to have anything to do with it. So I respected his wish not to get involved and left it at that. Afterwards, I decided to focus on just getting access to the deleted revision and not confuse things with conduct issues. I made no mention of Veverve, on any other admin's talk page, including DatGuy's or yours.
  • It was Veverve that decided to make his presence known on DatGuy's talk page. Only then did I respond to his confused and deflecting statements, and provided the facts of his past bad behaviour, which was happening once again. I wasn't going to mention his past behaviour in that thread, deciding instead to give the editing process a chance to function, and see what happens.
  • Only after DatGuy [12] recommended to introduce material from the deleted revision with copyvio corrections + source improvement (slowly), did Veverve choose to file this frivolous ANI. I would advise Veverve to consider WP:BOOMERANG. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baseless accusations?
Patterns of questionable conduct: 1) gutting articles WP:VANDALIZE, 2) disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT, and 3) edit warring WP:3RR. At least 5 blocks have been levied and one Arbitration Enforcement Sanction. The facts speak for themselves (below). This editor doesn't seem to be getting the message. Before opening a frivolous ANI, perhaps he should consider WP:BOOMERANG.
1. Edit Warring: [13] Block: [14]
=> "You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian fascism (ideology)) for a period of 1 week for EDIT WARRING."
2. Edit Warring [15] Block: [16]
=> "You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this?"
=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring."
3. Edit Warring & Block: [17]
=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in the same articles immediately after your previous block ended."
4. Block Extension: [18]
=> "I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options."
5. Edit Warring & Block: [19]
=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Heresy in the Catholic Church."
6. Arbitration Enforcement Sanction: [20]
=> "The following sanction now applies to you: You are indefinitely topic banned from all subject that relate to "Russia", including discussion or any article that is related to Russia in any way, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned [21]"
7. Disruptve Edits: [22]
=> in progress Arkenstrone (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to have completely missed the point. And you double-down on calling my edits Disruptve Edits (using your own warnings as proofs), accusing me of having vandalised (which I never did, you do not appear to understand the meaning of this term on WP), and baselessly state that I was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). I never denied receiving blocks or being topic-banned. That none of the three admins to which you mentioned my behaviour were willing to sanction me should have made you realise your accusations were baseless.
That you decided to make it personnal and continued to baselessly accuse me once I intervened on DatGuy's talk page, or on whatever page, is not a defence at all: it only proves you have trouble working on a community project. And as I said, I had decided to start this ANI once you confirmed that you were clearly unwilling to give me the time of the day.
You admitted you decided to ask specific admins that sanctionned me in your admin shopping. Veverve (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (comment so that it does not get archived before an admin has fixed the problem) Veverve (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not an expert, but I would recommend an interaction ban between the two editors. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muhsin97233[edit]

Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]) have been reverted, as seen here [28][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [29] [30] [31] [32]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [33][34][35]; [36]; [37]; [38]; [39]; [40]; [41][42][43]; [44]; [45]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [46][47].
Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bilateral relations troll 3: Tokyo Drift[edit]

Last discussion about them here. Still edit warring in See also sections while IP hopping, as is their modus operandi. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like all of these were picked off by a number of other admins; they're all webhosts/open proxies, etc. Thanks for being vigilant. Feel free to rollback at will anything that hasn't been already. --Jayron32 14:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found more while checking to see if the rollbacked edits were reverted again: 45.159.249.180 (talk · contribs), 5.182.36.108 (talk · contribs), 5.182.37.93 (talk · contribs), and what seems to be an actual user for once: Kindedir. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LilianaUwU Thank you for dealing with this. TylerBurden (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are all IPs associated with Stark Industries Solutions. @Blablubbs:, who I believe works frequently with WP:OP to block open proxies. Is there any rangeblocks where we could take this down? It looks like this person is using Stark Industries Solutions, and I'm not sure there's any good reason not to block them; googling the name turns up a lot of red flags. --Jayron32 12:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jayron32: I've gone through and blocked the ~150 unblocked Stark ranges I could find. There seem to be some other webhosts involved here too, but I'm hoping this will help a bit. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I was done with them (and had closed the discussion), but they made at least one account, in the form of Drawn Burn Caboose (talk · contribs). Already blocked, but worth checking out. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CANVASS violation by User:William Allen Simpson[edit]

This, this, this, this and this all violate the canvassing policy.

I understand that Mr. Simpson is upset to see an emerging consensus to do away with his cherished policy, but I played by the rules and so should he. If he can make a convincing argument in favor of his preferred position, fine. But lashing out and mass-posting and pinging biased notices is not the solution. I did not forum-shop, I simply opened a discussion in the most appropriate place, without regard to where previous discussions may have occurred. — Biruitorul Talk 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really wish we could stop obsessing about pigeonholing and labelling people by descent and ethnicity and get rid of these categories altogether, they cause nothing but edit wars and endless problems and presents the fiction who someone's parents or ancestors were is more important than who they are. Canterbury Tail talk 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really wish we could address the substance of my complaint here. — Biruitorul Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: Not that this is worth discussing here, but I would like to point out that this is not about the "pigeonholing" categories being especially cherished by me or by Biruitorul (though they do seem to have much support in the wikipedian community, and also do seem to have a purpose for at least some regions of the world); it is simply a fact that, if we are going to have them, we should at least have a consistent approach that is dictated by the sources, not an editorial decision guided by whims. You can either have all the categories mentioned by sources, or none at all; the current guideline is remarkably ludicrous in suggesting we should only have one. If there is any bias or preference on my part, it is one against whims, not for ethnic categories. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An editor who was not notified has appeared here. Meatpuppet? Sockpuppet?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, because every editor who’s ever commented here has done so only by notification. Let’s focus on your canvassing behavior, Mr. Simpson, and leave aside the diversions. — Biruitorul Talk 10:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well yes, I may be a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet (and a major creator of content when I'm not engaged by William Allen Simpson in absurd debates about his pet peeves, once they come to intersect with the content I create); then again, I may be a user who simply bothered to click on this rather public page and was drawn to comment here on a side topic brought up by Canterbury Tail. Dahn (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:ASPERSIONS. Strike your absurd comment. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:B195:BCE:2355:7AD9 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many editors visit ANI to keep track of disputes and weigh in on them. It is not unusual for unrelated individuals to chime in, and is in fact encouraged to get a broad consensus on the disputes in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could be mistaken, but I think User:William Allen Simpson's response was likely a sardonic one, commenting about the fact that the two accusing him of canvassing, apparently didn't like the comments of another editor who showed up here. And so was sardonically commenting that it "must" be another attempt by him at another sort of collusion. I'm not saying whether that was appropriate or not, but just that's my impression of their comments. - jc37 17:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be that as it may, let’s also talk about the WikiProject notifications. They begin harmlessly enough, but then go on with a lengthy paragraph about how I’m forum-shopping. Hardly the neutral announcement required by policy, is it? — Biruitorul Talk 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jc37: Please note that I had never accused Mr Simpson of canvassing -- I noted that the accusation may have some merit, but did not endorse it myself, nor had anything to to with this ANI notification. I did read it, though, and I did comment on the side topic opened up by Canterbury Tail. I then proceeded to make a point about the egregious claim brought up against Biruitorul. Also do me the favor of noting that even in the categorization RfC that's being discussed here I expressed an opinion that is substantially different from what Biruitorul proposed, regarding what the standard of ethnic inclusion should be (which did not prevent one of the users invited in by William Allen Simpson from suggesting I am Biruitorul's sockpuppet). Anyway, I really do wish that both parties could stick to the point that's being discussed, here and anywhere else. Dahn (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Poe's Law is in full effect, so without an indicator, I really can't tell if someone is trying to be snarky anymore. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree and am sympathetic. If I had not seen more examples of his writing (he is a prolific CFD contributor, and has been for many years), I don't know that I could have guessed that either. - jc37 08:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was WP:FORUMSHOPPING by definition. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Biruitorul's RfC was posted on a less frequently visited Talk page (nothing posted in 3 months) during a (currently active) discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation, where such matters are supposed to be decided. (See WP:RFCNOT.) This is one of a series of such discussions over a period of more than 4 months: (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 20#Category:British people by ethnicity and occupation.) Biruitorul failed to notify any of the current discussion participants nor any relevant projects. After belatedly discovering it serendipitously, I've notified the recent participants and other relevant Talk pages.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The complaint here is about you, Mr. Simpson. Your notifications were in no way in line with WP:CANVASS. Please stop diverting me discussion. — Biruitorul Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions can be scrutinized here too. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 10:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scrutinize all you want. But while you scrutinize my actions, maybe also take a moment to scrutinize the actions of William Allen Simpson, if it isn’t asking too much. — Biruitorul Talk 10:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Anyone else feeling like handing out interaction bans and topic bans against both Biruitorul and William Allen Simpson and just being done with this nonsense? --Jayron32 11:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry, but what exactly am I guilty of here? I started an RfC, which I oversaw in the most civil, engaged manner possible. Then along comes William Allen Simpson who blasts me with some ridiculous charges, and canvasses his supporters. Sorry but I’m not the one in the wrong here. — Biruitorul Talk 12:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Jayron32's solution sounds like an especially appealing one to me. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Again: what have I done wrong? — Biruitorul Talk 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope Jayron32. What a horrible idea. The only thing it is going to gain is make you feel like you solved anything. How about either treating the topic at hand fully or not commenting at all? Sanctioning a more than a decade-long content writer out of laziness is not acceptable. This goes for WaltCip too. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it's a bad idea, I came up with it. All bad ideas originate with me. I'm an asshole, of course. It shocks me that anyone listens to me at all. Sorry all. Carry on. --Jayron32 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Biruitorul has only had a marginal involvement with this topic, unlike William Allen Simpson, whose edits largely revolve around this issue, and this interpretation of policy, in a manner and at a pace that very few could even keep up with. Biruitorul had requested for a comment not on Mr Simpson's behavior, but simply on whether the guideline makes sense -- it was raised in an appropriate venue, and was actually more valid than many of Mr Simpson's edits, precisely because it asked for input for editors who (like himself) have not been generally involved in this issue, and have no entrenched position either way. To which Mr Simpson invoked claims of forum shopping, all the while calling in people whom he knows share his exact position as !voters. So what is Biruitorul even accused of? Dahn (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At a minimum, William Allen Simpson should be cautioned that notifications should be worded neutrally. Schazjmd (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am sorry, but I really don't understand how this blatant canvassing is going completely unnoticed. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    William Allen Simpson's lack of diffs when referring to CFD discussions made it challenging to identify where those pings came from. I think it was this one, and as there weren't any editors who disagreed with the proposed deletion, I'm assuming good faith that had there been, they would have been pinged too. Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Schazjmd: IMHO, it should be noted that the CfD mentioned by Mr Simpson has in fact very little to do with the guideline that Biruitorul has brought under scrutiny -- we were not discussing the merits of categorizing by ethnicity and occupation (to clarify: I myself am agnostic on this issue -- though I have created some such categories, to the measure where they seemed to be validated by a long-standing practice, I do not object to them ultimately being folded into the larger ones, if this reflects consensus), but the notion that we should only categorize by one ethnicity. I'm not entirely sure that/if Mr Simpson's bringing in other editors who happened to vote his way on that CfD should count as canvassing, but I myself would be interested to know: (a) what other similar CfDs those same users have supported, in the plethora of like-minded CfDs started by Mr Simpson (so many in fact that it has become simply impossible to keep up with them); (b) why Mr Simpson thought the CfDs and this issue would be connected enough for those particular users to be called in. Dahn (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what William Allen Simpson did was ping everyone from a CfD in which everyone supported them to an unrelated one? That is indeed canvassing. Though in the discussion that started this report some people that did not participate in the one you linked were pinged, so they must come from somewhere else. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do your homework: as noted above, that ping was to all participants of a series of related category discussions that week, both pro and con, who were not already notified. There was no need to ping any already present.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first diff could be canvassing depending on if the people ping'd were only supportive editors from a prior discussion. You've not provided any evidence of that. The last diffs all appear to be notices of the discussion you created: the wording is not ideal (not neutral in tone). WAS does raise a good point about the venue you chose to start that discussion at being the venue with least participation seemingly. Did you make an additional notifications when you started that RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answer (as there has been no other response yet): No, there were no notifications by the nominator to any of the related projects, nor to the village pump. They have admitted that they did no history search, and did not notify any prior contributors to the text (such as me). They have admitted relying on each others' contributions for WP:STEALTH coordination. WP:RFC#Publicizing an RfC was used as the basis for my notification choices.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@William Allen Simpson, do you have a diff for admitting to off-wiki coordination (WP:STEALTH)? And you have not addressed the non-neutral language of your notifications. Schazjmd (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did notify the appropriate village pump. Notifying and then, as Mr. Simpson did, adding a “by the way, this RfC constitutes forum-shopping” is hardly the neutral announcement required by policy. — Biruitorul Talk 19:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheTranarchist: GENSEX topic ban warning disputed[edit]

There is no consensus to overturn the warning, so the warning stands. What is clear is that this situation was at the grey area where good-faith editors can disagree as to which side of the line the edit fell. I'll take this time to also remind TheTranarchist that it is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to topic bans and "broadly construed." Even technically acceptable edits can lead to issues if they're seen as sniffing around the edges of a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



User TheTranarchist is topic-banned by the community from the topic covered by the scope of the WP:GENSEX arbitration contentious topics case (Special:Permalink/1142680274#Advocacy editing by User:TheTranarchist). They were advised about testing the edges of this ban on March 3, and have previously been formally warned about editing in GENSEX contentious topics, though the current ban is a community sanction.

Today they reverted a series of edits on the above article, and were reverted by another editor noting the topic ban. I left a warning on their talk page noting the previous warnings and advising that any future violations would result in a block. Several other users have responded that TheTranarchist's edit did not change any content related to a gender-related controversy and asked that I retract the warning; I have countered that the topic cannot be separated from the anti-transgender advocacy it is widely known for and thus any edit to the page violates the ban. I am asking for a review of this warning per WP:ADMINACCT. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Users notified. Please note that I have invited TheTranarchist to participate in this review notwithstanding their topic ban, per WP:BANEX. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is almost entirely about CRT and the group's pushing of anti-CRT topics. The edit made had nothing to do with the limited gender section. This isn't a violation of the topic ban. This seems like an attempt by OP above to do a run-around on an edit war. SilverserenC 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, you yourself made the exact same edit as TheTranarchist afterwards. What the heck is even the point of this report? SilverserenC 17:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would read the revert by Ivanvector as a procedural one. Another editor reverted my restoration of the edit, even though I had taken accountability for the edit by virtue of restoring it.
Otherwise the purpose for this discussion is to review Ivanvector's TBAN breach warning, which I and another editor believe to be erroneous. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, that is the case. Any editor in good standing may restore a WP:BANREVERT-reverted edit if they have good reasons for believing that the content of the edit is appropriate, and they then are viewed to have made that edit themselves. BANREVERT was the wrong shortcut for me to have put in my edit summary but that is written somewhere, I just couldn't find it at the time. When Sideswipe9th was reverted again, my revert was an attempt to explain this and also to cap off a brewing edit war which was over the status of the edit and not its content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ivanvector: but that is written somewhere — It's in WP:PROXYING, although I've felt for some time that it should be moved somewhere more logical. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The TBAN is invalid to begin with, but that's another story for another day. I'm not an admin, and I'm a GENSEX editor, so my opinion doubly doesn't matter here, but indeed, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is so focused on CRT that I think it isn't a violation of the TBAN. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your opinion is as valid here as anyone else's, LilianaUwU, this is a community noticeboard and does not limit participation to administrators. But you are right that whether or not the TBAN is valid is neither here nor there: it is the result of a community discussion and has the backing of community consensus; my action was in a good-faith effort to reasonably enforce it, not a commentary on its merit. TheTranarchist is free to appeal, though they were advised that they should wait six months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm one of the editors who challenged this warning. I reviewed the edit in question prior to restoring it, after first checking to see if any changes were made that altered any gender related content in the article. As there were no changes made to content that would be covered by GENSEX, and I agreed with the policy reasons for the changes, I restored the edit.
With regards to the scope of the TBAN, back in March, TheTranarchist asked if editing the non-GENSEX content in the FAIR article would violate the TBAN. My reading of CaptainEek's response was that the gender related content was obviously covered by the TBAN, and that editing the non-gender content in the article would not be a TBAN violation, though it was otherwise unadvisable due to the controversial nature of the organisation.
I would disagree that the sum of the organisation's actions, particularly those involving critical race theory and racial inequality lawsuits, are intractable from their anti-transgender advocacy. While the gender subsection of the article is sizeable, it is dwarfed by the critical race theory, and other lawsuits sections. And while critical race theory is another controversial topic in its own right, it is, in my opinion, a stretch to consider it a gender-related controversy and subject to the scope of GENSEX.
Also procedurally, I believe this is the wrong venue for a ADMINACCT review. I believe these discussions are supposed to be held at WP:AARV or WP:AN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that Ivanvector made a simple mistake in filing here rather than at AN, where he recently filed a request for review of his actions. As for AARV, what I have to say about that noticeboard is not printable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured this was more an "incident" than a "thing administrators should know about", and until just now I didn't know we had actually created WP:AARV. My decision was whether to file here or at WP:AE, and this was the obvious choice among those two pages. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur that there were no changes made to content that would be covered by GENSEX. Just because an organization takes positions that do fall under GENSEX doesn't mean that everything about them does. Otherwise, any GENSEX topic ban would be an AP2 topic ban de facto. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is a 'gender-related article'. It has a 'gender' subsection, and a big message on the talk page that says This page is related to gender-related disputes. I don't think arguing about this is helping anyone.  Tewdar  08:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The talk page for FAIR contains a GENSEX warning box, and my reading of CaptainEek's response to TheTranarchist's question is that they should most definitely avoid editing that article in its entirety, for this exact reason. In my opinion, Ivanvector is correct in their warning issued to the editor. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that one of the issues mentioned by the closer of the discussion that imposed the topic-ban was TheTranarachist's editing of the wikipedia article on an anti-transgender rights activist and given FAIR's views on gender, I see their edit to the page as a clear violation of the topic-ban. A warning is merited, if only to prevent future missteps that may end up requiring stricter sanctions on a clearly dedicated and well-intentioned editor. This is not a comment on the merits of the edit (and therefore other editors are free to restore it in part or in whole, once they have reviewed it) or the merits of the topic-ban itself (whose close can be appealed, if needed, assuming that hasn't already happened). Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just want to state for the record that I haven't appealed it yet. A very brief recap of the case is on my userpage here.
    I'll also confess I've thought about appealing often, either for the ban to be lifted, restricted to the specific subset of GENSEX touched on in my case (anti-trans BLPs/ORGs), or at least a partial exemption to edit in GENSEX where my work was purely uncontroversial (trans healthcare articles, LGBT rights in <location> articles with WP:USALGBT (which I created), and historically notable trans activists and rights organizations such as Angela Lynn Douglas and Tri-Ess). Honestly, it really hurts to be completely banned from GENSEX. I freely admit I fucked up when it comes to writing about hate groups that do nothing other than seek to restrict transgender people's rights (and even then, I might add only a few articles I wrote there really showed problems, with the clearest wrongdoing on Posie Parker And even then, only after she publicly called me a liar and insulted me with sexualizing transphobic insults for writing her article, which has had a repeated talk consensus that the description of her is accurate, according to RS, and that descriptions of it as a hit piece were unfounded and stemmed from SPAs). Even the close decision stated it was apparent I was dedicated and willing to work on improving as an editor. Lesser sanctions, or even an initial warning, could have helped me improve as an editor. Now, I can't any article even vaguely related to trans topics. I can't even participate in the LGBT noticeboard. I can't take Gloria Hemingway to GA. Apparently LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations, even though it doesn't mention trans rights once and I only asked to reformat the pre-existing content. I got dragged to AE for that explanatory message I left on my userpage, literally acknowledging my ban and saying goodbye to GENSEX just after my case closed. I can't continue collaborating on articles I wrote even on talk, even where fellow editors praised my dedication to NPOV and collaborative editing. I wanted to take all my old articles to at least a B, but am unable to.
    I went from being a well respected editor in GENSEX, known for doing good work across various subsets of GENSEX, to being completely cut off from anything vaguely trans related after a sockpuppet started a case against me, even though half the participants (who while I didn't exactly poll, were notably often other frequent editors in GENSEX, including those I've had civil content and policy debates in the past) vocally supported me.
    With all that weighing on me, why haven't I appealed? Because multiple editors have privately counseled me to just wait it out. Even though it really hurts, and even when they agree it's unjust, the constant thing I've heard is that by merely asking for an appeal, reformat of the ban, or limited exception, I'll risk making my ban longer and damning my chances. I've been told my eagerness to rejoin GENSEX will be considered evidence against me instead of stemming from the obvious fact that I am a trans person, I wrote a lot of trans related articles, all of it fell under GENSEX and WP:BMB, only a specific subset of articles I wrote were even mentioned in my case and shown to have issues, and it hurts to be so fully exiled from anything vaguely trans-related.
    Perhaps I've become too jaded by my last time at ANI, so I'll ask anyone who cares to answer: is there some way the community might see fit to make this ban a little less stifling? To recognize my previous good contributions in GENSEX, my dedication to improving as an editor, and my improvement since and just allow me to edit some trans-related articles? I wasn't going to ask, but since I'm here at ANI a quick informal poll seems prudent, would the community support a limited exception to the ban starting June 1st for Wiki Loves Pride on LGBT rights in <XYZ> articles? I'll do anti-bludgeoning restrictions, 0RR, talk page only, any intermediary sanction the community finds appropriate. I just want a little WP:ROPE, opportunity to prove my ability to make valuable contributions to GENSEX, and honestly I don't want to spend pride month feeling awful about the fact I can't make a single edit related to trans people (which, per WP:BMB, even includes general articles about LGBT rights and content unrelated to trans people). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This may be better framed as a request for a clarification of the current TBAN - are articles about LGBT rights in <XYZ location> included within the scope of the ban? And if so, as a limited exception to the TBAN, can you edit these specific types of articles subject to restrictions such as talk page proposals only, or 0RR? These seem to generally be articles that may have regular editing disputes, but not similar to the level of disputes in articles with WP:GENSEX banners on their talk pages.
    As to the review of the warning, the TBAN scope seems somewhat unclear due to what CaptainEek said and the policy language. I can find content in the midst of the large edit, i.e. FAIR describes itself as non-partisan and "pro-human" with a source about a gender-related dispute [48], which may generally support Ivanvector's view on how inseparable the topics are for this organization; gender-related dispute content is also not contained only to the Gender section, see e.g. at the end of the Opposition to critical race theory section and the Emory Free Speech Forum section, which seems to further support Ivanvector's perception of the article as within the scope of the TBAN. I think under these circumstances, it could be helpful to clarify the scope of the TBAN as covering the FAIR article and move on without a formal warning. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This may be better framed as a request for a clarification of the current TBAN yes and no. While this obviously has an impact on TheTranarchist's editing, it also has an effect on a multitude of other editors who are also subject to a GENSEX TBAN. If we're construing GENSEX this broadly, then as Rhododendrites, HandThatFeeds, and myself have pointed out below this would also amount to a defacto AP2 TBAN, as well as a British politics TBAN. This question on scope how broadly we define the scope is probably something that ArbCom needs to resolve, given the impacts it will have on many editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was referring to the request for a quick informal poll in the bolded part of TheTranarchist's comment as something that may be better framed as a request for clarification, along with a way to propose a clarification that emphasizes a straightforward distinction for the specific type of articles. As to the rest, in my own peanut gallery way, I previously cautioned TheTranarchist to show clear distance from the topic area, because I think this provides the easiest path to minimizing conflict that could arise, as it has here, over how to interpret the scope of the TBAN.
    From my view, the content and talk page history of the FAIR article, as well as the totality of CaptainEek's general comments, indicates to me that Ivanvector was acting within admin discretion to issue a warning - I have tried to suggest a mitigating factor based on how CaptainEek's comment and the policy language might have been interpreted, and to suggest an informal warning along with clarification that this article is within the scope. The idea is to resolve this conflict and help guard against future conflicts, with a reminder about not testing the limits of the TBAN even if an edit seems technically defensible.
    So I don't think the TBAN applying to this article, with GENSEX sources and content identified in various areas of the article, necessarily risks transforming GENSEX into a defacto AP2 ban. From my view, there seems to be enough evidence for Ivanvector to find a TBAN violation here - the concern about a slippery slope seems based on a view that GENSEX had no connection to the edit, but there seems to be disagreement with this assessment in this discussion. And these kinds of differences in opinion seem to emphasize the risk of skating close to a topic area that does overlap to varying degrees with a variety of other topics. Beccaynr (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was having such a nice morning... Woke up early, got fresh air, got a little editing done on Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, while I was on WP quickly reverted some obvious vandalism, and went to an event I'd been looking forward to for a month. Starting heading back, thinking about how I'd enjoy continuing to work on UHAB since I had some time (which I now spend writing the following), only to check my phone and realize somehow I ended up here again...
  1. Quoting WP:TBAN: a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". and For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also ... weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
    From the second quotation more specifically, I'll paraphrase as if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with Gender: the section entitled "Gender" in the article FAIR, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
  2. The edit did not touch any parts covered by GENSEX
  3. I think anyone looking at the edit can see I had firm policy reasons for reverting the content. I don't think a single editor would disagree the content was not encyclopedic in the least, and per WP:BANEX: The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree
  4. As noted by others, I asked CaptainEek does the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism count as GENSEX? Talk page consensus there was that they are not an anti-trans organization and their dealings with trans topics are not notable enough for the lead, so I want to be sure whether I should avoid it or not., to which the response was When it comes to the gender aspect of FAIR, certainly. Further, as a matter of becoming a better editor, I would advise you stay away from controversial topics for the time being, so I'm not sure that touching the rest of the FAIR article is a good idea either.
  5. As noted above, there was a talk page consensus that the organization's stance on transgender rights is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic or reason for a category related to transgender rights. The fact they opposed transgender rights was removed from the lead by another editor (however, whether that is appropriate per LEADFOLLOWSBODY and the fact there is a gender section is a separate matter).
As a recap, I reverted obvious vandalism for sound policy reasons, not touching the section devoted to GENSEX in an article about an organization primarily known for campaigning against what it deems "critical race theory". An organization local consensus determined was not notable for its positions on transgender rights and which doesn't even mention the organizations' positions on trans people in the lead. This fits into both the definition of WP:TBAN (the part of the article about the CTOP, not the entire article) and for extra safety the provisions of WP:BANEX. I had previously asked the closing admin about whether the page was covered by my TBAN, and while obviously the section devoted to GENSEX is, the rest of the article was fair game while not advisable (I also want to note, I asked that weeks ago, and only touched the page since to revert the aforementioned vandalism this morning). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheTranarchist: About a quarter of the current version of the article (roughly 900 out of 3700 words) is devoted to "Gender", a topic where I believe we can reasonable assume that your views don't mesh with the organization's. So when you edited the lede and the Reception section to restore a version of the article that highlights critical views of the organization instead of its self-description, the edit may well have been reasonable on its merits, but it cannot be said to be unrelated to GENSEX. As an uninvolved admin, I don't think the question of whether this was a violation of your topic-ban is really debatable (it was!), although I understand that you may not have realized that.
So my sincere advice to you is:
  • Either formally appeal your topic-ban to be rescinded or narrowed, or
  • Follow it strictly without even skating close to the edges
If in doubt ask any uninvolved admin of your choice and if they advise you to not to edit a page (as CaptainEek did wrt Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) don't mistake their polite phrasing to be an implicit permission to edit the page. If I may be blunt here: IMO, editors who are arguing otherwise are (unintentionally) setting you up for further TBAN violations that are likely to lead to actual sanctions and diminish the chance of the current topic-ban being overturned. And, ironically, Ivanvector is doing you a service by warning you off actions that are not in your long time interest if you wish to ever edit in the GENSEX area again. Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I make no judgement as to whether this was or was not a tban violation, my thinking most aligns with Abecedare's. While my phrasing was not an absolute proscription on editing FAIR, it was not an invitation either. The fact that TA has decided to edit it regardless speaks to poor judgement on her part. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ivanvector, I only just saw your reference to my previous official warning. I just want to quickly note that warning was before my case and was not in relation to my editing but improperly confirming a COI on KJK's talk page (an editor said another had a COI, I did some digging and confirmed it, the evidence was oversighted, and the COI editor later confirmed the evidence, to which there was later a consensus it was a COI). AmandaNP, who left it, stated at my case that I feel that the oversighted content issue was an oversight in judgement, and from my discussions, I doubt it will reoccur from TheTranarchist. I don't think this rises to "poor judgement" as that would require reckless disregard (aka an intent to disregard), where as I see this as being unaware of the rules in a sensitive topic area. I only note this because it was a real pet peeve to have the warning noted repeatedly at my case, without the context for what the warning was actually about, ie reporting a COI not my actual editing. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We all agree the content of the edit itself has nothing to do with GENSEX, right? So this is about whether any edit to an article on a subject that has opinions about gender is covered by a GENSEX tban? Or perhaps the questions are (a) whether Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people should extend to "associated organizations", and (b) whether someone/something is "associated" by having expressed an opinion (among other unrelated, more prominent opinions)? If the organization were first and foremost focused on gender-related issues I think there's a case for the tban to extend there, but otherwise we're effectively turning any GENSEX tban into an American politics tban. One of the two major parties, along with its various think tanks, PACs, and publications, has made transgender rights a standard talking point. If we're looking at article-level rather than content-level edits, all of that would be off-limits, as long as a mention of a position on gender/sexuality made it into their Wikipedia page. Perhaps there are precedents here I'm not aware of, but IMO we treat a GENSEX topic ban as relevant to content except where the subject's notability is tied to gender/sexuality. If problems persist, rather than say "GENSEX tban should be treated as an AMPOL tban", consider whether an AMPOL tban should be added (clearly that's not the case here). They're separate tools, so use them that way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. The edit was reversion of obvious vandalism, not related to GENSEX. The article subject is not directly related to GENSEX, though a subsection is. If the topic ban applies in this case, it becomes absurdly broad. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with this (as my comment somewhere up there indicates). XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
otherwise we're effectively turning any GENSEX tban into an American politics tban I have to agree here, and this cuts both ways as a AP2 TBAN would also become a defacto GENSEX TBAN. While "broadly construed" is standard terminology in TBAN applications, what has been said by other editors above is I think stretching that far beyond what was originally intended.
Also sidenote, while it's not designated a contentious topic, such a broad definition of GENSEX would also mean that a TBAN from GENSEX would also be a TBAN from British politics. Why? Well two of our major parties, along with several think tanks, non-profit organisations, one loud and contentious charity, and substantial elements of the British media establishment have also made transgender rights and to some degree denigration of trans and non-binary people a standard talking point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can’t speak for American politics, which I don’t edit, but I strongly disagree that a broadly construed GENSEX topic ban would be in effect a ban on editing British politics. You can talk about, for instance, Brexit, the NHS, immigration, tax, trade unions, the cost of living, without mentioning anything to do with GENSEX . In British politics, GENSEX is a minor subject. I have not seen any mention of it in the discussions about the recent local elections results. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)  Reply[reply]
In British politics, GENSEX is a minor subject. I hard disagree. Every single day, for the last three/four years, both The Times and Telegraph have ran anti-trans articles, targeting individuals and charities in their coverage. Both the EHRC and Tory party are seeking to amend the Equality Act in a manner that would make it legal to ban trans people from spaces that align with their gender, as well as pushing for the Department for Education to issue guidance that will forcibly out trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming pupils to parents, regardless of whether or not that will put the child at harm (ie transphobic parents), while also banning them from the facilities that align with their gender presentation. It's such a defining issue in UK politics at the moment, that Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the UN Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity has been in the country since late April investigating the current state of support for LGBT+ individuals in the UK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sideswipe, these are, in terms of British politics in general, minor issues. The Telegraph, the Times and the UN do not define what are major issues in British politics. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Conservative Party article contains only minimal GENSEX content about same-sex marriage, does not have a subsection titled 'Gender', and does not have a big GENSEX warning on its talk page. I don't think anyone wants to play TBAN-Gotcha here, but I'm reasonably sure that articles that were created with subheadings that include 'Opposition to transgender rights' are within the scope and spirit of the TBAN. Unless it was a revert of obvious vandalism, of course...  Tewdar  19:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a case where TA can with some credulity claim they didn't see this as an GENSEX article as the specific content of their edit was not GENSEX specific. However, I can also see why editors would say this is a violation similar to how we might see an edit to Trans rights as a violation even if the specific edit content wasn't GENSEX. What I think hurts TA's argument here was pointed out by Tewdar, TA created the article and did so by saying the group opposes transgender rights. The article was also part of the ANI that resulted in their Tban. That TA sees the group as clearly GENSEX related should have been a redflag to at least ask or alternatively, ask someone else to review the edit. In the spirit of AGF, I think this discussion is sufficient warning to at least ask in the future.
As for the discussion if GENSEX is basically all AP2, no, I don't see that. I think the question is if the article is primarily or heavily associated with the GENSEX topic. So a YT commentator who talks about politics and "culture war" topics that may occasionally include GENSEX wouldn't be off limits (excluding GENSEX specific material) but a group that the sanctioned editor sees as a GENSEX related group would be because the editor themselves has said the topic is under the umbrella. Springee (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is integralness ("integrality"?). For instance, Political positions of Joe Biden has a lengthy section on Biden's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I don't think we'd generally say that an ARBPIA topic ban covers edits to other parts of the article, because those views aren't really central to Biden's overall political ideology. Gender isn't mentioned in the lede at FAIR, and honestly the current gender section looks UNDUE in its length, just judging at a glance from text:citation ratio. "Broadly construed" does not override the general principle, codified at WP:TBAN, that in "related content" a TBAN only applies to relevant portions of the page. It's possible to enact a TBAN that's stricter than that ("X is banned from any page that in any way mentions gender-related disputes"), but that's not what was done here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Integrality (it's a real word), hmm... well, according to, er, TheTranarchist, A WP:DEFINING characteristic of the organization is that it campaigns against protections for transgender students which prevent misgendering from other students, opposing their right to be respected in schools. How about we all just close down the discussion and go do something else?  Tewdar  09:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's true that in February TheTranarchist said that, however the consensus on the article's talk page seems to be that it is not a defining characteristic. It doesn't seem to be a fair or objective measure to hold the article to one definition for content, while holding it to another for the scope of a TBAN based on an individual's contributions.
Let me put it another way. Let's say User:Example contributed to that RfC, and in doing made a comment to the opposite effect of TheTranarchists, that FAIR's activities against transgender rights are not a defining characteristic of the organisation. Shortly after making that comment, they get TBANed from GENSEX and then a couple of months later made the same edit that TheTranarchist did. If it's User:Example's view that FAIR's trans related activities are not defining, in line with the consensus on the article's talk page, then would they have breached the TBAN? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup. It doesn't matter whether TheTranarchist thinks FAIR's views on trans issues are defining or not (although they clearly at one point did think that they were). What matters is that the article is nearly one full quarter Gender, probably 100% of that quarter added by TheTranarchist, which makes me find this whole discussion a bit preposterous and slightly annoying. I wish I hadn't seen it, really I do...  Tewdar  19:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet, none of that gender content was touched in the edit that lead to the warning. Tamzin's comparison of Political positions of Joe Biden is an apt one, as the Arab-Israeli conflict content in that article takes up a similar proportion of that article's content, yet we don't consider the entirety of that article to be covered under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures, only that section.
If we're going to treat FAIR as an article for which GENSEX applies to the entirety of the page, and not just the gender section, then we would also have to treat the Biden article linked above as being wholly subject to Arab-Israeli, abortion, gun control, gender and sexuality, COVID-19, Balkans or Eastern Europe, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and post-1978 Iranian politics contentious topic procedures, in addition to the obvious post-1992 American Politics designation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would also have knock on effects on thousands, if not tens of thousands of other articles, wherein they contain partial CTOP content and by this standard the relevant CTOP designations would apply to their entirety. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support immediate overturn of TheTranarchist's TBAN if Sideswipe9th agrees to represent my case pro bono at my next trial. "T'would be unjust in all the circumstances, yer honour..."  Tewdar  20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a balance, I agree with Rhododendrites: if people want this user topic-banned from AMPOL (and 'BRITPOL'), then topic-ban the user from AMPOL, but saying GENSEX = AMPOL and someone can't revert vandalism or puffery or whatnot to articles about anti-anti-racism groups because those groups also mention trans people sometimes is ... well, such an interpretation would not only prevent editing politics, but prevent making similarly non-GENSEX-related edits to e.g. update the editor-in-chief parameter in an article on any major news media (BBC, NYT, etc have sections or sub-articles detailing the contention around their coverage of GENSEX issues) or other media organizations (e.g. Disney is the subject of some contention involving GENSEX issues), reverting puffery in articles on actors (any major one has usually made comments or actions on GENSEX issues, e.g. Emma Watson, Mark Ruffalo, Cara Delevingne, etc), cleaning up articles on censuses (recent ones either asked or attracted contention for not asking about GENSEX) ... We all seem to agree that the edit in question did not add, remove, change, or touch GENSEX content, yes — the question is whether an organization having expressed an opinion on GENSEX issues at some point makes everything else they've done untouchable, and GENSEX = AMPOL? Such an interpretation is implausibly over-broad IMO, but as highlighted by other users above, it would also effect any user with a GENSEX restriction (and perhaps any user with an AMPOL restriction), so this seems like something that needs to be discussed as such, perhaps with input from ArbCom, rather than as part of a discussion of one warning to one user. (In the meantime, perhaps the best lesson this discussion offers is to the vandal or PR person: next time, also puff up some GENSEX content to more clearly reduce the number of editors who are allowed to challenge your puffery — in general, the more contentious topics you mention, the fewer editors are allowed to challenge you.) -sche (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with -sche. While TBANs are generally "broadly construed", this construal is so broad as to be an effective ban on not just AP2 but essentially any page about any person or organization that has expressed opinions at some point.
GENSEX also covers abortion, so, can an editor banned from GENSEX not edit United States Supreme Court because of Roe or Dobbs? It covers the gender pay gap, so can an editor banned from GENSEX not edit the United States Department of Labor? Anheuser-Busch is currently in hot water in conservative circles over an advertising campaign, but they're also not by a long shot the only corporation to have advertising tied to LGBT pride in some way.
The point is, I think this is not a TBAN violation, that it's not even a close call, and that those who think it is a TBAN violation are voting for an interpretation of GENSEX so broad that it covers most of Wikipedia. Loki (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this were a topic like the example of Disney where the subject is clearly much larger than the LGBQT issues then I think it would be easy to agree. However, in this case TA created the article as a group with a clear GENSEX focus, clearly argued GENSEX was a critical/notable aspect of the group, was one of the articles that lead to the TBAN, and asked the admin who issued the TBAN if edits to the group page would be viewed as TBAN violations. When you stack all that up it's hard to see this as totally unrelated to the TBAN. I agree the specific edit was not GENSEX related but in the eyes of TA the topic clearly is. It would be a stretch to see all of Disney as GENSEX broadly construed. It's not so hard to see this subject as GENSEX broadly construed in the eyes of TA. That said, a one time error may be a misunderstanding so nothing more than a warning to not do it again should be fine. Springee (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I am aware, abortion is not covered by GENSEX, but is a separate contentious topic. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would not have taken that as a violation of the topic ban, especially in the light of recent concerted attempts by certain editors to remove those in favour of trans rights from GENSEX topics, which has not even been subtle. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Black Kite, I think it is unhelpful for you to make unspecific accusations in a discussion which is not anything to do with supposed attempts to remove those in favour of trans rights. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's unsurprising. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got quite a lot of studying and work done on a final paper last night and some time just opened in my schedule for some responses. I think everyone has said what they will, so I'll just leave these notes/responses and put it out of my mind. If anyone wants a response, directly ping me for comment.

notes
  1. @CaptainEek: I honestly wish I took your advice. I do want to note though, there are broader non-GENSEX edits I'd like to make to the page and broader mostly non-GENSEX edits that are too close for comfort. I have been avoiding both and following your advice to stay away from it despite my desire to clean up the article (the lead needs to better follow the body, there are numerous clean-up tags that were discussed, addressed, but are still in the article, and there is a situation best addressed at COIN). I'd like to take the article to a B, but have not even started to attempt a clean-up since I would be unable to touch a quarter of the article and therefore unable to address concerns raised there. This was a reversal of vandalism unrelated to GENSEX which I found so obviously vandalism that nobody could object (and which other editors seem to agree was very clearly unencyclopedic).
  2. @Tewdar: you are linking to my opinion that FAIR's positions on trans people are a defining characteristic. However, consensus was that it is not. Also, per others' notes on how this is becoming an AMPOL ban, I consider a defining characteristic of the Republican party to be their steadily more genocidal positions on trans people, which is much more supported than FAIR. However, their positions on gender are not the or even the primary defining characteristic of either organization. In FAIR's case, consensus was it is not even a defining characteristic. The primary defining characteristic of FAIR has always been its opposition to DEI initiatives related to race and ethnicity.
  3. @Springee: I really have no clue how to take it that on FAIR's talk page, you vociferously argued that calling FAIR an organization that opposes transgender rights is SYNTH, that student's don't have a right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools, and that the lead shouldn't contain the single summarizing sentence The organization also campaigns against policies which would prohibit the deadnaming or misgendering of transgender students by their peers or faculty (true and supported by sources) because you think this may over emphasize the trans aspects (it appears they are more focused on the CRT type content and DEI). Yet here you argue the org should be defined by it's relationship to GENSEX just because I thought it should be prior to consensus disagreeing with me...
    Also, quick aside, I've no clue where you got "TA" from. I've seen a lot of mispellings of my username from you, and I'd appreciate it if you used the full thing. Either "TheTranarchist" or "TT" at a stretch for brevity. If you'd like to known my reasoning for my username, it is on my userpage.
  4. A quick recap of my wrongdoing at the article for context for onlookers: I referred to FAIR as an "enemy" in a social media post where I wrote about how they mainly lobbied against "CRT", but in recent years has slowly gotten more involved in trans stuff. As a trans person who was recently a minor, with friends who are minors, that is due to the simple straightforward fact they oppose rules protecting trans students from discrimination (personally I find it somewhat funny that at my case, the fact that the majority of the organizations and people I wrote about have no notability outside of opposing transgender rights was not viewed as a mitigating factor excusing me using crude language about them off wikipedia; For all the reasons people want to rein in Jimbo's power, I don't think that he called the holistic healing movement "lunatic charlatans" was ever one, and the only thing worse than pseudoscience is pseudoscience demonizing a minority...). I argued for use a source (Passage) where there wasn't consensus on reliability. To settle the categorization debate (there was no consensus as to whether the org should be classified as one that opposes transgender rights), I created an RFC, was told it was overly broad, so created a more specific one (I respected the consensus that developed). Also, I made a talk page section entitled "undoing the whitewashing and advertification" after an editor with a COI replaced the lead with literally just the organizations WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT (some editors viewed that title as overly inflammatory; I think anyone who replaces the lead of an article with a mission statement, especially a long-standing editor who should know better, should be instantly blocked). My behavior there was primarily just being on the wrong side of a content dispute.
  5. I want to note a small irony. When my case was initially closed, I asked CaptainEek that the scope be anti-trans BLPs/ORGs, ie organizations and people notable at least in part for their opposition to transgender rights. (The reason was the only articles even mentioned in my case were in that subcategory of GENSEX, while nearly all my edits had been in GENSEX across a variety of subcategories). While a GENSEX ban doesn't cover all of FAIR, that intersectional ban would have (in addition to articles such as the Republican Party and etc). CaptainEek disagreed that the limited ban would be more fitting, and continued to support a full GENSEX ban.
  6. Summarizing the above. Once again, if people want to argue FAIR's position's on gender are a defining characteristic, that should be done at the talk page. However, there is already an existing consensus there that it isn't. The fact that editors who argued it isn't are now arguing it is for the purposes of my ban strikes me as somewhat cheeky. Cheekier that there's often conjecture that I find the org to be primarily GENSEX related, while even while I had argued it was GENSEX related, I have never said their main focus is not "CRT". Just because I consider an organization's positions on trans issues highly relevant, doesn't mean that consensus agrees, or that the whole article is GENSEX. Otherwise this is an AMPOL ban and I can't edit the article on the republican party because they have views on trans rights. One cannot both eat and have a cake; one cannot simultaneously argue an org is not notable for its positions on trans people but also notable for those positions if it means an excuse to go after me.

I ask whoever closes this that in addition to noting the consensus on whether the warning was merited, they also recap the consensus over whether the entire article falls under GENSEX or just the relevant section. I'll respect whatever the community decides. I do ask whoever closes it do to so quickly, as frankly I don't want to end up stuck in this noticeboard for another month and it's hard to edit/concentrate when I'm worried about being here again. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchistReply[reply]

TheTranarchist, I was using TA as short for Tranarchist, two parts of your user name. If you prefer TT I'm happy to use that instead. I avoided the full name for fear of misspelling it. I won't respond to your point 3 as I suspect such a discussion would be a Tban violation. Springee (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point 3 comment is a valid one. On the one hand there's a consensus on that article, involving editors who are present here, that FAIR's activities surrounding transgender people and rights are not integral and defining of the organisation with regards to article content, hence why the overwhelming focus of the article content and categories are surrounding its views on critical race theory and racial equality. On the other hand, editors here are arguing that actually FAIR's activities surrounding gender are an integral and defining part of the organisation, with regards to contentious topic enforcement procedures. Those two things are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that (mainly thanks to TheTranarchist's contributions) the 'Gender' section constututes approximately (by my estimation) 23.9% of the total words of the article. How can that not be 'gender-related'? One could certainly argue that this content shouldn't be there, but it is.  Tewdar  19:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This entire situation is rather silly, and you've overwhelmingly dived into GENSEX commentary on this page while being protected under the provisions of discussing your ban. I don't think this warning is without merit. All things considered, with your behavior the entire time while you were under sanction, I'm guessing there won't be a lot of support for your TBAN being lifted any time soon. There are a lot of seasoned editors here giving you good advice but you seem keen to not listen and instead spend a significant amount of your time tilting against windmills. My advice is pretty simple, stop it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I think I'd have taken the warning, counted myself lucky, and kept my head down. But good luck with your alternative approach...  Tewdar  19:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hate ANI since it's like a black hole, once you get dragged in it's so hard to escape. Just when you think you do, you're proved wrong.
@Springee, thank you. I do want to note though, "archist" derives from greek for ruler. It is a part of my username, sure, but "anarchist" has a very different meaning than "archist".
@Kcmastrpc I've commented on my ban, the behavior at the article in question during my case, and a recap of discussions on the page concluding the org is not notable for trans stances. That is literally textbook BANEX. I'm not sure what you refer to with my "behavior under sanction" but feel free to point out any issues with my work on Crown Heights Tenant Union, Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, Template:Housing rights in New York, etc. I've not been evading my ban, as much as it hurts, I've found a comfortable niche (housing in NYC) and been editing there. When in doubt, I've asked for clarification/outside input on whether pages are covered by my TBAN and followed it. There are a lot of seasoned editors saying this is very clearly not a TBAN violation and that GENSEX refers to the gender section, not the whole article, so I'm not sure where the windmills come into this. I'm not sure why you're bringing up my TBAN being lifted, the question here is whether the entire article falls under GENSEX.
@Tewdar, you may want to reread the case, edits, and notice on my talk page. I was enjoying a nice day and only realized I got dragged back to ANI hours after other editors disputed it being a violation and a case was opened here. From what CaptainEek said when I originally asked about FAIR, I took it to mean the TBAN applied to the Gender section, not the article as a whole. I reverted obvious vandalism that wasn't even related to GENSEX on an article on an org which consensus agreed was not even somewhat defined by its relation to GENSEX. Also, please give credit where it's due, the whole article, not just the gender section, is mainly due to my contributions, and the majority of it is devoted to their campaigning against DEI. I think the question is not whether the GENSEX material should be there, but how it should be incorporated into the lead and categories. I freely admit, I think their lobbying on trans topics is important, but very crucially, consensus determined the opposite. I've asked that whoever closes this also note whether the article falls under GENSEX, and if it does I won't touch it with a 39.5 foot poll even for obvious vandalism. While we've had content disputes and disagreements in the past, I consider you to be a level-headed policy-minded editor (and must confess I appreciate your goldilocks-zone applications of humor and snark since the encyclopedia can be a bit dry) so I earnestly ask you to sit on the situation and consider the separate but related questions of 1) whether the whole article is GENSEX and 2) whether my edit was one I had reasonable grounds to consider allowed. I agree this whole thing is somewhat preposterous, just from the other end lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that it is debatable whether the whole article counts as GENSEX. I think it probably is, but it doesn't seem to be an exact science. Personally, if I were operating under your TBAN, I'd avoid it, and anything like it, and go edit articles about pottery or something. I can see why you might think it was fair game, though, and also how you might think it was just reverting obvious vandalism. Thanks for the nice comments, I reread it three times to check you were actually referring to me.  Tewdar  21:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, this is a bad warning. Gender and sexuality is such a wide "topic" that it needs to be narrowly construed for editors under GENSEX bans to have any hope of editing. I'm not sure some volunteers are putting themselves in the shoes of an active editor who (apparently) has to have in the back of their minds during every single edit, does something on this page unrelated to what I've touched relate to gender or sexuality? A point raised by another editor is that GENSEX shouldn't automatically include everything under AP2. Here, the edit (correctly) reverted was extensive without focusing in any sense on gender and sexuality; the only possible signs are the indirect implications of "diversity, equity and inclusion", but it seems to be about race in context. — Bilorv (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bilorv: As has been pointed out above the article was created by the editor who was warned, and they at the time believed it to be be related to transgender rights giving it the short description Organization opposing critical race theory and transgender rights. Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abecedare: I don't understand what part of my comment you believe this contradicts. — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think we are in serious danger of overthinking this. Tewdar spotted the issue that TheTranarchist created the article and equally described and documented their opposition to both critical race theory and transgender rights. In the collapsed notes box above they write "CaptainEek: I honestly wish I took your advice." Can we leave it at that then and close this. TheTranarchist, you got into trouble editing a culture-war topic you are passionate about. I know the topic ban doesn't extend to all culture war issues, but "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I second Tewdar's suggestion that you steer clear of other culture-war topics for the foreseeable. Earning the community's trust that you can be a neutral editor will be far easier if you edit topics that don't have these issues. If you created an article because of an organisation/person's stance on gensex issues, then take it off your watchlist now. -- Colin°Talk 16:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With the talk page listing this as under the the GENSEX area this was probably violation of the TBAN. Even if it isn't a violation, this would certainly be a case of edging the topic ban. Either way the Tranarchist shouldn't be doing it if they want a successful appeal in the future. This type of behavior isn't filling me with confidence that this editor is ready to get back into the topic area. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My view is generally aligned with that of Abecedare above. I think that this was a TBan violation, and that the warning was valid. No further action seems to be required at this time, and Colin (amongst other people) has offered the TheTranarchist some good advice above. Girth Summit (blether) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clearly and obviously a violation. The point of topic bans is to ban editors from the topic and anything that could be broadly construed to be the topic in order to make the editor stay far away from the topic that has caused their problematic behaviour. Narrow bans rarely work for this reason (except where someone has a problem with specific technical processes like AFD or article creation etc) because the editor with the problem behaviour cant stay away from the topic. They have to edge around it, or argue over technicalities. An edit to an article that is clearly related to GENSEX, has a warning on the talk page that it is related to GENSEX, and that the editor has edited related to GENSEX in the past, cannot be seriously argued does not fall into that broadly construed area unless you are actively trying to undermine the point of a topic ban. An editor with no history at the article who hasnt seen the talk page could at least be excused for not realising in advance, but they still would merit a warning to cover future editing. The point of topic bans is to keep editors as far away from the topics they are banned from in the hope they can demonstrate normal editing in areas that dont antagonise them. Not to enable them to skirt around them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Awful 'copyediting' by SuspiciousReality70[edit]

A screenshot displaying the "suggested edits" tool on a mobile device: New editors are shown a checklist that implies they must perform basic tasks such as copyediting and adding wikilinks before being able to access the "Create a new article" part of the list.

I've spent a couple of hours picking through several hundred edits by SuspiciousReality70 (talk · contribs). In a few cases they represent minor upgrades, but mostly they accomplish something else that requires real initiative: make articles already compromised by promotional tone even worse. Every edit is accompanied by the meaningless and deceptive summary, "Fixed one part so that it fits the tone/style of wikipedia." Please feel free to cherry pick any half dozen edits and see. It's left to administrative discretion whether a block is appropriate now, but I submit the disruption merits sanctions. Thanks, 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the pattern of topics chosen is seemingly random and in many cases uncommercial, and the edits are coming in small but very rapid bursts. It makes me wonder: could this be a good-faith editor who thinks running text through an AI to rewrite it is a good idea? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say the evidence supports that theory, and this seems to be their entire contribution history. I would block per WP:CIR, and I think it would be a good idea for us to write up a guideline on this in short order. Was it just yesterday there was an editor blocked for doing this, and they also used an AI to compose their unblock request? This is getting out of hand quickly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The common thread is choice of articles that have been tagged for unencyclopedic or advertising tone. They then go into a (usually) unsourced passage and the bloviation commences, along with the edit summary telling us the part has been 'fixed'. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Suggested edits" feature for newcomers surprisingly causes newcomers to do what they are being asked to do, independently of their capability to do so.
Want to create an article? Add some unnecessary wikilinks and try to copyedit text others have failed to write correctly first. And yes, this is indeed better than bad article creations, but it causes maintenance too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have left them a talkpage message urging them to step away from the AI and edit articles directly. Agree with DavidEppstein that they're likely acting in good faith but their additions are usually worse than the original text. If they persist without engaging with anyone's concerns, they will reach disruptive editing territory.
And as a side note, it continues to be horrifying how many articles are just puff pieces lifted from company websites. If SuspiciousReality70 has done any good work it's that their contributions page provides a "to do" list of articles in need of major rewrites.-- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and reverted some of the "copyedits" that made the articles affected more promotional. Considering this editor is acting in good faith in my opinion, I would propose a warning followed by some length of block if they continue the poor copyedits. (Non-administrator comment) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, their copyediting targets are a (probably completely random) subset of Category:All articles with a promotional tone, so we do have that list already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This category has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. This notice will hide itself when this category has fewer than 10000 items. I don't know how much good that list is doing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ToBeFree has hit the problem on the head: a newcomer is likely to end up at somewhere like [50] which calmly categorises copy-editing as "Easy", and suggests it for newcomers. Copy-editing is hard. You will meet sentences that are grammatically wrong but also ambiguous, which means either finding a way to correct the grammar while retaining exactly the same ambiguity, or (better) going back to sources to find out which meaning is correct. Copy-editing requires nuance; non-native-level speakers will often correct "He does eat fish on Fridays" to "He eats fish on Fridays", because at their level it is most likely that "he does" is an error. But in the context, it is likely to be a deliberate emphasis, asserting a contradiction of a (possibly-implicit) expectation or statement that he doesn't/shouldn't. It was bad enough when copy-editing WP was a practice-ground for language students, but AI brings a real risk of superficially reasonable copy-editing that's completely unaware of its effects on the underlying meaning. In addition to sorting out SuspiciousReality, we should get rid of every suggestion that newcomers gravitate into copy-editing. Finding references, a "medium" activity in that list, is far more useful, and much safer. Elemimele (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in agreement. As someone who did copy-editing frequently in the past, anyone who doesn't have a proficient grasp of the English language will likely do the reverse of what is intended. Small, obvious grammar and/or spelling mistakes are easy, but most of the pages tagged for some form of copyedit likely need major changes or re-writes, which new or non-native editors would struggle with. I would be in favour of replacing the copyedit section of the "suggested edits" section with categorisation and move the "Copy editing" section in Wikipedia:Task Center to intermediate editors, although I think there would be a need to be an RfC to gain consensus. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would be very dangerous for BLPs. Newbs might not understand why Obama isn't categorized under "Left-wing politics" (not a category for BLPs, not a defining label, original research), or why Trump isn't categorized as "Fascism" or "Patriotism" (depending on their views), and so on and so forth. Those two are protected, but most BLPs aren't, and it's a minefield best avoided.
I agree with Elemimele. Sourcing is something newbs might get wrong, but it should still be the first thing they learn, and the risk of harm is low — DFlhb (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point; swapping sourcing and copyedits is probably the most low-risk option. That being said, if I or another editor was to raise an RfC, I would have no idea where the RfC would be hosted, or how someone can even make this change. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally the discussion would be at WP:Village pump (proposals), or if it's only to change the one page then it would be at the applicable talk page. For what it's worth, I'll support any measure if it has a good chance of teaching better sourcing practices early on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comment. If potentially a few more editors say they would support it, I will raise an RfC on this topic. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and boldly reorganized WP:TASKS to list fact-checking first and to include a disclaimer that copy-editing requires high English proficiency, if not Wikipedia proficiency per-se. Copy editing is still listed under "beginner", but it's now listed after reference and categorization work. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I've expanded on that and mentioned that they should be familiar with WP:MOS, as even people with proficient English may not be aware of the conventions used on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if our goal is to stop 'em dead in their tracks, telling them to begin by familiarizing themselves with MOS should certainly do the trick. EEng 19:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it means less work to follow up on afterwards, so be it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree. XAM2175 (T) 10:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes to pretty much all the above. They have left a roadmap for overtly promotional articles to clean up. More broadly, agreed that it's not too soon to draft guidelines on dealing with AI, though I don't know what that would look like or if they'd be enforceable. And yes to making it more difficult, not easier, for new editors to bombard the site with inept copy edits. Prior to this report, I came across a wave of edits by newly registered accounts, cross-pollinating multiple articles, primarily adding wikilinks. They tend to be indiscriminate in their application; I suspect most don't use English as their native language. I think it dovetails with this discussion. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was a professional copy editor for many years, so (at the risk of invoking Muphry's law) I'm very familiar with the amount of nuance it requires. But I don't agree with this at all. Newcomers to Wikipedia are just newcomers to Wikipedia. They're not necessarily newcomers to copy editing, nor to the English language. This is most likely why adding references is considered "medium" and copy editing "easy" -- to add references, you must be familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies and its markup syntax, and you'll probably have to do some additional editing or writing to incorporate them. But copy editing doesn't require any Wikipedia-specific knowledge. The skills are on entirely different axes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I am in support of this change is not because sourcing is easier (it isn't), it's because teaching newcomers to source earlier is fantastic, as so many reverts I do in vandalism-fighting is good faith editors adding unsourced information, and because an unreliable or bare source is likely to do less harm then what some editors do with copyediting; make the article worse because they don't understand WP:MOS or don't speak English as a native language. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gnomingstuff:, I have no problem with a newcomer deciding to copy-edit, assuming they have the competence to do it. I'm just saying it's a really bad idea to announce from the roof-tops that copy-editing is a safe and trivial task for newcomers. That just encourages people with iffy language-skills and little idea what they're doing to think that nothing can go wrong. I don't want to discourage the thoughtful, new copy-editor; I want to discourage the idea that everyone and his dog should wade into Wikipedia armed with Grammarly or ChatGPT and start shuffling words willy-nilly. At the very least, the advice pages should suggest that copy-editing might appeal to the newcomer with native-level language skills, good attention to detail, and a willingness to check facts.
@JML1148: On sourcing, I'd agree. It's just as hard to do, but it's relatively safe, because a bad source is obvious to everyone and can easily be removed. A changed meaning, whose edit is buried somewhere in a page history, is a much more pernicious problem. Elemimele (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's knowledge and understanding of both English language and Wikipedia policy that make the difference. I encountered a copy-edit recently that had "corrected" the revenues of the see of Glasgow to the revenues of the sea of Glasgow, evidently unaware that the sentence referred to an Episcopal see. Many of their other contributions included sweeping ENGVAR changes. Going back only a little further, we have this list of highlights from another editor: User talk:Studious Scrutinizer § Concerns. XAM2175 (T) 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JML1148 Not sure that's the case. Suppose a good-faith editor either misreads a reliable source, or uses a source that seems fine but is unreliable (a book that's actually a WP:CIRCULAR citation), and thus adds false information to the article. That might not be caught for years, if ever, since if it looks OK on the page, it's unlikely anyone's going to recheck the source -- especially if it's offline, in a different language, etc. But if a good-faith editor poorly copy edits an article, that will be fairly obvious (as evidenced by this thread). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree 100% with Gnomingstuff. Basically any part of Wikipedia editing is hard in some sense, but copy-editing is clearly less hard than most other things, and in particular is much, much less hard than adding sources. --JBL (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"[M]uch, much less hard" looks like an obvious overstatement to me, which leaves me wondering how much value there is in trying to generalize the difficulty of certain categories of task to this level. I'm a person who adds sources to articles with some regularity, usually remembers how the sfn and harv family templates interface with ref tags, knows how to fill out appropriate citation template parameters, etc., but if I had been tasked with rewriting for non-promotional tone the same set of articles this poor editor's chatbot was, I envision myself giving up in despair without rewriting a single paragraph, my soul a bit dimmer for the experience.
Not all copy-editing is equally difficult, not all sourcing is equally difficult, not all editors have the same skillsets. Even if their mediawiki skills are assumed to be negligible, people have varying degrees of fluency in the language, varying technical skills in programming or markup related areas, varying familiarity with conducting research beyond first page of google results, etc. Honestly it might make sense to have new editors self-grade on their strengths in three or four fields and assign difficulties to tasks based on their own assessments of themselves rather than apply a one-size-fits-all hierarchy, whatever consensus here might determine that should be. Folly Mox (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For information, I posted a comment at the Mediawiki site I originally mentioned, and received an extensive reply at [51]. Some of it relates to things that admins at individual wikipedias can do to influence how newcomer tasks are selected and presented, and it also gives information about what the wikimedia team have planned for the future. Elemimele (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Folly Mox: How to properly format a reference is moderately complicated but by itself is only one very small part of why finding references is not a beginner task. Here is a typical beginner approach to finding a reference for an uncited sentence: put the sentence into Google, find a reasonably well-written article on the subject that supports the claim as one of the top ten hits, and use that webpage as the reference. The only problem: the page they found is probably a Wikipedia mirror, or some other source that has copied its content directly from us. This is only one possible failure mode among many. Finding and adding references intersects with lots and lots of content policies and guidelines (OR, RS, MEDRS, BLP, ...) that even experienced editors moving from one area to another in the encyclopedia struggle with -- formatting references is just the tip of the iceberg. JBL (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course that is true for citing certain kinds of content and untrue for others (in the topic areas I work in, for example, I never run into BLP or MEDRS). If a new editor has any published nonfiction books on their shelf, or one or two textbooks lying around from undergrad, there's already tons of stuff they can add references about without ever learning how to distinguish a good google result from a problematic one. I think this conversation is evidence that thinking of broad classes of task without any finer granularity than the change to the edited article is a fraught method. Folly Mox (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the AI-assisted unblock request Ivanvector mentions above (or a different one?); it would be comical if it weren't so worrying. The user in that instance denies they used any tool, but, well, I don't believe them. I now understand the principal talent of AI when it comes to writing is using more words, like stretching a piece of elastic. To return to SuspiciousReality70, they should definitely be blocked if they continue perpetrating elastic-stretching like this. They haven't edited since being taken to ANI, whether or not ANI is the reason they stopped; I'll try to keep an eye out for re-emergence. Thank you for drawing attention to this user, 76.119.253.82. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen. I'd be surprised if we hear from them again. The specific case points to a much larger and troubling future issue. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a different one. I didn't link to the one I was referring to because I didn't want to call anyone out, but of course now I can't find it. It was a fairly new user, I recall, not a 12-year-old account. But I agree their first two unblock requests were at least not written by the editor, the language is completely different. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a request that was brought up at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block#ChatGPT unblock requests?. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive edits on Hailey's On It! page by JamontW2005, leading to an edit war[edit]

Hello everyone. This all began when @User:JamontW2005 improperly created a page for this animated series instead of submitting the Draft:Hailey's On It into the mainspace. I have posted on their user talk page multiple times and have mentioned them in various reversions. But, I can do no more as I'd be violating WP:3RR. They are adding in badly sourced content, copyrighted content, and are engaging in an edit war. This all occurred from May 5th to today, May 8th. I also suspect that the user discussed in this post, JamontW2005, is trying to own the Hailey's On It! page as their own.

Actions by JamontW2005

  • First removal of content (adds in badly sourced content, copyrighted synopsis, and copyrighted episode description) [19:57, 5 May 2023]
  • Second removal of content (says "This is fine how it is.") [20:00, 5 May 2023]
  • Third removal of content (no edit description, but re-adds badly sourced content, copyrighted synopsis, and copyrighted episode description) [23:40, 5 May 2023]
  • Fourth removal of content (says in edit description, claiming "Thanks, but there is nothing wrong with this page. It was looked over by an admin and they made no changes") [23:41, 5 May 2023]
  • Fifth removal of content (says in edit description, stating "Stop removing the episodes, they've been confirmed.") [13:29, 7 May 2023]
  • Sixth removal of content (says in edit description, stating "Removed casting") [19:33, 7 May 2023]

My responses

Postings on JamontW2005 talk page:

  • I post on talk page on 21:30, 5 May 2023, and say, in part that their edit isn't "helpful, to be honest. Not everything you added is bad, obviously, but it should be added in section by section without erasing the work of other editors on the page." I add to this at 18:25, 7 May 2023, adding, in part, "The episodes have now been kept, so can you stop messing with the Hailey's On It! page? It helps no one."
  • I post on talk page on 00:04, 6 May 2023, and warn them, stating "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation...you may be...blocked from editing". I later revise this comment on 0:06, 6 May 2023 and on 00:26, 6 May 2023. In the latter comment I state that "the series description you used is copied from...the Disney site for the show! Copyrighted content for the series description is not good, as it makes it possible to be removed, causing issues for users and editors."

Any help in resolving this issue would be appreciated, as I feel I should have posted this sooner, and probably could have handled this better, admittedly. Maybe I was too hard-nosed at times.. I would love the Hailey's On It! page to remain intact, if at all possible. I am not sure why this user is doing this, but I am hoping this issue can be resolved. Historyday01 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Protected for a week to allow for discussion on the Talk. If another admin feels a block is necessary, feel free. To my eyes it was edit warring all around.
Star Mississippi 02:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I admit I unfortunately participated in some of that edit warring too, but... in the future, if something like this happens again (which is altogether possible), I'll come here SOONER rather than later. Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While yes I have seen people have ownership of their articles, in fact some articles of mine I stated were my own, I still want to follow the guidelines with them no matter on what cost. JamontW2005 on the other hand does not understand the guidelines and are probably WP:NOTHERE, much like with PettyCache who I did report previously. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. I left various messages on their talk page and they never responded to any of them, so I have to think they are not here. It is pretty clear that JamontW2005 doesn't understand the guidelines. Historyday01 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think some kind of protection should remain active until June 9 (after the show's first episode does air), as right now anything that is said not confirmed by Disney PR is 98% likely to be made up. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I totally agree with that. Apart from the first episode name "The Beginning of the Friend", which is confirmed by Disney PR, NONE of the others on Hailey's On It! are currently confirmed, as they were added by JamontW2005 based on this tweet by a Disney fan account and a forum page listing, neither of which provide sources for those episode names. Historyday01 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aw jeez. I've been pinged into this because I declined a draft for this a few months ago (how did you remember my username?). Articles about children's television have a tendency to attract unsourced content, unfortunately. I find this edit summary to be misleading. I see no evidence any admin has okayed the disputed content, as JamontW2005 claims. I think Historyday01 and others should probably calm down about the whole thing and assume more good faith. Anyone have any opinions on whether pending changes protection would be a good idea here?
My personal opinion is that this situation is part of a more systematic issue with how we handle our pages on children's content. I'm not sure what can be done to improve it. I think @JamontW2005 should probably engage here at ANI with greater explanation of the situation then can be provided in an edit summary. casualdejekyll 23:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not familiar with when PC should be applied, but please feel free to modify my protection if needed. Star Mississippi 02:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring and personal attacks on a ITN featured article[edit]

I created the ITN fetured 2023 Manipur violence and on 7 May 2023 it was provided with semi-protection.
@Songangte in this edit added a new paragraph which couldnt be more non-constructive to the article. It was placed in the middle of another section. It used unsourced words like "Genocide" and also had copyright violations which are yet to be addressed by the folks at copyright problems.
I removed this paragraph and also suggested the user to take to the talk page instead which he reverted starting a WP:EDIT WAR.
I reverted again, explaining him that he is engaging in edit warring right now. After this warning, he hasn't engaging in any further edit warring but has instead started personally attacking me.
You clearly have a Hindutva interest, It look slike you have a hindutva agenda, Extorc is a hindu.
I couldnt help but mention that the 11th edit this account made was on the article of concern while this page was semi-protected.
Over the past 2 days, I have been trying meticulously to keep this page at the quality level of an ITN featured article and for now, this user is the biggest roadblock. >>> Extorc.talk 04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd still wish there was a resolution for this. >>> Extorc.talk 20:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Extorc is correct in that the nytimes article didn't mention "genocide", hence, in agreement and deference, I removed it from the next edit. But that apparently wasn't satisfactory to you?
I move that we use the word "ethnic cleansing" instead. Would that be more satisfactory or accurate? BJP MLA calls it an ethnic cleansing Watch | Manipur Violence Is Ethnic Cleansing, Biren Singh Anti-Kuki, He Must Go: BJP MLA Paolienlal Haokip (thewire.in)
How am I the biggest roadblock @Extorc considering you have managed to silence any dissent from me and I have completely refrained from any further edits? Nothing wrong with being a Hindutva, to each his own, but bias needs to be called out because you are ruling on a contentious issue. All I asked is to remain unbiased and have a logical conversation. I didn't know being called a Hindu is regarded as a "personal attack", if that offended you, I apologize. I personally respect Hindutva, even if i don't personally agree with the ideology. I asked you to be grounded in reality is that tantamount to a personal attack? Songangte (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Songangte
This is not content dispute resolution. If you want to discuss content, we can do that on the talk page of the article.
"you have managed to silence any dissent from me" I haven't silenced any dissent. I warned you about WP:EDIT WARRING which barred you from making another revert otherwise, facing a ban.
"I didn't know being called a Hindu is regarded as a "personal attack" The way Wikipedia defines a personal attack is Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem. So saying that I am hardly unbiased and I have an agenda when you have no evidence just because I am open about being interested in Hindutva and a Hindu is ad-hominem and when ad-hominem committed with regards to political ideology is called a personal attack.
Please read WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." >>> Extorc.talk 04:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive edit requests at Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes[edit]

Recently, an anonymous editor using the IP range 148.76.224.0/23 has been making numerous edit requests (at time of writing 13) at Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes, and apparently not understanding how to create one, to the point of being disruptive. While I am reluctant to assume the editor is deliberately being disruptive, their intent is no longer relevant. The guidelines on edit requests have been linked to (five times), when that was unsuccessful the guideline was explained to them, when that was unsuccessful examples were provided, finally a duplicate of the article was created so that they might be able to perform the edit themselves, but this was also not successful in resolving the issue. I feel that at the very least a partial block from that talk page is appropriate here. I have placed the notification template on the talk page in question as they do not reuse IP addresses (although they are similar enough I don't assume this is deliberate). Tollens (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a case of (likely good faith) WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I would propose a short block to (hopefully) get the message to the editor.(Non-administrator comment) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JML1148: Good faith IDHT? I take it you mean WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? It looks like all the relevant contribs have been mobile edits... Nevermind, upon closer inspection they are responding just only through the use of edit requests. I do highly doubt this is intentional disruption though, to me this looks like someone younger or generally lacking tech literacy struggling to accomplish what they want. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean we're at 14 requests since March, now that the user has made another edit request. There definitely seems to be competence issues in regards to their messages. Callmemirela 🍁 20:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Including, now, using an edit request template to state they are aware that their use of the template is inappropriate. Tollens (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They specify in their most recent edit request that they don't see the Reply button anywhere - I find this extremely hard to believe. They are clearly using a mobile device and cannot be using anything other than the default style as an IP editor - the reply button is incredibly large in this view. It's getting difficult to assume good faith on their part. Tollens (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I don't think this editor is editing in good faith at this point. I think we might need to set the standard offer clock. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After 18 requests, my good faith for this user is lost. It's become disruptive, and I feel we're being trolled. Callmemirela 🍁 03:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This disruption had been ongoing for quite a while. All IPs geolocate to the same area (near Middletown, NJ). Past IPs are:
There appears to be edit overlap with w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interesting Soup, but we non-CU don't know any info on Interesting Soup's location.
EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was working on this comment as you posted here and have additional information to add, so I'll just add it here. So apparently I should have looked a bit further through the IP's contributions. They claim in this edit summary: I'm good at blocked evasion I'm a sockmaster of disguise Rgalo10. For some brief context, Rgalo10 has received a Foundation global ban (while I am obviously unaware of WMF Legal's reasoning, the account made death/assault threats and legal threats), and is tagged as abusively using multiple accounts. Examining that account's English style it appears to be quite clearly the same person - random samples of Rgalo10's writing include (taken from their talk page immediately before it was blanked by the WMF:
Why I can't post no pictures why I wanna hear some reason why?
How can I take away my user ID cause I don't wanna a member of the wikipedia's because I want to quit if I don't discontinued they I'm stuck on wikipedia's help me to get rid of me cause I want to leave this website please.
Okay I'm out of hear now I'm not good at wikipedia's I try my best and you didn't tell me why is a shame
These follow a very similar style to the IP range's style (taken from the edit requests):
Okay thanks but i need to edit the season 1 because we don't need the viewers of millions because i want to make it normal.
I have to find out how to edit this series because everyone edit the Jimmy Neutron Series but i don't know what to do to edit with the semi-protected.
Okay thanks i know i can count for that to not used the template from now on.
A pblock is clearly not appropriate here - a long-term IP block is probably acceptable on this range as I see no activity on the range before the global ban of Rgalo10, and no edits that do not match the English style seen above. Tollens (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, hey, guess where these geolocate to... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, not seeing the particular ones that geolocate to the same place? Might be looking in the wrong place though. I agree the IPs you list also match well. Tollens (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see them now - just got really unlucky with the sample I picked from that list. Tollens (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An early sock uses Jimmy Neutron in its username too. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I guess I'll definitely look more carefully through contributions when something seems off. Seems clear to me. Tollens (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While there is edit overlap with the Interesting Soup SPI, I'm not seeing the English style that all the Rgalo10 socks had (unless I've gotten unlucky with the sample of edits I looked at again) - perhaps a CU check of the whole Interesting Soup SPI to the Rgalo10 SPI would be of use here, but I'm not sure that this is enough evidence to justify that? Tollens (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also forgot to mention that Rgalo10 and associated socks clearly demonstrated the same 'competence issues' as the IP range this started with - don't believe they are actually competence issues though based on the fact that Rgalo10 made use of replies but the IP range "didn't see the reply button". Tollens (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blocked the range 148.76.224.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a month. Any admin is welcome to adjust the range/duration as they see fit. Abecedare (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my opinion the IP range should be indef banned. They are clearly not acting in good faith, and it appears that they may be a sock. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indef blocks of IP addresses are very rare, for good reason. IP addresses can change users over time - it's quite unlikely the same person will be using the IP a decade from now. Blocks are for the protection of Wikipedia only, never as a punishment, so the block should only be as long as the person behind the IP is expected to edit using that IP. IP ranges are even more of a concern, because they cover so many IP addresses that there is potential to block other users inadvertently (the /23 range blocked here covers 510 different IP addresses). I'd support a much longer block of the range if there is continued disruption, but a month is a reasonable first block. For more information, you could look through Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, specifically #Block lengths. Tollens (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Didn't think of the implications of accidentally blocking multiple users. If this was a user, it would make sense to indef block considering their actions, but I guess a month is sufficient for an IP. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing disruption by Saptajit D[edit]

(non-admin closure) Saptajit D was blocked for a week by Bbb23 for personal attacks. The user persisted on their talk page and TPA was revoked by Jay. They have since been indefinitely blocked by Abecedare for socking and further personal attacks while on the sock account. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


Saptajit D (talk · contribs) has been quite disruptive at Dutta in the last few days. They first started changing the spelling of all instances of the article subject to "Datta"[52]. Ekdalian undid those changes, but Saptajit repeated the edits and then moved the page to Datta (surname) without discussion[53]. When I restored the long-standing name, they moved it again[54]. Favonian kindly move-protected the page, still this did not stop Saptajit from changing the spelling all over again.

In one of intermediate edits, I did some copyediting for conciseness and clarity, and to trim irrelevant information.[55] The user summarily reverted all of it three times,[56][57][58] and in the meantime went on with a profanity-ladden rant, essentially a personal attack[59][60].

I'm not sure what the user is here for. Even though the account was registered barely two weeks ago, they certainly don't look like a newcomer, and their start of editing by mass adding of short descriptions at random articles feels like an attempt to quickly get autoconfirmed. Perhaps someone more experienced than me could take a look. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 14:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The short descriptions could be a case of gaming the system so that he can push his ideas onto a page even after protection is activated. Also more NPA [[61]] I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. They also know how to edit anonymously: Special:Contributions/117.226.210.194. Special:Contributions/117.226.167.165 — kashmīrī TALK 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After Justlettersandnumbers warned Saptajit D about moving without consensus, Saptajit D agreed to discuss first, then went on a reverting and renaming spree (no talk page discussion). Their comments to Kashmiri on User talk:Saptajit D are unacceptable. I think Saptajit D should be blocked for disruptive editing and violations of WP:CIVIL. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And in the time it took me to post, Bbb23 took care of it! Schazjmd (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gonna put in a SPI investigation as per Kashmiri's reply above. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all. — kashmīrī TALK 14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone who knows this forum better than I, can you please close this? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that the editor persists with personal attacks[62][63], obviously learning nothing from the sanction, it might be necessary to revoke talk page access and/or increase the block length. Not sure we at all want editors with such an attitude in this project. — kashmīrī TALK 08:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Editor proceeded to insult the unblock decliner as well. I have reovked user talk page access. Jay 💬 09:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping, Schazjmd! I've been away for 24 hours or so, and see that in that time this has reached its inevitable conclusion. Thanks also to those who dealt with it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Various complaints about WikiEditor1234567123[edit]

I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account @WikiEditor1234567123:. This account has been engaged in very long edit wars edits on several pages such as the Nazran raid page, which is my first encounter with him. He misrepresents his sources and does original research. I have elaborated on this in the talk page. Before I continue I will note that his account on the Russian wikipedia was notorious for edit warring on the very same article I am talking about (Nazran raid) and he was warned multiple times. He eventually got banned entirely on the Russian wikipedia due to him misrepresenting sources, as shown here.

One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of @WikiEditor1234567123: being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.

  • Incredibly consecutive editing. At several points has Wikieditor along with Targimhoi made edits in a very short time difference from each other. Here are examples of edits between Wikieditor and Targimhoi on articles that barely get 1 view per day. Some of these edits are minutes within each other. Note that there is no mention or tagging of each other. Wikieditor edits something on a 1 view per day article and suddenly 5 minutes after Targimhoi takes over.
    • Ex1, 1 minute difference
    • Ex2, 1 hour
    • Ex3, 7 minute difference
    • Ex4, 25 minute difference

The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort.

  • Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
  • Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
  • Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
  • What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.

More:

  • Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
  • After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
  • Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
  • Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had previously made a post about this on WP:AN, but the post was auto-archived. This is a revision of the following comments made by the subject WikiEditor1234567123 on WP:AN and my replies after. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With respect to the socking accusation, on February 8, 2023, Wikieditor was alleged to be a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Ivanvector made the following comment with respect to the allegation at the SPI: "I did not check WikiEditor1234567123 because I do not see sufficient evidence to warrant a check, but I can report that they did not show up in any of my checks."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your input. Wikieditor has suspiciously close cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks. I believe enough evidence has been provided to at least warrant a new investigation, especially now that another close account to Wikieditor, Targimhoi (sock of dzurdzuketi) was recently banned. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can an admin please take a look at this sock/meatpuppeting case? @Materialscientist:, @Liz:, @Maile66: Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems like it would be a better fit at WP:SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Opereetveritate[edit]

(non-admin closure) Opereetveritate has been indeffed by Jpgordon for repeated personal attacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



I'm going to guess that making 11 edits that include the edit summary "gfys" breaks a few of our policies? The impetus for this was this editor inserting copyvio multiple times and getting reverted for it, and then adding more copyvio today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the first time either; while he religiously blanks his talk page, the copyvio complaints go back years: [64]. Looks like a fellow we could soldier on without. Ravenswing 19:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. Blocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III[edit]

After discussion with other invovled parties, and with their mild to strong support, I come here to request an intervention of sorts at Talk:Charles III.

A task force was formed with the goal of getting Charles III to GA status ahead of Charles' coronation (6 May 2023). Extensive work was done on the article over the ensuing couple of months along with, unsurprisingly, extensive discussion. Despite some friction, all points of confusion or disagreement were sorted out. That is, except for one: how to inform readers about where Charles is king of. This has dragged on for at least a month now and remains unresolved. WP:3O was tried (twice) and declined (twice). WP:DRN was tried and declined.

Some of us who are involved feel the root of the problem lies with a few editors (though, there's one stand-out) not following the WP:BRD process. I believe the best and fastest way to get an understanding of the situation as it's morphed over weeks is to simply skim through these talk sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and the article's edit history, looking specifically for edits to the "Accession and coronation plans" section.

However, as the instructions at the top of this noticeboard require diffs, here's what's only still just a sample:

  • deflecting to irrelevant discussions on different topics (123) despite explanations of the lack of connection ([65]1234) and with non-sequitur (12)
  • the sole clear and to-the-point response from the main antagonist amounting to "I don't like it" ([66])
  • trying to scuttle dispute resolution (123)
  • continually insisting on waiting for other editors' input (123456) and on a need to convince other editors (1)
  • edit warring by reverting (1234567) without engaging at talk beyond two comments to accuse editors of bad faith (12) and two non-sequiturs (linked above)

I understand that my understanding of policy isn't perfect and that the above is my personal assessment of the situation. It seems to align with others' take on the problem; however, I realize this will nonetheless differ from how other others view the state of affairs. Additionally, I'm aware that not all, if any, of those involved, including myself, have been saints; I don't expect to be cannonized as St Mies of Wikipedia any time soon. I accept that, by posting this, I'm opening my own words and actions up for scrutiny and I accept whatever consequenses may come. A final resolution to the dispute is the primary objective above all others. Someone has volunteered to do a GA review of the article beginning at the end of the week (13 May) and we'd like to have the article meeting basics like WP:LEDE and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY as soon as possible. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that 3O and DRN was declined, but what's the reason an RfC hasn't been requested if the discussion has reached an impasse? That seems like the most straightforward solution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There 'is' an RFC ongoing, concerning the "Accession and Coronation" sub-section lead :) GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*There is a fundamentally misleading RfC ongoing concerning the "Accession and coronation" section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We disagree, which is allowed on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a straw man; one that once again foundationally misunderstands the disagreement. I said nothing about what is and isn't allowed on "the 'pedia". I said the RfC you started fundamentally misrepresents the dispute over the "Accession and coronation" section of the article and is therefore pointless and a cause of confusion. But, you may well be starting to show here, in real time, what one of the main impediments to resolving the dispute has been. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC doesn't misrepresent the dispute-in-question. We're dealing with a content dispute & nothing more. Administrator @Tamzin: advised you about WP:CIVIL. I hope you'll follow Tamzin's advice. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is all that needs said about the RfC you opened: [67][68][69]. As to the rest: consider carefully whether or not you really want to start making personal pot-shots by dragging up past interactions with admins. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At Charles III's talkpage & your own talkpage, I've been attacked several times & other editors advised you (concerning your talkpage) to stop. Now, please let others give their input 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone's free to look at my history and logs as they are to look at yours. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Including your G2bambino contribs & posts? That's good to know. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It says right on my userpage that that's my old account; 15 years ago. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Miesianiacal: I sampled a dozen or so diffs in your report and don't see anything egregious, or necessarily matching your characterization of the edits. An RFC on the lede sentence is already ongoing; why not let it reach a conclusion? And maintaining the status quo is routine when a topic is under discussion; in this case the argument for doing so is particularly strong given that there is currently considerable support at the RFC for the existing language. I realize that lengthy discussions can be frustrating but in this case the frustration may have been worsened by the highly optimistic expectations (as Robert McClenon too observed) that all the disputes would be settled and GA review complete by the time of the coronation. Even the current goal of starting the GA review by the end of the week seems implausible since RFC often run for a month. I'd suggest just stepping back a bit and letting the arguments play out. Abecedare (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the diffs: As I noted, all above are still only a sample. More than a sample of a sample is likely necessary to get a solid understanding of what's gone on and what the problem/problems are. Wrapped up in that is confusion over the relevance of the RfC on the lede: the RfC is not at all relevant to the unresolved dispute. The RfC is on the article's opening sentence. The dispute is over an addition to the article body; specifically, the "Accession and coronation" section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this very moment. There are two RFCs-in-progress at the Charles III page. Each were started by a different editor. RFCs are a better route to take, then having one or more editors ending up getting blocked for edit-warring. FWIW - WP:ANI, isn't the place to settle content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first RfC has no relevance to the dispute; that is outlined in the opening summary/evaluation of the dispute above. The second RfC was opened by GoodDay and is an added distraction in an already complicated mess, as it fundamentally misrepresents the dispute. If even only to avoid any more confusion, both RfCs should be immediately closed; the first one is all but over, anyway. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second RFC was opened, to avoid edit-warring & help bring stability to the page. Requesting the input of other editors is the best way to break any impasse. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is merely futher illustration of what I outlined in the OP: "repeating the same argument", "disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits", "continually insisting on waiting for other editors' input" after other editors have given their input, "cherry-picking only RfCs as valid, willfully ignoring the validity of BRD", and so on. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must now 'request', that you stop with the personal attacks. As for BRD, the onus is on the editor who makes the bold changes. Bold changes, that are already made known to be contentious, aren't very helpful. But we 'two' have said more then enough. At least let the other pinged editors (let alone outsiders) have a chance to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GoodDay and Miesianiacal: Responding to the ping above, it's true that I warned Mies for personal attacks against GD back in July. That was about inappropriate speculation about GD's mental health, and I'm not seeing anything like that here, or really anything I'd call personal attacks—not to say that Mies' comments are brimming with civility and AGF. It looks here like we have two experienced editors who have become very frustrated with each other. I'd suggest you both step back from this thread and give it some breathing room for other editors to comment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. (And, for the record, I was embarrassed when I recently looked back at that comment. I don't know what I was thinking when I made it; I wasn't in a great headspace myself around that time. But, still... I'd make no fulminations if it were permanently deleted for all time.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Responding to the notification: I've dipped in and out of this at the article. FWIW, I'm surprised this has made it to ANI. Sure, there's some sub-optimal things going on (a surfeit of RfCs for one) and there's plenty of bickering and fractiousness, and very little WP:STICK being dropped. A few editors could do with stepping away from it all and calming down. But I would say it's rather a storm in a teacup. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have been notified of this discussion, but I don't think that any of my own edits require any sort of response. This thread looks like forum shopping. The requests for comment will close with decisions that the opening party disagrees with. His complaint was rejected at third opinion; it was then rejected at the dispute resolution noticeboard; and so now he brings it to the administrators' noticeboard with a collection of edits that on the whole appear better than his own behaviour. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd echo DeCausa here, bringing this content dispute to ANI, and casting aspersions against the other party in the dispute to boot, is not a good look. Suggest this thread be withdrawn and the parties concentrate on resolving the remaining issues. I was somewhat involved in this page a while back, as I objected to the attempt by the "task force" mentioned above to seize WP:OWNership of the page and enforce their wording tweaks, which were a mix of good, bad and neutral, bypassing consensus on the article talk page. By and large a lot of those issues have been amicably resolved now though, and the priority is to address the remaining ones rather than attempting to get opponents sanctioned.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a misrepresentation: there was no "WP:OWNERship" from the task force. You were invited to CIII on your own talkpage, and you were pinged twice. There was an RfC on the matter too - very far from CIII trying to "enforce" changes (changes which have improved the article) that were proposed there.Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My concern here, after reading the talk page, is that the conversation is being dominated by only a few voices. My feeling is that there's probably too much contribution in general, and that their points on any putative changes to the article, in either direction, have already been made sufficiently. I'd like to see everyone who is dominating the conversation agree to voluntarily step back and let other voices get heard, and abide by what others have to contribute as well. I don't want admins to have to step in here, because the tools we have to do so (IBANS, TBANS, page blocks, etc.) seem much less desirable than people just doing the right thing. But when I see a talk page like this, and the same 3-4 names come up more than 4-5 dozen times, AND where those names are doing classic WP:BLUDGEON behavior, that's something that needs to be addressed. --Jayron32 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take your point about too few voices; that's central to why I went to WP:3O (even though there was, at the time, four people involved, I thought the principle was the same: two sides locked in a stalemate) and to WP:DRN: they were calls for fresh input. (I believe I said as much in my requests.) Even one of, if not the, main motivations for coming here was to get a break in the logjam (without having to go through one or more RfCs just on how to word an RfC, since not everyone involved can even agree on that--see above). And, in that vein, I'm not in opposition to the suggestion that everyone so far involved step back. However, is the core problem not necessarily that everyone's made their points already (putting aside the matter of how they've made them), but, rather, that even after everyone's points have been made, listened to, and taken into account when composing edits (trying, over time, at least 123 45 variations), the result is never deemed good enough and reverted on sight? I think I summed up the situation in the first half of this comment I made (plus addendum) not long before coming here. While one "side" (which there shouldn't be; but, here we are) shows attentiveness and flexibility, the other just demands one thing and will accept nothing else unless it's forced on them by numbers alone. Is that take on the matter at hand an unrealistic one? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @Jayron32:. All are welcomed, to give their input in the RFC-in-question. More input there, means a stronger consensus, for what to put into the lead of the "Accession and coronation" sub-section :) GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mies and GD: The problem is that once you've made your feelings heard on a topic, there's no inherent need to make them heard again. If someone has a different perspective, you don't need to restate your perspective after them every time; you also don't need to respond to or disagree with everyone that comes along who has a different perspective. That kind of domination of the talk page can be seen as disruptive when it reaches levels I am seeing here. Instead of doing that, just make your point once, and let other people chime in without arguing with them every time. Your point was already made, it doesn't need to be made 30 times. --Jayron32 12:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All good and reasonable... If the reality were that both sides obstinately refused to listen to one another.
But, what really transpired was only one side a) made efforts to get the others to express their feelings, b) heard whatever feelings were expressed, and c) accomodated those feelings in edits to the article. The last try is just one proof. Only one side showed total disregard for the other's expressed feelings, blanket reverted every edit, and repeated themselves. The proof is all through the discussions and the article edit history.
I'm not the only one to have identified that as the real point where BRD kept completely breaking down and progress became impossible. Even the RfC on the "Accession and coronation" section asks the wrong question and the voiced objections were, of course, completely ignored and remain ignored up to this minute.
The proof of other people chiming in is also there, as is the proof of their expressed feelings being disregarded by the "status quo" side. The proof is there of attempts to get still more people to chime in. This is an attempt to get more people to chime in.
But, on that note, I'm going to leave this until we hear from those who suggested going to AN/I and/or with whom I discussed going to AN/I before starting this section, should they choose to contribute (or, in one case, contribute any further). They were all duly notifed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Original Poster filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard a week ago. As Abecedare notes, I declined the request because there was already an RFC open, and noted that In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, but that User:Miesianiacal seemed to be in a hurry, and was trying to rush things. I advised them that they should report disruption of the RFC at WP:ANI. This report does not seem to be about disruption of the RFC. It seems to be, again, about the filing party being in a hurry. This report refers to declining the DRN as attempting to scuttle dispute resolution, but dispute resolution was already proceeding via the RFC, and it is trying to bypass the RFC that is disruptive. The Original Poster still seems to be forum shopping to try to rush Good Article review.
As explained to you previously, the RfC has no relevance to the dispute for which dispute resolution was being sought. Further, I did not make any claim that your decline was a scuttling of dispute resolution. In fact, we discussed the decline quite civilly. Please check the diffs again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see an issue here other than impatience from an editor. Nemov (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ban Miesianiacal from Charles III/Talk:Charles III. There is something ironic about Miesianiacal composing long replies to Jayron32's request to take a break from the discussion. It demonstrates the real problem here which is Miesianiacal's tendentious editing and bludgeoning of any discussion. DrKay (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That other people also behave badly doesn't give a free pass here. --Jayron32 13:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Topic ban Miesianiacal from Charles III. As I implied above, he's exhausting everyone's patience by insisting on rehashing the same issues and discussion over and over. If his wording or arguments are rejected in one place, he immediately starts trying to put them somewhere else. I think the task force will find itself able to move forward far more easily without his input. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, I saw your reply, but it's not just a question of the amount of text added and the number of edits. It's also the forum shopping (this is the umpteenth discussion of the same issue), editing to promote a particular point of view (Canadian nationalist), and the tone of the contributions (he's been warned for civility at least 5 times by 5 different editors in the last year alone[70][71][72][73][74]). Celia Homeford (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:Kevin McE[edit]

This is a content dispute that needs to be discussed at Talk:Colchester, not here. (non-admin closure) - Aoidh (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh - can admins make non-admin closures? Or did Aoidh forget about this discussion? Girth Summit (blether) 13:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Girth Summit: I have no idea what I was thinking...habit? - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Continued attempts of pushing a violation of WP:RHOTIC into the article. Summer talk 07:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SummerKrut, the Manual of Style is a guideline, not a core content policy. This is a routine content dispute that should be, but isn't being discussed at Talk: Colchester, instead of at this noticeboard. Please take the matter there. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read WP:BOOMERANG. I'm not in a position to comment on the edits made, however I don't think this should go to the "drama board" yet. There has been no interaction between either of you except for edit summaries, no talk page discussion, no RfC, no dispute resolution, nothing. Before bringing this to AN/I, at the very least, have a discussion on the talk page. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creating fake article for insta likes??[edit]

User blocked indef. Closing because Primefac said it can be closed. (non-admin closure) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



From what I understand and what I believe is that; I just like to point out that this user has created a complete fake article (Albion Demiri) that went to AfD. I looked at the list of keep and retain players at Everton FC, no player by Albion Demiri has ever been at the club. From what I understand, this is just a ruse to drive traffic to the instagram account of the same name. It's basically a con in the numbers game to boost the insta account. I am not sure how the admins will deal this this. But that is what I suspect. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm blocking for other reasons, but needless to say this can be closed. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Had an EC there, just wanted to say thanks for sorting that, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:Vipz deletes reliable sources and adds something that is not written in the sources[edit]

Greeting!. I would like to report a user Vipz for violating Wikipedia's rules. It all started on February 28, 2023, when ip changed what it says in the sources [[75]]. I tried to return it to the original and correct what is written in the source, but user Vipz does not allow it, it persistently returns to something that is not written in the source. Then I added three more verified sources that say the same thing and the administrator Daniel Case protected the page, which is fine. After that, the user Vipz used the protected page and deleted my sources [[76]], because he knows that I cannot restore them, because they are protected. In all sources it says "Croatian" not "Serbo-Croatian" which you can check here [[77]], [[78]], [[79]], [[80]]. We even tried talking on the talk page, but it ignores what it says in the sources [[81]]. These were the last changes to the page [[82]].I hope that someone will fix the page and write correctly what is written in the sources. Thank you 93.138.3.122 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You haven't notified Vipz. I've done that here: User talk:Vipz#WP:ANI. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot, I didn't know how to do that93.138.3.122 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to be a content dispute, not a behavioral issue (though I advise the IP to tone down the rhetoric on the talk page). There's a WP:NATIONALIST debate over whether Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are distinct languages or standard varieties of a single language. I also note that this is covered under WP:CTOP restrictions, requiring higher than normal standards in conduct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying. Serbian language, Croatian language , Bosnian language , and Montenegrin language are different languages. In communist Yugoslavia, the communists called all these languages Serbo-Croatian, unfortunately the communists did not recognize these other languages. Before the formation of Yugoslavia, Croats had their own name, Serbs had their own name for their language. The name Serbo-Croatian was created in Yugoslavia, it did not exist before. When Yugoslavia fell apart and independent states were created, everyone again took their own language name as it was before Yugoslavia. User Vipz is an activist who advocates for reunification of the Serbo-Croatian language and Yugoslavia again as far as I understand from his main page [[83]] but that has nothing to do with today's situation when there are independent countries that again have their own language. User Vipz he does not acknowledge the sources because he thinks it is still Yugoslavia and is an activist who advocates for reunification of the Serbo-Croatian language.93.138.3.122 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nationalist ranting here won't get you very far. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good grief. Use of the term is nearly two hundred years old; it was coined when Karl Marx was six years old, and the premise of a united language is featured in the 1911 Britannica. That teeth-gnashing nationalists can't stand the concept that their dialect might be the same basic language as that country's may be so (and is also addressed in the main article), but that doesn't change basic fact. Ravenswing 23:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely how fellow Wikipedians put it above (thank you @Ravenswing). I'm open about my political views on my userpage—yes, I stand against the mindless linguistic purism and separatism that fuels segregation such as that of "Two schools under one roof"—but the fact that Serbo-Croatian is a single language is a purely linguistic one. It is reflected by the fact that the only place I posted an invite to join Talk:Kajkavian discussion on is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. –Vipz (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Serbo-Croatian is a technical terms, a sort of leftover from the 19th C. It has been argued I don't know how many times that this "language" never existed, anymore than Urdu-Hindi or Czecho-Slovak. As it is, it is an "ideological language" without history, presence & future. It is still used, in varying degrees, in some ISO standards, especially Ethnologue- which has nothing "scientific" about it (it's just a Christian missionary organization). Serbo-Croatian could be left in Wikipedia pages as a historical phase in Croatian and Serbian languages; also, as a testament how linguistics simply doesn't deal with questions whether various forms of language are separate languages or varieties of a language. Linguists like Kloss and Clyne did not elaborate closely on the issue, but anyone who has read their works can come to the conclusion: languages who may be highly mutually intelligible, but belong to different national-historical cultures are different languages. Peter Rehder's book on Slavic languages treats Serbo-Croatian as an ideological phase which brought Croatian and Serbian languages- real "entities"- closer, but never succeeded to unify them. Wikipedia pages on Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian are a disgrace & should be completely rewritten if English Wikipedia intends to keep any authority on the issue.In fact, it repeats Greater Serbian nonsensical claims, because Croatian Štokavian heritage until the 19th C- which is 95% of Štokavian written corpus for more than 5 centuries -is conspicuously absent from the Croatian language page. So, we come to the bizarre information that the 1st Croatian grammar, Kašić's, from 1604., belongs to the history of Serbo-Croatian- a complete absurdity. So, Croatian Štokavian dialect heritage from the 12th C on is forced out of the Croatian language page & "transferred" to the Serbo-Croatian page, where more than 80% of sources are Croatian. Are you saying that Serbo-Croatian is "actually" Croatian & that Serbian & Bosnian are, so to speak, Croatian for dummies? Another issue is a commissary-style of discussion with constant ideological labels of "nationalists". Well- anyone who, from the vantage point of Yugoslav failed experiment (a totalitarian state) calls others "nationalists"- why would that be bad, anyway?- is promoting the remnants of Yugoslav nationalism, which was & remained a sort of Fascist ideology (Yugoslav "race", Dinaric barbarogenius, hatred of the "decadent" West, mass ethnic cleansing of Albanians etc.). Though- I think it's all a waste of time. If common sense is not enough- from the 1995-2000 no book was translated from "Serbo-Croatian"; no grammar was written for Serbo-Croatian; even ludicrous name games testify about it: is it Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, or bcs, or bcsm? Where is a single language in the world with an alphabet soup for a name & with no native speakers of that alphabet language which doesn't possess a single text in its corpus? This all is laughable ... Mir Harven (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(shrugs) Yes, we get that there are many people with nationalist axes to grind; welcome to the Balkans, right? As it happens, there are many eminent linguists, writers, scholars and others who disagree with you. Perhaps you will forgive us for accepting their expert opinion on the matter over yours. Ravenswing 22:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not a single "eminent linguist" which would agree with that failed farce, as I commented:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Declaration_on_the_Common_Language#Extremely_biased_article These "eminent linguists" are mostly journalists, actors of a Yugoslav nationalist provenance, plus an anti-Croatian third rate language ideologue Snježana Kordić who didn't write anything worthwhile on the Croatian or Serbian language matters- just a bunch of commissary-type denunciations. And even if they had agreed- that wouldn't matter a whit. The name & identity of a language are more important than a pamphlet concocted by a small cohort of paid amateurs & ideological Yugoslav apologists of a vanished totalitarianism. Mir Harven (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, this name was coined by Austrian & German philologists in the early 19th, when they tried to ascertain "what belongs to whom". Carefully watch the videos in English:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-2eM9S6i8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rhPZryNp-M and, if you know Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDONIhqHokU, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovDb0YPidPU Mir Harven (talk) Mir Harven (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serbo-Croatian and Croatian are not mutually exclusive concepts. And there are no universal standards of what constitutes a language or a dialect. In the end, if there is a predominant consensus among Croatians to consider Kajkavian as a Croatian dialect, then its fair to highlight that in the definition in the lede of the article. If you have references, including SFRY era references, how Kajkavian would be a Serbo-Croatian dialect, that can be reflected in the article. The issue is not to promote absolute 'truths' but that the article provides a balanced view and representation of the article subject. As per the sources disputed, I'd suggest skipping https://www.akademijaoxford.com/en/croatian-language-courses.php which isn't really an authoritative WP:RS. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to note that the relevant consensus is not among Croatians, but among subject experts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:VEXBYSTERANG User:Mir Harven[edit]

User:Mir Harven blocked indefinitely by Bbb23, subsequently TPA removed by RickinBaltimore. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Serbo-Croatian is the parent article and higher-level topic for official varieties thereof under the current English Wikipedia's content organization.
  • See the definition of Serbo-Croatian given in the article's lead: "Serbo-Croatian ... is a South Slavic language and the primary language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. It is a pluricentric language with four mutually intelligible standard varieties, namely Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin."
  • See the definitions of Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin:
    "Bosnian is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian pluricentric language mainly used by ethnic Bosniaks. Bosnian is one of three such varieties considered official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina ..."
    "Croatian is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian pluricentric language mainly used by Croats. It is the national official language and literary standard of Croatia ..."
    "Montenegrin is a normative variety of the Serbo-Croatian language mainly used by Montenegrins and is the official language of Montenegro. ..."
    "Serbian is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian language mainly used by Serbs. It is the official and national language of Serbia ..."
  • See Category:Serbo-Croatian language. It contains Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin as members.
  • See the infoboxes for Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin: (Language Family: South Slavic languages --> Southwest Slavic languages --> Serbo-Croatian ... --> Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin)
  • See the outline of Slavic languages branches in Slavic languages#Branches: It says "Serbo-Croatian --> Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin"
The proper place to try out the Serbo-Croatian negationist theory and to propose fundamental rewriting and reorganizing all of this content is the Talk:Serbo-Croatian. But the article is subject to lasting consensus about such things, and is sourced. So it should be clear by now that starting such a discussion would not be advisable, as it would be an attempt to promote a fringe viewpoint. Therefore:
Sanction User:Mir Harven, who does not seem to be particularly WP:HERE for misusing ANI to WP:SOAPBOX his WP:FRINGE theories about Serbo-Croatian—Alalch E. 23:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is not subject of any consensus. Were it so, it wouldn't need to be always protected & critics of a dogmatist non-discursive approach of some Serbo-Croatist ideological clique forcibly silenced. Serbo-Croatist dogmatists have not addressed crucial points: a) there is no strict linguistic definition of pluri-centric languages, hence linguistics is not a science any more than literary theory or psychoanalysis, b) linguistics, any variety, cannot decide whichever name can be used for a formalized speech/language, c) linguistics cannot, unanimously, decide which are varieties of a language & which are close but different languages (Urdu, Hindi, Swedish, Norwegian, Serbian, Croatian, Yiddish, German, Malaysian, Indonesian,..). d) it is false that anything re. Serbo-Croatist ideology is "sourced". Virtually no eminent world philologist & linguist from the 19th to the 21st C has contributed significantly to the knowledge of Croatian and Serbian languages -they, at most, wrote elementary goulash language primers; these "standardization institutions" are politicized institutions, because they, sometimes, offer "macro-language" for Croatian and Serbian- and, at the same time, there deny any "macro language" status for Hindi and Urdu. Be as it may- English Wikipedia will continue to be loathed by Croatian general public as some kind of ultra-leftist neo-Yugoslav megaphone; in real life, it will have- as it was the case- no bearing on the status & profile of the Croatian language, both in the "global world" & even less in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Wikipedia will have been used as a nice info source on many other issues, but in this case (as in many others connected with Yugoslav totalitarian state & its ideological cultural malformations)- as a worthless obsolete & obscurantist dogma clinging to the remnants of Serbo-Croatist ideology which is in practice dismissed & dumped throughout the world. Say, then- which is the name of that supposed name: BCS, BCSM or Serbo -Croatian or Croato-Serbian? Or, is is Serbian-Croatian (why not Croatian-Serbian? like in WALS: https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_scr )? It shows that even supposedly scientific institutions are no more than a joke. They don't even know what they're talking about. Such a "language" with "fluctuating" name doesn't exist anywhere in the modern world. Mir Harven (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every article on Wikipedia is subject to consensus, it is one of the most basic policies of the encyclopedia: WP:CONSENSUS. If you do not understand or cannot abide by that, you should not be editing here. --JBL (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a consensus of a clique that had been occupying that subject for well over a decade without trying to prove their point. Their "arguments" are both dogmatic & infantile. Consensus of a Politburo under Stalin is of the same weight as this one (I am not talking about other issues because I don't know about them, but I very well informed about this one). Anyway- this won't change anything. The article on Croatian is a lie (there are no Bartol Kašić, Jakov Mikalja, Joakim Stulli, Mažuranić... in it); the article on Serbian is a lie (no one spoke "Serbian" in Dubrovnik); the article on Serbo-Croatian is a lie (no Croatian and Serbian literary monuments in the 1200s , 1400s or 1600s or the 1700s belonged to that fictive "language"). So- it is not just the case of historically rejected term (Serbo-Croatian) that did exist as a cover term for two languages (and could be treated as a historical phenomenon); it is the content of that term which is completely absurd - to think that Vatican Croatian Prayer Book is an example of "History of the Serbo-Croatian language" -one must be a psycho case. So- it is not just that those three articles present absolutely false picture. They are, if any rational person looks at them, a good material for a serious examination of cognitive dissonance. Mir Harven (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Taking a look at the background here, and the comments in this thread, it appears to me that Mir Haven is a long-time SPA and POV editor, who is probably long overdue for a topic ban. That may be true for others involved here as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would certainly support a topic ban for Mir Harven, whose shrill polemics and repeated insults against anyone and anything disagreeing with their position suggest strongly that they are neither prepared nor willing to edit collaboratively. Since Alalch E. didn't specify, I would suggest that the ban be for all Balkan language topics, broadly construed, as well as all topics pertaining to Yugoslavia and republics formerly belonging to that nation. (It's probably not a good sign that nearly one in ten of every mainspace edit Mir Harven's made is to the Greater Serbia article, for instance, something that probably can stand scrutiny.) Ravenswing 04:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just do it. English Wikipedia will only have cemented its irrelevance & uselessness re. this, and some similar topics. The same wiki editors' sources, after all, give contradictory & worthless answers: UNESCO: https://en.wal.unesco.org/search?keys=croatian (Croatian not spoken in Croatia?); https://en.wal.unesco.org/search?keys=serbo-croatian (Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist).As far as Glottologue, one gets a bunch of disinfo: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/croa1245 (Eastern Bosnian is not New Shtokavian; Eastern Herzegovinian is not a dialectal basis of modern Croatian, which doesn't have a dialectal basis at all, but is stylized around Western Štokavian; Eastern Herzegovinian (Serb and Montenegerin) is not being a part of it although it is lumped together with Western Neo-Štokavian (Croat and Bosniak) into generic term Neo-Štokavian Ijekavian; Slaveno-Molisano is Molisan-Croatian, as it is recorded in Italian atlases; Timok dialect is Torlak; Bunjevac doesn't exist, being just a Western Neo-Štokavian Ikavian & that name is not in use in dialectology). All in all- Glottolangue "classification", as presented here, is worthless. It doesn't differentiate between standard languages and dialects, and it wrongly describes dialects' names & characteristics. World Atlas for Linguistic Typology is another example of contradictions & confusion: there is Urdu language,https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_urd, Hindi language,https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_hin - but not Hindustani language (macro-language or whichever description), as presented in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language. On the other hand, WALS, a supposedly eminent linguistic typology tool, doesn't have Serbian or Croatian- only some "language" named Serbian- Croatian (not Serbo-Croatian, nor bcsm): https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_scr. - but not separate Croatian and Serbian standard languages. This "Serbian-Croatian language" is described by obsolete grammars for beginners (in Serbian, for instance, classification of nouns is according to grammatical gender; in Croatian, it follows the rules for the 3-modes (i-, e-, -a declension types) of how nouns look like in genitive singular). To conclude: a) linguistics is not an exact science, but frequently political contradictory mess of (dis)info, following political trends. b) Glottologue, UNESCO atlases, World Atlas for Linguistic Typology, Ethnologue- these are all contradictory & tendentious institutions giving false & incoherent "answers". English Wiki editors are tendentious bureaucrats following amateur arbitrary/contradictory classifications & are unable to answer common sense questions, thus presenting false histories and descriptions of those languages' (Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian) development and the current state.There is a chance to edit Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian language pages, as well Serbo-Croatian ideological "language" page, but you missed it. And the result will be, thus, further collapse into irrelevance & misinformation no serious seeker after reliable data will find useful or correct. Mir Harven (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You must think exceedingly well of yourself if you think that you being sanctioned will cause Wikipedia to collapse into ruin. Ravenswing 19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The name rang a bell, so I looked it up and found that we were dealing with Mir Harven here a month ago, something that went completely unnoticed. Since it was Vipz that reported him, and given that he has appeared more or less after the IP originally made the report, it is not unconscionable (but by no means a fact) that they're the same person on a revenge trip. Their talk page, as noted in the original report, contains plenty of (old) comments labelling other users or experts who disagree with him as "morons", "psychos", "sickos" and other niceties. While there may be a linguistic debate to be had here, this user seems to be a Croat nationalist SPA with an axe to grind and views far beyond the pale. The fact that this slipped under the radar for years shouldn't mean it gets to go unsanctioned. Ostalgia (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a wonderful example of a commissary-snitch type of mind. Pavlik Morozov, I presume? 78.3.187.44 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry my dislike for racism and mindless abuse of editors hurts your feelings. I hope you can recover quickly. Ostalgia (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ostalgia: That, or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, probably organized on an external chat platform like Discord. Just like the one that reigned over Croatian Wikipedia in the 2010s (I recommend reading that article for better insight). –Vipz (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've indeffed Mir Harven for disruption (see block log for details). I express no opinion on whether any other user involved in this discussion should be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IP 78.3.187.44 is also Mir Harven, as other than his reply to me his only contribution was to edit Mir Harven's comment above. If only for consistency, should it not also be zapped for the same reasons + sockpuppetry? Ostalgia (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And given his ongoing rants on his talk page, he strikes me as someone courting removal of TPA as well. Ravenswing 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitewashing attempts at New Democracy (Greece)[edit]

Admin attention may be required at the article New Democracy (Greece). Elections are approaching in Greece (they are set for the next week) and we have been witnessing a surge of POV-pushing disruption incidents aiming at whitewashing the country's ruling political party which both the international and local media have criticized its anti-democratic tendencies. I will appreciate if the admins keep an eye on the article for the next couple of weeks. Thank you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I'd have to agree with the IP that that final sentence getting edit warred over is not a great summary of the article, however. Unless I'm looking cross-eyed or missing some context, there's a section in the body listing good and bad things about his presidency, but then the sentence summarising the criticism is included again verbatim in the lead, while the praise is left out completely. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Licks-rocks: This paragraph which they want so badly to remove, was there since September 2022 and these editors/IPs definitely had plenty of time to expand it upon constructively to include the "positive" aspects of the party's policies but they didn't bother. None tried to stop them, just they didn't bother. They only seek to remove the "negative" ones alltogether, suspiciously too close to the date of the national elections. Sorry but no. This is a blatant case of political whitewashing and goes against the spirit of the WP:NPOV policy and constitutes a characteristic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Anyways, this "negative" information they seek to remove, was added not to mud the party's public image, but because it is too important to bury at the end of the article, it is about the party's stances and policies for which it drew global attention and criticism, and whose outcomes have consequences to the lives of the people and this is how it is done for the political parties elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as Golden Dawn (Greece), Fidesz or Justice and Development Party (Turkey) and by no means can be removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not doubting that the IP is here to push their own POV, to be clear. I just noticed that that sentence is not a very balanced reflection of the alinea it originated from. I'll take a look at it later to see if I can tweak it a bit --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not an admin but I've added it to my watchlist - I have experienced significant disruption in the Greek politics area (specifically around far-right parties) so I'm unsurprised more is taking place. — Czello (music) 13:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Czello: Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: The disruption continued, and this left me no option but to request an increase in the article page protection level.

For those unfamiliar with politics in Greece: this sudden surge of political disruption on the article, these days, coincides with the reports in the local media that the ruling political party is carrying a whitewashing campaign aiming at improving the party's public image ahead of the upcoming elections: [84] [85] [86], which is why it has me worried and brought it to the ANI. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yikes. Good to know! --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gabrielhussein503 creating hoaxes[edit]

Hey, Gabrielhussein503 appears to just be making fictional drafts and submitting some to AfC - they appear to be based of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtyZiv7heY - I assume by the channel owner themselves. "Separated By My Leader" appears to be a fictional show on a fictional TV channel winning fictional awards.

I was not sure if I should just G3 these as hoaxes but it was suggested by an admin this may be a better place to flag to get them dealt with in one go rather than have to comment the rational on each and tag separately. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTHERE block seems good, as he has only edited these hoax drafts. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I would consider those to be hoaxes, as they do seem to be based on the YouTube videos. He seems to have created 11 of them, with virtually identical content. They are problematic in tone, sourcing, potentially the copyright status of the images, lack of notability of the topic... but I don't think they are G3. I'm tempted to partial block from draft space and article space until he comes here and responds, but he hasn't edited in several hours.
My inclination is to not do anything right now (except decline any AFC submissions that aren't already declined, but I think you already did that), and let G13 eventually take care of the drafts. If he comes back and starts being obnoxious, then it may be time to consider a NOTHERE block, but I don't think it's necessary at this point. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that does happen, I wouldn't be surprised if he opens the drawers. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ONUnicorn did you actually find any other videos for "Separated By My Leader" that than the video supposed to be the "Opening Titles"? Also the claims that the people shown are actors in multiple roles and have been #BigBrain2009 winners also seem like sure fiction, thus hoax. However, happy to leave and see if they escalate. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The YouTube channel has a couple videos that seem to be related. I haven't watched them all. It seems to me to be the kind of thing that straddles the line between A11 (which only applies in mainspace) and G3. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at their sandbox, which is the article they have copied to all the other drafts. The subject was born 3 January 1992 or 30 June 2007, which is quite a range. The picture is a head poorly photoshopped onto a body, which in turn in is photoshopped into another image. And the show they claim to have been in from 2007-2015 won best television drama at the BAFTAs four years in a row from 2007-2011. It didn't, in fact no such TV show ran on UK TV during those years. The related youtube videos are just random pieces of footage edited together, the one supposedly showing the awards ceremony is just live TV record from a selection of different channels. If this isn't a hoax it is obvious misinformation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User TheruralGuy[edit]

User TheruralGuy has been making disruptive edits to various Wikipedia articles and when asked to stop doing so, they resort to making abusive comments in-response. User seems to have a bias against certain communities and deletes mention of them from articles.

Diffs are below.

Abusive comments: [87] , [88]

Deletion of mention of the word 'Muslim' from an article (I reverted them and left a talkpage message explaining why and they did not reply conductively and ended-up deleting the word 'Muslim' from the article again: [89] , [90] , [91]

Overall, this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia nor work collaboratively with others. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ThethPunjabi, does the word "Muslim" appear in the cited sources? I cannot read them. If the word "Muslim" does not appear, then there is nothing improper about removing it. If it does appear and the editor is improperly trying to keep it out, then that is a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first reference mentions "Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Muslims" but I cannot access the second. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the edits TheruralGuy made seem to suggest that he/she is on a crusade against Muslims. He/she is also misusing the minor edits check box in his/her edits - and his/her talk page shows that he was warned about this on 13 April 2023.
The relevant pages of both sources cited are available on Google Books: Intangible Heritage Embodied pages 50-51, Domestic Political Change and Grand Strategy page 188. Both sort of support the text they are cited for in the article, but not explicitly. It is clear that the Punjabiyat idea is about bringing Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Muslim together, and that trying to exclude Muslims/Pakistanis/West Punjabis from this is unsupported. It would be an improvement if the article were modified to say something explicitly stated by the sources cited for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saintstephen000 abusing the editing feature[edit]

RESOLVED
NAC: Article stable for over 24 hours. Discussion on talk page, very nicely moderated by Nemov, appears over. One party has vanished, the other has expressed a preference for archiving this thread. I agree with Ponyo – we're done here. — Trey Maturin™ 16:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


Saintstephen000 keeps undoing my edits, saying I fail to cite my sources. I have provided cites -- the NYTimes and Al Jazeera. He has failed to read the FULL articles I cite. In particular, the Al Jazeera article notes the criticism that I-House has received from both a moral and public health standpoint. He needs to read the FULL articles before deleting my edits and claiming I'm not properly citing my sentences.Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging
@Wikiaccount888: You had not properly notified the user as per the notice at the top of this page. I have done so for you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happened? I followed the instructions re: notifying the user Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notification message is supposed to go on their user talk page (i.e. User talk:Saintstephen000‎). You instead pasted it as part of this report. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're new (welcome, by the way!) so it's okay you don't understand our arcane ways and means. But this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting a complaint about a user on this page, consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page or on the article's talk page; that usually works. But if that fails, we have a dispute resolution process you can try. This page is very much the nuclear option, and therefore is not one new and inexperienced editors should be starting off at. I'll drop you our standard 'welcome' template on your talk page – it has handy links to give you a more thorough grounding on how our collaboratively edited encyclopedia works. — Trey Maturin™ 17:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Wikiaccount888: The edit summary on this change appears to be User:Saintstephen000 promising to go to that article's talk page to start a discussion. It's a good idea because, as of your edits from thirty minutes ago, you're both officially in violation of the policy against edit warring. CityOfSilver 17:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry about that. However, I do not believe I can resolve this issue with the user on the talk page. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the issue is resolved now on the talk page, my apologies. Is there a way to delete all of this from the noticeboard? Wikiaccount888 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m sorry, but no. This page acts like a journal of record for the administration of Wikipedia (as I say, it’s the nuclear option and is treated accordingly), so we rarely delete any threads. But it will be automatically archived to somewhere less public in a few hours assuming everybody has had their say here now. — Trey Maturin™ 21:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok that's fine. Thank you for explaining these things to me Wikiaccount888 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Examining the article, i identified a statement from the house giving their perspective. this was met with someone with a strong pov regarding this event. i have no knowledge of this topic outside the sources given. it needs balance for pov. thanks for helping keep the encyclopedia accurate, Saintstephen000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't have a strong POV regarding this event. I offered a very balanced perspective, including only what the NYT and Al Jazeera stated. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that Saintstephen000 has vanished their account, so I guess we're done here?-- Ponyobons mots 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

206.45.2.52[edit]

206.45.2.52 (talk) was given a one month ban for edit warring in March. The ban was recently lifted and they have gone back to continue the war on Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. They have removed substantial sourced content without explanation. I have not notified them on their talk page (only on the article talk page). I would ask someone else do so (as they have told me to WP:KEEPOFF their talk page). Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Notification delivered. FYI KEEPOFF does not apply to notices required by policy and guidelines. That said, I understand the desire to avoid being unnecessarily provocative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you read the article in question? 206.45.2.52 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comment above and the editor's response on their talk page are illustrative of their bad faith and WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour, in light of their refusal to explain gone back to continue the war this edit (and others). I don't see how telling other editors to touch grass helps us build a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit history and user page are replete with red flags that suggest you are soapboxing. Most of your edits are blatantly biased and do nothing to help build a better Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it the appropriate forum for amateur muckraking. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring by self-proclaimed expert at McAleer[edit]

Page protected, user advised, discussion continuing on their talk page. No further action needed here. WaggersTALK 15:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



See Queenmedb99 (talk · contribs). There may be something there, but neither sourcing nor content looks real good at this point, and the "who do you think you are?" response from a new user is always a red flag [92]. More eyes would be helpful. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

😊 (Page protected for a week, user warned not to continue afterwards.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have offered Queenmedb99 some friendly advice on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thewatcher007[edit]

I've blocked the account as a sock, this is over at SPI now. Girth Summit (blether) 09:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


Thewatcher007 (talk · contribs) posted this comment [93], which I do believe violates the rules about civility. Beyond that, this editor under the very misleading claim of only following the sources has altered the content in a manner that does not follow the sources; [[94]] or [95]. There appears to be a fan-based quality to this editor as he changed the material from reading that the Independent Soldiers from a "mid-level" to a "high-level", which is not what the source says at all. Beyond that, this IP 199.7.157.89 (talk · contribs) posted this edit [96] a week earlier on 20 April, which appear to be a violation of the rules about civility. It is not very likely that an IP would go edit a low-traffic article, post an insulting edit summary about another editor, and then a week later a new account shows up to edit the same article and again insult the same editor in their edit summaries. There does seem to be a strong probability that this IP and TheWatcher007 are one and the same. This IP 199.7.157.89 has been identified as a sock-puppet for the blocked editor Entuziazm (talk · contribs), who has a long history of insulting editors, see here for examples: [97], [98], and [99]. For all these reasons, this seems to be a case of someone who is not here to build the encyclopedia. Thank you for your time and patience. --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Sino-Soviet border conflict - Crows Yang behavior[edit]

User User:Crows Yang has recently started to edit the article Sino-Soviet border conflict. Their first edits were quite good and improved the article quality by expanding on the Chinese version of the events. We had a quite civil discussion on User_talk:Crows_Yang, however, later their edits started to show, in my opinion, explicit bias that is not acceptable by Wikipedia standard. We had a discussion on the Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Neville Maxwell article citations and it didn't went... well. Their messages and edit descriptions started to became more and more hostile. By the end of discussion I almost have snapped. I understand that the article has multiple problems, I acknowledge that I have my opinions and preferences regarding the events discussed and I know that I still have a lot to learn before I'll become a proficient Wiki editor, however, user Crows Yang ignores my attempts at polite discussion of the article issues on the Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict argumenting it by, as I understand it, that two wrongs are somehow making one right. Their latest response in Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict#Result is

Screw u, like a said, I've provided reliable sources and you treat them as "unneutral" cuz they were against your personal preference. I'll keep an eye on the edition, don't even think about putting me out of the game with your silly actions. You changed it, I change it back... .

I find this unacceptable and I'm pretty sure this is a violation of Wikipedia rules. DestructibleTimes (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ths editor with the ID name "DestructibleTimes" is very double standard and biased for the edition of the page-"Sino Soviet Border Conflict". DestructibleTimes and another editor "Editorkamran" have been overseeing the edition of this page by keeping eyes on other editors' editions. They judge other editor's editions, especially the reliability and neutrality of their sources. But the problem is, they are not even neutral or objective themselves.

We've found that the conclusions made by historians from the West, Soviet/Russia and China regarding to the result of the Sino-Soviet Conflict were highly disputed. There's no single one conclusion about this conflict, some sources claimed Soviet Victory, other sources claimed Chinese victory, and most other sources did not claim victory for each side. In this circumstances, DestructibleTimes insisted on putting "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox of this page as the result of the conflict. I tried to add another claim from another source to show the readers that the result of the conflict was in fact disputed, indecisive. We can't just mark one side's victory as the result. However, DestructibleTimes became extremely critical and picky about my edition by imposing false charges against them. He claimed my source's neutrality was disputed, while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory". The source I cited was published by University Press, which was very reliable and objective per Wiki's policy. In this case, DestructibleTimes has been conducting a "double standard" treating other editors' editions.

So that's why I'm seeking help from the Dear administrator, please check on this editor's editing history for any issues involved, thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crows Yang (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the problem is, they are not even neutral or objective themselves.

WP:NOOBJECTIVITY. And I haven't deleted anything because of perceived lack of neutrality, I merely stated my opinions about some of the sources you provided on talk page. In my opinion, the Result sections shouldn't contain anything but confirmed facts while you have consistently tried to put opinions disguised as facts there. Due to various reasons we really have not so much confirmed facts about the event and that's why we should avoid strong assertions based on single source. That's why I moved your statements to other places and rephrased them to make sure they do not violate WP:NPOV.

In this circumstances, DestructibleTimes insisted on putting "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox of this page as the result of the conflict.

Excuse me, but it is trivial to verify that this never happened by checking the page edit history. In fact, it was me who stated on the talk page that this is a questionable claim.

He claimed my source's neutrality was disputed, while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory".

1) The problem is not with the sources but with the statements - please re-read my opinion on the Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#China was able to deter the Soviet Union. Since you decided to ignore my concerns and tried to delete the template, I went ahead and attempted to fix the issue myself with this [edit] that you reverted still ignoring the discussion. 2) I can pick issues I want to work on, yes. If you want other issues to be fixed, you can do it yourself. Two wrongs don't make one right. DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This war was a Soviet victory. This should be handled in talk page, not here. Editorkamran (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not have an opinion on who is correct, but this appears to be a simple content dispute, and should be handled on the talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All we get right now is only

    I'll wait and see what's going to happen, the article as well as the top infobox is not your private property, I won't let you two "Soviet Victory" believers rule over it.

    ,

    So anything you try to add in there, I have ways to "prove" them wrong....lol

    and

    By another way, neither Editorkamran nor you seem to be experienced in studying the history of war...lol

    .
    Does it sound like willingness to build a consensus? Judging by this and other statements (e.g. their beliefs about sources) I think @Crows Yang has absolutely zero idea at how all this Wikipedia thing works. Looks like they think we make articles by winning edit wars. DestructibleTimes (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dear administrator, please allow me to explain everything accused by User @DestructibleTimes aginst me. I'm sure you might have noticed what this user's saying like 【 In my opinion, the Result sections shouldn't contain anything but confirmed facts...】, 【please re-read my opinion on the Talk...】. That means, he listed the policies here, and insisted on stating "His Own Opinions", meaning his accusations against my edition were all based on his own opinion and interpretation of the policies. I've displayed my arguments by directly quoting what these policies say on the Talk page, there was nowhere saying the sources I used could not be cited as references just because they were someone's own opinion. I also argued that all the sources appearing on Wiki are in fact based on opinions. But User @DestructibleTimes kept charging my sources while ignoring the same issues in his own and User Editorkamran's sources just because mine are not in favor of their own preferences.
    User DestructibleTimes's accusation of 【while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory"】is a straight-up distortion of what's been going on here. I did not ignore the sources claiming Soviet Victory, but I do have sources that claimed Chinese victory, that's why I've found the result of this Sino-Soviet Conflict is too controversial to conclude. But user DestructibleTimes behaved extremely picky on my editions and threw false charges against them with his own opinion, this user and user Editorkamran insisted it was Soviet Victory by making "unneutral" charges against my sources sorely based on his own opinion and own interpretations of the policy. Yes, I might have deleted some templates by mistake, and User DestructibleTimes reverted the deletion, and I did not revert it back. I simply added sth with support from the sources I found, but user DestructibleTimes removed it to aftermath per its own opinion and decision. This was unacceptable.
    I must admit that I'm a newcomer of Wiki, I'm being doing all I can to get familair with the policies and our mission as editors here. But newcomers can't be viewed by someone as excuses to distort the fact and history events. I believe that our top mission on Wiki (especially the history articles) is to help our readers know the whole story of the historican events, let the readers see all the details hidden behind each event, not to judge the ownership of Victory.
    And, yes, for all the reasons above, I don't want any further discussion with this user DestructibleTimes, cuz the discussion will remain contested and become worthless to continue. So I'm here to seek help from you, Dear administrator, to uphold the justice. I will continue to work hard on the editions, and try to do better in the future. Please let me know if there are any flaws with my edition and I'll be happy to fix the flaws. Crows Yang (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I don't want any further discussion with this user DestructibleTimes

    Yeah, that's exactly what is going on here. Crows Yangs doesn't want to discuss anything, they want... something, but neither state what exactly they want, nor they have tried to implement their own solution to the issue stated by them. I've asked them:

    We are still supposed to reach the consensus, though (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS). You haven't offered anything resembling "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.", though it is you who strongly claim that there is a problem. You just talk about bias this, bias that. Please state your proposal at last!

    and guess what, got nothing except this attempt at 檢討 DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:148.76.131.222[edit]

Disruptive user blocked. WaggersTALK 15:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



User talk:148.76.131.222, Making unconstructive edits after multiple warnings. I just left them a friendly warning for their latest edit at Brock Purdy. Bruxton (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonblocked for a good while. For future reference, WP:AIV can handle this type of nonsense easily and with better speed. Courcelles (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Bruxton (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
faster than 2 minutes?--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tim O'Doherty[edit]

Content dispute with a side of "I don't like how they archived their talk page." This is for intractable behavioral problems, not two reverts and not talking on the talk page quick enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I removed the funny content dispute Burma Shave template because it broke formatting in the closing box, so everyone imagine the funny Burma Shave content dispute template.Reply[reply]

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

After reverting my edits at Charles III at [100] and [101], User:Tim O'Doherty initially avoided discussion at Talk:Charles III. Only when warned that he would be taken to the admins for a block if he didn't discuss, did he bother to respond. But claimed that he didn't have to [102] despite it being a violation of WP:NEGOTIATE.

He is now claiming he didn't avoid the discussion because he responded to me at his talk page. However, what he avoided mentioning is he only responded after I warned him of an admin complaint [103]. Also he has decided to stonewall the discussion and removed it from his talk page (along with others) [104]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RRF, I've tried to reason with you. I've been warned, along with others, on this very page, to take a break from Charles's talkpage. I would be damned if I did, and (now) damned if I didn't. Also, I archived my talk page, which I do when the TP grows too large. In this case, it was well over 30k bytes. It had nothing to do with you, honest :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what reasoning you refer to Tim. Because asides from sticking to the same inaccurate claims of my edits being "editorial" (which is supposed to mean "he attitudes, opinions, and contents of something such as a newspaper, magazine, or television programme." per the dictionary), all you've done is avoid discussion multiple times.
Your reasoning being that saying things like "sources close to Camilla" is editorial language and only used by tabloids you won't talk further. Editorial means opinion so I don't understand your claims.
And reliable sources like Reuters and CBS News also use the same language.
France's financial prosecution office opened an investigation against arms maker Thales , a source close to the matter told Reuters. [105]
However, a source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News that Engel and the driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle. [106]
I don't understand where you got the idea that only tabloids use it and it's editorial language.
You say you didn't remove the talk page because of me, yet your last message before the removal was the indication that you won't talk further. Also the last time you only waited for your talk page to grow to 10k [107], before that 5k, consisting of 3 and 2 sections respectively. And it wasn't even large. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do believe that it was editorial language. If not, then it was weasel. But, RRF, I don't see this as a blockable offence. The case against me is that for 2 days I didn't respond on the King's talk page, and after you asked me, I responded to you directly, and told you of my concerns with the added content. You yourself said "if you fail to within a few days I'll have to complain about you to the admins". I have responded, so let's be reasonable. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've failed to show in what manner it's editorial or weasel, even reliable sources use that kind of language. You only responded after being forced by a warning, not because you wanted to. And after mere 2 replies where you actually discussed, you stopped talking again. Also please stop trolling by thanking me for my edits repeatedly. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thanked you for the notification and for the explanation. It's nothin' malicious. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing that you're still being combative, refusing to accept you've avoided discussion and refused to accept you're wrong about the editorial claims, you're clearly misuing the thanks button and not actually thanking. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know anything else about the background here, but I do know that the "sources close to" formulation is used by newspapers (mainly, but not only, by tabloids, and particularly with anything about the British royals or football transfers) to report rumours rather than facts, so has no place in a reliable encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-communicative genre-warrior not listening to repeated warnings[edit]

Tom O'Meara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Tom O'Meara came to my attention tonight making an edit to Frankie Muniz which went against an emerging talk page consensus. I went to their talk page to attempt to get them to join the discussion. However, the long list of repeated warnings, particularly for genre-warring and adding unsourced content concerned me. I am further concerned by their lack of ENGAGEment in talk discussions. They have zero edits to talkspace and two edits to user_talkspace in four-and-a-half years on the project. They have recently ignored a warning for genre-warning placed by @SnapSnap: on May 9, and genre-warred at Tarkan (singer) and Fiki without adding any sources in the same session as the edit to Frankie Muniz. Perhaps we need a pblock from mainspace to get them to communicate? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The Pixie Lott edits are bizarre, to say the least. He supplies a reliable source, but that source describes Lott as "soul-pop" (which genre he removes). In the interview, Lott self-describes her music as soul (which genre he adds) but also as dance (which he removes). The Muniz edits are just disruptive. The uncommunicativeness may be due to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (although that's less likely these days) but there are very few edit-summaries either. I'd agree with a mainspace pblock to gain attention. Black Kite (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Superb Owl; ongoing BLP, NPOV, OR concerns[edit]

After almost seven years of editing and numerous exhortations by several editors to stop and re-read the rules, Superb Owl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to press forward with serious WP:MINOR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR concerns, including topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions (US politics, Russia-Ukraine). More importantly, the user does not seem to be improving or correcting their editing style, and their responses to other users suggest a continued failure to understand core policies.

The significant NPOV/BLP issue below occurred after I tried to engage the user about similar issues. It seems no improvement was made.

It may be time for administrative action to avoid other editors continuing to spend hours cleaning up. I would suggest a temporary overall block to enforce the importance of the above policies, or a longer topic ban on political (US and world) topics.

  • WP:MINOR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV concerns on Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): On May 10, 2023, in an edit [108] marked “minor,” Superb Owl added “pro-Kremlin oligarch” to the name of Rinat Akhmetov with no citation. In addition to being clearly not a minor edit per WP:MINOR (not an edit that “could never be the subject of a dispute”), it’s also a serious BLP issue without a citation. Akhmetov’s page does not call him “pro-Kremlin” or “pro-Russia” (there's about a page of mixed pro- and anti-Ukraine activities that doesn't boil down neatly to "pro-Kremlin oligarch"). I believe that being called “pro-Kremlin” is “contentious” BLP information subject to WP:BLPREMOVE and I have removed it. The edit was hidden under a “minor” label and thus escaped scrutiny.

That example alone may be enough for administrative action given the importance of WP:BLP, especially in areas with discretionary sanctions, but the examples below are meant to show that the problems are pervasive despite several attempts by other editors.

  • Violations of WP:MINOR. Rampant in user's edit history: Superb Owl (contribs | filter log). I have warned, but at seven years into editing this should be second-nature.
  • WP:CITE concerns on E-Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): May 9, 2023[109] I have extensively discussed this with the user on their talk page and won’t rehash it all, but to summarize: User:Superb Owl added without citation that “most organizations” oppose proposal regarding “E-democracy.” By itself, not a huge problem but emblematic of adding controversial information without any citations, many years into editing.
  • WP:OR concerns on Deliberative democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): May 9, 2023[110] I have extensively discussed this with the user on their talk page and won’t rehash it all, but to summarize: User:Superb Owl modified a fully cited sentence based on their own uncited reading of a Google n-gram viewer. Without a citation there was no way to validate the user’s work. Their use of the n-gram viewer to overrule a citation was clearly "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." By itself, not a huge problem but emblematic of ongoing problems.
  • WP:CITE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns on Supreme Court of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): February 6, 2023. Magidin and Drmies extensively discussed it with Superb Owl[111] and in the talk page for Supreme Court (see all seven discussion topics with the same users at [112]), as well in the edit history for Supreme Court (too numerous to diff). I won’t rehash it all but it appears that it reached a disruptive level around whether “democratic backsliding” should be a leading criticism (see below), in addition to many other concerns where User:Superb Owl was not responsive to constructive criticism.
  • WP:NPOV, WP:CITE concerns on United States Senate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): on February 6, 2023, User:Superb Owl added[115] that criticisms of the Senate also render their judicial nominations illegitimate. There are probably WP:RS to support this, but none were included. Again, seven years into editing it should be second nature that contentious claims require citation to WP:RS.
  • WP:OR, WP:NPOV concerns on Student activism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). User asserts[123] without citation that “Student activism is famous for its bravery, especially when in the opposition to autocratic regimes.” Nearest cite is to a memorial for a particular activist, not any overall study of activism. The edit is not uniquely objectionable, but emblematic of continued insertion of personal opinion without citation.

Etc. I have only looked back to February as there’s more than enough here.

In some recent talk page messages, User:Superb Owl has claimed[124] that users with substantive concerns about their edits should "welcome the newcomers." However, these issues go back to 2016. In 2016 User:Superb Owl made[125] seemingly non-joking WP:AGF accusations that a popular TV show article was made by paid lobbyists: “I am willing to bet that this was created by paid activists who were trying to redirect traffic away from the page on soda tax.” That old history doesn't deserve any action by itself, but it undermines any claim that the user is a "newcomer" and that editors expressing serious concerns are not being "welcoming".49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review and pointers, @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. Here's some additional context in case it's helpful:
- While my first edits came in 2016, I only started editing significantly in the past six months. Based on the state of some of the articles I was reading I probably took too many cues as to what was ok and what wasn't. I realize that I should sit down and read the instruction manuals more carefully before assembling words on the site but did not realize I might have made mistakes that would upset someone so much that wouldn't get prevented along the way by looking at templates inserted on pages I was reading and editing or noted by patient and kind experienced editors. On the other hand, when editors have come across as very angry (especially on politically-themed articles) or did not explain reversions well it can be hard to know how genuine the feedback is or if it's designed to gaslight.
- I did not have as solid of a grasp of the line between minor and non-minor and will incorporate that standard going forward. That's really helpful and I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.
- re: Supreme Court disputes, while a couple of the regulars you mention seemed quick to anger and appeared less than welcoming of center-left sources and viewpoints, they did teach me about WP:Voice and I have learned from them and the page seems to be in a good place with no ongoing disputes.
- re: Citizens' Assemblies, I was not done making edits to that page when that first change you referenced was made, one of the next changes was to rename the 'advantage' section 'opportunities', since advantages/disadvantages often are not clearcut but just has the potential to be depending on execution. I've made this improvement to other articles as well and added in-line templates to each sentence while tracking down the sources I read.
- As far as US Democracy redirect, I don't disagree with your choice of landing page but it seems like the previous choice was reasonable to create and then direct it to a page focused on the quality of our democracy in the US and instead of one primarily about the Republican institutions we have today
- As far as the Senate sentence, it seemed pretty self-explanatory but I understand why a source is really desirable. Again, I wish someone had flagged that instead of deleting it right away but in the future will be sure to cite one in the first place if that point about the added importance of the legitimacy of the Senate and how it carries over into the judiciary is reintroduced in the article.
- The student activism sentence merely summarizes the rest of the paragraph with 6 other citations. I can see however why a summarizing source or three would be better. I can and will be more thorough with my citations going forward.
I really do appreciate the time you've taken to make me a better editor - thanks again and am always grateful for anyone else's thoughts as well. Superb Owl (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal Attacks[edit]

(non-admin closure) Debashis84 has been blocked for 1 week by Black Kite for personal attacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



Debashis84 has made a number of personal attacks and false accusation against me relating to my political and religious beliefs. I reverted this edit [126] by him (The edit was the removal of sourced information claiming the source is unreliable. I said to take it to the talk page in my edit summary) and left a message at his talk [127]. He did the same edit [128] which I reverted again and left another message. [129]


His response to my first message was claiming that I spread propaganda and false information.[130] I ignored this. In his response to my second message he accused me of spreading Khalistani (A supporter of the movement for an independent Sikh nation. A term used more as an insult) propaganda, using biased sources, and called me an idiot. [131] I responded to this by saying that personal attacks are not allowed. [132] He responded to this by saying “Pols agyi Pols”. [133] This is an insult relating to a Khalistani Activist Amritpal Singh. This line is used by people to mock his supporters. It is clear from all of this that he is an uncooperative editor who uses insults and personal accusations over nothing. It is also clear he has a hatred with Khalistan supporters and labels anyone who disagrees with him as such. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not a admin, but this is a clear violation of WP:PA. An admin has to do something. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the POV edits removing sourced material are one thing, but the personal attacks when called out on them are quite another. Blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could describing a professor as a "notoriously partisan source" in an edit comment or talk page constitute a WP:BLPVIO?[edit]

Interesting in administrators' views on whether describing a professor as a "notoriously partisan source" in an edit comment or talk page could constitute a WP:BLPVIO? Assuming of course that no WP:RS exist to support this claim.

This came up on a page recently, but I am not linking to it so as to avoid getting distracted with the specifics of that situation. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diff? EEng 07:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do I need to provide it? I was hoping to get a conceptual answer. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the conceptual answer would be "It depends". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLPTALK: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. In other words, "It depends". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diff is here: [134] USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 08:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced that this is a BLP violation - certainly not an unambiguous one. Firstly, per the policy Hawkeye7 cited, the claim is explicitly related to making a content decision: the claim that the source is partisan is supporting the argument that the text should not be included in the lead. Secondly, it's not obviously a claim about a living person: at least from that edit summary, it is unclear to me whether the alleged notorious partisanship is on the part of the author, the publisher, or just that particular book. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I have notified Tombah of this discussion, as it is their edit at issue Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both lead authors for that source have been dead longer than five years Folly Mox (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source in question is that by Nur Masalha, so still alive unless there is some very recent news. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh gotcha I thought it was the one by Raban and Holum. Folly Mox (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is a book on archaeological research into a 2,000-year-old site being cited for a comment on the establishment of Israel in 1948? And why does this belong in the lede anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't anymore, so concerns allayed. But it was in connection to the site's alternative names. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see what it was being cited for. What I'd like to know though is why the book was being cited for something so clearly tangential to its actual topic. Though I suspect I know the answer already. Evidently no article that discusses anything remotely relating to the eastern end of the Mediterranean can ever be free of cherry-picking, point-scoring, and miscellaneous partisan off-topic-ramblings. Sad. Just sad... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was point-scoring, the point being scored was pretty subtle. More just matter-of-fact. But the dispute itself arose over the attempts to rip down a perfectly viable scholarly source over accusations of partisanship, which, well, applies to half the scholars in the arena. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, its a notoriously partisan topic area. Which rather suggest that the edit summary in question isn't something we should be overly concerned over. Scholars routinely say worse things about each other, and most are thick-skinned enough not to worry about passing comments in Wikipedia edit summaries. At least I assume so, because otherwise they aren't going to last long while engaging with such topics. Crying 'WP:BLP' in such circumstances would seem overblown, even if the discussion wasn't about content that quite possibly shouldn't have been there in the first place. Edit summaries are just that, and it isn't reasonable to expect a long treatise in justification for any negative commentary on an edit. Without establishing there was some sort of pattern, or unless something a lot more specific was being alleged, contributors should be permitted to use edit summaries for what they are intended for - which very often includes expressing an opinion on the merits of a source. Opinions informed by policy, but opinions nevertheless. Editorial judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it's not unduly offensive, just needlessly and unfoundedly so. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say, in the end, it's better to allow something like this on a talk page than to have people unable to, for example, say Andrew Wakefield or Alex Jones or Hulda Clark or (contemporaneously to the first Iraqi war, anyway) Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf is a notoriously unreliable source. Because dicussion of the partisianness and reliability of an author is a key part of writing an article. We can certainly say that, had that opinion been put in an article without some hefty citations, then it'd be a bad BLP violation, but BLP is not meant to keep us from criticising a source because of the creator just because the author is alive. Otherwise WP:FRINGE starts to break down.
If they're wrong, they're wrong. And people will tell them they are. But being wrong isn't a blockable offense ("Competence is required" issues aside) and the encyclopedia breaks down if we block people from discussing sources. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 11:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Questioning the reliability of a source text should not be seen as a verboten BLP violation; otherwise people could add sources written by any living person, and no one could ever say anything bad about the source or raise any objections to its use. That's obviously silly. --Jayron32 12:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) This question belongs at WP:BLPN, not ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:103.176.140.112[edit]

They are troubling me again if you want you check my archive i have archived their message on talk page and they are saying i am sock but don't file a spi K-Pop Stan (✍️•📚) 12:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) For convenience, the behavior in question is preserved at User_talk:ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy/Archive_1#Hi. The required ANI notice has also been doled out. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found from 103.176.140.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that they made similar edits between November and December 2022, where they posted apologies and threats to WP:SPI toward ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy (talk · contribs). It's impossible to tell if the mainspace edits from this New Delhi IP range are coming from the same person, but most of these edits are also problematic.
List of known diffs:
  1. [135], self-reverted at [136]
  2. [137]
  3. [138]
  4. [139]
  5. [140]
  6. [141]
  7. [142]
  8. [143]
  9. [144]
  10. [145]
  11. [146]
There was also a Mumbai IPv6 range that is already blocked for other reasons; edits associated with this behavior include [147] and [148]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[149]
A new comment on their talk page K-Pop Stan (✍️•📚) 14:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relevant links [150][151][152]. These are all definitely socks. The first and second links, of the IP initially reported and the one mentioned by LaundryPizza, share the same location, and the third one, located in New Delhi, not far from the other two, share the same description of a company. This is an editor that made personal attacks in the past [153] of a similar description to the others. A WP:SPI is needed here to check for others. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP-hopping disruptive editor on Prodigy Math Game[edit]

(non-admin closure)No more action needed- Page semi protected by Courcelles for 2 weeks. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 12:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


197.47.82.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 197.47.159.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both IP's are making disruptive edits on Prodigy Math Game. Both IP's geolocate to Egypt and target the same article- looks like a single IP hopping disruptive user to me. Seems like a range block may be needed. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 12:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yeah, semied because I couldn’t find a range to block that would both help and be non-damaging. Courcelles (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Editor: 70.51.245.130 engaging in personal attacks and threats.[edit]

Blocked by Orangemike for 31 hours for personal attacks and harassment. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The IP Editor 70.51.245.130 recently made a series of edits to Talk:The Kerala Story (The Kerala Story being a controversial Hindi-language film which has faced accusations of promoting islamaphobia and misrepresenting facts, it released recently and seems to have attracted a number of its fans to wikipedia) in which he accused Tousif of having a "fundamental problem in his soul" in response to Tousif saying that IMDB could not be used for reception, he was reverted and warned against attacking other editors. A few minutes later he followed up his initial comment by complaining about his lack of perceived competency held by the articles editors in general, and Tousif specifically. Shortly after his initial complaints about Tousif he responded to another user with this, which im unsure exactly how to describe (it seems somewhere between WP:FORUM and a veiled attack). He went on to accuse editors of not including IMDB scores due to a left-wing bias and being muslim he also said "or you are waiting for a review direct from 'may peace be upon him'?", a line mocking the muslim practice of praying for their prophet after saying his name. It was then that I warned him for making personal and religious attacks. He responded by accusing wikipedia of bias, gloating about the success of the move, saying that "the rest of the world can burn", and saying that "Karma will hit you sooner than you know".

Im hoping to request a Tban from controversial India related articles at the least, and preferably a block of the IP. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been watching this IP's contribs today. I think the regular escalating warnings on the talk page are sufficient. Their recent edits are testy by not personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor ranting about crypto-Jews[edit]

2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:C848:8392:A271:1332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Example diff [154] They're not actively editing right this second, but I thought it would be good to get some admin eyes on this in case they think immediate action is needed or if this is a known LTA. Squeakachu (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their contributions go back several months on the /64 range. See Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:0:0:0:0/64. I can't make heads or tails of what they're trying to say, but their reference here to "Jewish mafia bosses" is concerning. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I blocked the /64 range for three months. I have no idea if it's an LTA, but they've been editing like this for a very long time and the range has never been blocked until now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't there a blocked user who used to go on about how Einstein was/wasn't Jewish? Is it possibly related? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 22:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one's got a pretty distinctive style. Having reviewed and reverted a lot of their talkpage ramblings, I think they could have just as well been blocked for crimes against language. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hello, I wanted to report an account that has been taking advantage of its reversal rights to reverse any referenced information in its favor. your name is BastianMAT. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.66.46 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiUser70176 performs personal attacks and complains frivolously of being harassed by me[edit]

A clear personal attack: [155]. I follow WP:DNTR, so I did not warn her. Besides, it is completely bogus: if I sense that something resembles a conspiracy theory, I almost feel compelled to make sport of it.

At [156] she complains of being harassed by me, using very strong words about me. Why? For letting her know that I did not attack her own person. Yup, I have attacked National-Communism, but she wasn't born in 1969 (when the propaganda book was published). Nor in 1971 (when Ceausescu imposed juche policy upon Romania). So, for her there is absolutely no reason to feel personally attacked because of my own attacks upon National-Communist propaganda.

The strong words include: Stop showing your ignorance; childish tantrums; idiotic behavior; your unprovoked reactions; stuff you obviously hold very strong opinions about but know very little, just as obviously; one-sided conspiracy theorists like you.

I had an exchange of opinions with WikiUser70176. Her older username is public, and she also stated on her user page that she is a neuroscientist and a professor. So, it is not hard to find out who she is, and when she was born.

It concerns exchanges of opinions on 11 and 12 May 2023, at Talk:Origin of the Romanians and User talk:WikiUser70176.

My concern is that she sounds like she is writing from <censored>. E.g. she claims (see previous diff) that she is much older than me, while in fact I'm about five years older than her.

I have attacked National-Communist propaganda, embodied by a book of the Academy of Sciences of the Socialist Republic of Romania. For some unknown reasons, she told me that I was attacking her ([157]), and that I was harassing her ([158]).

In fact, the only thing I told her which could have triggered such reaction were that the sources in her edit were awful (those include a Master's thesis, a propaganda book from 1969, and a peer-reviewed article from 1950, see [159]). But my attacks were overtly upon National-Communism and I was not attacking her own person.

Could you sort this story out? It seems really, really strange. I suspect that more than one person uses her account, so a checkuser verification would be all right. E.g. telling herself at her own sandbox which users should be avoided does not make much sense, does it? It only makes sense if another person is telling her which users she should avoid.

Constantin Schifirneț is an article wherein she has a WP:COI, and if he is also using her own account, then it makes sense to say that he is much older and much more experienced than me. But it makes little sense for her to tell me that. I fail to see how a US professor of neuroscience would employ such a foul mouth in public, for all to see and examine her own words. It does not rhyme with even the basic ethics of psychology. But an old man who had too much wine would feel attacked without any real reason, and would spew those strong words at me. He would think that bashing an ideologically corrupt book from his youth means bashing him. Let me be very clear: the regime would not have published that book if it didn't overtly support National-Communism. We don't use that book for the same reason we don't use Russian propaganda outlets, or North-Korean propaganda outlets. The Romanian National-Communist regime is dead, its propaganda machine is dead, and it is highly ridiculous to get offended by such reality. Many of the facts from that book could be accurate, but generally speaking National-Communism has heavily corrupted historiography and the social sciences. So, that renders the source unreliable. Since even works which had little to do with official ideology were censored of any ideologically inconvenient idea. That's what "totalitarianism" means: very thorough ideological censorship.

And she reached very fast the conclusion that given your belligerent past, your tendency to hold grudges as evidenced by your editing history—one would assume that it takes a very long time to read my edits in order to establish my tendency to hold grudges. Especially when carefully stressing that she is someone you had no previous interactions with. The truth is that I don't hold grudges, but I have very clear ideas about users who are inapt to edit Wikipedia, and if they can surprise me through becoming adept at editing Wikipedia, so much the better. The difference: if I would be continually attacking them, it would be my own fault, but if they continuously miss the point, it is no fault but their own. E.g. for Jaredscribe I knew that sooner or later he will get indeffed. And I was prepared to wait a long time for seeing it happen, and if I were attacking him too much during that time of uncertainty, it would have certainly been counted as my own fault.

What would the checkuser look for? Logins from multiple geolocations. If that's too fast for an intercontinental plane travel, then it is clearly a shared account. Or just far too often to be believable, since a plane ticket is expensive. I don't even know if a job as an associate professor is above poverty level.

If she told a bald-faced lie that she is much older than me, then the neuroscientist was gaslighting me. If she didn't then her account is a shared account.

At [160] she explicitly denied being born in 1978.

I certainly don't have to make any excuses for attacking National-Communism. And she mistakenly believed that I was attacking her, instead of the ideology from the past. She has attacked me with baseless claims. Why a professor from US would feel so strongly about National-Communism? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow... This is... Wow, that all I have to say. Sadly, it seems that I have to reply to this person on this venue. You see, I refuse to engage in edit wars with him, to engage him on talk pages or even to revert any of his edits, no matter how deeply ignorant or POV pushing I think they are. These are the only 2 (two) instances of interaction with this person. The Origin of the Romanians is, understandably, a contentious topic. It's a lot on that page to unpack, should a braver editor want the job, which is not me, so I just added (not deleting anything!) a small paragraph asserting that Romanian language is a Romance language with 4 or 5 references, a fact that I thought no hothead on either side would have anything to object. User:tgeorgescu obviously did. So, I bowed out. It's my go-to behavior when encountering people with obvious axes to grind or POV pushing. I did not revert his edit, I explained my sources and the reason for explicitly refusing to edit-war with no 'personal attacks' (see [161]). To my surprise, he posted personal assertions on my page, unrelated to the issue, concocting something about my age and Communism, completely unrelated to the issue of Romanian language being a Romance language, under a heading of Edit War! I mean... again... wow. So I did lose my temper for a smidgen and used rather harsh language with my reply here [162], for which if @Tgeorgescu wants apologies now, fine, here they are (can I have some in return, if we're being petty?). More than that I tried to calm him down and make friends as you can see for yourselves. As for who I am irl, I don't owe anybody any explanation, especially about my age (seriously?) or gender (again, seriously?). If any sysop wants to know, drop me an email and I'll be more than happy to tell you, privately, I'll send you a CV if you want, my pubs too), but I'll not publicly post it to a person with documented Wikipedia editing issues, that constantly bullies or edit-wars on 4 different Wikipedias. I dare say that perhaps this is a good thing, i.e. my referral to the principal's office, maybe an admin could take a look at his activities. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 12:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have offered a non-apology apology. Again: you have viciously attacked me and above you continue to do it. I did not attack you, I have attacked National-Communism. I didn't know that that hits a nerve.
Here is the deal: provide a diff wherein I have been attacking your personally, either at Talk:Origin of the Romanians or that User talk:WikiUser70176. My two cents are that you are unable to provide such diff.
And yup, that book is a National-Communist propaganda book, but since you did not write that book, I don't see any personal attack in stating that it is a propaganda book.
Again your references at that edit were including a Master's thesis, a propaganda book from 1969, and a peer-reviewed article from 1950. I called those awful sources and I still stand by it.
From your previous username, there are clear your name, your surname, and the fact that you were born as a female (or at least you self-identified as female). So don't blame me for stating the obvious from data which you have yourself publicly disclosed at English Wikipedia. You have published your real-life identity and gender at this website. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a real name, you have no idea if it's mine or not, and I changed it specifically so that the real person with that name is not harassed by people like you, which is what you are doing right now (admins, help?). I am WikiUser70176 and that's all you need to know. Again, what does that have to do with Wikipedia editing that Romanian is a Romance Language? Sheesh... ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 13:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that real name was a mistake, it certainly wasn't my mistake. And certainly does not count as WP:OUTING. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it does. As for my userboxes... really, are we having this conversation? I can put whatever I want on my page as long as it doesn't offend anyone. I can make a userbox that I don't believe Australia exists (sorry, mates), that I am Creosote-rich and have multiple abodes on multiple continents and I take my Wikipedia-editing plane over neutral waters and edit from there (muwahaha). I can put up there that I have umpteens degrees (only five, actually) in Baby Yoda ontogenesis and Sky Dwelling Fungi, that my best friend is the Lecturer in Recent Runes and I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Come one, man, chill! Admins, please stop this nonsense. Is there any way I can get a restriction order on Wikipedia or equivalent? ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 13:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two of you in the number or level of personal comments. Please, both of you: stop commenting about each other. Consider this a warning against making personal comments about other editors/their motivations/their personal characteristics/their personal failings, period. Comment on the edits. WikiUser70176, remove that section of your user page; it's better to keep that kind of note-to-self off wiki. Tgeorgescu, honestly if you're going to complain about someone making personal attacks, it's best to avoid making actual personal attacks in the complaint itself. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! I shall do so. Wait, you mean the Edit war section or my Sandbox note? You know what? I'll remove both. How about that? ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have commented upon their personal characteristics simply because I felt that they are gaslighting me about their identity. So, yeah, I started with an assumption of who they are in real-life, they have contradicted such assumption, and that has left me puzzled. I certainly did not mean that being a female would be bad. Since if they deny that they are that real name, their userboxes simply did not help to that effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "I have commented upon their personal characteristics simply because I felt that they are gaslighting me about their identity" Stop right there. No. Just no. People at Wikipedia are presumed anonymous and you are to make no presumptions about there identity, full stop. You are not to believe anything about their identity one way or the other, and saying "I refused to assume good faith in this persons actions, so I felt justified in personally attacking them" is not doing yourself any favors. Stop making presumptions on anything; not revealing personal information is adamantly not "gaslighting" you about their identity. Their privacy is sacrosanct, and people who make assumptions about private information, or who pry into private matters, inevitably find themselves on the wrong end of everything. Stop that this minute if you want to be taken seriously about anything. Just quit it. --Jayron32 15:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I offer no commentary on anything else here as there's a lot to take in, but keeping a list of editors you don't like with a series of personal attacks attached isn't helpful. Will you delete this, WikiUser70176? It's disruptive and not conducive to a collaborative project. — Czello (music) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! Truthfully, I didn't think the sandbox was public; I am not that savvy on programming. It was a personal (read private) list. Just like my old username: I thought once changed, remains changed, I had no idea it was still public. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 13:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, since a checkuser was imminent, their claim that WikiUser70176 isn't their previous username and real name could be itself false. Why? They could use it as a get me free out of jail card, in order to dodge the checkuser. Since if WikiUser70176 wasn't that real name, they have certainly did their best at their own user page to look like they were her. Their claim is now that I cannot prove that it is a shared account. And, it is true, I cannot prove it. But a checkuser can. Why I don't open a WP:SPI investigation? Because this is the opposite of WP:SOCKing, they are two persons who may be sharing the same account.
I cannot read [163] any other way than they are actually accusing me of WP:OUTING. If their personal data were already oversighted, then I would be outing them. But since that didn't happen, I'm not. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:OUTING states "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." It doesn't really matter if WikiUser70176 did formerly have an account with what looks like a real name. You cannot presume that 1) the account name was their actual name and 2) that the former account name is something to be ever brought up or used against them ever. If they changed it, that is their business. If the old talk page posts have their old account name, you are still prevented by WP:OUTING from using that information for any reason. There's no magic pill that makes outing another user allowable. Even if they create an account with what looks like a common, European style name, you still cannot use that information against them as weapon. Don't do that. It's still outing and it's still an attack. --Jayron32 15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, how would I address their apparent WP:COI edits from the aforementioned article? And I did not cite any of their off-site opinions. I have only cited information publicly available at English Wikipedia. I did not keep up with changes in policy, but it wasn't apparent to me that merely citing their past edits at English Wikipedia would amount to outing. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Without weighing in on the main issue, I'd like to point out that the statement But an old man who had too much wine would feel attacked without any real reason, and would spew those strong words at me implies that the subject of the article, a BLP, is a drunkard, with little evidence (and this is without taking into account the accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry implicit in the conjecture that the person in question and WU70176 are the same person). I think op should strike that comment, for policy reasons, because it weakens his argument, but fundamentally out of decency. Ostalgia (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restoration of promotional and unsourced content at Festivals in Aruba[edit]

I can't discuss this at Liz's protected talk page, but I've never seen an admin restore this much unsourced promotional garbage [164], while placing the onus on me to come up with sources. This was created a dozen years ago by a promotional account, [165], and really could have been--and can still be--speedy deleted as spam. A Google search of most of the festivals turns up tourism websites as the first hits. I can certainly prune the most obvious advertorial prose, but we're still left with vapor. Would appreciate more eyes. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think my Talk page is temporarily protected because a it was persistently vandalized by a recent sockpuppet (Vandman). I'm not exactly sure why you brought this ANI though as it seems like a discussion that could have occurred on the article talk page. I reverted your removal of almost all content on this article. I was originally going to tag the page for speedy deletion because it was almost a blank page until I saw that you have removed all of the article content. So, I reverted your edit and suggested that you search for sources to remedy the problem. If you think it is spam, then tag it for speedy deletion. I don't know about other editors and admins but I think it is better to tag the article for others to look at rather than completely gutting it down to a single, vague sentence and a mention of COVID restrictions. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Liz. I figured a discussion at the article talk page would get no attention, but if you think it's more appropriate there, we can move this. I was concerned that almost any action I took there tonight--reverting large sections of unsourced content while leaving others intact, or tagging for speedy or even adding a reference tag--would appear more contentious than beginning a discussion. Frankly, I didn't know how best to respond to a restoration that seemed so off, coming from an experienced admin. This is a thirteen year-old puff piece that's never been adequately sourced, so I was flummoxed. But honestly, I've said my piece and will let it go now. Cheers, 76.119.253.82 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added six references to reliable sources at Festivals in Aruba. They were all trivially easy to find. The OP/IP could have done the same thing, instead of bringing Liz to this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hounding[edit]

It appears that User:M.O.X just made a couple dozen consecutive reversions of my most recent edits, pretty much all of which were obviously needed changes. Not sure how to address this, but it seems to be harassment stemming from a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation. (He clearly retaliated by just undoing all of my recent edits, including unblanking my talk page before realizing what he did and reverting it.) natemup (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit summary appears to be the same in all cases: "Unsourced edits". That doesn't apply for purely stylistic changes, for example [166] or [167]. This is a pretty obvious tell that they're reverting your edits without looking at them. Can you two hash this out on your talk pages? It doesn't seem intractable yet. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all due respect, the OP shouldn’t need to reason with another user who is clearly hounding them due to a disagreement. The edits M.O.X. performed on the OP’s talk page are clearly way over the line. M.O.X. should have made an attempt to discuss the edits, instead they chose the route of childish vandalism. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E8D6:4C9:936A:9B63 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is problematic behavior. @Natemup made the right call by bringing it here. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mackensen, I have to agree that this appears to be retaliatory vandalism, pure and simple. I'm not sure it's the kind of thing anyone should be expected to try to deal with themselves?
@Natemup, for clarity can you give us the diff for a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation? Valereee (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the suggestion purely on the basis that M.O.X. is a long-term editor and presumably knows better, though I don't recall encountering them before. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks like a misuse of the rollback all script to me. And, quite frankly, grounds to consider removing rollback if someone is going to use a script enabled extension of that flag like this. Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, good catch, all made the same minute. Well, I guess on the plus side it was arguably a single instance of vandalism rather than a spree, but yeah, that makes it not just vandalism but abuse of the tool. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1154382811
(In a separate edit, he also deleted the postnominals in the infobox, which were present from long before. I don't think I even put them there.) natemup (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1154448671"